VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 03:45:44 06/12/03 Thu
Author: Weird_Enigma
Author Host/IP: 67.30.199.29
Subject: Re: Dang, their just down right purdish, those Wal-Mart fools
In reply to: Weird_Enigma 's message, "Wal-Mart is a dang prude" on 03:34:37 06/12/03 Thu

By Ivy Glennon
Ivy Glennon is an associate professor of communications and advertising at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Joseph Dolman is on assignment.

June 4, 2003

When Wal-Mart announced that it removed Stuff, Maxim and FHM from its shelves because customers found them too racy, what struck some observers was the hypocrisy of the gesture. Here was the nation's largest retailer with a history of disregard for humane concerns, accused over the years of sexual discrimination, union-busting and poor working conditions, portraying itself as a guardian of community values.

Perhaps this is not an age for outrage at such pretense, but as an educator I teach college students about good rhetoric - the kind that requires that a claim be supported by evidence. Wal-Mart doesn't measure up.

The original story attributed Wal-Mart's removal of these men's magazines to Christian groups' objection to scantily clad women on the covers. There are at least two problems with this.

First, using "Christian groups" in this manner allows Wal-Mart to pretend to be moral while remaining vague about its own ethical stance. The words conjure vague notions of powerful, conservative values over which Wal-Mart has no control but to which it pays homage as a good community member. This effectively releases Wal-Mart from responsibility in decision-making and casts it as humble enforcer of the "good." In other words, it is a cop-out.

A second problem is the objection to "scantily clad" women. Wal-Mart shelves may no longer have Maxim, FHM or Stuff, but they still have their share of glossy female skin. Take, for instance, The Source, a hip-hop magazine that recently boasted the "wet dreams fifth annual swimsuit issue" featuring three thong-clad women draping rapper Pharrell. Not to mention all the young women's magazines like Cosmo Girl, with equally bare yet younger cover models. Clearly "scantily clad" does not appear to be either a necessary or sufficient cause for removing magazines.

If not, what further conditions are necessary? I can think of many objections that could be raised, but I don't see any of them as part of the argument.

So, if the argument is merely no "scantily clad women," Wal-Mart hardly shows good faith with the removal of three magazines. Not only is there an abundance of women and girls in the remaining magazines; there is, after all, a lot of scanty lingerie to be purchased for such an effect.

If the argument is larger, concerning protection of innocents from inappropriate media, the corporation's failure is more egregious. Consider the 12 magazine titles I recently saw on the shelves devoted solely to ammunition and handguns (not to hunting - I didn't count them). This doesn't even touch on the sale of guns in the sporting goods department.

Concerning reputation, suppose one of Wal-Mart's purposes in removing these magazines was to demonstrate that it is a company that cares about the well-being of its customers. While it might not meet more rigorous standards of evidence and proof, at least it acts in good faith.

A regional manager for Wal-Mart in Arkansas said on PBS in November that "respect for the individual" is the heart of the retail chain. But consider these recent interactions between the corporation and employees concerning working climate and benefits.

First, Wal-Mart employees have charged persistent discrimination, claiming repeatedly that the company systematically fails to provide equal assignments, promotions, training and pay to women and men. A pending lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of 1.5 million women for sexual discrimination could become the largest civil-rights class action in U.S. history.

Second, four months ago Wal-Mart raised health insurance payments 30 percent over 2001. To make up the difference, the company suggests employees pay out of their own retirement funds. Employees argue this straps them financially and it makes previously tax-protected retirement monies subject to taxation.

Third, Wal-Mart's consistent anti-union activities have produced numerous claims by employees that they were harassed and threatened with a loss of benefits should they try to unionize.

Fourth, in 2000, Maine imposed its largest fine ever against Wal-Mart for 1,436 violations of child labor laws, such as allowing minors to work too many hours, too early or too late.

So, as to Wal-Mart's claims to represent community values? It's empty rhetoric.
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.