I hate the Ethicist. What’s an “ethicist” anyhow? What makes him “The Ethicist”? When he started writing that column, all the questions were about how to treat the hired help. Then somebody made him realize how irrelevant his column was, and he branched out into a series of weird and wacky situations. His opinions are always arbitrary.
Okay, leaving aside the question of what might really going on - the wife is a klepto, shopaholic or has a secret boyfriend who buys for her - and just looking at the ethical side of the question, I’m surprised that nobody else finds it sexist.
Scenario, as presented, believed to be true for sake of discussion: Hot wife gets gifts from merchant because she is hot.
Obvious assumption: plain looking women, hot looking men, plain looking men have to pay more to make up for these gifts.
Advice of the “ethicist”: It’s okay for the woman to accept these gifts, as long as it’s graceful and from the owners, because when the sale peons give her gift, obviously they stole from the employer.
WTF? Shouldn’t the correct answer be: “Decline all gifts that are given because she is hot, in order to ensure that all people are treated equal”?
I can understand giving small perks to long-time or big-sums customers, and I can certainly understand (and it should be encouraged) to giving small perks to customers who are nice polite and considerate if another customer has just proven an asshole. But beauty, which isn’t earned, is a social construct and arbitrarly, and too much of a defining image for women in western society already, should not be a consideration for freebies!
And what does her marital status have to with anything at all? Unless the gift is given with an invitation to a romantic dinner or other obvious overtones, in which case she should doubly decline because she’s in a relationship, not because she’s her husbands property.
But even if she were single, she should discourage free gifts because of beauty.
And maybe that would have occurred to a feminist / liberal person writing that column, instead of some old-fashioned guy.
Who died and made you Handicapper General? If you want to advance such ideas, start your own column. Then we can sit around and laugh at you when the all-property-is-theft wackjob starts complaining about you not going off on enough of a tangent.
On another board, the feminist response was that we shouldn’t blame the woman for trying to take power as best she could and that it’s the system’s fault, or something.
[QUOTE=constanze]
…I can certainly understand (and it should be encouraged) to giving small perks to customers who are nice polite and considerate if another customer has just proven an asshole. But beauty, which isn’t earned, is a social construct and arbitrarly, and too much of a defining image for women in western society already, should not be a consideration for freebies!
[/QUOTE]
What is considered “nice polite and considerate” is a social construct, also, and probably no less arbitrary than what is considered beautiful (since what is considered beautiful is actually not completely arbitrary).
Also, realistically speaking, your “niceness and politeness and consideration” is much more likely to be appreciated if you’re also pretty, since it’s what gets you noticed in the first place.
I’ll also add my vote for klepto or cheating. I get freebies all the time, but they’re a cookie thrown in with my coffee, or an extra lipstick with my moisturizer, or a USB cord with a printer that didn’t come with one. I’d even estimate that I probably get more than my share of these sorts of freebies, because I am nice, polite, considerate, and pretty. But still, they’re, you know, NORMAL freebies. Not expensive items of clothing.
I once accidentally shoplifted a watermelon, but that’s not really what we’re talking about here.
The “groceries” thing just cracks me up so much. Is she saying that when she’s at the checkout of the local Shop-Rite, Rodney the cashier excuses himself, runs to aisle #8, grabs a couple of cans of Chef Boyardee, and presents them to her, saying “with my compliments, lovely lady?”
Sounds like something right out of a Fred video on Youtube. “Here’s some food for you, lovely girl!”
Diana Moon Glompers?
Like most of the other posters here, I think both The Ethicist and Broadsheet missed the obvious. There’s no way the story presented by the letter-writer is accurate. Either the letter is phony or the wife is lying. A hot looking woman may be given free fries or a free doughnut or something (it’s happened to me and I’m only modestly attractive), but I cannot believe there are a bunch of cashiers or baggers stuffing surprise groceries and clothes into this woman’s bags. In most stores it wouldn’t even be possible to do this discreetly.
That said, it is a bit strange that The Ethicist wrote “Next time he wants to curry favor with an obviously married woman, he should pay for his own presents.” First, why is the letter-writer’s wife “obviously married”? Does she go around wearing a T-shirt that says “Sorry boys, I’m married”? Even if she has the kids with her, there are plenty of single mothers in the world. Second and more importantly, shouldn’t a clerk looking to curry favor with a single woman also be paying for his own gifts? The woman’s marital status should have no bearing on whether it is ethical for a clerk to steal merchandise for her.
If I knew for a fact that the letter-writer’s story was true, I wouldn’t assume that the wife was getting free groceries and clothes just because she was hot and guys were trying to impress her – especially since she supposedly doesn’t even notice these gifts until after she leaves the store. Secretly giving a young mother food and clothes sounds more like a misguided act of charity to me. If this is really happening then I’d consider it more likely that people think the wife is poor and/or homeless than that they are impressed by her beauty.
I’ve gotten several bottles of liquor free at the grocery store (though I suspect this is mainly because the checker has to wander off to find the thing that unlocks the anti-theft cap, then doesn’t realise they haven’t rung it up.) I haven’t noticed until I got home either. I went back and paid the first two times, but by the third time I figured God was playing tricks on me and just shrugged. Maybe she just shops where there a lot of inept people.
That having been said, as the homely friend to a couple extremely good-looking women you would not believe the way people fall all over themselves to please them.
But my vote is for hiding a boyfriend as well, and I lol’d over the “who is going to tell him” remark.
Shut this train down, you win.
Hmmm, if they asked you to drink it down before leaving the store I could see the sense in that.
voguevixen, where do you live? Can we be friends, or at least hang out some time?
Hmmm. I am friends with the NYTimes editor who edits Randy Cohen’s column; I will reach out to him and see if he can offer any insights as to how that particular question has been received. (fwiw, when I read it, I was just thinking it was a way for the guy to talk up his supposedly-hot wife…).
More to come - if he is willing to talk shop with me about it (sometimes he is; sometimes he isn’t based on the nature of the questions I have brought up…).
Your name-drop does not trump voguevixen scoring free booze!
I know you will disagree with this, but a picture is worth a thousand words.
Yeah, but **PictureMan **doesn’t sound as cool…
I sent the email, but haven’t heard anything…so MeanOldLady, my name-drop means nuthin’ if the guy freezes me out. I *hate *that. 
Update: nada. nothing. zilch. zero. Grr - it won’t be pretty at the next soccer game when I see Mr. Editor Guy, letmetellyou.
I’m still waiting for someone to find and post a pic of the letter sender, Chris Altman of Atlanta. (The closest I came was this – seems way too young). Not that I relish people judging this woman’s looks, especially when she didn’t send the letter, but I am curious.
Though I do like this blogger’s theory that the whole thing came about as a result of a bet between the guy and his wife that he could get his wife’s hotness and their daughters’ cuteness mentioned in the Times.