Ivy Glennon takes on Wal-Mart in Newsday

June 2003
by: ICR

When I read that Wal-Mart had removed Stuff, Maxim and FHM from their shelves claiming customers found them too racy, what struck me was the hypocrisy of the gesture. Here was the corporate mega-retailer with a history of disregard for humane concerns, portraying itself as guardian of community values.

Perhaps this is not an age for outrage at such pretense, but as a teacher, I must at least go as far as umbrage at this veneer of care. Among other things, I teach college students about good rhetoric---the kind that requires that a claim be supported by evidence and good reputation. Wal-Mart doesn’t measure up.

The original story attributed Wal-Mart’s removal of these men’s magazines (okay, really more catalogues of ads) as a response to Christian groups’ objection to scantily clad women on the covers. At least two relevant problems confound with this reasoning.

First, the term “Christian groups” works rhetorically as a symbolic replacement for “upholders of tradition.” The words conjure vague notions of powerful, conservative values over which Wal-Mart has no control but to which it pays homage as a community member. Thus Wal-Mart need not prove it values “tradition”. It is assumed because it does what “Christian Groups” want. This begs the question of how to assess community standards or formulate consistent policy based on representative values. It effectively releases Wal-Mart from responsibility in decision making except as humble enforcer of the “good.”

A second, related problem is the “scantily clad” objection. Wal-Mart shelves may no longer have Maxim, FHM or Stuff but it still has its share of glossy female skin. Take for instance, The Source, a hip hop magazine boasting the “wet dreams fifth annual swimsuit issue” featuring three thong clad women draping rapper Pharrell. Not to mention all the girls’ magazines with equally bare yet younger cover girls (witness this month’s Cosmo Girl). Clearly “scantily clad” does not appear to be either necessary or sufficient cause for removing magazines at Wal-Mart.

If not, what further conditions are necessary? I can think of many objections that could be raised (dehumanization of women and girls, cynical manipulation of juvenile male and female insecurities, trivialization of human relationships, exacerbation of out of control consumption, etc.) I don’t see any of these 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.

Concerning reputation, suppose one of Wal-Mart’s purposes in removing these magazines was to demonstrate that it is a company which cares about its community members’ well being. 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 last November that, “respect for the individual” was the heart of Wal-Mart .The manager was speaking specifically about Wal-Mart’s employees. This provides a way to judge. Corporate good will. If it acts in good faith on this avowed value, we can credit it with good faith in the current case.

Consider these interactions between corporation and employees concerning working climate and benefits in the last three years. First, Wal-Mart employees have charged persistent discrimination, claiming repeatedly that Wal-Mart systematically fails to provide equal assignments, promotions, training and pay to women and men. A lawsuit against Wal-Mart for sexual discrimination was filed for class certification before a federal judge in San Francisco two weeks ago. The suit could become the largest civil-rights class action in U.S. history representing 1.5 million women.

Second, three months ago Wal-Mart raised health insurance payments 30 per cent 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 in Texas, Nevada, Indiana, and elsewhere that they were harassed and threatened with loss of benefits should they try to unionize.

Fourth, in 2000, The Maine Department of Labor imposed its largest fine ever against Wal-Mart for 1,436 violations of child labor laws

So, as to Wal-Mart’s claims to represent community values? It’s empty rhetoric.