Objectification of Restaurant Employees and Its Moral Implications

Sheeny Parvez

I have been working in the restaurant industry for close to five years now, and have come to clearly understand the common idea of how to perform a tip-based job well: be efficient, friendly, and aesthetically pleasing. Over the years I have been aware of some of the objectification that occurs with customers treating servers as nameless, faceless instruments that should bring their food and drinks as promptly and accurately as possible. However, it was not until I started interviewing my coworkers that I realized not only how much this actually occurs, but also how much the servers are sexually objectified. Male customers, as soon as they walk into the restaurant, tend to view female servers as sexual beings present for their viewing pleasure. Female servers tend to feel as if they are “on display like women in magazines” (Dehghanpir). It can be noted that this occasionally occurs between homosexual male customers and male servers, or female customers and male servers, but those instances are far less numerous than the first scenario (Dehghanpir). Furthermore, when those rarer cases of ogling or harassment occur, more attention is drawn to those situations because of their rarity. The magazine allegory between male customers and female servers is largely ignored because it is considered to be an inherent part of the industry, encouraged by the patriarchal ideal that females should be serving food and beverage, and that attractive females in this position are a commodity. This ideal begins with the hiring process, and then feeds into itself with the notion that better appearance yields better tips, encouraging female servers to dress up more when they need cash fast. The working environment is sexual not only in regards to customer-employee relations, but also among employees/employers. My interviews show that female servers, including myself, working in this highly sexualized environment have problems identifying sexual harassment as such, since it is so engrained in the nature of the industry. The standard method for the server to deal with the objectification that comes as part of the job, whether it be sexual or instrumental, is to entertain it in such a way that is pleasing to the customer, since the money a server makes is in the customer’s hand (often literally). This coping method compromises the server’s autonomy, since in almost all cases of objectification, the server would handle the situation differently outside of work. Furthermore, I will show that this kind of objectification is so far removed from standard social interaction that it is not morally acceptable.

I have formally interviewed eleven people who work in a restaurant/bar near LSU’s campus. All are female except for two; I came to find that the restaurant has a very high percentage of female employees, except in management, where one of four managers is female. Three of my interviewees are both servers and bartenders; two of them are managers, one male and one female. The two managers are in their early thirties, and the servers are all college-aged, between twenty-one and twenty-four. The interviewees’ ethnicities are varied; their backgrounds include Caucasian, African-American, Creole, Iranian, and Vietnamese. All of them have been working in the restaurant industry for anywhere from two to fifteen years, in New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

THE APPEARANCE STANDARD

There is certainly a standard for appearance for new hires. The front-of-the-house staff in this restaurant is almost entirely female, thin, and Caucasian, despite the fact that many other types of applicants come in on a daily basis. Out of about thirty-one servers, about five could be considered comparatively overweight, six are not Caucasian (or not more than half-Caucasian), and six are male. The servers agree that the managers, mostly male, consider attractiveness an important factor in “not just hiring, but also promoting to bartender” (Dehghanpir).  This coincides with Rhode’s idea that appearance influences judgments on job performance, and that “less attractive individuals are less likely to be hired and promoted…” (27). Servers think that the male managers look at body type and facial attractiveness in females, and in males they look at how professional and presentable they appear. When I asked the one female manager what her standards are for hiring, she replied, “clean cut and well-kept, as long as they don’t look scraggly” (Hoang).  A male manager answered this question very carefully and vaguely, saying “of course appearance is important” (Zvonek), yet his response is the same every time an employee turns in a new female’s application: “Is she hot?”

Employing mostly attractive females in restaurants is a business strategy used to entice customers. The female servers’ bodies become a commodity to the restaurant (Dirks 27). Indeed the servers agree unanimously that prettier girls, specifically those with nice bodies or large breasts, have more of an advantage in making tips. Furthermore, the girls say that when they look nicer, they feel like they make more money than they do otherwise. These servers did not admit to feeling pressure to get dressed up for work, only that they feel they need to look presentable. However, they do say that they get more dressed up on days they need more money, or on days the restaurant is expected to get more business than usual. When asked if female servers have an advantage in making tips over male servers, most people said no, that the tip largely depends on the customer’s ideas about how one should tip, or on the quality of service given to the table. However, those few who answered yes to this question all said that the reason female servers do have a better opportunity has to do with the notion that men are better tippers than women in general, and that men tip females better than males. One server said, “It’s cultural, because a lot of times guys are paying and don’t feel as comfortable tipping other guys. I think they are more comfortable getting service from women” (Marenah). Although it may be advantageous for females to be tipped well by men, it seems to be reinforcing a patriarchic ideal of filling a traditional female role: serving the man food.

THE SEXUALIZED WORK ENVIRONMENT

        Sexual banter and touching is very common among coworkers in the restaurant industry, and is the expected, normal atmosphere (Giuffre and Williams 397). “I see a lot of massaging, sometimes groping, definitely a lot of flirting or talking about sex; that’s just normal” (Markle). This type of behavior is almost never considered offensive by the staff, and is certainly never brought to the attention of management; in fact, managers themselves are often involved in this type of behavior with their employees. One server identified the dynamic to be “like a family because we spend so much time around each other” (Martin). However, the interactions are not purely friendly or familial. All eleven interviewees said that hooking up is common among the employees. The main reasons they gave for this are that the employees are all young and good-looking, and they spend a lot of time around each other. Another common reason given for frequent hook-ups is that the job of serving is very stressful, which leads to a lot of alcohol consumption and/or drug usage “pretty much after every shift, and that leads to sex” (Martin). According to Bogle, “hookup encounters generally occur after a night of partying” (167), and partying is inextricably linked with restaurant culture; thus, so is sex.

        For the most part, hook-ups among employees do not seem to be problematic, at least not in terms of patriarchy. Both males and females said they know the number of people they have hooked up with, but did not claim to do it for the sake of the number, nor did they admit to having any motivations for hooking up other than purely desiring sexual activity. “I am aware [of the number], yes, but there are no personal checkpoints” (Bellant). Both males I interviewed said they may compare the girls they’ve hooked up with, for example in terms of “attractiveness, how they were in bed, and also if any wild suggestions were made” (Bellant), but these are discussed internally, not with other men; “guys don’t really talk about people they’ve slept with” (Zvonek). Women, however, do discuss with each other what was done, how it was, and all across the board, “how big it was” (Martin). This type of gossip does seem to be occasionally detrimental to the servers’ reputations, because other employees admit to judging their fellow coworkers who have become subjects of gossip. This is especially true when the relationship is between a manager and an employee, which is widely considered to be inappropriate. Post-hookup gossip does spur judgment, but this, along with the other problems that arise from the highly-sexualized work environment (including jealousy, cheating, etc.), occur both ways across genders.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

        The sexualized nature of the restaurant industry is so ingrained into the workplace that servers have trouble identifying sexual harassment as such.  Males said they technically may have experienced it, but were not offended. The cases they were able to identify involved homosexual men. Most female servers said they had not experienced any sexual harassment, hesitated, then either recalled a situation where they had experienced it, or asked me to clarify the definition before eventually describing such a scenario. A few said that sexual harassment may occur between employees or employers/employees, but this is largely shrugged off. All of them were able to give examples of sexual harassment from male customers. Such instances included persistent flirting, asking the server out, making comments on her body or general appearance, attempting to kiss her, and groping her. “One guy told me all about his penis size and asked me if I could love him for his little dick” (Markle). According to the female bartenders, a typical night involves at least one male bar patron persistently flirting, and in many cases pushing it to a point where everyone within earshot is made uncomfortable.

        There were three interviewees who were able to immediately respond, without hesitation or questioning, when I asked if they had ever experienced sexual harassment at work.

Martin: Yes. I’ve had my ass slapped before. One time I was carrying a big tray of food, and some old guy said, “I bet you give good hand jobs with wrists that strong.”

Marenah: Yes, verbal and physical [harassment], from customers and employees. One time I was working the shot booth,^[1] and this really messy drunk guy actually came behind the table and touched my butt. Erin [another employee] went and got the cop, and he kicked him out. 

Hoang: Uh, yeah! When I was nineteen and worked at Applebee’s, I was smoking in the back like leaning against the wall and squatting, so I kind of had my legs open you know? And this really big, ugly black dude said, “What, are you inviting me?” Just big, scary. I can still remember his face. I went and cried in the bathroom and my friend Cindy came in there, you know we were just like nineteen, and she…told me to tell the manager. So I told him, and he fired the guy. But just all of the kitchen guys were like that.

All of these examples coincide with Giuffre and Williams’ research that in the restaurant industry, there is a gap between what constitutes sexual harassment and what is identified as such. Furthermore, an employee is likely to identify the sexual harassment in cases in which it comes from someone of differing social, ethnic, or economic background, or differing sexual orientation. Otherwise, such interactions are largely found enjoyable or at least dismissed as an inevitable part of the business (380).

INSTRUMENTAL OBJECTIFICATION

When providing a service for someone in exchange for money, it is assumed by both parties that the server is the tool needed to provide the customer with whatever he or she is buying.  Thus, just by Nussbaum’s definition of instrumental objectification (257), at least some degree of this type of objectification is expected by the server; furthermore, at least some degree is inherent in the nature of the job. However, there is a line where it becomes inappropriate; when asked if they ever feel objectified, as in treated like a server but not a person, every server in my study said yes. In this particular restaurant, the servers are trained to be friendly and personable at the table, e.g., they are required to introduce themselves by name, give personal recommendations, and encouraged to build relationships to keep customers coming back. It is when this sense of amicability is interrupted or ignored that the server takes offense and feels objectified. The following stories give examples of crossing that line.

Markle: Definitely on [extremely busy shifts] when they just want food or alcohol, and you’re the means of getting it for them, they feel like they can put you down if they want. If you satisfy their demands, they have no need to treat you like a human being.

Dehghanpir: Some tables don’t even look up, which shows that I’m a voice, not a person. I could have been an automated service.

Martin: I hate it when you’re introducing yourself, and they just interrupt you with their order and shoo you away. Or when they’re talking on their cell phone, they put their hand up and tell you to hold on instead of telling the person [on the phone] to hold on. Someone once told Jen that she’s talking too much and to just go get his tea…no, he wasn’t joking. Oh and when they make you run around a lot and ask you for so many things and then don’t tip, makes me feel like a slave.

Hall: People come in and think they own you for thirty minutes and act like I’m not a person. I’m still a person. All you have to do is say please.

Malveaux: I basically feel like people’s slave at work. People never ask how I’m doing when I ask them. I’ll introduce myself and they cut me off with an order.

These servers’ concerns about being made to feel less than human is certainly beyond the degree of objectification expected or inherent in this type of job. The common occurrence of this type of treatment is not at all necessitated by the required customer-server dynamic. Furthermore, this degree of objectification is clearly far-removed from standard human interaction (outside of the service industry). Thus it is morally unacceptable.

The most offensive cases of objectification occur when the two types are combined. In many of the female servers’ examples of sexual harassment, they claimed that the male customer was flirting with them in attempt to obtain a free drink. This is no longer harassment for harassment’s sake, but a combination of sexual and instrumental objectification; the customer is attempting to exploit the server’s sexuality to get what he wants from her without having to buy it for himself. One server described such a case of the combined objectification: “I was talking to a table of older men. They were pretty funny, but I was in the middle of a sentence and one of the guys puts his hand on my butt and says, ‘how about another margarita, babe?’” (Markle). Given that the two types of objectification happen often in the same setting, it is not surprising to hear cases like this. Alcohol seems to play a major role in amplifying  the sexual objectification. The more extreme cases of sexual harassment reported by the female servers, especially those involving touching, occurred when the customer was under the influence of alcohol. Most of the female servers are more forgiving when the customers are intoxicated, “but that doesn’t excuse it” (Marenah). According to the bartenders, the instrumental objectification of bartenders is far less than of servers “because customers are there to talk to you. They’re on the same level” (Dehghanpir). Yet, being in a setting surrounded by alcohol, the sexual objectification of bartenders is much greater than that of servers.

        All servers said they would handle the type of objectification they face at work differently outside of the restaurant; they would be far more confrontational otherwise. At work, they feel that they not only have to tolerate the objectification, but they also must continue to appear happy, since this makes the customer happy. They certainly do not feel they can show any signs of offense, both for fear of having to deal with an awkward situation and for fear of losing a tip. As one server puts it, “You rely on them for the money you’re making. You can’t say ‘fuck off,’ because you’re counting on them to pay your bills” (Martin). Since the servers make their money based on how appeased these objectifying customers are, they cannot react how they otherwise think they should. Thus, the compromising of servers’ moral autonomy is a necessary part of the job.

Even though some small degree of instrumental objectification is necessitated by the nature of serving, it does not follow from the job itself that any degree of sexual objectification should be expected. Given that the above examples of the sexual objectification of servers are also far removed from standard human interaction, negative moral implications for this are obvious.

CONCLUSION

The patriarchal and sexualized nature of the restaurant industry highly objectifies its employees both instrumentally and sexually. The latter is so standard to the business that its employees are largely unaware of many instances of it. Furthermore, compromising one’s moral autonomy by tolerating or pretending not to take offense to this objectification is necessary to work in a restaurant. The instances of objectification described in this paper exemplify common and frequent occurrences. This objectification is not necessitated by the job of serving itself, but is a result of a patriarchic institution. Furthermore, because this extent of objectification is not socially acceptable outside of the dynamic between customer and server, and because it is not inherent to the dynamic, it is morally unacceptable behavior.

        As someone in the service industry, my research has surprised me. The girls that I work with, and myself included, do not seem to know what sexual objectification looks like, except in the most extreme and obvious cases. If we did concern ourselves about it, we simply would not be able to work in the restaurant. This ignorance-is-bliss attitude is functional for keeping the patriarchic nature of restaurant culture at its status quo. A feminist certainly could not work in a restaurant. I have never considered myself one before, but to me the most offensive finding in my research was not the callous male behavior, nor the inability of women to identify it as such. The part that got to me was that in the two cases where the woman actually did report sexual abuse to a higher authority, in one case to a policeman and in the other to a manager, she had to depend on a man to save her in the end, challenging patriarchy only to find more patriarchy.

WORKS CITED

Bellant, Tyler. Personal interview.  6 Dec 2010.

Bogle, Kathleen A. Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. New York: New York UP, 2008. Print.

Bossier, Monica. Personal interview. 6 Dec 2010.

Dehghanpir, Jina. Personal interview. 7 Dec 2010.

Dirks, Danielle. “IT COMES WITH THE TERRITORY”: WOMEN RESTAURANT WORKERS’ EXPERIENCES OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION. Thesis. University of Florida, 2004. WorldCat. Web. 5 Dec. 2010.

Giuffre, Patti A., and Christine L. Williams. "Boundary Lines: Labeling Sexual Harassment in Restaurants." JSTOR. Web. 7 Dec. 2010.

Hall, Victoria. Personal interview. 7 Dec 2010.

Hoang, Loan. Personal interview. 7 Dec 2010.

Malveaux, Britney. Personal interview. 6 Dec 2010.

Marenah, Nyaling. Personal interview. 7 Dec 2010.

Markle, Jessica. Personal interview. 6 Dec 2010

Martin, Kayla. Personal interview. 7 Dec 2010.

Nussbaum, Martha. “Objectification.”  Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 249-291. Blackwell Publishing.  JSTOR. Web.

Rhode, Deborah L. 2010. The Beauty Bias: the Injustice of Appearance in Life and Law. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 2010. 24-116. Print.

Zimmerle, Courtney. Personal interview. 6 Dec 2010.

Zvonek, Daniel. Personal interview. 8 Dec 2010.