X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Blogs

Dear Wonder Women; the doorman at Sushisamba was not sexist

20 May 2014

5:47 PM

20 May 2014

5:47 PM

Louisa Peacock of The Telegraph‘s Wonder Women desk has written of how a doorman who refused her entry to a London restaurant because she was not wearing smart enough clothes has lost his job. Peacock appears to think this a victory for the crusaders against #everydaysexism. I can’t agree.

Ignoring the fact that the man probably wouldn’t have been sacked had Peacock not been a journalist, this piece sets a very worrying precedent. Louisa Peacock has mistaken a minor grievance for a political point, and a man has lost his job. Peacock did not intend it to be so; but that is what has happened.

[Alt-Text]


If you read her account of the affair carefully, ‘Clipboard Man’ (as she kindly refers to him) never actually tells her she isn’t ‘sexy’ enough (even though that’s implied in the headline). Those are her words. He simply tells her she must look smarter to get in. ‘High heels and smart… as if you were going to a club,’ he says. She concludes that ‘I just was not sexy enough for him’. He says smart; she translates it as sexy. This isn’t sexism. It is simply the restaurant’s dress code, and he was paid to enforce it.

Let’s imagine the shoe was on the other foot, as it so often is. I bet there are plenty of men who’ve been turned away from clubs and restaurants by some snooty ‘door bitch’ because they don’t fit the dress code. Is that sexist too? Establishments are allowed to have dress codes, and if you don’t meet them, you aren’t allowed in. Them’s the rules for private establishments. Peacock even admits she wasn’t dressed like everyone else in the queue – but for some reason, she takes this as a sexist affront, contacts the restaurant’s management office, and soon, the man is sacked.

This is no victory for feminism. In fact, it speaks of a particular section of our press that has decided it’s ok to publish aggressive attacks on men. Wonder Women began as a noble experiment – but now, I’d rather not read a section of a broadsheet newspaper that pursues men for its own political purposes.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close