Feminism 30 May 2013 Are Playboy bunnies feminism’s biggest paradox? If modern feminism is about freedom of expression, then there’s nothing wrong with choosing to be viewed as a sexual object. Sign up for our weekly email * Print HTML Sara, Hana and Aree have pretty different interests. Sara is a trainee psychotherapist who dreams of running a holistic therapy centre, Hana manages her own cupcake business but hopes to move into event planning and Aree recently graduated with a degree in Accounting and Management. But they have one thing in common. Every day, they dress up as sexy bunnies and hop on the bus to work at the Playboy Club on Old Park Lane. “Everyone thinks we’re strippers,” Hana tells me. “But, realistically, when I come to work I’m covered from my shoulders to my toes so I’m probably wearing more than I would on a night out back home in Belfast.” It’s not a convincing argument from a woman who’s wearing nothing more than a leotard and a pair of tights (sorry, two pairs of tights; multiple pairs apparently stop your legs wobbling), but it’s easy to understand how Hana’s grown tired of defending her job. Hana works as a valet bunny, which means she serves drinks in the Players’ Bar upstairs. When she’s working, she’s not allowed to sit down, she can’t tell anyone her surname and she’s forbidden from dating members. The same rules apply to Sara and Aree, who work as a VIP host and croupier bunny respectively. “People know the rules before they come in,” says Sara. “You can look, but you can’t touch. It’s as simple as that.” And if someone did touch? “They’d be asked to leave.” And quite right too. Sara goes on to explain that every bunny undergoes rigorous self-defense training before taking up a job at the Club; something she seems proud of, but I can’t help but think is unnecessary. These women aren’t war reporters. They’re not working on dangerous territory. They’re serving drinks and dealing cards in a £12,000 a year members’ bar. However rarely they have to use their self-defence skills, and they claim not to have ever needed them, it seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you wear high heels, a leotard and bunny ears and hang around with drunk men, they’re probably going to touch you. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it, but it does mean you should be aware of the reaction you’re provoking. Back in the Sixties, when the first Playboy Club was launched in Chicago, Hugh Hefner was, rightly or wrongly, the poster boy of women’s sexual and economic freedom. This is because he employed women at a time when they struggled to get jobs. Nowadays, though, sexual inequality doesn’t exist to the same degree. I’m not undervaluing the work the bunnies do (they have to go though basic Mandarin and Arabic training, and what these girls don’t know about cocktails isn’t worth knowing), but isn’t dressing up as a rabbit for a living a bit, well, degrading? A Bunny Girl croupier spins the roulette wheel at the London Playboy Club, 20 December 1967. Photograph: Getty Images The girls have two answers. First, they tell me that 40 per cent of the Club’s members are women. This is basically the same as claiming you’re not racist because you’ve got a black friend. Secondly, they tell me that the Club has a long history of employing its retired bunnies behind the scenes. To understand this, I’m told, I have to hear about the recruitment process. After filling out an application form online, wannabe bunnies are invited to a recruitment day at the Club. This day has a GCSE Drama vibe. There are team building exercises, group questions and one-on-one interviews. Typically, of every 60 girls who show up to a recruitment day, three are hired. Yes, they’re looking for natural beauty. Yes, they’re looking for past experience. But they’re also looking for something more: longevity. Take Aree, for example, who dreams of becoming a deal inspector. Trainee croupier bunnies work first at London’s other casinos, where they spend six weeks on roulette training and two on blackjack. They’re given times tables for homework every night. Only after completing the training can they start work at the Playboy Club. When Aree retires, which she predicts will be within five to ten years, she’ll hang up her bunny ears and apply for a behind-the-scenes job at the Club. Her dreams of becoming a deal inspector will, in all likelihood, be realised. “A lot of the bunnies who started work here have moved onto into deal inspector or cash desk positions,” explains Sara. “There is room to forge a career out of every area of the Club. Bunny Jess moved into food and beverage management after working as a valet bunny. It is possible, if you want to stay.” Hana has similar ambitions. “I definitely want to be here in ten years time. I have always wanted to be an event coordinator at the Playboy Mansion. Now I’m here, I just want to keep moving up through the company. That’s just not a prevalent culture in a lot of other companies.” This, I suppose, is the answer I was looking for. In the Sixties, when women found it difficult to get jobs the Playboy Club employed them. Now that it’s difficult to keep hold of jobs, the Playboy Club offers long-term employment opportunities. A career that places importance on attractiveness is always going to raise eyebrows among feminists. But these girls are pretty, they’re smart and they’ve got more job security than me, so power to them. › What the scandal of the Doncaster Belles tells us about modern football Playboy bunnies in 2011, before the launch of the new Playboy Club in Mayfair. Photograph: Getty Images Tabatha Leggett is a freelance journalist who has been published in GQ and VICE and on the London Review of Books blog and Buzzfeed.com. More Related articles Ireland’s abortion referendum is finally happening – but the campaign will be ugly Slow Burn: The podcast recreating Watergate for the Trump era The Israelis using civil disobedience to stop the deportation of asylum seekers Subscription offer 12 issues for £12 + FREE book LEARN MORE Close This week’s magazine
Show Hide image Brexit 30 January 2018 As a leaked government analysis reveals post-EU doom, support for Brexit is flailing All potential scenarios point to a longterm reduction in growth with a concomitant effect on tax revenues. Sign up to the Staggers Morning Call email * Print HTML Scoop! BuzzFeed's Alberto Nardelli has got hold of Dexeu's leaked impact analysis of what Brexit will do to the British economy, and in all three scenarios – dropping into the EEA, a Canada-style free trade agreement and no deal at all – the result is a longterm reduction in growth with a concomitant effect on tax revenues. Brexiteers will comfort themselves with the hope that these projections might go the same way as the immediate predictions of an economic cliff edge, which didn't play out. It's certainly possible that could be the case. However, modeling the impact of putting up more barriers to trade is a lot easier than forecasting the immediate vote to leave the European Union: no-one had ever voted to leave the EU, before but we have examples of how trade between nations work from throughout human history. It may be of course that some as-yet-uninvented technology, or event, to political upheaval tips the balance and fundamentally alters how we trade with one another, so that the United Kingdom does become a nation that trades as much with distant countries as with its immediate neighbours. No-one can say for sure that won't happen. That line, coupled with the government's insistence that the model does not include their preferred bespoke arrangement, will be enough to get pro-Brexit politicians and pundits through a television interview or to the end of an article. And as I re-iterate in my column this week, it is unlikely to tip the balance within Labour's ruling quartet of Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Diane Abbott and Jon Trickett towards a pro-Remain position either. But outside of Westminster, the Brexiteer position is not so secure. The other story in the British Electoral Survey release was that the shift towards a Remain vote detected in the polls is not statistical noise but looks to be real, driven by a combination of Leavers having second thoughts and under 18-year-olds entering the voting population for the first time. At the moment, a vote before we've left would have to overcome two major obstacles: a dislike of being made to vote twice and a sense that elections should have consequence. (Plus the composition of parliament as it stands and the internal dynamics of both party leaderships.) But let's turn to what is still the most likely outcome of the next election, which is another hung parliament in which Remainers of various hues hold the balance of power. Brexiteers have a good story to tell themselves in the present. It is less clear what they think their message to younger voters who didn't back a Leave vote last time or nervous swing voters if at some point in the next parliament a referendum and the chance that sooner or later, the next government decides that a referendum on re-entry is a price worth paying to stay in office and get its legislation passed. Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman and the PSA's Journalist of the Year. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics. More Related articles Haringey Council leader Claire Kober’s resignation should shame Labour’s NEC Claire Kober quits: but the real story of Labour is elsewhere We don’t have to leave the single market to address concerns about migration Subscription offer 12 issues for £12 + FREE book LEARN MORE Close This week’s magazine