What do feminists care?

Why do they need to police what other women do? Are they calling them too stupid to know any better?

i remember quite the ruckus on this subject 2 (?) weeks ago.

:popcorn:

Is that not allowed?

Talk about a slippery slope.

"Don't listen to them ignorant womens!"

Guess I'll have to start watching all the progressives he has on now.

:rofl:

Don't tell me you think that whatever supposedly liberal female guest that FOX has on - actually represents the POV of liberal women.

I don't trust FOX to find women who would come close to having my POV. Not they never have. I just wouldn't trust them to.

And if you don't understand the arguments involved in the situation after watching FOX - that is no surprise.

...their own local government maybe shouldn't be involved in a bikini contest for big-boobed women only... just a thought :shrug:

:popcorn:

The city was forced into refusing the money though it wasn't involved. IOW, they wouldn't take the donation even though they were not involved in the promotion.

Easy to work around: just give the donation to a private citizen to donate to the SPCA.

nt

There are just as many porn stars and sex workers who consider themselves feminists as those who think porn is anti-feminist. Feminists are mostly in agreement about the end result, but are often at odds over the means of obtaining it, like the Democratic party.

That explains why the models who appeared on O'Liely have a different view.

:shrug:

I wonder . . . We should start up a competitive hamburger joint called "Cooters" or "Wooters", featuring hot men in skimpy attire.

This is just so stupid. So gay organizations shouldn't give to charity either when they do drag show benefits? It's objectifying. It's exploiting. So is getting cancer survivors to run for March of Dimes. So what.

Some days we're so damn progressive we might as well just shoot ourselves in EACH foot. Does anyone remember the phrase "consenting adults"?

City, state and other government entities should NOT be participating in events which are a blatant violation of the constructs guiding the EEOC. Reread the article. If they were HURTING for the funds, you might have a point, but they aren't

On a sarcastic note, however, I think Laura Chick should change her name. It's offensive :D

don't have to be exploitive. I'm a non-performing member of a Drag King group run by feminists, and we have a strict policy of not allowing performances that are degrade or objectify either sex.

I would say drag is a sex in and of itself, able to mock itself. Big hair, eyebrows halfway to forehead, sequins from toenail to earlobe and pancake makeup if they made wedding cakes in pans . . .

What is exploitive? Is it exploitive only because it involves someone's pink parts or is there some other criteria I'm missing?

Not being sarcastic - I really am not sure I know what exploitation is if all parties involved want to be there. I guess I grew up in a more lax physical culture; Europe really doesn't care nearly as much about boobies and weeners, and so "exploitation" is reserved for things that are done to children or animals or any other dynamic where somebody can't give free consent to participate or not.

Yes, it would be eploitative if Hooters hired office temps and later told them they had to jiggle their pink parts in order to keep their jobs, but anyone who accepts a job at Hooters with the knowledge that they're going to be ogled is exploiting themselves first. The people who are really being exploited are the mindless goons and sometimes just sad people who give you money for shaking it grateful for a wink or a second of eye contact.

I work as an independent consultant - I call myself a brain whore, because that is basically what I do. I spread my cerebellum for whoever pays the most. I think it's exploitative to suck and memorize nauseating detail about entire industries and operations and business intelligence and thousands of datapoints and correlations and other skills, but I'm a high dollar whore, and I know what I'm willing to trade for that dollar, and what I'm not willing to trade. (oh lord that's a keeper on freeperublic).

Occasionally I do contract work for free for local orgs to help acquire money for them, but also my partner and I model at DIFFA every year. If you've ever been we're the two nearly naked guys they always use in the grand finale and live auction in one form or another. It's also exploitation, and of a sexual nature actually, but it is what it is and only because we agree to do it, not because we're forced.

So I'm still confused by the idea of exploitation between consenting adults. Degrading? That's a sliding scale too. On one hand we laugh at media whores like Paris Hilton and her little dog too, which is degrading of another human for no particular reason other than envy (and I'm not a fan either), but if Mel Brooks or Rodney Dangerfield comes out dressed like Mother Theresa and does a sketch we overlook all the degrading messages that presents. Mother Theresa did things she thought were degrading (not talking about living in poverty but about having to bargain with the disinterested and apathetic) for the greater good too, and seemed to be able to live with herself.

:shrug:

so keep working on it.

women like mens' buttocks, so maybe you could work that angle...

satisfied?

:rofl:

Both men and women have buttocks - so that wouldn't make sense to highlight that part of the anatomy.

Just like women have more prominent breasts than men - in a similar way men's penises are more prominent than what women have in that area.


I think a comparable thing would be a penis size contest/display. Maybe men could get "underwire" enhancements and all that other rot. Wear skimpy nonsense. High heels even. Whatever makes them look more vulnerable and stupid.

and they make decent money - and nobody is forcing them to do it. As a retired one, I can tell you personally on the male side it's all about ego anyway, no underwire or other enhancement required. Except in DC where they used to make the guys paint their nipples for some weird ass reason, which I wouldn't necessarily consider an enhancement. Anyway, it's not what you wear Bloom, it's how you wear it. And at the Gaiety in NYC you only got to wear socks. On your feet.

Personally? I despise "schoolgirl" hetero fetishes, for obvious reasons, but it's not my call, and I'd rather they got off with an adult dressed like a kid than a kid.

I also know that there are women in the industry who neither look nor feel stupid or vulnerable on stage and who play the game as well as anyone else.

that "Dick Dancers" aren't waiting tables in "family" restaurants. They aren't going to their office jobs like that. Whereas - there are plenty of women who are out emphasizing their cleavage here and there and everywhere.

I don't really see it as something that would improve the world - if men did start emphasizing their penises the way women do their breasts.


For a companion story - consider

Male Scientist Writes of Life as Female Scientist

Male Scientist Writes of Life as Female Scientist
Biologist Who Underwent Sex Change Describes Biases Against Women

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=221988&mesg_id=221988


Objectification of women - rendering women as the "sex class" for men (as some like to put it) - has it's consequences. No comparable wardrobe enhancements on the part of men are going to change that - any time soon.

I did not know that.

The point wasn't which gender-specific feature on a male was the most anatomically similar to some chick's hooters, it was that exploitation is exploitation.

I don't think most men have very interesting butts. They are often an odd shape - rather flat.

Every now and then some guy has a nice butt. But if that was all someone based their attraction on - I think that would be pretty weird, myself.

i got your point - i am not going to get worked up about this. exploitation seems to be inherent in the human condition.

i like 'butts for cuts'. i am now happy.

:rofl: You made a generalization, and those usually imply all or most, but... Oh who cares? :rofl: Surely there's a real issue or two floating around we can bash together, eh? You're happy with "butts for cuts," I'm happy to be alive! Peace! :rofl:

"SOME women appreciate SOME men's buttocks"

if it weren't for generalization, we'd never stop talking.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

But no one will ever run it.

because we've had enough Dicks in government.

The purpose of the event implies that men are too stupid to do the right thing and spay their animals unless you show them tits and ass.

:thumbsup:

We need to cool it with the "boys will be boys" shit. It's keeping men down.

If "boys will be boys" is the response to everything, then they have no responsibility for their actions. They were just "being boys."

accepts as fact without evaluating:

Boys will be boys.
Sadly, rape is a consequence of war.
Men won't spay their animals unless you give them T AND A.

blah blah blah

seeing that wouldn't want to make a guy do that to his pet.

The things we do to animals. If we spayed people for their own good, it would be considered outrageous. Top of the food chain though, so, we get to do what we want.

But not all that surprising in a civilization based on exploitation, animals, people, land, whatever.

neuter their male pets because they say "I wouldn't want someone to cut my balls off." I think they really see the pet as an extension of their ego and feel that a neutered animal would somehow make them less of a man.

Personally, I think most humans should be spayed and nuetered as well. Particularly the fundie, republican types.

But we should spay and neuter them just in case.

And our history reveals it very real.

Is it any wonder eugenics is mentioned in the prison porn thread?

:eyes:

I'm going to "cut" out of here before I get banned.

but I don't think it's that. I think it's exactly what you said you hear men say. It's one of the things that makes a guy a guy.

movement is that men are SOMEHOW being denied their masculinity by having to curtail their exploitation of women.

The ONLY things that make a guy a guy are a penis and and a nutsack. The rest of it is this weak argument that you are somehow being deprived of some inalienable right if you can't objectify women.

That said, I am fine with the existance of Hooters, strip clubs and the like..but I don't need to see government entities endorsing them.

If I understood correctly, the government was not involved in the promotion but is now refusing to accept the donation from the event because of the rants.

"The department logo should never have been placed in an ad for a bikini contest."

I didn't neuter my dog because it was too Abu Ghraib-like. Cruel and unusual punishment and all that. Empathy maybe, but not ego. Besides, the vet, a woman, previously misdiagnosed a flea allergy and the dog went though a bit of hell trying to incorrectly treat dog scabies. Not to mention the gleam in her eye when she mentioned cutting him.

If the yard wasn't well fenced and there was a good chance he might get out, I might have had it done.

I figured that I had no choice since I kept one of her sons. I do not see how spaying and neutering is "the right thing to do". Maybe if I saw some more hooters I could be persuaded. :evilgrin:

But really, it was more about being a fund raiser and an awareness raiser. The hooters are just like the guy on Bugs Bunny who offers free beer to get people to watch his singing frog. Decolletage gets male attention, whether you want it or want it to or not.

there is debate about whether to neuter the dog--same argument. in the last scene, frasier, niles and their dad are all sitting in the vet's waiting room, and when they hear a dog yelp, all three immediately cross their legs in sympathetic pain. it was hilarious.

It's not that men see pets as an extension of our egos, it's that the idea of removing and/or damaging testicles is abhorrent and unacceptable (certain fetishists excepted). We know no pain like it, and I'm not sure women have anything comparable (though some studies indicate they may experience greater amounts of pain, it's the type of pain which makes it unique). It may be irrational, but it's nearly universal. I saw the movie Serpent and the Rainbow in a theater. In one scene, a Haitian government (Papa or Baby Doc period) secret service man is torturing the protagonist by threatening to nail a spike through his scrotum. He says "I want to hear you scream," and brings the hammer down. Though they don't show it on screen, you hear it. I instinctively bent forward in sympathy. A moment later, when I realized what I was doing, I looked down the row of seats beside me and saw that nearly all of the men in the row were doing the same thing. You just don't mess with the nuts, whether they are yours or a dog's.

and as the dog aged it got testicular cancer. They think it was a result of NOT being neutered. While that sounds a bit odd, I can't help wonder about it. Maybe male dogs arent' meant to live as long as we can keep them alive, unless they are neutered. Interesting.

You can't get testicular cancer without testicular tissue. Everyone gets cancer if they live long enough. Domestic animals live longer than those in the wild. Thus, without neutering, male dogs will eventually get testicular cancer. So, I think your hyposthesis is right.

that by "saving" the dog from neutering, the owner insured that the dog would have cancer and, as it happens, cancer treatment. I'm sure that it wasn't pleasant for the dog. I don't know what was "saved," except this man's stupid ego.

businessman. I actually like him, so I really can't fathom why he took this stance. Perhaps it is very deeply rooted in his psyche. Hope he learned something from this.

Geniuses can be stupid, and university attendance doesn't equate to intelligence.

Is there an emoticon of Homer slapping his head? Doh.

I certainly would never put a pet through any kind of surgery without anesthesia - It would be cruel.

Imagine trying to pass a bowling ball through your rectum and likely tearing the tissue in the process. That's what childbirth feels like (and it can last for hours and hours). Then there are monthly cramps, which can be severe enough to leave women in a cold sweat.

And no one wants to be hit in the genitals, male or female, that's a no-brainer. Is it a lack of empathy on the part of men to think that their pain is worse than a woman's? I don't know, but I don't buy it.
:shrug:

I read that and it was the first thing I thought of.

It makes them seem like stupid babies. You gotta give them a candy bar just to get them off their stupid asses to do something, anything.

If I were male it would piss me off a lot.

:hi:

I'm thinking if the prize wasn't sex, we men wouldn't do a lot of things.

or going to the store to get me tampons because my cramps are too bad.

You may wish to reevaluate your banter regarding this. Men are falling behind in educational institutions at all levels because society seems to be reinforcing that men are incapable of THINKING with silly notions such as this. NO...men really don't need tits and ass waved in front of their face to do the right thing.

The really HUMOROUS thing about this article is that the MALE that involved the city in this is a former evangelical preacher who is reinforcing this crap. Be that as it may, at least he came to his senses and did the right thing.

Men are falling behind educationally because of just that one thing? That's good to know, should make the solution much easier.

some empty one-liner.

When did women begin excelling educationally? You can tack back to ONE THING. The day women retrained society to break the mold they were indoctrinated into. The women's movement forced society to break the notion that a woman's place was in the home. It was replaced with slogans such as a woman's place is EVERYWHERE. We now have a GENERATION of women that were brought up in this conversation instead of the limiting one and what is happening? Women are overtaking men in learning institutions. Cultural conversations drive a lot.

I won't argue that women finally getting a chance is a good thing. It's one of the reasons men are falling behind. It's about averages. Everyone can't have everything. So if women now have a choice, it will mean men don't get as much of the pie. Same with minorities. I'm NOT(I repeat, NOT, NOT, NOT, I can't say it enough, NOT) saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying it's NOT a bad thing. NOT, as in NOT.

"The day women retrained society"

I love how you used the word retrained. It's sad that it was trained, then had to be retrained, then it'll have to be retrained again. But that's how a top down society must behave.

Encouraging men to NOT think of themselves as stupid - as in not "thinking with their dicks" (as if that gives them an out) is a good idea.

They don't have to be stupid.

There is so much in society that is encouraging that. There is a lot that encourages women to be stupid, too. But I don't think it's to the same extent. And like you say - the New York Times article about how men and women are approaching college - statistically - says a lot in that regard.

Though I think that a lot of that is the whole male privilege thing also - men figuring that they don't have to be as competitive in school to be successful - figuring they have other options - or whatever it is.

What guy would wake up at 5am just to go to a job he didn't like if he didn't have to be motivated and have a goal? No woman wants a loser. Sure, loser can be defined differently, and some of it might be tied to the ideas behind our way of life, but that's how it works.

are you serious? Food, clothing and shelter aren't enough of a motivation?

get you a girl. Try getting a girl to like you without one of those. It might be possible, but quite difficult.

that can't be easy.

Food is basic survival. Shelter, that can be found anywhere for survival purposes. You don't really need clothing either, depending where you are. Everything else is done for sex, or the prospect of sex at some time in the future.

You're hierarchy of needs is SKEWED.
Your pyramid is INVERTED.

Sex is a desire, not a need.

Men are born with hands. They should
use them instead of objectifying women
for their "needs".

When I am with a man, he had better
acknowledge that he is RELATING TO
A PERSON. Not "some chick".

If a woman says, "Men are stupid." on this board, you'r get a whole lot of grief and rightfully so. I am arguing that men are not stupid and these guys are defending the guy who says they are. :shrug:

and I must say, this is a pretty interesting thread. I told the story to my husband. We fought over Hooters just this last summer when he was running a Jazz Festival and someone suggested that they let Hooters be a big sponser. I overheard and went nuts. They never once stopped to think that they were booking this as a "family" event and that the charity they were raising money for was a clinic sponsered by the Sisters Of Charity! His entire board went nuts on him when he told them that he thought I made sense (there was a lot more there than just this arguement). The men all called me names, I got email from them about being prudish (me?) but when it came right down to it the Sisters wrote and told them the same thing I did. Their response, or at least one of the responses, was...Who will want to come if there aren't any Hooters Girls there? SO, I guess I would agree that men are not all stupid but I sure know a fair share who just may be.

Interesting thread.

Men are always right.

Just kidding.

In a Sister of Charity situation, with families as the audience, that makes perfect sense. In the Hooters case, all involved were adults. That is a big difference.

The only reason I posted this was because I had just had the experience with successful results even though I am now labeled by it. I don't give a rats ass about that label, but it did prove to me that many men are indeed that stupid. In fact, that is supported here quite obviously.

They are different situations, yes, but Hooters has no business being involved in any manner with any government entity when what they do conflicts with everything our government considers a requirement for employment.

It is rather insulting.

This is because I have a sense of humor and don't take every thing like this to be a statement on manhood as a whole.

so demeaning to women - that's why.

No - this wasn't my city and no, this wouldn't happen in my city for more purient reasons (I live in the South), but I wouldn't want my local government sponsoring something I - and millions of women - find demeaning, degrading and abhorrant.

If Hooters wants to raise money for the shelter on their own time, fine. But don't involve governmental employees.

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Oct/1/130600.html

Although I am sure it discourages many women from filing

Not just that they expect women to sign such agreements and work under those conditions, they allow and encourage their customers to behave in an otherwise criminal way, too. There was a lawsuit a while back from a server who was raped in the a Hooters bathroom, and I think she won a settlement by arguing that the club's policies promote that type of behavior. I would be surprised if there weren't a lot of hidden incidents like this, and if Hooters doesn't have a hush fund somewhere to buy off these types of complaints.

I'm a little surprised that there is so much opposition to the city's decision to withdraw from this event. There was a time when DU would have unanimously agreed. The fact that I'm "a little" rather than "totally" shocked is based more on my lowered expectations around here lately than on any partial understanding of the other POV.

whether that policy covers the actions of management, which would be wrong, or the actions of customers, which is pretty much the whole point.

Face it, Hooters is not much more than a soft core titty bar. Women who sign on to work there know what they are doing; they are exploiting their own physical assets and charm to elicit tips from customers.

Frankly, if the American public was not so up tight and wired about nudity and sex, the entire Hooters concept would die out. Nudity and sexual innuendo are only attractive and useful when they are "forbidden fruit." If breast feeding in public wasn't considered "damaging to children" somehow, men would probably be much less fascinated by women's breasts and bodies in the first place. The fact is that in many cultures around the world women's breasts are not considered sexual stimulants or objects, at least not to the extent that they are here.

The city is right to bow out of this one, but the shelter should not do something stupid like refuse the cash. Let Hooters do the event and hand over the money. No need to put a plaque up in the animal shelter, but Hooters can and will put up signs, I'm sure.

the event. But they won't.

"Critics say that the city of Los Angeles -- with strict standards of equality in the workplace -- should never have associated itself with a contest that they say stereotypes and objectifies women."

Obviously couldn't support his idiotic assertion that "feminists" were mucking it up for everyone, poor baby.

:yoiks:

"Why do they need to police what other women do? Are they calling them too stupid to know any better?"


"Critics say that the city of Los Angeles -- with strict standards of equality in the workplace -- should never have associated itself with a contest that they say stereotypes and objectifies women."

I'm for the cause but believe most municipalities, groups, and individuals can find more creative and resourceful ways of raising dough for do-good projects.

We need more Bill Moyers and less FOX News as we respond to social and civic challenges.

thing objectionable, too.

Nationally, a women is battered every 13 seconds... Yet there are three times the number of animal shelters in America than battered women shelters.
http://www.hometownsource.com/capitol/2000/september/0902paulw.html

I find it ridiculous that there seems to be much more concern over animals in this country than there is over battered women. And now we're arguing that women should be exploited by government sponsored events for the sake of animals?
:wtf:

Some people just want to look down or control on thier fellow humans and will glom onto any ideology that provides a convenient excuse for that abberant behavior.

Personally, I don't think any shelter is really in a position to turn down funds raised legally when 4-6 million animals are euthanized in the US each year for lack of homes. Anybody who thinks it's more important to protect attractive female volunteers from the eyes of men than to save some of those lives really ought to reexamine thier priorites.

... for some words of sanity in a thread filled with inanity.

Hooters COULD have held a fundraiser and donated the money WITHOUT sticking the city logos on the ads as if the city were endorsing the event. There is nothing suspect about the motives.

.. with men, would that be different. And why? You think the genetic endowments of men are more suitable for city endorsement than those of women?

The whole thing is bullshit, and it is one of the many reasons feminism as a philosophy is on the skids.

And if feminism is on the skids, how is it they won on this one?

Again...if Hooters were so benevolent, they could simply say, "we are going to donate the money anyway."

I have no objection to the event, but the city DOES have very strict standards regarding the treatment of sexuality in the workplace and for good reason...one that was hardfought..they need to exercise SOME prudence in what they lend their logo to as a result.

... I understand how this becomes a "sexuality in the workplace" issue. But, that said, I am totally and unequivocally in support of a harassment free workplace.

is anathema to a workplace where the stand is that women should be treated as equals, then nothing I can say can convince you.

... I've never bought into the whole "objectification" argument anyway, so no, nothing you can say will convince me.

:shrug:

... you call "objectivation", only it's more likely to be something to do with money and/or power.

Everyone is an object in some context. Deal with it.

Get twice the responses on dating sites.

That's not objecting them though. It's merely a natural attraction to security.

objectifying women sexually...how rare!

There is soda all over mine now.

:rofl:

Men have NEVER BEEN and never will be subjected to the kind of harrassment women have been subjected to in the workplace based on sexuality.

Your denial of the issue means the conversation is over. I wouldn't proceed further if we were discussing the holocaust and received such a response. That you deny the issue even exists when it was and still is epidemic speaks volumes.

By the way...funny you should use the "money/power" argument since most of it is STILL concentrated in the hands of...hmmmm...oh yeah...MEN!

.. we're not going to change any minds here anyway. And you insist on tieing workplace harrassment to "objectification", which is complete and utter bullshit. Have a nice day.

Well...it is the source of the problem. Sorry if logic offends you. :D

... it's merely a contruct some people try to use to control the behavior of others.

Workplace harrassment is clearly wrong, and it has to do with assholes treating other people shabbily, not with "objectification", which is shorthand for "I'm uncomfortable with other females parading around like that".

and in the workplace, it matters LITTLE what a woman wears to be objectified sexually. I am all for women dressing as they please. I AM a feminist.

As far as the rest of your specious post. I'm not trying to control anyone's behavior, but reread this thread and the ones about the 15 year old girl being raped in Iraq. All I hear regarding this argument OVER AND OVER AND OVER is how we can't count on MEN to control THEMSELVES!

..... you used a curse word in the SUBJECT LINE! Have you no limits :)

You wrongly assume I'm not familiar with what the term means, I don't know why. I just find it a "created" terms to describe something humans do all the time as a matter of course. It's one of many concepts of late 70s feminism that are horseshit.

As for men who won't control themselves - punish them, only an evil moron thinks that a woman is available to harrass because she dresses nice.

You can have last word if you wish, we're going nowhere here.

Why do you think workplace harassment happens? It's because men look at women and see sex objects, not equals.

... and see dollar signs. What is the fucking difference?

If you think that a wet t-shirt contest creates harassment, that is your opinion. It's not shared by everyone.

looking at him seeing the HUGE bucks he made created a hostile work environment?

Really. Some of you people really are as bad as holocaust deniers!

therefore he MUST believe that objectification does not cause harassment or intimidation, because if he did, then he might be forced to change his behavior.

99% of men would never have a mate. I love how men who make $30,000 a year imagine themselves as Donald Trumps and get mad because women are all "gold diggers."

:rofl:

I think sexuality is a good thing. It's natural and fun and one of the few gifts in life. I have no problem whatsoever if a male or female enjoys the sight of the female body. You call it exploitation. I call it celebration of beauty. The women are there (at the event, working in hooters, strip clubs etc.) by choice, enjoy and seek the attention and are compensated for their efforts and time. I don't have a problem with any of the consenting behavior at all.

What I find odd is the concept that this is "objectifying". That makes these women objects instead of the rational people who have made choices for themselves.

It's more of an adult situation than one for a community at large. I don't think the shelters should turn the money down at all. The animals still suffer.

There are bigger challenges for women here and the world over.

Just my 2cents. :hi:

denial about the issues women are STILL dealing with in the workplace everyday...including but not limited to Hooters employees.

No where in this thread did I suggest men shouldn't appreciate women and women shouldn't appreciate men and women shouldn't appreciate women and the like. Being a sex object is fine...it's just a bit antithetical an image for an employer that deals with many women's groups and issues...not just those that want to strip and wear bathing suits and get guffawed at.
No where in this thread did I ever suggest that all objectification is bad but since the City of LA is involved in the event, then the WOMEN that are employees and appointees certainly should have some say in the manner in which the city presents itself.

I don't see the connection between this event and sexual harassment in the work place. That's an issue. Women in bathing suits is not. I work in IT. If I was required to come to work in a bikini and flirt with people that would be harassment. If I apply for a job that requires me to work in a bikini, that's a living.

One is an important cause to fight. Another is a place to eat chicken wings.

arbitration agreement to claim it extends to those women being groped. Fortunately, the courts didn't agree with them that arbitration was binding beyond the uniform and a few other things.

"I'm female and I don't think it's objectification"

:rofl:

I guess some people didn't get the memo. :) :eyes:

some of the huffy moral superiority assuming OTHERS have the control issues (not referring to this poster I replied to). How could women be so uninformed about issues that (one way or another) affect them simply because they are female? Are their arms twisted to disavow their gender as a whole and then accuse feminists of being the haters, the controllers? Was Limbaugh's hate campaign really that INVASIVE into the whole society? (yes)

I guess some people drank the Kool-Aid :toast:


To their credit, in many cases post-Reagan, it's all they were served.................................... :puke:

That's what I'm afraid of as well.

And the feminist movement - unless you go for looking for it - as I do - is almost invisible. The corporate media isn't promoting it - that's for sure.


Like the OP - who apparently is a FOX viewer - seems to have no idea what it is. Probably never got any of the memos either. :(


What do feminists care?

almost got fired a few years back for covering the Take Back The Night rally. The editors at the newstation reportedly said, "No one wants to watch that bullshit."

beauty. It's basically about big tits. It's the old Barbie doll/Playboy Bunny ideal. I've met a lot of beautiful women who don't fit that stereotype.

I wouldn't have a problem with them if they endorsed a more diverse idea of beauty and if they included male servers, as well. But then...they wouldn't be Hooters.

It usually excludes fat people too not just flat-chested. So you object to a certain taste because it leaves some people out? I'm overweight so I would never be cast as a leading lady but I still go to the movies. Fortunately for me I fit my husband's idea of beauty. There is a place for Hooters in society. I accept the fans of big boobies.

that Barbie/Playboy thing carries a lot of baggage. What if someone opened a fantasy restaurant where they only hired overweight black women to wear "mammy" costumes? I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that would enjoy being taken care of and waited on by a "mammy."

Hooters isn't selling beauty, it's selling a retro fantasy of when women knew their place.

IMHO. :hi:

One of those whacky pro-pornography feminists. Oh yeah and I've been to Hooters and donated to animal rights causes.

:evilgrin:

Like this:

Boobies! :bounce: :bounce:



:hide: :scared:

half the population. Says more about your values than mine.

I just think that LeftyMom doesn't find it to be exploiting women. I think it's a creative way of having a fundraiser. If the city doesn't want to have anything to do with it fine, but I don't find it degrading to women.

I know you're not new here. Perhaps you've just missed many of my posts on the subject. I'm as opposed to sexism as I am to any other sort of exploitation, I just don't think anybody else has the right to tell a woman when she's being exploited. I think the anti-sex feminists need to learn to trust thier fellow women.

that the majority of women arguing on the thread were pointing out that it really IS a disconnect for the city of LA to lend their name and logo (which they never agreed to) to the event.

Furthermore, perhaps you're unaware of Hooters' LEGAL history with women. Here's just a couple links, but there are many more available and many still in litigation:

http://www.epexperts.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=878
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_49_38/ai_n8564066

(it's on the smoking gun.) I don't think much of them but I don't think that's a good reason to throw up roadblocks when they want to do some good. They're a legal business raising business for a badly needed cause.

which they promoted it. I agree the cause is good. I agree their business is legal. I also agree with the women who made an issue of it that the city of LA needs to MANAGE how their image is presented given how progressive the city is about WOMEN'S issues, not just animal issues.

rather than having to react to events as they happen. That would have prevented the whole problem. It'd be understandable in a small municipality, but in LA it seems rather odd that there were no guidelines in place for use of the city logo or suggestion of city approval for events.

prudish and that the official who agreed to this event did not take them into consideration when committing HIMSELF. He backed out rather quickly and apologetically, no?

The organizer probably didn't want bad publicity.

I'll ask.

It'd help to prevent flaps like this if people know what's expected in advance.

The worst kind of boobies are the ones that earn more by exploiting men willing to pay for them.

in exploiting women's sexuality doesn't mean you fear or hate it. Exploiting women's sexuality does nothing but please men, it's exactly what they want you to do.

exploited or not. The women involved have brains, they can decide for themselves if the situation makes them uncomfortable. As they are volunteers, obviously they chose to be there for reasons of thier own.

If you don't think such an event is right, don't participate. You have no more right to tell another woman that she shouldn't than a man does. Every woman has the right to control of her own body and her own behavior free of outside moralizing and interference.

for the city of LA how they should feel about it, right?

BTW...where in the article was anyone told not to participate? This wasn't about women being told not to strip or pose in a bikini. This was about an government entity with strict standards on the treatment of women participating in an event that was antithetical to those standards.

The events opponents have every right to object, but they used thier influence to control others.

Of course not. The city should be mindful of their image with LARGE swatches of HUMANS...even women.

If Hooters is too objectionable to work with, why are they taking thier tax money?

For that matter, if the KKK wanted to do a march, the city would work with them for permiting, police presence, etc. Just as they should for every legal entity.

the KKK doesn't raise taxable money at their marches. It's true the cops are there, but I'm sure the KKK has to pay for the cops. I doubt the city is donating the use of their police force for the KKK rallies.

What do you suggest, that they just let Hooters operate in LA tax-free?

That seems to be a requirement as well.

:hide:

because of these things. They fully believe in women's equality, but they also believe in having fun.

Man...my "Porno Jim Show: Because the World Needs Better Porn!" is downloading really slow right now.

are by those espousing your points, not mine. I didn't say objectifying one sex or the other was wrong in all circumstances. I did say that in this circumstance the city (and it was ONE man acting on their behalf that committed them and then DIDN'T manage the manner in which their image was presented) should be mindful of what image they wish to present.

In fact, I see a lot of intolerance for those who disagree with you. Not the reverse.

That seems extreme in its perspective and shrill as I said.

If the women of Hooters want to be in an unusual workplace with different standards than those protecting others from harassment they are not objects but deliberate choosers. I agree that it is inappropriate for such an adult-oriented event to be link with official city business as I am often offended when religious events are linked to city or state business. Perhaps there was confusion or a miscommunication about the use of a logo that needs to be clarified for future events. It's an administrative issue, graphic logos and such that generally do not fall under the tasks of senior management. Refusing the money is spiteful, condemning Hooters unfairly, and ultimately harms the animals that they are supposed to be trying to help.

I disagree with the concept of objectification of women's bodies in this context. Once there's is consent, there is no exploitation in my opinion. Let's agree to disagree.
And I also disagree with your assessment of the derision in this thread as well. I won't waste my time pointing the posts out because I think there are greater issues for all of our time rather than worrying about whether pretty women are displaying themselves for others' pleasure.

her argument that the city should not manage it's image simply because an event was "legal." Furthermore, where one agrees to have themselves objectified there is no issue. That said, I am glad you agree with me they are objectifying themselves even if you contradict yourself in your next paragraph.

One there is consent, there is consent to be exploited.

It is not exploitation or objectification if it is consentual. That is what I believe. We disagree. Get over it.

Jeez...who's being shrill now?

I meant accept it, make peace with it, exist with it, let it go. The only reason why I wrote anything was because you stated that only a man would have my views and since I'm not a man I spoke up. I don't want to have some angry back and forth with you, a screen name that I recognize not with any particular post in mind but an overall vibe of welcoming your thoughts in general. I'm taking my large breasts home now for a man to enjoy. I only wish you peace. I truly do. :hi:

I debated responding but decided to anyway. Look..I disagree with people all the time on this site and can still respect their positions so I simply debate.

I will say this ------>[]much though...you obviously don't agree with Sendero completely since you did seem to imply that where it is not consensual it is objectification and he chooses to believe it doesn't exist at all.

That said...enjoy getting your breasts fluffed :D

Just like when earlier this week some asshole freeper wanted to "discuss" what was wrong with rape comparing people that are anti-rape to people that are anti- consentual gay sex. If only you can strangle someone through a computer screen!

I just had my breasts "fluffed" under orders from DU and he said, "Man, I love that website!" :patriot:

PS. I am sorry that I called you shrill. Apparently I am guilty myself sometime.;)

i think the point is the effect it has on women as a whole and on men's view of them. It's the same with porn. You can argue that the actual porn star has every right to be in porn, but it doesn't change the fact that it has effects on society that extend far beyond the set of the porn flick.

But overall I agree that this is really more about men than women and I can't imagine being a man with an IQ over 20 and NOT being offended by the notion that I need to see a woman's boobies to remind me to be a responsible adult. How insulting, indeed.

"...but it doesn't change the fact that it has effects on society that extend far beyond the set of the porn flick"

That isn't a fact but an opinion. People make many correlations and can support them with data but in the end it is not absolute truth. I respectfully disagree.

What more do you want? It etched in stone from the Goddess herself?

I mean, we can't PROVE evolution, but there's some mighty fine science that supports it.

I've never seen any data or credible study that shows that porn is anything but harmful.

Some say there is a casualty between violent video games and violent behavior and I disagree with that theory as well. If all rapists are meat eaters then does meat cause rape? We are all in this forum because of our ability to be critical thinkers questioning prevailing beliefs. I apply the same scrutiny to sacred feminist dogma that may be out of date in its thinking. Racism still exists in our society but it's not 1950 anymore. I understand your point of view. I just don't see it in my own observations.

that shows that porn, strip clubs, or "soft core" places like Hooters are anything but harmful. If you've seen other data, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

So I don't know how I could share that. If I ever collect data I'll let everybody know I promise. ;-)

showing that porn and the like is detrimental. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

Here is a good post with highlights from a bunch.

years after laws were put in place nationally to define how you should be treated in the workplace. Employment consulting for businesses is a big business due to the lawsuits that preceded you being born.

BTW...I'm fine with pornography as long as it is consenting adults and not women who were drugged prior to the filming occurring which DOES happen.

That said, this is about a city logo (which city has some strict standards) being used to promote an event which objectified ONLY women. If the event organizers had presented it in a different fashion, I doubt it would have been an issue.

equally with equal amounts of entertainment for all genders. Also, iconography aside, when a drag show in Dallas raises money for the SPCA by objectifying the worst traits of women (essentially, and done by men (mostly)), the SPCA doesn't turn it down even when the flyers note the money is going to the SPCA and uses the SPCA logo.

It's just too bad that the two point three out of ten humans of either gender who are puritanical prudes or neanderthals have to ruin it for the rest of the adults. I know there aren't a lot of prudes on DU, but there ARE a lot of prudes in America.

I'm keeping quiet about neanderthals since I've had some recent sightings. :P

fundraiser either. It's all in the presentation. Furthermore, I think if Hooters had held an event that entertained all and presented it differently it might NOT have raised the ire of many. Unfortunately, Hooters presents everything they do in a manner dsigned to cheapen women. I can see why female city employees would have an issue with it.

battered women's shelters, yet a woman is battered every 13 seconds.

Don't you think that perhaps objectifying and dehumanizing women might have something to do with the frequency of abuse? Why should "busybodies" be quiet about the fact that women are being exploited to help animals? Just because those women have been convinced that it's ok to be exploited doesn't make it alright.

Just because you think a woman is being exploited it doesn't mean that she sees the situation that way. If you seek to control the behavior of other women, sexually or otherwise, you become a tool of patriarchy whether you will it or no.

of women in the workplace endorsing it...not whether women participated or not.

If WalMart or Dennys or another known discriminatory employer showed up with a check, we all know they'd take it and happily. This is about Boobies! :scared: whether the politicians involved have the guts to admit it or not.

logo in its promotional ads, I doubt it would have been returned either. I don't buy your argument that animals will suffer if women aren't exploited by a municipality which has strict standards for good reason on how women should be treated. The fact that you think one should be traded off for the other is what makes animal rights activists appear to be ridiculous.

No.

Will that result in more unwanted births, greater shelter expense to house them, greater shelter overcrowding, increased uterine cancer in adult female animals (the rate in unspayed dogs is quite high) and increased euthanasia? Yes.

Could this event have improved that situation? Yes.

The obvious solution is for the city to establish a policy about when thier logo can be used and stick to it. Refusing to accept the money from the event is spiteful and stupid. I hope the organizers regroup and do the event for a worthy private animal charity, of which there are plenty in southern CA.

I am so the minority around here when it comes to stuff like this. It's good to see another woman with a similiar point of view. :hi:

...more battered womens' shelters. That's what it sounds like. Maybe help to get something good and important for someone else rather than impose their personal tastes on people.

uninformed about what the issues really are.

"Some people just want to look down or control on thier fellow humans and will glom onto any ideology that provides a convenient excuse for that abberant behavior."

"Anybody who thinks it's more important to protect attractive female volunteers from the eyes of men than to save some of those lives really ought to reexamine thier priorites."

You may need to reexamine your understanding of the issues. Off the high horse.

but it's really hard to tell here. Why is it that everyone is so willing to clean everyone else's clock before they've cleaned their own?

I agree with the guy accused of trollishness below; the respondents were being defensive and missed the gist of what he was saying in their hurry to crucify someone. There are SOME people who want to tell everyone else what they can and can't do, and self-identifying crusading "feminists" are not an exception, and you are not by any means a monolithic group. If you could stop every woman from working for Hooters as a waitress, would you? If you could save them from "being exploited and degraded" and push a button and take away their choice to work there, would you?

Answer that question honestly - I think I know the answer though. You don't believe any sane, intelligent woman would want to work there so why not take the choice away from everyone alike? Even if you are more fair minded, there are certainly some who wouldn't hesitate to save women from their own choices for their own good :shrug: that's just as weird as men making that claim.

Personally I hate Hooters, the food sucks, I'm queer - and I think it is exploitive; of drooling gape jawed heterosexual men. Giggle, "wanna see the scar whar my belly button ring tore when I was pregnint?" an actual line I've heard. But what I hate more is the idea that people shouldn't be free to make their own choices, and Hooters, for the record, pays a taxable wage and tips, just like any other job.

If I were a rocket scientist I would think scooping shit out of the sewer and analysing it for pathogen content would be degrading too, for me, but I don't feel superior to the people who do it for a living instead of calculating trajectories.

"I agree with the guy accused of trollishness below; the respondents were being defensive and missed the gist of what he was saying in their hurry to crucify someone. There are SOME people who want to tell everyone else what they can and can't do, and self-identifying crusading "feminists" are not an exception, and you are not by any means a monolithic group."

You acknowledge that femisists "are not by any means a monolithic group." Part of the problem with gender wars on DU is that women are put on the defensive for basic social realities that we need not DEFEND, DESCRIBE, EDUCATE, CONVINCE, OR WITHSTAND ATTACK OVER, over and over and over again.

But NO. DU ends up having stupid, redundant, hostile gradeschool level fights about facing the realities of the world we live in.

Basics of social reality for women are continuously denied and have to be educated or argued endlessly on this "progressive" board. SOME women claim it empowers them to CHOOSE to be exploited for their own personal reasons. Pointing out the embedded exploitation and the obvious inappropriateness of a HOOTERS promotion for a City function (the reason was given in the OP) does not = "there are certainly some who wouldn't hesitate to save women from their own choices for their own good."

A progressive board would be able to discuss the societal realities of women's lives and the continuing limitations on their choices and empowerment.

:hi: :grouphug:


oh and THANK YOU for your reasonable reply, like we're having an actual discussion and stuff :yourod:

We may not agree. I haven't read the whole gynormous thread. Noticed that you thought the Garafolo quote was BS. Actually, that is a very good point-- and makes that connection with CHOOSING to so something exploitive for an audience that looks down on it. Saw an artist (think it may have been Spike Lee or if not, apologies) make the same comparison with Rap music and blackface. There've been some videos spoofing that already. Pink did the same for the female StepnFetchits with her "Stupid Girl" video.

Why do they need to police what other women do? Are they calling them too stupid to know any better?

It's bad enough the they want to tell men what to think, do, and say, but now they want to do the same to other women?

Nutty.

You should have said, " Bullshit, Troll! "

TagTeam

I had no idea that I wanted to tell men what to think, do and say. Thank you SO much for letting me know this! All this time, I thought I was focused on maintaining the rights to my own body, gaining equal pay for equal work, eliminating domestic violence and rape as well as having an equal voice in DC and everywhere else. Boy was I WRONG!


:eyes:

:sarcasm:

I really should add something to that effect..."thank Gawd I have a MAN to tell me what's inside my little, fluffy, girly little head!"

:rofl:

Speaking from a man's perspective, I hear a lot of what's considered politically correct speech as me being told what to say, or what I cannot say. I didn't think this needed to be explained, but maybe you haven't had this experience.

"It's bad enough the they want to tell men what to think, do, and say, but now they want to do the same to other women? "


Some men tell women what to think, do and say. They tell men as well.

You think they don't? What do think that legislatures are doing. Legislatures that are mostly men, btw. Or newspaper boards. Or other organizations. Or even letters to the editor. You think that all the men out there in the world are keeping their mouths shut about everything?

And how about you. You never express ANY opinions. I can just tell. :eyes:

Nutty.

Feminists that is. There are alot of us here.

and a shocking number of them, I might add.

it continues to be shocking..........

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :toast:

I love being a radical lesbian feminist.

Just wondering! :evilgrin:

do I get a free toaster? :D

If you're hot, you even get the Super Special Queer Toaster.

Fortunately for me, it's 95 degrees here in Austin right now! I'm so totally HOT! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:rofl:

Of course, the winters would be better.

I'm from here and I can't stand it. Aside from that, Austin is the only city in TX worth living in (in my biased opinion). Come here during the winter, you'll love it. :)

If it's 85, we start complaining a lot. If it hits 90, the news tells us to not go outside.

and that big huge market!

My husband and I can literally spend hours there.

but how was France...pics?

I'm so honored that you remembered. Paris was exactly what I expected and it was incredible but I absolutely fell in love with Venice. The colors and textures of the buildings, the warm people...heaven.

but did you get to Versailles?

These women who shake their tits at Hooters and parade themselves in men's magazines are the Stepin Fetchits of feminism. They don't have the intelligence or dignity to make a living as people, so they sell themselves as sex objects. And thus they undermine every woman out there who's trying to be taken seriously as something other than a sleazy male fantasy.

Some people think that ignorance is consent. An analogy would be exploited workers who have no idea they are being exploited as they never question the status quo. They think because they get paid, they are valued. Same thing with women who sell their bodies for money. They identify too much with the opressor because they somehow think that identifying with power, IS power. They don't understand that they are being used and abused.

I have no problem with sex or nudity or even orgies. What most people don't get is that in a truly free society, sex would not be commodified. Men and women would enjoy it freely and openly - it would not be for one to give and the other to receive, pleasure would be mutual.

Most people have no clue as to how opressed they really are.

I remember being very interested in free sex or free love movements. Not for the sex itself, but for the sexual freedom and freedom from exploitation it promised. I reluctantly had to draw the conclusion that in a society as sexually oppressed as most are-- exploitation will continue, and true sexual freedom is very far away.

Plenty of intelligent women have worked at Hooters, strip bars, and the like. Guess what? It pays well and can be pretty damn appealing to a student. Intelligence and dignity have nothing to do with it. Of course, I'm currently listening to a podcast on why America needs better porn.

because of their economic conditions really isn't any better than exploitation of women because of their ignorance.

So that doesn't really come into play for me.

Hooters in Southern California which is approximately a dozen of them with my friend who was casting for a television show. Most of the Hooters girls I met (and we were introduced and interviewed their entire staff) are NOT students and are dumber than a box of rocks

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've been there a couple times with some guy friends. I didn't find them to be any dumber than the population at large. And the people I've met in the NYC porn industry have all been pretty intelligent...of course, the bad porn mostly comes out of southern California.

Guess everything is OK as long as the price
point is met.

They make themselves a commodity. To be
displayed, bought, sold.

Not me, not my daughters. Not if I can
help it.

I can understand economic distress,but
exhibitionism and voyeurism are symptoms
of underlying problems.