Is ''Hooters'' Degrading To Women?

[Constantinopolis]

Oh no! The horror! I have "puritanical" views on sexuality! As in... the kinds of views that were held by pretty much everyone in the Western world until a few decades ago and continue to be held by most people in the rest of the world today. Thank goodness you overthrew those pilgrims who had been ruling America up until 1965 or so.

Seriously, I never cease to be amazed by the sheer arrogance of ultra-liberals on social issues who seem completely unaware of how much their values are out of sync with the vast majority of human beings alive today and the vast majority of people in their own cultures up until about two generations ago.

No wonder there is so much pushback against you from every non-Western culture in the world.

Things were so much better in 1965 when niggers, ethnic whites, other mongrels, and women knew their place.

Mmmm, I love the smell of burning straw man in the morning.

You do know that it is possible to approve of one aspect of a historical place and time without also endorsing everything else about it, right? I heard a lot of people are quite fond of the founding principles of the United States, for example, but not so much the slavery and genocide parts.

Psst, neo-liberalism and liberalism aren't the same and most American liberals are in opposition to most of the fundamental principles of neo-liberalism.

Oh, I know, and yet I combined them together on purpose, because they are both individualistic at their core and they are both derived from the same worldview.

Oh, and I'd be disappointed in you if you didn't know that people who still "care about human dignity, decency, and morality" in the way you do are slowly dying off and being crushed under the ever-increasing weight of their rapidly-disappearing political clout.

Have you looked outside North America and Western Europe recently? In most of the world, people who care about human dignity, decency and morality in the way I do are simply known as "everyone".

So, tell me how you're going to stop the spreading of ideas again? The Church couldn't during the Enlightenment, it's not like all of a sudden you'll be able to with the internet in place; in fact, I assume it'll be harder.

Stopping the spread of ideas? Who said anything about something like that? No, no, on the contrary, if we are going to be successful against liberalism, we need more spreading of ideas, not less. We need to spread our own ideas just as much as liberal culture spreads its own.

Also, history isn't some kind of linear progression towards ever-more-liberal social attitudes, if that's what you're implying. Remember that the Victorian era came well after the Enlightenment (and after the relatively libertine late-18th century).

[Upper America]

I really wish people would read the posts that I am responding to. That post i was responding to wasn't just about restaraunts. It was talking about people "using their body the way they choose". That could also reference to prostitution and pornography. Not just restaraunts.

And where are we "deciding things for people"?

My mistake then, I apologize.

He's deciding that it's degrading, not allowing the workers, the people that he would say are being degraded, to say for themselves what the experience is.

He's not preventing them from saying what the experience is like. He thinks it's degrading, but the women don't. It's all opinions.

[Constantinopolis]

Thank you. I strongly believe that we should build alliances between (some parts of) the radical left and (some parts of) religious conservative movements on certain moral issues. Another poster in this thread mentioned at some point that radical feminists and religious conservatives often share the same opposition towards things like prostitution, pornography, and our sexualized culture. That is true. So why aren't we fighting these things together?

So, you want people to band together to fight free will? And you want the lowest of the low on your side? Wow, I would not want to live in your ideal future.

I say "things like prostitution, pornography, and our sexualized culture" and you read that as meaning "free will"? Is that what you consider the expression of your free will? My God, that's... I don't even know. Sad? Tragic? Kafkaesque?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Stopping the spread of ideas? Who said anything about something like that? No, no, on the contrary, if we are going to be successful against liberalism, we need more spreading of ideas, not less. We need to spread our own ideas just as much as liberal culture spreads its own.

Also, history isn't some kind of linear progression towards ever-more-liberal social attitudes, if that's what you're implying. Remember that the Victorian era came well after the Enlightenment (and after the relatively libertine late-18th century).

Hmm, not quite sure I follow. Do recall that the Victorian Era was a period in history unique to England (which is what the name implies, that the ideas at the time were exclusive of Queen Victoria's reign, meaning only England was affected by these pervasive attitudes). Certainly during the 18th Century the rest of the world was interested on other things (Latin America, for instance, could care less about the Victorians, they had their own shit to deal with) - oh, by the way, we also tried that whole "legalization of sex" bit in Latin America; we don't have that anymore for a reason.

Also, Victorians were not saints. There certainly was sexuality around, even more than what most Victorians liked to admit.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So, you want people to band together to fight free will? And you want the lowest of the low on your side? Wow, I would not want to live in your ideal future.

I say "things like prostitution, pornography, and our sexualized culture" and you read that as meaning "free will"? Is that what you consider the expression of your free will? My God, that's... I don't even know. Sad? Tragic? Kafkaesque?

If you didn't know, during the Victorian Era and during much of Latin America's Colonial History (when the Church was rampant and had complete control of Latin American values) we still had prostitution, pornography, and a sexualized culture. Just because the Victorians were prudes at the light of day didn't mean they were saints at night. So stop wanking off to your "ideal society 100 years ago" it has never existed.

[Gristol-Serkonos]

It's not my place to judge if she is trying to make ends meet.

I personally have to work in industrial factories to pay my college loans, it is hard work.

Let's leave it alone, shall we?

[Upper America]

Things were so much better in 1965 when niggers, ethnic whites, other mongrels, and women knew their place.

Mmmm, I love the smell of burning straw man in the morning.

You do know that it is possible to approve of one aspect of a historical place and time without also endorsing everything else about it, right? I heard a lot of people are quite fond of the founding principles of the United States, for example, but not so much the slavery and genocide parts.

Psst, neo-liberalism and liberalism aren't the same and most American liberals are in opposition to most of the fundamental principles of neo-liberalism.

Oh, I know, and yet I combined them together on purpose, because they are both individualistic at their core and they are both derived from the same worldview.

Oh, and I'd be disappointed in you if you didn't know that people who still "care about human dignity, decency, and morality" in the way you do are slowly dying off and being crushed under the ever-increasing weight of their rapidly-disappearing political clout.

Have you looked outside North America and Western Europe recently? In most of the world, people who care about human dignity, decency and morality in the way I do are simply known as "everyone".

So, tell me how you're going to stop the spreading of ideas again? The Church couldn't during the Enlightenment, it's not like all of a sudden you'll be able to with the internet in place; in fact, I assume it'll be harder.

Stopping the spread of ideas? Who said anything about something like that? No, no, on the contrary, if we are going to be successful against liberalism, we need more spreading of ideas, not less. We need to spread our own ideas just as much as liberal culture spreads its own.

Also, history isn't some kind of linear progression towards ever-more-liberal social attitudes, if that's what you're implying. Remember that the Victorian era came well after the Enlightenment (and after the relatively libertine late-18th century).

Thing is, "liberal social attitudes", as you call them, have been on the general rise.

So, you want people to band together to fight free will? And you want the lowest of the low on your side? Wow, I would not want to live in your ideal future.

I say "things like prostitution, pornography, and our sexualized culture" and you read that as meaning "free will"? Is that what you consider the expression of your free will? My God, that's... I don't even know. Sad? Tragic? Kafkaesque?

Sure, it's free will. Do what you want with your body. I don't agree with all things people do with their bodies, but as long as it's legal, they can certainly do it. It's not sad. Or tragic. And it's far from oppressive. It's liberating.

[United States of The One Percent]

the food is pretty ordinary, plus they obviously discriminate in hiring. the one saving grace, if there is one, is that pretty much everyone concerned realizes the joke is in poor taste. almost ironic. given a choice between Hooters and some ptomaine palace i'd probably go to Hooters, provided i was nearly starved to death and couldn't just wait 'til breakfast. otherwise, anywhere else would be better. i am old enough that i've seen women's tits before, after all.

[Constantinopolis]

I imagine his future is something along the lines of every person going to church and everyone being monks altogether.

Actually, if you must know, my ideal future would be something like a more religious and culturally conservative version of Anarres.

Alternatively, for a less ambitious goal, something like the 1960s Soviet Union but with democracy and human rights and religion would be a good-enough second best.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I imagine his future is something along the lines of every person going to church and everyone being monks altogether.

Actually, if you must know, my ideal future would be something like a more religious and culturally conservative version of Annares.

Alternatively, for a less ambitious goal, something like the 1960s Soviet Union but with democracy and human rights and religion would be a good-enough second best.

So, basically, Iran but less crazy.

No thanks.

[Gristol-Serkonos]

I imagine his future is something along the lines of every person going to church and everyone being monks altogether.

Actually, if you must know, my ideal future would be something like a more religious and culturally conservative version of Anarres.

Alternatively, for a less ambitious goal, something like the 1960s Soviet Union but with democracy and human rights and religion would be a good-enough second best.

As a realist, I give you a whole lot of NOPE to both choices.

[Upper America]

I imagine his future is something along the lines of every person going to church and everyone being monks altogether.

Actually, if you must know, my ideal future would be something like a more religious and culturally conservative version of Anarres.

Alternatively, for a less ambitious goal, something like the 1960s Soviet Union but with democracy and human rights and religion would be a good-enough second best.

You just defined the exact opposite of the Soviet Union. It's not the Soviet Union without dictators, human rights abuses, and state-wide atheism. So I suggest doing your research.

[Constantinopolis]

Actually, if you must know, my ideal future would be something like a more religious and culturally conservative version of Anarres.

Alternatively, for a less ambitious goal, something like the 1960s Soviet Union but with democracy and human rights and religion would be a good-enough second best.

So, basically, Iran but less crazy.

No thanks.

Neither of the two things I mentioned are anywhere close to Iran. Particularly not the first (Anarres is an anarcho-communist utopia, for one thing). But if you imagine that the USSR was in any way similar to Iran (especially in terms of its economic system), then, uh... you need to study them both a little more.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So, basically, Iran but less crazy.

No thanks.

Neither of the two things I mentioned are anywhere close to Iran. Particularly not the first (Anarres is an anarcho-communist utopia, for one thing). But if you imagine that the USSR was in any way similar to Iran (especially in terms of its economic system), then, uh... you need to study them both a little more.

I thought you were talking about imposing a theocracy on the land, since, you know, you were the one who interjected religion into this. Iran is a theocracy. I am not sure how you missed the reference.

[Constantinopolis]

Actually, if you must know, my ideal future would be something like a more religious and culturally conservative version of Anarres.

Alternatively, for a less ambitious goal, something like the 1960s Soviet Union but with democracy and human rights and religion would be a good-enough second best.

You just defined the exact opposite of the Soviet Union. It's not the Soviet Union without dictators, human rights abuses, and state-wide atheism. So I suggest doing your research.

The Soviet economic system is literally part of my academic research. And when I said "something like the 1960s Soviet Union" I was specifically talking about its economic system and general societal attitudes and norms.

"...but with democracy and human rights and religion" essentially means "but with a different form of government". As in, a different political system, while keeping the economy and society largely the same.

[Upper America]

You just defined the exact opposite of the Soviet Union. It's not the Soviet Union without dictators, human rights abuses, and state-wide atheism. So I suggest doing your research.

The Soviet economic system is literally part of my academic research. And when I said "something like the 1960s Soviet Union" I was specifically talking about its economic system and general societal attitudes and norms.

"...but with democracy and human rights and religion" essentially means "but with a different form of government". As in, a different political system, while keeping the economy and society largely the same.

So... You support communism?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You just defined the exact opposite of the Soviet Union. It's not the Soviet Union without dictators, human rights abuses, and state-wide atheism. So I suggest doing your research.

The Soviet economic system is literally part of my academic research. And when I said "something like the 1960s Soviet Union" I was specifically talking about its economic system and general societal attitudes and norms.

"...but with democracy and human rights and religion" essentially means "but with a different form of government". As in, a different political system, while keeping the economy and society largely the same.

Like we said in our 1900s history class: Communist economic systems, in any way, only look good on paper. In practice? It's not worth the paper it's written on.

[Geilinor]

I imagine his future is something along the lines of every person going to church and everyone being monks altogether.

Actually, if you must know, my ideal future would be something like a more religious and culturally conservative version of Anarres.

Alternatively, for a less ambitious goal, something like the 1960s Soviet Union but with democracy and human rights and religion would be a good-enough second best.

So you say you're a communist but are just fine with a theocracy or an authoritarian regime like the USSR?

[Upper America]

The Soviet economic system is literally part of my academic research. And when I said "something like the 1960s Soviet Union" I was specifically talking about its economic system and general societal attitudes and norms.

"...but with democracy and human rights and religion" essentially means "but with a different form of government". As in, a different political system, while keeping the economy and society largely the same.

Like we said in our 1900s history class: Communist economic systems, in any way, only look good on paper. In practice? It's not worth the paper it's written on.

Yeah... Communist societies usually end up with a dictator. Or in ruins. Not too democratic. And a lot of dictators have been known to commit human rights abuses to stay in power.

[Constantinopolis]

Neither of the two things I mentioned are anywhere close to Iran. Particularly not the first (Anarres is an anarcho-communist utopia, for one thing). But if you imagine that the USSR was in any way similar to Iran (especially in terms of its economic system), then, uh... you need to study them both a little more.

I thought you were talking about imposing a theocracy on the land, since, you know, you were the one who interjected religion into this. Iran is a theocracy. I am not sure how you missed the reference.

I would like religion to be prevalent in society and to have a strong influence over social norms and cultural attitudes.

But I would certainly not support any kind of theocracy (that is to say, I don't want any clerics or religious officials to hold political power).

Really, my ideal amount of religious influence in society doesn't go much beyond the Western European or North American standard around 1900. It may sound extreme to you now, but compared to a theocracy, I look like a supporter of secularism.

[Pandeeria]

Like we said in our 1900s history class: Communist economic systems, in any way, only look good on paper. In practice? It's not worth the paper it's written on.

Yeah... Communist societies usually end up with a dictator. Or in ruins. Not too democratic. And a lot of dictators have been known to commit human rights abuses to stay in power.

I wonder if Stalin or Mao is a better example.

[Pandeeria]

I thought you were talking about imposing a theocracy on the land, since, you know, you were the one who interjected religion into this. Iran is a theocracy. I am not sure how you missed the reference.

I would like religion to be prevalent in society and to have a strong influence over social norms and cultural attitudes.

But I would certainly not support any kind of theocracy (that is to say, I don't want any clerics or religious officials to hold political power).

Really, my ideal amount of religious influence in society doesn't go much beyond the Western European or North American standard around 1900. It may sound extreme to you now, but compared to a theocracy, I look like a supporter of secularism.

You're a theocrat. It's ok to accept it.

[Upper America]

I thought you were talking about imposing a theocracy on the land, since, you know, you were the one who interjected religion into this. Iran is a theocracy. I am not sure how you missed the reference.

I would like religion to be prevalent in society and to have a strong influence over social norms and cultural attitudes.

But I would certainly not support any kind of theocracy (that is to say, I don't want any clerics or religious officials to hold political power).

Really, my ideal amount of religious influence in society doesn't go much beyond the Western European or North American standard around 1900. It may sound extreme to you now, but compared to a theocracy, I look like a supporter of secularism.

Umm, you sound like you want religion to dictate our laws, as well. Not just social norms.

[Constantinopolis]

Like we said in our 1900s history class: Communist economic systems, in any way, only look good on paper. In practice? It's not worth the paper it's written on.

Wow, that's so wrong it's painful. Seriously, that's about on the same level of accuracy as characterizing the American Revolution as "a treasonous uprising led by slave owners".

So... You support communism?

Yes. It says so in my signature, and I do have the hammer and sickle on my nation's flag...

Actually, if you must know, my ideal future would be something like a more religious and culturally conservative version of Anarres.

Alternatively, for a less ambitious goal, something like the 1960s Soviet Union but with democracy and human rights and religion would be a good-enough second best.

So you say you're a communist but are just fine with a theocracy or an authoritarian regime like the USSR?

No. I say I'm a communist and other people have interpreted the fact that I like religion as meaning that I somehow support theocracy. Also I literally said in the very statement you quoted that I'd like "something like the 1960s Soviet Union but with democracy...", so no, I'm not just fine with authoritarian regimes.

[Meryuma]

you sound like christian moral crusader please go back to europe in america we have debauchery and we like it

As if there was no debauchery in Europe....

Don't get me wrong Capitalism isn't all gumdrops and rainbows,but it gives every human an opportunity to increase their wealth if they have the right means to complete their mission in life.Communism ensures that one person will remain the same forever.

Actually, capitalism is heavily based on birth position, institutional discrimination, and state-granted privileges. Communism also does not necessitate sameness.

Just because I don't feel that women should be forced to sell their bodies to survive. They should be able to earn their wage without being raped.

I'm not sorry for disliking the rape of women, and I shall continue to hold my view of complete opposition to all forms of sexual assault.

You do know that Hooters is not a brothel, right?

You wanna warn me about the effects, feel free. I'm happy to just have those who participate in sexual harrassment sued or arrested and continue in the job.
Why should you get to decide on my behalf that i'm too precious for the risk and need to be protected from my own decisions?

This is fucking patriarchy in drag.
That is what you are doing.

You are saying that the world is too dangerous for me to make my decisions on how to live my life, so you'll make them for me so get back in the kitchen.
Fuck that.

Stop treating women like children.

How is not wishing for harm to come to people, male or female, patriarchy?

That's not. Prohibiting independent female decision-making out of a paternalistic desire to keep women away from danger, however, is.

I say "things like prostitution, pornography, and our sexualized culture" and you read that as meaning "free will"? Is that what you consider the expression of your free will? My God, that's... I don't even know. Sad? Tragic? Kafkaesque?

Except Kafka wrote political/psychological studies on the dehumanization experienced under state and capitalist bureaucracy, not religious fables about the evils of sexual sin.

Seriously, I never cease to be amazed by the sheer arrogance of ultra-liberals on social issues who seem completely unaware of how much their values are out of sync with the vast majority of human beings alive today and the vast majority of people in their own cultures up until about two generations ago.

No wonder there is so much pushback against you from every non-Western culture in the world.

Except most non-Western cultures get their moralistic, Abrahamic sexual views from Western indoctrination at gunpoint.

In most of the world, people who care about human dignity, decency and morality in the way I do are simply known as "everyone".

Everyone who supports arranged marriages, jails people for being gay, etc.