Is ''Hooters'' Degrading To Women?

[Gristol-Serkonos]

Erm.... going off topic you all.

Please back to Hooters. Plox.

[Trotskylvania]

Many people, including Hooters employees, earn a living through self-degradation.

If they choose it, is it degradation?

It's a hobson's choice, and thus provides the illusion of free choice.

You can degrade yourself, and accept a job that institutionalizes sexual harassment by the clientelle, or you can find your situation elsewhere and face destitution.

[Cuprum]

Nah, Hooters doesn't exist where i live.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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".

Socialism is what Communism (or Marxism-Leninism) tried to accomplish. However, the main flaw about communist systems is that it suddenly turns into an oligarchy: a system where a few members of population control the entire means of production and the rest of the people have nothing. It's exactly what the Eastern European nation of Romania went through, and so did the USSR.

[Pandeeria]

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".

Socialism is what Communism (or Marxism-Leninism) tried to accomplish. However, the main flaw about communist systems is that it suddenly turns into an oligarchy: a system where a few members of population control the entire means of production and the rest of the people have nothing. It's exactly what the Eastern European nation of Romania went through, and so did the USSR.

A lot of countries get stuck on that Socialist phase. So much for liquidation of the state or dictatorship of the proletariat.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

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).

Oh, so you want regression back to 1965 levels of tolerance for sexual freedom, but none of the implications that come with it? Because sexual freedom doesn't mandate racial or gender or sexual equity? Christ.

Neo-liberalism and liberalism aren't derived from the same core, liberalism in the pejorative American sense is all about caring for people and making equality and positive outcomes available to everyone where neo-liberalism is all about "economic freedom", a completely contradictory line.

You mean Muslim extremists stoning adulterers and Sub-Saharan stone-age homophobic genital mutilators? If you want to lump yourself in with them, go for it.

[Constantinopolis]

And now for something completely different! ...ok not really, but I've got this reply to Ostroeuropa that I've been meaning to post for a while. So here it is.

It doesn't make him an anarchist. If everyone involved consents, there is no problem. That means no being a hitman. But being a euthanizer? Go right ahead.

Yes, it does make him an anarchist. He claimed that "you have no right to say what other people shall choose as their employment". Do you people even stop to think through the logical conclusions of your statements? If indeed the state has no right to prevent anyone from engaging in any voluntary employment, then the state cannot:

- impose any kind of minimum wage laws or safety regulations in workplaces
- require any kind of mandatory sick leave, paid vacation days, maternity leave, or any other protections of workers' rights
- prevent untrained "doctors" from practicing medicine without a license (hey, if the patient consents to have major surgery done by some quack down the street, it's ok, right?)
- prevent people from getting hired as drivers or airplane pilots without a license
- prevent people from getting hired to manufacture illegal items or substances (weapons, drugs, enriched uranium...)
- prevent people from selling themselves into slavery indentured servitude
- levy any kind of taxes on workers or employers

...among other things.

So yeah, next time, think before you try to sound all liberated and shit by proudly announcing that "anything goes!" in contracts between people or some other such ultra-individualist bullcrap.

It isn't a cop-out to note that your personal misgivings aren't universal and shouldn't be treated as such.

Hold that thought for a second, we'll get to it in a bit.

So lemme get this straight. You want to criminalize using a prostitutes services, thereby ensuring that the people who a prostitute does business with will be criminal types anyway...

What the hell is this, one of those "if you ban guns, only criminals will have guns" soundbites?

Criminalizing using a prostitute's services won't make criminal types any more attracted to prostitutes than they already are. It's not like they go around intentionally trying to break the law for the lols. Prostitutes will have to deal with the same number of criminal types as they do now, in fact maybe a little fewer (some of them, presumably, would rather not add another criminal offense on their record if they can avoid it). The total number of clients in general will drop, and yes the number of non-criminal-type clients will drop the most, but so what?

...and you frame this as protecting them despite the fact that sex workers keep telling people like you over and over that this is a ridiculously dangerous and stupid idea that forces them to rely on criminals for their income?

There are two kinds of prostitutes. The first kind, who are the overwhelming majority, are prostitutes against their will. Some of them are victims of human trafficking, and some have simply been forced into a life of prostitution because of poverty and a lack of other opportunities. We should provide these women with jobs and opportunities, and (in the case of those who were trafficked) lock up the scum who abused them in a deep dungeon and throw away the key. In any case, I highly doubt that any of these women will be sorry to see a reduction in the number of men who are willing to buy something that they never really wanted to sell in the first place (not to mention how often they get abused by those "clients").

The second kind are prostitutes who were not kidnapped or driven to despair, and who do have other opportunities, but who choose prostitution because they want the extra money or like this work better than other similar-paying work. They may indeed complain about the criminalization of their clients, but I do not care. They should find another line of work.

You think people will stop objectifying if you ban it as a business model? Fuck no, they'll be out doing it to people who don't necessarily want it instead. It'll make shit worse.

Wait... is this one of those "men are animals who can't control themselves and so they need a way to blow off steam or else they'll start raping people left and right" type of self-serving arguments? You know, the kind that somehow manage to insult and degrade both men and women at the same time? Well, you're wrong and you know it. If strip clubs didn't exist, men who used to visit them would just say "oh well" and go on with their lives. People have plenty of self-control, thank you very much.

As for consensual cannibalism? Absolutely fine with it. Stop being so nosey. It's none of your business.

...right. Remember that part when I told you to hold your thought for a second, and we'll get to it? Well, the thought in question was your claim that my personal misgivings aren't universal and shouldn't be treated as such. That may be true, but you know what is far less universal? Your outrageous opinion that consensual cannibalism is just a-ok.

I don't know how many people approve of consensual cannibalism (I doubt anyone ever took a poll on it...), but I think it's a safe bet that it's a vanishingly small percentage of the world's population. You have just positioned yourself as part of an extremist individualist fringe. Congratulations.

This is the part where I tell you that your ultra-permissive attitude isn't universal (or anywhere close) and shouldn't be treated as such. Also, everything is my business, I intend to be very nosey, I know that many people agree with me, and I want to tell them all as loudly as I can that they shouldn't allow individualists like you to bully them into a corner or take over public discourse.

Let's be nosey. Let's interfere. Let's stand up for what is right. Degradation and sexualization are wrong, they should be fought in the realm of culture and using the weapon of the law, and those who carry out this struggle should be proud of their work.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

Erm.... going off topic you all.

Please back to Hooters. Plox.

You're not my mom.

[Gristol-Serkonos]

Erm.... going off topic you all.

Please back to Hooters. Plox.

You're not my mom.

And I am a man, thus making me not your father.

[Seriong]

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.

And a person believes that their opinion is the correct one. He is taking the liberty of describing someone else's position for them.

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?

You don't see how fighting against the right for people to make their own decisions is fighting against them having free will?
Or, are you simply going off the connotation of the word, because you've grown to associate 'free will' with 'good' and therefore feel insulted when you are characterized as not supporting it?

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.

What human rights? Because apparently bodily autonomy isn't one of them.

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).

You understand that in any sort of democracy, there is no difference between the two, right?

If they choose it, is it degradation?

It's a hobson's choice, and thus provides the illusion of free choice.

You can degrade yourself, and accept a job that institutionalizes sexual harassment by the clientelle, or you can find your situation elsewhere and face destitution.

You're skipping a step, wherein you show that they cannot make another choice. Meaning, you need to show that somehow Hooters is the only place hiring ever, and also that no one would pick it over another job.

[Upper America]

And now for something completely different! ...ok not really, but I've got this reply to Ostroeuropa that I've been meaning to post for a while. So here it is.

It doesn't make him an anarchist. If everyone involved consents, there is no problem. That means no being a hitman. But being a euthanizer? Go right ahead.

Yes, it does make him an anarchist. He claimed that "you have no right to say what other people shall choose as their employment". Do you people even stop to think through the logical conclusions of your statements? If indeed the state has no right to prevent anyone from engaging in any voluntary employment, then the state cannot:

- impose any kind of minimum wage laws or safety regulations in workplaces
- require any kind of mandatory sick leave, paid vacation days, maternity leave, or any other protections of workers' rights
- prevent untrained "doctors" from practicing medicine without a license (hey, if the patient consents to have major surgery done by some quack down the street, it's ok, right?)
- prevent people from getting hired as drivers or airplane pilots without a license
- prevent people from getting hired to manufacture illegal items or substances (weapons, drugs, enriched uranium...)
- prevent people from selling themselves into slavery indentured servitude
- levy any kind of taxes on workers or employers

...among other things.

So yeah, next time, think before you try to sound all liberated and shit by proudly announcing that "anything goes!" in contracts between people or some other such ultra-individualist bullcrap.

It isn't a cop-out to note that your personal misgivings aren't universal and shouldn't be treated as such.

Hold that thought for a second, we'll get to it in a bit.

So lemme get this straight. You want to criminalize using a prostitutes services, thereby ensuring that the people who a prostitute does business with will be criminal types anyway...

What the hell is this, one of those "if you ban guns, only criminals will have guns" soundbites?

Criminalizing using a prostitute's services won't make criminal types any more attracted to prostitutes than they already are. It's not like they go around intentionally trying to break the law for the lols. Prostitutes will have to deal with the same number of criminal types as they do now, in fact maybe a little fewer (some of them, presumably, would rather not add another criminal offense on their record if they can avoid it). The total number of clients in general will drop, and yes the number of non-criminal-type clients will drop the most, but so what?

...and you frame this as protecting them despite the fact that sex workers keep telling people like you over and over that this is a ridiculously dangerous and stupid idea that forces them to rely on criminals for their income?

There are two kinds of prostitutes. The first kind, who are the overwhelming majority, are prostitutes against their will. Some of them are victims of human trafficking, and some have simply been forced into a life of prostitution because of poverty and a lack of other opportunities. We should provide these women with jobs and opportunities, and (in the case of those who were trafficked) lock up the scum who abused them in a deep dungeon and throw away the key. In any case, I highly doubt that any of these women will be sorry to see a reduction in the number of men who are willing to buy something that they never really wanted to sell in the first place (not to mention how often they get abused by those "clients").

The second kind are prostitutes who were not kidnapped or driven to despair, and who do have other opportunities, but who choose prostitution because they want the extra money or like this work better than other similar-paying work. They may indeed complain about the criminalization of their clients, but I do not care. They should find another line of work.

You think people will stop objectifying if you ban it as a business model? Fuck no, they'll be out doing it to people who don't necessarily want it instead. It'll make shit worse.

Wait... is this one of those "men are animals who can't control themselves and so they need a way to blow off steam or else they'll start raping people left and right" type of self-serving arguments? You know, the kind that somehow manage to insult and degrade both men and women at the same time? Well, you're wrong and you know it. If strip clubs didn't exist, men who used to visit them would just say "oh well" and go on with our lives. People have plenty of self-control, thank you very much.

As for consensual cannibalism? Absolutely fine with it. Stop being so nosey. It's none of your business.

...right. Remember that part when I told you to hold your thought for a second, and we'll get to it? Well, the thought in question was your claim that my personal misgivings aren't universal and shouldn't be treated as such. That may be true, but you know what is far less universal? Your outrageous opinion that consensual cannibalism is just a-ok.

I don't know how many people approve of consensual cannibalism (I doubt anyone ever took a poll on it...), but I think it's a safe bet that it's a vanishingly small percentage of the world's population. You have just positioned yourself as part of an extremist individualist fringe. Congratulations.

This is the part where I tell you that your ultra-permissive attitude isn't universal (or anywhere close) and shouldn't be treated as such. Also, everything is my business, I intend to be very nosey, I know that many people agree with me, and I want to tell them all as loudly as I can that they shouldn't allow individualists like you to bully them into a corner or take over public discourse.

Let's be nosey. Let's interfere. Let's stand up for what is right. Degradation and sexualization are wrong, they should be fought in the realm of culture and using the weapon of the law, and those who carry out this struggle should be proud of their work.

This post is making me cringe. So many things are wrong with your post.

First off, illegalizing strip clubs won't keep the people who used to visit them from going back to them. Because strip clubs won't vanish. Illegal ones will spring up. Remember prohibition? Alcohol was banned, but it didn't vanish.

Oh, and the hypocrisy in here. You don't want us to take over the public discourse, but what are you doing? The exact same thing you don't want us to do. Oh, and if we had so much self-control, then why do you see the need to control society?

And prostitutes needing to find a new line of work? Please. Look at unemployment in the US. The best job she'll get without an education is at McDonalds or Walmart. If she went to prostitution to get money, then she mustn't be able to afford a college education.

And finally, no one wants a nosy person shoving their ideas down society's throats. Many people agreeing with you? I see many people going against you. So don't shove incorrect "facts" in our faces. You are locked inside a bubble of your own ideals, and apparently have a bunch of imaginary followers in it, too. That bubble makes you completely unaware of the rest of the world. So please, pop it. For everyone's sake.

[Cannot think of a name]

I haven't been following the thread closely, so maybe it was already provided, but in case someone asks-
the employee handbook

That first comment...

But at least we have evidence of the acceptance of sexual harassment in Hooter's environment. Thanks!

I guess if the question was "Does Hooters kidnap its waitstaff and make them work at gunpoint" that would be a revelation of sorts...

[Trotskylvania]

You're skipping a step, wherein you show that they cannot make another choice. Meaning, you need to show that somehow Hooters is the only place hiring ever, and also that no one would pick it over another job.

If you've lived in the real world, you know that when it comes to service industry employment, there is no waiting for something better. You're on the bottom end of the social ladder, and the social safety net has been designed to fail you. You take what you can get. Calling it a free choice is farcical. Implying that the employees must accept whatever degradation it comes from and therefore it isn't degrading, is nonsense on stilts.

[Gauthier]

What exactly is this chain? Will my eyes melt if I look it up?

Four words: nude, body-painted waitresses.

But If They Choose To Work There They're Not Being Degraded!

[Seriong]

You're skipping a step, wherein you show that they cannot make another choice. Meaning, you need to show that somehow Hooters is the only place hiring ever, and also that no one would pick it over another job.

If you've lived in the real world, you know that when it comes to service industry employment, there is no waiting for something better. You're on the bottom end of the social ladder, and the social safety net has been designed to fail you. You take what you can get. Calling it a free choice is farcical. Implying that the employees must accept whatever degradation it comes from and therefore it isn't degrading, is nonsense on stilts.

However, that's only even semi-relevant if the circumstance is such that the only restaurant hiring is hooters, because I didn't say to wait, I questioned why Hooters is the only place that hires employees.
Your argument essentially requires someone to believe two things:
1) The economy is such that jobs aren't hiring
2) That Hooters is hiring
I ask, in this terrible economy, why is Hooters hiring people?
You can argue that "Well, it's reasonable to believe that in some instance, they will be the only one hiring" (Which still presupposes two things: That no one actually wants the job, as the the strategy of Hooters doesn't work if the employee cannot at least pretend to be enthusiastic, and therefore the business would prioritize those that seem to actually want to work there above those that merely want to work. And that such would be at a great enough frequency to warrant us taking action)
Also, I never said anything about 'accepting degradation' at all.

[Ostroeuropa]

You're skipping a step, wherein you show that they cannot make another choice. Meaning, you need to show that somehow Hooters is the only place hiring ever, and also that no one would pick it over another job.

If you've lived in the real world, you know that when it comes to service industry employment, there is no waiting for something better. You're on the bottom end of the social ladder, and the social safety net has been designed to fail you. You take what you can get. Calling it a free choice is farcical. Implying that the employees must accept whatever degradation it comes from and therefore it isn't degrading, is nonsense on stilts.

This much is true. It can be rectified by fixing the social safety net and social mobility, which is a problem that needs fixing anyway. I don't consider this an argument against legal strip joints and such, but a very pressing and very convincing argument in favor of a strong welfare state.

[Geilinor]

If you've lived in the real world, you know that when it comes to service industry employment, there is no waiting for something better. You're on the bottom end of the social ladder, and the social safety net has been designed to fail you. You take what you can get. Calling it a free choice is farcical. Implying that the employees must accept whatever degradation it comes from and therefore it isn't degrading, is nonsense on stilts.

This much is true. It can be rectified by fixing the social safety net and social mobility, which is a problem that needs fixing anyway. I don't consider this an argument against legal strip joints and such, but a very pressing and very convincing argument in favor of a strong welfare state.

Great idea. If a stronger social safety net existed, they would have a real choice.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This much is true. It can be rectified by fixing the social safety net and social mobility, which is a problem that needs fixing anyway. I don't consider this an argument against legal strip joints and such, but a very pressing and very convincing argument in favor of a strong welfare state.

Great idea. If a stronger social safety net existed, they would have a real choice.

Practical Upshot: prostitution and escorts become completely legal, therefore being able to regulate them and only women/men who want to work in that line would have a real say in the matter.

[Upper America]

Four words: nude, body-painted waitresses.

But If They Choose To Work There They're Not Being Degraded!

Not necessarily. The customers could be making sexual remarks at them. Especially if they can see their nude breasts below the paint. That'll get way more attention than a d-cup girl wearing a tank top and short shorts. So, while the work place may not be degrading them, the customers sure could be.

[Constantinopolis]

Oh, so you want regression back to 1965 levels of tolerance for sexual freedom, but none of the implications that come with it? Because sexual freedom doesn't mandate racial or gender or sexual equity? Christ.

What implications? Are you claiming that this "sexual freedom", as you call it, is somehow connected to racial equality, or gender equality? As in, if we don't allow everyone to perform any kind of sexual act they please with anyone they please, we'll somehow end up with racial segregation again...? How does that work, exactly? And what's the connection with gender equality? Men and women can't have the same legal rights and duties, they can't get equal wages for equal work, they can't have the same opportunities and so on... unless we allow porn and prostitution...?

Does. Not. Compute.

And no, "sexual freedom", when it means women having sex for money (prostitution) or having sex on camera for money (porn) or licking a plate with their hands tied behind their back (like in that incident at Hooters) does not "mandate racial or gender or sexual equity" by any wild stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, it obviously promotes sexism, it obviously degrades women, and I'm still not sure if those of you who continue to deny this are genuinely blind to the obvious or somehow lying to yourselves or to me.

I first started posting in this thread because of how outrageous the opinions here seemed. To suggest that ''Hooters'' is not degrading to women is like suggesting that water is dry. I am still standing here in disbelief, wondering if I fell through a wormhole into some weird alternate reality or something. Please understand, I am being entirely honest with you when I say that your argument here looks to me like someone pointing to a white piece of paper and repeatedly telling me that it is black.

Neo-liberalism and liberalism aren't derived from the same core, liberalism in the pejorative American sense is all about caring for people and making equality and positive outcomes available to everyone where neo-liberalism is all about "economic freedom", a completely contradictory line.

Yes they are derived from the same source, as any historian of political thought can tell you. They are both derived from classical liberalism, with its emphasis on individual autonomy and its elevation of contracts and the law of exchange as the supposed foundation of all ethical human interaction. Social-liberalism (i.e. "liberalism in the American sense") and neo-liberalism both rest upon the view that the ideal society is one which maximizes individual choice, and the social good is simply whatever satisfies individual desires. They both deny the possibility that individual desires may be wrong or mistaken (social-liberalism denies that consensual acts between adults can ever be morally wrong, neo-liberalism denies that something you choose to buy might need to be regulated or banned because it's objectively bad for you). They both oppose the idea that some external entity should teach individuals what is good and what is evil (they don't want the state to legislate morality, in the bedroom or in the marketplace). And they both express their goals in terms of giving people more opportunities/choices.

You mean Muslim extremists stoning adulterers and Sub-Saharan stone-age homophobic genital mutilators? If you want to lump yourself in with them, go for it.

Oooh, another crispy straw man! Is it my birthday?

You know very well what I meant. Social norms in China, for example, or in South-East Asia, or in most of Latin America, or in the secular parts of the Muslim world, or in the nicer parts of India, or in some parts of Eastern Europe.

But good job on your racist slur against Africans, by the way. Keep showing your enlightened tolerance like that. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a banana reference while you were at it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You know very well what I meant. Social norms in China, for example, or in South-East Asia, or in most of Latin America, or in the secular parts of the Muslim world, or in the nicer parts of India, or in some parts of Eastern Europe.

But good job on your racist slur against Africans, by the way. Keep showing your enlightened tolerance like that. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a banana reference while you were at it.

As a Latin American myself I can guarantee you your assumption of us being puritan and good Catholics is bullshit.

[Ostroeuropa]

You know very well what I meant. Social norms in China, for example, or in South-East Asia, or in most of Latin America, or in the secular parts of the Muslim world, or in the nicer parts of India, or in some parts of Eastern Europe.

But good job on your racist slur against Africans, by the way. Keep showing your enlightened tolerance like that. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a banana reference while you were at it.

As a Latin American myself I can guarantee you your assumption of us being puritan is bullshit.

Beyond that, none of us care if they were.
I'm an ultra-liberal as he calls me.

I'm also a no-sex before monogamous relationship, sneering social conservative in regards to my own life.
And none of that is contradictory to me.
If you want to go have gangbangs and rent prostitutes, take drugs, do all kinds of crazy shit, i'm going to advise you against it. I'm going to tell you it's a bad idea. And then if you do it anyway, i'm going to say "Well, it's your decision." And then i'm going to sneer and think you're a social deviant.
But i'm not actually going to do shit about it, because it's none of my damn business. It's your right to be a social deviant, and i'll oppose anyone discriminating against you for it, even if it's not my personal thing and I view it with some level of distaste.
It is utterly irrelevant to me even if the vast majority don't want to engage in consensual cannibalism, or prostitution, or whatever. There are people who do.
His endless whining is the same justification used to ban homosexuality and such on the grounds of public decency and all that ridiculous shit. It's a complete fallacy used by nosey people who can't butt out of others lives and acknowledge that we should let adults control their own destinies. The empowerment of individuals to control their own lives is the major driving force of my ideology.
It's why i'm against strong government, but also against strong corporations.
I'm against social busybodies too. The only thing I care about is the empowerment of individuals. I look forward to the day when an individual human is liberated from all factors that seek to limit their own power to live their lives, including eachother (Unless they consent.)
We shall craft 7 billion little utopias.

[Distruzio]

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.

Then why are you opposed to women working in environments like Hooters?

[Upper America]

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.

Then why are you opposed to women working in environments like Hooters?

Look around. Did I ever say that? I said that the environments were hostile, with customers allowed to degrade these women and managers taking advantage of them. I did not say that I didn't want them to work where they wanted to.

[Distruzio]

If they choose it, is it degradation?

It's a hobson's choice, and thus provides the illusion of free choice.

You can degrade yourself, and accept a job that institutionalizes sexual harassment by the clientelle, or you can find your situation elsewhere and face destitution.

So... it's the illusion of choice to choose from the options available in a given society to increase one's lot in life if someone else, with no investment in that one's life, finds it less than opportune? Forgive me if that makes little sense, Trots. Perhaps the women employed by Hooters, are not educated enough to justify their movement into a less vulgar occupation at the moment? The reality is that these women, regardless of the opportunities elsewhere, have chosen to take a paycheck for working in the environment Hooters provides. I rather doubt that it's degradation - unless you consider making the best with what you have to be, at all times, hobson's worthy?