Hooters of the shoe-shine world--Shine Shoes At New Wall Street Shop

[KoKo]

Scantily-Clad Women Shine Shoes At New Wall Street Shop
Irene Plagianos, DNAinfo.com

Like the Hooters of the shoe-shine world, Star Shine NYC, at 40 New St., employs beautiful, young, scantily clad women to offer a professional service — with a view.






Despite the little black shorts and tight tank tops sported by all the female employees, White said the store, which features large leather chairs and flat-screen TVs, is meant to have a classy atmosphere. White also hopes to start serving beer and wine in the store in the next couple of months.

“All the young ladies have undergone professional training — this is an upscale place,” White said. “Many of the women are students or just out of college. Even my sister, a college student, is working there.”

The store's location, on a short, narrow street between Exchange Place and Beaver Street, doesn’t get lots of foot traffic, but White said word of mouth, along with the women passing out fliers on Wall Street in their uniforms, has been drumming up business.

On Wednesday morning, one man, already a repeat customer, was getting his black shoes polished by 19-year-old Kaya Santiago, a Westchester Community College student, in the otherwise empty shop.

“They do a good job,” said the Wall Streeter, who asked his name not be used because his boss didn’t know he was taking an early-morning break. “And yes, it helps that they are very pretty — but the prices are a little high if you don’t get the discount.”

Read more: http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130411/financial-district/scantily-clad-ladies-spice-up-shoe-shines-at-new-financial-district-shop#ixzz2QHLqEE5n

[Safetykitten]

1. I would think they would want them to wear their hair back. Just sayin'.

[WinkyDink]

215. Not what the men want. :-)

[MattBaggins]

2. And people say Feminists are outdated and no longer needed.

Those men are scumbags.

[Skittles]

7. you cannot relieve the gals of any responsibility

I would never have done that kind of degrading work

[redqueen]

27. Degrading?

But what about all these kinds of messages?

[Skittles]

36. I would not do that either

[redqueen]

37. I would not have thought so... my point is that girls are raised to see this

as being perfectly reasonable and not degrading at all.

They get messages telling them that to do this job, and expect to be taken seriously, is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

[Skittles]

77. I never said otherwise

[MattBaggins]

98. I will not criticize the women

I will freely call the men pigs though.

[The Straight Story]

17. Some muslim women like to wear scarves and such

And we have said they were free to make such a choice and should not be judged.

How is this different?

[Starry Messenger]

40. Um, because they don't have to do it to get paid?

Jesus.

[The Straight Story]

43. And these ladies had no other choices?

Like fast food, go to college for computers, etc?

Ever occur to you they are making choices they want to make?

[Bucky]

49. Phil Donahue once asked Gloria Steinem about the stereotype feminists hate sex.

And Steinem replied, "Well, there's that plus the other stereotype that we can't get enough of it."

I find the sexual power dynamics of these shoe shine stands degrading and offensive. Therefor I won't ever patronize them and I'll tell my daughter and my female students, if the subject ever comes us, what I think of them.

What I won't due is give a woman who works there a lecture on what a humiliation her job is. She's made her choice already and I have no business running her down for it.

[Starry Messenger]

72. And that has exactly what to do with head scarves?

Oh right, nothing.

[MattBaggins]

99. Can men apply for this job? Elderly women? Overweight women?

I have condemned the men. I have no respect for THE MEN who go to hooters, strip bars, lingerie coffee shops or this type of establishment.

I have heard many a time at my old job "thank God for bad fathers" as men were talking about their weekly trip to the strip bar. I have no respect for those kind of men.

[The Straight Story]

100. I don't find it appealing myself and get what folks are saying

But, as noted, earlier we have seen where people protested against Islamic oppression only to be told that women in that religion make their own choices and we should not be condemning for such choices.

There are tons of different job types out there. These women are using their looks to make more money than they might elsewhere because they choose to do so.

They are making money of 'talents', if you will, that they have and others don't.

[MattBaggins]

103. Wrong

Talent my ass. Using looks as a basis for hiring should be illegal.

[The Straight Story]

112. Yeah, see how well that goes over

from movies to strippers (male and female). Would anyone in their right mind hire me to be a male stripper?

Some people make money off of their looks. Such is life as it has been since the dawn of time.

Why do folks always have such a problem with people who can and do?

I can't sing either. I would not expect a band to hire me to be a lead singer just to be 'fair'. Why the obsession over people who have physical beauty and parlay that if they so choose into a profession?

People use what they have been given to get what they want - why is that a surprise or bad?

[MattBaggins]

114. Hiring based on looks should be illegal

[The Straight Story]

118. For movies, magazines, ads, etc?

How would you control that?

Should I sue GQ because I am not on the cover of it?

What do you have against people who are 'good looking' and use those looks to better their place in life?

It is not always fair or morally right I guess - but you cannot legislate people and how they were born.

[MattBaggins]

121. Hiring based on looks should be illegal

That is all

[The Straight Story]

130. Ok....

If everyone was rich I doubt they would do any of the jobs they do now.

While trying to get to sleep some nights ago I watched one of the few shows on TV I love and hate to miss, River Monsters with Jeremy Wade.

I didn't catch the whole show (was channel surfing when I got to it) and he was in a small African (I do believe) village. And by small I mean like a handful of people lived there.

It seemed, from what I saw of the show (intermingled with a lot of history books from the 1800's I have read - travel journals and the like) that when it came to the economics of the village all were pretty much equal. People were so dependent on each other that all jobs were important to the survival of the community.

Each person was as important as the next to the survival of the whole.

In our society that ceases to be true as the numbers increase and we can produce more with less people. Wealth (the means to survive) gets concentrated into the hands of the few so the many find themselves doing what they need to in order to best survive and thrive.

Here it is not about just survival but getting more and more. We want as much as if not more than we need. And to fulfill those things we need/desire we use whatever means we have.

For some it is their looks. Others their minds. Others their physical abilities. For some their lack of fear (I won't climb a radio tower to replace a light).

We use what we have to get what we need/want and that genie is not going back into the bottle anytime soon. These women are taking advantage of something they have to get what they want.

And who doesn't do that? And you want to make their ability to do so illegal?

[MattBaggins]

131. You're still not getting it

HIRING based on looks should be illegal

HIRING

[Shivering Jemmy]

183. In cases where appearance isn't the job, yes.

I don't know what other basis models could be hired on. It's what the industry is. We could outlaw modeling. Don't think that's a viable solution. Seems too difficult to implement. Like prohibition.

[MattBaggins]

184. Incorrect

The exemptions are based on being reasonably necessary for the job.

Women modelling women's clothes is reasonable. Breasts of a certain size or proportion is not reasonable to shine shoes. Gender at all is not a reasonable qualification for shoe shining.

Sex as a qualification is used in a NARROW CONTEXT. Hiring or assigning women or men as needed in a nursing home for example.

[Shivering Jemmy]

210. Apparently not incorrect

Because I don't see a difference in our positions.

[MattBaggins]

214. Oh I see we are in agreement.

I misread your post.

[juajen]

238. I can't begin to tell you the number of jobs I got because I was

young and pretty. So, add secretaries, executive assistants, etc, You name it. It's amazing how many jobs are bestowed because of the looks of the candidate, and this includes women and men.

[Orrex]

135. Why?

You've repeated the point several times, but you haven't said why, exactly, it should be illegal to use looks as a basis for hiring.

[MattBaggins]

146. Really?

It is 2013 and I need to explain that?

[Orrex]

153. Why not?

I am familiar with the general thinking on the subject, but since you've mentioned it here repeatedly but haven't explained your thinking despite being asked several times, I'm curious to learn your reasoning.

You have declared that hiring based on looks should be illegal. You have been asked why this should be the case, and you haven't answered.

I'm simply asking for you to articulate your thinking.

[MattBaggins]

162. I have some business ideas

Let's re-open Sambo style restaurants complete with black only staff dressed up like good old fashioned minstrels. As long as the workers have a talent for playing the old Jim Crow Minstrel who am I to criticize? Hell a business has the right to only hire based on skin color. Oh wait no they do not.

Let's create a theme park bringing back the old fashioned court jester or fool. We will only hire people with actual disabilities or people who in the old days would be called half-wits. Let's just make sure they go to a local community college at night. That's the best CYA smoke screen known to man.

How about some banks where we only hire Jews and have them dress up as orthodox Jews complete with payotes. The bank theme could be "Hey Jews are good with money".

It's down right pathetic that no one on DU would defend any of the above ideas but businesses that demean women for entertainment purposes is a Libertarian wet dream and roundly applauded. Only for women though.

Any one of these businesses would be rightly criticized and their customers ridiculed. These shoe shine places should be criticized and the customers ridiculed as well. They should also be shutdown for violating equal employment laws. Hiring outside of entertainment should be based solely on skill sets and talents. Before I get a silly counter argument, looks are not a talent and shoe shining is not entertainment and thinking so is disgusting.

Hooters should be hauled into court and fined for every person who is denied a job because they are either old, overweight or male. So should all the other businesses springing up that only hire young women. Hiring discrimination outside of true entertainment or artistic venues is illegal for very good reasons.

[seabeyond]

163. excellent post. thank you mattbaggins. nt

[Orrex]

166. "Hiring discrimination outside of true entertainment or artistic venues is illegal"

Why are those venues exempted? Please answer specifically.


If a person with nightmarishly bad teeth but excellent skills as a receptionist applies to work the front desk at a cosmetic dentistry office, must that person be hired in preference to someone else with magnificent teeth and slightly less excellent skills as a receptionist? Why or why not?

Or what if I'm photographing a big magazine ad for sandals? Must the model with open sores and five ingrown and seeping toenails be considered on equal footing, so to speak, as the applicant with the scrupulously well-kept foot? Why or why not?

[MattBaggins]

169. Explain specifically why 1+1 equals 2

Why do I have to waste my time?

The entertainment industry is at least exercising free speech. When making a movie it would make sense that you hire a woman to play a woman or to create the character you wish to have portrayed. That said it is still stomach turning that we still have the sex sells mentality. We should be pushing for a world where Camryn Manheim gets to play Galadriel and hopefully one day we will be there. The last thing we need to be doing is spreading the disgusting behavior of "beauty" uber alles into even more of our society. We need to put that demon back into the bottle and bury it in the deepest part of the ocean. It is with remorse that we exempt the Entertainment industries. Service industries should not be allowed to spread the filth any further.

As for your strange teeth scenario... It's a cosmetic dentistry office... Hire the more SKILLED individual and offer them, Oh I do know, healthcare and free dental service?

[Orrex]

172. You're not actually answering the question

And if you think that you're wasting your time, then perhaps the issue isn't as simple or as straightforward as you'd like it to be.

As for your strange teeth scenario... It's a cosmetic dentistry office... Hire the more SKILLED individual and offer them, Oh I do know, healthcare and free dental service?

What if that person declines the service and opts instead to sit at the desk with a mouthful of bad teeth?

You're arguing that a business has no right to choose how it represents itself to its customers, and you're pretending that one's appearance never has any bearing on one's ability to perform a job outside of the arbitrarily exempted entertainment industry. Why should that be the case? Would you eat at (i.e., hire the services of) a restaurant in which the waitstaff and cooks all look filthy, or would you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they probably maintain strict standards of hygiene re: food handling?


You still haven't stated why it should be illegal to consider an applicant's appearance when hiring.

[MattBaggins]

175. There is a far cry from cleanliness and good hygiene

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)

to only hiring girls with large breasts.

You have the right to set standards of cleanliness and hygiene for ALL EMPLOYEES. You do not have the right to set a standard that excludes whole swaths of society and only allows one subset employment opportunities.

Of a course a business has limitations on how represents itself. There are plenty of perfectly fine laws that regulate this. Would you really suggest that a business be allowed to only hire blacks and force them to wear Jim Crow Minstrel outfits if that is what they want to provide to their customers? Should a business be allowed to only hire white men? Other than radical crazy fans of Rand Paul I don't know of many people that support legalized discrimination in the work place.

[Orrex]

180. Nope, try again

There is a far cry from cleanliness and good hygiene to only hiring girls with large breasts.

My example stipulated that the restaurant's employees appear to be filthy, and you imply that your choice to hire/not hire the services of that restaurant would indeed be based on your assessment of their appearance. Now we're getting somewhere, in that you admit that appearance does have a role to play in hiring.

However, you still didn't answer the question about the dental receptionist with bad teeth who refuses treatment for them.

Again, you're dictating how a business should be allowed to represent itself to its customers

Do you argue that there is no bona fide occupational qualifications based on appearance? If so, then that puts you at odds with US code and legal rulings.

Of a course a business has limitations on how represents itself. There are plenty of perfectly fine laws that regulate this. Would you really suggest that a business be allowed to only hire blacks and force them to wear Jim Crow Minstrel outfits if that is what they want to provide to their customers? Should a business be allowed to only hire white men?

Nope. I suggest none of these things. Why do you ask?

If you're about to attempt some equivalency between "girls (sic) with large breasts" and "Jim Crow Minstrels," then I should probably point this out:

While religion, sex, or national origin may be considered a bona fide occupational qualification in narrow contexts, race can never be a BFOQ.

(from the same link as above)

[MattBaggins]

181. Nope not going to try again

I am right and I don't care about your silly teeth example.

Again, you're dictating how a business should be allowed to represent itself to its customers

And I have no problem with that.

MAY be considered a bona fide occupational qualification in NARROW CONTEXTS

[Orrex]

187. In other words, you can't defend your point.

I am right and I don't care about your silly teeth example.

It's silly because you can't answer it? Okay.

MAY be considered a bona fide occupational qualification in NARROW CONTEXTS

And sex appeal is, in certain jobs, exactly that kind of narrow context. An attractive male spokesmodel is one example, and I expect that a woman shining shoes in the OP's article would be another.

Just so we're clear, are you saying that sex appeal is never a BFOQ?

You're fine with dictating how businesses must represent themselves to their customers, but you balk when other people or when the businesses themselves try to make similar determinations. Well done--that's mighty patriarchal of you.

I notice also that you omit or ignore those points that you can't refute or answer. Can't say that I'm surprised.

[MattBaggins]

188. I can defend my post and did so

It is silly because it's silly.

Sex appeal is not required in that type of business. If businesses want to play the the adult entertainment route then they need to regulated as such. Children are not allowed into strip clubs, bars or Playboy ranches. If Hooters or these other types of businesses want to justify discrimination, based on an adult entertainment claim, than they should not allow children into them.

Again I detest Libertarianism and make no apologizes for that. I think the NARROW part of allowing adult entertainment discrimination should be kept as NARROW as possible. Call me crazy but I believe discrimination should be kept to the bare minimum possible. People work tooth and nail to fight eating disorders and the other mental issues foisted on young teens by a stupid sex sells ideal in society. I choose to resist applauding assholes who run businesses based on the very crap we are trying to fight. The creep of sexism and objectification of women and the discrimination against people who do not fit into these molds should be prevented as much as possible.

Above all the men who go to such places are pigs and should be called as such.

[Orrex]

192. Calling it silly isn't the same as answering it

And your refusal to answer a straightforward question suggests more and more strongly either that you don't have an answer or that your answer is inconsistent with what you've been arguing so far.

I don't believe that Hooters, for instance, has made any sort of "adult entertainment claim." Instead, they have argued that their servers contribute to a particular atmosphere and brand distinctiveness. I'm not sure why you automatically need to lump sexuality in with adult entertainment, but perhaps that's another discussion.

I've never been to a Hooters, so I defer to your knowledge of what goes on there. If it's adult entertainment along the lines of a strip club, then I guess you might be right. Is there nudity at a Hooters? Lap dancing?

Or is it simply a number of tightly-clad but fully dressed waitresses serving overpriced and fair-to-average food?

Above all the men who go to such places are pigs and should be called as such.

What about women who go to strip clubs? What should they be called? I want to make sure that I get this right.

I think the NARROW part of allowing adult entertainment discrimination should be kept as NARROW as possible.

In your view, anything outside of the adult entertainment industry should be forbidden to factor appearance into its hiring? Good luck with that. So if Dr. Shaquille O'Neal gives the best reading for the lead character in the next Harry Potter movie, then he should get it because appearance is never relevant and can't be a factor. Got it.


A person's appearance has factored heavily into that person's acceptance since long before recorded history, and it's very likely to continue to do so long after those women have moved on from their shoe-shining gigs. If you disagree, then point me to that enlightened period of history in which appearance was held to be entirely irrelevant.

[MattBaggins]

193. You're being absurd and you know it

It's discrimination plain and simple. It is not reasonable to claim that breasts are part of the job qualifications to either shine shoes or to server food and they should be denied the right to do so. The next middle aged black man that applies for a server position at Hooters and is denied should receive a nice fat multi million dollar settlement.

No Shaque should not be given the slot of Harry Potter. That would fit in the REASONABLE exclusion case. Claiming that women with large breasts are needed to serve food is not REASONABLE.

I have no respect for anyone that goes to strip clubs male or female so call them what ever you want.

A person's appearance has factored heavily into that person's acceptance since long before recorded history

ad antiquitam? One of the reasons I consider myself a Democrat and not a Republican is that I don't believe we have to continue down stupid paths just because "it's how it's done".

[Orrex]

199. No, I'm simply trying to identify the boundaries that you will not

Again, you have omitted the questions that you can't answer, and you'll probably claim next that they're silly or absurd or whatever.
You have simply refused to acknowledge reasonable examples of jobs in which appearance is a legitimate factor (dental receptionist, shoe model, etc.). Instead, you've stuck your fingers in your ears and merely repeated "Are not! Are not!"

The next middle aged black man that applies for a server position at Hooters and is denied should receive a nice fat multi million dollar settlement.

Not likely, or else that kind of thing would be happening 50 times a day.
A little reading on Wiki shows that Hooters has already gone down that road and has come through it in a stronger position than they were before. Specifically, they secured the right to continue to hire waitresses of a certain aesthetic, because these employees constitute part of the brand's distinctiveness. However, bartenders and the like must be hired without regard to sex.

ad antiquitam? One of the reasons I consider myself a Democrat and not a Republican is that I don't believe we have to continue down stupid paths just because "it's how it's done".

Nor am I arguing for that fallacy, though you seem to want to suggest that I should call myself Republican.

It is undeniable that we have used appearance as a factor in our decision-making for thousands upon thousands of years. That fact is not, in itself, justification for continuing the practice simply for tradition's sake; it's an indication that the practice has a great deal of momentum behind it.

Further, if appearance-favoritism is hard-wired into us (and it may be), then it's going take more than a little fuming on an anonymous internet forum to change it. Good luck with that, as I said.

No Shaque should not be given the slot of Harry Potter. That would fit in the REASONABLE exclusion case. Claiming that women with large breasts are needed to serve food is not REASONABLE.

Now you're simply equivocating. No one here has claimed that breasts, large or otherwise, are needed to serve food. Instead, Hooters hires women to maintain a certain brand distinctiveness, to which end the serving of food is actually secondary. This, too, is apparent from a brief glance at Wiki.

I would be interested to read what exactly you consider to be a "reasonable" exclusion in this context.

[MattBaggins]

202. Those cases were badly decided

Hooters should lose every single one of them. The laws on discrimination should be tightened even more and broadened to include more groups.

[Orrex]

205. Well, you can see how this will go, can't you?

If your utopia comes to pass, and only the entertainment industry is exempted your egalitarian ideal (for reasons that you won't or can't articulate), then Hooters would immediately declare itself an entertainment facility, and your noble crusade would be right back where it started.

Likewise, these shoeshine facilities would declare that their female employees are entertainers, performance artists who also shine shoes.

Worse, workers reclassified in this way will likely be considered independent contractors; they'll lose any benefits that they might otherwise receive, and they'll be responsible for 100% of their own tax reporting.

[MattBaggins]

206. They could TRY to declare themselves entertainment

and they could easily be denied. It is also completely fair to tax such businesses at a higher rate for being allowed to skirt discrimination laws.

They do not have to be reclassified as contractors. That is another lax system of laws that needs serious fixing.

[Orrex]

207. Lots of windmills in your posts

We've more or less gotten down to brass tacks here.

You're arguing in favor of an imaginary ideal that has never existed and which is inconsistent with current laws that you find to need "serious fixing." In addition, you still haven't explained why the entertainment industry enjoys latitude that other indusries MUST NOT EVER!!!!!!!!!!!1!

[MattBaggins]

212. I have explained it well enough

again this is not Libertarian Underground and I have no desire to waste anymore time arguing Libertarian points.

If you can not find the meaning of reasonable for someone making a movie versus people serving food or shining shoes then I simply can not help you. Your view of the world and mine are simply to vastly different. I can not stand discrimination and you seem to applaud it.

[Orrex]

221. I'm sure that you believe that

So, in your view, making a movie entitles one to hire based on appearance. Fair enough.

What other forms of entertainment qualify? And why or why not?

You have declared that, for the entertainment industry, it's a matter of free speech. Why is it not also free speech for other industries? Why does entertainment get to enjoy this special privilege, but other industries must not?

I don't "applaud" discrimination, nor am I a Libertarian, so that's two baseless accusations that you've made. Instead, I'm asking you to identify where you draw distinctions between acceptable appearance-based hiring and unacceptable appearance-based hiring.


I'm sure that you'll go to sleep tonight thinking that you've proven your point, and if you want to believe that then I say more power to you.

[MattBaggins]

225. And you believe you have made a point so more power to you as well.

The allowing of such leeway for entertainment and not other industries is because of the overall deleterious effect on society by doing so and the fact that manufacturing and service industries are not primarily producing either art or speech. I have said this repeatedly but the exceptions for allowed discrimination should be NARROW as the law states to provide fairness in employment.

We had many years of no worker rights and legal discrimination and we do not need to go back down that road.

[seabeyond]

102. i have fallen in love with you. nt

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

56. I worked in a building in which "these" men got their shoes shined by black men...

...made me have a similar reaction. I wouldn't have noticed if the shoe shiners were white.

I guess, in the end, when things don't look or feel right, that should raise an internal flag: There's either something wrong with it or me.

[seabeyond]

62. yup. i feel the same. nt

[limpyhobbler]

81. When I saw this right away I thought about the history of white guys getting their shoes shined by

black guys. It really symbolizes the power relationship.

[seabeyond]

82. exactly. thank you. nt

[Squinch]

147. I did too. And in the old days, where the grown men "shoe-shine boys" were a common sight,

I always thought that that power relationship you refer to told me all I needed to know about the men who were getting their shoes shined.

The ones doing the shining did it because they had to make a living, and this was available.

The ones getting the shines were, it always seemed to me, so needy of a feeling of dominance, so childish in their need to have a "king of the hill" moment, that they were willing to sit on those thrones in public places and make a display of it.

We did have a guy in our building who went from office to office shining shoes. We took our shoes off, invited him to sit in our guest chairs while he shined the shoes, and treated him like a person. He was a member of the office community.

That was someone doing a job for remuneration. This "sit at my feet and serve me" nonsense is something else.

[Bay Boy]

156. Just an observation...

...don't the customers have to sit a throne-like chair in order to do this? Not unlike a barber shop.

[Squinch]

194. Why do they? Are the shoes crazy glued to their feet? And a shoe without a foot in it

is much easier to shine than one with a foot in it. So how did this "throned man with servant at his feet" arise?

And barbers don't sit at the feet of the customer.

[Bay Boy]

195. LOL well barbers are working on their heads

not their feet.

[grahamhgreen]

3. Tis is the future they are offering our daughters - flirtstitution and worse.

[olddots]

4. I'd like to shine those guy's shoes with a sledge hammer .

yeah but dots people need jobs ..........bla bla

[Bucky]

50. Um, so you'd fight dehumanization with dehumanization?

Quick gut check: how would you feel if the women were wearing burkas?

[NoPasaran]

139. "I'd like to shine those guy's shoes with a sledge hammer ."

I hope you're not expecting to make much in tips.

[MattBaggins]

177. She could make a fortune in tips

10 from every customer.

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. the pic is kind of degrading

[Cleita]

13. Yet, many women, especially single moms will do it because

they will make good tips no doubt. Yeah, too bad this is what it takes to get women not only equal pay but a living wage. In a perverse way I don't mind relieving what looks like Wall Street bankers of some of their money.

[Liberal_in_LA]

16. They'll have to wear low cut blouse and flirt to make good tips. degrading.

[Skittles]

22. and then they'll complain about not being taken seriously

[MattBaggins]

105. And to think some men even here on DU

refer to that as "natural talents"

[Cleita]

25. Yet that has been the way since I remember.

The women who wore skimpy outfits back in the forties and fifties as cocktail waitresses and cigarette girls, the playboy bunnies and any number of jobs involving alcohol where women had to shake their booties and boobs at the men. It was the only way for a woman to make a living wage back then. I worked with a woman who had been a Las Vegas showgirl. She had four children and when the time came when they were required to go topless, she refused, because she didn't want her kids to have to say mom was a topless showgirl. However, she didn't make enough money as a secretary to feed and support them and soon went back to being a showgirl and topless at that.

[Nay]

32. When the Soviet Union collapsed, female physicists and other highly-educated women

had to do such degrading stuff, up to and including prostitution. Welcome to the new patriarchy. It's just like the old one.

[limpyhobbler]

84. I heard a story about woman in New York who graduated with a PhD and

she owes so much student loans to banks that she works as a call girl for wall street bankers to help pay off her student loans.

[Riftaxe]

60. Equal Pay?

I suspect they are making quite a bit more then a group of fat old men who decided to form a company and shine shoes.

[Cleita]

61. Well, they are making more than cashiering at Wal-Mart, I would assume. n/t

[seabeyond]

6. well. that is just disgusting. thank you so much for sharing, nt

[KoKo]

58. I hope you weren't snarking at me. It's a reality of

our "Entrepreneurial Society." It's what Wall Street says we should all be doing ...because our country has DEBT.

I didn't know what to make of it except that People Have to Make a Living...any way they can.

This is a new example of how folks make a living in our society these days. Black Shoe Shine Boys in the 30's and now Hooter Shoe Shine Gals in the 2013's.

What do YOU make of that? I frankly think it's "People Have to Do What They Have to Do to Pay Their Bills." If they don't like the work..find something else. After all we have a Second Term Elected Dem President. They don't HAVE TO DO THIS...if they Don't want to... Correct?

[seabeyond]

66. it is disgustingly demeaning as the men snark, getting their shoes done to objectify the gals

so they can eat, to arrgoantly walk into an office and have to deal with women in a professional manner.

not directed at you.

just disgusted with any man that would be so creepy to use the girls, and disappointed in the girls.

[KoKo]

74. Thanks for clarifying...your post to me seemed to say I was posting

something so vile and loath that you thought I agreed with it.

I don't know what to think of it but what I replied to you. THIS...is our NEW AMERICAN SOCIETY.

I HATE IT...but, it's the reality. FOLKS GOTTA DO...WHAT THEY GOTTA DO. We have elected for a Second Term a President who believes in "Jerking yourself UP by your Bootstraps."

I know most today don't know what BootStraps are...it's sort of from the days when Farmers and others used to pull those tabs and Jerk the Boots on..to GET OUT THERE AND DO WHAT THEY HAD TO DO..

That's my "growing up impression" of what the term meant. Probably WIKI would give the whole scoop on that one...

[seabeyond]

80. no. they do not gotta do. you wouldnt do. i wouldnt do. nt

[KoKo]

83. It would be a Last Resort for Me...but Today's Females are More Diversified

in their opinions. So...if they don't mind...no one is making them do it...but if they can't pay their bills and find this a way to do it ...then they gotta do what they gotta do. They don't have to "hook up" with the Wall Street Banker Afterwards. They can collect their money and go home and Study or whatever else they like to do with their lives.

It's a "New THing!" I wouldn't do it nor want my daughter to...but, as I said...I've had friends who would find this Fun and a Lark..

[seabeyond]

85. that is not the whole story, as i have said in my posts. yes, they make their choice

at the expense of all women.

[KoKo]

87. I edited my post..don't know if you caught that..will wait to see.

[seabeyond]

89. and again, even with the edit, yes. there would be women that think it fun.

at the detriment of all women. these assholes will now go into an office with women that use their brains, not their body. but in all their egocentric self, they will see those women as mere body. no more than the women that shine their shoes.

[KoKo]

96. Young Women Today are in Competitive Sports, Military, Sailing around the World

they are "In with the Guys" intimately all the time. They don't see their Sexuality as Different from Males.

The question is imho?...what ABOUT those FEMALES who are NON-Agressive...who choose to be "Out there Competing with the GUYS" ...but don't want to get into the SEXUAL STUFF. It's FUN for SOME Women...but to others it's DEGRADING and DEMEANING of WHO THEY ARE.

BUT...if you want to PLAY BIG TIME...WITH THE GUYS....You GOTTA BEND to TALK, PLAY ROUGH and TUSSELL..

That's the question that I HAVE....and see the conflicts that I have?

But the YOUNGER COMING UP...really don't have a PROBLEM with Competition with Men because they play sports with them...they go into Military with Them...and they are EQUAL WITH THEM.

BUT...ARE THEY?

[seabeyond]

104. i competed against men for a life time. that is an equalizer. what these women are doing is shiftin

the equalizer. that simple. makes it that much harder for all women. ya, they will preserver. cause it is what women have to do. but will not make it any easier for them.

[seabeyond]

93. lets not be fooled. or play otherwise. the women are shining shoes because of the racial signifcance

to shining the moneyed white man shoes.

[KoKo]

97. seabeyond...there is NO ONE making them do that...like a SlaveMaster..

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:12 AM - Edit history (1)

or something, though. They are the Entrepreneurs...doing what Wall Street Says we Need to do to Combat the Deficit...(the Deficit that They Created with their Criminality that neither Obama nor Eric Holder thought was WORTH PROSECUTING!"

Sorry to shout with the caps...too tired to do the "Bold Thing" and fingers are tired...

[KoKo]

106. You didn't answer my "Young Women Today" post...

Please read and reply about how young Women Today want to be included in a Male Society...

BUT...what are the ramifications and consequences. If they are READY FOR IT...then why Trash Them?

It's the ones who find Military the Last Resort for Employment that I worry about...and those who pay for College Debt by doing things that might seem borderline...co-option for their Sexuality ..is what I worry about.

Let the Competitive Females COMPETE...but those who are FORCED TO COMPETE... Should they need "OTHER OUTLETS"...I think that's what I'm asking. But, I'm tired. and probably not putting this out there well enough to get my point across...so I'll leave this off.

[Rex]

65. Ugly truths need to be exposed imo.

NO matter how repugnant the picture or article may be. Class warfare and sexism all in one article/pic.

[seabeyond]

67. as i have said about 3 times today. it hits hard when a girl kills herself because of raging male

hormones. this picture feeds that very situation.

ya. pissed.

sister of outraged whatever. ok.

again. not about you, or koko

[Rex]

70. I know which thread you are talking about.

That is something I thought about too when I saw this thread or namely the picture. Sometimes I feel like we are getting nowhere when I read articles and see pictures like that.

Of course someone will come in here eventually and lecture us, 'at least they are not selling their bodies for sex'. Ya maybe not but they are selling their bodies. Which is sad to me, but not that all important to many in the grand scheme of things. To many it means nothing at all.

[limpyhobbler]

86. Class warfare and sexism all in one pic...

Exactly right. To be sure, none of these ladies are wealthy people.

[Rex]

136. The owner just needs to come clean and admit

he knew he could make money from conflict and power and obvious sexism. If that is what he means by 'class'. I am curious.

[deutsey]

8. See? Wall Street = job creators....

[Cleita]

9. Lemme see. Little shorts; a little scanty tank top; beer and wine served too.

Just how classy is that?

[Skittles]

11. SCHEDULING DEVILGAL FOR ASS KICKING

*EGREGIOUS*

[Cleita]

14. That costs extra. n/t

[Nay]

33. That's the spit-shine, and it's pretty expensive. nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. I cannot express what feelings that picture --

raises in me. Wrong on SO many levels.

[zappaman]

15. How so tragic for the women to legally and legitimately earn money this way.

"As for the women, the two working Wednesday said they’ve enjoyed their shoe-shine jobs so far.

“It’s actually fun,” Santiago said. “Everyone’s been nice, and it's something to do while I'm in school.
"And the tips can be good, usually."

[RadiationTherapy]

18. Oh, you are SO cool and contrarian on these matters!

So cool! So contrarian!! hahahahahahaha

[zappaman]

20. Thanks!

I don't see it as cool as much ado about nothing though.

[RadiationTherapy]

23. You're welcome; I tried to use the adjectives it seemed you were seeking the most.

And it is "cool"...people look at this scenario and are all, like, "Oh no!!" and you are all, like, "What's the bigs??" And then people are all like, "but that sucks and our economy!!" and stuff and you are all like, "It's legal! They chose it!" So contrarian!

[zappaman]

24. And you're all like "hey, I just want to post something about you instead of the OP"

And I'm all like "Ok, but you look silly".
And you're all like "I don't care and will double down on my silliness!"

Cool.

[RadiationTherapy]

26. I love giving attention where it is most sought.

In this thread, that was right here.

[zappaman]

28. Yes, god forbid someone have a different opinion.

I guess that just means they want attention?

[RadiationTherapy]

29. What different opinion? Yours seems to be the same opinion as the wall street guys getting shined.

[redqueen]

47. Nononono, you've got it all wrong...

It's only Jesus freaks and fundie conservatives who object to this stuff.

Those are liberal, progressive dudes there, supporting working women!

The people objecting here? All either hardcore religious types and conservatives, all of them.

[MattBaggins]

108. We are all prudes

PRUDES I TELL YOU

[Squinch]

88. .

[HughBeaumont]

19. Adjectives fail me.

The shine recipients need to be CHOPPED.

[Rex]

21. I see the term 'class' means something different

to the Corporate Predator rank then it does to me. For me class means you have impeccable mannerisms...for them class means a social stratification system meant to keep people separated in terms of income.

What this picture is of, is a group of men that are for a caste system and the working class that has to endure the obvious sexism of conflict and power.

[Fawke Em]

30. THIS.

It's about class sexism.

BTW, are there any scantily-dressed men performing the same act for the women and gay males on Wall Street? No? The hell you say!

The fact that there isn't proves the sexism. The pictures shows the class warfare.

[geek tragedy]

31. I really wish there were a non-gendered word in the

English language that captured the meaning of "douchebag" because it's darn near impossible to accurately describe the typical 25-35 year old on Wall Street without it.

[L0oniX]

34. Hopefully there will be guards to protect from attacks by...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022661681

[olddots]

35. this picture boils my blood as much as pictures of cops clubbing civil rights demonstrators in the

50s & 60s the same smirking faces that haunt all good humans ..


the days of the shoe shine stand are fucking over ----if these little tapeworms want their tassel loafers all shiny they can learn how to do something productive with their soft little hands.

I am over reacting ? NO!

[BlueStreak]

38. Enough of this "degradation" indignation.

I wonder if the people who are so offended by this even understand that, well basically forever, this work was expected to be performed by black "Shoe Shine Boys".

Where was the indignation about that? Frankly I find this "one issue indignation" to be tiresome. If this job is degrading, then we should give all the victims the same consideration. It didn't become degrading once attractive young women decided to do it. And one might just consider the possibility that some of the practitioners actually enjoy the job and would prefer that to sitting at a desk all day pushing paper around or cleaning people's teeth.

Believe it or not, I actually know a few women who enjoy attention -- even seek it out, if you can believe that.

[Rex]

39. 'shoe shine boys'

comes from the fact that historically it was a young boy that was trying to make money to help the family. I don't know if the kids felt degraded, probably happy to help support their family and have enough left over for a loaf of bread.

[BlueStreak]

44. I don't know if black kids felt degraded doing that. And nobody here knows if the women

feel degraded. If they do, then perhaps they should take up a different occupation.

But I would note that the term "shoe shine boy" remained even when it became more common for this job to be performed by black men. I don't know if they felt the job was degrading, but referring to them as "boys" sure as hell was -- still is.

[BlueStreak]

46. Speaking of degradation, a friend told me a bit of "reality from the hood" last evening

It was only about 40 years ago that a black police officer could not actually make an arrest of a white person in my city. The protocol was that they could detain a white person, but they had to call in a white officer to make the arrest. And often as not, the white officer would let the white prisoner go.

[Rex]

51. Wow.

I live in a very red part of south Texas and have heard some small towns still push segregation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Um, yes, from about a month ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022532243

So, yes, DUers are perfectly aware of the history of the 'shoe shine' position and the racial links.

[olddots]

63. Do you beleive what you type ?

[Squinch]

92. Do you think that was a good thing, that the work was expected to be done by grown

black men who were referred to as "shoe shine boys?" Do you think that was acceptable, or do you think it was racist and demeaned the black men?

[BlueStreak]

128. If these girls were referred to as "shoe shine sluts", you would have a point

As far as I can tell, they are not being forced to do this job any more than a waitress at Hooters is forced to do that. I assume they find the income better than they can get from other jobs.

I believe in consenting adults making their own choices as long as there is no coercion involved.

[Squinch]

138. Oy. Where to begin? You equate the terms "shoe-shine boy" and "shoe-shine slut?"

And, you didn't answer the question: do you think it was acceptable that the work was expected to have been done by black men, and that they were referred to as "shoe-shine boys?"

[BlueStreak]

141. Sure, it was acceptable, if it wasn't done in a subjugating way

What was not acceptable was denying black folks opportunities for other jobs across the employment spectrum such that their choices were limited to the least desirable jobs.

[Squinch]

144. How does one call a grown man a "shoe-shine boy" without doing it in a subjugating way?

And so you are agreeing that this was among the least desireable jobs, and that these grown men were forced to take it because their choices were limited to the least desireable jobs.

But if we change it to women and we take away some clothing, suddenly it is all their own choice.

Innnnteresting!

[MattBaggins]

186. In a serious defense of blue streak

it may be an age thing.

Some younger generations do not understand why calling grown men "boy" may get you an earful.

Same as people who get confused that some people bristle when they hear eenie meenie miney moe.

[Squinch]

196. I don't know about this. Even allowing for ignorance of the demeaning racial history,

think of a man who is older than you and who you respect. Would you ever refer to him, in his professional capacity, as "boy?"

Blue Streak also equated the terms "shoe-shine slut" and "shoe-shine boy." Which is quite problematic. And he insisted that the women were choosing to do the job presumably for the love of the work, but said that the black men did the job because they had few choices for other employment.

I'd say these positions need some further thought.

[MattBaggins]

198. You won't find any argument from me

I think Hooters and the whole lot should be shut down for discrimination.

[Squinch]

201. .

[BlueStreak]

220. You did not ask me about the term "boy". You asked me if the JOB

was degrading. Get your story straight before you toss around implications of racism here. I take that very seriously, and I am calling you out on that. That was a cheap shot.

[Squinch]

224. As I responded to your previous "call out," re-read the question and your answer. If you meant

something other than what you wrote, say so. There was no cheap shot there. There was a response to what you wrote.

[BlueStreak]

235. It should be opbvious to any reader that my response pertained to the job

Obviously the term "boy" is a term of subjugation and my response specifically addressed that.

[BlueStreak]

219. Nothing of the sort. He misquoted me, and you followed suit.

I know perfectly well about the racism built into the term "boy". See my response to the original misquote. Hopefully if everybody takes a few reading lessons we can all get along better.

[BlueStreak]

218. You misquoted me. That is disingenuous at best. You asked

if the JOB was degrading, not the job title "shoe shine boy". And I answered.

Obviously, referring to an adult as "boy" is an insult. But that isn't what you asked. Get your story straight before you start accusing others of things.

[Squinch]

223. Here is what I asked:

"do you think it was acceptable that the work was expected to have been done by black men, and that they were referred to as "shoe-shine boys?"

Here is what you answered: "Sure, it was acceptable, if it wasn't done in a subjugating way"

I didn't misquote you, nor was I disingenuous. I do have my story straight. If you didn't mean what you said, that is not my fault.

[Whisp]

253. I am waiting to see the response to your 'disingenuous' words...

I don't think there will be one other than:

[Squinch]

258. Yes.

I'd most like to hear the explanation of how, when men did this work, they were victims of limited choice. But the women do it because they are choosing to, and happy to, because they can work their way through college and get the attention they crave from men while they are at it.

Everyone is so happy in this version of events! Both the women, who are ecstatic for the opportunity - and the fun! - and the men, because, you know, they get to imagine ... stuff. Everyone is SO happy that I wouldn't be surprised if some Disney chipmunks showed up and started singing happy shoe-shine songs! I am guessing that, in this version, the limited clothing is due to the heat of the joy emanating from their happy hearts.

Equating the terms "shoe-shine boy" and "shoe-shine slut" seems to require some explanation as well.

[Skittles]

227. black shoeshine boys needed to titillate customers for tips?

really?

[hunter]

41. Those assholes getting their shoes shined are not paying enough taxes.

Fuck, if I was emperor those smiling shiny shod clowns would be cleaning out the city sewers with their neckties.

Congratulations, sexist racist plutocratic USA! You've laid yet another turd.

[badtoworse]

42. They should located around the corner, on Beaver Street

[dballance]

52. Really in poor taste

You had to go for a female genital slang reference to get a laugh? Not very classy.

[badtoworse]

226. You're right. Sometimes, I just can't help myself

It's gotten me in trouble more times than I can count.

[Squinch]

142. And this, kids, passes as wit among a certain segment of our culture. Hard to believe, I know.

[MrSlayer]

45. Sounds like a good business idea to me.

It's times like these where I think this site is just ridiculous. People are advocating that these customers be killed or castrated for getting a fucking shoe shine? That they're the scum of the Earth for patronizing this business? Seriously? Putting the fact that they're Wall Street pigs aside, it's flat out crazy.

These girls aren't being forced to blow these guys or anything of the sort and their outfits aren't all that scanty. They're there of their free will and, according to the story, like working there. I'm seriously failing to see why this is a big deal.

Maybe we can get together with the uber conservative Jesus freaks and shut the place down.

[olddots]

64. Stand for something or fall for anything

[MrSlayer]

79. Choose your battles wisely.

This is folly.

Want to trade cliches?

[MattBaggins]

109. If a 300 pound man wanted to apply for this job and was turned away

would that be discrimination?

Can't we at a minimum have a "zero tolerance for Libertarian nonsense" at DU.

[Laelth]

254. It would be discrimination.

But discrimination happens all the time, and most of it is perfectly legal. It's only illegal to discriminate against someone if they fall into a protected class, and 300 pound men are not a protected class in the United States. Nor are homosexuals, for that matter. We are all free to discriminate against homosexuals at will. They get no legal protection at this time. One hopes this may change in the future, but we are a long way away from a world in which it is illegal to discriminate against 300 pound men.

-Laelth

[MattBaggins]

256. Not fully correct

you can not discriminate in hiring based on gender unless you can prove a reasonable reason for the job requiring in.

[siligut]

48. And they are all college students

Meaning these are quality women, not only attractive but intelligent and ambitious. How often are high-class call girls in the movies also college students? This article should be in Playboy.

[redqueen]

53. OMFG

[siligut]

54. I know

Just creating a sweet little scenario for the money men.

[Squinch]

234. Waaaaiiiiittt a minute!!!

Next you're going to tell me that all those call girls and strippers who say they are working their way through college aren't either!

And then it's a slippery slope till you are saying that sex workers DIDN'T choose their line of work just because they really like sex!!!!!

There are some men in this thread who are going to be really disappointed that women don't do these things because they are just the girl next door who finds all that male attention lots of fun.

[dballance]

55. can someone please lock this thread before it gets worse

than it already is?

[KoKo]

91. What's bothering you about this thread? Replies are to News Article.

So Chime in...you're welcome to post your opinion and DISCUSS.

I don't see anything here that's a problem. It's a DISCUSSION....

[limpyhobbler]

90. OMG wtf?

[redqueen]

208. And that's the third one in this thread. nt

[Squinch]

236. They're infantile, creepy, AND stunningly unoriginal! I wonder if that takes effort.

[cpwm17]

68. Some people need to lighten up

The purpose of life is to enjoy oneself while doing no harm.

The extreme hatred against these men based on personal prejudices is alarming. They are harming no one. Their enjoyment does not make the world worse in any way.

[cpwm17]

75. I have no daughter

but if I did, it would be her choice. It would be her life, and she would be harming no one.

[Skittles]

107. do you not understand

women have a tough time getting taken seriously and crap like this does NOT help - don't say it doesn't harm anyone - it DOES

[cpwm17]

116. I understand where you're coming from

In most contexts one shouldn't judge people by their looks. This bad habit is driven by our emotions. Demeaning people just for their looks is a pet-peeve of mine. I see this happen all of the time. It doesn't just happen to women.

In some contexts it is appropriate to judge people by their looks, such as choosing your mate or determining who has the potential to be successful in the entertainment industry.

We all must take advantage of whatever advantages nature gave us. Life isn't always fair.

[Skittles]

117. we MUST take advantage?

no we do NOT

[cpwm17]

119. I meant CAN (with slightly different wording)

I didn't proof read it well enough.

[MattBaggins]

110. Yes it does make the world worse

the fact that so many can not see this is disheartening at the least.

[Whisp]

71. ugh. look at the look on those faces.

all powerful and shit looking down amused on the lessors and their parts.

feh.

[undeterred]

73. So why can't they wear jeans and a t-shirt to do this job. with hair in a ponytail

and no makeup? And why should it be limited to young attractive females?

[KoKo]

76. You think those guys would go get their shoe polished by folks in Jeans?

I don't think so. They want to HOOK UP with them....AFTER HOURS... I don't think those Gals will go for that, though. There's too much competition from "other sources" .....if you get my drift.

But then..what do I know...Might be a new form of prostitution for a few of the Shoe Shiners. I had a couple of girlfriends...Well ..never mind about that. HOOK UP's...they didn't take Money...they enjoyed moving their career forward. It was what it was.

[treestar]

113. Or why can't boys be hired for the job?

Seems like discrimination.

[undeterred]

115. Because wall street males think they deserve a hard on during a shoe shine.

So unless they're turned on by boys...

[limpyhobbler]

94. For folks saying these women chose to do it...

Every wonder why rich people never choose prostitution as a career? (Not that these women are prostitutes)

People don't always get to chose where they work.

If people were choosing it, we would expect to see rich people are just as likely to choose this line of work as poor people.

It's not completely a choice in my mind. Poor people are compelled to do degrading things to get money.

If it was only a matter of choice we wouldn't be so sickened by it.

[Squinch]

127. Well said. I think everyone knows this deep down. Those who insist:

"she is working her way through college and is really happy for the opportunity" or "she's doing this because she freely chose to do this" or "some women just really like sex/attention/men" know it as well as the rest of us. It seems to me that they say these things to justify their own actions and attitudes. And in doing it, they broadcast their own actions and attitudes.

(Prediction: someone will argue against this by quoting a porn star who insists that she is doing porn because she chooses to.)

[limpyhobbler]

174. yeah. pretending to love the job is part of the job.

I went for a job at a donut shop. The manager told me he doesn't want somebody that's just in it for the money. They want somebody who is passionate and excited about working in the donut industry. So I said yes I'm really passionate and excited about working in the donut industry. Acting and pretending to enjoy it is part of the deal.

[WinniSkipper]

190. Ever hear of Suzy Favor Hamilton?

And rich people don't do jobs that don't pay enough. I can't tell if you are talking about shoe shining or prostitution when you refer to "this line of work" - but a 'rich' person is most likely not doing anything that pays less than they already make. Shoe shiner would fall under that category.

[Squinch]

95. I never ran into more aggressive, more pervasive, more entitled sexism than in the

few months that I worked in a Wall Street company. Date rape was a common occurrence among women who dated colleagues from the company, women's appearance was routinely rated and commented upon in front of the women themselves, the worst sexist slurs were used in anger against women. Women advancing in their careers were as rare as snowballs in July, while idiot former frat boys were routinely promoted. It was one of the most disgusting, and most eye-opening experiences I have ever had. Turned me into a dedicated feminist.

This business will fit right in there.

[KoKo]

125. You are not alone...Many Business Blogs have addressed this...

and some of the commenters on articles have also. Wall Street has thrived on Sexism. When I worked in Publishing in NYC many years ago before it died..."Sleep your Way to the Top" was true of both Men and Women. We knew who they were and we shut up about it if we were low level. If we were disgusted with it we found some other way to make a living. Mostly it was just "look the other way" and gossip at lunch about "who was doing it with whom." It was a fact of life...it probably hasn't changed that much for the "Cut Throat Ambitious" in competitive businesses...because what do they care? If they have wealthy family behind them...(as many did) it really is just a matter of "settlement" of a rape lawsuit. And believe me..there were not any "rape lawsuits" if you wanted to get ahead in that competitive environment.

It's the innocent not in Competition who are young and taken advantage of today that need to be protected. Because our culture had now morphed it down to the youngest and most vulnerable of of these kids. They aren't working on Wall Street in Big Cities...who know the rules and how to score and competitively Score to the TOP.. They should never be included in that kind of competition. They are young and vulnerable.

[JI7]

137. they are probably the worst i have seen, they think they own the place and can have their

way with you.

[Squinch]

140. And the feeling is so pervasive that they think it's OK that they went out and did

essentially the same thing (gross exploitation, assault) to the global economy, and got ALL of us in the process!

Out of little acorns, and all that.

[mwrguy]

101. Be a shame if that shoeshine stand caught fire some night.

I hear that happens, what with all that flammable wax and all.

[Denis 11]

120. I shined shoes as a youth,

I grew up in the Bronx, we respected any honest endeavor. I don't see anything offensive being done by either the girls or their customers.

[MattBaggins]

122. The customers are pigs

as bad as men who go to hooters.

[treestar]

111. Guess it's better than pole dancing

or prostitution.

[MattBaggins]

124. And another thing... Only a fuckwad needs someone else to shine their shoes

10 years in the Army left me with two simple rules. I would never have someone else shine my shoes nor clean my toilet. Those are two task people should do themselves to stay honest.

[Initech]

129. Really? Do we really need upscale shoe shining?

Although anything that makes the Wall St. criminals spend their hard stolen dollars I'm all for it!

[pa28]

132. Hooters of the shoe-shine world expands to France . . . can't find any employees.

That's because these guys would paying taxes and those girls would be attending college tuition free.

The shoe shining bit would exist in the fetish community only.

[BlueStreak]

143. Or is it because the French aren't such prudes about sexuality?

[Squinch]

145. How does that follow from a report of a lack of women willing to take a demeaning job?

[BlueStreak]

217. The French probably aren't titillated so much by that. Ergo, it is just a crap job

What evidence is there that any of these women find that job degrading?

Why do you jump to that conclusion?

Do you have any special qualifications that allow you to look into other people's minds like that?

The only evidence the article provides us is this:

As for the women, the two working Wednesday said they have enjoyed their shoe-shine jobs so far.

“It’s actually fun,” Santiago said. “Everyone’s been nice, and it's something to do while I'm in school.

"And the tips can be good, usually."

[Squinch]

232. At one time when I was in college, I got a very well paying job as a cocktail waitress in a place

that required me to wear a uniform with a very short skirt and a very low cut shirt. You were expected to smile and "be friendly," or you were fired. In return you were paid well.

I understand, as you evidently don't, that when you are in that position there are a lot of very shitty men who are going to treat you like you can be bought. There might be some who will treat you with goodwill, but there will be plenty that will see you as an object and treat you accordingly.

I assure you, it is demeaning.

I lasted about 3 months before I couldn't take any more and got a regular waitress job that paid less but wasn't demeaning. That was about an average tenure there.

As you yourself pointed out upthread, this is a crap job. These women didn't take it because they have a lot of other options - again, as you yourself pointed out upthread. They want to keep this job. When asked if they like the job they aren't going to answer, "no, it sucks and I hate it."

I know that there were NO women who worked with me years ago in that bar who didn't hate the job, and who didn't deeply disrespect most of the men they were smiling at and flirting with.

[BlueStreak]

245. I understand all of that. I'm simply saying it is free will

I have had a lot of jobs that were demeaning, or at least below my aspirations. We make choices. Sometimes we choose jobs that involve compromise and sacrifice as stepping stones to a better place. I think we should let these woman make those choices themselves. If they do that for 3 or 4 months and earn enough money to pay for a semester of college, who are we to say that is wrong?

[seabeyond]

246. bogus argument. no one is "letting" them or not, do the job. that is not the discussion or the issue

strawman.

it is the repercussion of societal behavior that collectively effects all women and the role women play, that is the discussion. and male privilege and entitlement.

these women get to do what ever the fuck they want to do.

no one is saying they are not allowed to do these job.

we are talking about the jobs themselves and the societal issue with the job.

[Squinch]

249. Demeaning and below one's aspirations are worlds apart. Which makes me pretty sure that

you DON'T know what I am talking about.

As you mentioned up-thread when referring to black men shining shoes, these women are only making this choice because their choices are very limited.

And if you think a few months at this job will pay for a semester of college, you are seriously kidding yourself.

[pintobean]

148. I see nothing wrong with this.

They're wearing shorts, a tank top, and a bra. They'd be dressed the same way at a gym or on campus, and they're covered a lot more than if they were at the beach.

[Upton]

150. Um..are these women being forced to do this?

If not, I don't see a problem. Heck of a lot better than wearing layers of clothing, which some here would obviously prefer they do, and living under a bridge. These women appear to be enjoying themselves and that's all that matters. it's really nobody else's business..

[sufrommich]

151. Just your all american red blooded man

paying for the pleasure of having subservient women on their knees shining their shoes. Who could have a problem with this?

Isn't it amazing how many DUers turn themselves into Ayn Rand disciples when it comes to women doing degrading work by choice ?

[MattBaggins]

157. We need a choice on the alert page

For libertarian bullshit. Five strikes for that should result in a pizza.

[pintobean]

161. Right next to the

morality crusader bullshit check-box.

[MattBaggins]

164. There is no specific wording in the ToS, mission statement and community standards

for DU against morality crusading. There are specific rules against espousing right wing drivel. Greens on this website are reminded every so often to be aware that this is not Green Underground and to act accordingly. Perhaps it is not a bad idea to point out that this site is also not Libertarian Underground and Ayn Rand is not welcome?

[pintobean]

165. The idea that women should make their own choices

is not a right wing position. I think morality crusading is more in line with the right wing.

[MattBaggins]

167. Legal Hiring Discrimination

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)

is hands down, without any argument, an ultra right wing Libertarian ideal.

So is trying to coach it as a bullshit individual choice meme. It is the dirtiest most insidious of right wing arguments and should not be tolerated on DU.

Rand Paul is in favor of doing away with the civil rights act and allowing businesses to do what ever they damn well please. His acolytes on DU ought to be shown the door. Kindly though. With a best wishes pat on the back and all that.

[pintobean]

168. Then, alert on my post and check the TOS box

if you think my position is right wing.

So is trying to coach it as a bullshit individual choice meme. It is the dirtiest most insidious of right wing arguments and should not be tolerated on DU.

Take your case to a jury, rather than making lame public insults and assigning your own meaning to my words.

[MattBaggins]

170. Sense of importance?

I was talking to sufrommich about Ayn Rand veiws on DU. You chose to enter the discussion and make this about you, not I.

[pintobean]

171. In other words

you don't think the community would agree with you. I didn't make this about me, you did.

[MattBaggins]

173. How the hell did I make this about you

when I made a comment to another poster and YOU entered the convo? You are most welcome to join in, but you can not say I made this about you.

[pintobean]

182. I can say whatever I want

especially if it's true. Anyone can read this sub-thread and see that it is.

[zappaman]

185. +100 n/t

[LittleBlue]

231. Agreed. If I wanted a morality lecture, I'd go to a church

No one over the age of about 13 is interested in their views on morality. That they would like to have their morality enforced by moderation/bans shows a troubling similarity between them and right-wingers.

The funny thing is that the jury virtually always sides against them, which is why they hate juries.

[DCBob]

152. Given the right opportunities and connections the roles could easily be reversed.

sad.

[TheManInTheMac]

154. I just don't get it. I'm a heterosexual man, but I would feel

dirty, way down in my soul, if I got my shoes shined here. I won't eat at Hooters either; I don't know if their food is good or not. I don't care. There's a chain of hair cut places here in the Cleveland area where you can get your hair cut by attractive, scantily clad women. They could be the best barbers in the world and I wouldn't go there.

I wouldn't object to having my shoes shined by a beautiful woman, or having my food served or hair cut by one either, but when it is part of the company's business model, I just find it distasteful and would be as uncomfortable patronizing that business as I would be going into a topless bar or a porno theater.

Maybe it's because I have a daughter (I can't hear that song "I Think about You" without crying). Maybe it's because I'm getting old. Maybe it's just because I don't like seeing people treated like a damn commodity.

[seabeyond]

160. ya. i think maybe it is all that.

thank you for your post.

[redqueen]

176. Thank you for seeing women as people, and not decorations.

Beautiful post. Thank you again.

[Nay]

242. You are a man among men, Mac. Would that there were more of you in the world. nt

[seabeyond]

244. there are tons of these men, hence why there is not one of these or hooters on every corner.

too many men get that not only is it insulting to women, it is really pathetically insulting to men, also. really, more so. the fools that do not get that.

[Whisp]

251. hugs to you MacMan

Your daughter has a great and good dad. Thank you, for she will look for a partner with your good qualities when and if she decides to. Having a strong father is just as important as a strong ma, for both girls and boys.

Thanks! You've made the world better today.

[seabeyond]

252. THIS whisp. this is all the difference. in a daughter choosing a husband. the gift that keeps on

giving. you are so right on.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

255. wish this post was an OP so I could DU Rec it. thank you.

[quinnox]

155. This was actually a really good idea for a business

I wouldn't be surprised to see this spread from New York to other big cities like L.A.

And of course there is nothing wrong with it, I bet these girls make a whole lot more money than other jobs such as McDonalds or so on, that they might be working at instead.

[KharmaTrain]

158. Here's Another Place I'd Avoid...

I saw this ad a couple days ago and thought how sexist and demeaning this place appears to be:

My bets are the cuts cost $25 and the women working there are lucky to make minimum wage and have to rely on tips...

[NoGOPZone]

159. Sure, it's his boss he's worried about

and I'm thinking it's the Hooters of the shoe shine world because it offers a subpar product at a high price.

[Sheldon Cooper]

178. Places who employ scantily clad women are seldom 'classy' or 'upscale'.

[MattBaggins]

179. 30 years ago the word "classy"

would have been followed with the word "broads".

Will it ever change?

[zappaman]

200. Anything that shows more than this...

is scantily clad.

[tammywammy]

203. Sorry, I self deleted since I didn't want to get in a back and forth over it.

Suffice to say, I don't think a tank top and shorts that aren't showing butt cheek are all that "scantily".

I think the local sports bar I went to with bikini tops and barely there "shorts" was scantily clad, I never went back the food wasn't even that great.

[Sheldon Cooper]

216. Well, I certainly don't want to get into any "back and forth" either.

But I didn't choose the adjective 'scantily'. It's in the headline at the link.

[athenasatanjesus]

189. Great way to discriminate against workers.

Every business that uses women workers like this has found a legal loophole to discriminate against workers,use them up in their prime then throw them away,and yet there are some liberals that will defend this business model.

[RebelOne]

191. Totally demeaning. I just hope they are receiving some really big tips. n/t

[Ilsa]

204. Good grief. Does Everything have to be sexed up?

Can't we shine our shoes without looking for something (and someone) else to publicly fantasize about?

What's next? Speedo-clad butchers in the meat market for the gals?

[redqueen]

209. Yes, hot-n-sexxxy men served up as decorations for the gals is a solid business model.

That's why it's so popular and used in so many types of businesses.

[edbermac]

211. "What's next? Speedo-clad butchers in the meat market for the gals?"

Why not?

[WinkyDink]

213. Oh, I'm sure it's a "Gentlemen's Shoeshine." Why aren't the roles reversed?

[Orrex]

222. Do a lot of women have their shoes shined?

[Skittles]

228. we do it ourselves

[badtoworse]

229. Interesting

In 19 years, I've never seen my wife shine her shoes. I've never seen a women at a shoe shine stand either.

[WinniSkipper]

250. Ditto on both

...but 15 years and never a shine.

[LittleBlue]

230. Who cares? This has been going on at Hooters for decades.

Despite the food being shit, they're still popular somehow. We have a dozen bikini coffee stands around here.

Sexing up an ordinary service is a successful business strategy and always has been.

[olddots]

237. i care

[JI7]

239. when women are passed over for other jobs and these are the only options

available to them it's an issue.

i'm sure many guys would like to think the women who do this type of work enjoy it and enjoy the attention given by these guys but most don't .

and there are people who are wealthy or well off who do work that doesn't pay as well or not much. doctors, musicians, teachers etc. people who don't need to work often do things because they want to.

but it's never things like in the OP .

when we talk about people who work at walmart, mcdonalds etc we don't pretend "it's their choice" and how they must love the job . so why is it when it comes to things like the OP people turn into libertarians.

[LittleBlue]

241. What are the alternatives?

Say this shoe-shine shuts its doors. Okay, now these women have fewer options. It's Walmart or McDonald's for less pay.

The problem isn't that they are wearing skimpy outfits shining shoes, the problem is the pay at the alternatives. The responses to this thread indicate offense at the sexual implications of the job, not the pay.

[seabeyond]

243. your argument sounds like what i hear about people that work all day for two bucks a day.

who cares? say the business shuts its doors and goes elsewhere. now they have fewer options. somewhere that pays 1 buck a day.

women have to smile at the sexist bullshit the men will throw their way. ya, i know all you men think you are really cute and the woman is really enjoying your sexist banter as she is on her knees shining your shoes. but she takes the bullshit, that she would not have to take elsewhere because men get that this is set up for them to have free will at being creeps and jerks and the women get to "pretend" they are all into it for a male ego. now that the men have had their morning of being entertained by reducing a woman to his sexual objectification, he can go off and concur the world.

skimpy outfit?

you do not read much reducing it to skimpy outfit. it is the reason and the message for that skinpy outfit that is the issue, not what the women are wearing.

any kind of understanding on your part? no

[Avalux]

233. Ah yes....the men sit there and fantasize the women are giving them bjs.

Only pretty ones, I'm sure.

[HiPointDem]

240. yuck.

[99Forever]

247. If the 1%ers want some 99%er T&As to look...

... at as they shine the shoes, who the heck are we to question them?

We aren't supposed to say anything as they steal our tiny safety net for the most vulnerable, why should the 1% objectifying and degrading women be open for discussion?



(think before you kneejerk, okay?)

[Iggo]

248. Gross.

[octothorpe]

257. How many males here would take this job if the roles were reversed?

Assuming you'd be hired for the same reasons and get the same pay and tips? Would you take it? If so, would you feel demeaned by it?

I'm thinking I would take it if I didn't have other skills or couldn't find anything else (college student). I don't know if I'd feel demeaned though. I'm kind of an ugly bastard now, but back a few years ago I was slightly less ugly and I was in situations where one might say I was objectified (I think?). I didn't find it demeaning or offensive. Although, it might be different for guys since we don't usually get bombarded with such things constantly. Although, I do know if I was able to use my looks to my advantage, I would exploit them as long as I could. I mean, I'd hope I'd also develop other traits/skills/talents, but I wouldn't totally use them as much as I could.