2008 Woodie Awards
Letters to the Editor
Issue date: 10/16/07 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 3 next >
Casting the first sexist stones
Patrick Bigsby (" 'Sex sells' excuse sold out," DI, Oct. 10), you seem awfully sexist for a self-described "liberal" fellow. I am one of those waitresses who, according to you, was objectified and endangered by last week's Studio 54 party. Your recent letter tries to speak for me, or at least on my behalf, as a waitress and as a woman. I am an adult, and no one has any influence over what I choose to do or wear. Your article describes the men at Union Bar as drunk and horny and portrays women as ignorant and conformist, tricked into dressing scandalously for the viewing pleasure of others. Did it ever occur to you that women don't have to feel objectified because they choose to wear less? Or that Studio 54 is simply a party at a college bar for adults who want to do something atypical in a safe environment monitored by bartending employees, bouncers, and the local police?
Waitresses were not required to wear matching lingerie and didn't. What the employees wore on Oct. 6 was voluntary. I would also like to point out that only matching outfits worn that night were by men, who also volunteered. You seemed to overlook those men in your article.
Finally - and most importantly - your plea to the owner of Union Bar concerning the message Studio 54 is sending out with regard to recent attacks is inflammatory. No one is to blame for the assaults on women but the sick people committing the crimes. To insinuate that women should dress differently, or they are in anyway bringing the attacks on themselves for wearing lingerie to a party is deplorable!
So, Mr. Bigsby, I implore you to speak for yourself or, at the very least, your own sex from now on.
Janina Kamm
UI junior
Don't get scared by anti-21-only rhetoric
Opponents of the 21-ordinance could teach the Bush administration a lot about how to manipulate terror alerts to achieve their political purposes.
Say what?
How many times will you be told that if the city raises the bar-admission age to 21 (which, coincidentally, happens to be the legal drinking age), then all those poor underage drinkers will flood the neighborhoods?
Patrick Bigsby (" 'Sex sells' excuse sold out," DI, Oct. 10), you seem awfully sexist for a self-described "liberal" fellow. I am one of those waitresses who, according to you, was objectified and endangered by last week's Studio 54 party. Your recent letter tries to speak for me, or at least on my behalf, as a waitress and as a woman. I am an adult, and no one has any influence over what I choose to do or wear. Your article describes the men at Union Bar as drunk and horny and portrays women as ignorant and conformist, tricked into dressing scandalously for the viewing pleasure of others. Did it ever occur to you that women don't have to feel objectified because they choose to wear less? Or that Studio 54 is simply a party at a college bar for adults who want to do something atypical in a safe environment monitored by bartending employees, bouncers, and the local police?
Waitresses were not required to wear matching lingerie and didn't. What the employees wore on Oct. 6 was voluntary. I would also like to point out that only matching outfits worn that night were by men, who also volunteered. You seemed to overlook those men in your article.
Finally - and most importantly - your plea to the owner of Union Bar concerning the message Studio 54 is sending out with regard to recent attacks is inflammatory. No one is to blame for the assaults on women but the sick people committing the crimes. To insinuate that women should dress differently, or they are in anyway bringing the attacks on themselves for wearing lingerie to a party is deplorable!
So, Mr. Bigsby, I implore you to speak for yourself or, at the very least, your own sex from now on.
Janina Kamm
UI junior
Don't get scared by anti-21-only rhetoric
Opponents of the 21-ordinance could teach the Bush administration a lot about how to manipulate terror alerts to achieve their political purposes.
Say what?
How many times will you be told that if the city raises the bar-admission age to 21 (which, coincidentally, happens to be the legal drinking age), then all those poor underage drinkers will flood the neighborhoods?
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
Nicky
posted 10/16/07 @ 7:26 AM CST
Janina has a lousy attitude. She needs to wear more self-respect for herself and more clothing.
steinge
posted 10/16/07 @ 8:37 AM CST
The Union Bar is a safe environment?? There was a cocaine bust the night of the Studio 54 party at the Union....thanks for keeping us safe!!
Steve R.
posted 10/16/07 @ 10:16 AM CST
So what the 21 only referendum really comes down to is two things: we support underage drinking and who makes money from it.
Joe
posted 10/16/07 @ 12:49 PM CST
If this is the same Christine Allen I know, you are quite the boozer yourself. How ironic?
Post a Comment