City Officials Criticize Bikini Contest Fund Raiser - "Hooters For Neuters

[matcom]

<snip>

LOS ANGELES --Several city officials on Tuesday sharply criticized a planned bikini contest to raise money for spaying pets, saying the "Hooters for Neuters" event was degrading to women.

Hosted by the Hooters restaurant chain, the July 13 fundraiser will donate money to the spay and neuter programs at Los Angeles Animal Services.

"Are we going backward here?" said City Controller Laura Chick. "We are a city with all kinds of progressive programs that empower women and end discrimination in the workplace, and now we're being connected with a Hooters bikini contest. It isn't right."

Councilwoman Jan Perry said the department's attempt to be creative in telling pet owners to sterilize their animals "crosses the line."

"I was surprised and amazed with the photograph on the flier, and I don't think it projects a good image for the city of Los Angeles," Perry said.

Animal Services Director Ed Boks apologized for making people upset, but said the "Charity Benefit Bikini Contest" would go on as scheduled.

"These people have gone out of their way in helping us, and I would hate to deny these businesses from helping to save the lives of animals in our shelters," Boks said.

Boks promised a more rigorous vetting process for future fundraisers.

The fundraiser is not city-sponsored, but a promoting flier is posted on the Animal Services Web site.


http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2006/06/27/officials_criticize_hooters_for_neuters?mode=PF

[MissMillie]

1. The problem isn't w/ the people sponsoring the event

They put this event together because they know it will make money.

The problem is that people will spend money on such an event. As long as events like this make money, people will continue to hold them.

Here's the thing. I have a great looking kid. Besides being very attractive, he's VERY smart, warm, compassionate, and quite fun to be around. If he were to pose nude, I would think that such activity would create an image of him that turns him into mere beefcake. I want more for that for my kid.

There's nothing wrong with nudity. What's wrong is that people are willing to reduce themselves to being nothing more than a naked body. And other people are willing to spend money on that.

I wish I trusted human beings more than to see them as beings would can only see one dimension of another human being. I guess I do actually, for the most part, but I think when it's the facets of nudity and sexuality that come into play, too many people lose that ability to see other facets.

It's possible that it's my attitude that has to change a bit as well, I guess. I hope that those of you who are ready to pounce on my point of view consider this admission before you pounce.

[XemaSab]

2. My only problem with it is that it's not co-ed

What about women who would like to view the male form? What are they to do?

:shrug:

LA is full of people who have spent years of their lives on looking good, and if they want to show it off, God bless 'em.

I agree with the goal of eliminating discrimination in the workplace, but I also understand that human nature will never change, and no matter how sensitive or enlightened men get, there will always be a market for sex.

[Flaxbee]

4. I'm with you, XemaSab

should be co-ed and nondiscriminatory ("Gays for Spays")

But really, for tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of years, sex has been (probably) the strongest motivator for humans (actually, for all creatures) whether humans acknowledge it or not. I don't have any problem whatsoever with women or men CHOOSING to use sex/their femininity/masculinity for any reason so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

[BlueIris]

3. "'Are we going backward here?' said City Controller Laura Chick."

"'We are a city with all kinds of progressive programs that empower women and end discrimination in the workplace, and now we're being connected with a Hooters bikini contest. It isn't right.'"

Oy, someone else who doesn't appear to get it. As long as misogynist Patriarchy still reigns, the more empowered women become, the more time and money men will be willing to spend to see them degraded, humiliated, exploited, objectified and abused. That's what gets men off now more than ever. It's so sad that her comment doesn't include an indication that she recognizes the reality of our inherently misogynist social structure, which is very sad, but so typical. We're not "going backward." We've never gone forward. Sigh. I guess that could be the fault of the reporter who "wrote" this article, but I don't think it is. Comments like hers, which really miss the point, just allow misogynists to continue to demonize all women who object to being viewed by men as purely sexualized objects to masturbate with as people who "just hate sex."

Meh. I guess her objection could have merely been about the idea that an event which objectifies women is affiliated with a quasi-municipal organization and it should be viewed as upsetting only because it's connected with the city government which is oh-so-fair-and-non-misogynist when it comes to women after all. That almost makes her look like more of an idiot, though.

[Radical Activist]

5. Sure, controlling what women do with their bodies is progressive?

Please.
And since when does LA have a reputation for being some kind of squeaky clean city? Who do these council members think they're kidding?