Vegan Strip Club opens in Portland tonight

[Tarz]

The guy by his own admission DOES NOT read books, as in not a single solitary one.

You do not be informed or otherwise simply be reading books or not. There are other ways of getting informed.

 

I would argue that reading books can be one of the worst ways of being informed if you are selective in what you choose to read and only read what reinforces your original stance.

[xdarthveganx]

The guy by his own admission DOES NOT read books, as in not a single solitary one.

You do not be informed or otherwise simply be reading books or not. There are other ways of getting informed.

 

I would argue that reading books can be one of the worst ways of being informed if you are selective in what you choose to read and only read what reinforces your original stance.

 

You're missing the point, and if reading is "the worst way of becoming informed" whats a better way? Watching TV? hahaha, reading on the internet? gimme a break. But regardless thats not the point, when having certain discussions with Potter, he admittedly forms opinions on things purely based on his inner gut feeling, not by researching or becoming educated on said subjects. Again this isn't to bash Potter, HE ADMITS this is true.

[Tarz]

Selective editing there, you forgot to include 'can' and 'if you'.

 

Of course books can be a good source of information, it just depends on what you're reading, and whether that tells you what you want to know - books can be highly biased and not neccessarily reflective of the range of differing opinion if one doesn't read books which also argue a different case. I.e would you form your opinion of Jews on the basis of reading 'Mein Kampf' and 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' only???

 

There's lots of other alternate sources of information other than books, and as Potter says there's nothing like real life experience.

[xdarthveganx]

Selective editing there, you forgot to include 'can' and 'if you'.

 

Of course books can be a good source of information, it just depends on what you're reading, and whether that tells you what you want to know - books can be highly biased and not neccessarily reflective of the range of differing opinion if one doesn't read books which also argue a different case. I.e would you form your opinion of Jews on the basis of reading 'Mein Kampf' and 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' only???

 

There's lots of other alternate sources of information other than books, and as Potter says there's nothing like real life experience.

 

 

You're really really stretching with the Mein Kampf reference and you know it,

and no having "many stripper friends" does not make you an expert on deciding whether or not a strip club, and treating women like flesh is ethical. That is completely absurd.

[VeganEssentials]

I know for fact that count agranoff and I were not suggesting that women should not be allowed to do with their bodies as they please. I dont really think that is the issue being discussed here.

 

I still see a very strong contradiction in the argument, but that's a different topic that could go on forever, so I'm not going to take this too far off course.

 

Here's my current question - why is it that when the argument comes up, it is typically that "women stripping is bad" but that there is rarely a comment from the feminist side that ALL stripping is bad regardless of gender? It's like singling out that slaughtering cows for beef is bad, but we can ignore the chickens because it's not the hot topic. I think that those taking the pro-feminist side would gain more credibility from havng an all-out approach to stripping in general than singling out women as being the only ones they consider "exploited" since gender shouldn't be an issue - if you think that women are exploited by stripping, then you MUST have to agree that men are as well, but somehow that part never seems to get brought up.

 

Again, I'm not defending stripping as a great choice here, but pointing out that by singling only women as being the oppressed, it's both negligent to the fact that men are in the same boat in that line of work, and why it gets overlooked is beyond me. Regardless of the belief that "it's a man's world", it doesn't work to pick and choose what suits the argument at the time - like veganism, it's all-or-nothing in concern for those you consider to be exploited, not just one group in the mix. Just as if you believe that killing ANY animal for personal use is wrong, then so should it be with stripping in general, and I'd think that those taking the con-side would certainly want to attack it entirely to maintain credibility. Technically, it'd be sexist to not acknoledge that if women are exploited, so are men. Hence we come full circle to my comment on the black power/white power argument that I find to be ingly flawed, applying to to stripping and targeting women as the victims while ignoring the men.

 

See where I'm coming from?

[xdarthveganx]

I know for fact that count agranoff and I were not suggesting that women should not be allowed to do with their bodies as they please. I dont really think that is the issue being discussed here.

 

I still see a very strong contradiction in the argument, but that's a different topic that could go on forever, so I'm not going to take this too far off course.

 

Here's my current question - why is it that when the argument comes up, it is typically that "women stripping is bad" but that there is rarely a comment from the feminist side that ALL stripping is bad regardless of gender? It's like singling out that slaughtering cows for beef is bad, but we can ignore the chickens because it's not the hot topic. I think that those taking the pro-feminist side would gain more credibility from havng an all-out approach to stripping in general than singling out women as being the only ones they consider "exploited" since gender shouldn't be an issue - if you think that women are exploited by stripping, then you MUST have to agree that men are as well, but somehow that part never seems to get brought up.

 

Again, I'm not defending stripping as a great choice here, but pointing out that by singling only women as being the oppressed, it's both negligent to the fact that men are in the same boat in that line of work, and why it gets overlooked is beyond me. Regardless of the belief that "it's a man's world", it doesn't work to pick and choose what suits the argument at the time - like veganism, it's all-or-nothing in concern for those you consider to be exploited, not just one group in the mix. Just as if you believe that killing ANY animal for personal use is wrong, then so should it be with stripping in general, and I'd think that those taking the con-side would certainly want to attack it entirely to maintain credibility. Technically, it'd be sexist to not acknoledge that if women are exploited, so are men. Hence we come full circle to my comment on the black power/white power argument that I find to be ingly flawed, applying to to stripping and targeting women as the victims while ignoring the men.

 

See where I'm coming from?

 

 

I see where your coming from, but your point seems unnecessary...

 

I didn't see anyone on my side of the argument advocating FOR male strip clubs. This debate is about women, because the post was about a strip club featuring female dancers. I dont really see how a discussion about male stripping is relevant.

 

That being said, the power dynamic between men and women being what it is, it becomes a different argument altogether in regards to women. To not recognize the fact that living in predominantly male dominated, sexist culture changes this argument is just being dishonest.

[Richard]

Yeah I think you make a lot of good points VE, better articulated than I attempted earlier.

[xveganjoshx]

Women stripping is "worse" then men stripping because when women strip they are reproducing the deeply rooted and oppressive roles of women as being subservient, and being objects that should be visually pleasing and not anything more (does it make sense to talk to a stripper about philosophy during a lap dance? of course not). These cultural notions, these ways of thinking, do not exist about men in our western societies. Therefore it is not as damaging when men strip because they are not reproducing that hierarchy of oppression and are therefore not justifying that differential in power. BUT, I'm against anyone stripping for money, flesh for capital is ing to me (which is why, as much as people would like to say this doesn't have to do with veganism, it definately ties in to the similar/same struggles).

[Guest]

I wouldn't say that because when men wanted women to serve them...they would want to control them and keep them in more conservative dress...saving them for themselves.

 

As for the male strip club thing I think it is relevant. If women stripping for men is bad then women stripping for women is bad...not seeing it that way is sexist in itself. The idea is exploitation...and people brought up veganisms relation...thats even further off the topic. Actually all this is off topic because the initial post wasn't intended to cause in argument in the first place so if we veer off women whats the difference???

 

***On a side note...nobody here said that forum members should go to strip clubs...male or female.

[xdarthveganx]

I wouldn't say that because when men wanted women to serve them...they would want to control them and keep them in more conservative dress...saving them for themselves.

 

As for the male strip club thing I think it is relevant. If women stripping for men is bad then women stripping for women is bad...not seeing it that way is sexist in itself. The idea is exploitation...and people brought up veganisms relation...thats even further off the topic. Actually all this is off topic because the initial post wasn't intended to cause in argument in the first place so if we veer off women whats the difference???

 

***On a side note...nobody here said that forum members should go to strip clubs...male or female.

 

Potter, you're making my head hurt, seriously.

[Guest]

You need some donuts then

[Tarz]

You're really really stretching with the Mein Kampf reference and you know it, and no having "many stripper friends" does not make you an expert on deciding whether or not a strip club, and treating women like flesh is ethical. That is completely absurd.

It was a deliberately over the top reference, but in some ways it is valid, i.e if you're only reading books that have a Marxist bias you're still going to be regarded as not 'fully informed' by conservatives. Basically the fact that somebody is reading about something does not automatically mean they are 'fully informed.' How many books should one of read to be 'fully informed' on a subject in your opinion then? What if someone's reading list doesn't meet your approval - they're never going to be 'fully informed' then are they?

 

I never said having stripper friends does or doesn't make you an expert, in the same way that reading books not necessarily make you an expert either.

 

What I am trying to say here and which you are seemingly unable to grasp is that people form an opinion from a range of sources - books, magazines, newspapers, online media/campaign groups, local and national groups, personal experiences or whatever else they are exposed to. You are very quick to (wrongly) dismiss Potter's personal experiences, I am pointing out that in some circumstances one can also quite easily dismiss reading books as the foundation for being 'fully informed'.

 

Back to the subject at hand anyway, and I've been meaning to post similar to what VE wrote before I ended up getting sidetracked. Either somebody stripping for somebody else for payment in a club environment is exploitation or it isn't. Make your mind up.

[VeganEssentials]

I see where your coming from, but your point seems unnecessary...

 

I didn't see anyone on my side of the argument advocating FOR male strip clubs. This debate is about women, because the post was about a strip club featuring female dancers. I dont really see how a discussion about male stripping is relevant.

 

That being said, the power dynamic between men and women being what it is, it becomes a different argument altogether in regards to women. To not recognize the fact that living in predominantly male dominated, sexist culture changes this argument is just being dishonest.

 

I don't know how my point could be unnecessarily in any way. Once you start to want to label something and only fight for one part, you're doing a disservice to all others who are in the same situation that don't fit the criteria (which is why I detest labels in general - all they lead to is segregation and feeling of self-importance.) That's why I think that feminism is greatly flawed in believing that somehow a male who may suffer the same problems as a woman in the same field is of less concern. This topic may have originated about a female strip club, but again, keeping the general concept female-centered is simply picking and choosing what side you want to represent, when if you feel something is bad, it should be about the entire picture since ANY human can be exploited, male or female, gay or straight, black, white or any other color. Once we choose to call one group's situation to attention while ignoring similar problems among other groups it's showing a lack of concern, hence the lack of credibility.

 

I never denied that it's a predominantly sexist and male-dominated culture, but at the same time, I don't believe that's an excuse to say that a man can't be exploited to the same degree as a woman can - thinking that somehow being a man is a free ticket to all things good is a silly notion. I hear that far too often, and while yes, sexism does run rampant (and should be addressed in ways that encourage positive change), I believe that if we make excuses based on gender, color, or anything else then we only succeed in holding our true potential back by forming our own prejudices in disguise of being "self-aware" or "world-wise to the way things are". Hence, I detest labeling and segregating through arguing that one group cannot suffer the same as another, when we all have the potential to be great, and we all have the potential to end up in the gutter. It's up to us to make our mark and find our path, and I don't think that segregating between genders based on perceptions of equality does any good for the feminist cause.

 

Maybe that fact that my business was founded by two women and that I am the only man in in a staff of 7 lets me believe that there's a chance that we have more control over our destiny and what we can achieve in our lives than is commonly believed.

[xveganjoshx]

Women stripping is "worse" then men stripping because when women strip they are reproducing the deeply rooted and oppressive roles of women as being subservient, and being objects that should be visually pleasing and not anything more (does it make sense to talk to a stripper about philosophy during a lap dance? of course not). These cultural notions, these ways of thinking, do not exist about men in our western societies. Therefore it is not as damaging when men strip because they are not reproducing that hierarchy of oppression and are therefore not justifying that differential in power. BUT, I'm against anyone stripping for money, flesh for capital is ing to me (which is why, as much as people would like to say this doesn't have to do with veganism, it definately ties in to the similar/same struggles).

Wow, good point. I never thought of it that way.

[offense74]

Great posts VE!

 

It's up to us to make our mark and find our path, and I don't think that segregating between genders based on perceptions of equality does any good for the feminist cause.

I think you're missing the point a little.

If we take the slaves in the US as an example often brought up by gender feminists. There were laws prohibiting black people to participate in society in any other way than what their owner chose them to do. This is what's called a systematic oppression similar to what the gender feminists believe that the patriarchy is.

When it came to blacks in the US during the slave era it was totally justifiable to make a group out of them, in fact it would be impossible not to see it. There were a systematic oppression throughout every government institution favoring whites against blacks. It would be easy to locate where the oppression came from just by opening the law book.

 

If there are structural oppression in society towards women than the grouping is already made. If this isn't structural problem then the groups are created by the ones making the claim. I don't believe that this is a structural problem and thus I see the grouping as very troublesome. To me grouping like this have created huge problems during history, whereas unification after the groups were dissolved were the part that actually gave us a better society. This is why I want to know what these structural oppressions consists of so that we can find out how to solve this problem. It's now page 8 and other than them calling us unenlightened there have been very little enlightenment from their point of view.

 

I believe most women are strong enough to conquer their own dreams that they have. There are problems along the way as there is for everyone. Men stand in their way sometimes because they feel threatened just as women stand in mens way sometimes because they feel threatened. That's not a structure. It's individuals making bad decisions.

[VeganEssentials]

Great posts VE!

 

Thank you much!

 

It's up to us to make our mark and find our path, and I don't think that segregating between genders based on perceptions of equality does any good for the feminist cause.

I think you're missing the point a little.

If we take the slaves in the US as an example often brought up by gender feminists. There were laws prohibiting black people to participate in society in any other way than what their owner chose them to do. This is what's called a systematic oppression similar to what the gender feminists believe that the patriarchy is.

When it came to blacks in the US during the slave era it was totally justifiable to make a group out of them, in fact it would be impossible not to see it. There were a systematic oppression throughout every government institution favoring whites against blacks. It would be easy to locate where the oppression came from just by opening the law book.

 

If there are structural oppression in society towards women than the grouping is already made. If this isn't structural problem then the groups are created by the ones making the claim. I don't believe that this is a structural problem and thus I see the grouping as very troublesome. To me grouping like this have created huge problems during history, whereas unification after the groups were dissolved were the part that actually gave us a better society. This is why I want to know what these structural oppressions consists of so that we can find out how to solve this problem. It's now page 8 and other than them calling us unenlightened there have been very little enlightenment from their point of view.

 

Of course, I do recognize that in the case with black people and slavery that identifying a group based on direct laws that affected everyday abilities that other free people had, it was necessary to have a label in order to define the problem more clearly. That's undeniable, and I didn't mean to infer that there is never a time for such labels to be necessary. I just have a difficult time when comparisons are made to something that was set in stone and completely widespread vs. something that is not a set of regulations in this day and attitudes that are not prevalent in every person (males considering females inferior, etc.) I feel that sexism is a problem in its own right and cannot really be compared to different struggles except in bit parts, which is where a lot of my disagreement comes from those who like to put it in simple terms as if we can equate modern-day sexism to racism from 250 years ago. It's a whole different problem that needs to be tackled in entirely different ways, and I'd definitely be interested in knowing more about approaches to it that seem like more than a simple blame-game with resentment on the side, which is what I usually end up hearing when sexism gets brought up. I'm always open to new ideas, but I just don't usually end up hearing them, and in cases like this, most everyone just ends up mad and neither side seems to learn much about the other's views and ideas for improvement.

 

My whole point being in the statement quoted, which may have been a bit off in how I worded it, is that I think that we as people tend to overanalyze social problems and dissect them to bits when that time can be better spent carving our own path and working past the problems that we know are there. This doesn't mean we're ignoring the problem and failing to address and combat it - it just means that we can't let it stand in the way of what we want and fall victim to it either before it arises or at the first encounter. Sometimes these problems can be overcome by walking right past them and not thinking about them so much that we've already come to believe defeat is a possibility before we even get out there to fight for what we want. This is where I think that "paralysis of analysis" in situations such as this can lead to people spending more time brooding over their notion of sexism rather than proving the existing offenders wrong through positive example and dispelling old notions. Continually trying to justify the belief that all men are somehow automatically more privileged than all women and making that a case for separating comparisons of possible exploitation of both genders doesn't seem to me like a positive way for reducing and eliminating sexism. This perceived notion of modern sexism isn't a law in effect that all men adhere to - it is an unfortunate attitude that does affect many people, but it's often treated as if it was the case of all men in society, which is far too broad and all-encompassing to be true and is a major turn-off for some people. It's not an accurate representation of the facts, but it gives the professional philosophers a paycheck and a reason to write another book. Discussing the problem is much easier than acting.

 

I'm nowhere near as skilled at discussing philosophy as others here such as yourself, so I can only say the bit my dropped-out-of-tech-school-twice self can manage to try and put into a coherent statement regrding my opinions It doesn't always come out the way I want it to, but I try!

 

I believe most women are strong enough to conquer their own dreams that they have. There are problems along the way as there is for everyone. Men stand in their way sometimes because they feel threatened just as women stand in mens way sometimes because they feel threatened. That's not a structure. It's individuals making bad decisions.

 

Couldn't agree more on that part.

[offense74]

Women stripping is "worse" then men stripping because when women strip they are reproducing the deeply rooted and oppressive roles of women as being subservient, and being objects that should be visually pleasing and not anything more (does it make sense to talk to a stripper about philosophy during a lap dance? of course not). These cultural notions, these ways of thinking, do not exist about men in our western societies. Therefore it is not as damaging when men strip because they are not reproducing that hierarchy of oppression and are therefore not justifying that differential in power. BUT, I'm against anyone stripping for money, flesh for capital is ing to me (which is why, as much as people would like to say this doesn't have to do with veganism, it definately ties in to the similar/same struggles).

Wow, good point. I never thought of it that way.

Both Josh and his evil twin Gosh have access to the same account on VBB & F. They like each other, for the most part.

[Richard]

If I had a kid, I'd call him Gosh, or maybe that would make a good middle name

[Guest]

I definitely think its unfair for them to team together...its way too much to handle...its like twins going to school as one person but only going every other day.

[lotus]

HEy all! I think it is great this discussion is going on. There are lots of valid points being raised.

 

The thing that bothers me the very most is the language Johnny is using to promote the place. Viewing women as meat. The attitudes he is perpetuating toward women are not ok. strip club owner or not...unfortunately this attitude is the norm.

 

Anyway...it just so happens that we are showing a movie about women in advertising tomorrow night at the Red and Black Cafe. Starts at 7p.m.

 

The name is the movie is Killing Us Softly 3 Advertising's Image of Women with Jean Kilbourne.

We will have a discussion to follow.

Please join us!

[xveganjoshx]

HEy all! I think it is great this discussion is going on. There are lots of valid points being raised.

 

The thing that bothers me the very most is the language Johnny is using to promote the place. Viewing women as meat. The attitudes he is perpetuating toward women are not ok. strip club owner or not...unfortunately this attitude is the norm.

 

Anyway...it just so happens that we are showing a movie about women in advertising tomorrow night at the Red and Black Cafe. Starts at 7p.m.

 

The name is the movie is Killing Us Softly 3 Advertising's Image of Women with Jean Kilbourne.

We will have a discussion to follow.

Please join us!

I love Killing us Softly! I've seen 1 and 2.

[DV]

The following is from a female Portland blogger whose focus is on food:

 

 

the lowdown: Casa Diablo | 37th & NW Nicolai St - SHR, Portland, OR 97210 | 503.222.6600 | Website | Strip Club, Lunch, Dinner, Bar | Food Items $5 - $8, Table Dances $20 | ****

 

Girls, Girls, Girls…and vegan mexican food!

 

With a slogan like “We keep the meat on the pole, not on the plateâ€

[beforewisdom]

I have to say women really are psychologically different than men in some ways. I can't imagine too many men feeling comfortable going to a strip club where the dancers are men. I don't even like looking around in the locker room at my gym. I can't imagine sitting down in it and eating a meal.

[Jessifly]

bad link, too many popups ...nevermind

Edited February 24, 2008 by Jessifly

[beforewisdom]

Good posts dandaman and offence74.

 

Offence - good to see someone else fed up with extremist feminists hijacking veganism to further their own agenda.

 

I read Adams' book a LONG time ago. I'm not a feminist. I do agree that the ability to objectify one type of living thing makes it easier to objectify another type of living thing.

 

As someone who frequently goes out among strangers to give them leaflets to go vegan I don't think that connection is of much use. People get overwhelmed with new ideas quickly. When they get overwhelmed they shut down and don't change at all. I think the most benefits can be had by giving people only one new thing and letting them run with it on their own.

 

Almost of all of the *isms and problems of the world are connected in some way. Since they are connected, if you can get someone to tune into just one there is a chance that if they keep going they will tune into other things on their own. If not, you got them to tune into a problem they weren't tuned into before.

 

 

You aren't going to improve the world by stopping people at the metro and then asking them to take on the problems of the world. However, if you give them a THIN pamphlet and one small thing, you might get them to listen.