Strip Clubs

[Pinga]

Kimmio, you seem to make a habit of addressing posts that I make back to me, with a quote. Haven't been tagged so much in a thread in a long long time. Dang, almost makes me feel popular. . I'm not clear why I would not be able to address yours back to you; however, in future, I will ensure that I quote them to make it clear which elements of your posts that I am inquiring about.

 

[Delightful Life]

No. The strongest Korean beverage I've tried is 밀키스

(mmm, carbonated milk? that i wouldn't mind trying--they probably have some at T & T, though probably not the Ttongsul -- they wouldn't get past our health board and child protection laws...sometimes i think some cultures have foods that they intentionally screw around with tourists *waggles eyebrows*)

 

[Pinga]

Pinga, would saying that not all restaurant kitchen staff need culinary skills for their jobs because some of them just make fast food be insulting to them?

My reference to humans using "monkey brains" ( commonly known as reptilian brains or the amygdala) was universal - not applicable to just strippers. It was applicable to all of us and how we are influenced by marketing psychology appealing to the impulse centres of our brains to sell sex in the same way as crack cocaine does. And I asked if that was a priority over human rights.

I would say it is. For example, Jae has done a good job of explaining the training that he takes in food handling. If in fast foo, then your skills are probably of a different nature than fine dining chefs. Just like there are bookkeepers, accountants, and CFO's, and each requires a different skill set. It does not mean, though, that any one of them is unskilled.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Okay, Pinga that's fine. However you want as I can understand your question if you are addressing it to me in particular. I am sorry for over tagging you. I also apologize for being careless to notice a tag to someone else in a post I started to a different person, but left for a bit, and didn't finish, so someone else accidentally got tagged in my next post.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I would say it is. For example, Jae has done a good job of explaining the training that he takes in food handling. If in fast foo, then your skills are probably of a different nature than fine dining chefs. Just like there are bookkeepers, accountants, and CFO's, and each requires a different skill set. It does not mean, though, that any one of them is unskilled.

I am saying that not all restaurants require advanced culinary skills and not all strip joints require advanced dancing skills. In fact many of them don't and the definition of dancing is open to interpretation. So, we have heard here about strippers hanging around the pole looking bored. Lap dancers don't necessarily need a wide range of movements. I think it all comes down to what the hiring manager thinks of the candidates' looks more than anything else. And in any other place of employment that would be discrimination - under the law because there is no objective measure,not a matter of my opinion - if it could be proven that was happening.

 

[Pinga]

It seems odd to me that we seemed to be at a place where we agreed that strippers have both natural and trained skills. In a way , no different than a singer at a bar or club.

Now we are discussing the theoretical club owner that theoretically wouldnt' hire someone with a disability. This seems rather obscure and a long tangent.

If a singer can't sing, they aren't going to be a singer.
If a dancer can't dance, they aren't going to be a dancer.

Now, they both may sing and dance "ok", but, in a bar situation, the goal is to have a voice or style that matches the clients / customers environment.

Is there any doubt that the goal is to please the customer and make money for the lounge or club?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It seems odd to me that we seemed to be at a place where we agreed that strippers have both natural and trained skills. In a way , no different than a singer at a bar or club.

Now we are discussing the theoretical club owner that theoretically wouldnt' hire someone with a disability. This seems rather obscure and a long tangent.

If a singer can't sing, they aren't going to be a singer.
If a dancer can't dance, they aren't going to be a dancer.

Now, they both may sing and dance "ok", but, in a bar situation, the goal is to have a voice or style that matches the clients / customers environment.

Is there any doubt that the goal is to please the customer and make money for the lounge or club?

But clients/ customers/ environment (i.e. workplace culture) doesn't trump inclusion under human rights employment laws governing disability even if the workplace culture is not intentionally discriminating, but has the consequence of discriminating, against people with disabilities. It is in the law. And strippers, if they are employees, or contracted employees of an agency, are protected by those laws. If they are freelance entertainers they still might be covered by the same laws if it can be shown that the establishment governs the requirements and policies expected on the job - that the freelance job has the same expectations as an employee position would.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Further, the threshold of undue hardship that it is the employers responsibility to meet - if it can be established that it meets the objective requirements of a bona fide requirement of the job - are high. So, modifications and accommodations like assistive devices are the responsibility of the employer to allow for and provide.

 

[Delightful Life]

Further, the threshold of undue hardship that it is the employers responsibility to meet - if it can be established that it meets the objective requirements of a bona fide requirement of the job - are high. So, modifications and accommodations like assistive devices are the responsibility of the employer to allow for and provide.

so, dancing lessons and plastic surgery & makeup lessons provided by the employer for those who don't dance too well & are 'ugly' before they get hired?

what's the point in having requirements for the job, then?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

so, dancing lessons and plastic surgery provided by the employer for those who don't dance too well & are 'ugly'?

Well, there is no objective measure of "ugly" or "beautiful" under human rights laws so the employer would already be in violation if "ugly" or "beautiful" meant discriminating against a protected group. The first thing they would have to establish is if the job requirement is one that can reasonably be connected to the job, AND is being asked in good faith, AND reasonably necessary (not OR but AND). This, after a person's unique merits, capacities and circumstances are taken into account.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Personally, I think the business itself discriminates on all grounds because they are not asking any of their requirements in good faith because the workplace culture itself caters to, as chansen would put it "1/3 overgrown frat boys, 1/3 businessmen, and 1/3 guys just tagging along with their coworkers" - and because it doesn't protect against the type of harassment one could reasonably expect protection from anywhere else.

 

[chansen]

If this thread were a human being, even the Pope would euthanize it.

And some people wonder why I won't let go of some things....

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Ha! @chansenThat's a good quip but - you asked for objective evidence and I presented you with applicable law and policy that's already established. So, do you want to debate that, or quip some more? Do you have any intention of thinking seriously about this issue and about human rights discrimination or not?

 

[Delightful Life]

Well, there is no objective measure of "ugly" or "beautiful" under human rights laws so the employer would already be in violation if "ugly" or "beautiful" meant discriminating against a protected group. The first thing they would have to establish is if the job requirement is one that can reasonably be connected to the job, AND is being asked in good faith, AND reasonably necessary (not OR but AND). This, after a person's unique merits, capacities and circumstances are taken into account.

I am just trying to take what you are positing and seeing its consequence

Saying that there is a threshold of undue hardship & the human rights laws regarding disability means to me that outside of the employer we are talking aboot here there are objective & empricial laws that govern this

grok?

so then if there are, if the stripper doesn't meet these objective & empirical laws before they get hired...it seems you are saying that ugly strippers (which i am just giving as a ferinstance in the 'disabled stripper' hypothetical you are positing), to get hired, it is up to their employer to somehow make them more beautiful, better at the job of stripping?

that sounds as bizarre as me applying to be a neurosurgeon and, since i'm not skilled at neurosurgery (don't walk away...i'm not mad...MUCH...mua ha ha), then it is up to the employer to pay for medschool training so that i can learn to be a neurosurgeon...

in your hypothetical

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

There are no objective measures of ugly under the human rights law. There is regard for the dignity of all persons on equal grounds as other persons. The objective of the laws is to level the playing field for persons that fall under the protected categories. I said before that I think the whole stripping business should be tested as to whether they are, inherently in the workplace culture, breaching those protected grounds - and a new workplace culture be established. The frat boys, businessmen and their allies won't likely be happy with the changes even though they'd still be welcome to be customers ( calling all frat boys, businessmen and their allies - you are a historically marginalized and underserved group! Unite and stand up to this grievous discrimination! ) - that's probably why it's never been tested.

 

[Delightful Life]

There are no objective measures of ugly under the human rights law. There is regard for the dignity of all persons on equal grounds as other persons. The objective of the laws is to level the playing field for persons that fall under the protected categories. I said before that I think the whole stripping business should be tested as to whether they are, inherently in the workplace culture, breaching those protected grounds - and a new workplace culture be established. The frat boys, businessmen and their allies won't likely be happy with the changes even though they'd still be welcome to be customers ( calling all frat boys, businessmen and their allies - you are a historically marginalized and underserved group! Unite and stand up to this grievous discrimination! ) - that's probably why it's never been tested.

ok, what you've just stated there says that your hypothetical is meaningless, because there are no objective measures (even though there are these laws) for the employers or employees to make any decision in regards to working as a disabled stripper

good

now we can move on to actual concreteness instead of theoretical distracting and unfocused abstractions

your go, Pinga

*breaks out the popcorn and will try to sit the rest of it out*

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Again, Inanna - if the employer expects "beautiful" or "dancer" - their interpretation cannot override the protected grounds. It would be up to the court to determine if those are bona fide requirements first of all - and because attraction is a subjective thing it wouldn't be. Dancer would be rationally connected to dancing . If a disabled dancer had skills that take into account their unique needs and circumstances - that might pass. And the employer would have to recognize those over and above what the workplace culture expects dancing to look like. And yes, they might have to pay for lessons appropriate to their needs and circumstances just like some employers have to pay for food safety courses, ergonomic office equipment, or even retrofit buildings to allow access.That's one of the reasons why the whole business could be taken to task. The other is that taking ones clothes off and being leered at couldn't reasonably be expected at any other workplace. It would be harassment. For a boss to discuss an employees private parts would be harassment. For an employer not to do anything to protect an employee from sexual remarks and cat calls would be harassment.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It's no more theoretical or a distraction than anything Pinga's putting out here as acceptable employment practice because she isn't measuring her opinions against what the law really says.

 

[ChemGal]

Again, Inanna - if the employer expects "beautiful" or "dancer" - their interpretation cannot override the protected grounds. It would be up to the court to determine if those are bona fide requirements first of all - and because attraction is a subjective thing it wouldn't be. Dancer would be rationally connected to dancing . If a disabled dancer had skills that take into account their unique needs and circumstances - that might pass. And the employer would have to recognize those over and above what the workplace culture expects dancing to look like. And yes, they might have to pay for lessons appropriate to their needs and circumstances just like some employers have to pay for food safety courses, ergonomic office equipment, or even retrofit buildings to allow access.That's one of the reasons why the whole business could be taken to task. The other is that taking ones clothes off and being leered at couldn't reasonably be expected at any other workplace. It would be harassment. For a boss to discuss an employees private parts would be harassment. For an employer not to do anything to protect an employee from sexual remarks and cat calls would be harassment.

I don't think it would be majorly different than auditioning for many other jobs.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I don't think it would be majorly different than auditioning for many other jobs.

Probably not - but are you an employee at other dancing jobs, or a freelance performer? Let's say you dance at a concert hall/ theatre - does your job look more like that of an employee of the theatre or a totally independent performer? If you were hired as an "in house" performer then you are an employee. If you are hired by an agency you are an employee of the agency. If you are a dancer in a show - let's say a classical production of Swan Lake - the agency might not have to take into account disabled dancers - that might not be reasonable. But the agency might have to provide parallel opportunities for disabled dancers if they were taken to task for it. It's one of those things that probably hasn't been tested yet because we're still on the cutting edge of it. It's kind of like asking black people to sit at the back of the bus - or not even letting them on the bus - or making them ride a different bus or use a different door to a building. For a long time people (the ruling class) took it for granted as acceptable. It took a long time to change attitudes. We have the laws but attitudes haven't caught up.