Condemning the lewd, not the work

The writer of the Tuesday letter, “Other women support bikini baristas,” gave a very poor analogy in her defense of bikini baristas.

She wrote: “We respect ‘hard-working’ men and yet, when a woman falls back on her body to earn a living, we condemn her.”

“…we never fault men for falling back on their bodies in the form of physical labor, which is equally exploitive in that it causes workers permanent physical strain and injury and usually only pays a low wage (excepting union jobs).”

“That just seems like a misogynistic double standard to me.”

Why do the bikini baristas wear bikinis? To titillate and sexually attract ogling customers. Their job could be safely and just as effectively performed well wearing regular clothes.

Why do men perform physical labor? To complete a task that needs to be done, not to titillate and sexually attract ogling customers.

A misogynistic double standard? A misogynist is a woman hater. It’s not the female bikini barista that is frowned upon; it is her lewd attire and actions. If her only intention was to earn a living by serving coffee, she wouldn’t have to work in a scanty, sexually titillating costume.

There are many, many jobs a woman can fall back on to earn her living in which she uses her body. (Retail sales, construction laborer, carpenter, electrician, plumber, hotel maid, house cleaner, gardener, truck driver, pilot, etc.) Women today can and do just about any job a man does. There’s nothing holding them back from those jobs.

Patricia Mattison