Spring Break
Letter To The Editor
Reardon's Letter Wrong About Stripping
Jason Press
Issue date: 10/21/05 Section: Commentary
This is a rebuttal to the letter Cara Reardon wrote about Brad Zambrello's article "Save the Strippers." Ms. Reardon advocates in her article, "[what] I'm more concerned about is the nature of the job, the basic actions that are involved [in stripping.]" What Ms. Reardon appears to have forgotten is that stripping is a choice made by women. Most of them aren't forced into it. The government guarantees the right to life, but it does not guarantee a certain quality of life. These women could work other jobs and give up their luxuries if they wanted to, but they have chosen a life of luxury and indecency over that of dignity and poverty. It is also convenient how Ms. Reardon forgot to mention male stripping and the possible effects that it has on such men (indicating her overly feminist point of view). Not that this is really an issue because said strippers, like their female counterparts, made a choice that they never had to make anyway.
Next, Ms. Reardon makes the preposterous argument that, "It is not in the best interest of any female to do such a job..." That's about as convincing as a car salesman telling someone it's in her/his best interest to buy one of his/her cars. Maybe stripping isn't in Ms. Reardon's best interest, but she has absolutely no right to dictate what is in the best interest of other people. I doubt she has enough true understanding of the lives of these women to make such a bold statement. The world doesn't need people like her spoon-feeding opinions to people on what they need.
Then she goes on to ask, "Why is it necessary to see women undress themselves as a form of entertainment?" The answer, Ms. Reardon, is the same reason that it is necessary to have anything else that we have in a so-called democracy - to uphold the spirit of freedom. Granted, stripping is a morally questionable enterprise, but isn't the video game industry, the television industry, the meat packing industry (I would bet that the average slaughterhouse worker takes more abuse than your average stripper) and probably dozens of others? Should we take away the precious television you most likely watch or that hamburger you most likely ate at some point? When you take away one industry, you set the precedent for taking away others and with that, you lose the freedom that everyone proudly touts as this country's claim to fame. If you take away stripping, you risk losing a lot more.
Next, Ms. Reardon makes the preposterous argument that, "It is not in the best interest of any female to do such a job..." That's about as convincing as a car salesman telling someone it's in her/his best interest to buy one of his/her cars. Maybe stripping isn't in Ms. Reardon's best interest, but she has absolutely no right to dictate what is in the best interest of other people. I doubt she has enough true understanding of the lives of these women to make such a bold statement. The world doesn't need people like her spoon-feeding opinions to people on what they need.
Then she goes on to ask, "Why is it necessary to see women undress themselves as a form of entertainment?" The answer, Ms. Reardon, is the same reason that it is necessary to have anything else that we have in a so-called democracy - to uphold the spirit of freedom. Granted, stripping is a morally questionable enterprise, but isn't the video game industry, the television industry, the meat packing industry (I would bet that the average slaughterhouse worker takes more abuse than your average stripper) and probably dozens of others? Should we take away the precious television you most likely watch or that hamburger you most likely ate at some point? When you take away one industry, you set the precedent for taking away others and with that, you lose the freedom that everyone proudly touts as this country's claim to fame. If you take away stripping, you risk losing a lot more.