"Hooters" commentary off base
I am currently a sophomore at the UA. I have a 4.0 GPA. I am also a Hooter's girl. Yes, it's true that I make $2.13 an hour, as does every other server in Tucson. Contrary to the implications of the commentary in the Jan. 22 Wildcat, I do not have children and neither do many of my co-workers. Those who do have children aren't starving. The sign mentioned is in fact about 10 to 15 minutes from the Hooters East location. Obviously, Ms. Winsky has never bothered to visit us. If she did, she'd realize that we do in fact cater to families. Maybe Ms. Winsky should do some more homework on what it's like to be a Hooter's girl. Better yet, why doesn't she find out for herself? We're hiring.
Rachael Shinoskie
fine arts sophomore
Sexist ads heartbreaking
Bravo to Laura Winsky! It is so good to see that a young woman has some moral beliefs and that you are also bothered with these ads. I'm only 28, but I am heartbroken and very bothered by the ads I see here as well as off campus with young people and specifically women. It is good to know that at least one other person in America feels the way I do these days, and that not every college student is oblivious to what is right and wrong. Down with Hooters, Playboy and every other exploiting entity!
Heather Sim
printing and graphic services staff member
Not so bad to be a sex object
After finally being able to control my laughter, I felt compelled to write to the Wildcat in reference to the Jan. 22 commentary about Hooters and women being "reduced to sex objects." First of all, Playboy wouldn't exist as the magazine that it is today were it not for women making the decision to pose in those pages. Yes, the women! This is what they chose to do. If they are being belittled in these magazines it is because they are willingly letting themselves be photographed. It is not the men that are "reducing" them. I don't think it's so bad to be a sex object. Were it not for sex, well, we wouldn't be here today to look at those glorious Hooters billboards, would we?
Yes, I agree, not everyone goes to Hooters for the wings. But then again, Hooters exists only because women go to work there. If they want a waitressing job, there's plenty of other restaurants to apply to. So let's not attack the company. After all, Hooters enables these women to earn a living, and a pretty decent one at that. Hey, I think we all benefit in the end. Everyone goes home happy. Especially me. I'm thankful for those Hooters billboards. Because of them, I, along with many other Tucsonans, have become aware of the incredible wings I can find at Hooters. Praise free enterprise indeed.
Erik Salcido
electrical engineering freshman
Pro-choice letter flawed
There are two serious flaws in the letter of the studio arts sophomore which appeared in Monday's Arizona Daily Wildcat condemning the pro-life stance on abortion. In the first place, the writer asserts that there exists a clear distinction between an embryo and a fetus, but she ignores the obvious questions that then present themselves: by what mysterious process does the "group of cells" of the woman's body (which the writer defines as an "embryo") suddenly become a new life? ("Growing child" is the term used by the writer.) At what point does this transition occur? Surely it would be far easier to believe that new life originates at the moment of conception itself? Unfortunately, the question becomes one not of how credible something may be, but rather of how expedient it is to hold certain beliefs.
Secondly, the writer states that she is "neither ignorant nor arrogant" enough to believe that what is right for her is right for everyone. She thereby infers that it is both arrogant and ignorant to believe in moral absolutes. However, this claim is self-contradictory. She condemns those who believe that there are standards of what is right for everyone, yet it is okay for her to believe just as she pleases. On the basis of her belief that what is right for one person may not be right for another, why should it be "wrong" for someone else to believe in a certain way? In particular, why should another person's believing that certain truths are universally applicable be the basis for her to brand them "arrogant" and "ignorant?" In fact, her very use of the word "ignorant" implies that she holds to some "immutable truth" about what is right for humans to believe. In the absence of moral absolutes, no such truth could exist. Of course, it is easy for us to believe in moral absolutes. For example, to believe that murder is not wrong would go against the deepest fiber of our humanity. Perhaps it is our awareness of similar truths about issues such as abortion which drive their proponents to such lengths in justifying their beliefs.
Sheldon Joyner
math graduate student
Pro-choice letter campaign evident
I am writing because I am very concerned about the very transparently organized letter writing campaign trying to dictate to the Wildcat what it can and cannot publish. What this amounts to is a thinly veiled attempt at censorship. Censorship is a tool for the weak and the oppressive that carry indefensible convictions. Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot used censorship to convince their respective nations that certain peoples were inferior and should be eliminated by means of genocide. Today, Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro use censorship to convince their countries that the U.S. and the people and principles it stands for are evil. Why are pro-abortionists so terrified of hearing other points of view? Why do they try to keep people from hearing the pro-life argument? I think the abortion issue is a very important one that should be discussed and debated in a fashion consistent with our nation's commitment to democracy. However, left-wing extremists like the recent letter writers don't want debate, they want to arrogantly assume their views are the right ones and force them upon other people, just like Hitler and Saddam. I have to take issue with Dan Sloan's derogatory comments about "mentally retarded" babies and babies born with "defects" and how they shouldn't be born. How dare he insinuate that handicapped people somehow have less a right to live than he! The last time I checked, the Bill of Rights guaranteed the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" to all people, regardless of race, creed or handicap! I think he owes an apology to all the handicapped students attending the U of A and to all students with handicapped family members or friends. I doubt he would feel the same way if he had a handicapped sibling or parent. I also want to point out the hypocrisy in Stephanie Morgan's letter. At the end of her letter, she says "How could anyone be so arrogant as to assume that they could make that decision for someone else?" I agree 100 percent. How can anybody be so arrogant as to think they can make a decision for a baby, one that can't even speak for itself, as to whether or not they will be granted to right to live? Your "slick little ideology" doesn't threaten any lives; it just ends them.
Kate Sebby
molecular and cellular biology sophomore
