millines@fortune.UUCP (Trish Millines) (07/12/84)
I just read this article in the San Francisco Chronicle today. I'd like to
pass it on to you 'cause I can't believe I read this bullshit.
*****************************************************************************
Officials want to close Gerry Clevenger's hot dog stand because they say
she's simply too pretty to work on a street corner where she could cause an
accident by distracting passing male motorists.
"From what they tell me, she's an attractive girl. I felt it was a
nuisance," council President Vincent Tarantino said yesterday.
The 30-year-old woman said she left her job as a cocktail waitress to
begin peddling hot dogs because she wanted to be in the sun, work her own
hours, and bring her 9-year-old son to work with her.
She said she got the appropriate licenses to open Gerry's Hot Dog Stand
on Route 555 and Glassboro-Cross Keys Road, a busy intersection in a rural
section of this souther New Jersey community, and never anticipated the
controversy.
"I haven't caused one accident on this corner in the two months that I've
been here," she said.
Tarantino said the intersection is heavily used. "She could cause a
hazard, she could cause an accident," he said. "If she wears short pants or
a bathing suit, it would be a hazard if someone took their eyes off the road".
Tarantino said lawmakers in the Gloucester County township were first
told that Clevenger might pose a danger by Butch D'Alessandro, who owns
Butch's Little Ponderosa across the street from Clevenger's stand.
"She will wave at these people to come in. I think it's a traffic
hazard," D'Alessandro said. But he acknowledged that he does not like the
competition.
At a recent township council meeting, lawmakers discussed whether
Clevenger "is causing a potential danger to motorists."
The council also considered whether they should try to find a way to
revise township ordinances to bar Clevenger' business from the corner. They
reached no decision.
*****************************************************************************
Now isn't that the shit? One woman opens a little hot dog stand, a man gets
upset because of possible competition, and they're going to change the law
to keep her from operating her business!!!! What ever happened to free
enterprise? Does this mean that she has to wear long pants and long sleeve
shirts, and burn up while she's working in 90 degree weather?
I sure would like to hear some opinions on this, 'cause I just can't believe
this is even happening in this day and age. Thank God I left New Jersey....martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (07/12/84)
Gerry Clevenger could always wear a chador. -- Who wouldn't break for whales? Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo
dak@ihuxn.UUCP (Dave Krunnfusz) (07/12/84)
<> Well, Trish, sounds pretty asinine to me (maybe all those chemicals in NJ are rotting away some brains :-)) Dave K.
sdo@u1100a.UUCP (Scott Orshan) (07/12/84)
This is in response to the article about the woman who might
be forced to give up her hotdog stand because she distracted
male motorists.
I assume that the town will also ban the shirtless males
commonly seen working on the roads and at construction
sites. They certainly distract women drivers.
There are two good things about this case. One, the woman
will obviously win, and two, the publicity will increase her
business and hurt the restaurant on the other corner's business.
As is usually the case with newspaper stories like this,
the real facts will probably come out in a few days. It may
not be the way it appears. Keep this in mind before condemning
any person, town, state, or sex.
--
Scott Orshan
Bell Communications Research
201-981-3064
{ihnp4,allegra,pyuxww}!u1100a!sdowetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (07/12/84)
I think you should put this incident in with all of the others of the same ilk that have happened around here over the past 15 years. If you drive the lesser roads in NJ, you will often see these hot dog stands at various places along the road. Now, what happens is that some jerk-off of a diner, resturant, or eatery owner decides that the person selling the hot dogs is hurting his business. What does he do? Off to the local government to get the hotdogger sent on his way. Since the complainer is probably paying a healthy tax on his property, who do the locals back? You guessed it. Lately, however, it has been getting tougher and tougher for these greeedheads to move the offending entreprenuer. In this latest flap, it seems the local beanery operator has hit on a new idea to get rid of the competition. Traffic hazard indeed! I hope the lady in question wins this one as I still beleive in free enterprize. The real question on this news item is one of who can sell food where. The issue of being too sexy is a smoke screen to accomplish the the real question. If the lady were to move on tommorrow, and some big hairy pug-ugly guy take her place, the slop joint owner would find some other excuse to get him moved (Too ugly, stops traffic). I can remember at least ten or twelve of these cases in the past few years. T. C. Wheeler
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (07/12/84)
> I think you should put this incident in with all of the others > of the same ilk that have happened around here over the past > 15 years. If you drive the lesser roads in NJ, you will often > see these hot dog stands at various places along the road. Now, > what happens is that some jerk-off of a diner, resturant, or eatery > owner decides that the person selling the hot dogs is hurting his > business. What does he do? Off to the local government to get the > hotdogger sent on his way. Since the complainer is probably paying > a healthy tax on his property, who do the locals back? You guessed it. I have seen this happen, too. The township of Berkeley Heights, at the urging of the local business community, has been hassling Bell Labs for providing certain services to its employees. It seems the shop owners would be happier if we wasted our time and gas driving into town. Sure, I understand their motivation, but as a tax-paying resident of Berkeley Heights, I resent the inconvenience. > Lately, however, it has been getting tougher and tougher for these > greeedheads to move the offending entreprenuer. In this latest > flap, it seems the local beanery operator has hit on a new idea > to get rid of the competition. Traffic hazard indeed! I hope > the lady in question wins this one as I still beleive in free > enterprize. I hope the lady sues their sexual organs off! The explanation given is grossly sexist, and should be condemned. However, as T. C. points out, the explanation given has little to do with the actual reasons involved. The underlying motivation is greed, not sexism. > The real question on this news item is one of who can sell food > where. The issue of being too sexy is a smoke screen to accomplish > the the real question. If the lady were to move on tommorrow, and > some big hairy pug-ugly guy take her place, the slop joint owner > would find some other excuse to get him moved (Too ugly, stops > traffic). I can remember at least ten or twelve of these cases > in the past few years. I couldn't agree more. The sexist explanation is reprehensible, and should be objected to, but it's really just a diversion. There's no point in reading more into it than is there. And for those of you who have slandered the fair state of New Jersey, it may be the armpit of the nation, but I call it home... -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
smann@ihu1g.UUCP (Sherry Mann) (07/13/84)
The point has been made, and rightly, that the complaint against the hot dog stand entreprenuer is a smoke screen covering the real reason for the complaint - she is hurting someone's business. We are therefore urged not to take it seriously as everyone can see through it. This case however blatant, does point out how women (and not just women, but that's what I want to discuss) face sometimes more subtle discrimination - for instance now that Mondale has selected a woman as his running mate you can expect to hear (and I've heard them already) that she isn't qualified, that she has no foreign relations experience, and this one, which I find most laughable - that he only selected her to appease a portion of the population (the women's vote). VP candidates have been selected with fewer or similar qualifications, and traditionally are selected to balance the ticket with regard to select portions of the population.
fremont@hplabs.UUCP (Michael J. Fremont) (07/13/84)
Very ridiculous; not particularly surprising. mike
jdh@hou5g.UUCP (07/13/84)
The article about the hotdog woman clearly demonstrates that society in general (in the form of the restaurant owner and the town officials in specific) finds the fact of womanhood a sufficient enough accusation to use it as an reason in and of itself for banning her. The hotdog woman is not making efforts to hide that fact that she's a woman. Because she is not dressed in a manner that would allow people to assume she's a man (which of course people do unless it is proven otherwise), she is deemed unacceptable. Regardless of the (obvious) motive of the restaurant owner, the fact that SUCH an accusation can seriously be considered (or even seem a logical possibility!!!) proves that woman-hating is rampant in this society.
holt@convex.UUCP (07/14/84)
#R:fortune:-377600:convex:45000008:000:994
convex!holt Jul 13 16:55:00 1984
It sure sounds like she has every right to keep her hotdog stand open.
Hopefully, her rights will be upheld. Hopefully, all of our rights are
being upheld all of the time.
The sad case is that we all lose rights every year when the government
inforces more and more laws to "protect" us, the citizens. Think about it...
- Is striking down the Miranda ruling upholding rights? (obviously not
the rights of those who were illegally searched)
- Is raising the drinking age upholding rights? (after all, if you're 18,
you can die for this country in uniform.)
- Is restricting scientific information exchange with the non-US scientific
community upholding rights? (clearly not)
- Is restricting travel to non-approved countries upholding rights? (no)
- Is requiring seat belts to be worn upholding rights? (not wearing seat
belts endangers no one but yourself.)
Ugh, this is depressing.
Dave Holt
Convex Computer Corp.
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!holttucson@ihuxj.UUCP (B. A. Salzmann) (07/14/84)
Even if the hot dog entreprenuer got a citation for indecent exposure or disturbing the peace, the business owner would find some other means of harassment. B A Salzmann
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/14/84)
Good grief! Next thing you know, they'll try to legislate away
good-looking people!
Reminds me of that old analogy, ``pro is to con as progress is to ...''.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci (301) 454-7690
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@marylandsaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/15/84)
That article and the conclusions it comes to are interesting and very clearly
demonstrate how much we live in a man's world.
Assuming for a minute that the accusations against that woman in the hot-dog
stand were founded, i.e that some men would actually look at her and get into
accidents. The obvious conclusion would be that men should be given stricter
driving tests before getting their driver's license, maybe have to go through
an area where there are beautiful women around to see how they handle the
situation. (and women would be exempted from this part of the test since they
apparently are superior drivers, not being so easily distracted by members of
the opposite sex (-:).
This would be consistent with other ways of dealing with other obstacles
encountered while driving. After all, trees are not cut down because some
people drive into them, instead people are taught not to drive into them.
But in the case of women, things are different: because they cause a hazzard,
they have to be removed. I don't know what the probability of a woman causing
a traffic accident is compared to the probability of a tree having a a car
run into it, but I would assume that they are similar. So in this case trees
are assumed to have more rights than women: they have the right to be the
way they are but women don't.
Fortunately this is a very silly incident and I would hope that nowadays people
would be able to see through such reasonning, but having had a few discussions
on this matter with some friends, I have found to my surprise that the attitude
that women might be a "hazzard" to men is still not completely dismissed as
silly by many men. A friend of mine complained once to me how women shouldn't
wear shorts in the summer because it made him and other men so miserable to
have to watch without being able to touch. When answering that women look at
men without touching and are not miserable, I have gotten the response that
"men are different, women don't care as much as men, men are more visual, etc.."
While I am not convinced that this is so or that the differences are biological,
(I have met enough men who are not this way to have doubts about the
universality of such behaviour) I think that the fact that the question is
raised points to a serious problem: a lot of men are not responsible human
beings when it comes to their dealings with women. People who cannot see a
person of the opposite sex without either being miserable, violent or
destructive are not well-adjusted to a society which allows basic freedoms such
as the universal right to be.
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigleydmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (07/15/84)
Women who are attractively dressed (where "attractive" is defined by the viewer) may very well distract some men when driving, or doing whatever else. Thus using the word "hazard" to describe them is technically correct. The problem is that the word "hazard" also tends to assign blame, and there is where the trouble lies. In the case in question, I think that if the actions of some male drivers watching a female roadside vendor are hazardous, then the drivers are responsible for changing their reaction. Trees *are* sometimes cut down for the benefit of drivers, but I tend to think that people should receive more consideration than trees. I don't think that the incident demonstrates anti-woman sentiment as much as anti-change and anti-me sentiment. Whenever a change occurs that tends to disturb established conditions, attention is focused on the change. If there is some negative effect of a change, people will usually suggest reversing the change rather than even thinking of changing the environment to accomodate the change. And people would rather that a problem, any problem, be fixed at someone else's expense. The woman simply did something which was novel, and got someone upset, and the suggested solution is to remove the novelty. I hope that saner minds prevail and the woman is allowed to sell hot dogs in peace.
chabot@amber.DEC (Lisa S. Chabot) (07/15/84)
Well, any woman dressing like that woman with the hot dog stand, I mean, she's just asking to be raped! And think of the traffic hazard that would be! No, wait, I was just being sarcastic...aaaiiiieeeee
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (07/16/84)
Question: Have they also banned billboards, where the intent, as well as the effect, is to distract the driver? -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (07/16/84)
I am also amazed by some of the reactions to the New Jersey incident. Sure, it's an example of "the fix is in" local politics-- no "real" reason was needed, just something that would sound "plausible"-- but the fact that the particular reason chosen was thought plausible is the remarkable part. Suppose they had said that the presence of a black person on the street corner was a distraction, because the community wasn't used to seeing black people. That so clearly violates the seller's civil rights that it just wouldn't be plausible. Sure, at one time, in some peoples' minds, seeing a black person would create a lot of hatred-- but that's what they get for being racist-- it's nobody else's problem. Society has recognized this, and so any such rationale for barring someone from a street corner would be dismissed without a second thought (except possibly to heap censure on the person who suggested it). >From Sophie Quigley: >People who cannot see a >person of the opposite sex without either being miserable, violent or >destructive are not well-adjusted to a society which allows basic freedoms >such as the universal right to be. Damn right. And this is exactly the civil right that's being infringed on... the right to be a woman. So, no, it's not *just* an example of dirty local politics; it is also a manifestation of societal attitudes that need to be changed. And the idea that we should condone irrational reactions (e.g. driving off the road) provoked simply by someone's appearance is ridiculous. peter rowley, U. Toronto
kathleen@ihuxw.UUCP (K. S. Romanowski) (07/16/84)
I read the article with great interest and have come to a conclusion: I would probably get into an accident if it were a great looking make that reasonably good looking male servingup tasty hot dogs wearing a pair of shorts (I like to look, too!!!). All in all, fair enterprise should prevail and she should be allowed to continue to run her business. She cannot be held responsible for the actions of the drivers. If they can keep their minds on the road, they should pull over to the side of the road and get in a good stare! Katie
timothy@druxt.UUCP (MorrisseyTJ) (07/16/84)
1) Many people are looking to weaken the Miranda ruling and the exclusionary rule because, in practice, they benefit real criminals rather than protect innocent people. 2) The primary reason for most states raising their drinking ages is that the freedom for that age group to drink has resulted in a significant increase in drunk driving problems. I don't feel that raising the drinking age is one of the best solutions, but I can't think of a more effective one. 5) I believe that anyone who does not wear seatbelts is being foolish. Moreover, in most states, driving a car is a priviledge, not a right. This means governments can place "reasonable" restrictions on driving. Because most people refuse to wear seatbelts, new cars are being required to have airbags and other passive restraints. Tim
ab3@pucc-h (Rsk the Wombat) (07/17/84)
On a much more serious note, I heard (on the radio yesterday) that
a woman in Milwaukee was abducted by two men, stripped, raped,
and stuffed in the trunk of her car; they then drove her to a local
tavern where the patrons stood and laughed at her...and no one tried
to help her.
Assholes.
--
Rsk the Wombat
UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk
{ decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk
"Now wher're you boys goin' with all that beer?"jdb@qubix.UUCP (Jeff Bulf) (07/18/84)
Seems to me that the clue was right there in the article: the hot dog stand was
competing with a more established business. Dealing with the matter in terms of
hype about "distracting drivers" is like controlling an elevator by tugging
on the dial that tells you what floor it is on.
--
Dr Memory
...{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!qubix!jdbrcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (07/22/84)
> Officials want to close Gerry Clevenger's hot dog stand because they say >she's simply too pretty to work on a street corner where she could cause an >accident by distracting passing male motorists. >... > Tarantino said lawmakers in the Gloucester County township were first >told that Clevenger might pose a danger by Butch D'Alessandro, who owns >Butch's Little Ponderosa across the street from Clevenger's stand. (...and some of the pieces I cut out are worse than what's here...) It would be interesting (though unfortunately not very rewarding) if Clevenger could counter-complain against D'Alessandro - that he's simply "too handsome" to work on a street corner, blah, blah... (Of course, maybe he's not all that handsome - but that's hardly the point anyway!) On the one hand, it would be sort of stooping to the same techniques as her opponent, who would seem from the story not to be a particularly savory character. On the other hand, it might be quite satisfying to point out the idiocy of the whole situation, and - who knows - embarrass the lawmakers into behaving semi-rationally, or at least bouncing them out on the next election. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...I'm not cynical - just experienced.
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/23/84)
> On a much more serious note, I heard (on the radio yesterday) that > a woman in Milwaukee was abducted by two men, stripped, raped, > and stuffed in the trunk of her car; they then drove her to a local > tavern where the patrons stood and laughed at her...and no one tried > to help her. > > Assholes. > -- > Rsk the Wombat That's twice that this sort of thing has happened in about one year's time. I should say, that's twice in one year that we've heard about such behavior through media exposure. (Remember New Bedford?) That's not counting other similar attacks that go unreported for whatever reason. Forget actual attacks. Call them "isolated incidents" or "extreme cases". For every actual attack like this one, how many groups have tried to do the same thing, or talked and laughed about doing it? And some people have the nerve to claim "Well, my SO and I have a very healthy, mature relationship that avoids all that negative behavior and thinking, and none of my male friends behave that way, so it must not be widespread. It must be the media perpetuating a myth." ......... -- This unit humbly and deeply apologizes for having and expressing opinions. This will not occur again. (BEEP) Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
wade@nmtvax.UUCP (07/25/84)
To: unm-cvax!lanl-a!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!zehntel!ihnp4!fortune!millines
Subject: Re: They say we're moving ahead!
References: <3776@fortune.UUCP>
Listen, dumbshit, if you read your own damn article you would
know that the issue wasn't that they wanted her to close down
because 'a man didn't like the competition', but because she
might distract motorists and cause an accident. Of course, I
am just a stupid, insensitive, macho asshole man, and my opinions
have no meaning if I'm not a well adjusted, open minded
lesbian. I do think that they should let her keep the stand
open and it would be stupid to close it, but what I object to
is the way you twisted the whole issue.
Just because you hate 999 in 1000 men doesn't mean that all
men hate all women. Believe it or not, we aren't out to get
you.
Eat that, wench!
Richard Wadedave@rlgvax.UUCP (Dave Maxey) (08/01/84)
Beep! >Now isn't that the shit? One woman opens a little hot dog stand, a man gets >upset because of possible competition, and they're going to change the law >to keep her from operating her business!!!! What ever happened to free >enterprise? Seems to me that free enterprise just warped out and left. If I were on that council I would suggest the possibility of closing the man's restaurant. After all, people who were hungry might see that big sign, think about a juicy steak just packed full of preservatives and other neat chemicals, and then run a red light and hit another vehical. That could even be dangerous to pedestrians and street vendors. :-). Yep. I'd close that sucker down in a minute. - Dave Maxey (alias tbm) {seismo,mcnc,brl-bmd,allegra}!rlgvax!dave