Catholic University a Bit Depraved?
29 June 2009 11:14 PM | By Prince Of Petworth in Neighborhoods - Brookland, signs 
DSCN0446, originally uploaded by Prince of Petworth.
I saw tons of these signs around Catholic University. A bit ironic? Ed. Note: Obviously these signs are not affiliated with Catholic University. I just thought it was funny they were surrounding the campus. On Flickr Mr. T in DC asks:
“I don’t think it’s legal to discriminate based on gender like that, is it?”
Any lawyers out there?
Follow PoP on twitter
Join the PoPville Flickr pool
29 June 2009 11:45 PM | GentrificationJones Said:
Ha! I took a picture of one of these signs last Friday morning (also next to the Catholic campus) and I was thinking of sending it in, but I didn’t know if it would be interesting/weird enough.
Definitely creepy. And why only $7 an hour? Seems like there might be far less degrading ways to earn that kind of money (based on the tone of the ad).
30 June 2009 12:16 AM | Golden Silence Said:
I’m wary of any man that refers to women as “females.”
30 June 2009 1:07 AM | Anonymous Said:
seeking prosecution, becoming a ambulance chaser, PoP?
30 June 2009 8:40 AM | Anonymous Said:
There is nothing degrading or depraved about girls washing cars and looking good if they want to. If you think its degrading don’t do it but don’t judge others.
The degrading part comes when the ultra hypocritical religious nonsense is brought in.
30 June 2009 8:48 AM | Redhead Said:
Re: Anonymous 8:40
Degrading is $7 an hour. It’s like the guy is pimping them out. I bet they could make a lot more money if they organized themselves.
Golden Silence – I’m with you. “Females” is so clinical. That’s degrading.
30 June 2009 8:59 AM | Anonymous Said:
CU is extremely depraved. No sex anytime, anywhere…ever.
30 June 2009 9:14 AM | TonyS Said:
“I bet they could make a lot more money if they organized themselves.”
thats dangerous talk redhed… dont start giving females the idea that they could organize sexy car washes on their own.
30 June 2009 9:53 AM | Skeletor Said:
It didn’t say they had to be pretty. Hi Grandma! Where’d you get the bikini?
30 June 2009 10:37 AM | PS Said:
My sense is that the more degrading it is, the less risk there is of gender discrimination. If your business is a female car wash, are you violating equal opportunity by only hiring females? Cf. Hooters? Chippendales dancers?
30 June 2009 10:38 AM | Anonymous Said:
Redhead – $7 per hour is way more than the children who make every piece of clothing on your body get per week.
Lets worry about the real problems in life and when they are solved we can worry about the correct price for washing cars.
Why should washing cars cost more than $7 anyway.. a machine can do it for $3 so if anything these girls should be happy they can even FIND employment with this skill set for that high of a salary.
and again… it can’t be degrading when they VOLUNTEER to do it.
30 June 2009 10:59 AM | Jimmy D Said:
I also love that the contact is “Mr. Levy.” Just adds to the creepiness of the whole thing having to contact a Mr. So-and-So instead of, say, John.
30 June 2009 12:05 PM | E Said:
at anon 10:38:
It doesn’t say that the car wash costs $7; they get *paid* $7/hour. I’d think that the industrious and I’m sure piously dressed young ladies could do more than a few an hour.
And I think the idea is that you could get something at this car wash that isn’t provided by the machines.
30 June 2009 12:09 PM | Matt G Said:
Yes, the term ‘females’ is degrading. They should have said ‘non-males’.
30 June 2009 12:10 PM | Anonymous Said:
Hey PoP, after you find out when and where this car wash is going to take place, could you please let us know?
30 June 2009 3:22 PM | Golden Silence Said:
I’ve seen these girl-only car washes—the most recent one was on Wisconsin (I think it was close to Sidwell, give or take). Nothing but a bunch of teen girls bopping up and down trying to get people to stop. I think it’s silly and it has me shaking my head.
But in regards to this one: Poorly put-together flyer, referring to women as “females” and the sketchiness of it all just rubs me the wrong way.
30 June 2009 5:56 PM | Law Dude Said:
It may or may not be illegal under Federal law, depending on whether being female is a “bona fide” and “reasonably necessary” occupational qualification. I don’t know the case law on whether hiring attractive women for the purpose of increasing business meets that standard or whether there are additional or different standards under DC law.
From Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, (1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees… on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise….”
30 June 2009 6:59 PM | Anonymous Said:
Catholic U. Police as it is their jurisdiction can and is empowered to remove those unsightly posters, what a disgrace to advertise promiscuity in the grounds next to the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, with color guards of the 4th Degree of the Knights of Columbus on hand!
30 June 2009 7:00 PM | Dee Montgomerry Pennyworth Said:
hahah, ive seen the chicks at Catholic U … smh
30 June 2009 8:17 PM | Redhead Said:
The moral outrage of “anonymous” at 10:38 AM just kills me. Must be hard to keep all of that under wraps with such a bland tag. Own your rage, dude! Give yourself a name!
01 July 2009 8:48 AM | ballslightning Said:
soapy wet females in catholic school skirts?
Wha..? Outrage! Gasp! Well, I never…!
01 July 2009 10:38 AM | Victoriam Said:
Did anyone think to actually call the number and pretend to be interested and find out the real scoop? I actually emailed the address on the sign, but haven’t got a reply. (I don’t want to call because I can’t block my phone number and don’t want to get on any slimey call lists.)