It is 11:37 a.m. in the Hooters parking lot, and the festivities
have already begun. Beneath a be-Hootered banner, two men play
“Crocodile Rock” on dueling pianos. The pianos, however, are not
pianos. Instead, two electric keyboards have been implanted in black
piano-shaped boxes. If dueling pianos can be said to become “more
depressing,” this has occurred. To the right of the dueling electric
piano-shaped boxes is a rectangular fenced-in pen, in which 50 or so
Hooters girls are milling about in their traditional orange baby-shorts
and white Skechers and diarrhea-
colored panty hose. Close
quarters. It is hot outside. The air smells of manure.
This is no ordinary Hooters franchise—it is a Hooters
casino, one of only three in the known world1 (if a Hooters
restaurant can be said to become “more depressing,” this has
occurred).2 Prior to its Hooterizing, the space already housed a
casino. That casino was called Rascals. Rascals is dead now. Hooters
lives. We have come to the grand opening of the Hooters of South
Park—a semi-industrial, working-class neighborhood south of
Seattle, most recently famous for a horrific murder—to witness a
fat man cut a symbolic ribbon with a pair of oversize novelty scissors.
Also, we will eat wings.
Also, die a little inside.
I know Hooters is nothing new. I’m sure feminists have been pitching
fits about it since the first one opened in Buttfuck, Florida, in 1983.
But Hooters is new to me. I managed to avoid Hooters for the
first 27 years of my life—much as I avoided strip clubs and other
social transactions geared toward the male boner—and I was not, I
discovered, quite ready for Hooters.
After a few minutes, a handler lets some of the Hooters girls out of
their pen, and they receive Hula-
hoops. We (journalists, family
members, Rascals regulars in mourning) sit in folding chairs and watch
as the girls gyrate to “Don’t Stop Believin'” while the dueling
pianists offer commentary on their bodies and gyrations. “Not only do
they do that,” one of the pianists leers, “later, they will
serve you all food.” He transitions seamlessly into “Summer of ’69.”
The girls wiggle and bounce in the manure-scented parking lot. “Those
were the best days of my life…” The aforementioned fat man comes out
and makes a speech about how working at Hooters is “empowering.”3 I
sigh forever.
We enter the restaurant,4 seat ourselves in a booth, and meet our
waitress, a truly sweet young lady who, in the spirit of Hooters Family
Restaurants, I’m going to go ahead and call Professor Boobies. She is
nervous. Clearly, she has been
instructed to flirt with us. “So
have you all eaten at Hooters restaurants before?” Professor Boobies
asks, looking around the table expectantly. “Yes.”5 “Yes.” “Yes.” “No.”
I have not. I am the only one. “Oooooooo!” she peeps. “Hooters
viiiiiiirgin!” I prepare to lose my Hooters virginity. I hope Hooters
will use a condom. “It’s nice outside, huh?” Professor Boobies asks.
“Yeah, it’s sunny!” we reply. “And in
September!” “It’s
almost October,” I remind her. “HALLOWEEEEEN!” she cries, clapping her
hands.
On the table are several copies of the September/October issue of
Hooters: The Magazine, Special 2009 Swimsuit Spectacular Issue.
The Hooters magazine breaks down as follows: 60 percent titties
(faux), 20 percent sports, 14 percent idiotic bullshit, 1 percent Ted
Nugent, and 5 percent extra titties (because, titties!). The back page
is an editorial called “A Separate Set of Rules!” by one I. J.
Rosenberg, who owns a “sports marketing company” in Atlanta. I. J.
Rosenberg believes that celebrities, or “‘special’ people,” get special
treatment, that they live by “a separate set of rules,” and that this
double standard has led our country into a “financial and moral
crisis.” I. J. Rosenberg cites many damning instances of celebrities
who “never really paid the price,” including Bill Clinton (“Clinton
lied to me, to you, and to the rest of the American people”), Ted
Kennedy (“Is he still a senator? He’s the epitome of ‘never goes
away'”—oops!), and O. J. Simpson (“For 12 years after being
acquitted for the murder of his ex-wife, The Juice walked the
streets”). I. J. Rosenberg demands justice. Exclamation point!
Of particular note in Hooters: The Magazine is the “JOKES”
page, which offers a quip about the terror of rectal thermometers
(that’s like gay buttsex, you know!); the story of “Joan, the rather
well-proportioned secretary” who didn’t realize she was lying naked on
a skylight; a handful of old-timey blond jokes; and a humorous exchange
between two hunters: “Hey, you almost hit my wife.” “Terribly sorry.
Have a shot at mine, over there.”
Periodically, waitresses come by and ask if we want them to sign our
magazines. “Yes?” we reply. “I’ll sign on the page number of how old I
am,” says Professor Boobies, “and don’t say 16!” Um, I wasn’t going to?
The owner of the franchise, a remarkably uncharismatic man in an orange
tie, comes by to say hello. I shake his hand much harder than is
necessary. “Our motto is: Every day we throw a party and you’re
invited,” he tells us, distracted (by boobies?). “We’re committed to
the growth of entertainment and excitement in the Seattle area.” Eye
contact is minimal.6
Finally, wings arrive. “Let me guess: Are you guys a spicy table or
a not-spicy table?” Professor Boobies asks. We wait for her to guess.
She doesn’t. “Spicy?” we say. “I knew it!” (Then why didn’t you guess?)
The wings are deep-fried, which I did not expect. Grease runs down my
chin. Professor Boobies’ acrylic nails make it difficult for her to
open the small, prepackaged tub of ranch dressing. One nail
accidentally pierces the foil, and she has to go in the back for help.
I dip the wing in the ranch. I feel fat and condescending.
In modern times, because of “society” and “women’s rights,” it’s not
acceptable to be (publicly) a person who likes their women dumb,
subservient, seminude, and kept in a pen. A lady isn’t just boobs with
legs, an animated sexy mannequin that brings you food, and you cannot
shoot a lady in the face just because she nags or won’t give you a
mouth-hug on your johnson (see: “JOKES” section, above). Anymore. We
did that already (see: caveman times through 1975). Except at
Hooooooters! Hooters is like a misogyny theme park, where intellectual
curiosity is kept to a minimum (see: I. J. Rosenberg), all the women
are girls, all the girls who weren’t born “empowered” have cut open
their chests and stuck plastic bags of goo in there and sewn ’em up
again in the name of making money and making men happy, and no one’s
shaming you into treating them like humans with brain-parts. You’re
paying for the privilege, after all. They have the right to vote, after
all (going on 100 years now! Girl power!). Jesus Christ. I’m raising my
daughters to be ugly.
It’s like—a friend pointed out later—if someone opened a
restaurant called Niggers, and the all-black waitstaff dressed like
slaves and step ‘n’ fetched you platters of watermelon, and when it was
your birthday they were all,
“Jump-down-turn-around-pick-a-bale-of-cotton!” and brought you a cake
in the shape of a bale of cotton. And racists could go! And indulge
their desire to be publicly racist under the guise of a fun-loving
theme restaurant! Niggers! It’s all in fun. It really is like
that.7
Eventually, when we can eat no more curly fries, the Hooters girls,
under the watchful eye of orange-tie-man, clap their hands and sing a
loud song. It is last call. Lunch is over. Some of the Hooters girls
seem happy; some don’t. It’s a job. They get to make some money. They
are pretty. Some of them have fake hair. Maybe they want more than
Hooters; maybe they don’t. Maybe it’s just a restaurant. We step
outside into the bright parking lot, hot in September. I’m glad I’m not
wearing panty hose. It smells like manure. 
*Footnotes
by Paul Constant
1. The others are in Las Vegas and Spokane. This month, Renton will
boast the world’s first Hooters restaurant and bowling alley.
2. Let’s visit with the devil’s advocate for a minute. Every job
waiting tables sucks. How is a job waiting tables at, say, the
Cheesecake Factory any better? You have to wear a silly, impractical
outfit (white jeans? In a kitchen?). You may not be objectified as
openly, but you still flirt for tips. And how about the poor, wretched
human beings at Cold Stone Creamery or Johnny Rockets, forced to sing
for their tips while wearing silly outfits? Is that somehow okay
because it’s not sexual? And Hooters waitresses probably make better
tips. One could argue that Hooters doesn’t create a problem, it just
capitalizes on it. We are America. We have capitalized on our problems
from the very beginning. At least some women are making more money off
of it now, right? Right?
3. The fat man also makes a speech about how he will protect the
Hooters brand. It’s unclear exactly what he’s going to protect Hooters
from—socialism?—but he made that vow, in front of
journalists and family members and the all-encompassing odor of shit.
So if something awful happens to the Hooters brand because of the
Hooters casino in South Park, we all will know who has failed in his
sacred calling.
4. To get into the restaurant, we have to walk through a gauntlet of
cheering Hooters girls. A reporter for some local publication or other,
a large, slovenly, doofy guy with a goatee, holds up his hands and
throws his chin in the air pridefully, accepting the applause like some
loose-fit-khaki-wearing potentate returning home from JCPenney with a
great bounty.
5. My previous trip to Hooters: On a business trip to Washington,
D.C., three middle-aged ladies thought it would be hee-larious to drag
their bookish young employee to a Hooters for a business lunch. I ate a
pale, gamy chicken sandwich, watched a Hooters waitress try to teach an
awestruck 3-year-old boy how to Hula-hoop (she was probably more
successful at creating a future panty-hose fetishist), and puked my
lunch back out on the side of NPR’s headquarters during the walk
back.
6. If you are embarrassed to be in a Hooters and you are a straight
man, eye contact is incredibly problematic. You don’t want to just
stare the waitress in the eye, because that seems to somehow proclaim
“I’m not staring at your tits” in a very blatant way. So you just have
to look at the tabletop, or some neon orange thing or another, or your
glistening food.
7. Okay, it’s not quite like that. But here’s the most
problematic thing about the Hooters brand: its positioning as a family
restaurant, built on family values. They encourage people to bring
their kids. They sell child-size Hooters T-shirts (one kid’s T-shirt
has handprints all over it, and it reads “Hooters Girls Can’t Keep
Their Hands Off Me”) and even Hooters bibs and onesies for infants. In
this way, it is more dishonest than, say, strip clubs or porn, which
are clearly for adults. Hooters avoids that kind of stigma in part
thanks to regular and publicized charitable donations—today’s
restaurant opening trumpeted a gift to a local cystic fibrosis
foundation and featured a heartfelt, and incredibly awkward, speech
about the horrible disease by the relative of a CF sufferer.
Uriel, your attempts at flattery and sarcasm are so blatantly obvious, even the densest child could see through them. Who are you trying to kid here, anyway? Stop embarrassing yourself and FOAD already. Cease while you’re still behind. You might be able to save what little dignity you have remaining.
What sets Hooters waitresses apart from other women is that they’re real, genuine ladies. They are the perfect combination of brains and beauty. Many of the ladies who work at Hooters are also college students and working towards degrees in their respective fields. Unlike the snobby waitresses who work at other restaurants, Hooters Girls are always game for a good conversation. But don’t mistake their kindess for blindness. As I mentioned earlier, Hooters has strict policies toward sexual harrassment and will not tolerate lecherous customers who try to overstep their boundaries.
Anyone who says that Hooters servers are being paid to act friendly is lying. The ones whom I personally know are extremely genuine in their affections for me and always anticipate my arrival. As a matter of fact, I just recently went out to the movies with one of my friends who works at Hooters. We had an excellent time together and will be going out again soon, probably some time after Christmas. If you want to see a photo of her, keep dreaming. Out of respect to my friends at Hooters, I vehemently refuse to post any pictures of them on a public forum. I don’t want to release their identities to a loser like you.
I dunno, HootersFan. My last girlfriend was a server at Le Petit Robert, was as sharp as a particle accelerator, knew grace and poise beyond the comprehension of most Americans (including me) and was as gorgeous as a Pacific sunset. And flowers grew where she walked — literally, as she was an accomplished horticulturist.
Prior girlfriends also include an paleontological biologist, a neopagan priestess, a fine artist (oils and watercolors), an author / publishing magnate and a jewelry designer, each of them a stunning, brilliant human being in her own right, and in some instances (plural), a self-proclaimed incarnation of the virgin-bitch-mother-slut-goddess. So these otherworldly femmes of Hooters may have some stiff competition.
But do tell me more of these creatures fantastique you call Hooters Girls™, how they have won you over, how you’ll never love another, and how all my past paramours will fade into oblivion under their enchanting thrall. So far, I’m unimpressed.
Am I, Bryan? Am I?
Uriel, you seriously need to cut out the lame attempts at sarcasm. It’s the only resort you have left since I’ve already refuted your illogical “Hooters exploits women” argument.” If you want to play mind games, then count me out.
You know, the people who cry and whine about Hooters being sexist really do remind me of the drug warriors who try to convince teenagers that marijuana is the devil and will ruin their lives. Both groups rely on exaggerations, bogus statistics, and outright lies. I trust that you’ve heard of Partnership for a Drug-Free America. They’ve produced so many TV commercials, print ads, and radio commercials that are just as flawed as your arguments.
Case in point: One of the first PDFA spots that aired in 1987 showed two different brain wave charts: one for a normal 14 year-old, the other for a 14 year-old “on marijuana.” Dr. Donald Blum of the UCLA Neurological Studies Center and several other researchers debunked this ad when they wrote to both PDFA and KABC in Los Angeles and reported that they had conducted over 10,000 studies on the brain waves of people after they’d smoked marijuana. Not once did a case of flattened brain waves appear in their findings. Furthermore, they also reported that marijuana actually produces alpha waves, which control the creative side of the brain. The Partnership had no choice but to admit that they had lied and had actually used the brain waves of a person in a coma in the ad. Here’s the kicker: When ABC reporters interviewed the PDFA, they said something along the lines of that they felt that marijuana was so dangerous that it would better to deceive the public and tell them a lie instead of the truth.
What exactly does this have to do with your demonizing tirades against Hooters? For one, I’ve debunked your thinly veiled lie about Hooters exploiting the servers, just like Dr. Blum caught the PDFA red-handed. You have no credible evidence to prove that Hooters Girls are being objectified or exploited. You make it sound as if women are being kidnapped off of the streets and forced to work at Hooters, which as we all know isn’t the truth. Anyone who works at Hooters does so by her own individual choice. You’re relying on cheap scare tactics that have no basis in truth and are so laughable that you make the Partnership look credible by comparison. Your line of thinking is very dangerous and would make George Orwell proud.
I wasn’t being sarcastic, HootersFan. Condescending, maybe, but that’s because you’ve been outright childish this entire thread. (Whereas I only resorted to childish tacts only once I realized you couldn’t see reason if sunlight were made of it.)
HootersFan, you seem to be using a definition of the verbs to debunk or to refute of which I wasn’t previously aware. I think you’ve done neither, rather in your last post, you exaggerated and misrepresented what I said.
Seriously, HootersFan, I think you should take this entire dialog to your English and logic instructors, and see what they think of your position. Maybe they might succeed in providing you comprehension of the issue where I failed. Or, if you really think you’ve succeeded in defending your position, and rebuking mine, HootersFan, your ego shouldn’t have anything to fear from doing this.
But you didn’t explain this claim of yours, HootersFan, that Hooters Girls™ are the perfect combination of brains and beauty, that they’re real, genuine ladies and these traits set [them] apart from other women. It would be unlike you, HootersFan, to concur based on a lack of experience. I take you merely forgot where we were. So please, HootersFan, elaborate for me.
I take your date went well, HootersFan. Yes?
When HootersFan mentioned he has Asperger’s syndrome everything started to make sense. But, HootersFan, since you think that Hooters doesn’t exploit the sexist and misogynistic impulses some men (not you!) have, how can you defend the signs Hooters puts up, like “Caution Blondes Thinking”, or the jokes they have in their magazine, like the one about the hunter wanting his buddy to shoot his wife, or the one about a secretary who’s too stupid to realize she’s lying naked on a skylight? (Please see the attached pictures and the original article.) If all Hooters was about was: “Women are sexy and I want to look at sexy women,” no one in this thread would say that they are sexist or misogynist. Saying “Women are stupid” (ie the Hooters sign saying “Caution Blondes Thinking”) is sexist. Calling adult women who work at your establishment “girls” is sexist. Thinking it’s funny to joke about killing your wife (ie the “joke” in the magazine) is misogynist. That is what people mean when they say that Hooters capitalizes on sexism. It has nothing to do with sex or Puritanism. It’s about a tired, 1950’s, lazy approach to thinking that assumes the incompetence, intellectual paucity, and general inferiority of women. Also, you seem to have missed the main point of Uriel’s argument entirely, since it was mostly an ECONOMIC argument, the basic premise of which is that if low-wage workers (including but not limited to Hooters Girls) had access to jobs that paid the same amount as, say, wage + tips at Hooters, but didn’t involve getting hit on or flirting with customers, lots and lots of those low-wage workers (not all of them!) would chose a job that did not involve those things. His point is that OUR WHOLE ECONOMIC SYSTEM is messed up, and that Hooters is just a symptom of this problem.
Actually, he touched on many different aspects of “what’s wrong with Hooters”, but let’s just start there.
whoops! Just read the post where HootersFan calls Lindy a “hag” and a “feminazi.” I went out of my way to explain I didn’t mean him personally when I talked about mens’ sexist impulses, but now I gotta take that back. Never mind, HootersFan, you ARE part of the problem. Don’t let anyone tell you different.
Bon, your epiphany moment made my day.
I dunno, am I the only one who finds it weird when wait staff make a point of being flirty? It feels condescending — like I’m too lonely to see through the point of the game, or that massaging my ego will open my wallet.
I’m happy enough chatting with my date or enjoying my food. I will tip you well as long as you provide friendly, competent service. Honest: I’m much, much more impressed by you refilling my glass promptly than your fake sexual interest.
Re: Hooters, never been, but it’s *so odd* how the women have to wear nude pantyhose.
Bon, the whole “Caution: Blondes Thinking” sign is intended to be nothing more than a simple joke. Actually, I think that it’s a response to the people who automatically assume that all blondes are shallow and unintelligent. Most of the waitresses who work at my local Hooters are brunettes. There are some blondes, but so far I’ve yet to meet one at Hooters that would qualify as being a dumb blonde. None of the waitresses that I know there are shallow or juvenile in any shape, form, or manner. I’ve had some pretty deep and interesting discussions with some of the waitresses at Hooters on different issues (i.e. dating, relationships, college, etc.) Most of the women there are either college students or have already graduated, so you can’t accuse them of not having brains. Sure, I like to check out women, but I can treat them like fellow human beings and have intelligent conversations with them, too. Women like to check out men, too. It’s part of human nature to desire those who are physically attractive.
The “Hooters Girl” term is nothing more than a job title. It is not a reflection of their intelligence or personality. Don’t ASSume that they’re stupid just because they wear tank tops and short shorts. I’m proud to be a Hooters regular and I’m the farthest thing from being a sexist. I treat the ladies at Hooters with the utmost respect and always remember their birthdays so that I can buy cards for them. One of my favorite waitresses there personally decorated the place for me and my family when I celebrated my 21st birthday there. All the ladies who work at Hooters genuinely love me and have told me so themselves. Don’t pull out the “Hooters waitresses are only nice if you tip them large amounts of money” card, because I already debunked it.
My calling Lindy a “hag” and a “feminazi” is completely justified. Her thinking is not unlike the novel Fahrenheit 451, but instead of burning books, she and her cohorts would be burning down Hooters. She epitomizes everything that I loathe about the PC police. Lindy is too uptight to accept harmless, simple jokes. She has failed to make a convincing argument against the Hooters concept. She relies on scare tactics and thinly veiled lies, two of the most contemptible resorts that anyone can use in a debate.
Bon, you might be interested and surprised that I’ve see numerous women walk into Hooters for lunch/dinner. Hell, I’ve seen some women who came into Hooters without any men in their company. They clearly don’t have any issues with the Hooters concept and realize that it’s just a restaurant.
As far as the jokes in the magazine are concerned, I’ll concede that some of them are pretty ridiculous. However, I think that you need to learn the distinction between comedy and hate speech. Richard Pryor used a lot of race material in his stand-up routines, but that didn’t make him a racist. I don’t ever recall him saying that he wanted a world without whites in a serious manner. Pryor did some fantastic work with Gene Wilder, who is Jewish. OTOH, if you look at Michael Richards’s outburst, you’ll see that it wasn’t intended to be funny. It was a direct attack against someone’s color and race. Likewise, Bill Hicks had a on-stage outburst where he singled out a female audience member and used all kinds of derogatory language against her sex and gender. Neither incident was justified and certainly not intended to be part of the act.
Uriel, you just don’t know when to throw in the towel, do you? Your pseudo-intellectual psychobabble isn’t impressing me one bit. I used the terms “debunk” and “refute” correctly in my earlier post. You made remarks that were without any merit and completely untrue. To debunk is to prove a claim false or incorrect. Same with refuting. The facts which I cited came from reputable, legitimate sources. They have not been altered in any shape, form, or manner to fit my agenda. Facts speak louder than your verbal garbage.
I can qualify my earlier claim about Hooters waitresses being a perfect mix of brains and beauty. The Hooters Girl whom I went on a date with has already graduated from college with a degree in Broadcast Journalism. She’s drop-dead gorgeous and a real sweetheart too. She puts all those plastic supermodels to shame. Another one has also graduate with a degree in sociology. She also happens to be a franchise trainer and gets to attend all the new store openings. She makes quite a bit of dough from these openings alone. Out of respect to my friends, I’m not disclosing their names. Nor am I supplying you with photos, not because I don’t have any, but because you have no right to obtain any pictures of them. The last thing I’d want is for a dimwit like you to see their pictures and declare them “sexist and degrading.” BTW, the date with the Hooters waitress went extremely well. We had a lot of fun together and will be going out again soon, probably this week or the next week.
I don’t know whether I should consider myself flattered or insulted by Bon’s ASSumption that I’m “part of the problem.” Your inane rantings remind me of Tipper Gore and her crusade against heavy metal music and Joe Lieberman’s tirades against violent video games. It’s fear mongering at its best (or worst, depending on your POV). How people like you, Lindy, and Uriel are allowed access to public places, online or real life, is beyond me.
Bon, the whole “Caution: Blondes Thinking” sign is intended to be nothing more than a simple joke. Actually, I think that it’s a response to the people who automatically assume that all blondes are shallow and unintelligent. Most of the waitresses who work at my local Hooters are brunettes. There are some blondes, but so far I’ve yet to meet one at Hooters that would qualify as being a dumb blonde. None of the waitresses that I know there are shallow or juvenile in any shape, form, or manner. I’ve had some pretty deep and interesting discussions with some of the waitresses at Hooters on different issues (i.e. dating, relationships, college, etc.) Most of the women there are either college students or have already graduated, so you can’t accuse them of not having brains. Sure, I like to check out women, but I can treat them like fellow human beings and have intelligent conversations with them, too. Women like to check out men, too. It’s part of human nature to desire those who are physically attractive.
The “Hooters Girl” term is nothing more than a job title. It is not a reflection of their intelligence or personality. Don’t ASSume that they’re stupid just because they wear tank tops and short shorts. I’m proud to be a Hooters regular and I’m the farthest thing from being a sexist. I treat the ladies at Hooters with the utmost respect and always remember their birthdays so that I can buy cards for them. One of my favorite waitresses there personally decorated the place for me and my family when I celebrated my 21st birthday there. All the ladies who work at Hooters genuinely love me and have told me so themselves. Don’t pull out the “Hooters waitresses are only nice if you tip them large amounts of money” card, because I already debunked it.
My calling Lindy a “hag” and a “feminazi” is completely justified. Her thinking is not unlike the novel Fahrenheit 451, but instead of burning books, she and her cohorts would be burning down Hooters. She epitomizes everything that I loathe about the PC police. Lindy is too uptight to accept harmless, simple jokes. She has failed to make a convincing argument against the Hooters concept. She relies on scare tactics and thinly veiled lies, two of the most contemptible resorts that anyone can use in a debate.
Bon, you might be interested and surprised that I’ve see numerous women walk into Hooters for lunch/dinner. Hell, I’ve seen some women who came into Hooters without any men in their company. They clearly don’t have any issues with the Hooters concept and realize that it’s just a restaurant.
As far as the jokes in the magazine are concerned, I’ll concede that some of them are pretty ridiculous. However, I think that you need to learn the distinction between comedy and hate speech. Richard Pryor used a lot of race material in his stand-up routines, but that didn’t make him a racist. I don’t ever recall him saying that he wanted a world without whites in a serious manner. Pryor did some fantastic work with Gene Wilder, who is Jewish. OTOH, if you look at Michael Richards’s outburst, you’ll see that it wasn’t intended to be funny. It was a direct attack against someone’s color and race. Likewise, Bill Hicks had a on-stage outburst where he singled out a female audience member and used all kinds of derogatory language against her sex and gender. Neither incident was justified and certainly not intended to be part of the act.
Uriel, you just don’t know when to throw in the towel, do you? Your pseudo-intellectual psychobabble isn’t impressing me one bit. I used the terms “debunk” and “refute” correctly in my earlier post. You made remarks that were without any merit and completely untrue. To debunk is to prove a claim false or incorrect. Same with refuting. The facts which I cited came from reputable, legitimate sources. They have not been altered in any shape, form, or manner to fit my agenda. Facts speak louder than your verbal garbage.
I can qualify my earlier claim about Hooters waitresses being a perfect mix of brains and beauty. The Hooters Girl whom I went on a date with has already graduated from college with a degree in Broadcast Journalism. She’s drop-dead gorgeous and a real sweetheart too. She puts all those plastic supermodels to shame. Another one has also graduate with a degree in sociology. She also happens to be a franchise trainer and gets to attend all the new store openings. She makes quite a bit of dough from these openings alone. Out of respect to my friends, I’m not disclosing their names. Nor am I supplying you with photos, not because I don’t have any, but because you have no right to obtain any pictures of them. The last thing I’d want is for a dimwit like you to see their pictures and declare them “sexist and degrading.” BTW, the date with the Hooters waitress went extremely well. We had a lot of fun together and will be going out again soon, probably this week or the next week.
I don’t know whether I should consider myself flattered or insulted by Bon’s ASSumption that I’m “part of the problem.” Your inane rantings remind me of Tipper Gore and her crusade against heavy metal music and Joe Lieberman’s tirades against violent video games. It’s fear mongering at its best (or worst, depending on your POV). How people like you, Lindy, and Uriel are allowed access to public places, online or real life, is beyond me.
So I take consulting your teachers about your arguments here is out, eh HootersFan? Nothing to learn, then?
I take, by your dismissal of the Caution: Blondes Thinking and similar Hooters kitsch as nothing more than a simple joke means you find Polack jokes similarly nothing more than a simple joke (and, consequently, mickey jokes, kyke jokes, nigger Jokes, wop jokes and so on), yes? If there is a difference, what’s the point of delineation between what is or is not offensive? That one mocks a sex and the other a race or religion?
I’m glad, for your sake, to hear (read) there’s promise of a second date. You might notice I never once asked the woman’s name or for pics. I have no reason to distrust your personal accounts, and am glad you hold respect for her privacy. One can hope you’ll find the balance in respecting the rest of her without pedestalizing her.
But, throw in the towel, HootersFan? After you told me to FOAD? (Twice, even!) Unless you’re entirely daft, you should know by now that’s the equivalent of conceding defeat, yourself. It’s the same kind of reduction to immaturity that is calling someone a Nazi or hitting. We talked about this before. You should know this already.
Normally, were someone so flustered by my presence I might concede to allow for peace, but you, HootersFan, have painted yourself so repugnant a character, you have been so unapologetically belligerent, so unabashedly disrespectful not only to me, but anyone who dares disagree with you, HootersFan, that I’ve gained a taste for schadenfreude at your expense. You’ve all but guaranteed my presence here for the foreseeable future, HootersFan, in hopes you’ll compose for me yet another missive of your angst, grief and rage. Bring it on, HootersFan.
Caution: Aspie Arguing
Is it ok for me to say something like that?
Bon – post 214 – I completely agree with everything you mentioned. Thanks for making those excellent points.
Hattie, your remark was totally below the belt. You obviously have very little or no understanding of the Asperger’s (or autism, for that matter) community. As an Aspie, I have faced discrimination from narrow-minded individuals and conquered many obstacles. You do not realize how difficult it is for people who have Asperger’s Syndrome. There was a time when I couldn’t even talk to women, much less make eye contact with them. That’s all in the past now, though. With the support of my family, my doctors, my counselors at college, my friends, and yes, even the waitresses at Hooters, I’ve become a more sociable person. I couldn’t be any more grateful, and now that it’s 2010, I can only begin to imagine what accomplishments I’ll make in the course of the year.
Uriel, it seems that you also are too dense to realize that there is a fine line between comedy and hate speech. Anyone who takes offense to the “Caution: Blondes Thinking” sign is overrreacting. I don’t even consider it a knock on blonde-haired women. I think of it more as a response to the people who automatically assume that blondes are unintelligent and shallow. I’ve met some blondes, at Hooters and elsewhere, and they’re far from being your stereotypical Barbie dolls. As for jokes about race, sex, ethnicity, and other touchy issues, it’s all about context. Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, John Valby, Andrew Dice Clay, and numerous other comedians have used jokes about race and sex in their material, but they weren’t advocating racism, sexism, or homophobia. The personality that a stand-up comedian creates is not the same as his or her real-life personality. Now, if a KKK or New Black Panther member were telling race jokes, they wouldn’t be funny because they’re intended to demean another race or ethnicity. I do not advocate racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other form of discrimination. Being an Aspie, I know what discrimination is like. But I do think that if we just settled down and learned how to laugh at ourselves instead of overreacting to everything, we’d be better off as a society.
Since the fall semester just ended, I’m not in a position of bringing this debate to any of my professors. Nor do I intend on taking it into any of my winter/spring classes. I know in my heart and mind that I’ve already won this debate. I wrote a commentary for my college’s newspaper about Hooters and how its critics are wrong about their perceptions of the concept. Every person whom I’ve shown this article to, including my family, friends, counselors, and even the waitresses at Hooters, agrees with all the points that I’ve made in defending Hooters. And (gasp!) I was able to do it without insulting anybody.
You see, Uriel, I’m only belligerent when someone either directly attacks me or something that I am fiercely passionate about. Your failure to grasp that Hooters is not a demeaning institution or that it has made numerous charitable contributions to many reputable organizations are evidence of your lack of reading comprehension. I’ve linked about 11 sites regarding Hooters giving back to the communities and you had the audacity to question their motives. Did you even read any of those stories? What about the statement from Ed Droste, one of the co-founders of Hooters, who openly said that he loves how his company supports different causes and that he supports them as well? It’s really sad that you have to assume that Hooters has hidden motives and that they are not a generous company. Last time I checked, there was nothing misogynistic about donating to the Special Olympics, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, V Foundation for Cancer Research, and Muscular Dystrophy Associateion, to name a few of the organizations with which Hooters is allied. Hooters even established a fund dedicated to one of their own, Kelly Jo Dowd, a Hooters manager and waitress who passed away from breast cancer in 2007. They partnered with the V Foundation for Cancer Research to start this fund and have raised over $1 million dollars for the grant since 2006. Now that’s something that anyone ought to stand up and applaud.
See, Uriel, I was able to respond to your comment without resorting to profanity or insulting.
HootersFan, if you started out civil, and stayed that way, I might be willing to take you seriously right now, but you started your first post dismissively, “You morons who bash Hooters are some of the most narrow-minded, dense idiots I’ve ever come across.” It’s not exactly the best way to encourage folk to consider what you have to say. I was generous in trying to reason with you, yet you only got worse.
I’m not going to explain to you why Hooters’ generosity, which, agreed, you’ve backed with news articles, is neither surprising nor indemnifying; I already have. You’ve since made it clear that your passion for Hooters prevents you from considering it might be less than saintly, no matter the reason.
And then, juxtaposition of the beginnings of your first and second paragraphs in your most recent post is both ironic and telling. You are as self-deluded and consequently hypocritical as divorcees who protest that gay marriage is nontraditional.
Keep practicing being civil, and you’ll eventually get results, but be assured it will take time and consistency.
Oh, and this post from you, HootersFan, won you an award. Congrats!
HootersFan, please provide us with rules to correctly determine where the fine line between comedy and hate speech lies.
How does one know that “Caution: Blondes Thinking” is indisputably inoffensive, where “Caution: Auspies Arguing” is below the belt?
How does one differentiate between Michael Richards calling some black people out and Chris Rock doing the same, with the same word? Dick Gregory is a member militant organizations, what about him?
HootersFan did mention context as a determining factor, but would need to elaborate for that to make a rule.
who gives a shit?
Obviously, you do, “Who Gives A Shit” Guy, since you’re here asking at comment #227. A lot of folks do, since the discussion continues, and HootersFan does, given he can’t let be anyone who disagrees with him.
If none of us gave a shit, we wouldn’t be here in the 200s, two months after the fact.
Hmm, Uriel, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with you equating blonde jokes to “polack jokes” (or polack jokes to “nigger jokes,” or you calling them nigger jokes instead of “black jokes” or something), but maybe I misunderstand. Nice points for the most part.
Blonde jokes ridicule women the same way that Polack jokes ridicule Poles or Nigger jokes ridicule African Americans (and so on), by perpetuating the stereotype. If I’d hazard a guess at what Hootersfan was trying to say, it’s acceptable to indulge in these occasionally when it’s self-ridicule or it’s juxtaposed with similar racial humor to create a circular or linear paradigm (of which, for example, Dave Chappelle was notorious, but even he was disillusioned and discontinued his series due to the repercussions of the humor on his fan-base.)
The problem is, Jenn32, some of the stereotypes on which these are based are still commonly assumed by those without experience with the group in question. Women are still presumed by many to be generally unintelligent and emotional. Blacks (Africans and African Americans) are still thought to be primitive and unsophisticated. Jews are still thought to be miserly, nepotic and damned. More importantly, none of these groups have achieved social equality with Anglo-Saxon males in the US, so jokes at their expense should be indulged with care.
If Hooters were a woman-run business, I might be more relaxed about their choice of humor and style. If women were equal to men in the US (i.e. had unregulated access to comprehensive health care, could serve in all positions in the military, made, on average, the same amount men did in similar jobs, were elected President of the United States a few times, etc.) I’d be more relaxed about blonde jokes. Until then, I’m content to reserve their usage to women (naturally blonde or otherwise) such as Julie Brown who get it.
One might argue that blonde jokes don’t affect all women, just those that are blonde (either naturally so or those who’ve lightened their hair by choice), and there is a syndrome that comes with blond hair (or in the US, with large breasts) in which youths so endowed have to work less hard to get what they want and end up lacking in character, but this isn’t true for all blondes, and the stereotype of blondes is very real and often expected, not unlike that of Gingers in the UK. And the implication remains that girls who are spoiled early (regardless of hair-color or Scandinavian genes) turn out to be more stupid then boys who are similarly spoiled.
Okay Uriel, this is going to be my FINAL (capitalized for emphasis) reply, and then I’m done. No more. I mean it. I’ve said my piece and you’ve said yours. Nothing more needs to be articulated on this topic.
I think I can defend the tone of my initial post. First of all, I found Lindy’s piece to be a classic example of fearmongering. Her criticisms against Hooters are based on lies and exaggerations. It is impossible to argue civilly with someone who is so oblivious to the truth.
Secondly, I don’t think that anyone can make a convincing argument against the Hooters concept because anyone who does so relies on one of two assumptions. The most common and annoying one is that it exploits women, which completely ignores the fact that these ladies voluntarily choose to work at Hooters. As I said earlier, exploitation is a violation of a person’s individual will. Last time I checked, working at a restaurant by your accord does not define “exploitation.” Rape, slavery, child abuse, and hazing are all examples of exploitation.
The second, and equally laughable, argument that is brought against Hooters is that it’s sinful and immoral. Anyone who can think freely without allowing others to form their opinions knows that when you use religion to condemn anything (strip clubs, heavy metal music, violent video games, etc.), you automatically lose. It’s akin to the Godwin’s Law, only with bible-thumpers instead of Nazis.
As far as my earlier post winning an award is concerened, whoop-de-doo. I’m not bothered in the slightest that you and your cohorts find me to be “unabashedly disrespectful” and “unapologetically belligerent.” Well, like the old cliche goes, I’m only an asshole to people who are assholes. I’m actually a very pleasant person who can have civil disagreements with others. It’s just that you and Lindy use scare tactics, exaggerations, and outright lies to support your arguments, which lends neither one of you any credibility. If I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that you and Lindy were Joseph Lieberman and Tipper Gore posting under phony identities, respectively.
If the “Caution: Blonde Thinking” sign were used in a malicious, disrespectful manner, then I’d protest it for being sexist. But if you were to wake up and smell the coffee, you’d realize that the signs at Hooters and the jokes in their magazines are just that, jokes. Sounds to me like you’re too uptight to understand that simple fact. However, you were correct in assuming that I feel that sterotypical humor is acceptable when it’s either self-ridicule or mixed with other stereotypes to be an equal opportunity offender. Now if someone tells these jokes in a situation where they want to verbalize their hated of a particular group, then it’s crossing the boundaries of good taste and entering outright bigotry (i.e. the KKK, Fred Phelps, New Black Panthers, etc.). These groups and others intend these jokes to be hurtful and demeaning toward someone’s race, sexual orientation, sex, color, or religion.
No, I don’t consider women to be shallow and unintelligent, or blacks to be uneducated and unintellible, or Jews to be selfish. I have had social experiences with people of all sexes, colors, ages, races, and sexual orientations. Not once have I evaluated an individual according to stereotypes that are associated with their backgrounds. I recognize everyone for who they are and do not discriminate.
In closing, I sincerely wish you the best in life. And I also sincerely hope that one day you finally wake up and stop listening to the hysterical, illogical rantings of fearmongers like Lindy. Learn how to be a free thinker and form your own views. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to succeed in college, dating, my career, and everything else in life. Take care.
Eat it Uriel-238 – One post addressed to HootersFan from me and he posts his (and note the all caps for emphasis), FINAL reply.
I win teh internets!
I question HootersFan‘s ability to stand by his word that his post is the last, since he changed his mind before, but, granted if he does, Hooters of South Park killed Kenny, I humbly bow to the superior master, and concede teh internets to you.
However, I still get my parting shot. Stay tuned…
You know, I know this thread hasn’t had a new post for a while, but I finally got around to seeing if HootersFan had replied to me, and I was struck by something interesting. HootersFan is defending Hooters with the same sort of angry, hateful tenacity that evangelicals get if anyone dares say anything about their particular brand of Christianity. He has all the hallmarks: the blind rage at anyone daring to dispute your faith, the name calling, the absolute refusal to admit anyone else has a point, the misreading and mischaracterising of everyone else’s arguments, the declaring victory even though you haven’t answered a single one of your opponent’s points. I wonder how it feels to go out on a date with a minor deity from your religion…or would a single Hooters waitress be more like a saint? What would the hierarchy be of the Church of the Heavenly Tits and Hot Wings?
Someone wake up HootersFan!
I just saw a promo for the upcoming “Undercover Boss” where “the CEO of Hooters goes undercover and discovers the ugly truth”!
Apparently “reindeer games” will be proposed and perhaps even engaged in.
Unfortunately, his disguise does not appear to involve those orange shorts and stockings.
If there was anything that could reflect the filth in modern mainstream american culture, it’s not hooters, but in the vast majority of these comments. People are in need of serious philosophical enlightenment, before they start spewing crap about what the concept of “exploitation” is. Racism and Sexism may try to hide behind the label “entertainment”, but in this world, most evil begins with our mediums of “entertainment”.
This place in south park does smell like poop and the girls there are UGLY no one with class would attend that place EVER. Joeys has way better looking girls.
@Hooters of South Park killed Kenny:
I recently watched a clip from that show of the CEO watching on in shock as a few Hooters Girls succumbed to the demeaning bean-eating which they were instructed to do by their boss, and I must say it was quite enlightening on the attitudes of the boss.
By the way, if there is anyone still reading the comments this low down, they might be interested in reading the following article about Hooters Girls in an Alabama branch, who were told,
“If you need the extra money, go ahead and suck a dick or fuck a customer if the money is right,” and when their assistant manager complained about this behaviour, he was sacked:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/041…
I cringed when I read this article. Just simply degrading. I would rather that men keep this sordid fantasies in their minds instead of bringing them to life in these restaurants where big busted, scantily dressed women serve chicken wings. All sh** like this just angers me. Soooo sexist. Sooooooosoooooooooooooosoooooooooooo sexist. I can’t believe this is 2011.
Uriel was awesome here. Good point by Bon…Hooterfan’s refusal to acknowledge any of Uriel’s points or how his stupidity won an award blows my mind. Of course, his admission of Ausberger’s made it all make sense…Poor guy.
My first question, is anyone forced to go to Hooters? What’s that? No?
Ok.
My second question, is anyone forced to work at Hooters? No again.
I see.
Here’s a thought: how about you idiots STFU. It’s a free country, I like freedom and I have no problem with Hooters what. so. ever.
I swear, sometimes Seattle has way too much sand up it’s vagina.