Giant Boob Finds Hooters “More Offensive Than A Lapdancing Club”
posted at 5:06 am on October 13, 2010 by Cassy Fiano
Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:
Quick: name the most dangerous kind woman in the world to a femisogynist! If you said a beautiful woman who embraces her femininity and sex appeal and enjoys pleasing men, then you win. Women aren’t supposed to enjoy making themselves look beautiful and sexy, and especially not for a man. They’re especially not supposed to enjoy catering to men. Smiling, flirting, joking, all for the entertainment of a man, is akin to blasphemy. Considering that, it’s no surprise that a British woman and so-called feminist would find Hooters to be the most offensive bar in Britain.
Hooters is everything that man-hating femifascists hate. An entire restaurant centered around the pleasing of men? With pretty, sexy girls whose jobs involve serving men, it’s no wonder it makes their heads spin. And while Hooters is not classy by anyone’s definition, is it really fair to call it the most offensive bar in Britain? What is so offensive about Hooters, anyways?
I remember, as a student in the Seventies, interviewing one of the last Playboy bunnies at the club on Park Lane.
I asked the young woman in fishnet tights how it felt to be part of a dying breed.
Peeling off her false eyelashes, she said the world had moved on – women were no longer to be viewed as objects. Fast forward 30 years and, again, I’m talking to a young woman in tights with false eyelashes.
But while there was something tongue-in-cheek and marginally glamorous about the bunny outfit, the clothes the women working in Hooters are wearing look cheap and nasty.
Orange Lycra shorts, low-cut T-shirts with Hooters’s slogan ‘delightfully tacky’, white socks and plimsolls and, of course, a wide smile are all obligatory – it is just so awful.
Right — Playboy is not as bad, because it was “tongue-in-cheek.” Hooters is skankier than Playboy, even though Hooters waitresses don’t bare all in a magazine for millions of men to see. The Playboy comparison makes no sense whatsoever anyways, when you consider that Liz Jones, the author, talks about Playboy as part of a dying breed and refers to it in the past tense. It’s ridiculous when one remembers that, oh yeah, Playboy is still around, and Playboy models get completely naked, whereas Hooters waitresses just wear slightly slutty outfits.
Jones then bemoans that Hooters would have the audacity to open a second location in the UK. After all, if femisogynists don’t like something, it shouldn’t be allowed to exist, right? Who cares about stuff like the free market? One might think that if Hooters was really so offensive, they wouldn’t be such a successful restaurant, but that’s just the patriarchy. Or something.
There are now 455 branches worldwide, including four in China – but only one branch in the UK, here in the Midlands.
A second branch is planned for Bristol, at a site leased to it by Marks & Spencer. The city council has already granted the U.S. chain planning permission, saying it ‘offers something different’, despite local residents and women’s groups mounting a campaign.
Sian Norris, founder of the Say No To Hooters In Bristol protest group, says: ‘People claim it’s a bit fun. But it’s part of a culture where women are only seen as sexual objects, not as full human beings.’
And thus we come to another disturbing aspect of today’s feminist extremism. If a woman dares to let herself be seen as sexy, then she is solely a sex object, and nothing else. And not only is she a sex object, but she’s also either a willing tool of the patriarchy or an idiot who doesn’t know she’s being used. After all, a woman can’t possibly be sexy and beautiful and intelligent at the same time, right?
But wait a second — are the Hooters uniforms really even that scandalous anymore?
That is the Hooters uniform, as most of you probably already know. Here is how Hooters describes their uniform requirements:
The Hooters Girl uniform consists of: White Hooters tank top, orange shorts, suntan hose, white socks, solid white shoes, brown Hooters pouch, name-tag and of course…a smile!
… There is no set requirement in order to be a nearly World Famous Hooters Girl! We look for the All-American Cheerleader / Surfer-Girl-Next-Door image to fill our restaurants. In other words…Very bubbly, outgoing personalities!
So they want friendly, outgoing, smiley women. The uniform, meanwhile, covers up more than most outfits girls wear out to clubs on a Friday night. They wear pantyhose, for chrissakes. It’s meant to be sexy, of course, but let’s not get out of hand here. Hooters is a restaurant that caters mainly to men, which I suspect is the real problem: that the women look sexy for the enjoyment of men. (I wonder if the femisogynists get offended when men look sexy for the enjoyment of women, a la Chippendales dancers.)
And of course, who can be OK with the way that Hooters abducts women off the streets and forces them to work there and look sexy and flirt with men?
Wait, that’s not the way it happens?
Why, then, do women who work at Hooters sign a contract that states ‘I do not find my job duties, uniform requirements or work environment to be offensive, intimidating, hostile or unwelcome’?
Kimberley, 28, has worked here for two years. Is she ever harassed by the punters, leered at or disrespected? She is careful in her reply.
‘There are always men from management who are keeping an eye out,’ she says (I didn’t encounter a bouncer when I arrived, which makes me wonder who will keep out or eject the drunks; there are children in here, too). Is there a strict dress code?
‘I need to look groomed, but not tarty. Hair has to be down [strange, given they are handling food], nails clean. No piercings.’
Does she not feel exposed, knowing all these men are looking at her bottom and cleavage? ‘I feel quite covered up,’ she says. ‘This is no worse than what you see young women wearing here in Nottingham, out shopping or clubbing.’
This is true, but that is their choice. Here, exposing your thighs and cleavage is compulsory.
SEE?? Hooters is forcing these poor women to show off their bodies and be friendly to men! It’s an outrage, I tell you, an outrage!
Wait, you mean women choose to work at a place like Hooters all on their own? It’s apparently a shocking thought, that women might not mind working at a place like Hooters, catering to men and all.
The waitress Jones interviewed, Kimberley, is a marketing graduate who makes minimum wage, plus tips, at Hooters. The British national minimum wage varies depending on your age, but if you are 22 and older (as most Hooters waitresses likely are), it is £5.80 per hour. That converts to roughly $9.16 per hour. Not bad, huh? Then there are the benefits. Hourly Hooters employees are eligible to receive an array of benefits, like health insurance, dental, vision, and even tuition assistance. But who cares about stuff like that? Hooters is an evil, sexist, patriarchal organization that’s even worse than strip clubs!
Again, the fact that no one is ever forced to work at Hooters or patronize the restaurant is completely overlooked. Not that it matters — if fascist feminists are offended by something, it shouldn’t be allowed to exist. Choice, free will, the free market, none of these things matter, because the femisogynists just know better than us! Women choose to be sexy and friendly to men? Blasphemy!
Call me a slave to the patriarchy, but I’d much rather spend an evening at Hooters than in the company of a self-righteous, know-it-all, humorless, holier-than-thou feminist extremist.
Recently in the Green Room:
- Sunday reflection: Matthew 4:1-11
- Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll
- Real question: Does Obama’s budget fund overseas abortions to protect endangered animals?
- Photo of the day: Crimea now belongs to Russia, at least on Russian propaganda TV
- Vatican: Pope Francis wasn’t talking about same-sex relationships; Update: “Civil unions” explained