Green Room

NOW Hags Target Hooters, Claiming The Restaurant Sells Sex To Kids

posted at 9:10 pm on December 17, 2010 by

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

Hooters squares off against anti-Hooters feminazi Patty Bellasalma.

When you think of a “sex establishment”, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? If you answered something along the lines of a strip club or an adult novelty store, then congratulations — you’re a normal American. Usually, an establishment needs to actually sell sex-related goods in order to be considered a sex establishment. For the National Organization of Women, that’s just far too narrow a description of a sex store. To them, all that’s needed for an establishment to be accused of selling sex is attractive female employees — and so, of course, they’re targeting Hooters. Apparently, by hiring attractive women to work in the restaurant wearing skimpy clothes, Hooters is not only selling sex, but they’re selling sex to children. Oh, the humanity!

The rabid femisogynist leading this ridiculous charge is Patty Bellasalma, pictured above. (Does the difference in the two pictures explain her hostility towards Hooters?) Patty is the president of NOW’s California chapter, and she is just trying to look out for the children. They aren’t looking out for the womyn this time — nope, it’s for the kids.

The National Organization for Women filed complaints against local Hooters restaurants Thursday, but not for exploiting its scantily clad waitresses by subjecting them to leering and groping customers.

The subject this time was Hooters’ catering to children.

The restaurants in San Francisco, San Bruno, Sacramento and Orange County are classified as “adult entertainment” establishments but also serve minors, NOW’s California chapter said in papers filed with police and prosecutors.

What’s more, the organization said, Hooters provides child menus, high chairs and booster seats, and sells T-shirts in children’s sizes that identify the wearer as a “Future Hooters Girl.”

Patricia Bellasalma, NOW’s California president, asserted that Hooters is violating state and local laws prohibiting sexually oriented “adult” businesses from serving minors. The chain is also violating federal employment standards, she said.

Hooters’ stance on the subject is that they do not cater to children and families, but that they serve everyone who comes into the restaurant. The horror! Don’t they know that they’re selling sex to children?!

Oh, wait… they don’t. Apparently, they’re just too ignorant to understand that skimpy clothes automatically equal sex. So, of course, NOW will be campaigning to keep children away from beaches and swimming pools next, right? After all, women wear far less to the beach than any Hooters girl wears, so naturally that’s a sexual environment as well. And I guess we should also add in television, pop concerts, the mall, fashion billboards … anything else that features scantily-clad women? We can’t have children in a XXX environment, after all, and NOW’s new position is that women in skimpy clothes are obviously sex workers.

Is there really any wonder why femisogynists are so scorned in today’s America?

British feminazis recently tried to block the opening of a Hooters, complaining that Hooters is worse than Playboy. Right — a restaurant whose waitresses wear shorts and tank tops is worse than a magazine that features graphic pictures of nude women. Is the real issue here that man-hating femifascists cannot stand the idea of an establishment that — gasp!! — caters to men? Obviously, if femisogynists don’t like something, no one should be allowed to enjoy it.

And this boils down to the heart of the issue. It’s amazing how anti-choice feminazis are, considering how they claim to be such champions for choice. True equality for women means that women can choose to forge a life for themselves, whether that means being a stay-at-home mom, building a career in corporate America, or working at a place like Hooters. It isn’t something that femisogynists should have any say over, but make a choice that they disagree with and you’ll be shamed right out of the sisterhood. Dress in a skimpy outfit in a restaurant that largely caters to men, and you’ll definitely be out of the club.

What Ms. Bellasalma can’t seem to wrap her puny mind around is that parents have the choice to take their kids with them to Hooters. While no one would ever call Hooters a classy establishment, it’s not nearly as bad as NOW is trying to make it out to be. It’s a sports bar with mediocre food and attractive women wearing shorts and a tank top. Children don’t get exposed to sex at Hooters anymore than they would seeing women wearing bikinis at the beach. And while I would never buy my daughter a shirt that says “Future Hooters Girl,” I would also never try to ban other parents from doing so. Advocating for real choice means that you don’t get to dictate the choices people make, but that goes against everything that today’s modern feminazis stand for.

Nevermind that women willingly work at Hooters. Nevermind that some parents willingly patronize Hooters with their children. It’s not their choice to make — it’s NOW’s choice to make. (And you thought modern feminism was about women being able to make their own choices!)

It’s rather disturbing that femisogynists can, with a straight face, campaign so rabidly for abortion and yet somehow still claim to be fighting for the children. It’s also disturbing that an organization that claims to work on behalf of women would waste their time on something so insignificant, while continually ignoring the abuses and oppression forced onto women in the Middle East, thanks to the barbarism of sharia. Women are forced to endure beatings, oppression, female genital mutilation, and even stoning — yet the National Organization for Women is wasting its time going after an American sports bar.

And they call themselves feminists. It’s a clear example why most parents would rather take their daughters to Hooters wearing a “Future Hooters Girl” shirt than take them to a NOW rally wearing a “Future NOW Member” shirt. At least at Hooters, women can make their own choices. You can’t really say the same for the mindless sheep led by Patty Bellasalma at NOW.

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I hope your rottweiler doesn’t grow up to smell slur like you.

Why don’t you try to grow up enough to oppose Ballasalma without making fun of her looks?

audiculous on December 17, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Hooters is classified as “adult entertainment”? Why?

malclave on December 17, 2010 at 9:35 PM

Why don’t you try to grow up enough to oppose Ballasalma without making fun of her looks?

audiculous on December 17, 2010 at 9:25 PM

I’ll remember this the next time someone criticizes Sarah Palin for having her hair done by her own daughter.

Have you ever heard anything about how former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris has been doing lately? Me neither.

gryphon202 on December 17, 2010 at 10:47 PM

Sorry Hooters is a sign where feminists have won. They want no discrimination at work and they also want places like Hooters can use discrimination to hire.

Why defend this corrupt part of our culture? If a job requires actual work than it is no longer entertainment and needs to follow discrimination laws.

Eliminating Discrimination Laws is fine also.

PrezHussein on December 17, 2010 at 10:50 PM

I’m so confused. I thought that women dressing like hookers was a good thing for women and a sign that we had taken down the Amerikkka patriarchy. Now you tell me that it’s a bad thing. Huh?

Vera on December 17, 2010 at 10:52 PM

PrezHussein on December 17, 2010 at 10:50 PM

You want to try that in English next time?

To call your post incoherent would be too kind.

hillbillyjim on December 18, 2010 at 12:15 AM

Bellasalma–doesn’t that mean good body?

Hooters is tacky, no doubt about it. And the “Future Hooters Girl” is right up there with Jon Benet Ramsey-style beauty paegents for kids. But neither of them is obscene in any reasonable sense of the word.

Sometimes being a bunghole in public requires courage. In our society, it apparently requires none, which is why idiots of this caliber can do what this woman is doing.

njcommuter on December 18, 2010 at 12:21 AM

Why don’t you try to grow up enough to oppose Ballasalma without making fun of her looks?

audiculous on December 17, 2010 at 9:25 PM

A picture is worth a thousand words. And if you read the “feminist” quotes at the link, it explains the thousand words there.

College Prof on December 18, 2010 at 9:26 AM

Funny…

I can’t recall a peep of protest about scenes of open homosexual sex in the streets of San Francisco.

Hmm…???

Ragspierre on December 18, 2010 at 11:04 AM

College Prof,

I didn’t see anything in those linked quotes that came from Patty Bellasalma, so where’s the worth?

Two or three of the quotes do come from college profs though. That mean that you’re an ugly hag ?

audiculous on December 18, 2010 at 11:35 AM

I hope your rottweiler doesn’t grow up to smell slur like you.

Why don’t you try to grow up enough to oppose Ballasalma without making fun of her looks?

audiculous on December 17, 2010 at 9:25 PM

It is all about looks and jealousy you twerp.

You want us to be nice and lovey to this snake woman with no chin … is that it? You are pathetic>

People like you tell other people, who you they do not agree with, that they smell bad. Is that how a grown up responds, you idiot.

People like you, Ms sucdiculous, would never ever utter those kind of comments to a person face to face. Coward.

jarhead0311 on December 18, 2010 at 12:59 PM

jarhead0311

no, socksucker, it’s not all about jealousy and looks. It’s about stuff a bit deeper than that.
the lawsuit is wrong for a couple of reasons, but it’s not skin-deep and pointless, unlike your own thinking.

audiculous on December 18, 2010 at 1:07 PM

It is all about looks and jealousy

jarhead0311 on December 18, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Hey Jar-Jar, you need to RTFA until you get that there is MORE to this than a bunch of jealous old hags.

Dark-Star on December 18, 2010 at 1:22 PM

So….NOW has no problems with condoms and abortions for 10 years olds but taking them to Hooters is over the line?

tommyboy on December 18, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Hey Jar-Jar, you need to RTFA until you get that there is MORE to this than a bunch of jealous old hags.

Such as…???

Ragspierre on December 18, 2010 at 1:56 PM

In my younger years it was the understanding among my friends that the way to get the Hooters girls to swarm your table was to bring small children with you. Most of these girls have younger siblings and kids get spoiled rotten at these places.
Sexualization? – nothing even close that I have ever seen. They may tease a small boy for being bashful but that’s about it.

Ms. Bellasalma sounds under-socialized and bitter. I wonder if a well-adjusted individual would participate in her group.

mad scientist on December 18, 2010 at 4:48 PM

This is a laugh. SF once allowed live sex on stage but considers Hooters “adult entertainment”.
There is a strong anti-corporate America sentiment in that area; the classification fits in as a tool to impose zoning restrictions and licensing challenges.

mad scientist on December 18, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Well, the point is that Hooters is sexy but not in any deviant or prurient way. And since it’s neither deviant nor prurient, the Left considers it part of the historical oppressive Establishment rather than the brave transgressive rebellion. In other words, Hooters is … wait for it … Conservative!

There is no perpetual rebellion short of mass suicide. If rebellion is the cutting out of a tumor in the body politic, the perpetual rebellion of the Left is the progressive amputation of every part of the body still functioning, until there is nothing left.

njcommuter on December 18, 2010 at 6:30 PM

El Rushbo’s Undeniable Truth of Life #24: Feminism was invented in order to give unattractive women easier access to mainstream society.

Looking at the picture of the Feminazi launching her misogynistic crusade against Hooters reminds us of that fact.

Oh, looking at her again, she deserves the label of the Face That Sank A Thousand Ships. f she and I were the last two people on Earth, the human race would become extinct. Nothing – not even a bottle of Scotch – would make me want to …

pdigaudio on December 19, 2010 at 12:55 AM

Y’all come on down to Dallas. In addition to Hooters we have “Twin Peaks”, a north woods version of same with meat and potatoes menu and the girls wear khaki and flannel. There’s also “Big Racks”, a hunting themed version with barbecue. Neither of these restaurants is any more risque` than Hooters.
Bring your appetite.

mad scientist on December 19, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Ms. Bellasalma’s photo reminded me of an old Jim Henson movie “The Dark Crystal”.

mad scientist on December 19, 2010 at 11:14 AM

I just saw a television commercial for some perfume that had some super-model type practically stripping on the way to the boudoir. Can’t wait to see Ms. Bellasalma jump on that one.

It is a fact of life that sex sells. In fact, it does a pretty good job of selling just about anything: cars, perfume, alcohol, cigarettes, clothing and even average tasting cheeseburgers and chicken wings.

(There. A brief, cogent response without resorting to some comment about what a lard ass Patty Bellasalma is.)

BigAlSouth on December 19, 2010 at 9:59 PM

And a fine comment it is.

Indeed, sex is used as a means of getting people to part with their money.

If NOW and other people object to that usage or that goal, it’s all well and good for them to work against it. Filing a lawsuit of dubious merit is an annoying thing, but not exactly outrageous.

audiculous on December 19, 2010 at 11:05 PM

And a fine comment it is.
If NOW and other people object to that usage or that goal, it’s all well and good for them to work against it. Filing a lawsuit of dubious merit is an annoying thing, but not exactly outrageous.

audiculous on December 19, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Agreed. Humorously annoying, but annoying nonetheless.

BigAlSouth on December 20, 2010 at 6:08 AM