NOW again targets Hooters – puts on pretense of ‘concern for children’

Posted by: ST on December 17, 2010 at 10:19 am

Why? Because they’re supposedly worried about the influence Hooters’ attempts at creating a more “family-friendly” environment will have on kids (via Memeorandum):

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.

Bellasalma said the federal government has not subjected Hooters to the rules requiring employers to protect their workers from harassment by customers. The Atlanta restaurant chain has successfully argued that its employees know they will be working in sexually charged surroundings, Bellasalma said.

But in recent years, she said, the company has promoted itself as more family-friendly. She cited a statement on that “10 percent of the parties we serve have children in them.”

“If they want to switch and turn the chain into a family-style restaurant, more power to them,” but Hooters would then have to follow the same anti-harassment rules as other restaurants, Bellasalma said.

So, you see, this really isn’t about any “concern” for the welfare of children. This is just another way for NOW to target a restaurant chain they’ve hated for years because of their alleged “exploitation” of women by ‘making them wear skimpy costumes and subjecting them to the leers of male customers’ – even though every woman who *voluntarily* applies to Hooters to be a waitress knows what they’ll be wearing and the customer base they’ll be serving (primarily males). These women CHOOSE to work at Hooters. Isn’t that what so-called “feminists” have fought for all these years? The right for women to choose to work outside of the home in the job arena of her choice?

You really can’t make this up. Radical liberal “feminists” are pro-“choice” except when it comes to job decisions some women make (and, of course, when it comes to a woman choosing to keep her baby). A woman taking a job in a field where her body will be on display in some form is deeply offensive to them – they say it’s because they don’t want women being “exploited.” It’d be great if they were sincere in that but the real underlying issue is that they don’t like the fact that these women are emphasizing the fact that they are women, and that there are obvious differences between women and men. It’s the old self-loathing auto-mechanism buried not so far into the stomachs of every so-called “feminist” because these types of women seek not only to erase in the minds of everyone on the planet the fact that women and men are different, but, alternately & hypocritically, they also seek to establish women as the “dominant” – not equal, but “superior” – sex.

Personally, I don’t promote taking kids into a Hooters restaurant for lunch or dinner, nor do I condone taking any job where a woman is voluntarily exploiting her body for money (such as at Hooters or a strip club) because as a real classical equity feminist, I’m in favor of women choosing jobs and career paths that engage the mind more so than the body, but I support a woman’s right to CHOOSE where she works, and family’s right to take their kids out to eat at an establishment of their choosing.

Also, consider this: Can anyone take seriously NOW’s pretense of being concerned for the welfare of children, considering their abhorrent position on unborn children?

Didn’t think so.

Don Surber quips:

What is with San Francisco?

A kid cannot get a Happy Meal and now a kid cannot go to Hooters.

No “Future Hooters Girl” T-shirt? Why?

I guess the only choice that NOW wants women to make is to abort their children.

You betcha.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

17 Responses to “NOW again targets Hooters – puts on pretense of ‘concern for children’”


  1. Phineas says:

    They’re taking on Hooters?? :o

    Okay, now NOW has gone too far… :-l

    Of course, I only go for the burgers. ;) :">

  2. Paul says:

    National Order of Wingnuts !!

  3. Bill Fabrizio says:

    “Excuse me ma’am. Could you put those 38’s back in their holster. You’re frightening the children”!

  4. John Bibb says:

    NOW is a two trick pony–keep abortion legal, and get rich suing businesses. They were silent during the President Clinton rape and inappropriate Monica relationship accusations. And they are silent on the abuse of Muslim women all over the world.
    And it might just be professional jealousy–most of NOW’s members are at least 50 pounds overweight! Their working at Hooters would drive the customers to McDonalds!

  5. PE says:

    Are people allowed to have children in San Francisco? If so, are they permitted in Castro if accompanied by an adult?

  6. Wayne says:

    The women at Hooters are exercising their rights to choose. NOW should be praising them. But of course we all know that exercising that right is not what NOW is about. It is about making the choice NOW wants them to make. That is why they can’t stand Sarah Palin. She choose to HAVE her Downs Syndrome child rather than ABORT it.

  7. Norm Zawisza says:

    Don’t not forget that NOW also endorsed Jerry Brown the day after his campaign called Meg Whitman a ‘whore’…

  8. Iva Biggin says:

    Ugly lib women are jealous of any woman a man would actually want to look at.

  9. Drew says:

    I’ve never been to a Hooters. I’ve been told, though, that the name is derived from all the wise women they hire. You know, like owls? That’s true, right? :d

  10. Rio says:

    If the restaurant’s name was anything other than Hooters would they be getting this much attention?

    As far as the uniform, kids see worse than that on the streets and beaches. How about the little old ladies in bikinis who can’t quite keep their cheeks under control? the much abused speedos? larger folks wearing as little as they possibly can?

    One might want to hide their children’s tender eyes but I doubt they even take it in, kind of like spending 45 minutes at Hooters. They’re more concerned with desert than what their waitress is wearing.

  11. RightKlik says:

    Kids these days are exposed to a lot worse on prime time TV. Not a big fan of the restraunt, but give me a break.

  12. opinionated says:

    Why do we allow ugly t*tless chicks to form groups??? This kind of shit just wouldn’t happen if we could stop that. It’s just like not getting toys in our happy meals … tell the ugly chicks to leave our hooters toys alone !!!!!

    Hi! Watch the slang terms, please. A woman runs this blog, you know. ;) Thanks. –ST

  13. DavidL says:

    Where would your child get a better meal, servded at Hooters or grabbed from a Michelle Obama approved salad bar?

  14. Ryan says:

    Laughable, especially in light of San Francisco being mentioned.

  15. Me1976 says:

    Pretty soon they’ll demand any woman with bodacious ta-tas have a breast reduction. Don’t want those things under your shirt scaring the kiddies.

  16. Carlos says:

    DavidL, I got this horrible mindflash when I read your comment: Michelle O in a Hooter’s uniform!

    I’d rather see a line of Santas in Speedos than that!

  17. Great White Rat says:

    As far as the uniform, kids see worse than that on the streets and beaches.

    Excellent point by Rio, especially when you consider that we’re talking about San Francisco. Did you ever go to the Zombietime site and see the pictures posted there of some of the outfits the SF loonies wear at some of their rallies? Compared to those getups, the Hooters outfit is absolutely Victorian. But the NOW gang has no problem with that.

    It’s not about the kids. If NOW gave a damn about the kids they’d be supporting efforts to keep families together. As always, with liberals it’s about controlling our lives and amassing power for themselves.