So This Happened

[Back Pack 431]

From what I saw of the pictures posted of the women who volunteered they wore appropriate shorts, shirts, jackets, etc. They had visors with the logo on them. You may object to the logo's owner and what they stand for, but the logo itself is not bad or suggestive.

 

As long as they were not giving away gear with logos on it I do not see the big deal. It would be the same if Daisy or Remmington or the Cleveland Indians or any other controversial logo or sponsor were to wear gear. Should a council not accept help from the Cleveland Indians or Washington Redskins if they show up wearing logo'd gear? I think people are being too sensitive.

[RememberSchiff 3672]

IMHO, this is just funny as in the unexpected. I see no problem with attire or help given.

 

I am curious did ALL volunteers for this Cub Scout camp become BSA members and take YP training?

 

Edited July 6, 2016 by RememberSchiff

[desertrat77 1144]

Apples and Oranges from my perspective.  Hooters uses sexuality as the primary tool for selling food and beverages.  At least my personal experience with theater is for the most part they use sexuality as part of the story telling.  In addition, watching and talking to the dancers on stage is different than inviting them staff camp. And, your daughters troop wasn't representative of the overall brand.

If "sexuality" is in fact Hooter's primary tool, then they've missed the boat.   Their restaurants are pretty tame.

 

My daughter's troop was at rehearsal as an officially sanctioned GSA event.   The girls were wearing their GS vests.

 

So selling beer and wings in shorts/tank top is slatternly, but showing off one's body for "story telling" is okay? 

 

Score 1 for "Art!" 

 

 

So, let me turn it around.  If it was Playboy that wanted to send some girls to work at Cub Camp, dressed exactly like the girls from Hooters, exchanging only the logos on their jackets and visors, would you all be equally accepting?

You can't tell the difference between the public image of a Playboy bunny and a Hooters waitress?   If you think they are close kin, therein lies the source of disagreement.

Edited July 6, 2016 by desertrat77

[walk in the woods 888]

You can't tell the difference between the public image of a Playboy bunny and a Hooters waitress?   If you think they are close kin, therein lies the source of disagreement.

 

Well, I posited that the girls were dressed equally modestly so why is there any difference at all?  It's just a logo on a visor.

 

You're just drawing the same line in a different place.  What makes your line any better than mine?  Only that you are substituting your values in place of mine.

Edited July 6, 2016 by walk in the woods

[desertrat77 1144]

You're just drawing the same line in a different place.  What makes your line any better than mine?  Only that you are substituting your values in place of mine.

 

My line isn't any better than yours.   That's the point.   I'm confused about the notion that selling beer/wings in shorts/tank top = squalor and immorality, yet "story telling" whilst wearing next to nothing is okay.    

 

It's also a bit of a disconnect:

 

- Girls, it's okay to vamp it up in the name of "art"

- Boys, those young women are of the Devil!

[desertrat77 1144]

By the way, I'm have no issues with the dancers of "Chicago."   Nor do I frequent Hooters--not because of the "sexuality" but because the food is just so plain and flavorless.

 

I'm addressing the double standard.   And the needless branding of the Hooters girls with The Scarlet H.

[desertrat77 1144]

 It's just a logo on a visor.

 

Playboy logo = sexuality

Hooters logo = cold beer and greasy chicken wings

Edited July 6, 2016 by desertrat77

[Stosh 3452]

The original news article I read said they were "trained".  I assumed that meant at the minimum YPT.  I'm assuming, the article did not say what the training was.

 

Notice that the only people in the photo wearing jackets were the Hooters gals.  Everyone else wore t-shirts or polos.

 

From the photo no one would even notice the three were from Hooters.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Stosh

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Nor do I frequent Hooters--not because of the "sexuality" but because the food is just so plain and flavorless.

I've never been to a Hooters or any of the similar places. On the relatively rare occasions when my wife and I go out to eat, and we are deciding where to go, somehow that suggestion never comes up. I must have an innate sense of self-preservation, or something.

 

But of course, if we did go to Hooters, those same young ladies would be wearing shirts that did not have quite the same neckline as they do in the photos from the Cub Scout camp. Not that there's anything wrong with that... depending on who you are asking.

[Back Pack 431]

No one up in arms over the "You're Killing me, Smalls" t-shirt? But the Hooters logo makes people angry?

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Greed.   Ummmm, no. they worked at the CSDC for free, yes?

Well, I think I saw a suggestion somewhere in this thread, or one of the articles, that their employer was paying them for the time they were spending at the camp. So they were getting paid, but not by the council. So in effect Hooters was making a donation to the council, and someone thought it would be appropriate for the gals to wear some Hooters logos while they did so. That apparently is what the council called "the wrong attire." As has been discussed, they were dressed fairly modestly for a summer's day outdoors.

[Back Pack 431]

I suspect the parents of these Scouts must have been up in arms (kidding). 

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/styles/gallery/public/media/2015/07/05/070515cheer001.jpg

[desertrat77 1144]

I've never been to a Hooters or any of the similar places. On the relatively rare occasions when my wife and I go out to eat, and we are deciding where to go, somehow that suggestion never comes up. I must have an innate sense of self-preservation, or something.

 

But of course, if we did go to Hooters, those same young ladies would be wearing shirts that did not have quite the same neckline as they do in the photos from the Cub Scout camp. Not that there's anything wrong with that... depending on who you are asking.

I understand.  It's been many a year since I've been to Hooters but here's what I recall.   The necklines were hardly plunging or revealing.   The shorts were modest.   The waitresses took pains to be polite, correct and professional, perhaps to counter some folks' image or unwanted advances.   Customers included groups of men and women, and a family or two, with kids.   It was a restaurant, simply put.  

[desertrat77 1144]

I suspect the parents of these Scouts must have been up in arms (kidding). 

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/styles/gallery/public/media/2015/07/05/070515cheer001.jpg

 

The scouts were no doubt irreparably harmed by the presence of those cheerleaders--get Dr Phil and Oprah on the horn, stat!   (kidding)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

So is wearing a hat in church...unless you're Jewish, then NOT wearing a hat in church is immoral.

Cough cough... well, this depends on who you talk to, but most Jewish people do not see it as a matter of "morality" for males to have their heads covered in synagogue. It is really more of a custom designed to remind one that he is in the presence of God. (I'm probably not saying that exactly right, but it's the best I can do.) And the custom varies: Many Orthodox Jewish men have their heads covered all the time, whether in a place of worship or not. On the other hand, these days, some Reform Jewish women (including my sister-in-law) will wear the traditional head covering in the synagogue. Even 20 years ago it would have been unheard of for a woman to do so.

 

(And by the way Stosh, I've been to "church" on a number of occasions, but I do not cover my head there, because when I am in a "church" I am in a Christian place of worship, not a Jewish one. I do realize that many Christians call any place of worship a "church.")

Edited July 6, 2016 by NJCubScouter