No one up in arms over the "You're Killing me, Smalls" t-shirt?

My popular culture IQ being as anemic as it is, I don't get the reference. What is that? Or don't I want to know?

Do we really need two threads on the same topic?

The smiles in the photo look genuine, and it appears folks were enjoying themselves.

 

How dare they!

My popular culture IQ being as anemic as it is, I don't get the reference. What is that? Or don't I want to know?

 

Its a quote from the movie "The Sandlot" (1993, PG), and I don't see the issue with it...  its not a reference to Biggy Smalls, from Notorious B.I.G., if that's what someone was thinking.

Do we really need two threads on the same topic?

 

Probably not, though I've jumped around to both.

Playboy logo = sexuality

Hooters logo = cold beer and greasy chicken wings

 

From the 2014 calendar

 

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.

 

I said nothing about the women involved.  I've specifically focused on the Hooters Brand.

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

 

 

Your daughter's troop and the leaders made a specific decision to attend their event. I assume if one of the parents had concerns they could have held their child back.  The parents sending their boys to this day camp with the Hooters women weren't given that same consideration.

https://www.facebook.com/hooterscolorado/photos/a.163437990355841.34171.161907387175568/1213932358639727/?type=3

 

Or how about this one?  It's just a couple posts after their post about the Cub Camp on the Hooter's Colorado facebook page.

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.")

 

I was trying to make the point that what one group says is "appropriate" another group says just the opposite.  I know the terminology is not correct on the church issue, but I use it because I am a Christian and any place I find God in a place of worship I call it church.  So if I refer to a Jewish synagogue as a church either I am giving reference to a house of God or it's a lot easier to spell church than synagogue.    House of God would probably work for all faiths, too.  Just didn't think of it when I posted.  No slight was intended.

 

My silent mentor was a Jewish fella who sang with the Men's Choir of the local Methodist church.  He didn't mind singing the occasional Christian hymn and the other fellas didn't mind a Jewish psalm on occasion too.  The men did have a fun tradition at Easter to hand out canned hams to all the members of the choir.  Great flourish was taken when the time cake to present the Jewish member his ham.  He always graciously with a smile accepted it.  Eventually the cost got prohibitive and they decided not to do the hams and the Jewish fella was a bit upset.  My dad asked him what was the matter.  He said every year he would pick out some needy family in the community and give them his ham.  He said he would have to buy one this year.  That story stuck with me to this day.  One can be assured that no Jewish family was ever selected.  My one example of great Christian charity was taught to me by this gentleman who's name I never knew.

From the 2014 calendar

 

 

If someone thinks they are going to see her dressed that way in the restaurant, they are sadly mistaken.  Hooters PR productions in no way match the reality of their restaurants.

 

I said nothing about the women involved.  I've specifically focused on the Hooters Brand.

 

Yet you've included a photo of a woman in a bikini who works for Hooters.   The women that work in the restaurants are the public image of Hooters.   Brands do not exists apart from the people that work for said brands.  Meaning attached is up to each individual.

 

Your daughter's troop and the leaders made a specific decision to attend their event. I assume if one of the parents had concerns they could have held their child back.  The parents sending their boys to this day camp with the Hooters women weren't given that same consideration.

 

I talked to my wife (well, emailed her because I was deployed) about the trip.   Parents knew about the visit with the dancers, but they weren't prepared for the "reality" of the attire and the vampiness of it all.

 

Here's the kicker:   among the adults there was a little eye rolling and such, but overall the parents had a good chuckle and turned the page.   There is a lesson in that for the case at hand.

Edited July 7, 201610 yr by desertrat77

https://www.facebook.com/hooterscolorado/photos/a.163437990355841.34171.161907387175568/1213932358639727/?type=3

 

Or how about this one?  It's just a couple posts after their post about the Cub Camp on the Hooter's Colorado facebook page.

Walk, not sure what you are referring to, but this comment from a mom jumped out at me:

 

"As an active volunteer and a parent of 2 scouts, I would like to thank Hooters and the volunteers who took the time to give back to their community. As for their attire, it was no different that the female counselor's that are employed there. Other than a visor! Great Job ladies and Hooters. We will have to stop in to show our support!"

 

Truly, the actual degree of depravity and deception is in the eye of the beholder.

Walk, not sure what you are referring to, but this comment from a mom jumped out at me:

 

"As an active volunteer and a parent of 2 scouts, I would like to thank Hooters and the volunteers who took the time to give back to their community. As for their attire, it was no different that the female counselor's that are employed there. Other than a visor! Great Job ladies and Hooters. We will have to stop in to show our support!"

 

Truly, the actual degree of depravity and deception is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Nobody said anything about depravity, save you.  I've just been pointing out that the Hooters brand could quite easily be considered inconsistent with an organization whose brand is outdoor skills, character development, and moral and ethical decision making.

 

So in the end we have one mom who was happy to have Hooters there and one that is thinking about pulling her son from the program.  Not exactly a resounding victory for day camp.

Do we really need two threads on the same topic?

I am working to consolidate the threads. 

 

Sentinel947

Nobody said anything about depravity, save you.  I've just been pointing out that the Hooters brand could quite easily be considered inconsistent with an organization whose brand is outdoor skills, character development, and moral and ethical decision making.

 

So in the end we have one mom who was happy to have Hooters there and one that is thinking about pulling her son from the program.  Not exactly a resounding victory for day camp.

 

The way folks are carrying on about a few waitresses helping at day camp, you'd think the entire situation was one of wanton excess.