Husband: Why is that yo-yo driving so slowly?
Me: Probably talking on his cell phone. Oh, no, look, he’s getting into the left lane so he can turn into Hooter’s. Probably thinking about his “dinner.”
Husband: I ate at a Hooter’s once.
Me: Yeah, I know, I know, for their really good “hamburgers,” like
people guys who “read” Playboy for the interviews.
Husband: No, really. I was on a tour with some hockey guys for a tournament and there was a big playoff game and this was the only restaurant that was showing the game on TV.
Me: So you stopped at a lot of restaurants and made inquiries, huh?
Husband: (dodging the question) You know, I didn’t really notice anything all that special. I guess the waitresses were pretty, and they wore really short, tight, shorts.
Me: And had really big boobs.
Husband: Well I guess some of them might have; they can’t really hire based on that can they? Wouldn’t that be discrimination?
Me: I think it’s not discrimination if they say it’s one of the job qualifications.
Husband: But do they have to be big to be “hooters”? I mean, you can have little “hooters” can’t you?
Me: (long silence while I decide how to respond to this ridiculous question)
Husband; Well, no, I guess you can’t. It doesn’t really matter, though, if you’ve seen one set you’ve seen them all. (UPDATED: Should have said this in the first place; this is one of the many reasons why I love him.)
Me: I imagine there might be one or two men in the world who might disagree; more of a “so many boobs, so little time” kind of a thing.
Husband: (awkward silence while he wonders if I’m going to blog about this)
Me: I am so blogging about this.
Looking for this:
If you click on the picture you get a link to an article about discrimination suits being brought against Hooters, mainly by men (poor babies, they’re always treated so shabbily). But the next-to-last paragraph and the last sentence of the article just kill me every time I read them.
“Certainly they have made decisions on who is and who is not eligible for serving positions but that is the appeal of the restaurant. The food is at best mediocre so the main reason to go to the restaurant is, well, the boobs and without those the company will likely suffer a significant decline in their patronage, something which could be devastating in this economy,” said Scrape TV Legal analyst Gabe Hawthorne. “The issue for the courts though is whether or not they are employing prejudicial employment practices. If big breasts and nice legs constitute a significant part of their business model then they could end up with a win, but if they define themselves as a restaurant then they are going to run into trouble.” (Despite temptation, I have decided not to fix the punctuation problems from the above quote.)
Advocacy groups for ugly and fat women are reportedly also watching the proceedings very carefully.
“Ugly and fat” women have “advocacy groups”? How humiliating do you suppose it is to petition for representation? It’s Hooters. The whole business model is based on the exploitation of pretty, well-endowed, young women. Are ugly, fat women wishing they could work there? Why would any woman want to work there? “Yes, please, sign me up to be gawked at, groped, and treated like an object.” Thanks but no thanks. For that matter, if men want a job, put them in short-shorts and subject them to weighing and measuring (relax, I meant pecs and waist, but okay, maybe that, too), stamp “I am a piece of meat” on their forehead and let them deliver all the hamburgers they want.