http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/05/20/hooters-forcing-fit-waitress-to-lose-weight/

Is this one of the ladies mentioned in the lawsuit?

The saddest thing for me is that such histrionics undermine the achievements of "smart bombs", women with great looks and intellect, like Tracy Scoggins, Danica Kellar and Claudia Christian.

You want to impress me, lady, show me you ride motorcycles, fly airplanes, have serious math skills and speak multiple languages - don't whine. I may consider you out of my league entirely, but you will have earned my admiration.

The "looks" business works both ways. I know you ladies can tell a horse from a pig, no matter what his wallet size, especially when you want to go for a ride.

Life isn't fair. You should be pleased with that, because if it was, then you'd deserve all the nasty things that happen to you.

Hooters girls arent hired for their waitressig skills - the waffle house has better service and better food.

They are hired to look good in see-thru-when-wet tit hugging shirts and too-short shorts which highlight camel toe.

Sorry to burst your bubbles girls but thats your job description.

And while were on the subject of looks
NO ONE LOOKS GOOD WITH A LIP PEIRCING NOONE NOONE NOONE

It doesnt make you look hot or edgy, it makes your face look asymetrical which is a bad thing

Radwaste: Babylon 5 Fan like me?

While I'll agree that their standards are a bit rough you really do have to boarder on under weight to wear those cloths, or be really really fit. There is 5'4" 132 and then there is 5'4" 132 with a six pack. If fact with a six pack she'd probably be heavier. There are some people that have the figure for that and some really don't. If you don't' have what ever attribute is required then just swallow your pride and move along. I personally wouldn't mind her sitting in my lap but she gets the green light a week later some 1/2 metric ton gothapotomas will be working there, lip rings and rolls.

This kind of reminds me of the dip shit lawsuit from the guy who wanted to work as a waitress.

I hate it when people get all butthurt because people won't hand them something on a silver platter. If your honest goal in life is to work at Hooters and you're fat, well, then I guess you'd better hit that treadmill, sweetheart.

People really need to get over themselves. I blame all this "self-esteem" parenting we've been seeing.

It's only going to get worse. Trust me.

Vlad, I love gothapotamus! Hahaha, I'm so using that!

This is going to be fun to watch. Hooters has a history of challenging these kind of things in court -- and winning.

I seem to remember that Hooters can get away with it partially because the waitresses are required to wear the uniform and the uniform only come in teeny sizes. No idea if that's true or not though.

Is nothing sacred? I didn't care when they messed with the military. I didn't care when they hired firefighters who couldn't carry me out of a burning building.

Messing with Hooters is going too far. What next, me being a Chippendale? Tell them to stop this nonsense. And bleach your eyeballs.

When I worked at the local university I had a student who worked for Hooters and wrote a paper about it. She said she did it because as long as she worked half time she got pro-rated benefits and they worked around her schedule. She said the bartenders and management did not put up with customers harassing the girls (and yes, they called themselves girls) but she expected a certain amount of comments, flirting, etc. She also described the hiring process. An agency rented a conference room and advertised for waiters/waitresses, bar staff etc. Those who were qualified and fit the physical profile (which she did) were offered jobs at Hooters, those who didn't were offered jobs at another local cafe. It was a heck of an interesting paper to read! She made a fabulous reference to the classic Patrick Swayze/Chris Farley SNL Chippandale's audition sketch (that must be somewhere out there in cyberspace). All around smart student in both the class room and real life.

Long winded way of saying yeah, sometimes it is about looks and it's hard to slap a one size fits all discrimination law on the issue. I'm pretty sure airline pilots have to maintain a certain weight 'cause you have to fit in the seat in order to fly the plane.

The way I look at it...They got hired based on their looks. That was part of the contract. By porking up, they changed their look and therefore voided the contract. Do I like the idea of working in a place where looks are under such scrutiny? No. That's why I choose not to work there. There are plenty of other tables to wait on where you get to wear more clothes. Go find one.

I had a coworker in NYC a few years ago who wanted to be a waiter a the 50's style resturaunt that has the waitstaff that sings. (I forget what it's called... Starsomething) Problem is, he couldn't sing, and that is part of the job requirements. He got angry when they wouldn't hire him and came to me to complain. I said, "Well of COURSE they didn't hire you. You can't sing." He thought he was entitled to a job there anyway because "how hard is it to serve burgers? You dont need to know how to sing to serve burgers!" I said "Well to serve burgers THERE, you do." He truly believed he had been discriminated against and threatened to sue. I laughed in his face and said "Good luck with that lawsuit. Why don't you try out for American Idol while your at it then. Maybe you can get a good sound byte from Simon." I don't think he ever followed through on that threat but he sure did bitch about it forever.

Just this week, I bumped into an international business consultant from Mexico City, on the Web. When he was out of college, he married, and without kids, it wasn't long before they split up.

When he was 37, he met an 18 year old in Hooters in Mexico City, and they married. I didn't even know they had one there.

Nor did I ask what she looked like. Heh, heh.

He said she is intelligent and energetic, and their marriage is flourishing, I believe they have a couple kids.

I think it was last year I saw a photo on the Web, of a horrid creature standing in front of a Hooters, with a picket sign, offended by the horror of men wanting to see scantily clad gorgeous women, etc.

The Hooter Babes were coming out the door, and the contrast was hilarious.

I do think we have a lot of confused women who really think men being attracted to gorgeous women is some sort of evil decision men make, and if we sue enough, they will change.

Don't get me wrong. I urge men to look for more than just the appearance, men who go only for looks have a high divorce rate.

If they can't find a 10 with personality and intelligence, the supply is limited, a good 7 or 8 might do very well.

Once in a while, you can find a lesser attractive woman whose personality is such that she could be a good choice. Back in the 70's, in community college, there was an extremely round young woman, with a dynamite, happy personality, witty and funny. There was a lot of her, but not one sign of loose, sloppy fat. In fact, as big as she was, she actually had a smaller waist then above and below. And, she was light on her feet.

She was the only girl in a large family and related well to men. She did not view us as the enemy.

But, those are rare. If one is going to get a mediocre, negative personality, better go for looks. At least you will have something to keep you awake.

Imagine a Playboy playmate upset because she put on some weight, and now Playboy Enterprises will no longer employ her at the premium Playboy model wage rates, which exceed what she can earn doing modeling work for ordinary models of more average attractiveness.

WE would all say, "Duh. Playboy is in the business of selling hotness. Not hot? Not in Playboy. People don't buy it for the articles."

Well, similarly, Hooters is not in the business of selling chicken wings, it is selling female hotness.

You want the premium wage that comes with being a physically attractive worker working for an employer who sells that look to a wide customer base? Then you really need to take care maintaining your physical attractiveness.

See also Chippendales.

Back in the 80's, there was an MRA who wrote columns for a NYC newspaper. When women moved into the fire and police departments, the chiefs would give press releases telling how well the women were performing. This columnist decided to hang around the bars where these guys went, to hear the inside scoop.

There were a number of stories that show height and weight do matter.

But, my favorite, since I worked as a firefighter in the Army had to do with a fire in a brownstone, on the top floor.

The captain sent a woman down to bring up a 50 foot roll of hose. By the time she got back to the second story, she was exhausted and could not go any more.

A man, vicious brute that he was, came along, saw her problem, picked up the 50 foot of hose under one arm, her under the other, and carried them both to the fourth floor.

Nanc - While the Hooters near me does not have only small-sized shirts, I watched an episode of "Undercover Boss" (They use various cover stories to get the person onto the staff while being followed by a camera crew) where the CEO of Hooters went to a few different stores, taking different positions as part of the "reality TV show" they were filming, and the one where he was supposed to be a regular employee, they did only have the small shirts (and one of the girls he was working with barely fit in them, but not because she was fat).

He also got a first-hand view of the complaints raised against Hooters by some of the more prudish people out there while they were doing a promotion for it on the sidewalk.

The best part of that episode, though, was the takedown he did on the manager who treated the girls badly (as in, to decide who got to leave early when they were not busy, he had them engage in a hands-free bean eating contest).

"Radwaste: Babylon 5 Fan like me?"

Sure. If you get the slightest chance to meet one of the actors, say, at DragonCon, go. You'll find that the cast is wonderful (Jerry Doyle is a little abrupt, but the others, wow).

That's where I came up with the name, Tracy Scoggins. She played competitive chess in school. At one of the B5 panels at DragonCon 2009, when asked what she was doing nowadays, she said, "I'm taking care of my mother, who's fighting cancer. It's the best job I've ever had." And then she introduces Mom back at the autograph table! Too cool - the lady redefined "10" for me.

Actors, FYI, are real people (good and bad), but a bunch of them have gone out of their way to qualify for any role that might come up. Have you noticed that while Shamu considers suing to waddle through Hooters, actors have no job security? I suggest that if other people acted like that, pushing themselves to learn things, they'd be better off.

So some women can't be breathtaking. Duh. Neither can we guys.

>>Once in a while, you can find a lesser attractive woman whose personality is such that she could be a good choice...But, those are rare. If one is going to get a mediocre, negative personality, better go for looks. At least you will have something to keep you awake.

You are such a naughty tease, irlandes!

I'm on the point of skipping right on over to Mexico and chasing your hot 68-year-old bod round and round your sexy house with my scintillating personality until you beg for mercy!

Rad, if you haven't done it before, hunt up some info on Hedy Lamarr and the patents she received on jam-resistant radio communications system.

It's interesting someone mentioned Claudia Christian. I got to know her a few years ago and was blown away. In her 40s she is more gorgeous than most women could hope to be at any age, and she is constantly taking on new endeavors and improving herself.

Not only is she intelligent and witty, but she's also very kind.

This reminds me of an episode of CSI:NY I once saw. The owners of this trendy, up-scale restaurant or catering business (I can't remember exactly which) dressed their female staff in very fashionable tiny outfits, like something out of a runway show. To get around the discrimination laws about weight, the employees were officially classified as 'serving models' rather than 'waitresses.' This is because discrimination based upon looks is ok when the employees are models (at least it was in New York at that time), because the job of a model is to look how their employer(s) wants them to. Perhaps Hooters should follow this example and change their 'waitress' positions" to 'serving model' positions. After all, when was the last time a model who suddenly gained 50 pounds successfully sued her company for and the couture runway designers for only hiring and designing clothes for skinny chicks?

On a personal note, I think the girl on the page Kendra linked to looks like a total babe, and I think if she lost weight she'd probably be underweight and start developing that unattractive skeleton look. But I'm not her boss and I think she should either shut up and lose the weight (they're paying for her gym membership, for crying out loud!) or look for another job. She knew damn well that working at Hooters would require her to look the way the bosses want. That's why the job went to her instead of the 175+ Mensa member whose been out of work for 6 months.

Damn! That should read 175+ pound Mensa member. I hate it when my thoughts get ahead of my fingers and I end up leaving out words by mistake.

The courts should throw this lawsuit out without giving it a hearing. This is assinine. The main qualification for the job is the prospective waitresses appearance. Spartee wrote exactly my thoughts on the article, Playboy's requirements are the same as Hooters, as they should be, hot looking waitresses is the whole point of the restaurant.

It's hard to decide, Jody, but maybe I prefer nasty and disgusting to extreme sarcasm.

Still, the extreme sarcasm was at least clever.

Once again Rush Limbaugh is proven right.

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."

Speaking about women....I asked my mom what she thought my future was going to be, her reply was "Nothing I never thought about it"....ughhhhh............

I do think we have a lot of confused women who really think men being attracted to gorgeous women is some sort of evil decision men make, and if we sue enough, they will change.

I'm often appalled at this, too, irlandes. I've seen it in sitcoms and heard women in the real world talk like this. I picture a bunch of guys sitting in a secret clubhouse discussing how best to screw over women today. There's no Evil League of Evil dictating to whom men should be attracted. Some men go out of their ways to seek out specific types that attract them and some men build a mild attraction into a bigger one when they find a compatible partner. But they're not deciding to be attracted to shapely women with pretty faces or anything else; they work based on attractions that are innate.

Radwaste: that's an interesting take on this situation, thinking in terms of actors going after roles. Even in roles that are really specific, there can be some leeway as to face and body, but actors who are totally different from the role won't get it. I think of Suzanne Sugarbaker saying that not hiring Dustin Hoffman to play Martin Luther King, Jr. was racist if he was the best actor. Some (if not many or most) roles won't go to certain people no matter how good they are. I think you're correct in saying that maybe people should think of certain jobs as acting roles: you have to look the part. Matt Damon ate nothing but steamed vegetables to look like a heroin addict; later in his career he ate junk food and stopped working out to play a portly executive. Even actors that studio execs sell their grandmothers to get for their movies change their appearances for roles.

Moral of the story: sometimes you have to change yourself instead of expecting other people to bow to you.

Once again Rush Limbaugh is proven right.

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."

Posted by: Jerry Katz at June 11, 2010 2:31 PM

___________________________

I've heard that Rush quote often.

Gee, so that's why attractive women have always been allowed to vote, work for pay after marriage and/or getting pregnant, get more than slave wages if they DID get such work, etc.?

It's so nice to learn these things.

Whether or not it is appropriate for Hooter's or any other restaurant to hire waitresses based largely on their looks is debatable. However, I leave that debate aside, as this was and is their well known policy.

What is not debatable is this specific circumstance. These women sure didn't mind the "good looks, nice body" policy when it helped them get the job.

leona, most western state had women suffrage lon before the womans movment even started.

Noone is claiming it was a picnic for women, but feminisims dirty little secret that they go to great effort to hide - life wasnt a picinic for most men either.

Feminists like to pertend the entire male gender os part of a super secret cabal in which they all look out for each other.

Newsflash lady - women had jobs before the movement, women could vote before the movment, they could own property too.

Low class men suffered far more harshly under the "oppression" of upper class men far, FAR more then their put upon wives were.

You know why so many men supported womens suffrage? Because they swallowed whole sale the most insidious Victorian myth - that women are universally kind and caring.

Had the throngs of lower class men understood that the upperclass women planned to stab them in the back once they were no longer useful(by claiming the very men that just supported their efforts were a part of the problem) I doubt theyd have ever voted to change things.

Rush's quote is good entertainment. But the truth is feminism was started because upperclass housewives were bored.

Now thats not to say that many of them weret idealists in it for the rifgt reasons. But the suddeness of feminisims anti male bent and the excommunication of everyone who didnt toe the line should give you some inkling of where most of those women hearts really laid

>>You know why so many men supported womens suffrage? Because they swallowed whole sale the most insidious Victorian myth - that women are universally kind and caring.

Cites please, lujlp.

Cites for what? the number of men supporting womens suffrage? or the myth that women are paragons of virtue that can never do anything mean or hurtful?

So women's suffrage doesn't count as part of the feminist movement? Bizarre.

That hardly changes the fact that it was OK to ban women patrons from one world-famous university library as late as the 1960s(?), OK to say "men only" for jobs not requiring a great deal of physical strength, etc., long after WWII.

>>Cites for what? the number of men supporting womens suffrage? or the myth that women are paragons of virtue that can never do anything mean or hurtful?

Cites for your original statement - in which you specified the historical basis for male support of female suffrage, lujlp.

Well, lets see.

If only men could vote, and men voted to extend that privilage to women, then it would stand to reason that they supported the cause they voted for.

Right?

>>If only men could vote, and men voted to extend that privilage to women, then it would stand to reason that they supported the cause they voted for.
Right?

Yeah - with you so far, lujlp.

And then...?

And then what?

I was asked to provide proof that men supported womens suffrage. I did.

If the majority of men did not support the right of women to vote they wouldnt have voted for the 19th amendment.

Seriously, in what world do feminists view all men as horribly oppresive for the actions of a small minority? A minority which was far harsher to lower class men then they ever were to women.

To hold men as genius overbearing patriarical slave master masterminds who were somehow stupid or gullible enough to be tricked into giveing women the vote when they intented the opposite, well the cognitive dissonance would cause any harware other than the human brain to self destruct

I'm average-looking, and I'm trying to lose weight in part to look more attractive to women. For those who don't exactly have pristine (hot) looks, quit whining and bring to the table what you DO have.

@irlandes: I saw that photo on the web a number of times, and I have to say, the "horrid creature" did not actually look that bad. Some makeup and a hairdo, and maybe a more casual view on life, and she'd be fine.

It seemed to show that those women criticizing the "exploitation" of women maybe do not have what it takes to be "exploited," and that's what lies beneath their protests.

>>I was asked to provide proof that men supported womens suffrage. I did.

lujlp,
You misunderstood, then.
That wasn't what I wanted to know.

Have another look at what you wrote.

Originally, you boldly claimed to know the REASON men approved of female suffrage.

Your quote: "You know why so many men supported womens suffrage? Because they swallowed whole sale the most insidious Victorian myth - that women are universally kind and caring."

Where is your evidence for this notion?

What is the source of your claim that it was Victorian bullshit about typical feminine virtues that conned men into supporting female suffrage?

That was my question!

Gee, Jody, it's like you're not even looking around.

While it's proper to ask lujlp where the "Victorian" came from, all you have to do is look at American jurisprudence - which somehow continues the insane idea that mothers should always get custody of the kids. This idea appeared in a court system derived from English common law - which you know.

On the other hand, another look around would show "feminists" insisting on welfare program after welfare program, State interference with employer operations and supporting single motherhood. Then, of course, there's the evidence offered right on this blog that there is an unequal pay myth.

These last two point out that there was a reason, other than those, suffrage was granted to women. Do you really think it was because the American male of time thought, "Gee - what an amazing, untapped reservoir of logic!"?
I suggest that the result was less wonderful than hoped.

On another tangent, universal suffrage is built on the idea that a person with a voice will act in the interest of society, not themselves. America has had its great successes due to both fortunate geography and this idea, brought here by British Protestants - it is why we are not Quebec or Brazil or Mexico. But there is a fallacy embedded in any assumption that democracy is "best": that the mob knows more than an emperor about what the country needs. Our checks and balances are and have failed because the public does not insist that they be used (possibly the best example is that the Constitution forbids a felon being President, but guess what happens when one is convicted - nothing - the power is too important).

Jody, given that polling, focus groups, market research and the like were not as prevalent a century ago as today, it may be difficult to find such evidence.

You can't just look up the 1910 Gallup poll on, say, the attitudes of working-class men to the notion that women are the fairer sex.

>>You can't just look up the 1910 Gallup poll on, say, the attitudes of working-class men to the notion that women are the fairer sex.

I agree, Nick S.

But apparently lujlp knows otherwise. (Hence my question).

>>But there is a fallacy embedded in any assumption that democracy is "best": that the mob knows more than an emperor about what the country needs.

Thank you, Radwaste.

Fortunately most of us cleave to the more nuanced notion that democracy is better than many alternatives.(Even while we rue the braying of the mob).

>>While it's proper to ask lujlp where the "Victorian" came from...

Again, thank you Radwaste.

I am so relieved to know my simple question to lujlp was in no sense "improper".

I see I misundertood which half of my statment you wanted clarified.

I just got roped into moving furniture for my mother so I'll have to get back to you on that, but I will.

>>just got roped into moving furniture for my mother so I'll have to get back to you on that, but I will.

Good luck with hefting the furniture, lujlp.
But if you drop something on your toe - try not to automatically blame feminism:)

"I am so relieved to know my simple question to lujlp was in no sense "improper"."

Why do you post when you have nothing to say?

I suggest it's because you don't actually have a counter-argument - you just want somebody to jump through hoops.

By the way, you'll notice I didn't say it was "in no sense" anything. You have a higher opinion of yourself than is warranted here.

>>Why do you post when you have nothing to say?

You seem fond of rhetorical gambits, Radwaste?

"Fortunately most of us cleave to the more nuanced notion that democracy is better than many alternatives."

Heh. "...more nuanced...". What meaningless twaddle. And do you think what we have is "democracy"?

"Fortunately", Egypt was ruled by kings for thousands of years; Rome and China had their emperors for centuries. Britain spanned the globe under their monarchy.

But we know best. In saying so, we merely echo all that have gone before us. I do not cry for the USA of the past like some addled moviegoer pining for the world a director can show him, but we still have a long way to go to prove that we can sustain this. We have reached the point that the public has found that they can vote themselves money from the public trough, something that cannot happen in a monarchy or dictatorship, and the only way to turn off that fountain is to twist the "democracy" into something else. It will be wrapped in the flag, too.

One of the hardest things to show anyone is that the common gomer in Farawayistan or Nowwhattany does not give two hoots about anyone else's system of government. She just wants the local one to get out of the way, provide for the common defense so jackboots don't tear up the floor and promote shipping deals so the goat milk doesn't spoil on the way to or from the house. Go travel and ask somebody, and that's what you'll find.

I happen to think a republic is a fine thing to have, but so many in the USA are shouting "ME, ME, ME!" and promising their vote to some panderer that I don't think we're going to see one.

It is the vote that enables fat women to sue Hooters for not employing them, because the "more nuanced notion" passed a law that however repulsive you are, the market should be forced to use you. Gee, a public with ten minutes to spare didn't figure out the unintended consequences of the Michigan law.

>>And do you think what we have is "democracy"?

You really are Mr. Rhetorical Question, Radwaste!

But I agree. Power will inevitably be abused in ways that were never intended.
(Which gives the ordinary "gomer" at least something in common with a good many of those kings, queens and emperors).

But the truth is feminism was started because upperclass housewives were bored.

Posted by: lujlp at June 12, 2010 8:16 AM

____________________________

Of course there were SOME bored housewives in the second wave of American feminism, in the 1960s, just as the 19th century suffrage movement was spearheaded by rich women, since they had more time, money and energy to get things done. (This was one reason Mother Jones didn't support women's right to vote - and I confirmed that with Ronnie Gilbert, who portrayed her in a play. That is, Jones' attitude was "everyone knows voting doesn't change anything, especially for the poor, so why should I trust a suffrage movement started by RICH women?")

And, as feminist Miss Manners has said more than once, it's misleading to talk about "when women started to work for money," since poor women have always worked for money, willingly or not, married or not.

However, neither fact contradicts what Gloria Steinem said - that in the 1960s, the average middle class woman (or, simply, the average woman?) was just one man away from welfare. If more and more 60s women became alarmed by this, including housewives of all classes, that was hardly the same thing as being "bored" with housekeeping! (Not to mention that those women who were smart enough to get alarmed realized they had to be shrill if they wanted younger women to get their heads out of the sand regarding their futures.)

Here's what I wrote elsewhere:

While I do think it was a bit heavy-handed for 1970s feminists to say that housecleaning is simply menial work that stinks, since that
clearly wasn't the best way to convince boys to do their share of the dishes without deliberately breaking them, it should also be obvious by now that SOMETHING had to be done to make it clear to girls from very traditional families/communities that they should think twice before putting all their eggs in one basket, since that could easily
be disastrous. (Even a perfect spouse can die or get crippled by a drunk driver, after all.)

What's bizarre is that many modern conservatives, including famous fundie James Dobson (who is an alarmingly slick writer) cannot grasp that concept and will not mention it in THEIR defense of religious SAH wives. Do they really not care what happens to them?

From "Ms." magazine, Oct. 1987, this is a letter written in response to those who complain that feminism doesn't take homemaking seriously enough:

"Six months ago I too was a self-described 'happy homemaker' I baked bread, grew roses, played with my toddler. Then I woke one morning and found my husband (and our car, our stereo, our checkbook, etc.) gone.I was COMPLETELY surprised; I had assumed he was as happy as I was!

"I had to immediately find a job (which pays a third what his does); arrange for day care: try to scrape together enough money for food,
mortgage, and utilities.

"Housewife is NOT a valid career option because you have no control over your own life. If you lose your husband you can't go down to the
employment agency and apply for another one!"