Chocolate boobs.
So there you are – a responsible parent, anxious only to do the best by your children.
It’s your son’s 12th birthday, a celebration is called for! What are you? 30, 35? Certainly the right age to have lived through the 80s and the naughty nineties, you know a thing or two about street culture; you know not to order ‘Uncle Fred’ and his ‘magic puppies’ as entertainment for a group of exuberant 12 year old boys.
A restaurant, the very thing, positively grown up! You scan the Yellow Pages – ‘The Fat Duck’? – Too expensive. ‘The Priest and Choirboy’? Best not, too close to Uncle Fred. Ah! Here’s the very thing – ‘Hooters’, big noses, breasts, cannabis cigarettes? Ignore the last two suggestions, it probably means big noses, just like red nose day. Phone them up and ask if they can arrange a birthday party – they can! Wonderful.
Turn up with your 12 year old son, eye the waitresses in hot pants and skin tight t-shirts, ignore the raucous atmosphere with groups of leering adolescent men drinking themselves under the table – and then pass out with shock, outrage, and distress when the birthday cake brought to the table turns out to be in the shape of a pair of breasts….
What were you expecting? A cake in the shape of a joint? A jolly red nose?
Naturally, you then do your level best to get the restaurant closed….you organise a petition; gather round you po-faced women who can come out with phrases like:
The ethos and brand of the company revolve around the sexual objectification of the waitresses (Hooters only employs female serving staff). Bristol should be working to improve the status of women in the city and to redress the gender imbalance, and should not allow a restaurant to open up which relies on the objectification of its female waiting staff. Allowing a ‘Hooters’ restaurant to open up runs counter to the city council’s gender equality duty and would do nothing to work towards promoting the status of women and girls in our city.
Dear God! Has everyone in Britain taken leave of their common sense? Why didn’t you take him to a lap dancing club, like any sane parent? Now Bristol Titty Council (sic)are ‘carrying out an investigation’ to see whether ‘Hooters’ should be allowed to stay in business.
Elsewhere, Ben Douglas, a ‘D’ list TV presenter, has received an apology from James Brown, a ‘D’ list celebrity hairdresser, for ‘racial abuse’. It seems that James got drunk and called Ben a ‘nigger’ eight times (Ben counted carefully) – in the presence of witnesses no less. The spelling matters. Had James called Ben a ‘nigga’ – pronounced in exactly the same way, he might have got away with it. Nor is it just the spelling that dictates the word’s usage. In the mouth of another black person, the term is one of endearment, in common usage.
For instance, a show on Black Entertainment Television, a cable network aimed at a black audience, described the word nigger as a “term of endearment.” “In the African American community, the word nigga (not nigger) brings out feelings of pride” (Davis 1). Here the word evokes a sense of community and oneness among black people. Many teens I interviewed felt that the word had no power when used amongst friends, but when used among white people the word took on a completely different meaning. In fact, comedian Alex Thomas on BET stated, “I still better not hear no white boy say that to me… I hear a white boy say that to me, it means ‘White boy, you gonna get your ass beat.’”
How perfectly racist!
rac·ism/ˈrāˌsizəm/
Noun: The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Ben wails in print ‘How dare a white middle class friend of Kate Moss call me the N-word eight times’?
A word becomes racist when uttered by a white middle class boy? You assume that as a member of a specific race James possesses a specific ability to intend offence?
How racist is that, Ben?
Now Boot’s pharmacy chain are ‘carrying out an investigation’ to see whether they dare risk carrying the ‘racist’ James’ hair products in their stores.
Have you nothing else to worry about in Britain, besides taking offence?
June 7, 2011 at 18:46
-
You may be interested in the following Chris Rock commentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Voy506jhg
-
June 5, 2011 at 23:48
-
Ben was right to feel pretty annoyed. He had the option to ignore it, to
approach the chap in the cold light of day to offer the chance for him to
apologise – or he could have decided to put the chap’s business and career at
risk by reporting the facts publicly and letting the fashionistas decide if
they want to continue doing business with him.
He chose the latter as was his prerogative and is a matter for no-one else
but him to decide .
Clinical, measured and devastating. The one thing I would not call it is
‘wailing.’
- June 5, 2011 at 21:55
-
sheesh – I was hoping to see a certain degree of maturity in the UK with
Hooters opening up. But sadly it seems some members of our society are still
trapped in some kind of 1950′s time-warp.
Hooters is an offspring of a peculiar US culture that is on the one hand
prudish and uptight, but on the other liberal. I offer you the “tradition” of
cheer-leading as a case in point – a weird blend of overt-sexuality with a
“look but don’t touch” overlay. Going to Hooters is like going to a cheer
leading squad serving hamburgers.
By the way – of all the chain outlets – IMHO they are one of the best for
hamburger quality!
- June 5,
2011 at 19:40
-
From This is Bristol, May 14 2011
‘THE city council is investigating controversial restaurant Hooters
after receiving complaints about a swimsuit contest held there this
week.’
One of the letters of complaint about the contest, from Bristol
University’s Centre for Gender and Violence Research, ‘cited a condition in
the licence that banned adult entertainment or “use of the premises that may
give rise to concern in respect of children”.’
Coincidence?
- June 5, 2011 at 17:56
-
For my part, I can’t abide Greenpeace but you don’t see me running
around trying to get ‘em banned on the basis they promote anti-industrialism
and pseudo-science.
Now that is a damn good idea Single Acts of Tyranny. Maybe we should add
WWF and a few of the others as well.
- June
5, 2011 at 17:42
-
Surprisingly the commentators on the Maily Dail are not frothing at the
mouth about Hooters. They’re frothing at the mouth about the parents.
- June 5,
2011 at 17:47
-
The likely suspects have doubtless got their hands full commenting
elsewhere on the (re)opening of the Playboy Club.
- June 5, 2011 at 17:32
-
Jonathon Ross “When I was young and stupid I’d probably have thought it was
fun. Glad I’ve grown up!’”
So now he’s old and stupid
- June 5, 2011 at 16:53
-
If we add a certain permanently-offended model with chocolate boobs recent
problem with Cadbury’s to the story, the circle is completed and we can see
that the professionally-offended class is infinite.
Interesting to read the harridan’s statement, demanding “gender-balance” in
employment which then follows with the hilarious statement -”would do nothing
to work towards promoting the status of women and girls in our city.”
Bristol is working very hard to remove any commercial enterprise,
eventually it will be just another town with a third-rate “uni” and a
population of unemployed womyns studies graduates casting around for a
non-problem to solve. Or has it reached that stage?
- June 5, 2011 at
16:40
-
I have to say, had Hooters existed in the UK when I was 12, I would have
regarded my life as ultimately happy and content, had I been “exposed” to it.
As a 12 year old I rather liked the thought of such places.
These days I probably wouldn’t go, but lack the meddlesome urge to
interfere in the way others work, do business or engage in leisure
pursuits.
And I’m guessing the more attractive waitresses do rather better
than most waiting staff in other restaurants, (also five will get you ten that
the person complaining is not an obvious potential recruit of said
restaurant).
I loved the comment about “allowing” a Hooters to open, really chillingly
Orwellian. For my part, I can’t abide Greenpeace but you don’t see me running
around trying to get ‘em banned on the basis they promote anti-industrialism
and pseudo-science.
- June 5, 2011 at 16:29
-
Christ, what next – vegetarians complaining about meat being on the menu in
a steak house?
From the article:
“…more than 900 people have signed the petition,
including comedians Jonathan Ross and David Mitchell. Ross tweeted: ‘When I
was young and stupid I’d probably have thought it was fun. Glad I’ve grown
up!’”
So Ross explicitly confirms his current stupidity – and probably
sufficiently stupid to need his confirmation pointed out.
- June 5, 2011 at 15:40
-
Hmm, it’d be interesting to look in to the background of the ‘innocent’
people who took their 12-year old son to the place and were ‘surprised,
shocked and outraged’.
Smells fishier than an opened tin of
Whiskas.
Having said that, the seedier side of the entertainment industry
has a bad name for ripping-off customers e.g. the old clip-joints.
- June 5, 2011 at 17:12
-
I would like to point out that Whiskas are mainly meat based recipes
which don’t whiff of fish…
-
June 5, 2011 at 17:21
-
Good one, found out as a non cat-owner! Quite an authority on border
collies…
- June 5,
2011 at 19:22
-
When a pair who are easily offended
Arranged for an evening that
ended
With their twelve-year-old son
Getting boobs on a bun,
Was
the scandal just what they intended?
Your turn, Livewire!
- June 5, 2011 at 19:58
-
Twelve-year olds told not to stare
at the Offended’s chocolate
pair
of lip-smacking treats
with caramel teats?
Obviously not at
all fair.
-
June 5, 2011 at 20:10
-
If somebody bothered to bake
A chocolatey twin-bosom cake
I’d say
right out loud
To the scandalised crowd
“Oh behave! Can’t you see
that they’re fake?”
-
June 6, 2011 at 04:51
-
The claque used to turn up and bray
With shouts pre-arranged for
some pay
Just Sextons in ‘guise (Sexton Blake=fake)
The anger would
rise
But don’t trust a word that they say
-
June 5, 2011 at 21:08
-
The now famous McDonald’s Happy Meal ban lawsuit originating in
California was brought on by a woman who purposely took her child to a
McDonald’s and bought a Happy Meal, just to afterwards be offended and bring
on the suit. And in her case, she turned out to be an executive on a state
government council for the purpose of promoting healthy food and eating as
well as a high-ranking member of a non-profit organization promoting the
same goals. When the news broke, it was instantly flashed, in less than half
an hour, onto the national wire services from a location up in Oregon – thus
the whole thing was literally well planned from the get-go, with accomplices
out of state waiting to hear when the case against McDonald’s got filed,
spreading the pre-written news release into the national wire service in
under 1/2 hour time, to get the outrage against McDonald’s up and running,
yet the whole event, quite literally, planned. This case against Hooters, it
might be the same sort of thing. I don’t “know” that, but just saying, it
“might be”.
- June 5, 2011 at 15:37
-
The culture of taking offence never ceases to amaze – white, middle class
people banning Christian events on behalf of ethnic minorities who they are
sure will be offended. Manginas deciding when women are the victims of
‘sexism’, the multi-billion PC industry. As ever, the biggest winners in this
story will be the lawyers…
http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/2011/06/england-are-crap-capello-out-any-other.htmll
be the lawyers…
- June
5, 2011 at 13:46
-
When ever someone says “think of the cheeldren”, I say “where are the
parents”.
- June 5, 2011 at 15:30
-
I think: “Do they taste good?”
- June 5,
2011 at 12:56
-
On that Hooters petition somebody has left a rather rude message (number
1002), it was written TODAY so I suspect somebody linking from here wrote it!
Anyway, ditto what Tom Paine writes.
Harvey’s Bristol Cream? You’re not rubbing any of that on my tits…as the
old joke goes.
- June 5, 2011 at 11:29
-
“Have you nothing else to worry about in Britain, besides taking
offence?”
Many industries in Britain are struggling at the moment. This one certainly
is not.
- June 5,
2011 at 11:49
-
A nice little compensation settlement, perhaps, for the shocked family –
so shocked that they have orchestrated a high-profile online petition that
they can wheel out in support – and plenty of free publicity for Hooters to
encourage people who like that sort of thing; I think that’s what’s called a
win-win situation.
- June 5,
2011 at 11:25
-
We frequently castigate the government for their stupidity (and rightly)
but sometimes the population shows that stupidity is not bounded by
barriers.
- June 5, 2011 at 10:57
-
Surely the cake was just a tribute to Bristols everywhere? A
self-respecting Bristolian should have been delighted. On my 12th birthday, I
would have been very pleasantly surprised (and probably – in a healthy side
effect – laughing too much to eat myself sick).
Britain goes through cycles of puritanism it seems and we have drawn the
short straw of being the new Victorians. This kind of feminism (in contrast to
the serious sort that, as a father of intelligent and talented daughters, I
heartily support) is simply another manifestation.
- June 6, 2011 at 13:20
-
“… we have drawn the short straw of being the new
Victorians.”
If only! A fraction of their self-reliance and
confidence would see off these nannying idiots.
- June 5, 2011 at 10:26
-
HOOTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
- June 5, 2011 at 10:16
-
“Racism: ……….. to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or
races.”
So Ben presumed James was being derogatory? It would normally be a 50:50
chance that he was correct. However, his very reaction actually implies
inferiority?
-
June 5, 2011 at 09:36
-
The rules of modern Britain:
1: If something terrible and disgraceful
happens, no one is to blame. a report is written in which there is reference
to a failure of the system and which says that lessons have been learned. Then
everyone carries on as before
2: the trifling, irrelevant and petty is
blown out of all proportion and becomes a fixation. Lawyers leap in, resources
are squandered, rules made and people sent on courses run by people who can
only run courses.
Meanwhile, the population not involved in regulation
soldier on.
Oh, unhappy land!
- June 5,
2011 at 10:07
-
Spot on!
- June 5, 2011 at 16:24
-
I am afraid this is not “Spot on”. We have now moved on, and instead of
“learning lessons” the authorities “identify lessons”. I suspect his is
because of the number of times the lessons get repeated!
-
June 9, 2011 at 21:29
-
Thank you for your observation. Lessons will be learned.
- June 5, 2011 at 16:18
-
There is good reason why I refer to your country as yUK. (yuck)
It is well-earned.
-
June 6, 2011 at 10:02
-
We have a large and varied free press, who have a lot of column inches
to fill. This sort of stuff is meat and drink to the sort of free press
who do mainly ‘footballer/politician/celebrity in bed with somebody they
aren’t married to’ stories.
The rest of us just ignore it and get on with life.
{ 36 comments }