Funny or inappropriate?

[MonkeyPie]

I might not be the right person to ask though, as the only reason I would consider having a kid is to dress them up in this onesie:

Hahahaha omg, I want one!

Coming from a mom with a 5 month old that regularly wears a onesie that says, "WOW! All the ladies keep checking me out!", I think the Hooter tank is funny. Because she's a BABY. Past the age of three it gets weird. But she's a BABY.

 

[Gailey]

Jeez, if a Hooters shirt is offensive maybe I shouldn't have bought those "Boob Man" and "Lock Up Your Daughters" onesies for my nephew

Hysterical, gotta get one of those for my Grandson!

 

[Dreamer_D]

If an adult woman chooses to work at Hooters, that is her business.

Agreed. As meresal said, sometimes a woman has to make a choice about what is in her best financial interest. In my opinion, the women's movement was about choice, about allowing women to choose what they wanted to do. I don't want to stand by and see Hooters or Hugh Hefner make women look like objects without throwing some stones at them, however. Because those men use the women who need the money. I have a visceral reaction to men like Hugh Hefner. I am going to have to go look up a more elegant word to apply to men of his ilk than the one which comes to mind. I can think of the adjective ("porcine"), but not one for the noun class of animal in which I think he should be grouped.

AGBF

I'm certain the word you need is in "Websters' First New Intergalactic Wickedary of the English Language" and is "snool". This is a vague recollection alas, but it was fairly unflattering as I recall. This is one of those surface things that are anchored so far down in past reading, that I can't find the end of the tether though the depths, but it IS down there.

Anyone have a copy to look it up? I'm sad to say my bookshelf doesn't have this book. I think it was out of print for a while....

You both are cracking me up here.

I just googled "snool" and the definitions are a little shocking to say the least, shant repeat but beware. The other definition is: An extreme toady, a willing kow-tower, someone who submits tamely to oppression, a 'yes man'

Still, I like it and think it is a wonderfully icky sounding name for someone like Hugh.

 

[GliderPoss]

[\quote]The t-shirt in question doesn't bother me with a 1 year old - I would laugh. It would bother me a lot with a girl over the age of 5 or so, though, at the point these messages of early sexualization mean something.

I might not be the right person to ask though, as the only reason I would consider having a kid is to dress them up in this onesie:

[/quote]

Absolute HYSTERICAL! OMG I'm at work and absolutely dying trying not to cry with laughter. Non-Aussie's may not get the joke....

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

Americans know the reference as well!

 

[ksinger]

If an adult woman chooses to work at Hooters, that is her business.

Agreed. As meresal said, sometimes a woman has to make a choice about what is in her best financial interest. In my opinion, the women's movement was about choice, about allowing women to choose what they wanted to do. I don't want to stand by and see Hooters or Hugh Hefner make women look like objects without throwing some stones at them, however. Because those men use the women who need the money. I have a visceral reaction to men like Hugh Hefner. I am going to have to go look up a more elegant word to apply to men of his ilk than the one which comes to mind. I can think of the adjective ("porcine"), but not one for the noun class of animal in which I think he should be grouped.

AGBF

I'm certain the word you need is in "Websters' First New Intergalactic Wickedary of the English Language" and is "snool". This is a vague recollection alas, but it was fairly unflattering as I recall. This is one of those surface things that are anchored so far down in past reading, that I can't find the end of the tether though the depths, but it IS down there.

Anyone have a copy to look it up? I'm sad to say my bookshelf doesn't have this book. I think it was out of print for a while....

You both are cracking me up here.

I just googled "snool" and the definitions are a little shocking to say the least, shant repeat but beware. The other definition is: An extreme toady, a willing kow-tower, someone who submits tamely to oppression, a 'yes man'

Still, I like it and think it is a wonderfully icky sounding name for someone like Hugh.

Yeah, the definitions I found by googling aren't what I'm remembering, and are far more crass and far less biting and satirical. I think somewhere along the line Mary Daly's original word got hijacked.

I think I'll put that book on my list of "books I really NEED". Like her or loathe her, Daly was brilliant and an almost elemental embodiement of female rage.

 

[AGBF]

If an adult woman chooses to work at Hooters, that is her business.

Agreed. As meresal said, sometimes a woman has to make a choice about what is in her best financial interest. In my opinion, the women's movement was about choice, about allowing women to choose what they wanted to do. I don't want to stand by and see Hooters or Hugh Hefner make women look like objects without throwing some stones at them, however. Because those men use the women who need the money. I have a visceral reaction to men like Hugh Hefner. I am going to have to go look up a more elegant word to apply to men of his ilk than the one which comes to mind. I can think of the adjective ("porcine"), but not one for the noun class of animal in which I think he should be grouped.

AGBF

I'm certain the word you need is in "Websters' First New Intergalactic Wickedary of the English Language" and is "snool". This is a vague recollection alas, but it was fairly unflattering as I recall. This is one of those surface things that are anchored so far down in past reading, that I can't find the end of the tether though the depths, but it IS down there.

Anyone have a copy to look it up? I'm sad to say my bookshelf doesn't have this book. I think it was out of print for a while....

You both are cracking me up here.

I just googled "snool" and the definitions are a little shocking to say the least, shant repeat but beware. The other definition is: An extreme toady, a willing kow-tower, someone who submits tamely to oppression, a 'yes man'

Still, I like it and think it is a wonderfully icky sounding name for someone like Hugh.

I had to look up, "snool" as well, the word not even being in my passive vocabulary! (Thank you for the August 30 new word of the day, ksinger.)

Indeed, it has a graphic, physical definition...but surely not one beyond mention? Or did you find more than I did?

I also found only passing references to swine and snouts...but then I only spent an hour on the endeavor.

This topic has proved to be full of interesting by-ways. One never knows when one opens a thread, does he?

Deb



Deb/AGBF

 

[ksinger]

If an adult woman chooses to work at Hooters, that is her business.


I'm certain the word you need is in "Websters' First New Intergalactic Wickedary of the English Language" and is "snool". This is a vague recollection alas, but it was fairly unflattering as I recall. This is one of those surface things that are anchored so far down in past reading, that I can't find the end of the tether though the depths, but it IS down there.

Anyone have a copy to look it up? I'm sad to say my bookshelf doesn't have this book. I think it was out of print for a while....

You both are cracking me up here.

I just googled "snool" and the definitions are a little shocking to say the least, shant repeat but beware. The other definition is: An extreme toady, a willing kow-tower, someone who submits tamely to oppression, a 'yes man'

Still, I like it and think it is a wonderfully icky sounding name for someone like Hugh.

I had to look up, "snool" as well, the word not even being in my passive vocabulary! (Thank you for the August 30 new word of the day, ksinger.)

Indeed, it has a graphic, physical definition...but surely not one beyond mention? Or did you find more than I did?

I also found only passing references to swine and snouts...but then I only spent an hour on the endeavor.

This topic has proved to be full of interesting by-ways. One never knows when one opens a thread, does he?

Deb



Deb/AGBF

NONO!!! Seriously, I was NOT posting that word thinking it was what is out there! I'm posting the word as I recall it from The Wickedary!
I'm not that crass people, seriously! Mary Daly could saw the head of the patriarchy off at the ankles, but she wasn't vulgar.

 

[AGBF]

Hi, ksinger-

We were posting at the same time. I found some very old passages where, "snool" had been used (in an agricultural catalogue and in a Scottish poetry book) when I was looking last night. Not everything was modern. (I didn't write this in response to your posting about crassness...you hadn't put that up yet! I know you weren't trying to be crass! You were coming up with a synonym for, "swine"...right?)

Deb/AGBF

 

[Maria D]

Deb, I'm with you on this one -- a discussion of anything to do with Hooters has to include discussing the exploitation of female sexuality. It's what the restaurant is about, isn't it? Otherwise, it's just Chili's. OK, I just think this, I've never actually been to one. But I just looked up the menu and the waitress uniform and that's what it looks like to me: Chili's with cute girls in short shorts and tight scoopneck T-shirts. It's not the most extreme example of exploitation -- I teach high-school and the girls wear similar tanks (without the logo) without any hope of tips -- but what else can you call it? So if someone gave me that onesie for my daughter I guess I'd be a little insulted. My baby girl is supposed to aspire to be a waitress at a Chili's-like establishment wearing a tight tank and short shorts?

Not that I'm disrespecting anyone who chooses to work there, for whatever reason. Maybe, like Meresal, a woman wants to get the most money in tips possible waiting tables. Maybe she likes wearing skimpy clothes to work and being in a flirty atmosphere (I'm imagining this -- never been there) and would enjoy it even without the bigger tips. Whatever. The point is that the Hooters waitress exudes sex-appeal and this is *not* what I think of -- ever -- when I'm buying a gift for a child. Or when I'm looking at a portrait of a naked infant, so shame on Fiery's friend!

Sexy women with great bodies, flexibility, showmanship and good dancing skills can make way more money than a Hooters waitress being a stripper. Smart women with these assets have paid for expensive college educations by stripping and found the schedule perfect for working and still being able to attend class. At the right establishment, it's legal and safe. Do I want my baby wearing a T-shirt saying "Future Stripper?" To me, the infant Hooter's shirt is just a little less vulgar but vulgar nevertheless.

Two other things I find interesting: Those that felt it would be a good joke from a close relative because of the "irony." It's a party for a one-year old! Presumably other children are there and it's an "innocent" event. Why not save "irony" for 30th birthday partys and the like. The other is the number of people who would be OK with it but wouldn't let their kid wear it out in public. Why not, if it's so funny? Because it isn't, it's vulgar *on a baby*.

 

[Nashville]

Deb, I'm with you on this one -- a discussion of anything to do with Hooters has to include discussing the exploitation of female sexuality. It's what the restaurant is about, isn't it? Otherwise, it's just Chili's. OK, I just think this, I've never actually been to one. But I just looked up the menu and the waitress uniform and that's what it looks like to me: Chili's with cute girls in short shorts and tight scoopneck T-shirts. It's not the most extreme example of exploitation -- I teach high-school and the girls wear similar tanks (without the logo) without any hope of tips -- but what else can you call it? So if someone gave me that onesie for my daughter I guess I'd be a little insulted. My baby girl is supposed to aspire to be a waitress at a Chili's-like establishment wearing a tight tank and short shorts?

Not that I'm disrespecting anyone who chooses to work there, for whatever reason. Maybe, like Meresal, a woman wants to get the most money in tips possible waiting tables. Maybe she likes wearing skimpy clothes to work and being in a flirty atmosphere (I'm imagining this -- never been there) and would enjoy it even without the bigger tips. Whatever. The point is that the Hooters waitress exudes sex-appeal and this is *not* what I think of -- ever -- when I'm buying a gift for a child. Or when I'm looking at a portrait of a naked infant, so shame on Fiery's friend!

Sexy women with great bodies, flexibility, showmanship and good dancing skills can make way more money than a Hooters waitress being a stripper. Smart women with these assets have paid for expensive college educations by stripping and found the schedule perfect for working and still being able to attend class. At the right establishment, it's legal and safe. Do I want my baby wearing a T-shirt saying "Future Stripper?" To me, the infant Hooter's shirt is just a little less vulgar but vulgar nevertheless.

Two other things I find interesting: Those that felt it would be a good joke from a close relative because of the "irony." It's a party for a one-year old! Presumably other children are there and it's an "innocent" event. Why not save "irony" for 30th birthday partys and the like. The other is the number of people who would be OK with it but wouldn't let their kid wear it out in public. Why not, if it's so funny? Because it isn't, it's vulgar *on a baby*.

That is your opinion of what's vulgar. Not everyone shares that opinion. I'd laugh like heck in the privacy of MY OWN HOME, and then I'd put it away and not let her wear it, because unlike some of the awfully judgmental answers in this thread, I have respect for the fact that other people might not agree with my view on it, and yeah it IS wildly inappropriate for a baby to wear. I'm not saying your comment is directed at me, but since I did bring up the irony factor I'll address it. You don't know people's family dynamic, and that being the case, I find it odd you'd essentially categorize said families as vulgar, with the implication that the gift giver assumes the parent has no aspirations for their child beyond Hooters waitress. Really? That's a pretty tall order of assumptions about a person based on a birthday gift.

 

[Maria D]

Nashville, the whole thing is just my opinion. Isn't that what this thread is about -- all our opinions? I never called anyone or anyone's family vulgar. The outfit is what is vulgar, again in my opinion. Irony directed at a parent in the form of a gift being opened at a child's birthday party is misplaced, in my opinion.

You seem a bit defensive about your opinions and I'm not sure why. If you think it's funny, great. I'm just saying what I think.

 

[Nashville]

Nashville, the whole thing is just my opinion. Isn't that what this thread is about -- all our opinions? I never called anyone or anyone's family vulgar. The outfit is what is vulgar, again in my opinion. Irony directed at a parent in the form of a gift being opened at a child's birthday party is misplaced, in my opinion.

You seem a bit defensive about your opinions and I'm not sure why. If you think it's funny, great. I'm just saying what I think.

I do have a problem with the assumptions that are being made on this thread about people, based on a party gift.

" I'm just saying what I think." Ditto.

"You seem a bit defensive about your opinions and I'm not sure why" Really? How so? For explaining a viewpoint in a calm and rational way, and not needing to be patronizing to do so? I apologize if you feel that I've been anything but respectful then.

I'm out This was a really interesting topic though!

 

[Laila619]

Two other things I find interesting: Those that felt it would be a good joke from a close relative because of the "irony." It's a party for a one-year old! Presumably other children are there and it's an "innocent" event. Why not save "irony" for 30th birthday partys and the like. The other is the number of people who would be OK with it but wouldn't let their kid wear it out in public. Why not, if it's so funny? Because it isn't, it's vulgar *on a baby*.

Good points!

I too was wondering why, if the tank top is harmless and funny, most people wouldn't let their daughter wear it in public.

 

[lyra]

Well, I'm just trying to figure out what the little BOY version of that particular sentiment would be? I'm coming up blank though... Future Chippendale Dancer? No, that seems somehow better. Really, I can't think of one that could be taken in the same way. Odd.

 

[House Cat]

When I was young, I forget how old exactly, but 12 I think-I was in 6th/7th grade. Anyway, my Aunts then husband (who I did not like one bit from the second I met him and refused to ever be alone with him) always used to tease me about my flat chest (hello? I was a kid?) and gave me 2 shirts. One said IBTC in big letters on top and in smaller letters it said Itty Bitty Titty Committee, and the other I don't remember but it was another jab at flatness.

One would have to wonder why this uncle would have any interest in your chest/development in the first place! I'm also wondering why it was of such interest that he felt the need to go out and buy a t-shirt to highlight it.

I am in agreement in hoping that he is an ex-husband. I'm so sorry packrat.

 

[Sabine]

I wouldn't appreciate it. I wouldn't be mad and would probably chuckle a bit when opening it to avoid an awkward situation, but then I would throw it out (not even donate it) after everyone was gone.

I don't like things that relate to, mention, or humor-ize sex when it comes to little kids. Period. I think kids are sexualized too early, I think our society it too sexualized, and it scares me, so I would avoid anything like that, regardless of how ironic or funny it was supposed to be.

And I won't egg Kenny on, but I'd be interested to hear a man's point of view, specifically a dad's...would they want their daughter wearing anything like that, even for a joke?

 

[doodle]

Sabine, I thought it was funny; my husband, on the other hand, was shocked back into his New York Native dialogue, and said, "I'd be pretty f_____in' offended!" I was actually surprised at how strongly he felt about it since he's so rarely offended by anything, so go figure, huh?

Regarding the "snool" definitions, I found a link at http://marydalytribute.blogspot.com/--is the description in this more along the lines of what you were referring to originally, ksinger?

I thought I'd throw this out there, too, for those who see Hooters as exploitative--does it alter your view any to know that they have an alternate uniform of longer khaki shorts with a polo? I guess I don't see the exploitation so much--their employees choose to work there, and they have a choice in what they wear while working there, so if these are all choices the woman is making, how is that exploitation?

 

[Maria D]

Doodle, going by a dictionary def. of exploit:
1 : to make productive use of : utilize <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness>
2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>

I would say yes, Hooters makes "productive use" (def. #1) of women's sexuality to differentiate their product from other chain restaurants. It doesn't matter if the workers are allowed to choose a different uniform. Their entire marketing shtick, from the clever logo that playfully suggests the mascot is actually an owl and not that "other" meaning for "hooters" to the skimpy uniform, rides on young female sexuality. If all their workers chose the alternate uniform you speak of, it *would* be Chili's and they wouldn't have a niche anymore. I have absolutely no problem with the company, their logo and the uniforms unless as an organization they unfairly discriminate against potential workers based on looks. I'm sure they don't do *that* though .

The gift giver didn't give a khaki shirt with a polo. The aunt gave a Hooters tank top with the logo "just like the Hooters girls wear." A symbol of young female sexuality for a one-year old. Ick.

 

[Dancing Fire]

As a perspective that hasn't been shared:

I was a Hooter's Girl (Gasp... ).

Pictures please!!!...

 

[AGBF]

Regarding the "snool" definitions, I found a link at http://marydalytribute.blogspot.com/--is the description in this more along the lines of what you were referring to originally, ksinger?

Thank you so much for the link to this site, doodle! The definition I saw on the website is actually extremely close to the one I derived from an hour's research on the 'net last night. Firstly, it is a word of Scottish origins with a place in Scottish poetry. Secondly, it means both snivelling and those who keep others in a state of submission by despotism and despotic acts.

Deb/AGBF

 

[doodle]

Doodle, going by a dictionary def. of exploit:
1 : to make productive use of : utilize <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness>
2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>

I would say yes, Hooters makes "productive use" (def. #1) of women's sexuality to differentiate their product from other chain restaurants. It doesn't matter if the workers are allowed to choose a different uniform. Their entire marketing shtick, from the clever logo that playfully suggests the mascot is actually an owl and not that "other" meaning for "hooters" to the skimpy uniform, rides on young female sexuality. If all their workers chose the alternate uniform you speak of, it *would* be Chili's and they wouldn't have a niche anymore. I have absolutely no problem with the company, their logo and the uniforms unless as an organization they unfairly discriminate against potential workers based on looks. I'm sure they don't do *that* though .

The gift giver didn't give a khaki shirt with a polo. The aunt gave a Hooters tank top with the logo "just like the Hooters girls wear." A symbol of young female sexuality for a one-year old. Ick.

I guess the part that I don't understand is why some people make the company itself out to be the bad guy. If you're a server at Hooters, you're making productive use of your own sexuality. By your definition, you're exploiting yourself, so to speak. It all depends on how you look at it. Some women feel it's objectifying women and see it negatively; others don't see it as degrading at all but as empowering that a woman can now make the choice to do as she wishes with her sexuality. I just think blaming the company without directing any accountability toward the women who choose to work there makes women victims in a much greater way than tiny orange shorts ever could, but that's just my two cents!

Sorry for that being a bit of a stray from the original topic! As far as a baby in a Hooters tank goes, I'd never put the shirt on my child partially because I wouldn't want the judgment from my peers that it could come with and partially because I don't really care for putting any form of label on my child. Whether my daughter grows up to be a stripper or a scientist is her decision, not mine or her tank top's.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Two other things I find interesting: Those that felt it would be a good joke from a close relative because of the "irony." It's a party for a one-year old! Presumably other children are there and it's an "innocent" event. Why not save "irony" for 30th birthday partys and the like. The other is the number of people who would be OK with it but wouldn't let their kid wear it out in public. Why not, if it's so funny? Because it isn't, it's vulgar *on a baby*.

Good points!

I too was wondering why, if the tank top is harmless and funny, most people wouldn't let their daughter wear it in public.

I don't understand question #1, but my answer for question #2 is that if you think it's funny, then obviously having your 1-year-old wear it around the house isn't an issue. Having her wear it out in public might offend somebody (as evidenced by this thread).

 

[doodle]

Regarding the "snool" definitions, I found a link at http://marydalytribute.blogspot.com/--is the description in this more along the lines of what you were referring to originally, ksinger?

Thank you so much for the link to this site, doodle! The definition I saw on the website is actually extremely close to the one I derived from an hour's research on the 'net last night. Firstly, it is a word of Scottish origins with a place in Scottish poetry. Secondly, it means both snivelling and those who keep others in a state of submission by despotism and despotic acts.

Deb/AGBF

No problemo! I think you guys added something to my reading list, so yay!

 

[AGBF]

I guess the part that I don't understand is why some people make the company itself out to be the bad guy. If you're a server at Hooters, you're making productive use of your own sexuality.

No. Logical problem, doodle. Hooters makes the money, not the waitresses. They get peanuts. Same is true with Playboy. Nude centerfold is what the magazine is all about. Without her there is nothing. She gets a small flat fee. Hugh Hefner gets an empire. The world will tell you he's a genius and deserves it. I will tell you if you he didn't have that one nude woman, he'd have nothing at all.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Maria D]

I'm not making the company itself out to be the bad guy, at least not because of the uniform or the logo. I take issue with their discriminatory practices but that's a different debate. People can choose whether or not to work there. I can choose whether or not to eat there. Most importantly, I can choose whether or not to associate with the type of people that give higher tips to restaurant workers willing to exploit their sexual assets. The point I am making about the company is that its marketing is based on the exploitation of women's sexuality. Like Sabine, I am against the sexualization of children. A t-shirt that says Future Barista doesn't sexualize. Future Hooters Girl does because that's what the restaurant is about.

I am searching my brain trying to think of something I find funny and non-offensive but would offend others so much that I wouldn't let my child be seen wearing it publicly. I can't think of anything but I am trying! Oh -- just thought of something! My daughter (16 years old) is into the Darwin fish symbol and has one on her car. Christians could find this offensive. I think it's funny and non-offensive and I've never thought of preventing her from displaying it publicly. So -- I guess I'm just not as sensitive to others' feelings as some of you are. If I found the Hooters shirt *on a child* funny I'd let my kid wear it in public!

Doodle, I totally agree with you that whether or not my daughter decides (as an adult) to become a scientist or a stripper (or whatever) is her decision. I wish we lived in a world where being a stripper wasn't so much more financially lucrative than a lot of other jobs typically available to women, but we don't.

 

[atroop711]

I usually find those tshirts funny. My own son has one that says CELEBABY, Elmo is my Homeboy and IPOOD

BUT since I HATE that chain of restaurants and what their selling with the woman in tiny shorts and tight tops, I would have not
thought this one was funny

 

[Tuckins1]

Funny! I would totally buy that for my god daughter... But not to be worn in public!!

 

[doodle]

I guess the part that I don't understand is why some people make the company itself out to be the bad guy. If you're a server at Hooters, you're making productive use of your own sexuality.

I will tell you if you he didn't have that one nude woman, he'd have nothing at all.

Deb/AGBF

Exactly, so who has the power? I agree that in the case of both Hooters and Playboy, someone is making a profit off women in this field, but they choose to do what they do, so who is really to blame for its existence? God knows nobody would buy Playboy if old Hugh were the centerfold! Regardless of if they get peanuts, obviously those peanuts are worth something to them or they wouldn't work for them (although my friend who worked there loved it because the pay was great and they helped her pay for school. This is the same friend who is the reason I know they have an alternate uniform. She has pretty severe pectus excavatum, but they had no problem making her a manager. Sure, it probably depends on the individual shop, but in my friend's case, her experience was similar to Meresal's). I'm not saying by any means that I think the image Hooters sends is absolutely fantastic, and I totally get how many see it as offensive or degrading, which is why it makes perfect sense for those people to not seek employment or dinner at the establishment. I see a lot of those same people though (in general, not specifically anyone here!) who regard Hooters employees as victims of the evil, exploitative Hooters franchise, and I disagree with the idea that these women have been victimized in some way.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

I guess the part that I don't understand is why some people make the company itself out to be the bad guy. If you're a server at Hooters, you're making productive use of your own sexuality.

No. Logical problem, doodle. Hooters makes the money, not the waitresses. They get peanuts. Same is true with Playboy. Nude centerfold is what the magazine is all about. Without her there is nothing. She gets a small flat fee. Hugh Hefner gets an empire. The world will tell you he's a genius and deserves it. I will tell you if you he didn't have that one nude woman, he'd have nothing at all.

Deb/AGBF

But he has that one nude woman because she IS getting something out of it. In fact, thousands upon thousands of women are DYING to be a Playboy centerfold because they get THAT MUCH out of it. Do they get wealth? No. But they get validation. An ego boost. Possibly the feeling of being a celebrity for a month. Whatever it is that makes them covet the centerfold status, they want it.