Jackson Free Press

My boyfriend said the most disturbing thing on our way to Hooter's. He said, "You and MF can't make a mockery of my Corvette." Are you kidding me? Now tell me that doesn't sound like a challenge. My best friend MF and I can make a mockery of anything, including but not limited to Corvettes, Hooters, each other, ourselves and everyone around us. We're that good.

You see, we looked up not too long ago and realized we had not had a good night out in several months, and in these post-Katrina times, I'd been having a hard time with life. I'd had a hard time with work, home and the Boy Scouts of America. I'd had a hard time with the road renovations requiring my favorite trees being removed along Flowood Drive. I'd had a hard time with the fact that Elvis went and died before my dad had a chance to set up a play date with Lisa Marie and me. I'm sure we would have been great friends.

I'd been somewhat irrational and absolutely without humor, so MF and I planned a night out. Except, don't you know it, our significant others were too tired to take us out dancing. So we planned a nice dinner party instead. The boyfriend was quite hesitant with even the idea of getting off the couch until he realized appetizers equal Hooter's chicken strips. Yes, I finally gave in to his pipe dream of going to Hooter's again, like in the pre-chick days.

Plus, MF and I had planned a very, very long time ago to get Hooter's shirts, put on some big wigs and do a photo shoot on the boyfriend's Corvette. Tell me that's not the funnest thing you've ever heard. That's about when I got the mockery line. I maintain that if we can patronize an establishment that makes a mockery of both women's breasts and men's shameless fixation thereof, MF and I can make a mockery of any damn thing we want.

So I dial up good ol' Hooter's. I am a liberated woman and all. Plus, the boyfriend had told me that I absolutely would not be intimidated by these women. I tell him, "Yes, sweetie, I know." They are wearing support hose, and support bras for that matter. However, I'm very grateful for him to so graciously look out for my ego. In turn, I promise to enter with an open mind and not focus on the stereotypes. My first encounter with Hooter's goes something like this:

Hooter Chick: (a bunch of stuff I can't understand so I assume she says something like, "Thank you for calling Hooter's, how can I help you?")
Me: I'd like to place a to-go order.
HC: Will you pick that up?
Me: Yes. I will pick that up.
HC: OK. Go ahead.
Me: I'd like three orders of hot chicken strips.
HC: You want those hot or mild?
Me: Hot.
HC: OK. (she starts to hang up)
Me: Wait! Do you sell Hooter's wife-beaters there?
HC: Huh?
Me: Do you sell wife-beaters?
Her: Huh?
(Wash, rinse, repeat several times until boyfriend chimes in, "Say tank top! Say tank top!")
Me: Do you sell tank tops?
HC: I'm not sure.
(Insert lengthy pause)
HC: Oh! Do you want me to go look?
Me: Would you? That would be great!
HC: Oh, you can look when you pick up the order!

Then she hangs up. I tell the boyfriend I'll give him a Hooter's boob if that order has been entered. We get to Hooter's, and I don't immediately see any boobs. What I do immediately see is an enormous television playing a football game with lots of men staring at it, while a few catatonic-looking women gaze out the window. It feels like a garage. We go to the bar, and our order has not been placed.

I win.

The bartender is very sweet and offers me a drink while I wait. Instead we go over to the "store" where we are met by the "huh" girl from the phone. I ask for two tank tops. She looks and looks and finds one. She goes to the back and returns with a baby shirt instead. (Baby shirts at Hooter's? Don't get me started.) We settle on two men's tank tops. They are much too big, but MF and I are very resourceful women, and I assure the boyfriend we can make them serve the purpose. This entire process takes a good 20 minutes because "huh" chick kept getting distracted. I'm not really sure what distracted her, but I'd have to wave her back to Hooter's every so often.

The boyfriend pays her with a $100 bill. "Huh" chick returns with change for $100, so the boyfriend then pays her with correct change and a tip. She. honestly. could. not. count. change. I tell the boyfriend: "I tried. I really, really tried to be open-minded." He says, "Yes, sweetie. I know. She's stupid."

When we get to MF's we have a good laugh about it, slap on our Hooter's wife-beaters and tie them the trashiest way we know how. Then we serve a nice tenderloin with prosciutto-wrapped asparagus and creamed spinach with a very fine wine, with Hooter's chicken strips. MF slaps me on the butt and tells me I'm the hottest thing in cotton. I tell her that her legs could make a Rockette cry.

Previous Commentsshow

How much do I love that the Hooters story made it to the JFP!!

Melissa

Nov 4 2005

Because I was so appalled that any woman would write such a sexist, mean-spirited story, I thought surely I'm overreacting. I asked two other women friends to read it, and we all feel that this is a patently offensive story. It should more appropriately be titled: "On Self-Loathing." It pained me to read another woman make fun of a Hooter's female employee, much less patronize the place and order "wife-beaters", and run home to cook the gourmet meal for the "boyfriend" she was so eager to please. I suggest Ms. Braden take a course in basic humanity or Feminism 101, or get a good feminist therapist.

Towanda

Nov 4 2005

Towanda, aren't you the one who declared a couple days ago that *no* men care about violence against women, a statement many people here found patently offensive? I'd say your credibility on the men-vs.-women issue is a bit shaky right now. One point of information: I don't believe that Emily is attacking all women here -- just one particularly stupid one, so your advice about a "feminist therapist" seems dramatically overblown -- and, yes, offensive. Other people could turn around and tell to go grab yourself a therapist after your statements stereotyping all men, which I don't believe anyone here did because most people who post here regularly try to actually convince people of things, rather than turn them off. However, I will allow Emily to defend her column, should she please, against your ugly personal attacks on her. I, however, am not impressed at your tactics at making points. A professor of mine used to call it "hectoring the reader" and, boy, have you been good at that here. And my guess is that you haven't influenced a single person with it, yet.

DonnaLadd

Nov 4 2005

So Towanda, you have never, ever, ever poked fun at a Hooter's girl? Come on. Really? Hot chicks in support hose has got to get at least a grin out of you. In my humble opinion, I think there are far more worse things to be offended over then wife-beaters and the waitress that couldn't answer questions. If that is all you have to get offended over, I say count your blessings.

Melissa

Nov 4 2005

No, I think I said "most liberal men" don't care about violence against women, and I base my opinion upon my observation that very few men actually work to stop violence against women and girls. On the other hand, there are liberal men and women who have literally died in the cause for civil rights. I think women's civil rights include the right to be free of sexual violence . . . And I must add that I am very pleased that singer Ricky Martin is working hard against the sex trafficking of children - he makes a very good role model for other men. Again, as I stated, violence against women and girls will not stop unless more men get involved in the work of stopping it. But that is irrelevant to the article written here, and this article is offensive, not just to me - who you are trying to label as a "man-hater" or something to bolster your argument- but it is also offensive to other women I know who have read it. And the article is sexist and mean-spirited, and I absolutely stand by my opinion. Sexism is about the hatred, the denigration of women. Hooters is about the objectification of women, hence the hatred of women. You know, I could understand your calling my opinion overblown, but for the daily, hourly, and even more frequent rapes and beatings of women and girls- Today and every day. And I certainly despise those who exploit and hurt little boys as well.

Towanda

Nov 4 2005

Sexism is about the hatred, the denigration of women. Hooters is about the objectification of women, hence the hatred of women. Hence, making fun of Hooters (or one person who works there) translates into hatred of women?!? Your logic isn't working here. No one's calling you a "man-hater" (I believe you're doing the name-calling here, the personal attacks and referring people to therapy.) You know, I could understand your calling my opinion overblown, but for the daily, hourly, and even more frequent rapes and beatings of women and girls- Today and every day. And I certainly despise those who exploit and hurt little boys as well. No, your stereotypes and rhetoric are the problem; I happen to agree that not enough emphasis is put on violence against women. It's a serious problem. But you've been beating up the people who are on your side. That won't help a damn thing.

DonnaLadd

Nov 4 2005

Wow. Laughing at one simple minded girl equals hatred of women? That's quite a stretch. I also don't think this column is rooting for any type of violence against women. Her column is simply about the girl, wanting Hooters shirts and a possible photo shoot done for the fun of it. I think you are reaching a bit.

Melissa

Nov 4 2005

Donna - you can't mean the writer of this article is on the side of women. That doesn't pass the giggle test. I won't argue this further. We disagree. I stand by my previous comments.

Towanda

Nov 4 2005

No, Melissa, I have never, ever made fun of a Hooter's female employee. I stand by my comments. "You can't take a joke" is a phrase heard by women all the time. I refer you to the movie, "North Country."

Towanda

Nov 4 2005

Giggle test? Why don't we get the basic logic straight first, Towanda. You have said nothing that indicates that you have any sense of what the writer is doing. You have just lodged a personal attack of someone on here without even trying to discuss the content. You've made generalized comments that make little sense, attributing her column making fun of Hooter's and one person as that she's not "on the side of women." Go ahead and stand by your previous comments. I stand by my previous promise to ban you for trolling and lodging personal attacks on someone who does happen to be named.

DonnaLadd

Nov 4 2005

I will also add that I have never bought into the idea that someone is not supposed to criticize, or make fun of (in this case), someone of a particular race or gender -- because they're of a particular race or gender. To me, that's akin to what the Buddhists call "idiot compassion," and I'm not buying it. I'm not giving anybody a free pass because of their race or gender, just like I don't vote for anyone based on their race or gender, because ultimately that's an insult to their race or gender (and my intelligence). So the idea that a woman cannot make fun of another woman who is playing straight into sexist stereotypes that a large corporations is laying out for her, and who happens to not pay any attention to phone orders or the need to write things down, is patently absurd to me. You don't help anyone by telling them that it's fine to act like an idiot. It's the same reason I don't tip bad serviceówhether it's delivered by a woman or a man. In my world, no one is above criticism, and it's the ultimate insult to my gender to tell me that a woman who presents herself like a bimbo should never be called out on it. That's not doing anybody a favor. I think it's a helluva lot more useful to women to tell them they are acting like sexists want them to act -- rather than somehow glorifying it or attacking the messinger for being "against" women somehow. I actually think she does our women readers a favor by pointing out how stupid we look when we can't manage to pay attention long enough to write down a damn order.

DonnaLadd

Nov 4 2005

BTW, Towanda, you did NOT say "most liberal men" in your offensive stereotype on the other thread. This is a direct quote: Interesting that no man has defended what I said: that liberal men don't care about violence against women or abusive ex-husbands. There is no "most" there. That is an offensive stereotype of men, or at least all liberal ones -- made, ironically, in a discussion that I agreed with you on on many points. But I disengaged based on your personal attacks of other bloggersósuch as this lovely comeback you made to chronos: Of course you won't fault Bill's having sex with an intern. Would it were you, I presume? "Would it were you"??? And now you're attacking someone for making fun of an unnamed Hooter's employee who couldn't take an order? Please.

DonnaLadd

Nov 4 2005

Well, I haven't seen North Country. But I know what the premise is and I would hardly put the issues in that movie and the content of this column in the same boat. I think that after all that Emily and the rest of you folks in your fine state have been through recently, she might have just been grateful to have something humorous to write about.

Melissa

Nov 4 2005

I want to see "North Country." And cheers to Emily for a very funny column that might just point out to young women that looking stupid is just that -- looking stupid. And being pissed by waiters who don't write things down mean you need a therapit, then I damn well need a therapist, too. Maybe we can go together as the Feminists who Hate Stupid Women. I used to work for tips and am a great tipper -- but don't be stupid if you want my money. We had one of the worst waitresses ever the other night at "On the Border," by the way. She only became nice when the check came. I guess that's what we get for going to a chain, but it was late, and we were hungry. We now know, though. Oh, and they were out of guacamoleóa fact we didn't learn until our food came (and a stressful fact for a vegetarian at a Mexican restaurant). And then she seemed pissed that we asked about it. It was ridiculous. She was ridiculous.

DonnaLadd

Nov 4 2005

On The Border off of County Line? Well, I think I'm mad at them for you. I will also laugh out loud in your honor this evening when I walk into my apartment and see their margarita glass that was um, taken (inside my purse) from them :)

Melissa

Nov 4 2005

I thoroughly dislike wait-ers/esses who fail to be timely, complete, and or courteous. I don't care if they are Democrat, Republican or independent; male or female; white black or other ethnic group; fast food or white tablecloth. If they arenít right, they know by the time I leave. My wife constantly asks me to let the rudeness and stupidity go (she's nicer than me), but I remind her every time that I am in the restaurant to be waited on. I can eat at home but I go to restaurants for food and SERVICE. I do not expect to be served at home because, Towanda, I treat my wife as an equal. (If she cooks, I do the laundry, if I cook she does the laundry and gets indigestion.) I treat wait-ers/esses as wait-ers/esses and they better act like it too.

Rex

Nov 4 2005

Well, I thought about just commenting "stop getting your knickers in a knot", but I thought that might be sexist. Then, I thought...screw it. STOP GETTING YOUR KNICKERS IN A KNOT. Laugh, enjoy the story and understand the current behind it. A dad last night told me they didnt' want their daughter growing up to be a cheerleadin' nitwit. I couldn't have agreed with him more. Him saying that wasn't sexist. It was a way of pointing out that women are MORE than that. This column is about women being MORE than that. And, looky lookly, the SMART woman even got the man in the end. ;) I think we need MORE stories with smart women getting the men. Its not about the "getting of the men"...its more about understanding that women are better and MORE than support hose and big hooters. AND, I'm weighing in with ya'll on service. I waited tables in college. I'll tip 30% if your good...but if you're not...I'm not going to reward it. Whether you are an idiot woman OR an idiot man.

Lori G

Nov 4 2005

Towanda, I apologize if I do not fit into the nice box you have put feminists into, but I feel that you have excellently executed the attitude that turns many away from calling themselves feminists. Us vs. Them. I had no agenda with the column. Harlette's right that it was a night I was putting aside the real problems of everyday life, let my hair down and laughed. I'm sorry you compared it to a "North Country" situation, but as far as I can tell, I am not personally nor corporately responsible for "huh" girl. The chick got tipped well, as did the very capable server at the bar who actually filled the order, looked me in the eye when she spoke to me and treated me as a guest of Hooter's...which is what I was. I appreciate the recommendation for feminist therapy, but at the moment my platter is full being a single mother working a full-time job who does, in fact, devote what small amount of free time she has in philanthropy focused on women's issues on top of DEALING with issues I face as a WOMAN daily. The attack on me personally is both-off-the mark and unwelcome. Does cooking a gourmet meal for my boyfriend make me anti-feminist? In my opinion, no for many reasons, but Rex has nailed it on the head with mutual respect. Perhaps it would make you feel better to know that this is a man who has cooked for my family for three weeks straight, who came and not only got me off the floor, but also took my son to school when my back was so whacky I couldn't function and countless other acts of kindness I could list since I've met him. I'm not going to apologize for cooking him dinner. I personally loved the fact that we had a meal on our terms while wearing Hooter's shirts.

emilyb

Nov 4 2005

Towanda, My father and I didn't get always along real well, but there's one thing he said that I really like. It was in response to Real Men Eat Quiche, and what he told me as "Son, real men eat whatever the hell they want." Same goes for feminists. If you're a real feminist, you do not need to worry about being a "lipstick" feminist or an "ugly, Birkenstock-wearing" feminist--feminism is you saying that you have the right to self-determination. That means society does not get to say "You're a woman, so you do this." That applies if you say women are dumb at math; that also applies if you say women can't wear pink. Or high heels. Or Hooters tank tops. Because real feminists...wear whatever the hell they want. Emily has already mastered basic humanity, Feminism 101, etc. etc. etc. She does not strike me as a self-loathing person. I think the problem you're having is that you're confusing your other-loathing with her self-loathing. The fact that you hate her does not mean that she hates herself. And the fact that you think I'm a neanderthal doesn't mean a whole lot, either. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 4 2005

"get always" --> "always get." Bah. Typist on loan from Bizarro World. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 4 2005

Great story!!! Loved it...and I have so experienced it (uh the not getting the order right part). Ok, I must confess that the best looking Hooter's girls I have ever seen have all been men in drag. Does that make me sexist?

MANGUM

Nov 4 2005

I'm not ever going to Hooter's until La Leche League starts holding their meetings there.

kate

Nov 4 2005

As a friend said (and I hope she has time to post her views)- it is in poor taste to ridicule working people. Did it occur to anyone that maybe the Hooter's waitress had a migraine? Maybe she just got her Entergy bill and realized she would have to eat ramen for another month, or that her child would have to go without something very basic, yet again. And making fun of her- in the context of the likes of Hooter's - and buying some "wife-beaters"- all really over the top. It's not funny, it's not entertaining. It's mean-spirited and sexist. And did the writer feel better about herself by putting down that poor woman? My use of the term "feminist therapy" is misleading, as I meant "consciousness-raising" pursuit. Google "feminist therapy". I was not intending to be derisive, I was quite serious. As I told Donna, we live in a world that encourages places like Hooter's, that rarely punishes men who brutalize women, and that even fails to notice the numbers of women murdered every year. A world in which the leading cause of death for pregnant women is murder. A retired homicide detective once told me that a woman has to be on her last legs to be a prostitute. He had a lot of compassion for prostitutes, and I think he would feel the same compassion for this Hooter's employee , a compassion not shared by the writer. I hope you all change your minds about this story, including the writer. I was truly astonished that it was published in this paper.

Towanda

Nov 4 2005

I was truly astonished that it was published in this paper. Oh, I don't know...I think I'm proof they'll print practically anything in here. ;) Towanda, I actually can get behind your statements. I just can't get behind the anger. You have some valid points that need to be addressed. But, you can't be serious all the time. There's a quote I love called "If we ever stopped laughing, we'd never stop crying." Yes, women get murdered and raped every day. Yes, women should be taught to honor one another more. Yes, women need to understand how they perpetuate their own stereotypes. But, you also have to understand that sometimes, the best way to fight something...is to write about it. To write about it, draw attention to it, and make it like real "life" to other people. It doesn't mean that they don't have compassion for women, or don't respect themselves. It means that they have learned to the laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. Insight will always teach. Insight filled with humor "teaches mo' better". There is more strength in laughter, than there ever is in anger. So, I think, more than anything, everyone should honor that women fight their own battles, everyday, in their own way. Some of us just do it in Hooter's tanks.

Lori G

Nov 4 2005

Jesus Christ, its official. I'm a freakin' hippie.

Lori G

Nov 4 2005

Towanda Uh, "Liberal-Buddhist-male-who does not hate women-and who DOES stand up against violence to women" here.... There are two sides to everything. I've just seen both of them, and me within them, and I wanted to share this with you. I think what people are attempting to facilitate is your seeing that it isn't the words you're saying...it's how you're saying it. It isn't the causes you are aligned with (because most of the people I know on here are very heavily aligned with such causes). It is -- and pardon my dipping into quasi-New Age nomenclature for a second -- the "vibration" that is piggy-backed with your words that people are responding to. The only reason I can see it with you, is because I see it within myself and must own that. JUST moments ago, I posted two posts doing nothing short of ranting my arse off about George Bush, the war, etc. My words were dripping with anger and from such a place I'm only preaching to the choir and no amount of "across the aisle" dialogue will ever come of it. I had to come over here and read your posts to see a clear mirror about things I need to work on in myself. Thank you. I'm so bent out of shape by what's going on in the world with the war I feel like my face could split open....and I know you do too. ...Put on top of that my deep-seated anger about other issues.... 1) ...such as 90% of all chocolate imported into the U.S. comes from the Ivory Coast of Africa where black slave children are held in work camps (by other Africans), the chocolate is sold in bulk to Nestle, Hershey, and Mars....then people buy it at Wal-Mart and shovel it into the bags of kids on Halloween....some of them descendents of the first slaves that were here.... 2)...such as doctors in the 70's in South Dakota giving unsanctioned hysterectomies to Lakota women so they wouldn't have any more children...or the 390 murders on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in 1973 and 1974, which the FBI has covered over and closed the files on..... 3) ...such as when any of us buy products that bear the label "Made In China"... it is funding the People's Republic of China military, whose human rights abuses, such as murders, torture, and rapes against Tibetan monks and nuns continue to this day...literally THIS day.....yet the Chinese are allowed to keep a seat on the U.N. Committee on Human Rights... I think what people are saying....and I'm heeding the lesson myself....is that a certain atmosphere must envelop the activist if authentic change and awareness is going to be brought about. Simply raging, calling names, is probably just a mismanagement of the very energies that we could ALL be harnessing. I think it takes a refined writer, or orator, who can make all the same points you are trying to make but in such a way that doesn't shut the reader or listener down. I forgot that tonight. You helped remind me of the need to HOLD FAST to the issues at hand, but to MAINTAIN CENTER. I also think people are, perhaps, simply asking you to loosen up....that with satire and comedy nothing is sacred....and nothing is off-limits, even the absurdity of tightly-clad Hooter's girls... Just some thoughts.

whateveryouwant

Nov 4 2005

I was truly astonished that it was published in this paper. Don't be. This isn't a paper that only publishes articles passed through every single censor to ensure that they won't offend anyone. Getting people to think outside their usual boxes is a messy business. Witness Stiggers' column, which I happen to think it's the most clever and thought-provoking work we run. Due to his column alone, our paper probably qualifies as the most unpolitically correct alt in our business. That's not the reason I run him, though. I think he's brilliant and makes people think. I'm not in the business to agree with all my columnists. As long as they use facts and a certain degree of decorum and civility, they can make fun of whatever they choose -- as long as it's not mean-spirited, and I don't find Emily's column mean-spirited at all. It's funny, and it does an amazing job of pointing fingers at a business that encourages women to be stupid as long as they look good. Way to go, Em. And, I might add, that the column has generated much discussion about important issues. I ask for nothing more from my columnists. As for my bloggers, I ask you to discuss the issues raised rather than attacking the messinger because you don't agree with them. And that applies, no matter where you sit on any spectrum, right or left. And as the earlier discussion showed, personal attacks only generate discussion about the personal attacks. Discussion about issues generate more discussion about issues. Let's stay on that higher ground here.

DonnaLadd

Nov 4 2005

Well, I'm kinda just finding the anger ridiculous. We're on the blog of a paper started by a woman, who employs unbelievable women editors, photographers, and writers. I'm thinking it shouldn't be this hard for us to find common ground here .

Lori G

Nov 4 2005

Thanks, Ali. What I enjoyed the most about this column is the taking-back-of-the-Hooter-branding thing that Emily and her friend did, much to the chagrin of the Hooters' effort to turn women into un-animated, un-thinking clones of each other that will get men to buy lots of beer and chicken wings. I truly think the column has a brilliant message in it. Of course, I'm probably a fifth-wave feminist by now. I'm not for humorless feminism that can't take a joke. That didn't work very well the first time around. Or the second, for that matter. And it might help to understand the origin of the nickname "wife-beater" for tank tops. Again, that's a bit of an attempt to take back something ugly, even if some folks find it offensive. But, I assure you that using the phrase for a tank top does not mean that someone actually, er, believes in wife-beating. That's kinda simplistic reasoning. The saddest part, though, Towanda is your determination to turn allies into enemies because some of them find humor in something that you do not. Feminists aren't supposed to all agree on every point. And those who don't agree with you aren't "wrong." They just think differently than you do. And that's groovy.

DonnaLadd

Nov 4 2005

Towanda, I am completely on board with your critique of liberal masculinity--even of "most" liberal men. I am completely on board with your general critique of people who tend to dismiss "bimbos," though I don't think this criticism applies to Emily. What I am not on board with is your personal attacks (you just told Emily to "take a course in basic humanity" and "get a good feminist therapist"?!) and sweeping generalizations (which are just personal attacks writ large). I think you owe Emily--and Ray (who unjustifiably bore the brunt of your earlier criticisms)--an apology. And then I would like to see you focus your criticisms on ideas and behaviors, not people. You obviously have some good ideas, but I've noticed the personal attacks thing tends to sabotage your efforts to express them. I saw this in your first post, where you said some brutal things about Haley Barbour as a human being that did not help your argument against his ideas. And I'm seeing it now, where you're attacking other feminists left and right; if we're men we get to fall under the "all men" condemnations, and if we're women we get called "self-loathing." It's all very tiresome. And more irritating than convincing. You're obviously an intelligent person. I assume you can do better than this. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 4 2005

Towanda- I think what I don't understand the most about all your anger is the fact that you're not angry at Hooter's as a giant corporation that makes money from the objectification of young women. You are really, really peeved that Emily made fun of one apparent dim bulb of a waitress that chose to work there. I'm going out on a limb and guessing that no one has forced that simple-minded girl to get a job wearing skimpy orange shorts and a tank top 2 sizes too small. That makes her fair game. Also, your argument that "maybe she had a migraine" doesn't really sway me in her favor. When one works in a service industry and is dependent on tips, your personal moods shouln't enter the equation. If she was feeling bad, maybe she should have stayed home. If she was having a bad day, well, I'm sorry to hear that, but it should not affect the service she is there to provide. As someone else has already pointed out, we go to restaurants for the service. I could cook at home, but I don't really want to. If a waitress/waiter/server can't or doesn't want to serve, they should find a new line of work. If the orange shorts & tank top haven't sent her on a job hunt, maybe the fact that she's bad at her job should.

Jenm

Nov 4 2005

Regardless of Hooter's, which I previously stated is an obvious example of the denigration of women supported by this culture - I deeply resent worker exploitation. And I say that because, of course, one could say that the Hooter's employee could have stayed at home if she was sick, assuming that is what caused her alleged poor service. Wonder if she even has benefits? I doubt it, don't you? No health care, no sick leave, and low wages. In fact, I have met several women in Mississippi who work TWO full-time jobs, and still can't make ends meet. One worked two full-time, and one part-time. And no benefits. And I, too, dear writer, have been a single mom, scrubbed other people's toilets to get by, and have not had enough money to feel comfortable even going to Shoney's. I know what it's like to be poor. I know what it's like to work 12 hours on Christmas, for example, so my child could have a good one. And I have a dear friend whose mom never owned a dress, and wore her waitress uniform all the time because her money had to go to her children. Maybe some of you have also experienced first hand what it's like to take a job you don't really want, but need. Maybe you know what it's like to get your Entergy bill and be so surprised at the amount and know you don't have the money that you get that hopeless, sick feeling in your stomach. And my previous comments about Haley Barbour were generous. In my opinion, given his "lobbying" efforts, his priorities in life- the quid pro quo of money in exchange for government subisidies of rich corporations- like nursing home chains that favor big profits over proper patient care of frail elderly . . . He should be "investigated." I don't think it's funny, however, to make fun of the working poor. You don't kick a dog when it's down. But these days, many do. And you have many to choose from here in Mississippi. There are a lot of broken hearts in Mississippi.

Towanda

Nov 5 2005

Towanda- See, now I can get behind you. I thought your anger might be coming from a good place. I work in social services and I get angry for the same reasons you described above. I have plenty of moms that work two full time jobs and still aren't making ends meet. Then, their kids suffer because they aren't there to parent effectively. The whole thing will just make your head spin. There are a lot of broken hearts in Mississippi. Amen, woman.

Lori G

Nov 5 2005

before all this got waist deep I thought it was kind of funny. As hard as it is to keep stereotypes out of your mind sometimes others go and make it impossible. Whether it be sexist stereos racist whatever. Sometimes it just happens. The other day a black coworker had churches and watermelon at their desk.. I just turned and walked away. Nothing negative or prejudice sometime people don't want the stereotypes to actually be true. Sometimes the people who the stereotype is aimed towards are doing more against their demograph than the people that initially don't like them. Bottome line is initially this was a good spirited story and it got serious, like ali quoted if you stop laughing you never stop crying.. Lighten up and i am not going to watch north country to "get it"

*SuperStar*

Nov 5 2005

I appreciate the improved tone of this discussion now. Thanks, all. As for the working poor issue, I couldn't agree more that the "working poor" should not be picked on as a group, or should not be treated unfairly, etc. I've been a member of that working poor when I was working 40+ hours a week in high school to pay our house note after my parents divorced. And I so remember how I was taken advantage of -- baking pizzas for hours, then scrubbing pans until 2 or 3 in the a.m. because the owner didn't want to hire a dishwasher. Treated like scum as a waitress at the local country club (as if there was any real sophistication in that joint). When I was 14, scrubbing the heads of rude women who screeched at constantly, told racist jokes while their head was under the water and then didn't tip me a dime. I could do go and on. However, I don't see that at play here. The other side of my point is that no one helps the working poor or anyone else by rewarding or not calling out their poor work habits. The truth of the matter is that, in those terrible jobs, I learned a lot about my work ethic. I learned to smile and be gracious to the people I was serving. When I worked for tips for years as a waitress and a bartender, I learned to leave my problems at home if I expected to be tipped. And I had some problems during much of the time. So, and this is where I depart with many liberals, I do not believe it does anyone a favor to give them a pass just because they're poor (or because we're assuming they're poor, as is being done here). We should never made excuses for poor work habits that are then going to keep people poor and unsuccessful (if they are poor in the first place). I have worked as a waitress hundreds of time sick and crampy and depressed and all sorts of other things, and still managed to write down orders and be gracious to people because theose are the work standards I learned early on, even from many of the employers who otherwise treated me poorly. So this is where the responsibility argument comes in, which I believe is very important. I believe in helping people, giving them opportunities, training, mentoring, giving government assistance as needed to help strengthen the bootstraps -- but I do not believe in making excuses for poor work habits, bad service if you're a service worker or just assuming first that someone had a migraine instead of being just irresponsible. We do not teach people to be more responsible for themselves and their livelihoods and their futures when we engage in such "idiot compassion." In this case, I believe that the woman who acted like such an idiot deserved to be called out for it. Her name is not attached to embarass her publicly, but if she reads this (or that chick from On the Border), maybe she'll understand that she doesn't look nearly as cool as she thinks by being so aloof and irresponsible, and that she might get farther in life if she learns how to deliver good public service. It's a valuable lesson that will serve her well, should she be a single mother at some point. Or, it might help her learn the skills to be an executive by the point who won't need to waitress to support her kids. I don't have time to check it out, but I believe that Hooter's might actually offer benefits. I know they've been in lawsuits in the past about who they hired and such, so they probably encouraged them to take care of some of these details if they hadn't. Someone might want to look that up so that we're accurate here rather than tossing about unsubstantiated allegations.

DonnaLadd

Nov 5 2005

I shed a tear for the denigration of these hard-working individuals nearly every single day: http://thunderfromdownunder.com/

allred

Nov 5 2005

I know: why not offer this story to other weekly papers? Like in Los Angeles, or Chicago, or Boston, or San Francisco, or New York? How about alt-weekly? Maybe they would be interested.

Towanda

Nov 5 2005

Why wouldn't we do that? It may be there already. I don't know if Casey posted it to Altweeklies, but there is certainly not a problem with that. Stiggers goes up there every week in their Satire section. Towanda, I just don't think we would draw the outrage that you believe for this column. Have you watched the Daily Show lately? The Colbert Report? Saturday Night Live? Read Jill Conner Browne's books? These days, liberals and feminists laugh -- and having worked with alts in various cities, including New York City, I simply promise you that making fun of a very bad Hooters waitress, and not by name, is not going to shock a lot of alty folks I know. It's not like everyone in the alt-world signs a pact that we all follow a script, or won't ever offend someone. Quite the opposite, in fact. In a nutshell, this column did not "attack the working poor." It made fun of the Hooter's corporation, and it jabbed at a woman who was doing a very poor job and, thus, fitting the stereotype of a Hooter's employee. It named no one by name. Your postings about Emily have been much more insulting to a particular woman than her column about an unnamed Hooter's waitress. Your disdain is noted. I now am going to ask you to move onto another topic unless you have something new to add to this particular discussion. Really.

DonnaLadd

Nov 5 2005

To answer the question, no I did not use picking on a Hooter's waitress to feel better about myself. I felt just as good about myself when I left as when I went in. I'm quite fond of myself. Now you may go forth can call me ego-centric. This column did, in fact, create a "click" moment last night with the boyfriend as I shared what I saw at Hooters...and what his daughter will be the recepient of as well. I saw a boy my son's age having his rite-of-passage with grown-ups at Hooter's via a birthday party. "Here son! I got you a picture with what we define as a "hot chick" for your birthday. Now go forth and know that "hot chicks" will make YOU a better person." I saw men talking to boobs and it being socially acceptable. And bottom line, defining women by what society views as "hot" is never okay in my book. Again, I appreciate your recommendation for feminist therapy. From my end, I've run the gamut from anger to rage to outright hatred and have learned that the idea of "if you're not force us, you're against us" simply is not getting women to a better place. Using shame and loaded words against those who don't see things the way we do has not worked for me yet. Again, you don't know me, so please do not continue the insults as you do. Those who DO know me, and have read everything I have written, and have worked with me regarding women's issues have laughed their heads off at your assessment of me, especially as a result of this column because it was one of the few I did NOT have second thoughts about before clicking send. This column is not about, nor was ever intended to be, the working poor. It is about being comfortable enough with ourselves and our beliefs to walk into a place that would like to define us differently and mocking it. And I had fun doing it, not at the expense of any one person, but our society as a whole. My only regret is that I didn't have the pictures to send with the column.

emilyb

Nov 5 2005

I'm still waiting for an apology to Emily and Ray, to be honest, and until I see one I'm going to have a very hard time being charitable in my interpretation of Towanda's criticisms of others. No, we shouldn't ridicule the working poor for being the working poor. But I don't think it's realistic to think of most Hooters employees, who tend to be college-aged, as the working poor; waitressing (especially with the ungodly tips they get) is a perfectly good first job. I also don't think that we should think of all post-college-age waiters and waitresses as "the working poor." I've known waiters, waitresses, coffee shop employees, and so on who live into their thirties with a lifestyle that they would describe as pretty comfortable. Not filthy rich, but to the point where they're deciding which essential oils to buy for their aromatherapy, and whether they want a medium or large double mocha, rather than whether they can pay rent. Obviously it's hard to raise kids on that income, but not everybody has kids--if you're single, an empty nester, or have a spouse who also works, it's not necessarily that bad. I think we're being very cruel if we treat everyone who works in a "low-ranking" job in the food or hospitality industry as a member of the working poor. And besides, Ray represents indigent defendants on death row--the most marginalized of the poor--and I don't remember him getting any brownie points for that. And besides, part two, the original critique of Emily's article did not sound like it was calling her down for criticizing the working poor. I feel like the nature of the criticism shifted from "you're not a good feminist" to "you're an elitist" halfway through the thread, when she realized that she was not going to get much support from other feminists on this board in her critiques of Emily. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 5 2005

This is, by the way, a classic example of what trolling does to conversations. Here we had a fun, lighthearted article, and the entire discussion has turned into "Is Emily Braden an elitist or bad feminist?" That's just plain weird, folks. And very unhealthy. This already happened to one of Ken Stiggers' pieces a few months ago, and it left a bad taste in my mouth then, and it's leaving a bad taste in my mouth now.

Tom Head

Nov 5 2005

Well, I find assuming I'm an elitist equally laughable considering...but my job is not to defend myself personally, so I'll quit doing that. I think it poked fun at the stereotype beyond just the shirt. The boyfriend assuming I don't like the place because I might feel intimidated by the "look" was also addressed. I think it's a tactic to disregard feminism (not from him personally...again) with "Well, you're just jealous because you don't look like that." The objectification goes beyond just lowering self-esteem of women (which is a real issue). Establishments that objectify us also keep us from business deals made there (and strip clubs) because why the hell would I want to make a sale in a place that feeds the idea that women should look a certain way? When high-dollar business deals are being made between men and women at the spa, then I'll rethink that one.

emilyb

Nov 5 2005

Tom, I find her first post hilarious actually. Addressing me as Ms. Braden, which is a maiden name I'm working on reclaiming after a very liberating experience, and then recommending feminist therapy has me rolling. It also has me rolling that it's a column I wrote after a period of time I was finding offense in EVERYTHING, even when offense was not there (which is what I was attempting to convey...could have done a better job.) The evening was created by my friend who knows me well enough to say, "Girl, you need some girl time!" And then the attacks thrown at me are so off-the-mark that I have to laugh some more. But that's just me. When life gets overwhelming, my coping mechanism is to find the humor in it, and I have to say I'm so thankful to the JFP for giving me an outlet to do just that. When I pitched this column, I did not say, "I want to be the spokeswoman for feminism." I did say, "I'm an everyday chick with lots going for me, with lots of problems as well, who likes to think and reflect and write about it."

emilyb

Nov 5 2005

I am an activist and a practicing Mahayana Buddhist woman. First of all, I want to thank Twanda for standing up for her beliefs and not backing down in the face of severe and somewhat hostile retaliatory responses. Wow, how utterly fascinating the level 3 hurricane her voicing her views created. Thank goodness the Patriot Act hasnít completely usurped the Bill of Rights and everyone is entitled, in this country, (still) to voice their opinion. It appears to me that Twanda probably has some first hand experience with women being abused, raped and murdered as a regular daily event. Unfortunately, statistics prove that this behavior in our country is increasing not decreasing. This tells me as a culture and society we have not been addressing the core issues precipitating this behavior with effective diligence. When reading the article from that perspective I can understand her anger. I also thank her for bringing this topic to our attention; it has sprouted a plethora of dialogue and responses. Way too numerous to respond to all of them. So I will respond to the last one from Mr. Liberal Buddhist maleÖ Mr. Chronos, I think there are three sides to a coin, if one looks carefully. I believe because Twanda was forceful and passionate with expressing her views she has been harshly judged. I think it is a positive thing that you thanked her. But, perhaps you are projecting on to her your stuff. No way was she ìrantingî her a** off. It seems to me a part of feeling passionate about something is being alive and caring enough to put yourself out there by writing them down and sharing them with the world. As an activist I agree wholeheartedly with your three concerns outlined. Yet, it appears your words streaming across the page were dogmatic and preaching to her. Would you want people to say to your concerns ñ "loosen up"? Would you think it was okay if someone made what they think is a funny joke about the Chinese torturing and killing the Tibetan people? ñ hahahaha funny joke? In my opinion, humor is not an untouchable holy grail. I think humor, like free speech does include responsibility. Peace.

Inanna

Nov 5 2005

My view of much of these comments was clarified in the last remark made to me by the editor, "ladd", who, once again, is threatening to kick me off of her newspaper site for not agreeing with her and the others who have posted here. I cannot respect an overbearing editor/gatekeeper who will not allow me to respond to critcisms, but who encourages those who agree with her to continue making them. Bullying seems to be popular here, starting with the writer. And, it is inappropriate for the editor/owner to be so intrusive with her own opinion. PS. Thank you ianna for your comments. I appreciate it very much. TT4N

Towanda

Nov 5 2005

Towanda, you violated the terms of service by making a bitter and very personal attack against Emily Braden. Donna does not let us get away with leveling those kinds of attacks against others; I see no reason why you should be given special dispensation solely because you happen to not agree with the majority opinion. I am not crushed that you're leaving. In fact, until you apologize to Ray and Emily for the false and unfair claims you have made about their character, I'd personally rather not see any more posts from you. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 5 2005

Inanna, the well has been poisoned in this thread. I am unprepared to tolerate Towanda's personal attacks without calling them as I see them. This is my last post in this discussion, most of which should (I suspect) be moved to the TrollBlog. Ideas are a beautiful thing, but hate is plumb ugly. And Towanda has expressed nothing in this thread but hate. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 5 2005

Inanna, Tom and others are right here. Towanda, whom I know well, was always welcome to express her views and to disagree with statements made. What she did, though, was start out lodging personal attacks against another woman, and a named one, and then continue them in various forms. This has been offensive from the outset, and it has nothing to do with disagreeing; it has to do with being bitter and ugly toward other people and refusing to acknowledge it or apologize for it. People also have the First Amendment right to make pornography, and I don't publish that, either. I'm not the government, so the Bill of Rights point doesn't get you much. I'm hearing the voices from the crowd. I have allowed this troll attack to go on too long. I'm sorry; I thought it would get better, but it clearly has not. Tom, when I get a chance I will move the ugly comments to the TrollBlog as requested. Towanda, if you would like to re-join under a different screen name and try to participate in a discussion without continually insulting others and violating the User Agreement, feel free. Otherwise, I agree that it is time for "Towanda" to retire from the JFP blog.

DonnaLadd

Nov 5 2005

And, Towanda, I have never once lost sleep because someone who comes on my site and viciously attacks other people declares that they have "lost respect" for me for asking them to stop and/or suspending them. The rules are set up to faciliate civil discussion, and it is your problem if you refuse to abide by them. For all I care, go start a North Jackson Angry Women's Club (N-JAW) and rail against how controlling I am. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. I'm still not going to let you hijack this site and use it for personal attacks against people you don't agree with, just as I don't allow wingnuts on the right to do it. I just don't care where you sit on the political spectrum. It's laughable how you tried to tear down another woman for what you thought was tearing down another woman. Vicious cycle, ain't it?

DonnaLadd

Nov 5 2005

Since this thread seems to be winding down, I just want to add that when i have been to hooters it is because the wings are so good. Where else are the apparently stupid waitresses so friendly? It is also funny that i can walk in and throw in a stereotype situation, fried chicken and watermelon, and noone bats an eye, you know its an off day then. always laughing

*SuperStar*

Nov 5 2005

Since this thread seems to be winding down, I just want to add that when i have been to hooters it is because the wings are so good. Where else are the apparently stupid waitresses so friendly? It is also funny that i can walk in and throw in a stereotype situation, fried chicken and watermelon, and noone bats an eye, you know its an off day then. always laughing

*SuperStar*

Nov 5 2005

Since this thread seems to be winding down, I just want to add that when i have been to hooters it is because the wings are so good. Where else are the apparently stupid waitresses so friendly? It is also funny that i can walk in and throw in a stereotype situation, fried chicken and watermelon, and noone bats an eye, you know its an off day then. always laughing

*SuperStar*

Nov 5 2005

Oh, good lord! What a steamy tempest in a teapot! OF COURSE it is hysterically (look up the origin of that one) funny for any female to go to an eating place and ask the female employee for a "wife beater" . And wasn't it just too dumb of the employee not to know what THAT meant? Now THAT has just GOT to be funny - just as the the keepers of the keys were just "havin' a little fun" and relieving their boredom by poking fun at the captives at Abu Gharaib. Jeesh - SOME folks just have NO sense of humor!

Veritas

Nov 6 2005

Oh, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. I said I wasn't going to post to this thread again, but on behalf of the world community as a whole, may I please say: 1. People who don't use their real names should not post as "Veritas." 2. Joking about Hooters is NOT the same as raping and beating prisoners at Abu Ghraib. If you believe that it is, then I hope that you're never in a management position at Hooters when someone orders the "special." 3. A flimsy white tank top is called a "wifebeater" because on Cops and similar programs, that's always what the abusive spouse is wearing when he's arrested. I don't use the word, but it does not suggest an endorsement of domestic violence. Thank you. Please drive through to the second window. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 6 2005

If you wish to laugh when YOu are the one being beaten, that is your choice. When you laugh at the expense of someone else being beaten - it's cruel and sadistic. Trivialializing it by naming a stereotyped manner of dress IS a form of endorsement. Domestic violence starts with attitude and until you've walked a mile in my shoes, don't tell me what the pain feels like.

Veritas

Nov 6 2005

Okay folks, I'm wading into the fray on this one. I don't know whether to laugh or cry over the whole thing. I will start by saying that I'm frequently amazed at which articles promote this type of passionate discussion. My thoughts. Let's all start the day with a nice healthy dose of compassion. For Emily, for Towanda, for Veritas, for all the posters on the thread, for the waitress at Hooter's, and anyone who ever thought Hooter's was a good idea. Take a deep breath, and step away from the anger for a moment. That said, this type of discussion pretty much mirrors the train of thought that goes through my head when I contemplate the notion of Hooter's. I hear someone say "but they have really good chicken wings and/or burgers, and that's why I go there", and my brain seizes up for a few seconds, leaping from burgers to boobs to objectification of women to crappy corporate restaurant chain to the diminshment of women and men, and respond with "Uh, Stamps has better burgers and it's right around the corner." So, I'm all for attacking Hooter's and all that it stands for, but not for attacking Emily for writing about it, nor for the other attacks on the thread. That's what confused me from the beginning - Towanda's insistence that Emily writing about a bad waitress was somehow an attack. And her insistence on defending the waitress as maybe having a bad day, without seeing that Emily specifically wrote about the fact that she was in a dark spot and needed some fun. As our mamas would say, 2 wrongs don't make a right. As for me, I don't spend money at Hooters. Becuase dollars spent in an ironical fasion do NOT go into some special ironic bank account where they are worth less. A dollar is a dollar, and I ain't spending my hard earned money at a place like that. I also don't use the term wife beater, but I do not think that those who do support torture and/or domestic abuse. I think to equate anything put forth in this article with the activities at Abu Ghraib trivializes what those poor people are going through. To me, the most alarming and annoying thing on the thread so far is the suggestion that women don't want to eat at Hooter's because we're "jealous" that we don't look like that. That is the stupidest and most insulting thing I've heard in a long time. I know there are plenty of women who make a boatload of money off of tips in places like that, and more power to 'em, if it helps them pay the bills, pay for education, get ahead in life. but, as we discussed ad nauseum on some other thread, to say that the best/only validation we can recieve as women has to do with our looks and sexuality is just patently wrong and stupid. That's it for now. A dose of compassion all the way around, for the victims of abuse, perpetrators of abuse, the working poor, and the other posters on the thread. Peace out, y'all.

kate

Nov 6 2005

Veritas, as I explained to my friend "Tired of Losers" (who lashed out against the poor, then told a story that he was a military man who came from a life of poverty), anonymous people can have any biography they want. So no, I haven't walked a mile in your shoes, but I have no clue what your shoes are. Given that you're telling a woman she'd beat prisoners at Abu Ghraib because you don't like her Hooters article, I'm guessing they're giant, red clown shoes. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 6 2005

Oh, and chronos, I bought non-slave trade, organic chocolate for making chocolate birthday cake today.

kate

Nov 6 2005

Kate, I don't eat at Hooters, either. The outfits aren't that provocative, so I assume there's some appeal to the wings and whatever, but I'm a vegetarian. And even if I were entirely comfortable with the Hooters idea, I'm just not that attracted to the "look." But I think the main thrust of this thread is not so much whether or not one should eat at Hooters, or whether women are jealous of Hooters' waitresses, as it is that Emily wrote an autobiographical humor piece and is being absolutely SCREAMED at by all these anonymous trolls. I mean, good grief. Are women not ALLOWED to tell their stories in a tongue-and-cheek way? Would these people flame Erma Bombeck? (Probably, if they want to be consistent.) Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 6 2005

Tom, I don't think the point of the thread is the screaming. I think that it's the issues that have prompted the screaming. Which are real and painful. And, by the way, I think the "clown shoes" comment was off base. Even if Veritas is making stuff up (and I don't think we have any reason to suppose that she is), there are still women out there who live absolutely painful lives, physically, mentally and emotionally, and they deserve our respect and compassion.

kate

Nov 6 2005

This is all well and good, Kate, but Emily deserves our respect and compassion, too, and I'm getting a little tired of watching open season on this JFP columnist. If these anonymous trollers want to start up a new thread on these issues, I think it could be an interesting discussion. But I see nothing but personal attacks, veiled and otherwise, against Emily. That should not be mistaken for a serious discussion of domestic violence, or of any other issue. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 6 2005

Interesting comments, Kate and Tom. You're both making good points. I can completely understand that someone disagrees with points in Emily's column and wants to discuss them further. But the problem here has been that someone started this with vicious attacks on Emily and hasn't backed down or apologized. I do have compassion for someone who would do that. But the fact still remains is that the attacks and condescending assumptions do not promote intelligent discussion or understanding -- nor does equating her column with the torture in Iraq and somehow trying to say that someone who would laugh at this column would laugh also at torture. Doh. That's simply absurd. I will say it again for those who don't get it: This column is not laughing at violence, or torture, or the plight of the "working poor." It is laughing at the Hooter's culture. Most insulting to me personally is the idea that someone who doesn't agree with the personal attacks on Emily, or the specific criticisms of her column, automatically hasn't walked a mile in "their" shoes. What does that mean? That everyone who has experienced rape and domestic violence automatically agrees on every single point? That's faulty and condescending. I have experienced both of those things, and I'm not agreeing on every point. Does that mean that my beliefs are invalid? That I haven't walked in the approved shoes? Or, does it simply mean that I am independent thinker and feminist who does not follow an approved script? Personally, I have spent much of my life fighting for social justice, and equality and empowerment for women and girls in the ways that I know how -- and I have learned one thing if nothing else: There is room for all sorts of ideas, and there is room for humor along the way, especially when you're trying to communicate with people who might not have thought about those ideas. If you try to close ranks and include only the people who agree with you on every point, you end up losing battles (like, say, the Equal Rights Amendment). I remember getting to Mississippi State and getting very excited about attending a National Organization for Women chapter meeting in Starkville. I went, dressed as I usually was, wearing nail polish and make-up. The women there, who chose not to wear make-up and nail polish (which didn't bother me) actually looked down their condescending noses at me, and a couple of them proceeded to try to tell me why I shouldn't wear nail polish. They were outright rude. I wasn't welcome, and I never went back. That didn't mean that I rejected feminism, but it did mean that I figured out that there are jerks in every movement. It was a good lesson for a college freshman to learn. However, can I have compassion for people being jerks? Yes, I regularly do, but that I doesn't mean that I allow them to personally attack my writers and other bloggers, and it doesn't mean that I bend the troll rules on their behalf on my Web site. There is more than way to skin a catfish (not that I would do that; I'm also vegetarian). And ridiculing a culture that belittles women and showing how ridiculous it is, is one way to do that. Even if some people don't get the joke. That doesn't mean you stop doing it.

DonnaLadd

Nov 6 2005

ladd in nail polish? geesh hey towanda, here is a nickle, buy yourself a clue and a sense of humor. as a woman who has been a beaten wife and who wears wifebeater tshirts, who uses the term frequently, and who is a feminist, I can certainly attest to the fact that it is a humorous term. I have also been subjected to very very stupid waitresses and waiters. I frequently make fun of them for their lack of basic knowledge. does that make me a woman hater? nope. does that make me any less of a humanitarian? nope. it does however make me very very angry when closedminded simpletons such as towanda go off on a writer who has proven herself intelligent, savy, sassy and a feminist. ms. brayden is a single mother fighting the fight to climb the ladder in a man's world and doesn't appear to be the stepford wife that towanda would want us to believe. this I have gathered from her writings, and I can only imagine that the attacks toward her have been quite painful. one wonders if towanda would be so vicious in a face to face confrontation with ms. brayden, or if her aggressive rudeness and lack of social graces is only because she is hidden behind a computer screen...

pippa

Nov 6 2005

I've had sinusitis, so it's taken me a while to analyze exactly Why I was bothered by this piece. Just in case it helps clarify for anyone who cares that a 54-year-old-female-someone was bothered, I'm passing this on. The way I see our three main characters boiled down (served with butter please, my thighs are getting too thin) is this: Ms. Braden, our protagonist, whose main premise, "We're That Good") is proclaimed to the judge character (Boyfriend: "Yes Sweetie ... She's Stupid") and illustrated by comparison with, and Yes at the expense of, the Stupid Waitress, the foil for said Goodness aka/ Cleverness. I am usually uncomfortable when a person of power makes fun of a working person of relative low status and power to have some fun. Being a member of the press immediately confers a level of power and status (well, maybe not status) that most of us don't have. And the level of anonymity afforded this poor hapless woman is pretty thin. We All Know where she works after all. I know, let's all go to lunch there next week together and try to figure out which one she is! See what I mean. This is how the piece played to me. I am not going to make any assumptions about Ms. Braden's character. But I would hope that she apply her position and talents towards more deserving targets, or at least allow a Little more anonymous cover for her subjects, given they really can't fight back. I know an editor is in a position of defending a piece approved for publication and supporting and keeping her staff; but I have to ask: Would Ms.Ladd have published a piece illustrating the stupidity of a Hooter's waitress had it been written by a man? I think the role that power plays in this whole circus becomes clearer. All that said, Kate's post is the most useful thing I've read in this thread. We're all bringing a bunch of history, with us and when we all start crowding around an issue with that history, the heat can make for some mighty unintended consequences. If we step back and create enough space in the between for some compassion.....who knows what kind of real, as opposed to mis- understanding might arise.

yoyomama

Nov 6 2005

I don't think ms brayden was making fun of a downtrodden person of the masses. I think she was however making fun of a person who had the opportunity for education and alas fell short of taking advantage of a good education and instead is makeing her way in the world on her obvious good looks (we all know that they only hire good looking females), skinny body and big boobs. I for one, am getting tired of making excuses for our youth and their ignorance. if they are ignnorant, then by gawd let's call it that. perhaps, then, maybe, hopefully they will tire of being pointed at and declaring that they have no clothes and get some dayumm decent clothing.

pippa

Nov 6 2005

Yoyomama, I like your post but I think you're misreading Emily's point. She did not make fun of the Hooters waitress for being blue collar. (It's not even a sure thing that the Hooters waitress was, in fact, blue collar.) She made fun of bimbo-ish behavior of the Hooters waitress, who acted exactly like men tend to expect Hooters waitresses to act. I agree that there is immense potential in this general line of conversation if it can be separated from the attacks on Emily Braden, but I'm not sure if it can be. The early posts in this thread were so over-the-top hostile--suggesting that she get a therapist, that she take a "basic course in humanity" (whatever that means), among other things--that I doubt any productive conversation can take place in this context. But please stick around. There are a lot of feminists on this board--myself included--and gender/sexism, like race/racism, is a topic that tends to recur and recur again. I'm sure you will have an opportunity later to put forth your general argument in a calmer, friendlier context. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 6 2005

Good post from pippa as well. I should add here that I doubt the Hooters waitress is really stupid; there is a kind of learned stupidity that many really attractive young women pick up as a way of appealing to men. I've noticed it, and it really, really bothers/depresses me to bring up something deep and philosophical with someone of the opposite sex, someone I like, and hear "Oh, that's much too deep for me." Uhm, no, it isn't; if you got it enough to know it's deep, then you're already there. Women are not naturally stupid, but so many women train themselves to be stupid because they want to be liked. Meanwhile, young women who weigh too much overdose on pills or slit their wrists or just forget how to smile because they don't look like Hooters waitresses. Oftentimes they try twice as hard to make themselves stupid; it's very hard to break orbit entirely and just be yourself. And I think that's a shame. It's like throwing out a filet mignon steak because it isn't a Big Mac. Just because something isn't processed for mass appeal doesn't mean that it lacks distinctive flavor, distinctive beauty, of its own. And all of this is just part of the larger problem of women being taught to judge themselves solely, or at least primarily, on how much they can appeal to men. Sometimes I wish everyone on Earth was gay, because at least it'd get rid of this damned oppressive dynamic. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 6 2005

Tom, I took Yoyomama's post to mean that it is not in good taste for someone who is in a perceived "position of power" to take advantage of someone who is in a lesser position. Well, now...okay...let's look at it this way. Would it be demeaning if a African American male writer went into a restaurant that was racist...or made fun of "people being black"....and was an ass to a guy that worked there because he exactly fit the typical ideal the restaurant was trying to put into the world about African American people? Or would the reader understand his anger was from a place in him that understood this stereotype was being exploited and how unfair that was? Anyone?

Lori G

Nov 6 2005

It's like throwing out a filet mignon steak because it isn't a Big Mac.....I wish everyone on Earth was gay, because at least it'd get rid of this damned oppressive dynamic. --Well put, T, though I think the "conditioned response to beauty" and the market-or-culture defined notions of attractiveness can occur among many different communities and may, perhaps, also occur regardless of sexual orientation. --As a Southern white male who "left the fold" of Mississippi twenty years ago and found myself dating or in relationships (uh, or even married) to Asian, African-American, Hispanic, and Native American women, I saw in my own process how family-defined notions of what beauty is, or what is attractive, is an enculturated, rather random, and often fear-based ignorant response to difference.

I like what you had to say about....depth vs. surface. That holds major weight with me, personally. I'm not sure what to call that "depth" exactly (self-cultivation, refinement, cultured, educated), but it's a HUGE factor in the lives of many men I know -- who aren't interested in "just looks" with women, but are also looking for that quality of depth you're talking about. In other words, as someone once said, "looks ain't everything and even that fades with time." A person, man or woman, can be a "knock-out" by a certain standard yet also be devoid of intelligence, or be ruled by fear, or led around by the nose by an addiction.... I think what you're referring to is a very different approach or paradigm than what the culture spoon-feeds everyone.

whateveryouwant

Nov 6 2005

And, um, Tom Women are not naturally stupid, but so many women train themselves to be stupid because they want to be liked. I'm not sure this is true. I mean, not the "naturally stupid" part. I'm just not sure that the "train themselves to be stupid because they want to be like" thing is really that simple. I think the complexity of female socialization pretty much assures this.

Lori G

Nov 6 2005

certainly women can "train" themselves to be stupid. they did it when I was young (hell, I did it) and are doing it today. they (we) are/were afraid men would be intmidated by their/our knowledge and strengths. I suppose in a way, it says that we as women don't give much respect to men in that regard. however, being raised in the good ole boy south, those guys WERE intimidated by strong intelligent women. I suppose it is still true today. unfortunate. but. this chickie in hooters is just an example of much of our youth. they ARE uneducated. and it isn't from a lack of funding. it is just another example of the dumbing down of america. but that is a whole 'nuther can of worms

pippa

Nov 6 2005

Wow, some great points being made here by all. Just a few quickies: I like Tom's point about "learned stupidity." Per usual, he said something I was getting at in far fewer words. It brings to mind the problem of young blacks not studying enough or such because it's not "cool" to be smart. This is very similar from where I sit. If we are to teach young women that those tiny, scared voices, and the stupidity act, are not sexy and beautiful, then we're going to have to teach them that. Screw the sugarcoating. I think this column did some of that on the way to being funny. As a chick who had to overcome a lot of socalization to become as confident and outspoken, and accomplished, some would say, I had to have a lot of splashes of cold-water reality over the years to help me decide that it was "cooler" (or more wonderful, or whatever) to not play the dumb game, because that attracted dumb people. I wanted to be around smart people and taken seriously, so I had to learn to become smart and to take myself seriously. And not-so-seriously when the occasion merited. So, I'll say it again: I ain't into promoting stupidity, fake or not. You've come to the wrong juke joint for that. I liked Ali's African American analogy. I definitely think she gets what Emily did in this column -- she made fun of the "ideal" that is Hooter's to show how ridiculous it is. And I'm just not that worried about the woman-who-can't-count change being outed one day at lunch. She'll probably do that to herself. If she's worried about looking stupid, maybe she needs to figure out how not to look stupid just like the rest of us. If that makes me a woman-hater in some of your eyes, so be it. But I'll keep doing what I do on the empowerment front, whatever y'all want to call it. Yoyo, Tom is right. Nobody's picking on the blue collar among us here. That's a jump in logic, perhaps made to try to back up someone who got off on the wrong foot here for expressing her anger at a perceived "attack" on a woman by outright attacking another woman (Emily is the only woman under attack, I will note, whose identity is actually known to all). Tom is also right that this thread was sent an ugly direction and has been trying to get back ever since the attacks on Emily. And I just do not buy the argument that somehow criticism of one woman is an attack on all womankind. Or on all working people. Or, somehow, on the victims of torture in Iraq. Yoyo asked: Would Ms.Ladd have published a piece illustrating the stupidity of a Hooter's waitress had it been written by a man? I think the role that power plays in this whole circus becomes clearer. Only if Tom wrote it. ;-D Kidding aside, sure, I would. You don't know me well to ask me that question. Which is fine. Of course, it would depend on the piece itself, the facts presented, how well it was written, and so on. But the answer to your simple question is sure, if I thought the piece worked. I thought this piece worked. (Which I think is patently obvious to anyone reading at this point.) If you're looking for watered-down political correctness, you again are in the wrong jive dive. Again, though, you are welcome to disagree with what I publish -- but you are not welcome to lodge personal attacks rather than engage in civil discussion. This ain't talk radio, friends. And welcome to the site, Pippa! You know I wear nail polish, or used to back when I had time for manicures. You've seen me in some hot-pink varieties a few times yourself. ;-) I leave you to identify yourself further if you wish, but your presence here truly illustrates one thing: There are all kinds of feminists with all sorts of ideas, and a whole of 'em are represented on this thread. Finally, I will say again that the personal attacks on Emily did not show the best side of some bloggers. But I am confident that Emily has been through worse, as have many of us. I will just say that she is incredible woman; a feminist who is working to help other women, especially young ones; and a writer whose work I am proud to feature in the JFP, and will as least until she grows too big for her JFP bellbottoms. Carry on, girlfriend.

DonnaLadd

Nov 6 2005

Ali writes: I'm not sure this is true. I mean, not the "naturally stupid" part. I'm just not sure that the "train themselves to be stupid because they want to be like" thing is really that simple. I think the complexity of female socialization pretty much assures this. Right. I didn't mean to say that this was a comprehensive explanation of why women do this; just that it's the factor that comes to mind first when I think of Hooters waitresses. An old friend of mine, whose name came up today for the first time in years, used to say that Southern women are judged strictly by their looks--that it didn't pay to be intelligent. She talked about how her father used to literally hit her in the head whenever she sounded like she was getting too uppity and doing gender-inappropriate things. And then we have Larry Summers saying women are just dumb at math, and Harvey Mansfield saying they're not rational enough to lead. It's all very tedious. I'm not going to discuss the thing with Emily's article in any great detail, even when confronted with a gentle post like yours, simply because there has been so much filthy water under the bridge in this particular case that I think we owe the woman a little less scrutiny. Even when I back her up, I feel like we're taking out a magnifying glass and counting her pores. I'd rather shift the discussion to more general issues. Like maybe this one, for example. Or this one. chronos, lovin' your posts, man, and I know I still owe you a reply that was coming "tonight" in the faith thread. Might incorporate it into my first Talking Head piece. I know what you mean about (a) sexual orientation not necessarily solving the problem (many gay men have complained to me of the "meat market" problem), though I think it at least separates the issue from gendered oppression, and (b) conditional standards of attractiveness. I'm not exactly an experienced player in the dating game (being homeschooled, doing a degree by distance learning, having a relatively solidarity writing career, socializing with people who are on average 20 years older, etc. tend to cut into that), but one of these days I need to do a blog entry on how weird I think it is that, in 2005, there are still personal ads that begin "SWM seeks SWF..." (or vice versa). It's only recently that I've fully owned up to the very real possibility--statistically, maybe even the very real probability--that my future Significant Other will be a woman of color. Some of the first crushes I ever had were on non-white girls, but for some reason I just took it as a matter of course that my future Mrs. would be white. Strange, the assumptions we make. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 6 2005

WOW. Yoyo asked: Would Ms.Ladd have published a piece illustrating the stupidity of a Hooter's waitress had it been written by a man? I think the role that power plays in this whole circus becomes clearer. Only if Tom wrote it. ;-D You realize that you just completely made my day. :P Thank you. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 6 2005

One more thing I'll say about Emily's article... I mentioned early on the Ken Stiggers comparison, and I think this is relevant. Nobody can ever accuse Ken Stiggers of being ashamed to be a black man, of being self-loathing, of being anything but a sharp satirist who understands his community and, in the tradition of Richard Pryor and Aaron McGruder (among others), looks at it naked without airbrushing out the parts that the magazines won't print. But I said early on that if a white man wrote columns identical to Ken's in the Northside Sun, it would change the whole dynamic for me. I would be very suspicious. When I read his column, it matters very much to me that Ken is black. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does. I think that in some ways Emily is facing a very similar criticism here, and maybe we should take a step back and look at the lessons we learned in the thread about Ken's satire. Let's be honest: Ken is entirely committed to civil rights. Emily is entirely committed to feminism. Those of us who know Ken and Emily, even by reputation, can be certain of this. So we read the articles with this assumption in mind, and that gives them a great deal of value to us. But if for some reason we read the articles with a confrontational attitude, with our guard up, expecting a fight, then we'd certainly find stuff to offend us. There's a good word for writing that is inoffensive when correctly understood, and offensive to folks who are set up to be offended. That word is "edgy." It is literally on the edge--not in any danger of falling, but close enough that those who don't know the architecture might think it could be. Think the Leaning Tower of Pisa. And like the Leaning Tower, Ken and Emily are in no danger of tipping over anytime soon. And just as the lean is what makes the tower special, I sincerely hope that Ken and Emily never lose their bite--that they're never pressured into commercializing their writing so that more people will get it. And there's a word for that, too--a phrase, really. It's called keepin' it real. Please keep up the good work, folks. We've got your backs. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 6 2005

Before I get dinged for being a skinny-ist, I should add that my JFP bellbottom reference for about Emily's ascending fame. ;-) Reading back, I realized it could be taken wrong. Otherwise, Tom makes some good points, again, about writing that's on the edge. I don't like to read predictable writing that ignores complexities, and I don't like to run it. So expect to continue to have your own views challenged in the JFP. And maybe the hairs on your neck may stand up from time to time. Good. Means we're alive and kicking. Ciao, all.

DonnaLadd

Nov 6 2005

Damn, I can't type tonight and don't feel like using Sunday night to go into my editing panel. I meant: Before I get dinged for being a skinny-ist, I should add that my JFP bellbottom reference WAS about Emily's ascending fame. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Nov 6 2005

Also, Tom, I don't think I will move any of the above comments to the TrollBlog -- unless Emily prefers me to. It's her column. I tend to think that it ultimately turned into a good discussion, if with some rough spots. And it might be hard to delete the insults on this one and the thread still make sense. (That's sure not always the case!) And it's not often you get to witness a discussion among feminists, or mostly feminists, that deals with the differences in how they look at things. I like it because it shows that you don't have to agree to be a feminist -- there is no one acceptable definition or script. But, I'm open to suggestion if y'all want the personal insults moved or snipped. Emily?

DonnaLadd

Nov 6 2005

I won't argue with Emily on any of this, goodness knows it's her article, but I kind of agree. I found myself thinking earlier tonight that this little discussion managed to redeem itself after all, and it shows a good range of viewpoints. First time I can think of where a TrollBlog discussion improved itself to this extent. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 6 2005

Tom wrote: It's only recently that I've fully owned up to the very real possibility--statistically, maybe even the very real probability--that my future Significant Other will be a woman of color. --Yeah. I'm praying my next President will be too.......

whateveryouwant

Nov 6 2005

However, I'm not referring to Condi...

whateveryouwant

Nov 6 2005

Heh! Good answer, dude... And amen... Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Nov 6 2005

I was taken aback by not only the original column, but the also by the ferocity of the ad-hominem attacks against a reader (I believe the name was Towanda) who commented as to why she found that column offensive. Seemed to me that her remarks were simply fair comment on an article. Apparently, under the Rule of Blog - if the author of a column is writing under her own byline, that author is not supposed to be disagreed with. I agree with Towanda that some "conciousness-raising" might benefit the writer of the original column - since it seems she had no clue as to how insulting and hurtful her request for a "wifebeater" may have been to the Hooters waitress. (Or, if she did know, she didn't care or was being deliberately mean?) Incidentally, I just donít ëgetí what the author meant by the title ìWeíre That Goodî. Itís not a burning issue, just that I was puzzled by it. (BTW: I do think comments on poor service ARE fair game.) Reading further, I see that the entire 'blog' is largely a chatroom, mostly for a half-dozen or so folks 'in the know'. (Others did comment, but fewer times.) Not being one of those ordained few, I had NO IDEA that the original column was intended to be a humorous (?) satire (?) by a (gasp!) FEMINIST! My mistake - I sincerely thought I was posting to "letters to the editor" of an online version of a serious publication. In actuality, over 40% of the comments here were posted by only TWO people - one being the editor and the other a Mr. Head who purported to speak - on behalf of the world community - (LOL!!) Omigosh, Toto, we're really NOT in Kansas - we're in a teensy-tiny pond and the Grand Wizard has dismissed me to the "second window". (Well, of course HE did, silly - HE is a self-proclaimed feminist also and so gets to decide what qualifies as 'real' pain.) The Head Said: "Joking about Hooters is NOT the same as raping and beating prisoners at Abu Ghraib. " Consider this: Trivializing another's pain by denying the effect of one's language on attitude and behavior is not only intellectually dishonest, it is DANGEROUS. (Social workers dealing with child abuse know this.) Such terms as 'wifebeater' for a tank top is not a term of empowerment - nor is it being 'real'. It treats a lethal practice as a joke - "wifebeater" - as in ha-ha - it's just a t-shirt.... doesn't have to be taken seriously. HOT FLASH! Wifebeaters (the men) also wear SUITS, some are policemen, district attorneys, journalists and other 'pillars of the community'. Some may even call themselves (oh no!) liberals. They cut across all political, socioeconomic and educational strata. Trivialization and denigrating another person are forms of dehumanizing them. If they are not human, we don't have to be concerned with their pain. They are "not us." They are "other" or even "less than human" The butt of the joke is not always that far from the butt of the rifle..... The point is that mean language reflects mean attitudes - and mean attitudes are a precursor to mean acts. Mean acts CAN degenerate to torture. The distance is not as great as you might think. For an excellent view on how this can occur, I suggest the film "Your Neighbor's Son", co-produced by Amnesty International and which depicts how "ordinary" recruits were trained to become torturers.

Veritas

Nov 7 2005

I'm good with it here. I maintain she attacked me as a person and not the column itself, but I'm open to criticism regarding its contents and have no problem (time permitting of course) to respond to questions about it. I understand the danger of "wife beater." I appreciate your view there, and the point is taken. Going forward, I will condider your requests; however, I refuse to write *this* column with my censor on. If printing the word "wife-beater" creates intelligent discussion I'm for that before I'm getting on-board with the idea that the column must be silenced. Going forward, I'd also like critiquing the ideas instead of the author as a person. I'm sorry, but I really don't think it's hard to do. I realize it's a form of dehumanization. I also dehumanize my very own son by calling him Monkey and my best friend by calling her MF to protect their privacy. After this thread, you might see why it's neccessary. I would love to dehumanize myself with a pen name to avoid this altogether, but I think this has been a GREAT learning lesson for me (and any other writers who could be reading) that not only do we have to worry about the Entergy bill, but we also have to deal with the fact that what we think on any given day is open game for assumptions about who we are as a whole. I truly believe if you had read all of my work and read it in that context, you would not be so offended by me. Again, I'd appreciate you knocking it off with the "feminist therapy" suggestions as you don't know what my feminist journey has been, nor do you know how I got where I am today. I could very well suggest feminist therapy to you in hopes that you'd quit beating up on a woman who you also know nothing about. Hell, maybe I have a migraine today! However, I do think it's led to some great, thearapeutic discussion right here. I don't know about y'all, but the objectification of women and women's sexuality is quite a passionate subject for me. I googled "I Was a Playboy Bunny" last night and read some of the reactions our friend Gloria had to stand up against. I'm not feeling that THIS should be deleted. I think it's fabulous.

emilyb

Nov 7 2005

And "We're that good." is followed by the line that we can make a mockery of Corvettes, Hooters, ourselves and each other I believe. And the entire column was written in a tongue-in-cheek fashion.

emilyb

Nov 7 2005

Unbelievable. Let me just say I never make fun of the "working poor" but I frequently make fun of poor workers. But I go this figured out now and I want to thank Towanda and others for enlightening me. Next time my bills come in or I have a cold or I just don't feel like my brain is completely wired on a Monday morning, I'm gonna say "huh?" and stare blankly at my boss. But if SHE says anything to me about my attitude or work ethic or if anyone I come in contact with that day says anything about me being sub-par, I'm gonna scream about how unfair it is to criticise me because, you know, my bills are due.

Rex

Nov 7 2005

I was taken aback by not only the original column, but the also by the ferocity of the ad-hominem attacks against a reader OK, all, this comment inspires me to use this as a "teachable moment" -- not about what feminism is and isn't (we can all decide that for ourselves), but about what an "ad hominem" is. My suggestion is that anyone here who has some extra time comb through the above comments, starting at the first one and paste in bold below which ones you think are ad hominem attacks, including the author of it. Then we can talk about what is and is not an "ad hominem," as opposed to stating of opinion about an issue. We seem to have a serious disconnect on this very question. It will be also interesting to note how people respond to ad hominem attacks and why it is usually a good idea to delete them immediately and then suspend the "troll" (personal attacker) if they continue posting the attacks or refuse to apologize. That is, others stand defending against the attacks, and the whole think is hijacked. this is usually what a troll wants, although I'm not sure that is the case this time. Otherwise, Veritas, this site is what it is: a blog that supports an award-winning alternative weekly newspaper that allows a variety of viewpoints, but not ad hominem attacks. We allow comments under individual writers' pieces as long as they stay on topic and adhere to the User Agreement. Individual members are also allowed to start your own threads in the forums. We have several individual bloggers who start their own conversations on their own blogs. We have a community of close to 1,500 members who can post as they wish. You are allowed to post anonymously if you adhere to the User Agreement. However, it is my discretion to decide if you are violating the User Agreement and whether to allow you to continue to post. That decision is never based on someone's opinion on an issue (note the amount of time I allowed Jim Giles to post); it is solely based on your behavior when you get here and whether you understand how to engage in a civil discussion without attacking other people for their views. Sadly, many people do not understand the difference between "opinion" and an "ad hominem" attack. That's there problem, but it doesn't mean they are allowed the privilege of continuing to post here. Inevitably, when I suspend someone (usually after numerous warnings and explanations; I'm too nice), they complain that I have "censored" their opinion. Fine, if you think that not allowing someone to say to someone else that, say, they need to get therapy based on their opinion is "censorship." Bottom line: We are not the government; thus, I cannot violate your free speech rights by suspending you from posting on my privately owned Web site. And it is only done based on a user's violation of the Agreement they had to agree to in order to have this privilege in the first place. There is a time and place for personal responsibility, and it is certainly before you post a personal attack on this Web site. You will also find that I enforce these rules against people whom I tend to agree and who are arguing with someone about issues I agree with. Thus, it is silly and hackneyed to try to argue that this is about whether or not I agree with you. It is about whether or not you-the-member understand the difference between expressing opinion on an issue and ad hominem attacks. Sadly, today's media encourage people to communicate in ad hominem attacks -- the screaming back and forth that is more about personal insults than issues. But I don't care; I've said before that I would shut this Web site down before I let it turn into that kind of site. Ain't gonna happen, so either settle in and abide by the rules or move on. It's an individual decision. Also, if you would like to write a letter to the editor, you can send it to [email]letters@jacksonfreepress.com[/email] . You must include your daytime phone number, and your real name will be published. We follow standard journalistic print practices on letters. Here we give you more leeway to express yourself anonymously, but up to you how you use that privilege.

DonnaLadd

Nov 7 2005

you let jim giles post here? I am not sure I wanna stay

pippa

Nov 7 2005

"There's a good word for writing that is inoffensive when correctly understood, and offensive to folks who are set up to be offended. That word is "edgy." It is literally on the edge--not in any danger of falling, but close enough that those who don't know the architecture might think it could be. Think the Leaning Tower of Pisa. And like the Leaning Tower, Ken and Emily are in no danger of tipping over anytime soon. And just as the lean is what makes the tower special, I sincerely hope that Ken and Emily never lose their bite--that they're never pressured into commercializing their writing so that more people will get it. And there's a word for that, too--a phrase, really. It's called keepin' it real." Tom, I like that. I don't know Ken, but I do know Emily and I, too, hope she never loses her bite.

Melissa

Nov 7 2005

Sis Emilyb, you've struck a chord with the peoples! I enjoyed your column; It is a sincere observation of human living. When we write, I believe our purpose is to creatively shed light on issues, either germainely or blatantly, with the intention to inspire or encourage correction. The more I write, the more I realize that folk like you and I could be considered as the Howard Cosel of alternative journalism; we are simply loved, hated or both. I want to encourage you as a writer by sharing with you Langston Hughes' Literary Manefesto regarding the Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain: The Defense of Racial Art in America, published in Nation Magazine, June 1926: "We younger Negro artists now intend to express our individual dark skinned selves without fear or shame. If White people are pleased, we are glad. If they are not, it doesnt' matter. We know we are beautiful. And ugly too. If colored people are pleased, we are glad. If they are not, their displeasure doesn't matter either. We build our temples for tomorrow, strong as we know how and we stand on top of the mountain, FREE WITHIN OURSELVES." As Momma Church Hat's great-grandmomma might say, " Sugar, keep on 'DERN' whacha 'DERN!'" And thank you, my good brother Tom for your support. And , Tom, did you get in the mail my essay titled " The Satire of Black Folk?" Peace,love and universal understanding. Brotha Stiggers

Stiggers

Nov 14 2005

Sis Emilyb, you've struck a chord with the peoples! I enjoyed your column; It is a sincere observation of human living. When we write, I believe our purpose is to creatively shed light on issues, either germainely or blatantly, with the intention to inspire or encourage correction. The more I write, the more I realize that folk like you and I could be considered as the Howard Cosel of alternative journalism; we are simply loved, hated or both. I want to encourage you as a writer by sharing with you Langston Hughes' Literary Manefesto regarding the Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain: The Defense of Racial Art in America, published in Nation Magazine, June 1926: "We younger Negro artists now intend to express our individual dark skinned selves without fear or shame. If White people are pleased, we are glad. If they are not, it doesnt' matter. We know we are beautiful. And ugly too. If colored people are pleased, we are glad. If they are not, their displeasure doesn't matter either. We build our temples for tomorrow, strong as we know how and we stand on top of the mountain, FREE WITHIN OURSELVES." As Momma Church Hat's great-grandmomma might say, " Sugar, keep on 'DERN' whacha 'DERN!'" And thank you, my good brother Tom for your support. And , Tom, did you get in the mail my essay titled " The Satire of Black Folk?" Peace,love and universal understanding. Brotha Stiggers

Stiggers

Nov 14 2005

Brotha, you owe us all a drink. it is an old family tradition. when one posts the same thing twice, they buy the house a drink. I'll have a rum and oj. thanks

pippa

Nov 14 2005

Brotha, you owe us all a drink. it is an old family tradition. when one posts the same thing twice, they buy the house a drink. I'll have a rum and oj. thanks

pippa

Nov 14 2005

oops. obviously this board is f'ed up. whatcha drinkin bro?

pippa

Nov 14 2005

My intention was not to post twice...Iclicked on the submit button once. Peace,love and universal understanding. Brotha Stiggers.

Stiggers

Nov 14 2005

guess that means you aren't buyin huh? oh well. love your work. keep writing. it makes me think

pippa

Nov 14 2005

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

emilyb

Nov 14 2005

I was about to comment on this piece and when I saw it had 96 comments already I wondered what in the world had stirred such conversation. Wow. Anywho, I just wanted to say this piece made me laugh. I've never had hooters, but I have been known to poke fun of them. And that place on 65 headed toward KY. The "Boobie Bungalow." ROFL!

Heather

Mar 18 2006