CONTENTS UNDER PRESSURE: HOOTERS DISCRIMINATION ARGUMENT IS SKIMPY

I see Hooters doesn't want men waiting tables. And neither do the men who patronize the restaurant chain.

Color me flabbergasted.

After a four-year investigation, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission has decided the restaurant chain, better known for its skimpily-clad waitresses than its food, is guilty of sexual discrimination because it won't hire male servers.

The EEOC's investigation and subsequent recommendation that men be hired stemmed from lawsuits filed by four men in Chicago who couldn't get jobs at Hooters. Since the EEOC only issued a recommendation, not an edict or a mandate or an order, Hooters management can ignore it. And they are.

As a liberal feminist (can I use the f-word in print?), I'm alternately amused and irritated by the whole thing. Much of life has that effect on me lately.

Hooters waitresses aren't what you could call overly-uniformed. Hooters patrons -- predominantly male, I assume -- like that. They don't want men in skimpy little tank tops and bikini bottoms serving them their food.

There are lots and lots of places in the world -- even a few around here, I imagine -- where barely dressed women bring men food and drink and provide other services. There are probably even a few establishments in the world where barely dressed men bring men food, drink and other services. Don't tell me where they are. I don't want to know.

There aren't nearly as many establishments where scantily-clad men wait on women. There are clubs out there featuring male strippers, but for the most part, nearly naked people carrying trays of food and beer tend to be female.

While we're on the subject of nearly naked men and women, I might point out, as others before me have, that movies with full frontal female nudity generally get an "R" rating. Full frontal male nudity means an NC-17 rating. Those of us old enough to see NC-17 movies know they're really X-rated.

From that, one could infer that female nudity is art, or at the very least, interior decorating, while male nudity is pornography.

Are men's parts inherently more pornographic, i.e., "dirtier," than women's parts, or just more important?

I also see that Hooters Girls (do they put that on their tax returns?) are worried that bringing men in will endanger their jobs.

Put in a historic context, that's an interesting concern. Let's pretend that nearly naked waitress is a white male construction worker and the male job candidate is a woman, or a black man, who might just take a job away. Is that a barrier in the workplace I hear crashing?

And, yes, I do have a feeling the Hooters Girls pickets were a publicity stunt.

A friend of mine once waited tables in a topless bar. We both call ourselves feminists. My friend argued that she earned two to three times more in the topless joint than she would have waiting tables in a "nice" restaurant or bar. She also argued that it was her body and she could use it anyway she chose.

Arguments like that give me a headache. Is a woman a bimbo for marketing her physical assets to a willing and receptive audience? Is she a tramp? Is she a pawn of the male establishment? Or is she a smart businesswoman? I don't know. And how do we label the men in the audience?

I should point out that my earning potential increases dramatically when I keep my clothes on.

Overall, incidentally, women who keep their clothes on, tend to earn less than their male counterparts. That's another interesting twist.

I suppose, logically, the answer to the Hooters controversy is that men should have the right to take their clothes off on the job just as often as women do. If we are all created equal, even though we don't stay that way, we should all have the opportunity to be equally objectified and marketed.

And I'll believe it when I see it.

Peggy O'Farrell is a member of the Southeast Missourian news staff.