Eat at HootersFollow

Gbaji, why didn't you just stop at your first post? Even I rated that one up. Everyone pretty much agreed with you, then you took it a few steps too far.

I think that as a species we need to appreciate beauty, but we also do need to be aware of boundaries. I think that what folks are really worried about here is the message, especially the message being sent to male athletes, that females are objects for them to treat as they please. There is a real problem with the way that many young men behave toward women and folks may be afraid that something like this will exacerbate that. It might, but the flip side is that exposing boys to female sexuality and teaching them that there isn't anything wrong with it but it is also the woman's choice and not his, well that's an invaluable lesson that frankly we can't teach young enough.

Because someone on the internet was WRONG! ;)



I agree, but I also think that we really do pursue this in an incredibly arbitrary and contradictory way. I just find it strange that the same group of people who will argue endlessly that women should not be embarrassed or ashamed of their bodies, or their sexuality, and should be free to make whatever choices they want, will turn around and insist that they should be embarrassed if that choice is to wear a Hooters uniform. Dunno. It just seems silly to cheer women running topless in public parks as an expression of liberty and sexual freedom/expression, but condemn women for wearing a tight tee shirt and short shorts. Um... Isn't that *also* a choice that women should be free to make? And it's quite obvious that the condemnation of the latter isn't really about exposure or sexuality at all. It's about an image that some people have of what women should be.

I just think that freedom should include the freedom to not comply with what someone else thinks you should be, and it's ironic when those trying to force you to comply claim to be the champions of your freedom.

I don't think the phrase "objectifying women" is helpful though. It's a phrase we all associate with "bad", but what does it really mean? Aren't you basically saying that a women should not be free to use her own sexuality to benefit herself financially (or heck, even if she just feels like it)? Why is that bad?

As I suggested in my previous post, why is choosing to run topless in a park a display of women's power and freedom, but choosing to wear a tight tee shirt and short shorts considered some form of oppression? Isn't this really about some group of people deciding that they are the arbiters of what women should want and be? Isn't it interesting that it's never the women who choose to work at places like Hooters who are complaining, but other people who apparently think they know better what those women should want than those women?

How is that about women's rights? Sounds more like the oppressors are the ones telling women that they shouldn't wear tight shirts and shorts.



Better?

I find the Hooters business model of objectifying women and also claiming they are "family friendly" to be disgusting. It serves to teach, for example, middle school boys that it's ok. I have no problem with the women who choose to work there, and I'm not looking to shut the place down, I just choose not to associate with it or have any of my money go toward supporting it.

I don't really care if you think the phrase is helpful or not.

Well, their handbook describes "the essence" of their concept as "entertainment through female sex appeal" so splitting hairs over the the word "vicarious" at this point seems a bit silly.

I'm willing to bet that the Macy's employee handbook doesn't say the same.

I don't think the difference between "sex appeal" and "sexual entertainment" is silly or minimal in this context. It's the difference between a waitress serving food while wearing a sexy outfit and a stripper doing a pole dance while taking off her sexy outfit.

Oh. And this is a totally out from left field thing, but it's been bugging me. The site you guys keep linking to has a picture of a hooters girl on the side. But the picture appears to be of a woman with an exposed midriff which (if you read the full text of the handbook) is a violation of their dress code. I even did a google image search for hooters girls, and aside form the occasional unofficial image, all of them show women with their shirts tucked in as they're supposed to be.

So why show that image? Kinda misleading isn't it? I mean, why make a point of talking about the rules within their handbook and then go out of your way to find an image that violates those rules?

But not sufficient to call it "vicarious sexual entertainment", right? So why use that phrase instead of one that's more accurate (or even the one the company uses)? Let's not kid ourselves, people use the phrase that more strongly supports the argument they're making. So the act of choosing that phrase instead of the one the company actually uses means you know they don't both have the same exact connotation. Which makes the claim that "they mean the same thing" questionable at best.

You missed the more important point where I had to do extensive research to look into this. Yes... Extensive Research.


Um... But the same kind of point as above applies here as well. They picked a photo which presumably supported the position they were taking (and making). That it's not really an accurate depiction of a hooters outfit weakens the legitimacy of what they're saying. If the dress code is so terrible, why not show a picture of someone in the actual official uniform and let people make their own decision?

Again, I don't think it's really important to the argument of the legitimacy of judging Hooters different than [random business that you once saw a pretty girl at]. I think that argument was well solved by Hooter's own employment manual and description of their concept.

I get that it's an argument you feel you can "win", so yay -- you win. A pointless win but pat yourself on the back anyway.

I haven't said word one about the uniform. That's something you keep referencing. I'm talking about the fact that their handbook says that the environment at Hooters is based on female sex appeal (and only female sex appeal, no male sex appeal) and that sexual innuendo based on the female sex is commonplace. That's not something that should be going on at a "family friendly" restaurant, in my opinion.

Nice work on that strawman argument, though. That was cute.

As far as the quote about Hooters characterizing themselves as a provider of "vicarious sexual entertainment" goes, I got it from this website.

Then why would there be a problem taking middle school kids to one? If the only problem you have is that the waitresses are told that they may be exposed to flirtation and innuendo by the customers, then that's only an issue if you assume that the middle school kids are going to flirt with the waitresses. But... they're not, right? I mean, they're just kids going out for burgers. It's not like the waitresses are going to be flirting with them.


Of course, if you'd ever been to a Hooters, you might have a better idea of the actual atmosphere within. It really is just kind of a fun (and yes, I'd even say "family friendly" assuming a not too uptight family) burger joint. The waitresses are not "sexy and slutty" but more "friendly and outgoing". The only people who'd really have a problem with the place would be people with some kind of puritanical problem with attractive women dressed in short shorts and tight tee shirts.

The style and feel of the waitresses is less "sexy female strippers" and more "attractive female athletes". I'd compare their outfits more to those you might see worn by a women's volleyball team. That's the point. It's a theme. Yes, the waitresses are attractive, but in the handful of Hooters I've eaten at, I've never gotten an overtly sexy/slutty vibe. It's more of a wholesome attractiveness. Put another way, Hooters Girls are Mary Anne, not Ginger.

"Hooters offers its customers the look of "All American Cheerleader, Surfer, Girl Next Door". The essence of the Hooters Concept is entertainment through female sex appeal, of which the LOOK is a key part."

"Our LOOK is wholesome, yet sexy, and the uniform is athletic by design"

Did you actually read the whole handbook (it's only 8 pages), or just read the out of context bits that were highlighted and assumed the whole thing must be terrible?



As I said though, if one based their opinions of the restaurant off of actually going there instead of reading some site telling them how bad it is, the only thing they'd ever possibly be a bit concerned about in terms of kid/family friendly is the outfits. Like I said, you just don't get a slutty/sexy vibe in a Hooters. You really should actually go there with an open mind before making broad claims/assumptions about it. I just don't think that what goes on at the restaurant justifies the volume of hate that I see out there towards the chain, and people should not form their opinions based off that.



Yeah. I'll repeat what I said earlier and assume that the phrase is some sort of previously existing legal standard that had to be met to be able to hire only women. I suppose it's possible that Hooters came up with it all on their own, but given that this sort of legal issue (hiring women exclusively for certain positions and on the basis of physical appearance) has almost certainly been hashed out within the context of strip clubs long before Hooters came along, it's almost certain that language was from some earlier court ruling and Hooters was simply arguing that they should have that exemption because they provide that form of entertainment. I wouldn't read anything more than that from it. Certainly, I think it's reasonable to assume that if Hooters had a blank legal slate on this, that Hooters would use different language than that (like perhaps the language they actually use in their handbook). Then *that* would become the legal standard and we'd have strip clubs arguing that they should be exempt because they offer "entertainment through female sex appeal".

I could be wrong though. But usually when you see legal arguments like that they're attempting to claim that they meet some previously defined legal standard, and use the language of that standard when making their argument. I also don't feel like digging through the text of the actual court case, and then pouring through the precedents referenced in that case in order to see if the language was used previously or not. I'm content to say "maybe" on this one to be honest.

Edited, Nov 14th 2013 6:21pm by gbaji