Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

Eat at HootersFollow

#1 Nov 12 2013 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
TL;DR = Local middle school football coach has year-end party at Hooters, and it creates issues.

Linky

Quote:
A month ago, Randy Burbach, volunteer football coach for the middle school, decided on the location for what would be his treat: an end of the season party. Somebody suggested Hooters, the national chain with a Jantzen Beach location. Having taken his own sons to Hooters when they were 10 and 12, an experience he was initially "apprehensive about," Burbach decided Hooters was a fine location. He thought he knew what to expect.

He anticipated a "memorable experience" for the boys and their families and a fun party. He didn't expect to make national news, and be summarily let go from his volunteer position by Corbett Middle School Athletic Director J.P. Soulagnet.

But that's what happened. "We've been cast in a negative light by some," Burbach said. "I'll take it. I don't care, but the kids and the community are showing what we're about."

Burbach decided to keep the party and stay strong, to "be accountable for the decision and the process that was made."

Hooters stepped in and said they'd pay for the party, donate $1,000 to the Corbett Middle School sports program and contribute 20 percent of store revenues on Saturday as well.


What would you do if your kid was on the team?
Let him/her go to the party.:18 (58.1%)
Have a serious discussion about moral values, etc. then leave it up to the kid.:1 (3.2%)
They wouldn't be allowed to go.:3 (9.7%)
Go along, get drunk, and make a pass at the waitress.:9 (29.0%)
Total:31


From my point of view at least, I'd not have a terrible problem. I can't say I've offended by Hooters or anything. I think the coach is dumb for choosing the location (frankly because this was a very avoidable controversy), but I'd still let my kid go if he wanted to. At this point they've probably heard more about the whole thing than they care to anyway, so I don't even know I'd say anything other than "you still want to go?"

What about you?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2 Nov 12 2013 at 7:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Last time I was in Hooters (which was ages ago), they had children's menus and crayons. I think the time to be shocked at tight t-shirts and ugly orange shorts with those weird nylons underneath is past us.

Edited, Nov 12th 2013 7:55pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Nov 12 2013 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Your kids see worse when you take them to the mall.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#4 Nov 12 2013 at 8:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I heard about that and was like "really?". I honestly think the only people who have a problem with Hooters are people who have never been there and have bought into some completely bizarre assumptions about what they're like. It's a burger chain. Period. It's got waitresses in shorts and tee shirts (so not much different than most sit down burger joints). Yes, the chain plays on the whole "Hooters/breasts" thing as a side joke, but if it weren't for the name and people's assumptions, you'd never notice or have an issue with the place. How is Hooters any more overtly sexual than any of a dozen burger chains that have waitresses in short skirts and roller skates?

It's an invented outrage IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5 Nov 12 2013 at 8:13 PM Rating: Decent
I voted no. If I were a single mom, having never been to a Hooters and not really excited about the idea of supporting the franchise that objectifies women in any way, I don't think I'd want my kid to go.

I just talked to my husband about it, and he said if we had a kid, he'd say it was ok for them to go, but agreed that this was a terrible decision on this guy's part. So, ultimately I probably would let him go because my reasons for saying no are pretty shaky and it would be horrible of me to keep my own kid from his end of the season party for my own selfish reasons.
#6 Nov 12 2013 at 8:14 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Belkira wrote:
I voted no. If I were a single mom, having never been to a Hooters and not really excited about the idea of supporting the franchise that objectifies women in any way, I don't think I'd want my kid to go.


Assumption is a *****.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#7 Nov 12 2013 at 8:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In this case, she guessed correctly though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Nov 12 2013 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I voted no. If I were a single mom, having never been to a Hooters and not really excited about the idea of supporting the franchise that objectifies women in any way, I don't think I'd want my kid to go.


Assumption is a *****.


Want to explain to me how I'm wrong?
#9 Nov 12 2013 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In this case, she guessed correctly though.


Why? I see no more objectification of women at Hooters than dozens of other restaurants (or other retail establishments). At the end of the day, attractive women sell products. We can rail about this as a horrible commentary about our society, but it is a truism. Every time you walk into a Macy's and see nothing but pretty women in short skirts and cleavage revealing blouses trying to sell you perfume, tell me how Hooters is objectifying women. Every time you walk into a corporate headquarters of some company and see a model level beauty sitting behind a desk greeting people, tell me about how Hooters objectifies women.

Go walk into any restaurant in the US. Go look at the woman working the hostess desk. Then look at the women taking orders. Then go look at the women working in the kitchen. Want to take a bet as to the declining attractiveness of those three groups? Now tell me that Hooters is objectifying women. Hooters is just honest about it. They're no more guilty than any other business. And less so than some IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#10 Nov 12 2013 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
There are places like Buffalo Wild Wings that are full of Bros.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#11 Nov 12 2013 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
In this case, she guessed correctly though.
Every time you walk into a Macy's and see nothing but pretty women in short skirts and cleavage revealing blouses trying to sell you perfume, tell me how Hooters is objectifying women. Every time you walk into a corporate headquarters of some company and see a model level beauty sitting behind a desk greeting people, tell me about how Hooters objectifies women.

Can't they all be doing it?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Nov 12 2013 at 8:30 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
In this case, she guessed correctly though.
Every time you walk into a Macy's and see nothing but pretty women in short skirts and cleavage revealing blouses trying to sell you perfume, tell me how Hooters is objectifying women. Every time you walk into a corporate headquarters of some company and see a model level beauty sitting behind a desk greeting people, tell me about how Hooters objectifies women.

Can't they all be doing it?
That's his point...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#13 Nov 12 2013 at 8:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So we're agreed that Belkira was correct in assuming that Hooters is objectifying women? Great. Gbaji said "Assumption is a *****" as though she was wrong. Saying "But everyone does it!" is leagues different than saying Hooters doesn't do it.

Edited, Nov 12th 2013 8:33pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Nov 12 2013 at 8:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Wow. Can't believe that had to be stated....
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#15 Nov 12 2013 at 8:37 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
In this case, she guessed correctly though.
Every time you walk into a Macy's and see nothing but pretty women in short skirts and cleavage revealing blouses trying to sell you perfume, tell me how Hooters is objectifying women. Every time you walk into a corporate headquarters of some company and see a model level beauty sitting behind a desk greeting people, tell me about how Hooters objectifies women.

Can't they all be doing it?


But we're back to the same kind of thing as in the sexual orientation discrimination thread. We're arbitrarily and selectively choosing to be outraged about some cases, but not others. If the same guy had taken those kids to a Ruby's Diner (it's a 50s style diner with waitresses in skirts and roller skates), no one would have made a fuss about it and we wouldn't be talking about it. Not because Ruby's doesn't employ attractive waitresses just like hooters, and not because Ruby's waitresses aren't in relatively skimpy outfits, but purely because Hooters has been targeted for exploiting women, while Ruby's has not. It's like if someone doesn't tell us to care about a particular instance of something, we don't notice.

It's not about attractive waitresses in skimpy outfits, because that describes a whole hell of a lot of restaurants. It's about the name and people's assumptions about it. That's it. Change the name to something else, put the girls in the same outfits, and take the same kids there, and no one will notice or complain. That's why it's BS.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Nov 12 2013 at 8:39 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Quote:
But we're back to the same kind of thing as in the sexual orientation discrimination thread. We're arbitrarily and selectively choosing to be outraged about some cases, but not others.
Yes. It's called freedom. You should be happy she's choosing on her own which companies she wants to be upset about. It's her choice.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#17 Nov 12 2013 at 8:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
gbaji wrote:
I honestly think the only people who have a problem with Hooters are people who have never been there and have bought into some completely bizarre assumptions about what they're like. It's a burger chain. Period. It's got waitresses in shorts and tee shirts (so not much different than most sit down burger joints). Yes, the chain plays on the whole "Hooters/breasts" thing as a side joke, but if it weren't for the name and people's assumptions, you'd never notice or have an issue with the place. How is Hooters any more overtly sexual than any of a dozen burger chains that have waitresses in short skirts and roller skates?


Belkira wrote:
I voted no. If I were a single mom, having never been to a Hooters and not really excited about the idea of supporting the franchise that objectifies women in any way, I don't think I'd want my kid to go.


Jophiel wrote:
So we're agreed that Belkira was correct in assuming that Hooters is objectifying women? Great. Gbaji said "Assumption is a *****" as though she was wrong. Saying "But everyone does it!" is leagues different than saying Hooters doesn't do it.


I was referring to the post I'd just written right above her post. Was basically being sarcastic, but I can see how that could have been missed. It was less about the assumption as that the assumption was made via the exact same criteria I had just mentioned (never having been there).

Edited, Nov 12th 2013 6:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Nov 12 2013 at 8:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
We're arbitrarily and selectively choosing to be outraged about some cases

Who's outraged?

I suppose some people in the OP story are outraged but I'm not going to presume to know how mad they get about Macy's makeup counters or 1950s theme restaurants.

Edited, Nov 12th 2013 8:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Nov 12 2013 at 8:53 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
I agree with the school firing him for subjecting those poor kids to that horrible food.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#20 Nov 12 2013 at 10:05 PM Rating: Excellent
For the record, I have never been to a restaurant that has waitresses in short skirts and wearing roller skates. I probably wouldn't want to spend my money there, either.

All of the restaurants I have been to in the last, let's say 3 months, have had the waiters, waitresses, and hostess wearing some sort of button up shirt/blouse and slacks. Usually in the color black.
#21 Nov 12 2013 at 10:59 PM Rating: Decent
Belkira wrote:
For the record, I have never been to a restaurant that has waitresses in short skirts and wearing roller skates. I probably wouldn't want to spend my money there, either.

All of the restaurants I have been to in the last, let's say 3 months, have had the waiters, waitresses, and hostess wearing some sort of button up shirt/blouse and slacks. Usually in the color black.


You've never been to a Sonic? Smiley: frown
#22 Nov 12 2013 at 11:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Catwho wrote:
Belkira wrote:
For the record, I have never been to a restaurant that has waitresses in short skirts and wearing roller skates. I probably wouldn't want to spend my money there, either.

All of the restaurants I have been to in the last, let's say 3 months, have had the waiters, waitresses, and hostess wearing some sort of button up shirt/blouse and slacks. Usually in the color black.


You've never been to a Sonic? Smiley: frown


I worked at a Sonic for 5 or 6 years, off and on. Our uniform did not consist of short skirts.

They did roller skate to the cars a few times, but the skates weren't mandatory.
#23 Nov 13 2013 at 1:13 AM Rating: Excellent
I think gbaji's poorly stated point was that if you're going to make an assumption about Hooters objectifying women and deny your child the opportunity to attend the event based on this assumption, then you should apply that restriction to any other venue which supposedly does the same, which is damn near impossible in today's world. It's a completely arbitrary restriction based purely on social bias, not objective criticism.
#24 Nov 13 2013 at 1:52 AM Rating: Excellent
BrownDuck wrote:
I think gbaji's poorly stated point was that if you're going to make an assumption about Hooters objectifying women and deny your child the opportunity to attend the event based on this assumption, then you should apply that restriction to any other venue which supposedly does the same, which is damn near impossible in today's world. It's a completely arbitrary restriction based purely on social bias, not objective criticism.


The restaurant is named "Hooters." They hire women based on their looks. They have stated in court cases that their whole concept is based on female sex appeal and being a provider of "vicarious sexual entertainment." Their website has a whole page dedicated to instructing their female waitstaff on how to apply their make-up, and that it is required. According to The Smoking Gun, a handbook was obtained back in 2005 which each girl had to sign, and there was a statement that "... the Hooters concept is based on female sex appeal and the work environment is one in which joking and innuendo based on female sex is commonplace. I also expressly acknowledge and affirm that I do not find my job duties, uniform requirements, or work environment to be offensive, intimidating, hostile, or unwelcome." The handbook also states they aren't allowed to wear their hair in a ponytail.

I would also have a problem with my middle schooler attending a strip club. However, I have seen no other restaurants that require such ridiculous and obviously objectifying standards in their female wait staff, and they do not limit the hiring of their wait staff to women.

I do not have to visit Hooters to know that it is far above the other restaurants in terms of objectifying women.
#25 Nov 13 2013 at 2:22 AM Rating: Good
Belkira wrote:
I do not have to visit Hooters to know that it is far above the other restaurants in terms of objectifying women.


It's no different than any other theme restaurant. Hooters' theme just happens to be breasts.
#26 Nov 13 2013 at 2:24 AM Rating: Decent
BrownDuck wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I do not have to visit Hooters to know that it is far above the other restaurants in terms of objectifying women.


It's no different than any other theme restaurant. Hooters' theme just happens to be breasts.


Yeah, keep telling yourself that.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 267 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (267)