First thing,first. Pleas no troll this. This a mature discussion about Hooters nad other related stuff.
A couple of girls in my class said they love hooters. The teacher then go into a discussion about how it is demaning and illegal.
he said it only looks at women as object he said if i rember the same with porn and strippers.
I dont beleive that. I beleive its actually empowering. It give women a chance to flount what the got. The get tons of money from men who hinge on there word.
What do you guys think.
Please lets keep this clean.
Its empowering for a de empowering reason. Kind of like how only Eunechs are allowed to be ministers in Chinese imperial households because that way they can't get the Empress pregnant. Sure you have a powerful position in the seat of government but to get it you literally had to have your balls chopped off.
Honestly, I am not a fan of Hooters. I find it to be repulsive and encouraging to our baser drives. Women are not objects, nor are they animals. It is comparable, in my mind, to the effect that the Adult industry has on society, especially on young men: it objectifies women. Also, their food sucks at Hooters....
In my opinion, if they want to do it, let them. It's not like anyone is forcing them to do it. However, being British and thus utterly disgusted and repelled by any hint of sexuality, would not be inclined to visit such a place.
Little lord Fauntleroy wrote:I'm going to get picked on for this, but...what exactly IS Hooters?
It is a chain of restaurants in the US that serves chicken wings and beer in which the waitress's wear the out fit you see in GWAR!s above post. Basically a sports pub with chicks in skimpy outfits.
I think it's the men that get taken advantage of, really. Maybe not so much in Hooters, because the supposedly objectified women in those establishments still cover the sexual parts.
Lets talk strip clubs, for a minute, however. In a strip club, all a women has to do is is take off her shirt, and men will throw gratuitous amounts of money at her.
It's true that society places emphasis on the breasts, but if you really think about it, why are they viewed as such a sexual, dirty thing; especially compared to only part of a man's torso. A man's chest an a woman's chest are very much the same. Both sexes have nipples, both sexes have a layer of fat covering the pectoral muscle, (women more so) the only difference is that women can secrete milk from theirs, under the right conditions.
A double standard exists where it's perfectly acceptable for a man to show off the most objectified part of his torso (a well formed six pack) in, say, a public beach environment, but a woman has to cover the most objectified part of hers.
When you really think about it, though, breasts are not all they're cracked up to be. Women who realize this, and realize their power over most men, love to use them to their advantage, adding further ammunition to my argument: Women are evil.
I'm not sure I see the rationale behind the whole "objectification" argument. When a waiter is serving my table, I see him as primarily a method of getting my food to me. He probably sees me primarily as another task set before him. We're just not going to have time to get to know each other personally, and that seems okay to me. I mean, it's not like we actually think that the other person is a mindless robot in disguise. One of us might say something like "beautiful weather today" to the other one, just for a little social interaction, although we're never going to become too sociable, unless I've become a fairly regular customer.
It seems to me that the only time it ever matters that a person is "objectified" is when they're used to promote sexual desire, which is even stranger if you think about it, since it seems generally accepted that people want to have sex with other people more than they want to have sex with inanimate objects.
I don't think I'd ever go Hooters though, as I pretty much just go to restaurants to eat food...
Yes, the objectification argument only plays out well over a long relationship; ie. a husband treats his wife as an object akin to a television, or a car. You buy it, then its yours; no need to continue attending to it. Its an argument of degree, not an argument of category; though no one admits to it because no one wants to admit that they are objects.
Monster Rain has it. They chose to work at those types of places. If they were worried about being objectified they could have worked as a librarian or some other place. The reason they work there is they know men will throw money at them for bending over to show off their cleavage. The food sucks most of the women are fugly and the atmosphere sucks anyways. If you want to see boobies go to a strip club at least there you actually see them.
Monster Rain wrote:Maybe Hooters does objectify women. My question would be... so?
I wasn't aware of women being forced to work at these places at gunpoint. If they want to be objects, it's their business.
but you have to ask yourselve. Even if it is there choice is it good for society that men see them as nothing but objects.
Society dosen't need Hooters in order to "objectify" one another,people (yes men & women) have been doing that long before Hooters serverd their first crappy wing and over priced mug of beer.
Do we need hooters? Yes, where else will Red Necks take their offspring to dinner as they can't legally take them into a strip joint? If you close down Hooters, you can expect red neck families to en masse move to more non hooterific restaurant locations. Do you really want noisy fat obnoxiouis kids with a dad who isn't much better and is trying to flirt with the waitress?
When I went to a strip-club in Amsterdam, I didn't go there to see women being 'empowered' - I went to see women debase themselves whilst I slowly got very drunk.
It's not particularly pleasant, but at least I'm honest about it. That's why men go to places like that - to satisfy our darker half.
Khornholio wrote:They have Maid Cafes here where the waitresses are fully clothed in unsexy outfits.
Like the Germans, the Japanese have some strange things that get their motors going. I believe it has something to do with losing World War II.
It's because they get treated much better at the Maid Cafe than at home.
Then again, Japan also has vending machines with panties and build movable Gundams during recessions, who knows what they are thinking. As long as they keep pumping out awesome cartoons, I don't care however
Khornholio wrote:They have Maid Cafes here where the waitresses are fully clothed in unsexy outfits.
Like the Germans, the Japanese have some strange things that get their motors going. I believe it has something to do with losing World War II.
It's because they get treated much better at the Maid Cafe than at home.
Possibly true, but I think that is all down to Japanese perception. I mean, you can go into an izakaya (a pub, basically) and bellow for the waiter/waitress and they appear and bring you whatever you want within moments....and you don't even have to tip! That is WAY better than home. I asked Mrs.Khornholio for a cup of coffee while she was pouring hers and her answer was "テレビ 見る。” and she walked off.
I haven't been to a maid cafe, as it is too otaku for my tastes. No pants shabu shabu on the other hand...let me go get my keys
Monster Rain wrote:Maybe Hooters does objectify women. My question would be... so?
I wasn't aware of women being forced to work at these places at gunpoint. If they want to be objects, it's their business.
but you have to ask yourselve. Even if it is there choice is it good for society that men see them as nothing but objects.
I think that the men that go to Hooters and drop fat cash on skanky waitresses are also being objectified... as marks whose only purpose is to parted from their money.
Hooters: Ruining Daddy's life friendship one buffalo wing at a time.
I have no problem with Hooter's business model. Also, if the women felt uncomfortable working there then they have the right to quit or not even apply for the job. Quite honestly, if they want to work there go right on ahead. I think Daddy would be more mad that his daughter working as a day shift relief stripper then her working at Hooters.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Honestly, I am not a fan of Hooters. I find it to be repulsive and encouraging to our baser drives. Women are not objects, nor are they animals. It is comparable, in my mind, to the effect that the Adult industry has on society, especially on young men: it objectifies women. Also, their food sucks at Hooters....
Yeah, to me it isn't an issue about feminism, but one of how base the activity is. While I haven't been there from what I've heard it all seems pretty base to me. Now, I think there's a place in our lives for the basic - we've all been to buck's parties afterall. But that's a sometime thing, and at the buck's night you end up in the strip club, and there's a very big difference between the blokes who are there for the buck's night, and blokes who look like they're there all the time.
Hooters just seems like a place people are supposed to go and eat at all the time, it's a bit sad.
Or maybe I'm just lucky, I work at a university. Everyday there's hundreds of hot women walking about wearing less than the Hooters girls.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commander Endova wrote:A double standard exists where it's perfectly acceptable for a man to show off the most objectified part of his torso (a well formed six pack) in, say, a public beach environment, but a woman has to cover the most objectified part of hers.
A women's breasts are an important biological part of her ability to raise a child. Healthy boobs, healthy baby. Man boobs are not needed to raise the baby. So evolution would see to it that men are attracted to a decent pair of breasts, while women don't have the same drive.
The sexes are quite different, and pretending equality means pretending everything should be considered exactly the same is a fallacy.
So are we now going to picket the public pool since the female teenage life guard is wearing a skin tight bathing suit that leaves less to the imagination than the Hooter's uniform especially when a cool breeze blows by. We have to draw a line somewhere.
I went to the Hooters Casino in Las Vegas to get a drink of water after trying to walk the length of the airport, heading east from the strip in 42 degrees celcius at 1pm.
Got about a mile and a half, realised that the gun store I was going to was another 5 miles away so walked to the casino, had my drink and hopped into a taxi.
Why in the name of the Most Holy Emperor's Left, Right and Central Gonads would they have Hooters in Las Vegas? That's like drinking Artificial Apple-Flavoring Beverage at an Apple Juice Factory!
Pipboy101 wrote:So are we now going to picket the public pool since the female teenage life guard is wearing a skin tight bathing suit that leaves less to the imagination than the Hooter's uniform especially when a cool breeze blows by. We have to draw a line somewhere.
Who's picketing Hooters? There's a difference between thinking something is lame and wanting it banned.
And why are we ignoring context? A lifeguard is in an entirely different context than a Hooters girl.
Commander Endova wrote:A double standard exists where it's perfectly acceptable for a man to show off the most objectified part of his torso (a well formed six pack) in, say, a public beach environment, but a woman has to cover the most objectified part of hers.
A women's breasts are an important biological part of her ability to raise a child. Healthy boobs, healthy baby. Man boobs are not needed to raise the baby. So evolution would see to it that men are attracted to a decent pair of breasts, while women don't have the same drive.
The sexes are quite different, and pretending equality means pretending everything should be considered exactly the same is a fallacy.
But women do have a drive. Women like to see muscle-bound men for similar evolutionary reasons as men like to see well endowed women. Historically, a physically fitter male was usually a better hunter/fighter and thus better at procuring food for and protecting his mate and young. That's still a major factor in modern mating habits.
I'm not "pretending" any equality that doesn't actually exist. Men and women have the same equipment in that, but there's some variation in the "pattern" if you will. Female mammary glands default to "on" after puberty, while a man's remain off. But as it's already been sadi in this thread, under certain conditions, a man can produce milk.
My point is, both men and women have sexually attractive features on the torso. It's an annoying (because I like boobs) double standard that females are expected to cover theirs, whereas it's more acceptable for a male to display his.
Commander Endova wrote:
It's an annoying (because I like boobs) double standard that females are expected to cover theirs, whereas it's more acceptable for a male to display his.
garret wrote:First thing,first. Pleas no troll this. This a mature discussion about Hooters nad other related stuff.
A couple of girls in my class said they love hooters. The teacher then go into a discussion about how it is demaning and illegal.
he said it only looks at women as object he said if i rember the same with porn and strippers.
I dont beleive that. I beleive its actually empowering. It give women a chance to flount what the got. The get tons of money from men who hinge on there word.
What do you guys think.
Please lets keep this clean.
I believe the teacher should be fired for discussing this in the classroom. The principal should be fired for hiring such losers. The entire class should have to go wash my car and cut my yard if they are going to waste my tax payer dollars. The wieners are putting on safara hats when they go out into the jungle of my back yard.
There's a Hooters on the freeway near the house. When Genghis Connie was younger we had her waiving a fist and shouting out "Darn Hooters!" (I think because she scould shout Darn really loud and no one would get mad).
Monster Rain wrote:Hold the phone... I just realized that it was a male teacher saying it objectified women?
What a gakking nerd.
....
Because sensitivity and not viewing women as objects is sooooooooooooooooooooooo nerdy.
Have fun with Righty, mate. Because that's all the relationship you're ever going to have with that attitude.
I wouldn't normally have dignified this, but the ignorance reflected in that statement is hysterical. And yes, championing Feminism to impress high school girls is nerdy. And as mentioned above, somewhat creepy.
What would women do without you sensitive types to protect them?
Monster Rain wrote:Hold the phone... I just realized that it was a male teacher saying it objectified women?
What a gakking nerd.
....
Because sensitivity and not viewing women as objects is sooooooooooooooooooooooo nerdy.
Have fun with Righty, mate. Because that's all the relationship you're ever going to have with that attitude.
I wouldn't normally have dignified this, but the ignorance reflected in that statement is hysterical. And yes, championing Feminism to impress high school girls is nerdy. And as mentioned above, somewhat creepy.
What would women do without you sensitive types to protect them?
I find your views offensive. Thinking that the only reason a male teacher takes a view like that is to screw his students? Because hey, obviously, there's no reason for people to have progressive views at all!
I'm sure if it were a female student who'd said it, you'd think she was just a dyke trying to get into a female student's pants obviously.
By the by; if treating someone you're in an intimate relationship with as a human being is wrong and "sensitive", well then...
Teachers are actually strongly encouraged to take advantage of 'teachable moments' and impart what wisdom we have when subjects like this come up. I took a bit of classtime to discuss why using racial slurs, even if your friends were ok with them, is a bad habit to be in because it is still offensive language with my students. We had a spirited little back and forth, then moved on with the lesson.
I do agree that it would be in bad taste for a teacher to bring this up in class- that would be similar to introducing your personal values, which we are not supposed to do. However if it came up in class, and the teacher engaged the group in a discussion as to whether or not it was demeaning to women, then he probably did a good job.
As far as the sleeping with your students accusation goes, why on earth would a scumbag interested in exploiting young women champions their rights? There are good teachers out there with absolutely no desire for the vapid, flighty and tremendously shallow teenagers we must strive to educate on a daily basis.
garret wrote:First thing,first. Pleas no troll this. This a mature discussion about Hooters nad other related stuff.
A couple of girls in my class said they love hooters. The teacher then go into a discussion about how it is demaning and illegal.
he said it only looks at women as object he said if i rember the same with porn and strippers.
I dont beleive that. I beleive its actually empowering. It give women a chance to flount what the got. The get tons of money from men who hinge on there word.
What do you guys think.
Please lets keep this clean.
Modern day neo feminism is somewhat scary. It believes that a girl placed in a situation where men can drool over their physical figure is demeaning for a woman, dangerously objectifies them, and shows how base and perverse men are. Any man who argues with this viewpoint is a sexist. It is comparable to how anyone who mentions immigration in a negative context in this country is immediately dubbed a racist. Neo feminism believes that women should have careers, not stay at home and raise a family, and any suggestion that women might actually want to do that is dubbed sexist. If all professions are not occupied by 50% women, then they are clearly sexist institutions. Manners such as holding a door open for a lady, or paying for a first date are dangerously sexist, as they imply that a woman is incapable of doing these things for themselves. Such behaviour is clearly sexist, and must be eradicated from society.
I dislike neo-feminism intensely. It concentrates less on truely important issues, such as ensuring women are paid equally to men, and focuses on the difference between men and women, and seeks to make 'sexist' what is natural behaviour for men. Not only that, it is immensely judgemental of other women.
A good example of this is my own sainted mother. She is a housewife, and it is what she has chosen for herself. No-one made her do it. She has told me she resents neo-feminists telling her that she should have a career. She does not think that it is something she needs to have, because she has happy with the path she chose. She also hates the fact that because she disagrees with the neo-feminist viewpoint, she is ignored and judged to be 'brainwashed' by men. If you're not for Neo-feminism it, you're against it. It allows no-one to hold alternate viewpoints.
You may think this is an exaggeration, and that there aren't so many ultra hard neo-feminists around. However, like all forms of political correctness, neo-feminism has gained a huge sway in the Western World. You have people like Harriet Harman declaring that of the post of Deputy Prime Minister or Prime Minister, one should always be filled by a woman, and this should be made law. Such a law is positive discrimination. Margaret Thatcher and her own position show that it is possible for women to make it to the top, why should they have preferred treatment over men? Not only that, such a view could itself be seen as sexist, as it implies that a woman does not have the skills to make it to the top without the positive discrimination crutch. As such, this new Equality Bill is self defeating.
Neo-feminism tells a man that he should expect to be equal to women in all things. That women are as physically strong as he is, just as smart as he is, and that he should just as often be the one at home with the family. It demonises the attraction a man can have for a woman, by declaring it base and objectifying to women. Some of these points are good, and some of them are bad. The issue here, is that it seeks to plaster over the essential differences between men and women, and label any who disagree sexists. Like all political correctness, it seeks to render us all into people of identical viewpoints and behaviour.
It tells us it is bad for a man to lust after a woman for her looks, but does not account for the fact that is an essential part of the male psyche. It pervades womens magazines, telling the women of today that a man should be strong and dominating, yet kind and gentle, passionate, yet calm, have a career, yet stay home and play with the kids. It idolises this imaginary man that does not exist, and takes away what has always previously been a mans role and behaviour in society without providing anything to replace it. The result should be a society of emasculated men, who are not sure of their place in society, or how to think or behave when fighting against their natural instincts, to procreate, and protect and provide for their loved ones.
The reality is that like most forms of political correctness, people just ignore it and get on with their lives as they always have, unless they work in government or are ultra hard radicals. Neo-feminists are simply a very vocal minority. People will do what people will do, men will still make dick jokes and lust over random women, and women will still get pleasure out of showing off their features to mean and feeling attractive. Hooters is a prime example of this.
Nobody is forcing the girls to work at Hooters. As far as I'm aware the company is very open and honest about what they require from thier staff. Anyone who goes for a job there and doesn't realise this is either incredibly naive or very stupid.
If someone isn't happy with that then thats their opinion, they are entitled to it and to express it to anyone who wants to hear it. What they arent entitled to do is attempt to empress their beliefs onto young people who are very easily swayed by older persons.
When I was at school we had a teacher sacked for something very similar, he launched a bizzare rant about how women should not be allowed to wear trousers and they should not be allowed to serve as Police officers or in the Fire brigade. As the head teacher said at the time. He was entitled to his opinions but not to use his position to try and force them upon others.
Personaly I think that places like Hooters are fine, the bottom line is that you can veiw it both ways as both parties are being equaly demeaned and empowered at the same time.
Monster Rain wrote:My basic point is this: trying to make decisions for other people is lame.
If women are being objectified at Hooters it's because they choose to be, and frankly it's none of our business.
Unless you think it's somehow empowering for women to have concerned and sensitive men decide what's best for them.
Had the teacher been bodily pulling his students from Hooters, or forcing them to eat lunch there, you'd be right. He would be trying to make decisions for his students, which is questionable at best.
You are quite right, having someone protect you and make all your decisions for you is not empowering in the slightest. Someone challenging your beliefs and presenting an opposing point of view encourages individual thought- a quality in short supply amongst teenagers of either gender- which is the strongest empowerment available. The instant one of those girls is able to make an informed decision to support Hooters, the teacher's job is done.
In short, I agree with your basic point, but I don't think it applies to asking students to reflect on the moral implications of their choices.
squilverine wrote:Nobody is forcing the girls to work at Hooters. As far as I'm aware the company is very open and honest about what they require from thier staff. Anyone who goes for a job there and doesn't realise this is either incredibly naive or very stupid.
If someone isn't happy with that then thats their opinion, they are entitled to it and to express it to anyone who wants to hear it. What they arent entitled to do is attempt to empress their beliefs onto young people who are very easily swayed by older persons.
When I was at school we had a teacher sacked for something very similar, he launched a bizzare rant about how women should not be allowed to wear trousers and they should not be allowed to serve as Police officers or in the Fire brigade. As the head teacher said at the time. He was entitled to his opinions but not to use his position to try and force them upon others.
Personaly I think that places like Hooters are fine, the bottom line is that you can veiw it both ways as both parties are being equaly demeaned and empowered at the same time.
Its not relevant. Whether they can legally do something is not relevant to that point that it objectifies the women.
I think Ketara not only nailed this one, but knocked the ball clear out of the park. Political correctness does not get along well with common sense. I think hooters is just a prime example of sweet capatalism at work, it makes money and some people are willing to pay to go there. The costomers pay for a service, (ogoling attractive women and drinking overpriced beer), and the waitresses who work there are componsated. It's simply a win/win situation in which a business can make money. Untill Hooters waitresses go on strike or something for not being paid fairly, I see no reason to condemn it.
squilverine wrote:Nobody is forcing the girls to work at Hooters. As far as I'm aware the company is very open and honest about what they require from thier staff. Anyone who goes for a job there and doesn't realise this is either incredibly naive or very stupid.
If someone isn't happy with that then thats their opinion, they are entitled to it and to express it to anyone who wants to hear it. What they arent entitled to do is attempt to empress their beliefs onto young people who are very easily swayed by older persons.
When I was at school we had a teacher sacked for something very similar, he launched a bizzare rant about how women should not be allowed to wear trousers and they should not be allowed to serve as Police officers or in the Fire brigade. As the head teacher said at the time. He was entitled to his opinions but not to use his position to try and force them upon others.
Personaly I think that places like Hooters are fine, the bottom line is that you can veiw it both ways as both parties are being equaly demeaned and empowered at the same time.
Its not relevant. Whether they can legally do something is not relevant to that point that it objectifies the women.
What are you ON about? He was saying (in so many words) that objectification is part-and-parcel of the whole thing, and that if the girls who work at Hooters don't have a problem with that, then neither does he. Did he even mention legality?
I bring up Gaga a lot but she's quite the warrior on this sort of front (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m98QJ_QXc4). Sexuality is something that's unequal in the majority mindset. If a man sleeps with a lot of women, high five; if a woman sleeps with a lot of men, she's a filthy slut. I consider this a little unfair. Women are viewed as more sexual beings than men and have been throughout history (often associating them with evil or uncleanness in general). In that sense, their sexuality is a weapon; something that can be used to inspire or to advance, or something that can be sold out and be treated cheaply. I think it varies from woman to woman how they carry themselves and rather they're using it for "good," "evil" or maybe just to make money.
Because hey, obviously, there's no reason for people to have progressive views at all!
Sexuality is something that's unequal in the majority mindset. If a man sleeps with a lot of women, high five; if a woman sleeps with a lot of men, she's a filthy slut.
Would this be a good time to bring up the key and the lock analogy?
If you want a really good example of neo feminism go here, caution, the site is a joke site about 4chan but the story gets through.
A teacher in my opinion should not be going about saying that in class, that sounds much too like his personal views than it does imparting wisdom. If he says that that is his view on the subject, the kids should feel free discussing it amongst themselves but in that case he should stick out of it. Same thing goes for when there is a discussion on Iraq, or Guantanimo Bay, the only thing he should do in that kind of discussion is either present facts, not opinions, or shut the discussion down.
You want to know a country that doesn't have Hooter's, or strip clubs, the women are covered from head to toe, and where they don't even allow alcohol? Yeah, you guessed it. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and a few others... Do you think they got it figured out there, Turbo? No. Not even close.
Life is about choices. Good, Bad, just as long as you are out there trying and have the freedom to make them. No one is forced to Eat at, Work at, or look at the inside of a Hooter's. Life is not about siderails and safetybelts. Its about good and bad decisions.
Personally, Hooter's food sucks, and the outfits are silly. But its out there... Kinda like Howard Stern and Larry Flynt... I don't like them, but I'm glad they are out there doing what they do. Keeping it RAW and our rights in the light.
PS - Where are all the men at? So many folks are talking about women as objects and "base sexual desire" as if its something the general public wants to overcome... Unless you are a Borg you are in the minority. Women don't want to stop being sexy or attractive. On the contrary, sir.
News flash - women like to get dressed up for and compete with, other women.
I'm a huge fan of the bewbs, but if you're going to ask me to pay for fries (chips for our UK friends) on top of the $7 your asking me to pay for a burger then I'll go to Red Robbin down the street.
Thanks, but not thanks. I'll just ask the wife to whip out the sweater puppies.
Hooters food is total ass. What the waitresses wear is totally irrelevant. As a restaurant it's a total failure and as a strip club its a total failure.
Frazzled wrote:
Its not relevant. Whether they can legally do something is not relevant to that point that it objectifies the women.
Fair enough, lets see if there's a checklist for Objectification... oh look there is! just like Sports scores
Instrumentality - if the thing is treated as a tool for one's own purposes;
Denial of autonomy - if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination;
Inertness - if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency;
Ownership - if the thing is treated as if owned by another;
Fungibility - if the thing is treated as if interchangeable;
Violability - if the thing is treated as if permissible to smash;
denial of subjectivity - if the thing is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the 'object's' feelings and experiences.
replace "the thing" with "the hooters waitress" and see what you think.
I personally don't like the restaurant the food sucks(yep I said it), and I hate false flirting. Women though I would say are not demmend as they hold the cards in things like porn, stripping excettera. Who is the one getting screwed over the girl flaunting her assessts or the guy spending all his money just to think he may have a shot with her. Really it's a smart idea in that line of work to be a women. Sucks even more when the guy goes home to a pissed off wife
garret wrote:
Society dosen't need Hooters in order to "objectify" one another,people (yes men & women) have been doing that long before Hooters serverd their first crappy wing and over priced mug of beer.
If I want to see breasts, I'd go to a gentlemen's club. I can get crappy wings in any bar.
Am I the only one that likes Hooters buffalo wings?
I can honestly say that the few times I went to hooters was for the wings and not the ogling. It's offensive to me, that people automatically assume that someone eating at Hooters is there as a peeping tom instead of a wings customer.
I think there's a big step between wanting to open people's minds to think a different way and being an uber-feminist.
Give an inch lose a mile. It may seem innocent enough at the beginning but thats what it can lead into. Once they get their foot in the door its a lot easier to push them furth down the path to extreme feminism.
Hooters is no different than Bed, Bath, and Beyond. They both offer a product in an expected setting. If you don't like Bed, Bath, and Beyond - don't go there! If you don't like Hooters - don't go there, don't work there, and encourage your friends and family to not work there or patronize there.
I have a 4-1/2 year old daughter. I hope that she doesn't make a career out of working at Hooters. On the other hand, if she has a job there for a few years, while not happy, I'm not going to stone her to death or even just disown her.
Hey, Adepticon is this weekend. Anyone know where the closest Hooters is? Because it's not a gaming weekend without at least one trip to Hooters!
Khornholio wrote:They have Maid Cafes here where the waitresses are fully clothed in unsexy outfits.
The Japanese also have Soapland, which dispenses with the clothing, and deals entirely with varied action... ____
Oh, yeah, not a fan of Hooters restaurants. The girls, while friendly, are uniformly short, which isn't my taste.
If I want to see tail (& bewbs), I'll spend my money at a strip club. Preferably an all-nude one which leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination, and possibly showing what isn't typically seen outside of gynecology.
I don't find Hooters wings all that bad. Not the greatest I've had but not the worst either.
I think Fitzz mentioned rednecks going to applebees. Must be a southern thing because where I'm at the rednecks all pour into Burger King. Applebees in my town seems to be 90% college yuppie crowd.
generalgrog wrote:Am I the only one that likes Hooters buffalo wings?
I can honestly say that the few times I went to hooters was for the wings and not the ogling. It's offensive to me, that people automatically assume that someone eating at Hooters is there as a peeping tom instead of a wings customer.
GG
Maybe if you stopped wearing that grey trenchcoat?
It's fascinating to me that Icelandic feminists have become so radicalized that they're beginning to resemble Right-Wing Christian groups in some of their actions.
Obviously the motives aren't the same, but the desired result is identical...
Monster Rain wrote:It's fascinating to me that Icelandic feminists have become so radicalized that they're beginning to resemble Right-Wing Christian groups in some of their actions.
Obviously the motives aren't the same, but the desired result is identical...
I think Fitzz mentioned rednecks going to applebees. Must be a southern thing because where I'm at the rednecks all pour into Burger King. Applebees in my town seems to be 90% college yuppie crowd.
Perhaps I should have been a bit more specific,Applebees (along with Dennys,Golden Coral and Sizzler) are where the rednecks like to take their Lady friends when their feeling extra romantic.
As far as my opinion concerning Hooters,Meh,I don't go there (if I want to look at wigglely women,I'll go to a strip club.),but,I think it's much ado about nothing.
If it offends you,don't go.
If you don't wish to work there...don't.
Does Hooters objectify women,sure it does...and so does almost every other business and corperation in existance (to some extent).
I actually like the first 3 places mentioned. Never been to Sizzler.
I actually think Applebees makes a fine place to dine on a "date". But then in my town the most romantic place to eat is probably Pepper Corn (it's like a steak/winery restaurant with actual cloth napkins and private rooms and candlelight) and even that would be low brow, redneckish to someone in a city of millions with 100's of romantic places to choose from.
Fateweaver wrote:I actually like the first 3 places mentioned. Never been to Sizzler.
I actually think Applebees makes a fine place to dine on a "date". But then in my town the most romantic place to eat is probably Pepper Corn (it's like a steak/winery restaurant with actual cloth napkins and private rooms and candlelight) and even that would be low brow, redneckish to someone in a city of millions with 100's of romantic places to choose from.
Wasn't trying to come off snobbish Fate,Applebees is a fine place to take a date (I just hate their food).
I see your point concerning living in a small town,your options are certainly limited,back in New Orleans there are literaly thousands of restarunts to choose from,and of course now I live 5 minutes outside Atlanta,so it's much the same.
Amusingly enough,myGirlfriend often suggest we eat at Hooters ...I just keep on driving and looking for a Ruths Chris.
I like their wings. Okay wings IMO but not the best. Certainly not the worst.
Best wings I've had were Buffalo Wild Wings wings but than again my restaurant selection is very limited (and my budget as well).
Didn't say you were being snobby. Just pointing out that I can see why you wouldn't think Applebees is a "classy" joint compared to other places that are available to people in larger cities.
Khornholio wrote:They have Maid Cafes here where the waitresses are fully clothed in unsexy outfits.
The Japanese also have Soapland, which dispenses with the clothing, and deals entirely with varied action...
____
Oh, yeah, not a fan of Hooters restaurants. The girls, while friendly, are uniformly short, which isn't my taste.
If I want to see tail (& bewbs), I'll spend my money at a strip club. Preferably an all-nude one which leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination, and possibly showing what isn't typically seen outside of gynecology.
But who as the money for soapland? Not your average schmoo. And I know. I"m an average schmoo.
My views on the subject tend to go with the apathetic. Yes the point is easily made and true that it is degrading to people....who let it degrade them. People have free wills for a reason. If somebody wants to be oggled by guys to get tips who cares? Morals and ethics are simply ideals that are to be discussed and debated (in a manner that it has on this forum for example), not forced upon people who don't want to hear it with mindless protesting that blocks people from getting in. People have the right to protest but I have the right to ignore them and get to my legal destination unhindered. I have never personally eaten there because I like burgers more than wings and there always seems to be either a Chedders or Applebees nearby.
Monster Rain wrote:It's fascinating to me that Icelandic feminists have become so radicalized that they're beginning to resemble Right-Wing Christian groups in some of their actions.
Obviously the motives aren't the same, but the desired result is identical...
The complete and utter destruction of mankind?
Nah I kid... (they are watching me...)
We are watching closely.
Seriously, whats up with Iceland? Seems like some kind of aversion to making money to me. Strip clubs are just fine by me as long as the employees are fairly compensated and work there of their own volation. Not exactly my kinda place, but I hear its a great way for an attractive girl to pay off her student loans.
And yes, championing Feminism to impress high school girls is nerdy. And as mentioned above, somewhat creepy.
