Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ratbarf wrote:Whats Chippendales?

Chippendales is a touring company best known for erotic male dancing. It started as a nightclub in Los Angeles, California.

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:

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

Japan is pumping out awesome cartoons? Did they stop making anime, or are they doing them alongside each other?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Japan is pumping out awesome cartoons? Did they stop making anime, or are they doing them alongside each other?

^^, I was talking about anime in a satirical fashion.

Kilkrazy wrote:

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

garret wrote:

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.

The trouble with strip clubs isn't the stripping. It's the dangerous recruiting that goes on there.

Or so I hear.

Or bikini line infections from dirty litte paper cuts.

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.

That is my only experience with Hooters Inc.

Bit MEH for me.

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

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.

Canny that. I cannut buh concur, like man.

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.

Hold the phone... I just realized that it was a male teacher saying it objectified women?

What a gakking nerd.

Monster Rain wrote:Hold the phone... I just realized that it was a male teacher saying it objectified women?

What a gakking nerd.

Maybe he wanted to appear sensitive to his female students so he could have an affair with one of 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.

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).

Kanluwen wrote:

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?

So you think the view that hooters objectifies women is designed: 1) to impress high school girls; 2) is nerdy; and 3) is creepy?

Life is going to kick you hard in the crotch son. You'd better start wearing a cup.

Monster Rain wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

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...

I must be the biggest teddy bear in the world.

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.

My Stripclub Philosophy:

"Everybody gets Screwed, nobody get's Laid".

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.

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.