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.

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.

I have an indifferent atitude towards Hooters because in my opinion that's their choice,to work or not to work there.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Except once again, it seems like it was a discussion that was already going on and the teacher put his views in the ring against the children's.

Ok kiddies...


I've read your misguided musings quite enough.

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.

skipmcne wrote:
replace "the thing" with "any wait-staff or retail clerk" and see what you think.

Fix'd. By that definition your typical Wal-mart cashier gets objectified more often than any Hooters waitress.

@ratbarf: I think there's a big step between wanting to open people's minds to think a different way and being an uber-feminist.

I don't find hot women fungible.

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

FITZZ wrote:

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.

Hooters is for stupid tourists.

Valhallan42nd wrote:Hooters is for stupid tourists.

There are other kinds?

Having worked at Disney, I can say honestly that there are. They are as rare as Girl Gamers, but they exist.

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

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.

Maybe I'm being an optimist, but I think there are more balanced people than not. It's just that the extremists tend to be louder than everyone else

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!

Google knows:

Google Maps ahead.

I just got to Bali.

There are many Aussies here. All I have to say now is "Topless" + "Beach" = "Win".

That is all.

Khornholio wrote:I just got to Bali.

There are many Aussies here. All I have to say now is "Topless" + "Beach" = "Win".

That is all.

Hells to the yes.

Also, http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/#/videoarchive/S01E26dongers/

Lols for all.

Also, I am against hooters. When they are flaunting themselves in public, they aren't in kitchens making Sammiches.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/mar/25/iceland-most-feminist-country

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?

reds8n wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/mar/25/iceland-most-feminist-country

I take it there will be no more nude life drawing classes in Iceland.

Bang goes the Icelandic animation industry.