Why CA-NOW is Right About Hooters
December 23, 2010
by Patricia Garrison
|
For years, I’ve watched the National Organization for Women (NOW) sit out some of the major fights around sexism (or worse, take the wrong side of the fight). But this time, they are spot-on gutsy.
A California chapter of the organization has filed a complaint against the Hooters restaurant chain for being an inappropriate dining establishment for children. The complaint argues that the restaurant violates the state’s sexual entertainment laws and, as such, should bar anyone under the age of 18 from entering. In short, NOW contends that Hooters is a glorified strip club – not a friendly neighborhood eatery.
The move has conservatives howling in defense of Hooters and angry that the liberal NOW is homing in on the chain, while failing to take aim at Hollywood, the Internet and other purveyors of “real filth.” Conservatives can’t see past the organization’s liberal politic to realize that in this case, they led the charge.
It has been conservative organizations and political leaders that have fought the loudest against the objectification of females in the media and other public spaces recently, so it seems odd that they would dismiss NOW’s complaint because they don’t like the organization making it. NOW has, in my view, followed the conservative’s lead here, and I know plenty of women – liberal and conservative — who are more than happy to see Hooters get an ass-kicking.
This is a restaurant that is built on the sexualization of young women. Its core branding concept – to use well-endowed waitresses to titillate male customers — gives NOW plenty of ammunition. In fact, Hooters has publicly claimed that it is not a typical family restaurant.
Yet, the chain wants it both ways. Despite describing itself as something other than a family restaurant, it features children’s meals, booster seats and a little “future Hooters girl in training” tee-shirt for your toddler! Children are now 10% of its business, which is strong market share for a company so dedicated to making a buck off women’s bodies that it has fought numerous legal challenges to its hiring policy by claiming that it must discriminate against males and hire only women with big breasts for its business model to succeed.
In a recent statement, the vice president of Hooters America called the NOW complaint “ridiculous” and said it is time for NOW “to accept the fact that the public likes Hooters and there is really nothing they can do about it. Hooters is no more in violation of California’s adult entertainment codes than the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition is.”
But, here’s the difference – Sports Illustrated markets itself to adult men. There are no ads for toys or stuffed animals – no content for children on the cover or inside. If you want to be a ‘gentlemen’s club’, then do so, targeting your marketing to men and abiding by the laws for sexual establishments. But, if you push the boundaries into the world of children to make even more money, and then have the audacity to sell a shirt that celebrates a child’s future career as a sex object, you’ve crossed a line. “Accept the fact?” NOW, for once, is ready to rumble.
And, they’re not alone.
This is a GREAT issue for NOW to take on! Honestly, I never would have thought this would be an issue because I never would have even imagined that Hooters would have a kid’s menu and toddler seats!!! Who in their right mind would take a child to Hooters???
I’ve always laughed at and mocked this restaurant chain whenever I passed them but now I am angry. Hooters can go to hell for making money off of children and I imagine NOW is ready to take them there.
Interesting that NOW would pick this fight when they have a 25 year history of ignoring degrading Corporate Media images of women. I would guess Hooters is owned by Republicans and this is some sort of a beginning to a Liberal/Progressive campaign to point out that the Liberal/Progressive sexist pigs in Hollywood are not any worse than the Republican sexist pigs who run Hooters.
My thoughts are they are all dick brained idiots do not understand the power of the female audience/consumer and that women are forced to subsidize Corporate media’s sexism when they sign on for Basic Cable but women can easily avoid financial interaction with Hooters. I guess any pro woman action form NOW is so rare that it is news worthy.
I want to know why NOW is taking parenting away from the parents. As a woman, I see nothing wrong with other women, who have bodies they are proud of, choosing to work at Hooters. As a mother, I elect not to take my children there.
The problem with liberal NOW is that they think they have the right to speak for everybody, and are demanding government take more of our choices from us. This is a far cry from conservatives being up in arms about the media objectifying women. These are people making personal choices both for themselves and their children that is none of NOW’s business.
And why do you all hate Hooters so much anyway? What is it about women making personal choices about their own bodies that pisses you all off so much? It’s not like they’re being drugged and forced into waitressing in tight clothes…
Jen: It is true the only thing some women have to market is their bodies which I do find pathetic and want to avoid witnessing but it is very easy to avoid Hooters and very easy to avoid financial support of Hooters. Hooters does not gate-keep other businesses out of the market so there are plenty of restaurants for women to go to.
With media you have five or six profoundly sexist corporations who flood the market with distorted sexist imagery of women and who gate keep new ideas and programs from reaching the market. Women are forced to subsidize these sexist shows and corporations with their basic cable payment just because they want clear reception on PBS. There is no way for women to avoid financially subsidizing sexist Corporate Media who actively seek to limit authentic programing for women consumers. Until internet TV that is, and I predict that will make a huge change in Corporate Media behavior. Sooner or later they will have to face the fact that women consumers now have choices and they aren’t going to pay for sexist garbage or the crap males label “Women’s Content”. Corporate Media only know how to force feed and extort payment from the female audience and they are about to find out they have very little to sell us.
Just to clarify, it is not the women of Hooters that I take issue with. What I do take issue with is the Hooters corporation, and its efforts to woo families with young children, while at the same time making it plain that they are not “family” at all.
As a mother, I elect not to take my children there.
I think the people taking children to Hooters are mostly fathers.
What I do take issue with is the Hooters corporation, and its efforts to woo families with young children, while at the same time making it plain that they are not “family” at all.
True. If they cater to everyone – men, women, children – then they should not be able to discriminate against male waiters. If they use the excuse of a business model that caters to adult men to justify discriminating against male waiters, then they should not be trying to attract children. They want to have it both ways to avoid legal consequences.
I agree with Jen and with Pat…this is about personal responsibility. Women who choose to work at Hooters for the dough – that is their call. But children don’t choose to go to Hooters. Yes, we can’t enforce grown ups to be good parents, but we can call out corporations for purposely targeting children and teaching boys and girls that this environment is suitable for them to be exposed to!
It is important for businesses to be put in the correct business category and it is very possible that Hooters belongs in the “sex selling establishment” category not the “family restaurant” category and the state should check into the situation. I would say if they are allowed to not employ male waiters because it would not be consistent with their business model then they are a sex selling establishment.
I think this is an interesting topic for New Agenda to post about but I think it is a random issue for NOW to take up. However the fact that NOW is doing anything regarding images of women is news worthy and should be applauded.
Here is the problem that I have with the liberal thought process, and this, I think, is why I am pushing back against this thing with NOW; liberals pass out condoms to middle schoolers, think that it is the responsibility of the Public School System to explain homosexuality to kindergarteners, advocate for 12 year old girls to have abortions without parental notification, yet they have a problem with kids going to Hooters. The hypocrisy is nauseating. It isn’t about exposing kids to sex or sexism. Everyone who truly has an issue with children at Hooters is nothing more than a “useful idiot” being manipulated to collapse a successful corporation, which we all know the extreme left hates more than anything.
For me, this whole thing goes back to personal choices and responsibility, which is another thing the extreme left hates. Why shouldn’t a parent decide whether to bring his children to Hooters? Do you think Mom doesn’t have a say, or Dad is doing it “on the sly”? In this age? We all know how awesome a 6 year old is at keeping a secret; and coming home with a “future hooters girl” t-shirt is going to give it away. I’m not buying the “it’s the dads” argument; it’s weak. Besides, moms have more say than ever before in how a home is run, and what the children are taught.
The bottom line is that women are beautiful, with all of our curves and our soft lines. We are pleasing to look at. Men like boobs and we have boobs, and no amount of clamoring for men to stop liking boobs or women to stop showing cleavage is going to make a spit of difference in the long run. You can’t change basic human nature no matter how much you want to or how much you try.
Little boys grow up to be men, and little girls grow up to be women. Hooters is a restaurant, it’s not a brothel. Kids aren’t watching their dads grope the waitresses, or get a “happy ending” after lunch. They are in there having curly fries, and watching a group of women enjoying who they are and what they do.
And as an aside, having a business model that requires the hired help to be female and attractive isn’t discrimination; it’s a business model, and it is the way a privately owned company wants to run it’s business. If you don’t like it, don’t go there. If enough people don’t like it, then enough people won’t go there and either the business will close or change its model in order to be successful. If, however, enough people do like it, it will stay open and continue to be a successful business, and you will continue to choose different eateries. Everyone wins.
Jen, when the restaurant floated the idea of having well-built, scantily dressed young MALE waiters in the place about a decade back, all of a sudden all those first-amendment luvin’ types who “celebrated sexuality” turned into censorship-luvin’ fainting little flowers real fast. Why, WE he-men can’t be forced to look at nicely built MEN! We might turn fag!
Suddenly, the vaunted defenses of men “displaying their sexuality” and “freely chosing to work there” were nowhere to be found. All of a sudden, the virgin delicate eyeballs of the menz who patronized the place had to be protected at all costs from the immoral and degrading young male ass in dolphin shorts.
GMAFB. Screech as loudly at stuff like that, and I’ll start to take you seriously. Until then, I want some male cheesecake, and until dah menz stop preventing me from getting it — and that was exactly what happened — they flat out FORCED Hooters to abandon the plan, no matter how many people might have liked it — I support NOW’s decision to do to the men who go to that dump what they did to female customers: keep them from getting what they want. Get in their way until they get the hell out of ours.
“The bottom line is that women are beautiful, with all of our curves and our soft lines. We are pleasing to look at”
Here is the problem with that statement. That male view of sex isn’t the ONLY view of sex and it isn’t even the average or normal view of sex as men are a minority. Just as many men as women are gorgeous, most women like to look at gorgeous men and that is a side of normal sexuality that joints like Hooters can’t cope with. So in the Hooters model women’s sexuality exists to please men and the part of human sexuality where women sit on their average sweat panted bums happily checking out hot men is taboo because it doesn’t serve men. It is a complete distortion of human sexuality and that is why most women find it offensive.
I do agree that Hooters is easy to avoid unlike Corporate Media and they do not attempt to gate keep other restaurants from reaching consumers. However if they sell sex they should conform to the government zoning and regulations of sex selling businesses and that includes not marketing to children. How hard is this? If children are not a major component of Hooters business then not marketing to them or excluding them from the establishment should not impact them financially.
NOW’s argument is that that Hooters allows children and they don’t think this should be the case, and they want the government to take the choice away from the parents. My position is that it is hypocritical and counterintuitive to the other movements that NOW and other left leaning organizations support, and whether to bring a child to the restaurant should be left to the discretion of the parents. Your argument is that the boys broke your toy back then, so now that they have a toy, you’re going to break it. Not only are you playing “useful idiot” to NOW’s case against Hooters for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with their case, you are behaving like a spoiled little girl who stamps her foot and holds her breath when she doesn’t get her way.
I rose to the top of a male dominated field by not behaving that way, and I won’t do it now because I can’t go eat wings at an establishment where my waiter is a sweaty bag of ego in nylon short shorts.
When the population as a whole can trust that we will react to a situation with logic and deductive reasoning, then we will soar. As long as our reactions are based in emotion and feelings, we will never achieve all that we are capable of, because we will forever be thought of as whiny, bitchy and unpredictable.
I choose not to go to Hooters, but I would not purport to make that choice for other people. There are no victims at Hooters, however, there will be if the left effectively cuts their business by driving away a portion of their clientele. If NOW gets their way, there will be layoffs and restaurant closings in an economy that is already souring by the day. Because you want to be petty and vindictive, you are supporting the further collapse of an already fragile economy.
The thing is, in this case, as in media, you have a huge gap between what women who sell their sexuality and the female audience or customers want. Women who work in the distorted system that sells sex to men want to continue plying their wares before their expiration date because they have little else to offer. Comically after they finish their run as pieces of ass they think they can retire to making “women’s content”. Women audience want real entertainment and they want this ridiculous male model of sex and all the people who profit from it out of their faces. One part of this whole charade that I find stunning is men actually believe the women who sell sex are “leaders among women”. So we are supposed to be worried when they lose their jobs because they are old and we are supposed to be interested in helpful hints from these women on make up, exercise and anything else that can be sold when in fact women just want this idiotic model of human sexuality and all the women who benefit from it out of their faces.
Actually I can’t figure out why someone hasn’t started a chain of women’s lounges in malls. Not copy catting the low standards of male audience but aimed at the interests of female mall clients. So gorgeous personable guys in a fantasy decorated establishment who can offer a delicious meal for 500 calories under $20 per person. Tell me that wouldn’t succeed. Actually offering old broad birthday parties there would be a great idea as well as chick flick night, book club night, bunco night and stitch and bitch night.
Jen: Who is “you”. As I understand it NOW wants Hooters subjected to the laws that govern establishments that sell sex if they are allowed to continue their sexual discrimination in hiring in order to preserve their sexual atmosphere. That seems completely reasonable to me. Our society has a long established pattern of keeping businesses who sell sex away from impressionable children regardless of their parents opinion.
You couldn’t pay most female customers to go to some dump with neon orange as the dominant decorating color and eat greasy chicken wings with or without the tit and ass or pecs and ass. If you want to do a Hooters for women you would need gorgeous personable guys in attractive classy outfits, drop dead decor, I’m going out on a limb here but I think you could ban the color orange altogether. I think it should be sort of exotic, maybe a Persian theme. The food would need to have good nutritional value and calorie content that fits a woman’s eating patterns. I would have a section for women and children and a child free section. And I am thinking you could simultaneously take on the diet industry by having a glass case near the checkout that offered 100 calorie fresh pre-packaged snacks and 400 calorie fresh lunches and dinners. Push some kind of all fresh diet plan along with the female centric sex and relief from nutrition planning and preparation. And of course any chair in a shopping mall has a few minutes of attraction. Oh but wait you would need some male banker to approve the plan. Seriously I have eaten in circus, cheap 1950s cafeteria, greasy burger joint, jungle, British, etc themed mall restaurants but no one has tried the theme I just stated probably because you couldn’t get male bank approval and that is what it takes.
The problem is with families that bring in their children. They don’t let them watch pornography on tv at home so why bring their children to hooters? I used to be a hooter’s girl in college and it was always weird when families used to come in. And no, it wasn’t always fathers who would bring in their kids, but mothers too but most of the time it was the ENTIRE family. A lot of times the families knew one or more of the girls who worked there. And it’s not like hooters dominates the restaurant arena, you specifically have to seek out a hooters.
And please Janis, hooters does not owe you anything. If you want to open up your own restaurant with men then do so, but stop complaining that MEN should provide YOU with a service. Men don’t complain, they just make it happen. No wonder men don’t take women seriously because women like you just whine incessantly as if men should do everything for you because….you have a vagina or something.
My guess is NOW is just doing this to get some money out of hooters. How much do you want to bet they will settle the case out of court for some amount of cash.
Well I don’t see how conforming to state determined regulations for sex businesses would ruin anyones fun at Hooters and I think NOW has a legitimate argument that if they need a sexist hiring policy to stay in business then they are a sex business. Some parents make the decision to take their small children to R rated movies, and some parents make the decision to rent their children out for sex or give their children alcohol to put them to sleep. The laws step in and say this is wrong and that is a well established process so the only question would be at what point does the state step in and that is a legitimate legal question?
I would actually wonder just how profitable this business model is anyway because you are basically restricting your clientele to mostly groups of guys I would guess although I have heard of a group of pathetic women who went there to hit on guys. Is Hooters a franchise? Because it could be that the real business is selling the franchise to suckers. But I doubt that NOW is seeking money from Hooters as it would seem that NOW is addressing the state licensing bureau or possibly the zoning regulations but not interacting with Hooters directly. I think this should be a very interesting case since it is taking place on the west coast which has more female representation in government and the courts than the east coast. And also it points out that there is more than one “women’s opinion”, at the very least there is the opinion of the women who are highly invested in the malecentric view of sex and then there is the completely separate interest of women citizens and women audience. Usually the interests of the female audience or consumer is not considered at all even though it would be very lucrative to cater to women consumers. I look forward to seeing how this plays out.
OK I have just about finished with my Christmas Eve dinner preparation procrastination but this is interesting. Hooters is a franchise and it went up for sale in February of 2010 the old guy who owned it died several years ago and he left the company to his son and daughter who are in the process of settling the estate. It has been sold to Wellspring Capital Management. The sale should be complete by Dec. 31, 2010. I think it is more likely Hooters is seeking notoriety from NOW than NOW is seeking money from Hooters.
How is hooters seeking notoriety from NOW? It’s not like they forced them to file a complaint against their own company. Also families have been going to hooters for as long as it has been around so this is nothing new.
Hooter’s is indeed very profitable. How else can a company survive for more than 2 decades when something like 95% of all companies fold in the first year. Although their time may be coming to an end. Hooters is too tame as a sex establishment and their food is not that great compared to a decent restaurant. And I agree with you, the orange outfits are ugly as hell.
Ok so a woman sues McDonald’s because she cant say no to her two year old…San Francisco says no to parents who choose to take their children for happy means, junk food that it is…Hooters has women dressed in sexist clothes, not unlike the beach,and again do gooders think they have the right to over rule parents decisions. Mrs Obama dictates what kids can eat because according to her” the parents cant or wont”. When did courts and government gain the right to substitute the state’s” views” of parenting for the parent’s decisions. If there is no market for children’s meals no one will buy them, be they at McDonalds or Hooters and it is not the government or organizations rights to overule parental judgement here.
As many here know, I got my economic start a a co founder of Chippendale’s in the mid 70′s- so I can tell you clearly that the woman’s counterpart to Hooters and the like remains a viable business model,( although those who bought my business changed it radically- to its detriment I think) and would succeed today as it did back then- but the state shouldn’t be involved in the marketplace. People can vote with their pocketbooks…Enough of the nanny state already…time to go back to encouraging businesses to grow and hire not lose money and go out of business. If NOW doesn’t like their local Hooters, they offer huge sums of money to the franchisee and should buy it and close it.
I view Hooters as a result of male dominated control of society and their definition of women. It’s another example that the male definition of women is exclusively about their bodies and NOT their intellect.
The core issue here is not parenting, it’s how women are conditioned to use their bodies to “get ahead” or to feel accepted or whatever, and how men exploit that mentality, which they help create and perpetuate for their own selfish pleasure.
According to the new documentary”Missrepresentation”, women won’t receive parity with men for another 500 years, if we keep going at the rate we are now. The link to the film clip below shows why that’s so. It also supports what I, along with others who visit this site, have been advocating with regard to the kind of strategy we need to employ if we want to bring change sooner than 500 years from now — we must focus on the way women view themselves, because the men will NEVER change their present collective view of women on their own, if we don’t. That change must come from women themselves first. The only way that will happen is for us to stop focusing on how men view us and start focusing on how we view ourselves and what we must do to change this self-defeating attitude taught to us on a daily basis through the media, music, movies, magazines, sports, television. You name it, women are constantly viewed as secondary to men and nothing more than sexual objects put here for their pleasure.
As far as I’m concerned, Hooters is just another example of the poor self image women have of themselves and I refuse to discuss it’s existence in the context of “free speech”. It exists because of how men view women. I, on the other hand, view Hooters in the context of the image it creates and perpetuates about women not only to young girls but to young boys as well, and how little they are valued in our society.
IMO, the primary reason men didn’t like the idea of young men being exploited in the same way by allowing them to work at Hooters is because they know that such an image will undermine male superiority in the eyes of society and put them on the same level as women. Men know that “image” is a powerful influence and never want to undermine their ability to control and define women in such a way as to break their confidence in themselves, which is why, they can never allow the same thing to be done to men.
Alice Walker said something that goes to the heart of why women are still second class citizens: “The most common way people give up their power is by believing they don’t have any.” Therein lies the biggest obstacle women must overcome as far as how they view their place in the world. I hope you will take a moment to view this trailer of the documentary, which I think should be viewed by MEN, as well as women:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
Well, there seems to be a basic disagreement in this thread about how much the government should legislate. I personally have no issue with the government saying that children are not allowed into strip clubs and I would have no issue with the government saying that children are not allowed into Hooters.
Henrietta,
I would have no issue if society recognized why places that exploit young women should not be allowed at all.
Iceland banned strip clubs and prostitution. Obviously, the women AND men had to be in agreement for this to happen. So, now we know that it is possible for this kind of change to occur, regardless of the many arguments that state this this is just not possible because of the way men are “wired”.
I also can’t help but believe that by Iceland taking this definitive step towards ending the exploitation of women has not only been a positive one on their society and the women of Iceland, but also for the men too. Is it so far fetched to believe that men would be better off not being controlled so much by their lust? Anyone who advocates exploiting young women for men’s sexual pleasaure is anything but respectful of women as human beings and debases men as human beings as well.
More importantly, such a change would go a long way in making the world a better place in which to live, resulting in less war and violence, which surely we can agree flourishes from this sick, perverted male view of women and sex.
Back in the mid 70′s two fellows and i started what became Chippendales. Obviously it was fairly successful. Although the new owners of Chippendales changed the business model putting them into casinos, I continue to believe that the old model works. Hooters to me is rather tame compared to the beach and stuff the teens watch on TV…The question becomes, not should you bring your children there…as I do not think you should, but if you choose to -and Hooters is basically just a lousily( is that a word?) themed restaurant – should the state prevent you from doing so because it is offensive to some. And I think not…just like I do not like censorship,government interference in my life, rules rules and more rules, and laws regulating clothing styles , book bans, etc. In school we learned the phrase, buyer beware and consumer rights…that is what is applicable here.
Hooter is actually two companies, the original fellows who started it and the franchise group…the latter is the one presently run by a brother and sister and the one for sale. They were featured on undercover boss a few weeks ago
Well I think you all have interesting points and I hope we get to see a court opinion on zoning or the regulation of sex selling businesses.
I also think it is possible that Hooters is not a profitable restaurant other than selling franchises to suckers has always been a big business. Seriously, who came up with the idea of a bunch of tit and ass restaurants in malls? Men don’t go to malls and men don’t shop. My husband only purchases at J C Penney’s because they have out door entrances and the men’s department is by the door. So he parks by the men’s dept door, buys pants that have the size permanently engraved on the butt and returns directly to the car. I’ve said “do you want to shop some since we are here?” He says “what do you want to shop for?” I say “stuff”, he says “what stuff” I say “I don’t know just shop” He says “well if you don’t know what you are shopping for how do you know what store to go to and how will you know when you find it?” I look at him like he is an idiot. He is perfectly happy walking around in goofball outfits and recently my daughter threw out most of his clothes and purchased appropriate outfits for him on his credit card and he is perfectly happy with that arrangement also. So seriously the Powers That Be put a tit and ass restaurant in malls for men? No wonder the economy is in shambles it’s run by dick brained idiots. If they want their ace shoppers to come to the mall they should put in a lushly decorated restaurant that serves a variety of under 500 calorie meals featuring attractive male waiters who don’t have clickers glued to their hands during all waking hours and who talk in complete sentences. The fact that a dump like hooters exists in a mall is evidence that only male centric business ideas can be approved in this culture regardless of how breathtakingly stupid men’s ideas are.
I haven’t read every word of every comment, but it appears that Bes has come closest to getting the real issue here.
The issue is not about protecting children from exposure to inappropriate sexual material, but about Hooters gaining an unfair competitive advantage over other family-type restaurants. By claiming it operates as a business providing sexual entertainment, Hooters is able to skirt employment discrimination laws by (a) hiring only females as servers, (b) hiring only those females who meet specific physical standards, and (c) subjecting those females in their employ to periodic weigh-ins and other physical measurement tests and terminating those who no longer meet the standard.
If Hooters wants to be able to discriminate in hiring and firing, they cannot claim to be both “sexual entertainment” and a “family restaurant.” It is unfair to other family restaurants who must operate within employment discrimination law.
It’s not about “save the children” or denying parental choice. It’s about business competition, pure and simple. If they’re not already doing so, this is how NOW should frame the discussion.
Bruce,
You are right – Hooters is tame compared to some of the crap kids can see on television. TV is regulated to some extent and I’d approve of further regulation. I guess I am a more pro-regulation than a lot of people here, at least at the state level.
I agree, some of the crap that you can watch on television is about as bad as what you can find in a strip club. Still, I am glad that children are not allowed into strip clubs. I think being in an actual physical environment that is very controlled (like a strip club or a Hooters) does come with an added impact and for this reason I absolutely support regulation that would prohibit children from access to Hooters.
It’s not a matter of “degree” when it comes to Hooters being tame compared to what is on TV, it’s, as Bes says, “a male centric idea”.
I love how everyone gets caught up in the legal aspsect of Hooters, while totally ignoring what Hooters truly represents. Society is a reflection of what men want, even at the expense of young girls and women. Why is that acceptable under any legal analysis? The implied acceptance of this kind of exploitation based on some legal concept, rather than a social one, is indicative of just how powerful conditioning of women has been by a predominantly male society has been that we are blinded to our own complicity in keeping us subjugated to the male definition of who we are and what our purpose is.
Ask yourself why men are so adamently against this same kind of exploitation of men. Then ask yourself why women aren’t as adament for the same reasons.
I’ve never seen men protesting outside a Chippendale’s. And I’m pretty sure playgirl is run by men. It mostly seems that men don’t care about these establishments.
Kelly,
Men would care if they lived in the world that women lived in. If most everything were designed with women in mind, if women were the leads in most every movie and if women had the majority of power… And if men were denigrated to the sex class or another subservient class that served women… Men would surely have their own version of NOW who would be offended by Chippendale waiters serving lunch to little boys with their families.
Henrietta’s right that men would care a hell of a lot if they lived in the world they’ve forced women to live in. The chippendale man is not made to feel that the only value they have in society is the exploitation of their bodies.
Here’s an example of how men couldn’t handle living in a woman’s world…haven’t you noticed how men get up-in-arms over affirmative action which has tried to level the playing field by making certain a minority gets the job once in a while, instead of exclusively being given to a white male? Men, especially white men, are accustomed to having first dibs on everything and feel entitled to it whether they’re qualified or have earned it. If they didn’t feel entitled, they would not feel the need to do whatever necessary to maintain control and have power over everything in order to ensure that they do get whatever they want “first”. Let one woman or a minority get something they think they are entitled to and they scream bloody murder about how unfair and wrong affirmative action is to them and that it should be abolished. Yet, ironically, they are deaf, dumb and blind to the far, far worse injustices they’ve perpetrated for centuries against women.
That attitude comes from centuries of viewing women as objects, not worthy of their respect. The way men view women who strip or sell their bodies is with an underlying contempt and disrespect. It’s a totally different experience for the men because women don’t view men who strip with the same contempt or disrespect.
Just for the record at our first( of 26) club, Chippendales, in West LA, on several occasions sponsored fundraisers for NOW LA…no protests from anyone…including my old friend Gloria Allred then very active with NOW LA..and to the best of my recollection we never had protests of the clubs except for a suit by Gays demanding a gay night for them as the club only let in women…frankly men simply didnt care and in fact took advantage of the “For ladies only” policy by lining up at 10:30 to come into the club after the show ended
bruce,
you totally take out of the equation the different world in which men live in, as compared to women. I’ve read your posts and know that you are a supporter of women’s equality, but I don’t understand your being so obtuse about this. What you have shown me is that even those men who do have respect for women, still have a difficult time putting understanding just how different it is for women living in a world where they have very little power. That difference is everything and cannot be ignored.
You obviously did not read what Henrietta said, which explains astutely why men don’t protest clubs like chippendales:
“If most everything were designed with women in mind, if women were the leads in most every movie and if women had the majority of power… And if men were denigrated to the sex class or another subservient class that served women… Men would surely have their own version of NOW who would be offended by Chippendale waiters serving lunch to little boys with their families.”
When one group has all of the power, that group doesn’t need to protest being exploited, particularly when that same group is the one doing the exploiting. Men have no fear of being viewed as or made subservient by working at chippendales. They wouldn’t do it otherwise. I can’t believe you don’t see that.
It is hardly obtuse to take a position that one should not legislate morality( because then whose morality controls). That the individual has rights to choose or not to choose to do certain activities. Once we start down that slipperly slope of legislation and litigation then who is to say whose rights will be trampled upon by legislation or litigation. The market place can easily take care of sleazy businesses like Hooters. Dont patronize them, dont work there, picket if you will to educate potential customers and the like, but stuff like this doesnt belong in a courtroom whose job is to interpret laws not make them, nor in the legislature whose job should be to foremost protect our constitutional rights against people who believe that rights come from the state to the people rather than that the people grant certain rights to government and those not granted remain with the people
To me NOW CA is just grandstanding.Rather than involved itself in legislating morality in the market place, they would have been better served defending Carrie Prejean, Srah Palin, Michelle Malkin,Meg Whitman etc and using their influence to prevent sexism in politics and the like. There their activities would be appropriate and in fact should be demanded…but alas the president of NOW CA called Whitman a whore rather than protect her and were noticaby absent in the other situations where their position as a spokesgroup for some women would have been most welcome.
By the way if we legislate morality…whose is to govern? Pro life/pro chose ? Gay marriage? Freedom of Speech and assembly? These issues are best left to individuals to decide for themselves just like the Hooters situation.
bruce,
You just don’t get it. As I said above, being a man, it is clear that you really cannot conceive of a world in which women live, where there primary worth to those in power (men) is their bodies, not their minds. What about a woman’s right to live up to her full potential, without being discriminated against because of their gender?
You talk about “freedom of speech” as if “how” it’s used by those in power is exempt from criticism when it is abused. What about a woman’s freedom to make the same money as a man, doing the same work? That freedom has been taken away precisely because men do not see women beyond their bodies and all the talk in the world about “freedome of this or that” doesn’t make that right.
What good is freedom of speech or any freedom for that matter, when it is used to oppress over half the population?
Kathleen you are totally correct and we must take every step to remedy those injustices and to fight sexism in the marketplace, in politics, TV etc and I do not have to be female to understand that and to understand the inequities that exist…yet I still think that the way to change society is not through more government controls( as one must always fear who exercises them)but in the hearts and minds of people. That is why in this day and age many men can conceive of a female president…a concept foreign a decade ago, and other changes in the societal psyche but legislation and litigation is not the way to challenge a sick business like Hooters, the marketplace is.
This is a really great bunch of comments! I am sorry I am last to the party. We had (emphasis on HAD) a Hooters up here in my part of western NY and it went out of business in a year or two. It was only down the street from a strip joint so apparently they thought that they could share in the clientele (or something like that). They are gone. No one was interested in their chicken wings when you can go to anywhere here and get great ones.
I think the food at Hooters is less than sub-par. I had a client take me to Hooters for lunch because he wanted chicken wings. I dropped him as a client the very next day. He got the message loud and clear. I frequent restaurants with my family that I enjoy. I will write up great reviews on sites like TripAdvisor ranking family restaurants high. I won’t even give Hooters the time of day because they are not worth my time. Any attention is attention to their benefit, so I choose to ignore them because that is within my control. I think their business plan is sub-par like their chicken wings. So since it is within my control to ignore them and go out of my way to recommend their competition, hopefully their fifteen minutes will pass like the pet rock.
And I have frequented diners and other eating establishments that have handsome male waiters. Janis, they are out there and you can order your fries and drool at the male eye-candy all you want. Just no touchy. It doesn’t have to be part of the business plan to have attractive staff.
bruce, You just don’t get it. As I said above, being a man, it is clear that you really cannot conceive of a world in which women live, where there primary worth to those in power (men) is their bodies, not their minds. What about a woman’s right to live up to her full potential, without being discriminated against because of their gender? You talk about “freedom of speech” as if “how” it’s used by those in power is exempt from criticism when it is abused. What about a woman’s freedom to make the same money as a man, doing the same work? That freedom has been taken away precisely because men do not see women beyond their bodies and all the talk in the world about “freedome of this or that” doesn’t make that right. What good is freedom of speech or any freedom for that matter, when it is used to oppress over half the population?
Bruce,
You definitely have a libertarian bone and I am just wondering how far it goes. Would you suggest removing legislation that bans children from entering stripclubs?
Henrietta: I know I have been called insensitive to women here during this thread but I am not nor do my posts either here today ( Merry Christmas to all by the way) nor in the past I think would so indicate- I believe that we granted powers to the government not the other way around and I am skeptical whenever government tries to usurp further powers; Hoosters is not a strip club but a themed restaurant with lousy food,that picked a lousy theme in my view and one I would not support with my dollars nor should anyone else. Strip clubs, like Chippendales are bars and children should not be in bars so no I would not favor repealing such legislation but I would suggest that parents first and foremost must parent and it is not the states job to usurp that role as Ms Obama believes it should in the meal arena and that parents not the “village” should raise their children.
bruce,
You said:
“yet I still think that the way to change society is not through more government controls( as one must always fear who exercises them)but in the hearts and minds of people. That is why in this day and age many men can conceive of a female president…a concept foreign a decade ago, and other changes in the societal psyche but legislation…”
When you say “societal psyche”, you are clearly talking about men who believe it is their right to decide whether women have the same rights and freedoms that they have. That is the problem, not the solution.
Also, when it comes to places like “Hooters”, I’m not talking about government control, or legislation, I’m talking about male control over the image of what and who women are in a society. I’m against anything that puts women in a subservient role in order to appease the male need to control and maintain power, not to mention, perpetuates this image in the minds of young girls and boys. As long as we stand complacently by and accept these images, women will never break out of the prison men have built for them.
Also, when it comes to men finally being able to “conceive of a female president”, I refer you to the link I posted above to a recent documentary film, “Misrepresentation”, which asserts that at the rate we’re going now, women won’t receive parity with men for another 500 years! I’m not going to live 500 years, so, I have no intention of “waiting for men” to come around. Obviously, when it’s not you at the receiving end of having to “wait” for what’s already your’s, it’s easy to expect it from women. This is clearly a “god mentality” men have by actually believing they can expect women to wait on them. Imagine if you said the same thing to an African-American male what HE would say!!
Women have already waited since the beginning of time for men to “come around”. They haven’t. This is exactly why I believe women (and men who believe in justice for all) have an obligation to protest against any and every establishment, like Hooters, which objectifies women, if we truly want to see change in the “societal psyche”, as you say.
If we don’t start doing so with a vengence, it will take more than 500 years to achieve parity with men and that is unacceptable. Frankly, I don’t think the world can wait either, considering the shape it’s in now having been almost exclusively under the rule of man.
Can we agree on this….
Hooters is a corporation and free enterprise should rule for grown ups. As a chain, they are failing overall…almost went bankrupt a couple of times, hence the new owners. Let the people decide whether they should be in business in the long run.
But…
It is not okay to target children in any commercial way, or to promote the restaurant as a family environment.
Also – we encourage the thoughts and input of men like Bruce. What he writes is hardly outrageous.
I’ll raise my hand and say that I went to Chippendales in NYC when I was a young one. I was an adult and we went for friends birthdays. Shortly thereafter, they closed. Says something about free enterprise.
My sorority sisters and I also went to a similar event at a dance place in college. It was mostly local women who showed up and who were older than us. We weren’t too impressed to be honest. And it was hardly a big deal – many mornings coming down for breakfast there would be some poor fraternity pledged handcuffed naked to a table – or a group streaking naked through our sorority house. After a while, yawn…
IMHO, the issue is with our children. What we do as adults is our choice.
Amy- you make me feel so old- Kathleen- you and I agree totally, my comments dealt with the litigation of NOW CA to force Hooters to change its business model. The place serves( from what I heard-none in my area) lousy fries rings and burgers and is in essence a theme restaurant with a lousy theme and lousy food. In 2012 Gov Palin will be elected president if women get behind her…that is nothing I cna control but something your gender can control. If you get pass specific issues and get to the important one- breaking the glass ceiling – a woman will win- will women unite? That is the question.My real problem with the NOW CA litigation : From what my old friends at NOW Ca have shown by their attacks on Whitman,failure to support Prejean, Palin etc I doubt it. Seems like the only time they come to defense of women is when it assists their liberal agenda and that is not how we will win the election
on and as to their wings: tell your menfolk to go to Buffalo Bills- a sports bar chain throughout the country specializing in wings- or take them home from Wing Stop…that is how Hooters will be forced to close
Amy,
No one is challenging bruce’s right to comment here, nor have I or any other woman in this post said anything outrageous or out of line either.
I just happen to disagree with Bruce, as well as you and some others, regarding the greater implications of places like Hooters have on how women are viewed by society. I believe that we should not continue to minimize that impact because it’s not “egregious” enough to merit our angst. Otherwise, IMHO, we will be enabling the very thing we are supposed to be fighting to change. If hooters goes out of business, I have no doubt something else will take its place because it’s still ok to objectify women and make money off doing so.
I also don’t think it’s relevant to compare chippendales to Hooters simply because men are not viewed in the same women are in such places, nor do women have the power to subjugate men’s worth as just sex objects for their pleasure, as men have over women. Can’t we agree on that?
I consider what the women have to say about this issue more relevant because it impacts them directly and women need to be allowed to speak freely about these complicated issues without the fear of being viewed as “overly sensitive” or “overreacting”.
I agree that it’s nice to hear bruce’s point of view on these issues and I have said so in the past, which is why I don’t understand why you felt it necessary to defend him from those of us who disagree with him. I don’t think he’s been attacked by me or anyone else in this discussion. We’ve merely expressed our opinions with the same passion as he has.
I agree with what Amy wrote. Because Hooters exists in a free market the free market will take care of them. They are not doing well financially and women consumers are not some pathetic minority, we drive many markets. If Hooters claim an exemption from labor laws because they sell sex then they should be subjected to the zoning laws and regulations that sex selling businesses are subjected to. For this reason it is a legitimate issue for NOW.
The concept Hooters is selling is that female sexuality exists only for male enjoyment and females need male approval of their sexuality. Also that female sexuality needs to conform to very narrowly male drawn boundaries or male approval won’t be granted. And that female audiences must enjoy the moneitization of sex only as males design it because the male view is the only view. This is not a natural view of sex and it is not appropriate for children of either sex. The existing zoning and regulations of sex selling businesses should be enforced against Hooters.
Someone said that more regulation of TV would be a good thing. That is because Corporate Media do not operate in a free market. If they did and people could pick and choose the channels they subscribed to the old man sexist channels would be long dead and there would be some “women’s content” on “basic cable” that women would actually watch. Right now all channels and delivery systems are owned by 5 or 6 companies, no one else can bring content to market and consumers can’t refuse sexist channels instead they are forced to subsidize them. So we do need much more government regulation of TV however this would not be the case if there was a free.
The old men who run Corporate media religiously believe that the male opinion is the right and only opinion. They believe they define sex and they believe whatever they label as “women’s content” is “womens content” there is no actual requirement for “women’s content” to have women viewers. They also think women who star in male dreams are leaders among women and women audiences are interested in them. A free market in media would cure all these male misconceptions very quickly. Regulations could help but seriously how can men who can’t perceive a problem regulate it?
I understand what Bruce is saying and I applaud efforts to change our society at the core without simply relying on legislation. But the free market doesn’t always take care of everything. Note the popularity of CSI and sexualized dead women on television. If the free market takes care of Hooters (whose marketing of sexuality is very kitsch and silly) I will be down with that! But I think it’s very appropriate to legislate that they do not market to children.
This is way off the subject of children but I agree with Kathleen – there is a big difference between Chippendale and the plethora of “gentlemen’s clubs” that exist out there. Chippendale exists within a system that primarily serves men and so Chipendale’s is somewhat a rebellious and equalizing force against the system. Strip Clubs for men exist within a system where it is ubiquitous to serve men sexually. Completely different IMO. I have often found women who indulge in a male stripper or a male strip club do it with a sense of humor and irony. This is vastly different from men who visit strip clubs and do so with a sense of entitlement. I don’t think most women are very comfortable feeling the entitlement of sexual consumerism because it’s so at odds with our place in society. Although I certainly think we are capable of enjoying sexual consumerism in a real way and I know that it does happen!
Ladies I did not feel attacked…iron sharpens iron and a lively debate is good for all of us…blessings for an awesome new year
beyond the legal structures in place about hooters for adults and kids, I think I read most if not all who commented agreed that Hooters does not speak to our taste. the simple reason as many mentioned, is, that the business model is about objectifying women. don’t we all remember growing up as young teens with budding breasts how insecure we felt with boys and men staring at us, making comments. the budding female shapes out for comments. it undermines confidence, preps you for seeking protection, male protection to protect from the male gaze. in our hypersexualized society where girls can’t grow into their teens before the all consuming theme of sex takes over. of course these establishments try to get young girls used to the thought being a sex object. to ask for drawing a line which age is appropriate to frequent Hooters goes against the trend.
reminds me of a reading at church today which went somehow like describing the benefits to those who respect their fathers and the benefits to those who adore their mothers. the person who read it and most who listened did not see that respect and adoration aren’t equal. we women need respect not adoration. males adoring female curves are usually not showing respect to those females.
CSI doesn’t exist in a free market. Only 5 or 6 Corporations have any voice in Media because they gate-keep out all other voices. These corporations are run by very old men and they have some of the most sexist corporate cultures around. Things are changing however because now people can watch their favorite shows whenever they want to on the internet without subsidizing a load of sexist content in the process. This should deliver a wake up call to corporate media. The content line up is so skewed to male viewers and heavily relies on female viewers to subsidize sexist content. Soon they will find out that not only are women not interested in carrying male viewers on their backs they also are not interested in Corporate “Women’s Content”. In a very short time it will be nearly impossible to sell a load of corporate media sexist sewage content to women consumers.
Bes, what kind of shows do you think people are watching on the internet? They’re mostly watching the same shows that are on cable, including CSI. And what about shows that have a majority female viewership like America’s Next Top Model or The Girls Next Door (the one about Hugh Hefner’s girlfriends)? Are those shows not sexist?
Kelly: What ever shows are being watched on the internet are the shows that will survive. The vast majority of shows on cable will not. Where did you get the idea that mostly women watch Top Model or Girls Next Door because viewership data is hard to come by, it is apparently top secret. Just because they are labeled “women’s content”? “Women’s content” is content women will pay to consume, not whatever media men label “women’s content”. Most of the channels that are supposedly for women have very few viewers (E! and Oxygen)and I would bet most of the viewers they do have are old men, If they had high numbers of women watching they wouldn’t hide that fact and they do hide their viewership stats. The fact is women cable subscribers are given a load of crap channels no one watches and male subscribers get very expensive sports and malecentric produced shows like CSI that women subscribers are forced to subsidize. 5 minutes ago I saw an ad for $20 a month internet connection for your TV through QWEST which specifically stated “you can save $150 a month on cable”. With that option you are not going to be able to sell women a $150 a month bundle of male centric cable crap. Who will subsidize the men’s content at that point? Will the sports package go up to $75. a month? And who will watch anything on E! or Oxygen or any of the enormous load of sewage media men have labeled “women’s content”? At the same time women who write and produce authentic women’s content will be able to get their product to market for the first time ever using the internet. My kids watch Glee and Vampire Diaries on line and spend their time on Facebook with friends and then visit F my life, cute overload, and texts from last night websites for random entertainment.
Actually I can’t wait to see what ad Comcast puts up as an answer to the QWEST ad because this is blaspheme to the entitled male run corporate media. The ad I saw was clearly aimed at men because it featured a guy and talked about how he could get his sports content on line. That just shows that none of the men connected with Corporate Media in anyway have figured out that women consumers are carrying the male consumers on their backs and that Corporate Media has little content to offer women consumers.
Seriously QWEST can put up a womans ad saying “tired of carrying men on your back” (show everywoman with dead beat men hanging on her)? Bored and outright offended by TVs idea of womens content” (show a bunch of empowerfulated twits prancing around in lingerie and stilettos and the women of Jerry Springer cuts)? Well we can get you the 2 shows you do like for $20. a month and you don’t need to carry anyone! “No need to waste your time prenatally controlling an endless stream of sewage you never wanted!”
What is Comcast going to answer? Well we have E! and Oxygen and Oprah on channel 220, we also have the Victoria’s Secret fashion show AND Beauty pagents!!! And the crime shows where all women die nude and sexually laid out are right here on Comcast and feature a token fashionable women invesigator who solve crimes in strip joints and fashion shows! Don’t miss this women, sign up now!!! ROFLMAO!!! This business model is so dead and these guys behind it are so oblivious.
It’s obvious ANTM is mostly watched by women and girls. I don’t have any data on hand but I do for Girls Next Door: http://www.denverpost.com/celebritybuzz/ci_7802229
“About 70 percent of the reality series’ audience is female…”
And if you think their lying, google any of these shows, it’s mostly discussed and talked about by girls in girls forums/blogs/sites.
I would question what is “obvious”. You don’t know who is discussing what in forums because you don’t know who is really behind the screen names, could be men, could be perverts wanting to interact with young women, could be paid bloggers trying to publicize a show. Regarding the article you site on “Girls Next Door” it is three years old probably right around the time the show started It does not have 28 million viewers now and I doubt it ever did and this makes me doubt the fact that 70% of the viewers are female. Here is a link to the top cable shows from the week of December 13, 2010: the top rated show has less than 12 million viewers and was a football game, the second highest rated cable show has about 6 million viewers. E!, Oxygen, MTV, VH1 etc do not have any shows on the list, Spongebob Squarepants takes up 9 of the 20 slots.
http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratin......htmlstory
Here is a link to the top rated Network shows from the week of Dec 20, 2010. Again the top rated show has about 12 million viewers. there are two CSI programs on the list which each have about 6 million viewers. There are about 300 million people in the USA. I would say Facebook, and cute overload have more cultural relevance to women than any TV show.
http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratin......htmlstory
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 22, 2012 at 11:22 am
February 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...