Belkira wrote:
I haven't said word one about the uniform. That's something you keep referencing. I'm talking about the fact that their handbook says that the environment at Hooters is based on female sex appeal (and only female sex appeal, no male sex appeal) and that sexual innuendo based on the female sex is commonplace. That's not something that should be going on at a "family friendly" restaurant, in my opinion.
Then why would there be a problem taking middle school kids to one? If the only problem you have is that the waitresses are told that they may be exposed to flirtation and innuendo by the customers, then that's only an issue if you assume that the middle school kids are going to flirt with the waitresses. But... they're not, right? I mean, they're just kids going out for burgers. It's not like the waitresses are going to be flirting with them.
Of course, if you'd ever been to a Hooters, you might have a better idea of the actual atmosphere within. It really is just kind of a fun (and yes, I'd even say "family friendly" assuming a not too uptight family) burger joint. The waitresses are not "sexy and slutty" but more "friendly and outgoing". The only people who'd really have a problem with the place would be people with some kind of puritanical problem with attractive women dressed in short shorts and tight tee shirts.
The style and feel of the waitresses is less "sexy female strippers" and more "attractive female athletes". I'd compare their outfits more to those you might see worn by a women's volleyball team. That's the point. It's a theme. Yes, the waitresses are attractive, but in the handful of Hooters I've eaten at, I've never gotten an overtly sexy/slutty vibe. It's more of a wholesome attractiveness. Put another way, Hooters Girls are Mary Anne, not Ginger.
"Hooters offers its customers the look of "All American Cheerleader, Surfer, Girl Next Door". The essence of the Hooters Concept is entertainment through female sex appeal, of which the LOOK is a key part."
"Our LOOK is wholesome, yet sexy, and the uniform is athletic by design"
Did you actually read the whole handbook (it's only 8 pages), or just read the out of context bits that were highlighted and assumed the whole thing must be terrible?
Quote:
Nice work on that strawman argument, though. That was cute.
As I said though, if one based their opinions of the restaurant off of actually going there instead of reading some site telling them how bad it is, the only thing they'd ever possibly be a bit concerned about in terms of kid/family friendly is the outfits. Like I said, you just don't get a slutty/sexy vibe in a Hooters. You really should actually go there with an open mind before making broad claims/assumptions about it. I just don't think that what goes on at the restaurant justifies the volume of hate that I see out there towards the chain, and people should not form their opinions based off that.
Quote:
As far as the quote about Hooters characterizing themselves as a provider of "vicarious sexual entertainment" goes, I got it from
this website.
Quote:
At issue was whether being a woman was essential to the service Hooters was attempting to provide. The EEOC characterized Hooters' main function as providing food. Hooters' characterized itself as primarily a provider of "vicarious sexual entertainment." Hooters settled the EEOC suit for $3.75 million and an agreement to add male eligible positions such as bartender and host.
Yeah. I'll repeat what I said earlier and assume that the phrase is some sort of previously existing legal standard that had to be met to be able to hire only women. I suppose it's possible that Hooters came up with it all on their own, but given that this sort of legal issue (hiring women exclusively for certain positions and on the basis of physical appearance) has almost certainly been hashed out within the context of strip clubs long before Hooters came along, it's almost certain that language was from some earlier court ruling and Hooters was simply arguing that they should have that exemption because they provide that form of entertainment. I wouldn't read anything more than that from it. Certainly, I think it's reasonable to assume that if Hooters had a blank legal slate on this, that Hooters would use different language than that (like perhaps the language they actually use in their handbook). Then *that* would become the legal standard and we'd have strip clubs arguing that they should be exempt because they offer "entertainment through female sex appeal".
I could be wrong though. But usually when you see legal arguments like that they're attempting to claim that they meet some previously defined legal standard, and use the language of that standard when making their argument. I also don't feel like digging through the text of the actual court case, and then pouring through the precedents referenced in that case in order to see if the language was used previously or not. I'm content to say "maybe" on this one to be honest.
Edited, Nov 14th 2013 6:21pm by gbaji