UKC

Hooters

New Topic
Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
 ThunderCat 06 May 2022

Nowt to do with owls unfortunately. 😂

I wondered what the hive mind's opinion of it is. Outdated, sexist, objectifying women, a throwback to a less enlightened time that needs to be consigned to the rubbish bin along with Page 3, Miss World, Bernard Manning etc... Or a bit of harmless fun  where you stay away if you think you're gong to be offended and let everyone be grown up and free to choose where they work and spend money?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/hooters-restaurant-plans-salford-quays-23657118.amp

I'm genuinely surprised to find out that Hooters is actually a real thing. I thought it was a kind of parody thing you only saw in films. 

4
 Tom Valentine 06 May 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

I always thought "hooter" was slang for a nose. I didn't know it was used for breasts. Sheltered upbringing, I suppose.

 LastBoyScout 06 May 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

I've been to the one in Nottingham twice - both on stag weekends (not mine).

It was a bit of fun, the girls made a suitable fuss of the stag and off we went elsewhere.

Otherwise, I probably wouldn't bother - there were a surprising few families there, though.

2
 climbingpixie 06 May 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

I didn't realise places like Hooters still existed! I'm going to go with both - it's obviously an outdated, objectifying throwback but it's a free country and if people are willing to patronise and work in venues like that then so be it. I'd probably consider any men who visited Hooters to be pretty pathetic though. 

7
 AukWalk 06 May 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

LOL I had no idea they still existed or had branches in the UK, only seen it mentioned in American films from decades ago!

Tbf I don't see any issue with it. Basically a very  softcore version of a strip club? Looks like the waitress's uniforms will be a lot less revealing than outfits many people wear for a night out. I say let people work there and go there to eat if they want to! Don't think I'll be visiting myself though! 

In reply to ThunderCat:

I went to one in California where it sort of worked because a sizeable chunk of the population, male and female, seem to be, err, re-engineered, and are quite happy to show their alterations off.  In the UK it would just be tawdry, I think.

Post edited at 12:38
OP ThunderCat 06 May 2022
In reply to climbingpixie:

South Park nails it pretty well with their "Raisins" restaurant

youtube.com/watch?v=_mC48we6Jz0&

In reply to ThunderCat:

They ought to build it near Eastlands: the tits are bigger on that side of the city.

2
In reply to ThunderCat:

I didn't know we had any in this country.

I don't see a problem with it, if women want to dress skimpy to serve food then that's upto them and the customers 

6
 duchessofmalfi 06 May 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

It's a real thing sadly. 

They used to specialise in a "kids eat free on Sunday" for estranged fathers to take their kids to during.

I hereby acknowledge and affirm that the Hooters concept is based on female sex appeal and that the work environment is one in which joking and innuendo based on female sex appeal is commonplace. I also expressly acknowledge and affirm I do not find my job duties, uniform requirements or work environment to be intimidating, hostile or unwelcome.

 profitofdoom 06 May 2022
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> I always thought "hooter" was slang for a nose. I didn't know it was used for breasts. Sheltered upbringing, I suppose.

I thought they were only found on ferries and tugboats. Sometimes I can be a bit naive IMO

OP ThunderCat 06 May 2022
In reply to Dax H:

Like I said I thought it was a purely made up / parody thing - I didn't even know it was a real business

 profitofdoom 06 May 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

> I'm genuinely surprised to find out that Hooters is actually a real thing. I thought it was a kind of parody thing you only saw in films. 

I think it's absolutely shocking. But just to make sure can you please let me have the addresses, opening times, ticket prices please. Thank you 

1
 ExiledScot 06 May 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

Being realistic in most pubs on a Fri or Sat night the female customers have more flesh on display than any hooters staff ever will. 

Post edited at 16:20
 Clarence 06 May 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

It has the illusion of being a bit naughty but in a way even Benny Hill would find tame. Used to have good chicken at the Nottingham one though.

1
In reply to Dax H:

> I didn't know we had any in this country.

> I don't see a problem with it, if women want to dress skimpy to serve food then that's upto them and the customers 

This. I used to go to the Nottingham one as it was on my walking route from West Bridgford into the city (20 odd years ago).

The food was ok, beer average and the outfits really aren't that skimpy. There has been much discussed about pro-choice this week, which I fully support, and that includes the right to serve beer in a pair of shorts and a vest top. Ive seen skimpier outfits walking down the road.

Do we have to discourage female bikinis on beaches?

Total non issue.

2
In reply to climbingpixie:

I thought they were a thing of the past, in the U.K. at least. There used to be one in Manchester, but that has been gone at least 15 years.

I once got dragged in to it on a stag do. I just found it cringeworthy.

OP ThunderCat 06 May 2022
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Do we have to discourage female bikinis on beaches?

"down with this sort of thing"! 

 Timmd 06 May 2022
In reply to climbingpixie:

> I didn't realise places like Hooters still existed! I'm going to go with both - it's obviously an outdated, objectifying throwback but it's a free country and if people are willing to patronise and work in venues like that then so be it. I'd probably consider any men who visited Hooters to be pretty pathetic though. 

I've come across something called the Gramscian theory of hegemony, which, from what I understood at the time, means that where those who have less financial power or agency, and influence on shaping society and culture, like females tend to, whatever choices they make in terms of earning a living, within said framework aren't quite autonomous - not comparably so the rest in society.

Coming across that concept has seemed reshaped how I look at everything, re 'How much choice and agency is there really?', in a society where body-beautiful is exalted, and the glass ceiling still apparently exist, and lower pay for the same jobs is still a trend, it could put Hooters in a certain context. Which leaves me feeling 'I don't really know' when asked about things like Hooters...kind of 'Ask me again when there's equality'.

It possibly/plausibly relates to things not just to do with females of course, though, where the inverse applies and men are disadvantaged.

Post edited at 19:22
6
 john arran 06 May 2022
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Total non issue.

If it's genuinely a consequence-free personal choice to work there, then I have some sympathy with that opinion. But workplaces are very different to beaches. Could someone be refused benefits if they were to turn down a job offer there? Could a waitress there decide to turn up in less revealing clothing one day, thereby continuing to exercise her personal choice? It's far from a black and white issue.

3
 birdie num num 06 May 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

If I had a big dick I'd probably sign up to be a porn star.

12
 Baz P 06 May 2022
In reply to john arran:

I have to wear a hard hat and hi viz so they could say it’s a safety issue, if they don’t wear skimpy clothing they may get something thrown at them.

6
 squarepeg 06 May 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

Is Angela Rayner applying for a job there? 

14
In reply to climbingpixie:

> I didn't realise places like Hooters still existed! I'm going to go with both - it's obviously an outdated, objectifying throwback but it's a free country and if people are willing to patronise and work in venues like that then so be it. I'd probably consider any men who visited Hooters to be pretty pathetic though. 

I wonder exactly who is being exploited here? The women who work there are clearly being objectified, but they're being paid. The pathetic punters are paying to be there. Exploitation works both ways.

7
In reply to john arran:

> If it's genuinely a consequence-free personal choice to work there, then I have some sympathy with that opinion. But workplaces are very different to beaches. Could someone be refused benefits if they were to turn down a job offer there? Could a waitress there decide to turn up in less revealing clothing one day, thereby continuing to exercise her personal choice? It's far from a black and white issue.

Probably the same issues arise with jobs like working in abattoirs, etc. and I assume that there are exceptions in place to what people are expected to do before being disqualified from benefits.
As for the Waitress deciding to turn up in non-revealing clothing after agreeing otherwise, then I would hope that Hooters would go through due process and if that ultimately involved termination of contract then so be it.

2
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Total non issue.

I agree but I'm guessing the 4 down votes my comment got don't agree. 

OP ThunderCat 07 May 2022
In reply to Dax H:

> I agree but I'm guessing the 4 down votes my comment got don't agree. 

You know what happens when you mention about down votes don't you... (let the downvoting begin) 😁

11
 Clarence 07 May 2022
In reply to john arran:

> Could someone be refused benefits if they were to turn down a job offer there?

No-one can be forced to work somewhere that a genuinely held belief prevents them from doing so, or at least it did when I worked at the Jobcentre. You can't send vegans to the abbatoir or Muslims to a pork butcher. 

> Could a waitress there decide to turn up in less revealing clothing one day, thereby continuing to exercise her personal choice? It's far from a black and white issue.

No they couldn't, its a uniform. I hate wearing short sleeved polo shirts at work due to the scars on my arms but the choice is wear the shirt or feck off. I knew that when I started there but I just have to put up with it until I find better employment. They know the uniform before they start and if they are not comfortable with it then they should go somewhere else. It really is black and white.

6
In reply to Timmd:

Just to say that I studied Gramsci and Friere and the  theories around hegemony are probably more applicable now then ever, and put to great use by our current govt. 

2
In reply to Ridge:

By definition, exploitation does not work both ways. A reciprocal arrangement between genuinely equal parties would not be exploitation. On the other hand, just because someone gets paid doesn’t mean they aren’t being exploited.

If you are thinking about exploitation, it seems naive to not consider the the owner/employer as the potentially exploitative party. It would make more sense to ask whether they are exploiting multiple people in different ways than to try to argue that exploitation is a two way street.

1
 Timmd 07 May 2022
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

> Just to say that I studied Gramsci and Friere and the  theories around hegemony are probably more applicable now then ever, and put to great use by our current govt. 

That sounds really interesting, once I've got my degree I'll do some looking into it. By my wrinkly years (before) I might end up with an online degree into something related, looking into how society functions has got to be helpful towards seeing life more thoughtfully, or clearly.

Post edited at 11:56
 Timmd 07 May 2022
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

If you have the time (and mind space) to relate anything you about that to Hooters bars, that could be very interesting.

 WhiteSpider88 07 May 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

It used to be a free world, if the women want to work there then let them, if the customers want to go there then let them. If they don't want to work or eat there then they can go somewhere else.   This left wing puritanical approach to restricting freedoms is just evil controlling behaviour.  Creating victimhood where none exists is just ridiculous. 

30
In reply to WhiteSpider88:

> It used to be a free world,

When was this golden age exactly? Back when a really enterprising woman could hope to rise to the dizzying heights of being a secretary? Or do we need to look back further to when people were deemed property because of their skin colour?

> Creating victimhood where none exists is just ridiculous. 

The OP was essentially just asking for opinions on whether there was any victim. Your stance seems far more ridiculous to me; assume that the world is perfect in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and never ask any questions. 

9
 Timmd 07 May 2022
In reply to WhiteSpider88:

> It used to be a free world, if the women want to work there then let them, if the customers want to go there then let them. If they don't want to work or eat there then they can go somewhere else.   This left wing puritanical approach to restricting freedoms is just evil controlling behaviour.  Creating victimhood where none exists is just ridiculous. 

While being a lefty, I'd agree that being disagreed with isn't an affront, and that being offended is an everyday part of life, and wondered where a friend was coming from on saying 'Generalisations are offensive', sometimes generalisations are true, and sometimes they're not. That said, do you consider it true that we live in a (somewhat) patriarchal society?

Post edited at 22:01
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

> Just to say that I studied Gramsci and Friere and the  theories around hegemony are probably more applicable now then ever, and put to great use by our current govt. 

It's reassuring that all those soft-touch Oxford firsts in PPE aren't being wasted.

ETA: unlike most of the PPE they bought over the last couple of years.

Post edited at 08:25
 Steve Crossley 08 May 2022
In reply to Timmd:

> That sounds really interesting, once I've got my degree I'll do some looking into it. By my wrinkly years (before) I might end up with an online degree into something related, looking into how society functions has got to be helpful towards seeing life more thoughtfully, or clearly.

My later life degree, is an open one, but basically its Rights and Responsibilities over Time and Space, and all about equality and justice, really makes you think about many issues, but a core thing is equality and power. A concept that I found very useful was Maslows Hierachy, https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html.

If you have not come across it you may find it interesting.

 

In reply to Andy Clarke:

> It's reassuring that all those soft-touch Oxford firsts in PPE aren't being wasted.

> ETA: unlike most of the PPE the taxpayer bought and their cronies made massive profits on over the last couple of years.

FTFY 😉

 bouldery bits 08 May 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

> "down with this sort of thing"! 

Careful now!

 nufkin 08 May 2022
In reply to WhiteSpider88:

>  Creating victimhood where none exists is just ridiculous. 

It's probably hard to quantify, but is there not an argument to be made that the objectification of women within the Hooters environment does little to diminish it without? There may be a case for arguing that the staff who work there accept it, and profit from it*, but it seems very likely that the mentality of 'women's function is to titillate men' is carried into the wider world, where it is then assumed of women who have given no such consent.

I don't think, when my evil leftwing puritanical utopia comes to fruition, that I'd actively ban Hooters and the like, but I think I'd hope that men as a whole would be largely progressive enough for it not to work as a business model. 

*though I imagine they'll be working on a very minimum wage and relying on tips to make any sort of significant pay

3
In reply to ThunderCat:

It's a weird concept and I wouldn't want to go there. One thought though; "objectifying women" - is a 2-way street isn't it? The women being objectified are objectifying themelves surely.

1
 Rob Exile Ward 08 May 2022
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

2 points. 1) They may not be as free agents as everyone likes to think - if your skills are waiting, and it's a well paid gig, how much real choice do you have? 2) Yes, a lot of women 'voluntarily' attempt to make themselves 'objects of desire' - pouty lips, enhanced busts, pancake slap ... it's crap and it's destructive. It shouldn't be normalised.

10
 artif 08 May 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

How far do you want to go with that? I believe ISIS have a similar view

>

2) Yes, a lot of women 'voluntarily' attempt to make themselves 'objects of desire' - pouty lips, enhanced busts, pancake slap ... it's crap and it's destructive. It shouldn't be normalised.

1
 squarepeg 08 May 2022
In reply to nufkin:

Bollocks! Men not go to places like that... What else do you want? Always nice weather at weekends and Bank Holiday? 

 Tom Valentine 08 May 2022
In reply to artif:

>  It shouldn't be normalised.

Speaking as a man?

Or a UKC woman. 

What if people outside the UKC mindset are more tolerant? 

(always a possibility......)

Post edited at 19:37
1
 Rob Exile Ward 08 May 2022
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Deep waters. It seems to me with my 70s/women's lib mindset that both sexes are having a harder time than we did, and are subject to  extraordinary pressure from all sorts of media - including the one which wasn't invented back then - to aspire to some sort of unattainable ideal.

I may be talking complete boll*x, but I've watched my daughter and her friends, and the money they spend on clothes and makeup... And the stats for eating disorders, self harm and suicides suggest all is not good as well.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Do you think that cosmetic surgery should be seen as the expected norm for women?

If you have children would you rather that they were happy with their body as it is or that they felt they needed surgery in order to simply be “good enough” and to measure up to societal expectations? I think that’s the crux of that Robert is getting at. 

In cases where people are perfectly happy with their body as it is and want to alter it because they enjoy doing so, I’ve no problem with that.

Post edited at 21:18
 Tom Valentine 08 May 2022
In reply to Stuart Williams:

I'd rather they were happy with their body. 

Full stop. 

 Tom Valentine 08 May 2022
In reply to Stuart Williams:

I'd rather that women  were happy with their bodies. 

Full stop.

The same goes for men.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Cool. Sounds like you are in agreement with Rob Exile Ward then. 

(Edit because I’d mixed up my Rob’s) 

Post edited at 21:58
 remus Global Crag Moderator 11 May 2022
In reply to Clarence:

> They know the uniform before they start and if they are not comfortable with it then they should go somewhere else. It really is black and white.

Maybe some people have the luxury of picking and choosing where and when they work, but many people are reliant on whatever job they can find at the time and simply don't have the financial flexibility to refuse work, even if they find the workplace objectifying and demeaning.

1
 toad 11 May 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

I don't mind it as a place- the nottm. one was the only one for a long time. I've never been in. At one stage it was popular for TFI type drinks with some of the offices near the station, and as a consequence I know a few people who have been, or more pertinently, declined to go because of what it is. 

The issue isn't that it's a bad thing, it's the work culture that thinks it's an appropriate place to socialise - and that's a problem with the firm, not the venue

 65 11 May 2022
In reply to WhiteSpider88:

> It used to be a free world....

Indeed, you used to be able to challenge or discuss something with arguments rather than shrieking accusations of 'being cancelled' or references to freedom. 

>This left wing puritanical approach to restricting freedoms is just evil controlling behaviour. 

Left wing? Has someone suggested that Hooters be nationalised?

What a load of ill-considered tosh. 

If some women want to work there, fine, as long they do actually want to work there and aren't being coerced into it on pain of losing their benefits. If some men want to go there to fuel their post-pot noodle penile polishing, fine. If I want to regard said men as sad antediluvian wankers who belong to a more Jimmy Savile-accomodating era, also fine.

3
 deepsoup 11 May 2022
In reply to 65:

I occasionally work with someone who makes a point of calling in to the Nottingham one for lunch whenever he's working there.  (Or did, anyway, pre-pandemic.  I'm not sure if he works in Nottingham any more.)

I almost replied to girlymonkey's post above to mention that he fits her bill of 'pathetic' and offer a bit of confirmation bias.

> If I want to regard said men as sad antediluvian wankers who belong to a more Jimmy Savile-accomodating era, also fine.

Your description is better though, it's almost like you know him.

 GrahamD 11 May 2022
In reply to squarepeg:

> Is Angela Rayner applying for a job there? 

You might want to reflect why there isn't a remotely analogous male MP "joke".

1
 GrahamD 11 May 2022
In reply to WhiteSpider88:

> It used to be a free world, if the women want to work there then let them, if the customers want to go there then let them. If they don't want to work or eat there then they can go somewhere else. 

The world, in general, is freer now than its ever been.  For everyone.

1
 65 11 May 2022
In reply to deepsoup:

> Your description is better though, it's almost like you know him.

I knew quite a few in my last job, some on here too by the look of things.

Post edited at 15:29
1
 Tringa 11 May 2022
In reply to ThunderCat:

Yes, totally outdated. I can't see why a decent society would think it was anything else.

Dave

In reply to Ridge:

> I wonder exactly who is being exploited here? The women who work there are clearly being objectified, but they're being paid. The pathetic punters are paying to be there. Exploitation works both ways.

Not really, both groups are being exploited by the people who own the restaurant.

The problem for me is a restaurant sexualising a waitress job and using a disrespectful name like 'Hooters' while still being treated as a normal 'respectable' employer for the purposes of employment law e.g. posting jobs in a Jobcentre and expectation that unemployed people will consider/accept a job there.  

1
In reply to GrahamD:

> You might want to reflect why there isn't a remotely analogous male MP "joke".

Is Boris Johnson applying for a job there? He's a right tit

In reply to ThunderCat:

I was climbing with a lovely young lady the other day and referred to the starting holds as boobies and she said 'yeah, they are just like titties...'

Post edited at 07:30
In reply to ThunderCat:

Forget Hooters in the U.K. Quite possibly the weirdest place I’ve ever been was the one just outside DFW airport. A family of multiple generations celebrating their child’s birthday. Businessmen working on their laptops over a coffee and me getting served a burger and fries by a young lady wearing very little and a handgun strapped to her waist. 😂


New Topic
Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Loading Notifications...