Is ''Hooters'' Degrading To Women?

[Shnercropolis]

I'm sure it's not degrading to the women who work there, however that does not mean it is not harmful to females as a whole. More power to the women profiting from it (get those tips girlie!) but at the same time it reinforces rape culture/this dangerous idea that women are sexual objects. In an ideal world a Hooters could totally exist without degrading anyone. Men would go to enjoy food and harmlessly look at women (because who on Earth doesn't like to look at attractive people and eat??) and there wouldn't be a rape culture to reinforce. There would be a Hooters for women (EDIT THIS EXISTS THATS GREAT ) and we could go and ogle at some lovely six pack abs and enjoy a nice quinoa stuffed pepper. So Hooter's isn't inherently degrading, it is the preexisting flaws in our society that makes it so.

PS, given the opportunity, I would totally work at a Hooters myself. I think I personally would feel empowered and I love wearing minimal clothing. Ideal job tbh

Rape culture's hijacking by idiots makes it unsuitable for such a well-reasoned post as this.

[Shnercropolis]

Because women psychologically and traditionally don't make attractiveness as important in mate choice as men.

I didn't say that men do that, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. There's a difference between including physical attractiveness as one criterion in assessing a person and treating them as if that one criterion embodies their whole personality.

That's what I was saying. A switched-up version of Hooters wouldn't be as successful because attractiveness isn't as important to women as to men.

[Geilinor]

I didn't say that men do that, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. There's a difference between including physical attractiveness as one criterion in assessing a person and treating them as if that one criterion embodies their whole personality.

attractiveness isn't as important to women as to men.

Do you have any actual sources for that claim?

[Getrektistan]

I didn't say that men do that, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. There's a difference between including physical attractiveness as one criterion in assessing a person and treating them as if that one criterion embodies their whole personality.

That's what I was saying. A switched-up version of Hooters wouldn't be as successful because attractiveness isn't as important to women as to men.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were saying that sarcastically. NSG has conditioned me to expect rude replies wherever I go.

[Solaray]

I didn't say that men do that, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. There's a difference between including physical attractiveness as one criterion in assessing a person and treating them as if that one criterion embodies their whole personality.

That's what I was saying. A switched-up version of Hooters wouldn't be as successful because attractiveness isn't as important to women as to men.

In relationships perhaps, yes. But I don't doubt that women would oay good money to be served tasty food by shirtless studly dudes. Preferably at Rattlesnakes.

Still straight by the way

[Republic of Greater America]

Giggity (no).

[Aurora Novus]

I'd say that I'm amazed that the place is allowed to operate how it does, but given that courts have ruled against waitresses who were fired for refusing to wear makeup (when no such requirement exists for men), I'm not really surprised.

No, there isn't. Because degredation is not the same as objectiifcation. We objectify people all the time. When you go to a university class, you're objecifying your professor. When you order pizza, you're objectifying the person who delivers it. Objectification is a natural part of human existence.

lol.

Wow.

You really don't understand what "objectification" means do you? You don't need to answer that, your post indicated that you don't.

I understand it perfectly. I'm sorry you apparently can't handle reality.

[Dakini]

I don't think that Hooters as a company is inherently degrading to women, since offering services where people voluntarily and happily display their sexuality isn't really degrading. I do think, however, that Hooters tends to attract a crowd that is more prone to have degrading opinions about women. I'm not saying that everybody who goes there is a misogynist, of course, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were more misogynists there than other restaurants.

Edit: Oh, and now that I think about it, the huge success of Hooters is degrading as well, especially since there's no successful male equivalent that I know of. I think it says a lot that a company whose entire business model is hiring scantily clad women is so successful and well liked primarily by men in this country.

Because women psychologically and traditionally don't make attractiveness as important in mate choice as men.

Yes on the "traditionally" part, because historically men have been considered valuable for things other than reproduction while women have not.

Not so much on the "psychologically" part though.

[Dakini]

I'd say that I'm amazed that the place is allowed to operate how it does, but given that courts have ruled against waitresses who were fired for refusing to wear makeup (when no such requirement exists for men), I'm not really surprised.



lol.

Wow.

You really don't understand what "objectification" means do you? You don't need to answer that, your post indicated that you don't.

I understand it perfectly. I'm sorry you apparently can't handle reality.

I'm sorry that you can't handle the English language.

[Thafoo]

ha ha ha look at all of the heterosexuals

[Solaray]

ha ha ha look at all of the heterosexuals

We have names ya know!

[Parhe]

Yes depending on one's view, but if an individual chooses to be degraded for some money I don't care. I mean, yeah sure, people may need the money, but, though I may be bias coming from an area where less degrading watering and other jobs pay just as much or more, then they should find another restaurant to work at. If degrade means to use your body "sexually" to gain something then, yes, I've "degraded" myself for some advantage. Maybe being male it is different, but I found it more empowering then anything negative. Or, at least, the positives outweighed the negatives.

[Cannot think of a name]

ha ha ha look at all of the heterosexuals

We have names ya know!

Speak for yourself.

[Solaray]

We have names ya know!

Speak for yourself.

Most of us have names anyway!

Ya know!

[Pandeeria]

We have names ya know!

Speak for yourself.

That was the perfect opportunity for your name.

[Shnercropolis]

attractiveness isn't as important to women as to men.

Do you have any actual sources for that claim?

Nice half-quote you have there.
Anyway, it's mostly speculation, although I recall a study on it once. If you're going to pretend it's false because I can't source it then don't reply.

[Dakini]

Do you have any actual sources for that claim?

Nice half-quote you have there.
Anyway, it's mostly speculation, although I recall a study on it once. If you're going to pretend it's false because I can't source it then don't reply.

Ah, so your source is rectal-pluck, excellent choice.

[Thafoo]

Speak for yourself.

That was the perfect opportunity for your name.

he doesn't have a name what are you talking about

[Solaray]

Do you have any actual sources for that claim?

Nice half-quote you have there.
Anyway, it's mostly speculation, although I recall a study on it once. If you're going to pretend it's false because I can't source it then don't reply.

I dunno, from my experience, women still base a lot of importance on physical attractiveness. Can't blame em, of course, but it still kinda bites.

[Pandeeria]

That was the perfect opportunity for your name.

he doesn't have a name what are you talking about

He has a name, he just couldn't think of it!

[Solaray]

Nice half-quote you have there.
Anyway, it's mostly speculation, although I recall a study on it once. If you're going to pretend it's false because I can't source it then don't reply.

Ah, so your source is rectal-pluck, excellent choice.

Excuse you. If rectal plunking is good enough for 90% of the voting population, it should be good enough for you.

Or are you too good for it? Huh? Is Queen Victoria too good for rectal plunked sources?

Okay I think I've taken this bit far enough.

[Keyboard Warriors]

And you don't think viewing someone as a nice set of tits is treating someone as only a sexual object?

No. Why would it be? No more than going to my university class is treating my professor as only an intellectual object.

When people go to Hooters, they are expecting two services. Food service, and a form of sexual service. This is no different from any other scenario, where one goes somewhere expecting a service. Expecting someone to fulfill a service in a particular scenario, and viewing someone as existing only to serve that purpose, are not the same thing.

I'd say that I'm amazed that the place is allowed to operate how it does, but given that courts have ruled against waitresses who were fired for refusing to wear makeup (when no such requirement exists for men), I'm not really surprised.



lol.

Wow.

You really don't understand what "objectification" means do you? You don't need to answer that, your post indicated that you don't.

I understand it perfectly. I'm sorry you apparently can't handle reality.

Obviously you don't, otherwise I suppose you can explain how treating a professor as a source of information robs them of their dignity.

[Aurora Novus]

I understand it perfectly. I'm sorry you apparently can't handle reality.

I'm sorry that you can't handle the English language.

I understand the English language just fine. Apparently you don't, however.

We're all objects. Sexual objects, intellectual objects, and so forth. Objectification isn't a problem, it's when you fail to recognize people as being more than just X object. We are sexual objects, but we are not only sexual objects. We are intellectaul objects, but not only intellectual objects.

[Getrektistan]

I understand it perfectly. I'm sorry you apparently can't handle reality.

I'm sorry that you can't handle the English language.

Nice half-quote you have there.
Anyway, it's mostly speculation, although I recall a study on it once. If you're going to pretend it's false because I can't source it then don't reply.

Ah, so your source is rectal-pluck, excellent choice.

Ahhahah, oh shit, I'm literally dying right now

I'm sorry that you can't handle the English language.

I understand the English language just fine. Apparently you don't, however.

We're all objects. Sexual objects, intellectual objects, and so forth. Objectification isn't a problem, it's when you fail to recognize people as being more than just X object. We are sexual objects, but we are not only sexual objects. We are intellectaul objects, but not only intellectual objects.

I mean, Hooters clearly treats their waitresses as almost entirely sexual objects, so that could certainly be a problem.

[Aurora Novus]

Obviously you don't, otherwise I suppose you can explain how treating a professor as a source of information robs them of their dignity.

It robs them of no more dignity than treating someone as a source for sexual gratification does. There are no traits which are objectively superior to one another. Everything is situational, arbitrary, and subjective.