Is ''Hooters'' Degrading To Women?

[Distruzio]

What? No. Beautiful women need to earn a living too. Why not do so in the way they choose?

Many people, including Hooters employees, earn a living through self-degradation.

If they choose it, is it degradation?

[Getrektistan]

Many people, including Hooters employees, earn a living through self-degradation.

If they choose it, is it degradation?

Yes. Why wouldn't it be? People choose to do degrading things all the time.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Many people, including Hooters employees, earn a living through self-degradation.

If they choose it, is it degradation?

It absolutely depends here on what you mean by "degradation".

If you mean "cheapening themselves on the workplace" - well, they WORK there, they agreed to work there and applied there, so I don't see how they cheapened themselves out of a better job.

If you mean "they are there to be sexual objects" - well, yes, they are degrading themselves because they chose to degrade themselves as sexual objects.

[Distruzio]

What? No. Beautiful women need to earn a living too. Why not do so in the way they choose?

A woman can be beautiful yet not fulfill hooter's standards. You can be beautiful, but have an A-cup. Most Hooter's girls have large breasts, because that's what the company wants. They don't care if you're beautiful. Besides, a beautiful person can get a better-paying job as a lawyer, a doctor, or a politician. They don't have to get a job in a place where they can be sexually harassed and not have a voice.

No one is suggesting that they do have to get a job in such a place. They're asking if it's degrading to do so. I'm suggesting that, perhaps, it isn't degrading if the woman wants to work there regardless of her cup size.

Also, "...not have a voice"? What is this? What is the relevance? How do you substantiate it?

[Distruzio]

If they choose it, is it degradation?

Yes. Why wouldn't it be?

Because it was a free choice. They can, at any time, choose to leave employment. It's not as if Hooters forces employees to stay there, forces patrons to sexually harass customers (which can happen anywhere, mind you), or facilitates an atmosphere of degradation.

People choose to do degrading things all the time.

Indeed. But what does that have to do with the question at hand?

[Distruzio]

If they choose it, is it degradation?

It absolutely depends here on what you mean by "degradation".

If you mean "cheapening themselves on the workplace" - well, they WORK there, they agreed to work there and applied there, so I don't see how they cheapened themselves out of a better job.

Correct.

If you mean "they are there to be sexual objects" - well, yes, they are degrading themselves because they chose to degrade themselves as sexual objects.

Then it isn't degradation, is it?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It absolutely depends here on what you mean by "degradation".

If you mean "cheapening themselves on the workplace" - well, they WORK there, they agreed to work there and applied there, so I don't see how they cheapened themselves out of a better job.

Correct.

If you mean "they are there to be sexual objects" - well, yes, they are degrading themselves because they chose to degrade themselves as sexual objects.

Then it isn't degradation, is it?

Can be, if such a thing means they have to sit and take catcalls and men grabbing their butts/breasts. Now, if it is like, say, a strip club where they are sex objects but they have a choice to take or not take any bullshit from clients - in other words they are there just to look pretty but not to be touched; no, not really.

[Saiwania]

While it's certainly true that some people don't view horror movies as scary, and some people don't view prostitution as degrading, the fact remains that the purpose of horror movies is to scare you, and the purpose of prostitution is to treat women as sex objects.

The real purpose of prostitution is to buy/sell sex for money. If it is viewed as just another service that is completely voluntary for both the client and seller, I don't think anyone has to come out of it feeling "degraded" as you put it. Don't forget that male prostitutes exist as well.

So far as Hooters goes, I agree that if its supposed to be a restaurant; it should have stricter rules for not allowing the waiting staff to be touched and harassed inappropriately by the clientele. I don't know why it is trying to have lower standards than a strip club.

[Distruzio]

Correct.



Then it isn't degradation, is it?

Can be, if such a thing means they have to sit and take catcalls and men grabbing their butts/breasts. Now, if it is like, say, a strip club where they are sex objects but they have a choice to take or not take any bullshit from clients; no, not really.

Are waitresses at Hooters prohibited from taking issue with overbearing clients by the higher-ups?

[Distruzio]

While it's certainly true that some people don't view horror movies as scary, and some people don't view prostitution as degrading, the fact remains that the purpose of horror movies is to scare you, and the purpose of prostitution is to treat women as sex objects.

No. The purpose of horror movies is to entertain. If that entertainment value be through terror, then that is a different subject. The purpose of prostitution is to provide a desired service. If that provided service results in degradation, then that is a different subject.

As in, the actual subject of the thread.

What you are, in effect, saying is that the purpose of Hooters is to degrade women. It isn't. And you know better. It's to provide a service - that service being shite food while watching sports in a greasy atmosphere that smells of booze and fried chicken while beautiful women attend you. You might have a case if the attention offered was on their knees or they were, otherwise, encouraged to worship the patrons. But they aren't.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Can be, if such a thing means they have to sit and take catcalls and men grabbing their butts/breasts. Now, if it is like, say, a strip club where they are sex objects but they have a choice to take or not take any bullshit from clients; no, not really.

Are waitresses at Hooters prohibited from taking issue with overbearing clients by the higher-ups?

From this source:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/so-yo ... irl?page=7

They can't make a claim based upon "sex jokes and sexual innuendo" which, to be honest, doesn't sound like "degrading" - but maybe that's me and my laxity about those two things. Now, it does say that "Hooters prohibits harassment from any kind" which may or may not imply from either employees only or employees and clients, the notice doesn't make it clear; I'm willing to err on the side of liberal interpretation and say it prohibits harassment from patrons so no, they're not prohibited.

[Distruzio]

Are waitresses at Hooters prohibited from taking issue with overbearing clients by the higher-ups?

From this source:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/so-yo ... irl?page=7

They can't make a claim based upon "sex jokes and sexual innuendo" which, to be honest, doesn't sound like "degrading" - but maybe that's me and my laxity about those two things. Now, it does say that "Hooters prohibits harassment from any kind" which may or may not imply from either employees only or employees and clients, the notice doesn't make it clear.

So then we agree. It isn't degrading and the waitresses are absolutely free to take issue with any harassment they take offense to up to and including the cessation of employment services.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

From this source:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/so-yo ... irl?page=7

They can't make a claim based upon "sex jokes and sexual innuendo" which, to be honest, doesn't sound like "degrading" - but maybe that's me and my laxity about those two things. Now, it does say that "Hooters prohibits harassment from any kind" which may or may not imply from either employees only or employees and clients, the notice doesn't make it clear.

So then we agree. It isn't degrading and the waitresses are absolutely free to take issue with any harassment they take offense to up to and including the cessation of employment services.

Taking a leap at an liberal interpretation of the text, yes, indeed we are in agreement that they are free to take issue with any harassment and terminate their employment if needed.

[The United Confederacy of Texas]

Hooters isn't degrading. Redneck Heaven, on the other hand....

[Soldati Senza Confini]

While it's certainly true that some people don't view horror movies as scary, and some people don't view prostitution as degrading, the fact remains that the purpose of horror movies is to scare you, and the purpose of prostitution is to treat women as sex objects.

The real purpose of prostitution is to buy/sell sex for money. If it is viewed as just another service that is completely voluntary for both the client and seller, I don't think anyone has to come out of it feeling "degraded" as you put it. Don't forget that male prostitutes exist as well.

So far as Hooters goes, I agree that if its supposed to be a restaurant; it should have stricter rules for not allowing the waiting staff to be touched and harassed inappropriately by the clientele. I don't know why it is trying to have lower standards than a strip club.

You have to remember though that Hooters does depend solely on what I call the "Subway style of business" - in other words, franchises. So one franchisee is different than another.

At least at the Hooters here in Dallas there hasn't been any case of harassment that I've been made aware of, but that may be because the managers of that particular Hooters are more liberal in their approach to what the harassment policy of Hooters is. I'm not sure about other places and managers though.

[Rabbidskiya Republika]

Is Hooters degrading? Yes and No, it depends on what you consider degrading.

[Upper America]

A woman can be beautiful yet not fulfill hooter's standards. You can be beautiful, but have an A-cup. Most Hooter's girls have large breasts, because that's what the company wants. They don't care if you're beautiful. Besides, a beautiful person can get a better-paying job as a lawyer, a doctor, or a politician. They don't have to get a job in a place where they can be sexually harassed and not have a voice.

No one is suggesting that they do have to get a job in such a place. They're asking if it's degrading to do so. I'm suggesting that, perhaps, it isn't degrading if the woman wants to work there regardless of her cup size.

Also, "...not have a voice"? What is this? What is the relevance? How do you substantiate it?

I need said people were saying they had to get a job there. Please read the post. Especially the final two sentences, then link them up and get back to me. If you can't figure it out, I'll tell you what I'm implying.

As for the "not having a voice" part, I refer you to the contract that all Hooter's girls must sign before they can start employment at this link: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/so-you-wanna-be-hooters-girl?page=7

Read the second paragraph. Note how it says that you must accept that "the Hooter's concept is based on female sex appeal and the work environment is one in which joking and innuendo based on female sex appeal is commonplace." Also, first paragraph. You are only protected from harassment by employees. Nowhere does it say you can report a customer for groping you or making sexual remarks towards you.

That is what I mean by "not having a voice". They cannot complain if a customer is harassing you. They can only report employees, and there are still lawsuits against Hooter's regarding harassment from employees, namely the managers, indicating that Hooter's isn't doing a very good job at enforcing that rule. The relevance? For me, the degrading part of Hooter's is the sex jokes and innuendo that the patrons are free to partake in. And the girl can't do anything about it.

[Upper America]

Hooters isn't degrading. Redneck Heaven, on the other hand....

Oh god... That chain goes way too far.

[Geilinor]

If they choose it, is it degradation?

Yes. Why wouldn't it be? People choose to do degrading things all the time.

Is it still bad if they choose it?

[Geilinor]

No one is suggesting that they do have to get a job in such a place. They're asking if it's degrading to do so. I'm suggesting that, perhaps, it isn't degrading if the woman wants to work there regardless of her cup size.

Also, "...not have a voice"? What is this? What is the relevance? How do you substantiate it?

I need said people were saying they had to get a job there. Please read the post. Especially the final two sentences, then link them up and get back to me. If you can't figure it out, I'll tell you what I'm implying.

As for the "not having a voice" part, I refer you to the contract that all Hooter's girls must sign before they can start employment at this link: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/so-you-wanna-be-hooters-girl?page=7

Read the second paragraph. Note how it says that you must accept that "the Hooter's concept is based on female sex appeal and the work environment is one in which joking and innuendo based on female sex appeal is commonplace." Also, first paragraph. You are only protected from harassment by employees. Nowhere does it say you can report a customer for groping you or making sexual remarks towards you.

That is what I mean by "not having a voice". They cannot complain if a customer is harassing you. They can only report employees, and there are still lawsuits against Hooter's regarding harassment from employees, namely the managers, indicating that Hooter's isn't doing a very good job at enforcing that rule. The relevance? For me, the degrading part of Hooter's is the sex jokes and innuendo that the patrons are free to partake in. And the girl can't do anything about it.

It doesn't say they can't complain about groping. I don't think the customers are allowed to touch them.

[Distruzio]

No one is suggesting that they do have to get a job in such a place. They're asking if it's degrading to do so. I'm suggesting that, perhaps, it isn't degrading if the woman wants to work there regardless of her cup size.

Also, "...not have a voice"? What is this? What is the relevance? How do you substantiate it?

I need said people were saying they had to get a job there. Please read the post. Especially the final two sentences, then link them up and get back to me. If you can't figure it out, I'll tell you what I'm implying.

Yeah... must not be my day because I still see the confusing structure I saw earlier.

As for the "not having a voice" part, I refer you to the contract that all Hooter's girls must sign before they can start employment at this link: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/so-you-wanna-be-hooters-girl?page=7

Read the second paragraph. Note how it says that you must accept that "the Hooter's concept is based on female sex appeal and the work environment is one in which joking and innuendo based on female sex appeal is commonplace." Also, first paragraph. You are only protected from harassment by employees. Nowhere does it say you can report a customer for groping you or making sexual remarks towards you.

That is what I mean by "not having a voice". They cannot complain if a customer is harassing you.

They can quit. Therefore, they do have a voice.

They can only report employees, and there are still lawsuits against Hooter's regarding harassment from employees, namely the managers, indicating that Hooter's isn't doing a very good job at enforcing that rule. The relevance? For me, the degrading part of Hooter's is the sex jokes and innuendo that the patrons are free to partake in. And the girl can't do anything about it.

Are the lawsuits ubiquitous throughout all the franchises or present in a relative few? If it was nigh universal then I could see the complaint that degradation exists (albeit, tenuously as the women freely choose to work there and remain employed) but as it stands.... nope. Not convinced at all.

[Distruzio]

Yes. Why wouldn't it be? People choose to do degrading things all the time.

Is it still bad if they choose it?

Apparently, by that logic, a couple that engages in BDSM-play is somehow degrading to one of the members of that couple and that's a bad thing...

Or, alternatively, a couple wherein one member is dominant or "wears the pants" (so to speak) is a couple in which the other member is being degraded.

[Rocopurr]

Hooters isn't degrading. Redneck Heaven, on the other hand....

Oh god... That chain goes way too far.

What exactly is this chain? Will my eyes melt if I look it up?

[Distruzio]

Oh god... That chain goes way too far.

What exactly is this chain? Will my eyes melt if I look it up?

No. You'll be fine. They're simply known as the hangout spot for the NASCAR crowd.

[Upper America]

I need said people were saying they had to get a job there. Please read the post. Especially the final two sentences, then link them up and get back to me. If you can't figure it out, I'll tell you what I'm implying.

As for the "not having a voice" part, I refer you to the contract that all Hooter's girls must sign before they can start employment at this link: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/so-you-wanna-be-hooters-girl?page=7

Read the second paragraph. Note how it says that you must accept that "the Hooter's concept is based on female sex appeal and the work environment is one in which joking and innuendo based on female sex appeal is commonplace." Also, first paragraph. You are only protected from harassment by employees. Nowhere does it say you can report a customer for groping you or making sexual remarks towards you.

That is what I mean by "not having a voice". They cannot complain if a customer is harassing you. They can only report employees, and there are still lawsuits against Hooter's regarding harassment from employees, namely the managers, indicating that Hooter's isn't doing a very good job at enforcing that rule. The relevance? For me, the degrading part of Hooter's is the sex jokes and innuendo that the patrons are free to partake in. And the girl can't do anything about it.

It doesn't say they can't complain about groping. I don't think the customers are allowed to touch them.

Actually, doesn't say they can complain about patrons at all. So they may be able to, but aren't told so. So maybe I made a mistake.

I need said people were saying they had to get a job there. Please read the post. Especially the final two sentences, then link them up and get back to me. If you can't figure it out, I'll tell you what I'm implying.

Yeah... must not be my day because I still see the confusing structure I saw earlier.

As for the "not having a voice" part, I refer you to the contract that all Hooter's girls must sign before they can start employment at this link: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/so-you-wanna-be-hooters-girl?page=7

Read the second paragraph. Note how it says that you must accept that "the Hooter's concept is based on female sex appeal and the work environment is one in which joking and innuendo based on female sex appeal is commonplace." Also, first paragraph. You are only protected from harassment by employees. Nowhere does it say you can report a customer for groping you or making sexual remarks towards you.

That is what I mean by "not having a voice". They cannot complain if a customer is harassing you.

They can quit. Therefore, they do have a voice.

They can only report employees, and there are still lawsuits against Hooter's regarding harassment from employees, namely the managers, indicating that Hooter's isn't doing a very good job at enforcing that rule. The relevance? For me, the degrading part of Hooter's is the sex jokes and innuendo that the patrons are free to partake in. And the girl can't do anything about it.

Are the lawsuits ubiquitous throughout all the franchises or present in a relative few? If it was nigh universal then I could see the complaint that degradation exists (albeit, tenuously as the women freely choose to work there and remain employed) but as it stands.... nope. Not convinced at all.

Ok, here's what I was saying. The original post I replied to said that beautiful girls need a place to work. I countered that, saying they can work in friendlier environments with better pay.

And quitting doesn't necessarily mean having a voice. If a customer offends her by talking about her breasts, it would fall under "jokes and innuendo". She can quit in response and complain, but will be reminded that "this is commonplace in this work environment, and so it's a-ok." So, no, she doesn't have a voice. She only has the option to leave.

As for the lawsuits, they have occurred at many Hooter's. The worst I found was one in California that secretly filmed the new applicants undressing. If you want, I'll compile a list of Hooter's locations that have faced lawsuits, if you want.

Oh god... That chain goes way too far.

What exactly is this chain? Will my eyes melt if I look it up?

It's not going to scar your eyes. The outfits were just very skimpy (think bikini baristas), and I'm sure some of the girls weren't wearing shirts, only body paint on their torso. One picture actually had censoring in it.