Hooters is being sued by National Organization of Women

[Plaidman]

When my cousin work there, I had to go for support. I couldn't be caught dead in that kind of restraunt. I'd be too embrassed. Bunch of attractive women, running around pretending to be nice to me for a couple of bucks? And I would drool and fall for it, and maybe even belive they liked me. Then again, I'm just very wierd that way.

Anyway, Plaidman sad to say his cousin was the hottest girl there. That... bad.


But she was also the funnest girl more then willing to talk to anyone there, as compared to the other girls who didn't want anything to do with any of the customers other then give them food.

Cousin told me some of the training videos they had to watch, I can't remember any lines except "Come on girl! Put that frown upside down!" or something.


As for being sued to take away those clothes? I can see their point. I remembered being alittle wierded out when I see eight year old girls wearing tight shorts that said BOOTY or JUICY on their ass, while their mother wore even less.

Is it exploitation? In a small sense. Children often don't have a choice in what they wear. Do the adult clothes or restraunt itself exploitation? Not really. Women choose to work there for fun and money, (or job). Do they exploit their bodies? Some do yeah, but it's in a far safer enviroment then say, a strip joint or something where a girl likely couldn't get a security guard as fast or something. Being a family restraunt has alot more people that aren't creeps the sterotype strip joint have.

[dendawg]

This statement seems very strange to me. First of all, we live in a capitalist society. If you think there should be such a restaurant, by all means, open one up yourself.

Exactly. There's no reason someone could open up a hotdog restaurant that caters to women named Weeners, with a dachshund as the mascot.

[Greenday]

The number of guys who go there to stare at the women is probably a lot smaller than you think. Hooters doesn't charge cover charges like every other bar does for major sporting events. Hooters charges a lot less for their food. Hooters charges a lot less for their beer. I can bring people under 21 to Hooters to watching sporting events like UFC whereas if you are under 21, you don't have a shot at hell at getting into any other bar.

[AdminAssistant]

I think there's a significant difference between having a nice smile and being willing to wear tight tank tops and short shorts (the Hooters uniform, yes?) to earn extra tip money.

Another thought about having kids there....I wonder how the men who go there primarily to oogle the waitresses feel about the kiddies in the next table over.

[guywithashovel]

Often when Hooter's is being discussed, some woman will say, "Well, I wouldn't have a problem with it if there was a restaurant where scantily clad men brought customers food."

This statement seems very strange to me. First of all, we live in a capitalist society. If you think there should be such a restaurant, by all means, open one up yourself. Okay, maybe you don't qualify for the necessary loans to do that, or perhaps you just don't know how to run a business (you can always learn, though). Still, it's not like there is some rule that says there cannot be a restaurant called "Sausages" or "Packages" that is the role reversal of Hooters.

Secondly, THERE ARE BUSINESSES THAT FEATURE SCANTILY CLAD MEN FOR WOMEN'S PLEASURE. By putting that in all caps, I'm not trying to yell, but make a point. Someone cited Chippendale's. Even though that may not be a restaurant, it's still a valid comparison. Also, there are plenty of strip clubs, topless bars, etc. that feature men as women's eye candy. Seriously, stop acting like women don't have the same adult entertainment as men do.

Lastly, I'm a little intrigued by the use of the term "scantily clad." I've never been to Hooter's, but from pictures I've seen, the girls wear the Hooter's T-shirts with shorts. I'm not sure I would consider that "scantily clad," but I guess my understanding of the word isn't everyone's understanding of it. To me, "scantily clad" conjures up images of people wearing only underwear or maybe underwear and a little bit more.

[Andara Bledin]

But I don't want to watch and I don't want my daughters (if I have any) to aspire to using their physical 'assets' to get money or anything else.

Everybody uses their physical assets to get ahead. It's just that some physical assets are ok to use (winning smile, firm handshake) and others we get all weird over.

The funny thing over people making a fuss about Hooters is that they want people to get all up in arms about them. It's great press.

I find the comments about the waitresses being upbeat and good at their jobs to be quite telling about what kind of company environment they have, however.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

"Exploitation of women"?

That's a pretty strong term, don't you think?

Yeah, probably the wrong word....how about degradation? I really don't see it as all that different from stripping. If a woman can make a comfortable living doing it and be okay with herself, okay. But I don't want to watch and I don't want my daughters (if I have any) to aspire to using their physical 'assets' to get money or anything else.

[Cat]

I've been to Hooters, wasn't impressed by the food. But that might have been an off day. I seem to remember the waitresses being nice.

Also have been to a Chipendales show...sadly, the guys were not all to pleasing to the eye. They did not serve food, but the myself and the gals I was with brought in foot-long hot dogs to eat (the show was in a casino and this was before I was vege, ha)

[Bronzebow]

There's Chippendale's. Actually, I'm not 100% certain if they're a restaurant or not...but hey, if there's a market for it, someone will try.

[blas87]

NOW takes things a little bit too far.

However, I am still awaiting the day there is a restaurant where scandalously clad buff and gorgeous guys serve cosmos and delicious food for ladies. Fair is fair, right?

[Greenday]

They can sue all they want but I doubt any good will come out of it (including the fact that they'd lose).

I used to go to the Hooters by my college all the time. Food was great. Service was great (better than most other restaurants). They gave me a discount for working for the military. My ex-girlfriend used to love going with me because they had a really good sauce that she was able to eat (she's lactose intolerant). Most places she can't eat wings because of the sauce.

If you don't like it, don't work there and don't go there. Simple. Nothing wrong is being done there.

[Rageaholic]

Okay, I'll agree that those bibs are tacky as hell, but suing them over it is extreme. If you feel the place is kid unfriendly, don't take your kids there. It's not like anyone is holding a gun against your head.

Jeez.

[IDrinkaRum]

For the record, I'm a female. I love Hooters. I have no problem with the women wearing what they are wearing. I have never understood why women are offended when other women decide to show off their "assets". I like to show off my assets, and come to think of it, I sometimes get dirty looks from the women around me. I shrug it off.

My daughter loves the waitresses at the local restaurant. They're really nice and will sit and talk to her (which she loves). Whenever I ask where she wants to have lunch or dinner, she'll say "Hooters". And she's excited.

And I do like Raps' observations.



I had to go to the Hooters website to see if they actually had a children's menu. And not too many places around where I live have grilled cheese on the menu, that my daughter likes to go. (For example: 2 months ago, when we went to the local Red Robin restaurant for Spirit Night for her school, was the first time daughter did start to scream uncontrollably for no apparent reason). So for my daughter to enjoy Hooters is just one more restaurant we can go to and she won't make a scene.

[Bronzebow]

"Exploitation of women"?

That's a pretty strong term, don't you think? Granted the restaurant is a bit tacky and tasteless, but that's a pretty dang big jump into "exploiting women." If anything, the chain is at least honest when they advertise what they are compared to other restaurants that do the same thing. How are these women being victimized, exactly?

[AdminAssistant]

Personally, I wouldn't take my child to a restaurant that exists on the exploitation of women (lots of places sell grilled cheese and chicken wings), and I wouldn't joke about my daughter working there in the future. The lawsuit seems a bit extreme...but they don't call the place "Hooters" because of the owl, y'know? Would you take a kid to a place with scantily clad male waiters called "Sausages"?