news from nowhere

My problems with Hooters: I'm writing this in response to the exhausting debate on Mahmood's Den.

1) It's sexist

In order to earn their wages, are there any places that require men to fulfill a masculine stereotype and show off their body? I doubt it, because men have not been sexualised and objectified to the same (extreme) degree that women have been.

I mean in a world where more and more people are starting to say that men and women are equals, doesn't anyone find it strange that such job requirements have only been made of women? And does this not suggest some inherent sexism in the work?

I'm sure people will argue that Hooters is sexist because it won't employ men as 'scantily clad' servers. But as the free market dictates, it seems that there isn't a demand for this.

What this suggests to me is that within our patriarchal, sexist societies, there is a demand for women to act as sex objects to sell products. And Hooters is cashing in on it.


2) It objectifies women (turns them into a product) to sell other products to men:

"Because she is the emblem of spending ability and the chief spender, she is also the most effective seller of this world's goods. Every survey ever held has shown that the image of an attractive woman is the most effective advertising gimmick." (Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch)

Or, to paraphrase, shall we use the Hooters employee rule book?
"Customers can go to many place for wings and beer, but it is our Hooters Girls who make our concept unique. Hooters offers its customers the look of the '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. When you are in the Hooters Girl Uniform you are literally playing a role. Having been cast for that role, you must comply with the Image and Grooming Standards that the role requires."

So, in plain English: Hooters girls must comply to the stereotypes (listed above) by dressing in the Hooters uniform and following nail/hair/make up/ jewellery orders to enable the company to gain a market advantage over other wings and beer places.

Or the Hooters acknowledgment form for waitresses?

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

To me, this reads: In order to spare Hooters the hassle of harassment lawsuits, if you work here you have to agree that you are being used to sell the 'Hooters concept' / wings and beer. And you have to obey our definition of 'female sex appeal' in order to sell the concept/ wings and beer. Also, you must agree not to find sexist or lewd jokes and comments offensive intimidating, hostile or unwelcome.

My question is - where is the protection for the girls in case a customer, hyped up on the beer and flirtation with pretty waitresses, goes too far? And she feels violated? Is there any redress for her? Or does that fall under the job duties?

Basically, Hooters have created and are marketing a product - the "Hooters Girl" in order to sell their more ordinary products - beer and wings.

Problem? "Objectification also refers to behavior in which one person treats another person as an object and not as a fellow human being with feelings and consciousness of his or her own."

Sexual objectification is dehumanisation. And we women are human beings!
It's such a stupid sentence to write, is it so outrageous to think?

The best this dehumanisation gives us good old fashioned sexism (where the male gender is considered superior to the female), the worst gives us violence against women.
But they are connected.

And sexism is dehumanising for men too. Although it is perhaps not as damaging because it confines men into the position of domination in the equation male = strong, superior and female = weak, inferior. But that's a separate issue.

3) It reinforces already existing mythological stereotypes about women:

"The stereotype is the Eternal Feminine. She is the sexual object sought by all men, and by all women... Her value is solely attested by the demand she excites in others ... There are stringent limits to the variations on the stereotype, for nothing much interfere with her function as a sex object." (Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch)

So, Hooters have worked out how to turn the enduring stereotype of women into a literal, living and breathing product. So what is this 'female sex appeal' that they keep talking about?

From Hooters, are we to understand that our 'genetic sex appeal' can be found in showing breasts, showing legs, wearing tan coloured tights, leaving our hair down, and wearing make up to 'accentuate features'?

Are we to learn from this that our 'genetic sex appeal' cannot include any expressions of individuality, no 'bizarre haircuts', tattoos, brightly coloured nail polish, tattoos, anything beyond the limits of a Hooters girl look?

What about the girls that don't look like this? The ones with 'bizarre haircuts', or the ones who don't like wearing make, the ones who don't leave their hair down? Does this mean that they are somehow lacking in the 'genetic sex appeal'??

Or the girls who don't always want to look like this? Don't want to conform to some mass produced idea of sexuality? What if they can't be bothered to be the carefully constructed Hooters girl?

What the hell does 'wholesome yet sexy' mean anyways? And why does some advertising gimmick get to set limits on the sexuality of half of the world's population?

Why can't sexuality or sex appeal be something individual, something personal and real - rather than some idea created in a boardroom and conformed to by those who are employed to market it?

Of course the Hooters stereotype is the not the root of the problem, sexism and stereotyping is everywhere. Like the song says, beauty magazines will only make you feel fat.
But Hooters certainly does its part to perpetuate it.

4) It runs an authoritarian workplace:


See when I criticize capitalism, or say I find it degrading, people immediately assume I'm talking about profiteering. But what about the anti-democratic organisation in capitalist businesses?

While its true that many countries in the West, and the US have established a small degree of democracy in their political systems, to me it is clearly limited. And I think it's lazy and arrogant for people to sit back and say 'we worked it out, we're free' instead of continuing to develop and spread democracy within their countries. Run universities democratically, run corporations democratically, run the media democratically? Instill a good and (democratically) available to all education system. (Note to America: maybe this is where you should concentrate on 'promoting freedom and democracy').

For me, a big problem with capitalism is its anti-democratic organisation. For example, in Hooters, where the big boss man can stop the worker girl from earning her wages if she 'violates' the Hooter Girl dress code. Why?

"The essence of Hooters is the Hooters Girl. Because it is essential to our success that the Hooters Girl image is always properly maintained, failure to comply with these Image and Grooming Standards may result in discipline up to and including termination. Your general manager has the final authority on all matters involving dress, accessory, and grooming requirements for the staff."

For a company from a country that claims to be all about freedom and fairness, they sure don't seem to think much of valuing the individual or personal freedoms.

In short, do I think Hooters opening in Dubai will contribute to a) a clash between 'Islamic' and 'Western' cultures (whatever these distinctions entail) or b) the corrosion of local culture?

Well, only in as much as franchises promote a homogenized mono-culture.
But I think there are many more, and more compelling reasons to have a problem with the place.

I would never advocate banning Hooters as a means to challenge the problems it perpetuates. But challenging what Hooters stands for and whether or not it is acceptable, for me is part of the wider struggle for womens' rights, human rights, and dignity, and against sexism and economic exploitation.