Coach gets suspended for taking team to Hooters

Viking Fan wrote:

Jerry Maguire wrote:

I don't think this has anything to do with #metoo. If this happened 15 years ago, the result would have been the same, unless it was a small dirty one-horse town.

I'm anti-PC and anti-bandwagon shaming, toxic feminism is real. This isn't that though. This isn't the SJW coming to attack an innocent person where everything has been overblown or taken out of context.

I would be furious if a coach took my son to hooters. It's trashy and low class.

https://www.hooters.com/locations/31105-mall-of-america

Hardly trashy & low class. Have you ever stepped in a Hooters bar & grill?

Have you ever attended university?

It' might be acceptable to people of low intellect and economic status.

aoxomoxoa wrote:

Joker wrote:

#toxicfeminism

If "toxic" means that you don't support the objectification of females so that men grow up to view females as human beings rather than sex objects, then I'll gladly accept that label.

So the answer is to have all women wear ankle length dresses so they aren’t seen as sex objects ?

Hounddogharrier wrote:

To celebrate an undefeated season the Lake George soccer coach took his team to Hooters . Now he is suspended and probably getting the axe . #metoo claims another victim .

Oh my god!!

Stuff like this is why kids will grow up messed up. No, not because they go to Hooters, but because of snowflakes telling them to avoid the unplesant and overly pleasant realities of life when the kids should be learning and experiencing the world for what it truly is.

Joker wrote:

No, toxic is your notion that "Objectification of the female body, which dehumanizes females, is what Hooters is all about."

I disagree and think it's really disrespectful and insulting towards all the women who choose to work at Hooters.

You can disagree with facts all that you'd like. It doesn't change the fact. The FACT is that 6 businessmen incorporated the first Hooters restaurant on April Fool's Day in 1983 because they thought it was a joke of an idea that was going to fail. They named their restaurant "Hooters" in reference to breasts. They only hired female waitresses (and still do...see lawsuits as far back as the '90s for denying employment to male servers) and made them dress "scantily" in order to attract male customers.

I feel fine with being disrespectful towards women who chose to be part of the problem (i.e., objectifying themselves). Hookers, call girls, porn stars, etc. (note: I'm not equivocating all of those professions, just pointing out that they all require the female to actively objectify themselves, thereby perpetuating a society of toxic masculinity and misogyny).

So, again, feel free to disagree with facts. Also feel free to want to live in a world that views ~50% of the population as sub-human objects. That's simply not the type of world in which I want to live or that I want my daughter and son to grow up in.

Yep, a place that sells $15 burgers is definitely staying a float by only people of low intellect and economic status.

Will you let your daughter play sports? If so, will you be providing a more modest uniform?

Hounddogharrier wrote:

So the answer is to have all women wear ankle length dresses so they aren’t seen as sex objects ?

You're being willingly disingenuous here.

There is a wide range of options between requiring females to wear short, tight shorts and tight, low cut tops while working at a restaurant that gets its name from a double entendre of a woman's breast and wearing ankle length dresses.

Pretend the coach took the boys to a sporting event that had cheerleaders who, like many do, dressed in bikini tops. How is that any better than Hooters?

Fired Coach wrote:

Will you let your daughter play sports? If so, will you be providing a more modest uniform?

The low intellectual capacity that spawned this line of questioning is why restaurants such as Hooters still exist.

It's about context.

What is the context of a female, for instance, wearing short shorts and a tank top at a track meet? The context is a sporting event and the purpose of the clothing is performance.

What is the context of a female wearing shorts shorts and a tank top while working at a restaurant named after woman's breasts that caters specifically towards male customers? The context is to be ogled at by men and the purpose of the clothing is to encourage that ogling.

Doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

noarg wrote:

Pretend the coach took the boys to a sporting event that had cheerleaders who, like many do, dressed in bikini tops. How is that any better than Hooters?

The purpose of taking them to a sporting event would be to view the actual sporting event. The cheerleaders, although present, would not be the focal point of the event.

Whereas taking them to a restaurant named after a woman's breasts is a totally different issue.

It's very odd that you cannot see that. Are you drunk? I know it's Friday, but it's still pretty early.

aoxomoxoa wrote:

noarg wrote:

Pretend the coach took the boys to a sporting event that had cheerleaders who, like many do, dressed in bikini tops. How is that any better than Hooters?

The purpose of taking them to a sporting event would be to view the actual sporting event. The cheerleaders, although present, would not be the focal point of the event.

Whereas taking them to a restaurant named after a woman's breasts is a totally different issue.

It's very odd that you cannot see that. Are you drunk? I know it's Friday, but it's still pretty early.

You won the debate at "Good riddance." I urge you to not waste any more of your time trying to educate pinheads.

Entirely agree.

Its not that the kids are being "corrupted" by the attire of the servers (or the cheerleaders). Its that they are being exposed to a set of values propagated or reinforced by the restaurant. You would have to be an idiot to think that Hooters isn't all about the objectification of women and making money off of that objectification. People don't go there because their food is particularly good, cheap, nutritious, etc....

If people choose to raise teens with values consistent with Hooters, thats their decision (and I will judge them for it). A coach or any other adult in a position of power who normalizes those values or impresses them on other kids or teens, is completely inappropriate.

- A Dude

Hounddogharrier wrote:

To celebrate an undefeated season the Lake George soccer coach took his team to Hooters . Now he is suspended and probably getting the axe . #metoo claims another victim .

Foolish choice.

Should have taken the team to Twin Peaks

He should be fired for feeding his team that crap they call food at Hooters. That's abuse man!

It is my personal opinion that Hooters has perhaps the best tasting wings of all the restaurant chains. That probably helps them stay in business.

On the skimpy outfit thing, I really don't get it. It is a market economy where the women who are employed by Hooters have willingly agreed to work for Hooters knowing precisely what the uniform is. They can work so many other places if they don't want to subject themselves to objectification. They are entering into the contract willingly. It is my understanding that they are hired as models who serve and that allows their employer to regulate their appearance. Again, the women know all of this going into it.

People in general find interactions with whom they find attractive (heterosexual or LGBTQ) more pleasant than someone that they don't find attractive. The majority of the male population is hetrosexual and a large subset of that population is attracted to thin women with large breasts.

If there was a sufficient market for a restaurant called Bananas where muscular men dress in briefs then it would probably exist. Why doesn't Bananas exist or have the popularity of Hooters? Probably because on average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed, they’re universal across human cultures and they often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone. It is well documented that biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males

wing dings wrote:

Come on, it's a restaurant. Get over it you liberal twit. This country is getting ridiculous, you people suck.

You lost me at the end of your sensible first sentence. The rest of it is just more hatred.

It’s the thought Nazis at work again . How dare teenage boys look at attractive girls? If the coach brought the team to a gay bar he would have been applauded for promoting diversity ,