You coulda been a contender wrote:
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.
Yea, sorry, just sick of the direction we are headed.
Next thing you know, some creep is gonna demand we take down the Washington Monument because they think it resembles a phallic symbol.
aoxomoxoa wrote:
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.
I tried biting my tongue but the victimization here is exhausting..
Look, I've been to Hooter's a few times, and quite honestly, you see more fit women in track uniforms than at Hooters. What about beaches, and night clubs, shut those down too?
Objectifying? Come on..look at how athletic men, especially in their young prime dress for workouts, at your local gym, ever watched the NFL combine on TV? You don't think women are making comments and making faces to each other when they see a stud athlete in spandex, on a football field, or any other situation?
We have got to stop making sex, and the human body such a taboo, triggered topic. Athletic/fit bodies are appealing, duh..
Now, the real topic at hand is the Coach was a bit of a dumb ass, for NOT expecting this to be blown out of proportion.
Hounddogharrier wrote:
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 ,
The willful ignorance continues!
There's nothing wrong with teenage boys looking at attractive females. I don't believe that anyone, myself included, said otherwise. There is, however, something wrong with objectifying females and teaching a younger generation that such behavior is for the best of humanity.
Your last sentence (?) that ended in a , is you either being completely obtuse or you just joking around. Otherwise today is a very sad day for you intellectually. I'm sure you realize that if the coach had brought a team to any bar (gay, straight, or otherwise) he would not be applauded. He would have found himself in the same situation of coming under scrutiny. As he should.
There is an answer to the objectification of women: it's called the burqa.
Hounddogharrier wrote:
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 ,
yep, and I bet the female track and volleyball athletes at that school dress "scantily" just like at that trashy Hooters restaurant! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Fire the Athletic Director!!
Coffee Bacon wrote:
I tried biting my tongue but the victimization here is exhausting..
Look, I've been to Hooter's a few times, and quite honestly, you see more fit women in track uniforms than at Hooters. What about beaches, and night clubs, shut those down too?[quote]
What was that whizzing by your head?
Oh. It was the point. You seemed to have missed it.
Context of women at a track meet: sporting event with the appropriate performance apparel.
Context of women working at Hooters: restaurant named for women's breasts wearing clothing that is meant to attract the eyes of men, their primary demographic.
Whether or not you choose to also perv out at track meets is your own issue, but I don't think it's an overwhelming intellectual fete to see the difference here.
I'm not sure why night clubs and beaches are in the conversation. Are you suggesting that the coach should have brought them to either? The former would definitely not fly. The latter would not be an issue simply because of....wait for it...the context.
[quote]Coffee Bacon wrote:
Objectifying? Come on..look at how athletic men, especially in their young prime dress for workouts, at your local gym, ever watched the NFL combine on TV? You don't think women are making comments and making faces to each other when they see a stud athlete in spandex, on a football field, or any other situation?
Again: context. Do you honestly think that someone in the combine who is trying to be drafted by a team in the NFL is choosing their outfit in order to make housewives across the nation swoon?
Coffee Bacon wrote:
We have got to stop making sex, and the human body such a taboo, triggered topic. Athletic/fit bodies are appealing, duh..
Now, the real topic at hand is the Coach was a bit of a dumb ass, for NOT expecting this to be blown out of proportion.
The topic here is not sex or the human body. The topic is the systemic idea that it is ok to objectify a female's body. There is nothing wrong with sex or the human body or celebrating either. There is, however, something very toxic about viewing another human being, male or female, as an object rather than as a person.
And, yes: the coach was a bit of a dumb ass.
Armstronglivs wrote:
There is an answer to the objectification of women: it's called the burqa.
I know you're just pretending to be a dumb ass here, but the burqa is actually just as objectifying, just in the other direction. Maybe do some reading in Islamic theology and practice before pretending to know something about another culture. Or continue to falsely appropriate other cultures and continue to look like a backwater dumb ass. Either way is fine with me. It's your life.
Just the Facts II wrote:
Hounddogharrier wrote:
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 ,
yep, and I bet the female track and volleyball athletes at that school dress "scantily" just like at that trashy Hooters restaurant! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Fire the Athletic Director!!
Do you honestly not see a difference between a female in performance apparel playing a sport and a female wearing booty shorts and a low cut tank working at a restaurant named after female's breasts?
If so, I feel sorry for you and hope that you can find the help that you need.
aoxomoxoa wrote:
Just the Facts II wrote:
yep, and I bet the female track and volleyball athletes at that school dress "scantily" just like at that trashy Hooters restaurant! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Fire the Athletic Director!!
Do you honestly not see a difference between a female in performance apparel playing a sport and a female wearing booty shorts and a low cut tank working at a restaurant named after female's breasts?
If so, I feel sorry for you and hope that you can find the help that you need.
Assuming that every male that eats at Hooters is objectifying women is a terrible leap on your part.
Is your main concern with the name of the establishment or the attire their workers knowingly choose to wear?
Mirror Mirror on the wall wrote:
Assuming that every male that eats at Hooters is objectifying women is a terrible leap on your part.
Is your main concern with the name of the establishment or the attire their workers knowingly choose to wear?
Where was it, pray ye, where I said that every male that eats at Hooters is objectifying women?
Oh.
Nowhere.
Interesting.
The main concern, in case either reading or thinking (or both) is an issue for you, is that the restaurant was established on the premise that objectifying the female body would be good for business. That's not me projecting. That's the actual history of the restaurant.
Any other mind twisting questions or false statements that you want to throw my way?
Problem is likely more with how the restaurant is named and the history behind it.
There are a ton of restaurants (in Canada, I’m thinking of Earl’s, Moxie’s, etc) where the de facto “uniform” is pretty similarly revealing to the Hooter’s uniforms. Only, it’s not a mandated uniform, all the workers just understand they have to dress this way.
I doubt there would be blow back about the high school team going to one of these restaurants.
All in all, colossally dumb by this coach not to anticipate this being an issue.
aoxomoxoa wrote:
[quote]Mirror Mirror on the wall wrote:
Assuming that every male that eats at Hooters is objectifying women is a terrible leap on your part.
Is your main concern with the name of the establishment or the attire their workers knowingly choose to wear?
Where was it, pray ye, where I said that every male that eats at Hooters is objectifying women?
The main concern, in case either reading or thinking (or both) is an issue for you, is that the restaurant was established on the premise that objectifying the female body would be good for business. That's not me projecting. That's the actual history of the restaurant.
Well, it appears they were correct in their thinking, going strong for 26+ years.
looks good to me? wrote:
Well, it appears they were correct in their thinking, going strong for 26+ years.
36+. It was incorporated in 1983.
The main concern, in case either reading or thinking (or both) is an issue for you, is that the restaurant was established on the premise that objectifying the female body would be good for business. That's not me projecting. That's the actual history of the restaurant.
Any other mind twisting questions or false statements that you want to throw my way?[/quote]
Yes, people are not objects. Not simply women. However, as others have noted, there are far more audacious venues and clothing that people wear. I guess night clubs are out, any beaches (so get rid of Florida and any coastal region), hotel pools in tropical climates, etc. Hooters is not very interesting to me, but saying the premise with which the restaurant opened has to be the prevailing mindset or tone of the workers, patrons, etc is like saying that when "The Room" was created as a serious film mean that is exactly how it received today and by the public. As for the HS coach getting fired/scrutinized, sure. The kids are not adults and given that their parents might be as puritanical as you. So if that is what floats your boat, ok. If it was college kids, then I would say get over it. Spring break is going to be infinitely more egregious than the tame environment one is going to find inside a place that is in some malls.
Coffee Bacon wrote:
aoxomoxoa wrote:
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.
I tried biting my tongue but the victimization here is exhausting..
Look, I've been to Hooter's a few times, and quite honestly, you see more fit women in track uniforms than at Hooters. What about beaches, and night clubs, shut those down too?
Objectifying? Come on..look at how athletic men, especially in their young prime dress for workouts, at your local gym, ever watched the NFL combine on TV? You don't think women are making comments and making faces to each other when they see a stud athlete in spandex, on a football field, or any other situation?
We have got to stop making sex, and the human body such a taboo, triggered topic. Athletic/fit bodies are appealing, duh..
Now, the real topic at hand is the Coach was a bit of a dumb ass, for NOT expecting this to be blown out of proportion.
I can't believe this board. The stupidity you folks are willing to defend baffles me.
This is a coach, not a pal, or an uncle, or a parent, and he's choosing to take his team to a place whose name crassly references a part of a woman's body and whose servers are expected to play that up.
I know people with think I'm exaggerating, but this coach is equating his team's athletic victory with a sort of primitive idea of ownership. Heaven forbid they just go to an Olive Garden, where the servers wear white long-sleeved shirts and black pants, or just to the local burger place. No: for this coach, a true celebration of conquest also involves demonstrating an attitude of superiority over others, not only over the opposing team but over an entire other gender. The place is called "Hooters" for goodness's sake, and to think that the coach and the kids were not looking forward to everything that that name implies is painfully naive. The coach is saying, "Winners on the field get to do whatever they want. Refer to women as just their sexual parts. Eat out at places that celebrate the reduction of women. Whatever they want." The message this coach is sending is really unhealthy--essentially, that "winning" is the same as dominance, and there's no reason that has to end at the lines of a playing field. You might say that he's just trying to have some fun with his athletes; but I would ask why he chose this kind of fun. Why a sort of fun that explicitly and crudely spotlights women's physical/sexual/personal attributes, when there are surely dozens of other places they could have gone that don't do this?
And I can just hear the eye-rolling from folks who make it this far in this post; that doesn't bother me at all. There is a connection between the acts we reward in our communities and the ways that we choose to reward those acts. If you think that the connection this coach has made is either non-existent or benign, that's fine. But to me, a coach rewarding a sports team in a way that no music teacher would think to reward that same high school's orchestra for a similar accomplishment is totally revealing.
Oh, and I don't care about the "quality of the hot wings" or whatever.
aoxomoxoa wrote:
Coffee Bacon wrote:
I tried biting my tongue but the victimization here is exhausting..
Look, I've been to Hooter's a few times, and quite honestly, you see more fit women in track uniforms than at Hooters. What about beaches, and night clubs, shut those down too?[quote]
What was that whizzing by your head?
Oh. It was the point. You seemed to have missed it.
Context of women at a track meet: sporting event with the appropriate performance apparel.
Context of women working at Hooters: restaurant named for women's breasts wearing clothing that is meant to attract the eyes of men, their primary demographic.
Whether or not you choose to also perv out at track meets is your own issue, but I don't think it's an overwhelming intellectual fete to see the difference here.
I'm not sure why night clubs and beaches are in the conversation. Are you suggesting that the coach should have brought them to either? The former would definitely not fly. The latter would not be an issue simply because of....wait for it...the context.
[quote]Coffee Bacon wrote:
Objectifying? Come on..look at how athletic men, especially in their young prime dress for workouts, at your local gym, ever watched the NFL combine on TV? You don't think women are making comments and making faces to each other when they see a stud athlete in spandex, on a football field, or any other situation?
Again: context. Do you honestly think that someone in the combine who is trying to be drafted by a team in the NFL is choosing their outfit in order to make housewives across the nation swoon?
Coffee Bacon wrote:
We have got to stop making sex, and the human body such a taboo, triggered topic. Athletic/fit bodies are appealing, duh..
Now, the real topic at hand is the Coach was a bit of a dumb ass, for NOT expecting this to be blown out of proportion.
The topic here is not sex or the human body. The topic is the systemic idea that it is ok to objectify a female's body. There is nothing wrong with sex or the human body or celebrating either. There is, however, something very toxic about viewing another human being, male or female, as an object rather than as a person.
And, yes: the coach was a bit of a dumb ass.
The trend of being so easily triggered has to be exhausting..
Let's consider this, Reggie Bush and other MALE athletic specimens in the last 20 years have been on the cover of magazines front and center of the grocery aisle, at eye level for all kids to see, all kinds of social media allure with their shirts off in spandex on national television, any outrage...?
You want to ignore any other relevant context because it's not fitting your current narrative for your stance of "objectifying"
I agreed that the coach made a bone headed move, and that wasn't the time nor place to be the "cool guy" but you had to take it into your hands with all the above nonsense..
Where were you and the other SJW's when Emma Coburn and other elite FEMALE athletes were proudly (as they should be) apart of SI's Body Issue?
And how aren't sports uniforms relevant in this topic? Mostly all sports uniforms are form fitting, minus basketball. Are you outraged every time you see a female runner? Or a male sprinter in spandex, with very little left to the imagination?
aoxomoxoa wrote:
Mirror Mirror on the wall wrote:
Assuming that every male that eats at Hooters is objectifying women is a terrible leap on your part.
Is your main concern with the name of the establishment or the attire their workers knowingly choose to wear?
Where was it, pray ye, where I said that every male that eats at Hooters is objectifying women?
Oh.
Nowhere.
Interesting.
The main concern, in case either reading or thinking (or both) is an issue for you, is that the restaurant was established on the premise that objectifying the female body would be good for business. That's not me projecting. That's the actual history of the restaurant.
Any other mind twisting questions or false statements that you want to throw my way?
Using the word "obeject" when describing what the women at Hooters are considered...by YOU, seems like objectifying to me. In your opinion - they are dressed "scantily". I don't feel that way and many of the bar/grills I eat at during the summer while vacationing/fishing in the midwest have waitresses wearing far less than the dress code at Hooters. I never gave it a concern, or did it encourage me to go back just because an attractive college girl had a summer job and served me while wearing short jean shorts and a bikini top.
It's not appropriate or professional. Not sure what is hard to understand here. Has nothing to do with liberals and snowflakes and whatever else you people rant about on a daily basis.
TKTKTK wrote:
Coffee Bacon wrote:
I tried biting my tongue but the victimization here is exhausting..
Look, I've been to Hooter's a few times, and quite honestly, you see more fit women in track uniforms than at Hooters. What about beaches, and night clubs, shut those down too?
Objectifying? Come on..look at how athletic men, especially in their young prime dress for workouts, at your local gym, ever watched the NFL combine on TV? You don't think women are making comments and making faces to each other when they see a stud athlete in spandex, on a football field, or any other situation?
We have got to stop making sex, and the human body such a taboo, triggered topic. Athletic/fit bodies are appealing, duh..
Now, the real topic at hand is the Coach was a bit of a dumb ass, for NOT expecting this to be blown out of proportion.
I can't believe this board. The stupidity you folks are willing to defend baffles me.
This is a coach, not a pal, or an uncle, or a parent, and he's choosing to take his team to a place whose name crassly references a part of a woman's body and whose servers are expected to play that up.
I know people with think I'm exaggerating, but this coach is equating his team's athletic victory with a sort of primitive idea of ownership. Heaven forbid they just go to an Olive Garden, where the servers wear white long-sleeved shirts and black pants, or just to the local burger place. No: for this coach, a true celebration of conquest also involves demonstrating an attitude of superiority over others, not only over the opposing team but over an entire other gender. The place is called "Hooters" for goodness's sake, and to think that the coach and the kids were not looking forward to everything that that name implies is painfully naive. The coach is saying, "Winners on the field get to do whatever they want. Refer to women as just their sexual parts. Eat out at places that celebrate the reduction of women. Whatever they want." The message this coach is sending is really unhealthy--essentially, that "winning" is the same as dominance, and there's no reason that has to end at the lines of a playing field. You might say that he's just trying to have some fun with his athletes; but I would ask why he chose this kind of fun. Why a sort of fun that explicitly and crudely spotlights women's physical/sexual/personal attributes, when there are surely dozens of other places they could have gone that don't do this?
And I can just hear the eye-rolling from folks who make it this far in this post; that doesn't bother me at all. There is a connection between the acts we reward in our communities and the ways that we choose to reward those acts. If you think that the connection this coach has made is either non-existent or benign, that's fine. But to me, a coach rewarding a sports team in a way that no music teacher would think to reward that same high school's orchestra for a similar accomplishment is totally revealing.
Oh, and I don't care about the "quality of the hot wings" or whatever.
LOL..WHAT?!
I was in no way defending the coach's choice, I thought it was stupid, and that he didn't accept blow back was even more stupid!
The original above triggered poster, took it above and beyond turning this into some SJW stampede
By the way, "ownership"? That's an incredible stretch..
aoxomoxoa wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
There is an answer to the objectification of women: it's called the burqa.
I know you're just pretending to be a dumb ass here, but the burqa is actually just as objectifying, just in the other direction. Maybe do some reading in Islamic theology and practice before pretending to know something about another culture. Or continue to falsely appropriate other cultures and continue to look like a backwater dumb ass. Either way is fine with me. It's your life.
So the answer is only attire that the feminazis like - not too revealing but don’t cover too much ! Such sad ,