dontgiveahoot - Jezebel

posts about #dontgiveahoot more →
Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

K
01/12/09

In reply to Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified
Dear Jezebel,

I love this site. I am a longtime reader and a huge fan. I am one of those who check in multiple times throughout the day, continually hitting my refresh button in hopes that yet another intriguing, informative, and entertaining article has been posted within the thirty seconds since I last hit refresh. You educate me, you enthrall me, and I love you.

I am, however, a little upset by the insults that you have been lobbing my way, as of late. You see, I am a feminist. Liberal, free-thinking, open-minded, pro-choice, pro-sex...I am also a Hooters Girl. I have been for a little more than two months now. I love it. It is clear that you, along with the majority of your other readers, despise my employers. This is fine. Different opinions are what make the world interesting. I do not always agree with the stance that you take on various topics, and I certainly do not expect that you always agree with mine, however, I do wish that you, and your readers, would take a deeper look at things before denouncing them. It is infuriating to read, day after day, that you are being taken advantage of, exploited, objectified, filled with psychological issues, in need of pity, and so on. It is not true and it is extremely patronizing of you make such broad assumptions with little to no idea how Hooters or the restaurant business truly works.

Signed,

A Hooters Girl Who is Not Treated Like Crap
Reply

K was starred K was unstarred

prestocaro fears the culling
01/12/09

@K: You get a better response about the quality/angle of writing if you actually write to the editors, just FYI.

I do pity you... but only because I know that waiting tables sucks, and wearing a shirt that gives everyone a show every time you bend over sucks (especially WHILE WAITING TABLES), and I read about chronic hose-induced yeast infections on your blog and that sounds terrible! I think "poor thing" every time I go out to eat because I know what it is like work hard and be unsure if that effort and sweat is actually going to amount to any financial gain.

I'm glad you like your job! And that you posted in response.
Reply

K
01/12/09

@prestocaro wants to be your cheap virtual assistant: Waiting tables does such, but waiting tables at Hooters is less sucky, for many reasons.

Anyone who has ever waited tables knows how annoying and rude customers can be. They also know how much work is required and how you must be on your feet for hours on end. At Hooters, this shit is minimal. There is very little side work required of us and down time is not spent cleaning and stocking. Instead, we are encouraged to sit with our customers at their tables. This gives our body's a rest and allows us to truly converse and connect with our tables...thus tips increase, I do less work than I would elsewhere, and have less leg/foot pain. Win for me! I'll trade more/harder work and smaller tips for the occasional yeast infection any day!
Reply

K was starred K was unstarred

prestocaro fears the culling
01/12/09

@K: There's really nothing worse than thinking you're about to leave and then realizing you still have a half an hour of side work left. My last waitressing job there was literally no sidework -- no silverware to roll, no coffee pots to scrub out, etc -- and it seemed like some magical land of milk and honey.

Also - I'm trying to do the yogurt every day thing, and was starting to get burned out, but now I'm putting a serving into smoothies and it's a nice change of pace.
Reply

chatterboxwriting
01/12/09

In reply to Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified
From what I remember of my employment law class, companies can discriminate based on gender in hiring if gender can be considered a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). So, Southwest Airlines had to hire men because gender is not a BFOQ for helping passengers board planes, serving snacks/drinks, and helping maintain safety aboard a plane. However, when people go to Hooters, they are often going specifically to see women dressed in revealing outfits. It is part of the Hooters experience. In this case, being female could be considered a BFOQ for server positions. If the man wanted to work in the kitchen, gender would not be a BFOQ because patrons would not be seeing him or interacting with him. I don't think these men have a case.
Reply

chatterboxwriting was starred

linnyt is a walking cliché
01/12/09

@chatterboxwriting: yeah, that's what I was trying to remember and say. you did it better.
Reply

linnyt is a walking cliché
01/12/09

@chatterboxwriting: apparently it's really difficult to get a BFOQ thing though, so we'll see how this goes.
Reply

braak: You are, as usual, completely correct.
01/12/09

In reply to Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified
This was already an episode of King of the Hill.

It did not work out so well for Dale.
Reply

MizJenkins
01/12/09

In reply to Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified
Let me guess, next up is a motion to join as co-plaintiffs on behalf of a parliament of indignant owls.
Reply

MizJenkins was starred MizJenkins was unstarred

aubonpam
01/12/09

In reply to Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified
I kind of like the idea of this lawsuit shaking shit up.
Reply

aubonpam was starred aubonpam was unstarred

Pizza!Pizza!Pizza!
01/12/09

In reply to Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified
Didn't this happen five years ago?
Reply

Pizza!Pizza!Pizza! was starred

swimmingly
01/12/09

In reply to Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified
Occasionally, I find out that some lost girl I went to high school with or an acquaintance works at Hooters. One girl even got her boobs done because she knew she would make more money! And I feel sad for them...that their livelihood depends on their looks alone. There are substantially less jobs for men that depend on one's physique like this. I think that, while the men who are preparing this lawsuit are probably just in it for the money, it's about time someone brought this issue to the forefront.
Reply

swimmingly was starred swimmingly was unstarred

rollergirl76
01/12/09

In reply to Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified
Tackiness should not be limited to just one gender.
Reply

rollergirl76 was starred rollergirl76 was unstarred

sportz.star
01/12/09

In reply to Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified
Somewhat O/T but one year at a training facility where we had outdoor trampolines, some of the local Hooters waitresses happened to stop by, in uniform, and my teammates taught them how to bounce on a trampoline. I don't think the situation would have been funnier/more enjoyable for having male wait staff. Watching my teammates was good enough for me.
Reply

sportz.star was starred sportz.star was unstarred

sportz.star
01/12/09

@sportz.star: This may also be tied to the eye-candy-ness of my teammates. But still.
Reply

sportz.star was starred sportz.star was unstarred

my cousin is an ape
01/12/09

In reply to Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified
I remember reading something once (in Seventeen, maybe?) when I was in High School about these girls that got sick of guys wearing Hooter's shirts to school, so they made up these shirts that said Cocks, with the "o" acting as the eye of a rooster. They got suspended. I always wanted one of those shirts.
Reply

aubonpam
01/12/09

@my cousin is an ape: I read that too! It WAS Seventeen!
Reply

aubonpam was starred aubonpam was unstarred

JinxyMcDeath
01/12/09

In reply to Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified
Before you decide to sue someone, think about this "what are my damages?" Are you physically injured? If so, have you been treated for these injuries? Did you insurance pay for your medical care? If so, do you realize they will have a lien on any amount you recover?

Are you mentally injured? If so, have you ever been treated for these injuries?

Have you sustained economic loss? If so, can you prove this through concrete evidence (i.e. receipts)?

Lastly, do you realize that your lawyer gets 1/3 of whatever you recover...

It would save the court system and a lot of plaintiffs filing fees if they just asked themselves that simple question...
Reply

JinxyMcDeath was starred JinxyMcDeath was unstarred

Vivien Smith-Smythe-Smith
01/12/09

@JinxyMcDeath: Can you not sue for gender discrimination, or is that legal in the United States?
Reply

Maritsa
01/12/09

@JinxyMcDeath: Oh HAI fellow defense lawyer. I was just telling co-counsel in a ridiculous case today that I've never ever seen a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim succeed in our state, but I've never seen a complaint in a PI/product/employment case without a NIED claim. Weird...
Reply

Maritsa was starred Maritsa was unstarred

BrutallyHonestBabes (aka Mrs. Sarah.of.a.Lesser.Hobbit)
01/12/09

In reply to Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified
Menfolk - give a hoot, don't pollute my eyeballs. If I want to see men in orange tanks and short shorts I'll go to the Republican National Convention's secret underground wink wink party.
Reply

Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.
01/12/09

In reply to Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified
I don't see why this is even a question. Hooters should be forced to hire both sexes, the same as cocktail waitress in Vegas should be allowed to be male. Gender equality goes both ways. this could also open up discussion about weight discrimination (the uniforms only go up so large my ass)
Reply

nellicat
01/12/09

In reply to Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified
King of the Hill already did this. I love Dale. And I'd totally sleep with John Redcorn.
Reply

nellicat was starred nellicat was unstarred

prestocaro fears the culling
01/12/09

@nellicat: I'd rock John Redcorn's trailer all night long.

I caught a first season eppy the other day and was horrified by Dale's voice! I'm so glad they got that straightened out.
Reply

braak: You are, as usual, completely correct.
01/12/09

@nellicat: The owner's response to it was hilarious. I'm not sure why the guys here didn't do the same thing.

"I want to work at Hooters."

"Okay. Here are your booty shorts."
Reply

braak: You are, as usual, completely correct.
01/12/09

@braak: Interestingly, they tried to do something similar to my when I wanted to join the Lacrosse team in high school. We didn't have a boys' team, which means that, according to Title IX, they had to let me play on the girls' team. No one wanted me, so they said that I could only play if I wore the girls' uniform (i.e.: skirt).
Reply

PilgrimSoul
01/12/09

In reply to Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified
This reminds me of something Cathrine MacKinnon says a lot. I can't google it quickly and I don't keep my copies of her work at work (weird, I know) but it's something like:

"Just when women carve out some kind of legitimate response to a society that cuts them out of power, like anti-discrimination laws, men claw it right back in the name of the 'universality' of human rights."
Reply

PilgrimSoul was starred PilgrimSoul was unstarred

J.D.Regent
01/12/09

@PilgrimSoul: but don't you think if they win it would totally destroy Hooters? I think it's genius!
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

sportz.star
01/12/09

@PilgrimSoul: That sounds exactly right to me. She takes strong umbrage with these reverse discrimination suits that just, in her mind, seek to restore a patriarchal status quo.
Reply

sportz.star was starred sportz.star was unstarred

Miss Smith Drank Your Vodka
01/12/09

@PilgrimSoul: I too feel this lawsuit is undermining anti-discrimination laws. I actually saw a poster making fun of this at the Hooters Casino in Vegas (passing through) and it basically was a can you believe these liberals sort of thing.
Reply

GoldenRatioφ (aka -girl11)
01/12/09

@sportz.star: Except some of the first suits that pushed for gender equality were suits brought by men. Ruth Bader Ginsburg used these suits to establish precedent for anti-sex discrimination. Plus, seriously, what would women lose if men were also able to work at Hooters?
Reply

J.D.Regent
01/12/09

@sportz.star: but since in this case the same sex rule on employees IS the patriarchal status quo, wouldn't it disrupt, not restore it? it's not like it's men suing to get into a feminist women's college.
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

PilgrimSoul
01/12/09

@J.D.Regent: Well, I think they would win on the wrong grounds to get Hooters destroyed in the way I'd like it to be destroyed. That's convoluted, but I think that Hooters' hiring practices are discriminatory not because they favour women, but because they turn women into sexual objects.
Reply

PilgrimSoul was starred PilgrimSoul was unstarred

J.D.Regent
01/12/09

@PilgrimSoul: well in that case you object to the basis for all anti discrimination suits. Sure all leftists would rather the law be called anti-patriarchal or anti-racist rather than anti-discrimination, and throw the stupid power-blindess out the window, but we gotta work with the legal framework we've got. The end result would be positive for the workers and specifically for women workers and I'm an ends justify the means kind of gal. And (I know we disagree on this front) if men become objectified sexually to the same extent as women in society, if women become empowered as sexual consumers as men are, wouldn't the whole MEANING of sexual objectification change, and no longer reflect patriarchy? If sexual objectification wasn't patriarchal why would you still have a problem with it?
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

sportz.star
01/12/09

@goldengirl11 (is way too earnest): Oh -- I don't agree with Catharine MacKinnon (on much of anything - we used to spar mightily when I had a class with her), I was just agree with PilgrimSoul that she was capturing MacKinnon's position correctly. I don't think women lose anything (other than jobs) if men work at Hooters. And I don't think losing those jobs is an overall social negative.
Reply

sportz.star was starred sportz.star was unstarred

PilgrimSoul
01/12/09

@J.D.Regent: sexual objectification is definitionally patriarchal to me. patriarchy defines people by their genitalia. "non-patriarchy" would not.

as for the rest, I am just cautious of legitimizing reverse discrimination suits. were I convinced that this person was bringing this suit to improve the working conditions of women, I would care more. mostly this is just an end-run.

and also I disagree that all anti-discrimination suits are made on the same basis, but I have too much work to explain why at the moment. :)
Reply

PilgrimSoul was starred PilgrimSoul was unstarred

Tmoney02
01/12/09

@PilgrimSoul: patriarchy defines people by their genitalia. "non-patriarchy" would not.

Genuine question- could you provide what non-patriarchy would define people by - or would they not be defined at all? (Which would seem utopion thinking at first glance)

I often hear what a non-patriarchy system would not be - but never what it actually would look/be like.
Reply

Tmoney02 was starred Tmoney02 was unstarred

Tmoney02
01/12/09

@Tmoney02: oops, sorry for not closing my itialics - here again: patriarchy defines people by their genitalia. "non-patriarchy" would not.

Genuine question- could you provide what non-patriarchy would define people by - or would they not be defined at all? (Which would seem utopion thinking at first glance)

I often hear what a non-patriarchy system would not be - but never what it actually would look/be like.
Reply

Tmoney02 was starred Tmoney02 was unstarred

J.D.Regent
01/12/09

@PilgrimSoul: hmmm. this is probably a longer convo than i have time for today but if men and women are equally objectified and men and women are equally consumers of that objectification than I fail to understand how women would systematically be disadvantaged by it. I also don't totally understand the "defined by genitals" part. I mean I believe in the fluidity of gender also but even queer and other subversive movements don't seek to erase our genders, just to loosen the chokehold of patriarchal definitions and power differentials that accompany our traditional notions of it.
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

small-fox
01/12/09

@Tmoney02: In that context, it would be self-identification. Patriarchy assigns roles based on genitalia, and it also assumes gender identity and sexual preference. In a non-patriarchal society, people would have the freedom to self-identify and society would respect and acknowledge the legitimacy of your homosexuality, transgenderness, tomboyishness, or however you chose to live, without making assumptions or assigning roles based on your DNA/external genitalia/appearance. Of course there would be other elements of this mythical society, but a hallmark would be freedom from socially-dictated gender roles and appearances.
Reply

small-fox was starred small-fox was unstarred

J.D.Regent
01/12/09

@small-fox: This makes sense to me and I do not think it is a mythical land. I just think this lawsuit brings us closer to it.
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#dontgiveahoot

Jezebel

SUBSCRIBE TO Jezebel

Guys Sue Hooters For Right To Be Objectified

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment