Marks and Spencer support new 'Hooters' in Bristol

[JessinAvalon]

Dear all
This is my first post on here so I hope I am doing this right!

I live in Bristol and, last week, 'Hooters' was granted a licence to open in the city centre. The site is virtually opposite 3 apartment blocks, the lower floors of which are social housing and children are living in them.

What's most disappointing is that Marks and Spencer are leasing the site to 'Hooters'. They have been e-mailed by many concerned people to ask if they will reconsider leasing the building but they have just replied saying it is a "commercial decision" (as if that makes it ok!). In Sheffield, a 'Hooters' didn't even make it to application stage because the developer (Ask Pizza) realised that it would be better not to be associated with a company like 'Hooters'.

Marks and Spencer don't seem that concerned, however. Although they have signed up to the "Let Girls Be Girls" Mumsnet campaign they are not concerned about a company which sells merchandise including babygros which say "Future Hooters Girl" and "Does my butt look big in this?"

I have written to Marks and Spencer telling them that I won't be shopping in their stores again. If you feel strongly about this, please e-mail:

[email protected].

'Hooters' tries to sell itself as a family friendly restaurant but it is anything but. The Hooters in Nottingham attracts mainly stag parties and football fans. Hooters Girls take part in bikini contests and iced wet t-shirt competitions (the t-shirts are put in the freezers before the girls wear them). 'Hooters' has links to Playboy magazine....I could go on.....

I think Marks and Spencer should be shamed for facilitating this company's expansion into Bristol. They are selling women and girls down the river by leasing to this company and all just to make a "quick buck".

Thanks everyone.

Why oh why are you banging on about age and young breasts? We are grown here, no? WE're not jealous college girls. We can see the error of a young and more naive girl being suckered into accepting this misogyny. It's a trickling affect of such shit that eventually makes it into our relationships, workplaces and aspirations.

It also perpetuates the notion that women are there as objects for men to ogle - women being celebrated again for what they look like rather than what they do. These attitudes don't just leave men the minute they step out of a place like Hooters. It gets carried with the, and then has an impact on all women.

Hence the rise in sexual assault in the proximity of these sorts of adult venues.

Lol at the idea that the MN consensus is that "breast are offensive".

Back to business, LG if I can share the load of monitoring local papers I am happy to do so.

You lot are bloody brilliant. Sorry am so rushed with work at the moment that haven't got time to do much but will keep checking back.

Atlas it would be useful to know if you are a man or a woman.

If you are a woman then please look at this anti-street harrassment campaign and .

It can be hard when you are first confronted with the idea that the objectification of women is a bad idea as so much of our attitudes and views come via the media we consume.

Whilst I am concerned for women who may end up working in Hooters, it is indeed their choice to do so, however it is a choice available with the context of a society who has deemed this restaurant acceptable and a society in which the objectification of women is seen as normal.

My primary concern is for women as a group - all women and the message it sends to have a mainstream restaurant with the Hooters ethos.

I think that such a restaurant will lead to more on street sexual harrassment and to degrade further the way men view women.

Have a look at those links and come back and let us know what you think.

If you won't then you are not engaging on this thread.

If you are a man - then still look at those links - especially the video - can you see how uncomfortable it can be for women walking around being catcalled and shouted at.

Would you like men to do this to your Mother, Sister, Daughter, Niece, Girlfriend, Wife etc?

Have you ever catcalled, whilstled, shouted sexual remarks at strangers in the street?

Finally, even if Hooters really is "your thing" and you are realy looking forward to going there and having a great time with your mates - do you think that it is a "family restaurant" - don't you agree that it should be themed as an "adult restaurant" - a restaurant where you get to look at fit busty waitresses?

Wait, oh dear they can't actually advertise that can they - so they don't.....

MillyR - your photo link above the photo gallery name is EMSA Youth Football Tournament - I googled that and I think it is:

East Midlands Sports Acadamy.

I might contact them and ask them why they think it is appropriate to use Hooters as a sponsor for children's events.....

You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to convince any of u that you are wrong. Just offering a different opinion. I think women in th
UK today have the opportunity to explore their sexuality without proscription. Something thats never happened before in the history of our species. Thats in large part a feminist achievement, but feminism is confused by it. Young women today do not view their sexuality as shameful, they can enjoy it without feeling the guilt that an older generation did. I just think feminism needs an updated manifesto. Campaign to keep a womans right to abortion, help women escape tyranny around the world, fight sex trafficing, do all that alongside recognising many women are active agents of their own sexuality today. Feminism assumed the answer on sexual objectification 40 odd years ago. There needs to be a reassesment. Lynne Segal agrees, she even gos so far as to say we were wrong about objectification, that its actually essential for good sex, and that both sexes objectify the other. Its not necesarily bad

How does women having "the opportunity to explore their sexuality without proscription" have anything to do with serving greasy food to letching men, with shite pay, whilst wearing a miniscule top and orange hot pants have anything to do with this?

My town was on the list of planned locations so I am contacting my local MP ahead of time to start a campaign now.
Is there anyone who is more articulate than me that could help me with what to say?

Here is my rough draft...

Dear Mr MP,

I draw your attention to a campaign that is currently running against a Hooters restaurant opening in Bristol.

[Link to campaign website]

I understand that Hooters have listed our town as one of the towns they plan to open premises in over the next year or so.

There is evidence to show that sexual harrasment on the street will increase with every establishment of this nature that is opened and as a young women with two young daughters this worries me greatly. As approximately 52% of your constituency are women, I imagine this will trouble you too.

I have always felt very safe in here and do not wish to be forced to stay in my home after dark as so many other women have reportedly felt they have had to after this has happened in their town.

My objection is also from a moral standpoint. I am raising my daughters to have respect for their bodies and to not see them as a commodity to be bought and sold. Sadly not all young girls have the same moral guidence and due to that and other events in their lives may feel that working somewhere such as Hooters is all that they are worth.

It is a sad fact that a high percentage of women who work in the sex industry were abused sexually in childhood.

I would prefer the town to focus on setting up some support groups for these women rather than focus on allowing this company to move in.

If none of that is convincing enough please take a look at the merchandise available from Hooters.. (link to website) I do not wish to see children walking down the Highstreet in these horrendous items.

If there are plans for this to go ahead I will personally head up a campaign myself with guidence from the founders of the Bristol campaign.

I look forward to your views on this.

Kind regards,
Moraldisorder.

And I dont think its a suitable sponsor for childrens events. I just dont think its misogyny or pornography. Big middle ground there

Something about unemployment and the professional beauty qualification maybe?

Sorry Atlas, I disagree.

I don't think anyone on here is saying that women are being encouraged to see their sexuality as shameful. The problem is that women are being encouraged to fit a narrow stereotype which is prescriptive and the Hooters brand does not to break away from the stereotype that women and girls feel that they have to live up to.

I think it actually does everything that you are arguing that it doesn't do.

Do sexual assaults rise around 'these type' of places posey? Are u referring to the camden stats where incidence 'doubled' from 1 to 2?

Atlas, there may well be an acceptable form of objectification in sex but that does not remotely entail the acceptability of a consumerised form of objectification, especially one that is relentlessly one-sided in its picture of women as the object and men as the objectifiers.

And, boy, are you confused when you link this issue to the importance of not feeling guilty or ashamed about sexuality. Who here which feminist anywhere has said that a woman needs to feel guilty or ashamed about her sexuality?

It is depressing to have to adress such massive misconceptions in the course of a thread which is discussing a practical means of addressing what most of the thread's participants agree is a problem.

Atlas I can see where you're coming from but I disagree. Lauren Leverne said (rough quote) In a place where a woman is taking her clothes she is not the one empowered. Even if being leered at was okay the girls are on minimum wage and are expected to accept a hostile environment. Now hostile in this place must mean laddish 'get your tits out' type stuff, or perhaps I should write and ask.

Atlas - sex trafficking - can't you see that this problem comes from the way women are treated in this world?

There has been a normalisation of certain behaviours and this is going hand in hand with more porn/more prostitution/more violence against women and children.

Please can you look at the links I posted.

I will google Lynne Segal to see what she says.

I do appreciate you setting out your opinion, because it it useful to see where someone is coming from.

I do not find my views as equalling a shameful view of sexuality and I certainly think that objectification is BAD for sex and leads to unhealthy attitudes.

Lots of us here are Pro-Sex! But Anti-Objectification (and in many cases Anti-Porn) but we won't be derailing to talk about porn here - that would have to be a separate thread.

I think any number of sexual assaults greater than zero is too many.

I quoted some statistics from the Holsopple report to some councillors and to some (male) colleagues in work.

In it she said that 100% of the strippers she'd interviewed in a number of strip clubs had been sexually assaulted by customers.

The number that she interviewed was 18.

Most women say - that's horrendous.

Most men say - 100% sounds a lot but then you look stupid when you say it's only 18.

That's 18 sexual assaults and that's only amongst those interviewed. I would say that any more than zero is too many.

"I think women in th
UK today have the opportunity to explore their sexuality without proscription. "

Yes, this is something feminists have fought long and hard for, for society to get over its virgin/matron/whore complex.

Hooters sets us back about 100 years because it has zilch to do with female sexuality and perpetuates the myth that female sexuality is all about pleasing men

thanks Atlas. I'm still not suite sure why you are telling us about young women as if we aren't them (I am mid-twenties so well within acceptable Hooter-range, lucky me ).

Objectification may be necessary for sex (haven't got time to read up to see if that's what someone has actually said), but most waitresses (and I was one for many years) don't go to work in order to improve their sex lives. Or indeed for any sexual purpose at all. They go to work in order to earn money to pay the rent or tuition fees or for nights out or clothes for the baby.

There's nothing "sex-positive" in my view about allowing only young (white?) thin women with no visible blemishes to work in an environment that allows male customers (on whom there are no such looks requirement, judging by the photos) to project their own sexual ideas onto them, while the girls just try to work. Have you ever worked as a waiter/ress? because the thing is that if you're at work, you can't just tell a letchy bloke to sod off, and you can't leave and go home - you have to stay and smile and put up with it. And what's liberating about that?

Exactly right Sakura. Those girls look as though their own sexuality have been excised and replaced with a plastic version. It is the all-body version of the artificial smile-for-the-customer that the poor souls in the retail/entertainment industry are bound to.

Atlas - I am really glad that you agree re the sponsoring children's events: "And I dont think its a suitable sponsor for childrens events.".

I am aware that a lot of women and men hold your views. I think it is encouraging to see that despite your different views we do have some common ground.

Would you be willing to sign the petition to say that whilst you think there should be free choice over this restaurant you do not agree that it is a "family restaurant" and that it should have no association with children.

Do you have any ideas on how we could ensure that Hooters do not start sponsoring chidren's events?

Perhaps schools and the LEA could be warned that this is a marketing techinque that is likely to be used (as per Nottingham).

I have actually emailed that East Midlands Sports Academy so I will see what they say.

I actually think that it is this pernicious stuff which is very very worrying as it is drip drip drip changing the culture. You know where you are with porn - but then you get the soft porn becoming music videos - strip joints become lap dancing which then becomes restaurant with waitress dressed to arouse etc etc.

The fact that they are pretending to be a family restaurant is what sickens me.

SGM your book recommendation took me to the author's blog: here is an example of a company blatently saying one thing in their mission statement and doing another:

company claims to design intimates that are not created to objectify women?s bodies - and then guess what the adverts massively objectify! and sexualise!

Atlas do you have any book recommendations re Lynne Segal - or did you just throw her name in because you'd see it somewhere else on the internet?