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.

Lynne segal in the guardian comment is free. Sometime last year I think. Im on a metro and keep losing signal. Will catch up later if I have time

What has Hooters got to do with female sexuality?

there's this review of Female Chauvinist Pigs

I really disagree with Lynn Segal though. I think it just beggars belief to argue that raunch culture is: 1. an authentic expression of female sexuality 2. not harmful.

I wish young women did have the chance to explore their sexuality without proscription, but there's no way that's what Hooters is - Hooters offers a very narrow image of sexuality which is all about pleasing the man.

Does Atlas think feminists think female sexuality is shameful?
Atlas, feminists are the ones who got the message, finally, accross to society that female sexuality it wasn't shameful or dirty.
Companies like Hooters believe female sexuality is shameful, and a little bit scary too, which is why they try to neutralise it by insulting women's true sexuality by imposing cookie-cut-out stereotype of male fantasises onto real women .

If you think this is about female sexuality ask yourself this:

DO you think the women find the customers attractive?
What do you think they tell their boyfriends/friends about the customers after they've clocked off and gone home?

@OrmRenewed - What has Hooters got to do with female sexuality?

Good question! Pretty much sums up the problem with Hooters IMO.

All it does is takes female sexuality, rapes it of all its integrity, squeezes it in to a tiny little box and then charges men to give it a poke.

The idea that Hooters is about female sexuality is just so out-of-kilter with reality that I suppose it is part of a fantasy that a man defensively needs to protect his own self-esteem when he countenances going into a place where the only reason a young woman will let him letch at her is that he has paid his way as a customer and the young woman's manager is narrowly examining her to make sure that she pleases the punters.

Hooters is far, far more representative of male sexuality than female sexuality. Regardless, why can sexuality only be explored within the confines of a cheap restaurant?

I have emailed a couple of journalists.

Good point crackfox... I can't think of a time when I went out for dinner with the view of exploring and celebrating my sexuality... its usually because Im hungry.

Ariel levy's book really demonstrates why feminism needs an updated manifesto. Imelda whelehan actually wrote the same book in the 90s called overloaded. I am a female and a feminist. Ive studied feminism. I believe in fighting for equality but also believe in a liberal democracy that allows expressions of human sexuality - what men love about women and vice versa. Thats a long way from condoning pornography and exploitation. With the right checks in place I really dont see anything wrong with hooters, tho its not a place i'd go - who am I to judge?

Atlas....What is a feminist? Is it really one that doesn't stand against companies like Hooters that require signing off your rights against sexual harassment?

Atlas in a true liberal democracy, Hooters would be able to openly apply for their licence, drop the crap about being a family restaurant and proudly proclaim that they are an adult restaurant.

Then they could be subject to planning/licencing laws which minimised the impact of local residents children etc.

But, they don't they create dummy companies, say on their applications that they are just and American themed sports bar etc.

When you take that "who am I to judge" attitude where do you draw your line?

Are you concerned about the sexualisation of young children? Have you read the <a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100418065544/www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/Sexualisation-of-young-people.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this report?

How do you balance the choice argument against the protection argument?

What "checks" do you think need to be in place?

Posie, I have been criticised in this thread for attempting to speak for all 'young' women - by the same token you cannot speak for all women who work at/have worked at and will work at Hooters, to suggest they are victims of sexual harrassment. Or is it your assertion that you are sexually harrassed because Hooters exists?

I can see this would be possible via a social constructionist perspective - the kind of perspective that reads my name as 'a las strips' in order to fit in with a prejudice that, just because I disagree with the consensus here, I am a 'troll'. My name is Atlas Trips, a deviation from Atlas Shrugs which is another deviation from Atlas Shrugged - a novel by Ayn Rand. Anyway, I am a liberal feminist who prefers the positivist route - actually looking at whats out there in the world and taking the most parsomonious explainations for phenomena rather than seeing Goody Proctor with the devil where ever I look.

But this is getting tedious - I'm just offering a different perspective as I've already said. I've done that. Now it's time to get back to some real work.

Last word to Tab - youi draw the line at common sense

Perhaps you could explain how your account is more parsimonious/positivist than the alternative accounts?

Ain't no such thing as 'common sense' Atlas.

lol

do you actually know what they mean Ele? This is getting silly. I've said my piece. Its not my intention to offend anyone, but some people are just determined to be offended anyway. See you around.

Sorry, was 'piousness of Nunsnet' a compliment then?

Atlas, very broadly, positivism is the denial of the metaphysical, the assertion of scientific mehtods as the gold standard of all investigation, and the importation of scientific criteria into philosphy.

Pasimonious, similarly, is the objective of not assetrting more elements to an explanation or entity than is required.

Why would you think I didn't know that? I pulled you up on it precisely because I had the feeling that you thought you could win an arguement just be suggesting you had read more than others.

(Sorry for sidetracking. I just got annoyed and very that someone would introduce a term and then just assume that others didn't know what it meant when they responded. What an odd way to conduct an argument.)