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.

ooh, is he back? didn't realise we were that threatening

What's a Name changer?

Why would I find you threatening?

I do wonder why people have to defend a huge company like Hooters, do they think they'll get a free iced t shirt for their daughters to play in?

David what exactly are you defending? The right to be exploited? The right to sign away your human rights? Or do you just get pleasure out of disgreeing? Are you hoping that your gf or daughter works there? Is this really how you see the world?

you find us threatening because you're here

From what David said I don't know if he is pro-Hooters or not, he just seems to have some kind of issue with consumer boycotts.

Which is just odd.
Why does he think we should carry on shopping at places that have shown themselves quite clearly not to share our values or ethical concerns?

David, I'm not sure from your post if you are in the UK but if you are worried about consumers increasing their carbon footprint by going to alternative retailers then worry no more as M&S is always conviently located within walking distance of all comparable competitors.

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but what would happen if a waitress got pregnant? Surely by British Law, they are not allowed to fire her? And she will be entitled to come back to work after etc....

Also here, from something I have seen at work

It's a "commercial organisation" and it seems someone has tipped off the "commercial" press too...

Posie, I don?t feel the need to defend Hooters ? I?m sure they can look after themselves.

I take issue with the shrill moralising of those that want to prevent it opening in the UK. I support hooters right to open restaurants wherever they want subject to local legal restrictions. I also support the right to boycott any company who?s behaviour you find disagreeable. In fact I imagine that the vast majority of people in the UK will, in effect, boycott Hooters by simply never going there.

What I find objectionable about this particular boycott is that it is one group using its freedom of consumer choice in order to deny the same choice to others. It?s about a vocal minority trying to impose its views on others.

Of course, I may find your boycott objectionable, and I may well attempt to criticise and ridicule it, but you won?t catch me trying to interfere with your freedom to conduct it.

Perhaps I am a bit of a contrarian ? when I see a bandwagon, my instinct is to walk in the opposite direction. And yes, I do derive pleasure from disagreement ? I find unquestioning agreement to be particularly dull and uninspiring.

In answer to your question, no, I would not particularly want any member of my family to work in Hooters or indeed any other low wage, low prospects job. However, I would prefer that they weren?t unemployed and would certainly never dictate to an adult where they should or should not work.

Sakura, with respect I asked you what would cause me to be threatened, not the supposed effect that would lead you to the conclusion that I am.

Sethstarkaddersmum, I don?t expect you to shop against your conscience, but I do think it?s important to take step back and not focus too much on single issues. I think many will conclude that, although M&S may have ?dropped the ball? on this occasion, they are still amongst the most ethical of major UK retailers. Wow, now I do sound like a PR for Marks?s!

Vbusymum, I was thinking mainly of food, in which I would say M&S has only one mass market competitor ? Waitrose. That?s ~600 stores to ~200 so they aren?t likely to be located that near to each other. Not that it?s a big deal ? I just want to reiterate the point I made to Sethstarkaddersmum above. As this is a parenting site, the cliché ?don?t throw the baby out with the bathwater? seems apt.

I would prefer to continue shopping at M&S rather than have to boycott them forever - so I would welcome an apology or preferably a withdrawal from the deal - I'm not sure why a previous poster thinks that makes my concern any less valid. As for toys out of prams, I'm again not quite clear on why being vocal about something you dissaprove of, and wanting to effect change is apparently only appropriate in babies/toddlers - what else are adults supposed to do when they want to be listened to? Sending emails and organising boycotts is an entirely legal and proportionate way to respond - we have the right as consumers to tell retailers what will make us more/less likely to shop with them. As for the argument that we will very likely end up driving futher/buying from sweatshops - well that is up to us all to avoid doing, and taken to its logical conclusion ends with the view that we can't do anything about anything ever. Might as well just give up caring, eh? Besides, I think the wrath on this thread is particularly strong because people have, probably a touch naively, trusted M&S to behave a bit better than competitors, and they have certainly recently sought to position themselves as a relatively ethical alternative.

And surely David's point about realising that M&S are still a fairly ethical choice compared to others, is exactly why people are so annoyed that they have 'dropped the ball' on this occasion, and is also why people would prefer for them to restore confidence rather than have them continue with the deal?

How did I guess David would find us 'shrill'? I've got my bingo card out ready to see if we are also 'hysterical', 'emotional' and 'illogical'. Maybe we are 'jealous' too although David hasn't gone in that direction yet. Now I won't give all the other ones away else it would make the game to easy and then we'll all be getting full house.

:o Alice

DavidStHubbins wrote - "I may find your boycott objectionable, and I may well attempt to criticise and ridicule it, but you won?t catch me trying to interfere with your freedom to conduct it."

You are criticising and ridiculing it. Your posts on this forum thread are interfering. Why would you be here otherwise?

(You are entitled to interfere but please don't dress it up as non-interference).

David, thank you for your calm and carefully-argued response.

The first point that strikes me from your last post is the fact that you have chosen to use the word 'shrill'. I don't know if you have ever noticed this, but this is a word used almost exclusively to describe the speech of women.
Now, I prefer, as I am sure that you do, that when people engage with my arguments they choose to focus on what I am actually saying rather than some subjective and un-evidenced perception of the pitch of what I am saying. These are words on a screen; they cannot literally be shrill. Therefore, perhaps you could explain exactly what you are trying to get at by using this word? And do you understand how, when a man uses this word of a woman's arguments online, she may begin to wonder if he is actually objecting to her saying it as a woman rather than to what she is saying.

My next point is in response to your 'What I find objectionable about this particular boycott is that it is one group using its freedom of consumer choice in order to deny the same choice to others. It?s about a vocal minority trying to impose its views on others.'

What I would say to that is that the existence of Hooters denies choice to women - it will make it harder for us to go safely and without harassment to the places where these restaurants are situated. You are probably aware that the Bristol police objected to the licensing application. They know about the increase in harassment and sexual assaults these places tend to bring. So the Hooters customers rights count for more than the local residents' rights, do they?
Of course, in theory the licensing process is meant to give a local people a chance to object. As are probably aware, however, Hooters deliberately applies for licenses for an 'American style sports cafe' under the name of 'Gallus Management' rather than being open about who they are and what they are proposing. This rather damages the free and open choice of the local people not to have these things in their area. Or do you think this is ok?

Perhaps I am a bit of a contrarian ? when I see a bandwagon, my instinct is to walk in the opposite direction.'

Great! In that case your natural tendency will be to come over to our side - it can't have escaped your notice that the general trend of society in the last couple of decades has been away from feminism and towards a society where objectification of women is everywhere and is the new norm. Who is the bandwagon here, big business, in a society still dominated politically and financially by men, plus the large numbers of men who would happily be served by the 'big-titted bitches' (as a previous poster and Hooterrs fan on this thread so charmingly put it) or a relatively small number of feminists?
Are you really contrarian? I'm not so convinced!

Re the issue of shopping ethically and other issues being important too, yes I agree with you, it's important not to forget about all the other issues. (The day this all started I started a thread on another section of MN asking where I could buy ethical pants - I'm not about to rush to Primark!)
But we all have our own views about which issues are more important, and while I'm not sure feminism trumps child labour, I consider the objectification of women to be more important than food miles, quantities of packaging and the sourcing of fish. I doubt many men will agree with me, but quite a few women will.

apols of all the typos in my mega-post - in particular, there should be quotes round 'Perhaps....direction'.

David, might I point you towards a comment thread on any of the articles linked above? Your natural contrarian instincts will instantly lead you to leap to the defence of the boycott, and it would be heartening to see some balance brought to the comments.

Yes David, please do go and be contrarian at the Sun readers. And you are a man so they can't dismiss your posts by accusing you of being shrill/jealous/ugly etc.

You can bet your double XX chromosome that if one of us made an equivalent remark WRT "booming tones" or "baritone arrogance" someone would be on here with their tiny trumpets heralding misandry.

DavidStHubbins,

Ilzette, a supporter of Hooters, posted this on the "Hooters in Cardiff" thread:

"I have to emphasise that i have included this information only so that you have a balanced view of Hooters, i am by no means trying to influence your debate in any way, i just feel that any debate should contain some facts not just hearsay fron ' the street'
It is so easy to be manipulated by the press wanting to sensationalise and create tabloid stories that sometimes these facts can go unrecognised. I wish you well in all your campaigns and look forwrd to reading more postings in the future."

So DavidStHubbins, low marks for your originality.

DavidStHubbins wrote - "What I find objectionable about this particular boycott is that it is one group using its freedom of consumer choice in order to deny the same choice to others."

What other kind of boycott is there?

If someone wanted to open a puppy-strangling club, and we opposed it and threatened to boycott the landlord, we would still be vocal and "denying choice" to others. But that wouldn't necessarily mean that it's a bad thing to do.

I sometimes feel like my head is going to spin off when I'm accused of being a terrible bully for not wanting a bar to open. If you can "choose" to do something does that make it automatically sacrosanct?