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.

Hmm, I'm now wondering if the new policy of Jobcentres not advertising adult jobs will extend to Hooters?

David, why don't you put your energy into doing something that actually matters?

What on earth is the point of you being here, David?

David, how can you say that you would never join a bangwagon, are they be definition all flawed or do you have such objection to protest that you are prepared to say in advance that the majority and status quo is always correct.

Did you support those who tried to free Nelson Mandela or is it only feminist protest you object to?

I agree with Dittany, if David feels so strongly about it he is free to boycott Mumsnet.

Ooh ooh ooh are you Brendan O'Neill? He likes to be contrary too. E.g. "stopping street harrassment is patronising to women".

@sethstarkaddersmum,
I don?t accept that the word shrill is used ?almost exclusively to describe the speech of women?. The regularly used as an adjective to describe the tone of those who are making too much of an effort to get their voice heard. I used it in the pejorative, but I no way as a sexist insult. I?m happy to refrain from using this word if it causes offence, but I have to say I?m surprised that this has caught your attention over some of the more overtly provocative comments I have made.

So we get to the heart of the Issue: ??Hooters denies choice to women ? it will make it harder for us to go safely and without harassment??. Now there is a ?subjective and un-evidenced perception? if ever I saw one. The licencing committee rejected the Police objections because they were just that. If you are going to make statements like this and ?They know about the increase in harassment and sexual assaults these places tend to bring? then I hope you are prepared to cite some evidence for it. Tip ? don?t bother with the Lilith report.

The licensing process does give local residents the right to object on specific grounds. Your assertion that ?Hooters deliberately applies for licenses for an 'American style sports cafe' under the name of 'Gallus Management'? is simply untrue ? the Cardiff licensing application was in the Name of ?Hooters Cardiff?. As I?m sure you are aware, the council received many representations, but none of them were valid under the Licensing Act.

You say 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??. However I would say that it?s little more complicated than that and may be better explained as a case of the political orthodoxy of second wave feminism giving way to the popular reality of the third. Unreconstructed second wavers seem to find this particularly hard to reconcile.

Ethical consumerism seems to be mostly about sustainability ? that is to say it?s all about sustaining a consumerist lifestyle whilst claiming to be ethical. It?s not something I am especially interested in, but if you?re going to try it you might as well have affair crack at doing it properly. I worry that many people get fixated on single issues.

I could go and be contrarian on the Sun?s article, but where would the fun be in that?

@Vesuvia,
I?m not sure what your point is. The only similarity between my posts and the one you have quoted is that they we don?t agree with the majority of contributors to this thread. How is this unoriginal? Or can one only be original here if they toe the line?

@ElephantsAndMiasmas.
?Puppy Strangling? is illegal ? as democratic society we have decided that this is unacceptable and such a choice will not be permitted. I would have to be very contrarian to make an argument in defence of ?Puppy Strangling? ? might have to eat my dinner before attempting that. If you want to stop a bar opening, or ban anything for that matter, there is a democratic process to follow.

@StayFrosty,
Touché. Guess the best I could do is take @dittany?s advice and boycott mumsnet ? that?ll teach you!

The point is that, even if I could, I wouldn?t want to silence you or otherwise interfere with your freedom to protest, boycott or indeed carry out any other lawful activity. A courtesy you don?t seem to want to extend to Hooters or M&S. This is the fundamental point on which I think I disagree with most people here.

@PosieParker
Right back at ya

@vbusymum1
I never said that I wouldn?t join a bandwagon, just that I instinctively try not to

I?d not long started high school when Nelson Mandella was freed. The internet wasn?t around in those days, so it wasn?t as easy to join bandwagons. If it had, I probably would.

@ElephantsAnd Miasmas 18;02
No. I think he might be a bit miffed at that comparison. I?m flattered though. Will have to look that piece up

@sethstarkaddersmum,
I don?t accept that the word shrill is used ?almost exclusively to describe the speech of women?. The regularly used as an adjective to describe the tone of those who are making too much of an effort to get their voice heard. I used it in the pejorative, but I no way as a sexist insult. I?m happy to refrain from using this word if it causes offence, but I have to say I?m surprised that this has caught your attention over some of the more overtly provocative comments I have made.

So we get to the heart of the Issue: ??Hooters denies choice to women ? it will make it harder for us to go safely and without harassment??. Now there is a ?subjective and un-evidenced perception? if ever I saw one. The licencing committee rejected the Police objections because they were just that. If you are going to make statements like this and ?They know about the increase in harassment and sexual assaults these places tend to bring? then I hope you are prepared to cite some evidence for it. Tip ? don?t bother with the Lilith report.

The licensing process does give local residents the right to object on specific grounds. Your assertion that ?Hooters deliberately applies for licenses for an 'American style sports cafe' under the name of 'Gallus Management'? is simply untrue ? the Cardiff licensing application was in the Name of ?Hooters Cardiff?. As I?m sure you are aware, the council received many representations, but none of them were valid under the Licensing Act.

You say 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??. However I would say that it?s little more complicated than that and may be better explained as a case of the political orthodoxy of second wave feminism giving way to the popular reality of the third. Unreconstructed second wavers seem to find this particularly hard to reconcile.

Ethical consumerism seems to be mostly about sustainability ? that is to say it?s all about sustaining a consumerist lifestyle whilst claiming to be ethical. It?s not something I am especially interested in, but if you?re going to try it you might as well have affair crack at doing it properly. I worry that many people get fixated on single issues.

I could go and be contrarian on the Sun?s article, but where would the fun be in that?

@Vesuvia,
I?m not sure what your point is. The only similarity between my posts and the one you have quoted is that they we don?t agree with the majority of contributors to this thread. How is this unoriginal? Or can one only be original here if they toe the line?

@ElephantsAndMiasmas.
?Puppy Strangling? is illegal ? as democratic society we have decided that this is unacceptable and such a choice will not be permitted. I would have to be very contrarian to make an argument in defence of ?Puppy Strangling? ? might have to eat my dinner before attempting that. If you want to stop a bar opening, or ban anything for that matter, there is a democratic process to follow.

@StayFrosty,
Touché. Guess the best I could do is take @dittany?s advice and boycott mumsnet ? that?ll teach you!

The point is that, even if I could, I wouldn?t want to silence you or otherwise interfere with your freedom to protest, boycott or indeed carry out any other lawful activity. A courtesy you don?t seem to want to extend to Hooters or M&S. This is the fundamental point on which I think I disagree with most people here.

@PosieParker
Right back at ya

@vbusymum1
I never said that I wouldn?t join a bandwagon, just that I instinctively try not to

I?d not long started high school when Nelson Mandella was freed. The internet wasn?t around in those days, so it wasn?t as easy to join bandwagons. If it had, I probably would.

@ElephantsAnd Miasmas 18;02
No. I think he might be a bit miffed at that comparison. I?m flattered though. Will have to look that piece up

Do we have to entertain this poster?

His rather nice style of debate is distracting me from the more alarming fact he thinks people should not object to a family restaurant for 'Daily Star/Sport' readers, as if this country weren't slipping enough.

David this is a moral issue, not a legal one...surely you've worked that out.

And I repeat, why are you here, David?

What stop there @PosieParker, should we object to Daily Mail/Sport Readers even being allowed to have families?

Perhaps anyone misogynistic enough to take their kids to Hooters should get a visit from Social Services?

DavidStHubbins,

Ilzette wrote "i am by no means trying to influence your debate in any way" in a long pro-Hooters post.

Your wrote "you won?t catch me trying to interfere with your freedom", linked with an enthusiasm to share your opinions on what you perceive as shortcomings of the strategy under discussion.

I was noting a similarity in your behaviour.

I'd appreciate an answer to the question I asked earlier: what kinds of boycott by one group don't impact adversely on another group?

Would you find such boycotts acceptable?

Well, shall we ignore Mr Faulty Logic?

Any more press picking up on the story, Jess?

I just spotted some press that I don't think has been mentioned before, and it was way back on the 16th Sept.
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/citydiary/8007582/Goodwood-revives-love-of-fast-cars-among-City-elite.html
Right down the bottom.

And I also found this on the Telegraph comments (main article). Someone posted a link to
thehootersgirl.blogspot.com/2009/06/self-respect.html
which seems to be a blog of someone who lurves working for Hooters. However, if you look this is from June 2009.

Hmm, take a look at June 2010, a rather different tale
thehootersgirl.blogspot.com/2010/06/reason-number-one.html

"political orthodoxy of second wave feminism"

WTF is he on about? If only it was political orthodoxy. And by third wave feminism, does he mean Jordan getting her tits out and saying she's "empowered" by it?

Another thing actually, would be to find out who is on the licensing/ planning committee that granted this application and make sure that all the voters in their ward know about it.

'I don?t accept that the word shrill is used ?almost exclusively to describe the speech of women?.'

you can refuse to accept it if you like, but you're in denial.

'I?m happy to refrain from using this word if it causes offence,'

Great! Please refrain in future then, because a lot of women are pretty pissed off with it.

'but I have to say I?m surprised that this has caught your attention over some of the more overtly provocative comments I have made.'
well you're a man, so you may not be the best person to judge which aspects of sexism are the most annoying.

Don't know about Hooters Cardiff, but the Bristol application was in the name of Gallus.

HB expressed the objection to your comment on the 2nd wave/3rd wave issue better than I could.

Stop trying to dictate what direction anyone else's ethical consumerism should take. Clearly for you sexism is an unimportant aspect - that's not the case for everyone. You say 'you might as well have a go at doing it properly' - well, I am. This is properly.

'I could go and be contrarian on the Sun?s article, but where would the fun be in that?'

don't know about fun, but it might be more useful than your contributions here.

Interesting links, AliceWorld. I was at this, coming from a supposed fan of the place:

"Men, when a woman is working in a position where your attraction and interest in her is directly proportional to her income, understand that flirting is simply part of her job. When a Hooters Girl, a cocktail waitress, a club dancer, an exotic dancer, or an escort behaves as though she is interested in you, more often than not it is because she knows that that feigned interest will result in a higher tip and return business." :(

What is it with MN tonight, full of stupid posts.

somehow I ignored that part: "but I have to say I?m surprised that this has caught your attention over some of the more overtly provocative comments I have made."

That's just a long way of saying "I am trolling, best ignore me", isn't it? Going on the definition of "someone who posts provocaively purely to stir up trouble", I mean - he's just held up a big sign saying "LOOK AT MY PROVOCATIVE COMMENTS". :o

oh dear, he is, isn't he? Pity, I thought I had actually managed to persuade a genuine and sincere man to stop using the word 'shrill'.
If I carry on arguing with him now you will all be dragging me away by the arm and screaming 'Leave 'im, Seff, 'e's not worf it!'

ROFL seth! That's about the size of it :o

Thank God there is a man here to tell us were we are all going wrong.

I always fall for these and spend ages trying to argue logically with them.
I did the same with UQD as well.

Actually I really enjoyed your post, SSM, and I'm sure the lurkers did too :o

I also have a habit of doing that, mainly because I get so wound up by the ridiculousness (sample - "oho, you're saying that Daily Sport readers should be sterilised now!") that I just want to kick kiss them, and feel compelled to respond.

LOL at posie. Of course there are loads of stupid posts tonight, hooters supporters are in.

SSM,keep up the good work. It won't have any effect on the mansplainer, but other people watching this (who maybe have come to read the threads) will see your posts and they are listening. I can hardly ever be arsed to engage with these bores anymore, but I applaud anyone with the energy and commitment to do so.

I see you have all decided that I'm trolling. You seem relieved?

Incidentally, nobody did respond to my eugenics question. This is of course a provocative remark, but I was trying to make a more subtle point:

• If you assert that Hooters causes harm to those who work and visit there;
• And you accept that some parents will take their children there:
• Ergo, some parents are willing to put their children in harm?s way.

How do you react to such parents?

Are they ignorant or wilfully neglectful?

Should they be patronised, vilified or a bit of both?

Although, ostensibly, your campaign is against Hooters the company, it occasionally betrays the underlying issue that you have with the individuals who would engage with it either as customers or employees. Clearly you don?t think much of the men who would eat there, and I can?t blame you with some of the ?supporter? comments I have read. But you also seem to have a rather patronising view of the women who might apply to work there.

Also, nobody has responded to my request for evidence that Hooters makes the streets less safe.

If I?m honest, its evidence of harm that is the only thing that?s likely to make a significant change to my position on this.

Is there anything that could change your mind?