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.

Perhaps we should try going onto their website and berating them for such shocking views.

Actually, no. David is probably there as well.

Jess, I loved your JessinAvalon Tue 21-Sep-10 22:48:09 post. I can see you getting more radical as the thread continues

I think I prefer Mike over David. Mike was just thick. David thinks people who worry about Nestle killing babies are having a temper tantrum and throwing their toys out of the pram

I have been lurking on this thread, although this is my first post on it.

I get the impression that David does not actually read the responses to him properly.

He says that some parents are evidently willing to put their children in harm's way. Well, this is hardly news, is it? Plenty of children drown in the sea off Europe's beaches, for example, because their parents did not take proper care. Do we vilify them? No, we pity them. Yes, David, I know that drowning is not comparable to eating at Hooters, but consider a child who grows up as a regular customer. Viewing women as sex objects has become normal to that child.

This brings me to your point about making the streets less safe. If it becomes normal to view women as nothing more than sex objects, as it will to Hooters customers, especially as it is marketed as a mainsteam 'family' place, not akin to a lapdancing club, then women will experience more harassment as a result of this. It won't happen overnight, but it slowly and surely come. And no, I can't provide you with any hard evidence for this. There are no piecharts or graphs to look at. But just go out in the streets and look around. Look at the way women are dressed and groomed and just for a moment consider that this might be the cumulative effect of years and years of being told that they need to look sexy.

You ask about the women who apply to work there. I do not think they are vilified. They may be pitied because, owing to a lack in qualifications/ experience, etc they have no other options open to them or because they have been conditioned to think of themselves as sex objects.

Now it's my turn to ask you a question. Do you think it is acceptable that women who work there are ask to sign a waiver of their rights with regard to sexual harassment?

Do you think that this waiver contradicts Hooters' claim to be a family restaurant?

Thanks Sakura. David is the kind of person (I have come across them before) who, if you quote Kelly Holsopple's report in which she says that 100% of the strippers she interviewed in, I think it was 3 strip clubs, had been sexually assaulted, then you say that the number was 18, says, "well, 100% sounds a lot but then you say it's only 18"!

That's 18 women who have been sexually assaulted. But it's not very many!

Aw no! I go to bed and David goes. And I was so near to a full house in my feminist-bashing bingo! And how will I know what to think now, without David to explaining it all to me

I'm worried that I'm going to be too set in my ways, without such daring and rarely-heard ideas as David's to shake things up a little.

Elephants It was radical stuff wasn't it!

It must be incredible for some of these people, imagining that everything you come up with is totally original and "controversial" and daring. Don't they ever read the paper? Or have conversations? Or listen to Jeremy Vine? Don't they ever just hear themselves talking and think "i've heard this before somewhere"?

Ooo what's a NCer? I don't think I am...

I know. People think they are telling you something radical, when you spend a massive amount of time researching and thinking about this area. Then they think arguments dated by a good few years are going to be new to you.

I'm a researcher and people often like to tell me what they know about what I'm researching, which is usually not much, but its fine as they are friends and they mean no ill. But to seek people out, who might have just given it a teensy bit of thought, to tell them your superficial views is just weird . Oh I forget, they just want to 'debate' - do some research then. Oh I forget they just want to be 'contrary', well again a little bit of research will also reveal other views that are a little bit more thought out too.

(and relax )

LOL re Greenpeace - I am a bit worried about the fact that they are interfering with people's choice to pump pollutants into the environment.
What right does a small minority have to dictate to us what we do with our pollutants?
I think we should go along and tell them to get off their bandwagon. (It's very brave of me to stand up against the majority like that but that's just me - I'm an independent thinker, you can call me a contrarian if you like.)

They also strike me as rather shrill and possibly hysterical.

namechanger - just haven't seen that posting name around before :)

Ooh you're a researcher? I'm a researcher atm too! What kind of field are you in? Academic or some other kind?

I honestly think all claims of "contrariness" or "devil's advocate" should just be met with a giant klaxon announcing the word BOLLOCKS. Isn't it amazing how the views these people "pretend" to hold seem uncannily similar to the views they actually hold? Especially since it's always the same issues they like to play these games with?

I think greenpeace are just pre-menstrual ssm. They have a different shift of activists every week in order to achieve this.

usually they just announce that it's only a game at the point when they can't defend it any more - rather than owning their views they post a 'free speech devil's advocate I'm not telling anyone what to think just saying what I think and I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it Voltaire blah blah blah (sc. I am such a hero)'-type post.

and this thing where they blithely ignore the majority of everyone else's arguments but fixate on one of yours that has not been answered to their satisfaction and claim that gives them a moral victory.... that is becoming strangely familiar isn't it?

it's great how these guys always follow the same script!

we should call them PCs (Predictable Contrarians).

Yes or the new favourite "it's not my view but someone needed to provide some balance".

What's sick is that it often works, because the people they're talking to are so aghast at having their real, live problem treated as an intellectual exercise that they get wound up and then - presumably - the PCs have "won".

Ah yes, this

In fact, how many of these (from the link) sound familiar?

If You Won't Educate Me How Can I Learn

If You Cared About These Matters You'd Be Willing To Educate Me

You're Being Hostile

But That Happens To Me Too!

You're Being Overemotional

You're Just Oversensitive

You Just Enjoy Being Offended

Being Offended Is Great For You!

Don't You Have More Important Issues To Think About

You're Taking Things Too Personally

It's Only The Internet!

You?re Not Being Intellectual Enough/You?re Being Overly Intellectual

You're Interrogating From The Wrong Perspective

You're Arguing With Opinions Not Fact

Your Experience Is Not Representative Of Everyone

Unless You Can Prove Your Experience Is Widespread I Won't Believe It

I Don't Think You're As Marginalised As You Claim

Aren't You Treating Each Other Worse Anyway

But If It's Okay For Marginalised People To Use Those Words, Why Can't I?

But You're Different To The Others

Well I Know Another Person From Your Group Who Disagrees!

I'm Just Saying What Other People Believe. I Never Said I Agree

I Said SOME Marginalised People Do That, Not ALL

A In B Situation Is Not Equivalent To X In Y Situation

Who Wins Gold in the Oppression Olympics?

You Have A False Consciousness

You're Not Being A Team Player

You've Lost Your Temper So I Don't Have To
Listen To You Anymore

You Are Damaging Your Cause By Being Angry

You're As Bad As They Are

Surprise! I Was Playing ?Devil?s Advocate? All Along!

I love derailing for dummies - didn't want to give David any tips though

"It must be incredible for some of these people, imagining that everything you come up with is totally original and "controversial" and daring. Don't they ever read the paper? Or have conversations? Or listen to Jeremy Vine? Don't they ever just hear themselves talking and think "i've heard this before somewhere"?"

Elephants! This was inspired

ElephantsAndMiasmas wrote - "It must be incredible for some of these people, imagining that everything you come up with is totally original and "controversial" and daring. Don't they ever read the paper? Or have conversations? Or listen to Jeremy Vine? Don't they ever just hear themselves talking and think "i've heard this before somewhere"?"

That's the point I was trying to make but DavidStHubbins didn't get it. He is just one of many. He's not the first and he won't be the last.

they are not loving the campaign here

"this isn't the first time mumsnet have been in the paper regarding some snobbish, sanctimonious crusade against something that is of no concern to them. It seems to me like mumsnet is just a place for bored stay at home mums to gossip and make mountains out of molehills so that their days go by more quickly. Am I wrong?"

what a toss-pot!

I like ChirpyCockney: 'Have to say there is something I don't like about Mumsnet, don't they refer to their children in some kind of twee acronym'

yes we do.

Jess I've sent you a PM - inbox next to the log out button on the top left of the page if you haven't found it yet (since we've only had PMs since yesterday)

I?m back. Off the clock this time.

Derailing for Dummies was highly enlightening.

First off, I quickly established that I am probably a Privileged Person®:

You're Arguing With Opinions Not Fact
?If you really want to excel as a Privileged Person® you need to learn to value data, statistics, research studies and empirical evidence above all things, but especially above Lived Experience©.?

Then I got to wondering if I was actually arguing with other Privileged People®:

You Have A False Consciousness
??This one crops up a lot in issues that affect women: women who enjoy dressing in conventionally feminine ways (they?re engrained in the patriarchal construct of femininity and therefore are incapable of making a choice), women who are kinky, regardless of the gender of the person they play with (they?re engrained in the patriarchal construct of gender roles and therefore are incapable of making a choice) and sex workers who claim to enjoy their work and/or practice it with autonomy (they?re engrained in the patriarchal construct of female sexuality and therefore are incapable of making a choice)??

Or could they be both?

?The best part is, you don't even have to be a white, heterosexual, cisgendered, cissexual, upper-class male to enjoy the full benefits of derailing conversation! Nope, you can utilise the lesser-recognised tactic of Horizontal Hostility to make sure that, despite being a member of a Marginalised Group? yourself, you can exercise a privilege another Marginalised Group? doesn't have in order not to heed their experience!?

Then I started wondering who might be considered as Marginalised People??

Derailing for Dummies suggests that ?They might be a person of colour, or a queer person. Maybe they?re a woman, or a person with disability. They could even be a trans person or a sex worker?

This didn?t seem like a complete list to me, so I thought of a few others:

? Alternative medicine users/practitioners
? Anti-Vaccination campaigners
? Astrologists
? Clairvoyants
? Creationists
? Faith Healers
? Ghost Hunters
? Religious People
? Spiritualists
? And so on

These guys certainly like to value Lived Experience© above data, statistics, research studies and empirical evidence.

It seems you're in good company.

I?m back. Off the clock this time.

Derailing for Dummies was highly enlightening.

First off, I quickly established that I am probably a Privileged Person®:

You're Arguing With Opinions Not Fact
?If you really want to excel as a Privileged Person® you need to learn to value data, statistics, research studies and empirical evidence above all things, but especially above Lived Experience©.?

Then I got to wondering if I was actually arguing with other Privileged People®:

You Have A False Consciousness
??This one crops up a lot in issues that affect women: women who enjoy dressing in conventionally feminine ways (they?re engrained in the patriarchal construct of femininity and therefore are incapable of making a choice), women who are kinky, regardless of the gender of the person they play with (they?re engrained in the patriarchal construct of gender roles and therefore are incapable of making a choice) and sex workers who claim to enjoy their work and/or practice it with autonomy (they?re engrained in the patriarchal construct of female sexuality and therefore are incapable of making a choice)??

Or could they be both?

?The best part is, you don't even have to be a white, heterosexual, cisgendered, cissexual, upper-class male to enjoy the full benefits of derailing conversation! Nope, you can utilise the lesser-recognised tactic of Horizontal Hostility to make sure that, despite being a member of a Marginalised Group? yourself, you can exercise a privilege another Marginalised Group? doesn't have in order not to heed their experience!?

Then I started wondering who might be considered as Marginalised People??

Derailing for Dummies suggests that ?They might be a person of colour, or a queer person. Maybe they?re a woman, or a person with disability. They could even be a trans person or a sex worker?

This didn?t seem like a complete list to me, so I thought of a few others:

? Alternative medicine users/practitioners
? Anti-Vaccination campaigners
? Astrologists
? Clairvoyants
? Creationists
? Faith Healers
? Ghost Hunters
? Religious People
? Spiritualists
? And so on

These guys certainly like to value Lived Experience© above data, statistics, research studies and empirical evidence.

It seems you're in good company.