Marks and Spencer support new Hooters in Bristol, #2

[sethstarkaddersmum]

I went to post on the first thread but it was full so here is a new one.

I'm reposting Jessinavalon's OP from 10th September since it explains what is going on, for anyone who is new to the issue:

'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.'

And you conveniently miss the point. As you know, it's not the selling of beer and crap food that we are objecting to.

If you must know, I was was visiting Experian at their offices in NG2 Business Park. I stayed at Jurys Inn which is about 200yds from Hooters in Nottingham, so it was hardly out of my way. And before you ask, the hotel was booked for me.

I was on my own, ordered one drink, left within about 20 mins, and walked into town where I spent the rest of the afternoon in the Living Room bar in the city centre.

You seem to be convinced that I am some kind of corporate Sock Puppet so I'm happy to play along with that now and again.

I'll admit to being fascinated with the whole 'anti-hooters' campaign and I enjoy discussing it, or 'derailing' that discussion as you would no doubt characterise it. Life would be very boring if we all agreed. It just so happens that I've been off sick recently and I've had a little time on my hands. Trouble is, I think I'm hooked now - cant seem to wean myself off it.

Not going to answer my question David? We've all been pretty clear about why we care. Why do you care?

x-post

I care that you are trying to prevent a legitimate business from opening. The market will decide whether the people of Bristol, or anywhere else for that matter, want to visit Hooters. Its not Hooters that I care about, it's your opposition to it.

Do you not think that the relentless characterisation of women as the "sexual servers" in society is a bit of a problem. Bad enough that porn is all about men's "needs", but restaurants? FFS, they're supposed to be somewhere to eat.

It's not just about sex - if it were there would be equivalent places aimed at women. Why do you think there aren't?

But we are part of "the market", and if we can use out part of "the market" to put pressure on M&S, surely that's our prerogative?

out our

Absolutely, I've never said otherwise.

Apart from those who are 'independently wealthy' we all have to serve our employers or customers. I see nothing wrong in this as long as both parties can choose to be part of this transaction.

Choice is an important word here - you have the choice of who you work for and what you do, but society doesn't offer you the choice not to work and expect to get your rent paid. We'll, in effect it does, but thats a different thread.

I'm sure that many people would find the cost of working for Hooters, in terns of their self-respect, is too high, but everyone has their price. It doesn't surprise me that some women would rather be hooters girls than do some other minimum wage job for a living. You would deny them the opportunity to be a Hooters Girl, but can you offer them anything better?

I fully support opening doors, but you are slamming them shut.

So what if porn is all about mens needs? Does that, in itself, prevent women from having their needs met? Is there some massive unmet demand for female friendly porn, because I'm fairly sure that there are people willing to fill the gap if there is money to be made?

If there is demand for a 'pectaurant' staffed by well toned shirtless men in posing pouches, then I'm sure that someone would step in to fill this gap in the market.

Presumably you have been 'hooked' on similar threads before because you mentioned the Lilith report on a previous post.

People have already answered your questions when you posted them originally. If you were genuinely interested in our point of view, you would already have taken those responses on board. I don't know why you ask the same questions again, unless you have some other agenda.

If you are genuinely interested (and I use the word if) I'd suggest you read The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf, The Equality Illusion by Kat Banyard, The F Word by Catherine Redfern + one other. You could always read a book on abuse such as 'Why does he do that?' by Lundy Bancroft.

I'd be convinced that you were genuinely interested if you did that. Repeating questions
that you have already been given answers to doesn't imply a genuine engagement. And if you have read them and disagree, which I suspect, then I personally don't want to waste my time explaining to someone who doesn't want to understand. You are a man after all and have no concept of what it's like to be a woman.

Besides your mentioning of the Lilith report implies that you've been involved in similar discussions about lapdancing and nothing that was said there convinced you so, again, I am not inclined to waste my time. If you read the books I mention above, I'd be more interested but even then I suspect you'd find reasons to disagree.

I went to a talk by the mananger of the relatively new Rape Crisis centre in Bristol recently. She said that in nearly every single call that they get, porn is mentioned by the caller as a precursor to the attack, the assault or the abuse that the person has suffered. This surprised me. Even though I think the use of porn causes problems, I didn't realise that it could be a factor in nearly every case.

That ability to depersonalise a woman, to dehumanise her to a body part is a first step to being able to abuse and control her. In Scotland, programmes run to discourage kerb crawling get men to see the person behind the "working girl"..e.g. this is Lucy, she has 2 children, this is her background. It discourages them from depersonalising the women and makes it more difficult (they report) to use them as they were planning to.

Lundy Bancroft, the author I mention above, runs programmes for domestic abusers in the US. He states cultural conditioning and the media as a factor in why men abuse women. He talks about MTV videos that glamourise violence against women and talks about how angry he was to learn that Eminem had won an award for a track in which he talks about raping and killing his ex wife.

Making lap dancing clubs and restaurants like Hooters acceptable makes it acceptable to commodify a woman's body. They become acceptable for work events. This has been problematic in the city, for example, where female employees have reported feeling excluded from negotiations with clients and where this kind of entertainment perpetuates a macho culture that excludes women unless they fit in too.

Obviously, if someone doesn't want to believe there is a link, they will find ways not to recognise the connection.

To go back to the point of the post, this is what Marks and Spencer are colluding in and it goes against the principles they have signed up with the Let Girls Be Girls campaign. Someone commented on one of the newspaper articles that M&S shouldn't 'pontificate' about a business to which they are leasing a building. Yet, if they are to remain neutral, they shouldn't sign up to a campaign which does require them to uphold certain standards either.

They appear to want to have it both ways - to sign up to a campaign but to also be able to ignore the principles behind the campaign in certain situations.

I don't think that Hooters will not open in Bristol now. It is clear that too much money has been spent now and too many people have a financial stake in making sure it opens. That's pretty depressing that that's all it comes down to for some people, no matter what the consequences are.

sorry, DavidStHubbins, but after that first post you made about Nestle, on a mother's website, in an aggressive tone, I'm afraid I have to regard you, and anything you say, with deep suspicion.

THe problem with Nestle is not that the milk was contaminated, but that the company undermines breastfeeding. Breastfeeding saves babies' lives because of the antibodies. Aggressively marketing it for profit in the third world killed a lot of babies, and continues to do so today. It was a deeply offensive first post, so trying to laugh it off doesn't cut it.

Now I see you're trying to placate everyone with lines such as "hooters will never take off", "don'T worry your fluffy little heads about it" etc etc. "Best forget about this silly boycott."

I don'T know what your doing here, but I know that your posts are dripping with scorn and derison, and that now you're about to tell me I'm paranoid and that noone's allowed an alternative opinion. Alternative opinions are allowed　on this thread, which is why I'm posting mine .

Next he'll be telling us the stupid mothers in Africa have the "choice" not to use milk subsidies. Well yes , but it'd be better if the babykillers weren't there at all, wouldn't it.

If I hear about A3 business use permission one more time I am going to go into M&S and start burning their bras.

"I care that you are trying to prevent a legitimate business from opening. The market will decide whether the people of Bristol, or anywhere else for that matter, want to visit Hooters. Its not Hooters that I care about, it's your opposition to it.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Sun 26-Sep-10 02:05:24
But we are part of "the market", and if we can use our part of "the market" to put pressure on M&S, surely that's our prerogative?

DavidStHubbins Sun 26-Sep-10 02:43:34
Absolutely, I've never said otherwise."

So I ask again, why do you care? If you're so keen on the market having its way, and our boycott is part of the mechanics of the market, why does it get your goat so much? TBH you can come back and tell us if you want, or you can just go away and think about it.

You must know by now (being as you're so well-read and all) that part of your privilege as a man is to be able to ignore the objectification of women, or write it off as unimportant, because it's not coming back to bite you in the arse every time you turn on the TV or go outside. But coming on here to tell a lot of women who do have to cope with this that we shouldn't be using our limited power to counteract it - well does that sound a trifle arrogant to you?

I'm going to talk to you about A3 business use again, just to wind you up

I just looked up what it meant.
'Class A3. Food and drink
Use for the sale of food or drink for consumption on the premises or of hot food for consumption off the premises.'

it doesn't seem to cover entertainment. I don't understand. I thought Hooters girls were entertainers since that's what Hooters is arguing in their American sex discrimination case where they told the waitresses to lose weight.

funny old game this licensing and planning permission stuff, innit?

Yes indeed SSM.

I sometimes wonder if you guys actually read my posts. You seem so blinded by rage and conditioned by dogma that you simply cannot comprehend an alternative view.

Thanks for the list of propaganda, I probably won't read any of them, but at least I now know where you download your opinions from.

It's interesting that you mention the Lileth report again, as I only mentioned it once - I think you've brought it up 3 times since. I have not been involved in any discussion about lap dancing. I became aware of the Lileth report because it was cited in another Hooters debate as evidence that Hooters would increase sexual assaults in the locality. Perhaps I'm just not as credulous as you and I don't take everything I read at face value.

The suggestion that Hooters causes assaults to go up is a classic. Firstly it presents Hooters as a public protection issue that must be addressed by the authorities. Secondly, it scares the bejesus out of some impressionable women and helps to snowball the campaign. The fact that such claims are be elaborately fashioned from the finest top-grade bullshit, seems to easily become lost.

I find it interesting that nobody has bothered to post statistics in this thread, with most arguments relying on anecdote and rhetoric

"I care that you are trying to prevent a legitimate business from opening. The market will decide whether the people of Bristol, or anywhere else for that matter, want to visit Hooters. Its not Hooters that I care about, it's your opposition to it."

Well I'm a communist (as of today) so my world view is diametrically opposed to yours

You're in favour of the free market; I, as a communist am not. Mumsnet is a democracy, we're all allowed our say. Perhaps capitalism has had its day...

"Firstly it presents Hooters as a public protection issue that must be addressed by the authorities. Secondly, it scares the bejesus out of some impressionable women and helps to snowball the campaign."

oooh, now that's a good idea. Thanks

Congratulations Sakura. I'd sing you a few bars of the Internationale... if only I could remember the words.

Perhaps you're right, but I suspect there is stronger evidence to suggest that communism has had its day.

I may be in favor of the free market, but I'm not a fundamentalist. Markets don't always work and even when they do you need to be able to manage the externalities.

Ooh you are a wag, David. You didn't answer my question about the free market and our place in it. Would you like to?

Yes, we're "conditioned by dogma". You know, all that stuff on the news constantly about street assault and how terrible it is and the police taking it really seriously, and objectification being really bad for young girls, etc etc.

It's always really funny when someone representing the majority and dominant view comes along whining about fighting against dogma etc. Must make them feel really special to imagine that they are freedom fighters rather than driven by their desire to continue to have women just that bit lesser than them, and big boobies on demand.

I say again, don't you ever listen to radio phone-ins or watch the news or read a paper and think "hmm, this sounds familiar"?