Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

I went to Hooters in Bristol

124 replies

MitziRosie · 03/11/2010 11:45

So many debates about this place say words to the effect of "how can you comment when you've never been there?" Simple answer: easily. However, to speak with some authority I went there with another like-minded soul. Setting aside any predisposition to find the place repellent, the keys issues here are how does the place apparently score on:

  1. The sexism quotient.
  2. The standard of the food.
  3. Other facilities.

The sexism quotient is everything and more you would believe it to be. Too little space to do justice here. Obvious matters: "girls" dressed as well all know and apparently many goose-pimples through lack of warmth; signs everywhere reflecting upon the female form of course (caution bumps; caution blondes thinking - hung upside down; dangerous curves etc); material on sale as can be found by searching the product pages on their website, but let's just pick out for these purposes a pair of male boxer shorts (a snip at £14.95) bearing the words "more than a mouthful" and finally the menus themselves bedecked in girly calendar adverts etc. Oh, and I should add, the system of the mainly male cooks shouting across the whole restaurant for service and the clapping of hands to get the "girls" to come running. Charmless. Sexism quotient: 100%.

Food: Now look, it would be really easy to slag this off just to spoil the place and, after all, the food could be perfectly all right. But it was not. It was awful and utterly overpriced. I ordered nachos, at £8, they were cheap and nasty (as in something you could get from a supermarket for 50p for a huge bag) and covered in some kind of processed cheese sauce which resembled mustard out of a squeezy bottle. There was literally no fresh cheese on the menu so far as I could see in any product - it's all a "cheese" sauce thing. My companion had curly fries, minimum price £3. These were not in any sense cooked or created for Hooters. They were simply the same as above, namely something to be bought in any cheap supermarket. Whilst not ordering burgers or shrimp etc, it is to be noted that nearly everything did NOT come with fries, so you had to add £3 on to nearly every other order. I reckoned that if you wanted a burger with a few bits on it plus fries, you'd be shifting £11 at least. Bear in mind also, no special lunch menu so all prices the same as evening fare. The food was simply dreadfully poor and demonstrably over-priced. Final note: 10 chicken wings (and you know how small those are, just the little wing bit, that's all) cost £7.49 or £7.99 without fries. It is genuinely scandalous and just awful. There would be, as I mentioned above, no reason for the place, whatever its other faults, to actually have moderately good food - but I'm afraid the food mark must be an overly generous 10%. I'm not quite sure what the ten per cent is for other than that there was nothing obviously disgusting about the sour cream and guacamole on the nachos I suppose.

Finally, other facilities. I went to the toilets in expectation of awful things within. Now there were posters of such sporting greats as Tyson (convicted rapist) and Tiger Woods ('nuff said) on the way to the toilets, but within the toilet itself the facilities were clean, modern, perfectly hygienice and unadorned by other materials - both in the men's and women's. So to prove that this is nothing other than a balanced perspective, I give the toilets 100%. Problem is, you'd have much more fun and pleasure spending an hour in there than in the rest of the place. Perhaps that could become a unique selling point?

Will I be back? I might run in there for cover if being chased by an axe-wielding psychopath, but even then I would consider other strategies.

OP posts:
Motherfunster · 03/11/2010 17:00

Coffie at least, Riv.

I'm game.

sarah293 · 03/11/2010 17:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

MumofRachel · 03/11/2010 17:16

I had my photo taken with some waitresses to prove to people I'd been, and just sent it to my 70+ mum - she said she was very worried about how cold and thin the waitresses looked. And hoped I wouldn't want to work there as she'd be very embarrassed of me. Oh dear, that's my career dream dashed Sad.

Motherfunster · 03/11/2010 17:47

Fuck me.. has anyone seen the baby clothes for hooters, see www.hootersgear.com/Merch/MerchItemDetail.aspx?webitem_seq=1226
Jesus..

LittleGypsy · 03/11/2010 21:05

MitziRosie & MumofRachel, well done for the reconnaissance trips, but I can only imagine that you must both have overlooked something important there.

Did you look absolutely everywhere?

After all, Bristol City Councillor, Guy Poultney, proudly awarded them their licence on the basis that they would be "bringing something different to the Harbourside."

What could he possibly have been referring to?

ElephantsAndMiasmas · 03/11/2010 22:11

Possibly Bristol Harbourside was the one spot on the planet that was failing to remind women and girls of their role in life - a certain je ne sais sexism.

Bloody brilliant thread and thanks for braving it so we don't have to.

Having said that - Riven, can you organise a regular influx of fully-veiled customers? Do you wear the kind where you can only see the woman's eyes? (sorry ignorant of terminology). It would really put the men off their, er, stroke.

TheSmallClanger · 03/11/2010 22:16

Two questions:
What's this shrieking business all about? It sounds scary.

Does it smell in there?

nobiggy · 03/11/2010 22:23

Is this in the same block as Lloyd's No 1 Bar? What was it before?

MitziRosie · 03/11/2010 22:34

The shrieking is the ghastly, gurning welcome above all. Just stand nearby and you'll hear it every time the door opens.

No it doesn't smell as such. But there's more than a whiff of exploitation - of the staff and of the customers.

It's the dreadful quality of the ludicrously overpriced food which just adds insult to injury. It says it all really. There's just nothing positive being offered and the cynicism of the place is just utterly exposed by the poor standards on display. It would have been interesting to have to reflect upon the possibility that for all the ghastly sexism the food was actually decent and reasonably priced. At least that could have posed the beginnings of a dilemma - but they can't even be bothered to offer that!

OP posts:
MitziRosie · 03/11/2010 22:36

Nobiggy: it was a Marks and Spencer's simply food outlet. Hence the issue with M and S and Percy the Sexist Pig.

OP posts:
JessinAvalon · 03/11/2010 22:46

The chap I sit next to in work informed me this afternoon that someone in our office went to Hooters at the weekend and pronounced the food "really good".

My first thought was: I know who that was (a female) and they went because they thought it would be cool to go to an exploitative a controversial new breast themed restaurant.

My second thought was that they must have very low standards in food!

nobiggy · 03/11/2010 22:48

Oh...I think I know where that is.

MitziRosie · 03/11/2010 22:48

EandM: what they appear to offer that's different is just the naked (no pun intended) brass-necked attitude that it doesn't matter what they offer, so long as the waiting staff are dressed as they are then a certain clientele will just turn up anyway. It reminds me of the "I saw you coming" sketch featuring Harry Enfield.

Poultney should be forced to eat there at the very least. Surely a top level politician such as he should be prepared to put his money where his mouth is. Or indeed his mouth where his mouth is, as it were. Then he could tell us, bearing in mind the planetary sized intellect which must be possessed of the chair of a major city's licensing committee, exactly what is being offered of a positive and different quality. (Whilst he digests the "cheese" in particular.) Some aberrations of cuisine are unforgivable - perhaps GP should receive a tub of whatever-the-hell-that-was as a thank you from the grateful citizens of Bristol.

OP posts:
JessinAvalon · 03/11/2010 22:53

They are clearly banking on the plan that they'll attract such a bunch of Neanderthals desperate to see some girls in tight tops and little shorts that they won't even notice how awful and overpriced the food is.

That presumption is a huge insult to men, for one thing.

And, as many people kept pointing out on the Evening Post website, you can walk around the corner and see girls wearing less than that. You could buy a drink and leer at a girl in a similar outfit at a club round the corner and save some money.

It does amaze that guys fall for this crap. Same with lapdancing clubs. Why aren't guys more angry that they are taken for a complete ride in these places?!

MitziRosie · 03/11/2010 22:53

Jess: if that was "really good" then I'm a concert pianist, brain surgeon and Olympic athlete. Unless she was going down the "so bad it's good" line?

OP posts:
JessinAvalon · 03/11/2010 22:56

Oh good idea Mitzi. I'll contribute to that!

That "something different" argument really rankles. That justification for awarding the licence that can override all other concerns gets to me. What exactly are we benefitting from here?

nobiggy · 03/11/2010 22:59

Shit on a saucer would be different.

I'll draw up a business plan.

MitziRosie · 03/11/2010 22:59

I sincerely hope that guys aren't taken for a "complete ride" in lap dancing clubs. Now that would be a breach of licensing conditions!

That said, the licensing committee were certainly taken for a ride by the Hooters application. I wonder why that happened?

OP posts:
MitziRosie · 03/11/2010 23:02

I'm interested in joining the Shit on a Saucer plan. It could even be a BYO. Although I think it should be BYO one or the other but not both?

OP posts:
JessinAvalon · 03/11/2010 23:03

A friend of mine told me that she walked past Hooters on Friday night and saw a man on the bar pretending (I hope) to hump a man size banana, egged on by his mates and the staff.

Now, I'm confused . If he's standing on the bar drinking and humping a banana, does that qualify as "vertical drinking"? Or does that term only apply to those standing up in the seated area?

AnyFawker · 03/11/2010 23:05

I really hope you didn't partake of any of the peanuts in a bowl on the bar

JessinAvalon · 03/11/2010 23:06

Lap dancing clubs breaching licence conditions, Mitzi? Why, that never happens!

As for the committee being taken for a ride, they may well have been, but it was the residents and the women of Bristol who have been really shafted here, if you'll excuse the pun.

MitziRosie · 03/11/2010 23:08

Depends how he was humping the banana I guess and whether he was still holding his drink whilst doing so.

OP posts:
MitziRosie · 03/11/2010 23:13

Anyfawker: can't see Hooters giving away peanuts. Bowl of peanuts probably costs £3.99.

Question arises - if they are on the menu would they be Nobby's Nuts or Big D?

Or just My Nuts Are More Than a Mouthful(TM)?

OP posts:
JessinAvalon · 03/11/2010 23:14

I suppose that if he'd put his drink down, jumped up onto the bar, humped the banana (what a lucky banana) to the accompaniment of some gentle cheerleading type dancing and singing from the HGs, climbed off the bar, resumed his non-vertical drinking position and picked up his drink again then I'm sure that's fine!

In terms of something different, inflatable banana humping isn't something I've come across before. Perhaps that's what the chair of the licensing committee was thinking of?