Hooters in Dubai!
Not to be outdone once again by Bahrain, Dubai will be getting some Hooters pretty soon now, even though Dubai is not in Hooters’ expansion plans,
The investment requirements of the world famous franchise are not that onerous, on the contrary, these are easily available in any of our countries. The issue; however, is not the required investment, the entertainment, nor tourism value of such an enterprise. I am not against the move per se, it doesn’t make any difference to me and I have enjoyed visiting Hooters before – in a journalistic research capacity of course! It is up to the patron’s own set of values if they wish to enter such a restaurant or any other establishment, it is a personal choice after all.
The issue; however, is the continuing disappearance of the Arab and Muslim culture from that thriving city, a fact which has been quite evident for some time. If they understand and appreciate this state of affairs, then all power to them. I hope they make their residents and visitors happy. But is there space for both to coexist?
In Bahrain we have seen already several instances where these issues have come to the surface, and although ours cannot be compared in daring as what is being proposed in Dubai, feathers continue to fly in our parliament. Fortunately this time the liberals were not afraid to clearly stand against the Islamists and come out vehemently against them. I hope that this will be the turning point in which the Islamists will understand that there is a growing reaction to their pompous morality police mentality, and that the liberals do not let their guard down and stand their ground against that retroactive mentality.
I am wondering though if in fact Hooters becomes a reality, will that affect the countries around Dubai as well? Will that sort of openness drag its neighbours into the same era, if indeed such a thing could be regarded as modernity?
If Hooters does open in Dubai; though, they should first and foremost hire burly bouncers to keep the peace even before the first stick of furniture is ordered! Can you imagine its patrons living by the rule of “look but don’t touch” after a drink of two? Especially if bodyshots are also included on the menu?
I think I will pass on the opportunity of checking that restaurant out! But that should be quite a subject for a documentary!
Butterfly,
According to my ethics it’s immoral to force people to get up earlier than 9 in the morning
And by the way, who’s forcing those girls to work at Hooters?
Hooters? Too bad for Dubai. Now men there can enjoy really bad food and really high prices while harboring the fantasy that their waitress really likes them.
My biggest objection to the Hooter’s resurant(?) here is that the city was talked into subsidizing the franchise. I’d rather my taxes go for something useful, like public dog daycare, or maybe modern dance interpretations of traffic signals. :biggrin:
I was just wondering, How is “Hooter’s” more demeaning to women than the belly dancers, who by the way are more scantilly dressed than Hooters waitresses?
I am a woman, I am all for human rights, and one of the most important of those rights is Choice. The last thing I want is for anyone to enforce their ethical beliefs on me. I would never work as a Hooters waitress, but if others want to, its up to them. I am sure there r many ppl out there who do not agree with the choices I make. Who are we to play ethical police?
Conclusion: Live and let live. To each his own.
See the problem with all those arguing that hooters is NOT problematic because women are required to show off their body in order to get paid – you are all saying ‘if we stopped that, what would be stopped next?’
1) No-one (certainly not me) advocated making it illegal to make women work scantily dressed in order to earn their wages. But that does not mean I cannot have a problem with it. Or say that I have a problem with it.
I would like it if there was no kind of exploitation in the workplace – especially not sexual exploitation. But i really don’t think that will happen by banning or outlawing these practices. So if you have ANY other argument rather than ‘we dont want to have ethical police’ I’d love to hear it.
M – I am indignant because I’m offended, I believe I have the right to be so. As for your imaginary argument that I’m trying to stop women from working at hooters/ models from wearing swimsuits. Never once did I advocate ANYTHING of the sort.
You’re all rabbiting on about choice. Well try this on for size: if you work at hooters you have NO CHOICE but to wear the uniform every single day and to be treated like tits serving beer every single day. Or lose your job.
And while many women do not mind what they wear, find it flattering, why should they HAVE to wear it?
As for telling you about ‘how life is’ – I came on here to argue a point that I feel strongly about. Not to give people condescending lessons on ‘how life is’.
Doe14 – no one said having to earn money by shaking your wobbly bits at sleazy men (i presume you mean that, rather than bellydancers dancing for performance arts or whatever) was not demeaning. My whole point was that my problem with hooters is not an ‘islam-west’ problem, but a problem of exploitation/ degradation. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t other kinds of work that do the same, but we’re not talking about that.
And WHO is trying to force their ‘ethical beliefs’ on anyone else??? Who has even ONCE advocated that???
This is not about forcing others to follow your ‘ethical beliefs’ its about whether, at some point or another, all human beings are the same and can agree on certain standards for ourselves and others. Like can we all agree that child abuse is wrong? Can we all agree that kicking a dog is not acceptable? Can we all agree that sexism and profiteering from exploiting people is wrong? It appears not.
Geez, and I thought this site attracted liberal minded people.
Zara I agree with you; I personally do not think that anyone should be exploited. But the fact remains that women (and men) have the choice to walk away from a job or a situation if they know before hand what is expected of them. If that job or position is against their moral or religious belief, then they are free to walk away and get a job somewhere else.
This is like Bahrainis serving alcohol in restaurants, or even accepting money from patrons at hotels at the check-out because those people might be paying for room service charges which might include alcohol related ones. Some clerics condoned this and allowed those people to continue in their jobs. While I am no attempting to draw a parallel that clerics might condone women working at establishments like Hooters, what I am saying is that to every situation there is an appropriate answer.
The essence, as far as I am personally concerned is that this is a matter of choice and it is upto the person to accept or refuse the job offered and of course whether to be a patron of such establishments.
Yes, I also think that prostitution should be RE-legalised in Bahrain as it was in the 40s until the latter 70s. This will protect sex workers from exploitation! Ironic, yes, but true as well.
What the illegality of this trade has done in all countries where it is practiced is drive it into the underground and allow organised crime to flourish. Whether I like it or not, prostitution exists in Bahrain, Dubai and I am told even in Mecca.
My suggestion is simply to attack these problems and regulate them in order to find solutions, rather than impose our own personal views and try to force those views on others. This – for instance – is exactly what our dear parliamentarians are attempting to do with the Spring of Culture.
It’s all a matter of choice.
Why they want to call it restaurant if there are hidden agenda? I don’t understand really why should ladies who suppose to serve food and provide a service should wear less cloths and show more of their bodies?
This is not a haute couture or a striptease clubs. According to such standards, it means that one day women who work as engineers, doctors, bankers .. etc might be requested to wear less cloths and show more of their bodies.
If you want to live in a world where no ethics exist then don’t call for human rights.
Well, I am not defending Hooters in their exploitation of sex. If you re-read my article, you will find that I said:
Which calls for the exploration of how Hooters and other entertainment venues are affecting the identity of Dubai. It also alludes to the fact that I respect personal choice and that people themselves are responsible for their actions; whether that is choosing to work in such a place as Hooters knowing full well that the wearing of their uniform is a requirement, or men or women choosing to enter such establishments for eating, drinking of oogling.
And personal choice is at the heart of human rights.
Wow I’m very interested in the previously legalised prostitution. Can you tell me more? But yea, for exactly those reasons – I worked at a shelter for prostitutes (not in Bahrain) and what I found was that while customers continued to demand the ‘services’ the government outlawing prostitution meant that if the women were not paid/ beaten/ raped they could not seek help or support because the work was illegal.
As to the question of choice. I know as a fact that not everyone has the same choices. For me it would be a choice of not wanting to be mandated to show off my chest for a job, or no job. Fine, I would take no job, but that’s because I can afford to make that choice.
For example, would you say that overworked housemaids have such an easy choice? Don’t like the work hours and pay just leave? Or many people who end up in shitty jobs, can just make the choice to leave? Because I know that even if the construction workers next to our house are overworked and treated like dogs, their alternative ‘choice’ is to not feed their children. I know that for friends of mine who joined the US Air force, their alternative choice was not to go to college. Etc.
For me this is not at all the same as serving alchohol/ paying for it inadvertantly. Because I don’t think you can construct an ethical argument against drinking/ serving alcohol. You can give a sensible argument – ie. too much can make you lose your senses, but what is the ethical argument? People who say ‘alcohol is bad’ usually only have the argument that ‘because God said so’. Which quite frankly, doesn’t cut it for me.
Whereas I think you CAN construct an ethical argument saying that hooters is an extremely questionable establishment because of the way it uses sexism and objectification of women to sell beer/ chicken wings whatever. And because in order to earn their wages the women (and i think it is only women) have to show off their bodies. Does this really happen to men anywhere? I am asking this seriously. I would be equally appalled if it did, but as far as I am aware it does not. Is that why so many men are arguing for hooters? Because they don’t know what it’s like to be used and degraded in that way?
As for imposing my views on anyone – as those dear old disgustin gentlemen in the lower house would do – I’m not advocating shutting down hooters or banning it. For the work is in educating ourselves so that it is no longer acceptable or even normal for women to be treated like this.
If hooters really gave women ‘free choice’ then they could show off their chests to advertise and sell beer if they felt like it, and if they didn’t feel like it then it would be fine too. But would still get paid either way. But somehow I don’t think that’s how it works…
peace =)
I agree with you Mahmood, but a freedom of choice that is based on abuse-free to all parties involved.
Zara, here is the actual government order regulating prostitution in Bahrain published in 1936.
@Zara, Butterfly:
Why is it that you want to enforce your ideals of what is right and what is wrong upon others! Now, if I was a girl and chose to be a stripper, an exotic dancer, a hooters girl or even a pit babe at the race track or whatever, I have the full right to do so!
Your argument that Hooters exploits attractive women is as ridiculous as saying Bodybuilding exploits men who are big and Soccer exploits men who are fast. Hooter girls have the same right to use their natural sex appeal to earn a living as do supermodels, personal trainers, singers use their voice or even girls in the advertising business.
On another note, your accusations that hooters are discriminating against women I will not even get near. There are several cases out there again hooters you can google won and proven against such issue.
Live and let live people, Live and let live
What’s Hooters about?
What are their employment strategies and conditions?
With the above, I don’t think anyone can claim that they didn’t know what – at least – the uniform consists of. Of course if they object to that, they needn’t apply.
I can’t believe that I’m augmenting Hooters traffic from Bahrain and elsewhere, what would their webmaster think!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/09/hooters/
You people do realise the fact that free choice does not exist?!?
I choose to levitate instead of walk, that would be my “free choice”, unfortunately, gravity has other ideas… :getlost:
I personally do not appreciate most of the men in this part of the world ogling at me, it restricts MY free choice! I cannot freely choose to go to certain places, like seef on a thursday evening, because I get ogled at (no matter what the attire!), so where is MY freedom? How come these guys have the freedom to ogle and drool? THAT is a RIGHT?
But you men (especially those that seem to be defending on this particular topic), seem particularly bent on getting the chance to stare and ogle at some girl you dont even know!
Please, please, please, tell me WHY you are so determined to have the CHOICE to go? You guys seem to be defending it most feverishly.
Oh, and since its a choice, u’d all be alright with having ur sister/ mother/daughter/girlfriend/wife/fiance working there, right? You said urselves, there is NOTHING WRONG with it, its a free choice! You would not be disapproving, angry or anything of the sort, would you?
Please DO answer these questions!
Nope, I wouldn’t be disapproving if any of my female relatives exercised their personal choice and voluntarily wanted to work there.
I also believe that you and all other women regardless of who they are or how they look should be left alone without being chased, ogled, harassed, attacked, or cajoled. They – women – should have the complete freedom to choose what they wear and it is up to them to judge the appropriateness of the dress code for the occasion, be that they want to be: a letterbox ninja or bikini clad.
Those are their basic rights.
As for societal norms, those change with the society you are in. I would not expect that a woman in Bahrain would feel comfortable in this day and age to sport a bikini and walk in the Seef Mall. I say in this day and age because I was a witness when I was 10 or so of an ad being shot in the souq with TWO bikini-clad women opening and shutting a store’s shutter on a main street in central Manama. People stood by, they watched, they ogled and when the shooting was done, each went their own merry way. That was the begining of the 70s in Bahrain.
I also distinctly remember the Gulf Mirror having a page 5 (instead of page 3) of a topless woman every single week.
I also remember selling Playboy, Penthouse, Al-Jins and other publications of the sort throughout the 60s and most of the 70s in my dad’s stationary on Bab Al-Bahrain road.
Times change. But so do societies.
At this time, if a woman does not want to be harassed, she must dress appropriately. Unfortunate. But the onus is really NOT on the woman, but men (and some women) who do the harassing and it should be the police’s job to stop that behaviour through various means. THAT is not happening either.
So we have societal pressures coupled with an absence of applying the law to protect personal freedoms, in fact, add to that a parliament that is fully bent to restrict those freedoms even more under the guise of religion and their narrow interpretation of it.
So don’t – please – apply your own standards on everyone, and think generally about women’s rights throughout the world rather than a microcosm called Arabia.
i wonder what the men would think in dubai, as well as other places, if a restaurant was opened called Peckers. a big chicken could be it’s symbol or shown on the shorts of all the men who worked in the restaurant.
this would be a restaurant mainly for the ladies serving basically same stuff as hooters but the difference would be men walking around in hardly anything.
i’ve been to hooters in dallas and the food isn’t worth it… it’s nothing to die for. the girls that work there are polite, and we got better service than some other well known restaurants. the place did have a fun atmosphere though.
i see nothing wrong w/ women working in establishments such as these. it’s their choice and if they choose to make a living dressed like that and being the subject of many a man’s dream…. because really, i can’t see any woman starting to work at a place like that not knowing the attention it will bring, then isn’t it their choice. like CW says, many are working their way thru college and wouldn’t it be better to work in a restaurant like this than strip for a living.
but back to my original point… i would bet that some of the men that love hooters would have issue w/ a restaurant being opened for the ladies…. but i’m guessing here. i definitely don’t think any arab man would allow their wifey poo to visit such an establishment… but they prob, sure as hell, visit hooters!
For the ladies…
Knock yourselves out!
And if any of you men would like to apply so that you can be touched and ogled, here are the steps:
So ladies, as this fine establishment is also available for the exclusive entertainment of you females, and if this establishment is borne out of a clear market requirement, what’s your problem with Hooters?
Isn’t Chippendales degrading to us men? And the bastards who work there have ripped bodies I would kill to have too!
But respecting your choice, go and have fun!
Butterfly,
Sorry, computer problems. What is relevant in my opinion is that it is all mine, and mine alone just as yours is to you. In the big scheme of things, mine is no more valid than yours; we are responsible for ourselves and our views and choices just as the women who work at Hooters are. The important thing is the ability to have opinions and act freely on them within the bounds of law; I believe the Hooters girls do exactly that. It is only their views that matter in the end even though others may not approve or agree with their decisions.
While there is no denying that there is exploitation of women, as well as men and children, in the world, this seems a far reach in the case of Hooters. So what woman’s work is not exploitation in your book? Actress, models, maids, body building, business women who must dress to a certain fashion standard or lose their job? What?
This is not a case of exploitation, but rather one of choice based on the personal needs and views of the women involved. While you may hold the narrow view that a man looking a woman or any of her body parts qualifies them as sick, that is not the case; it is in fact human nature. Men doing something about it is another case. You are being grossly unfair to men to generalize in such a way, and logically I suppose to women who look at an attractive man as well.
Oh, to live in a perfect world!
Of course I am kidding, Mahmood, but there is also something both serious and true about my statement. Last night, I had a longer comment in the making, but fortunately for everyone but myself, I was apparently sync’d to your six hour auto server reboot cycle. Your website became unavailable as did my comment.
You write, “I don’t think it’s the government’s job to look into or after a person’s morals.” I have also read nearly all of the preceding comments on this thread. What is most interesting to me is that I am unable to articulate an analysis that I am truly comfortable with.
Personally, I find Hooters objectionable, and I have exercised my individual right never to enter such an establishment. Don’t get me wrong. I love hooters, as well as everything else about the psychological and physical aspects of those of the population without a Y chromosome. Yet, there is something about Hooters that I cannot stomach, something that I find distasteful, in bad taste, and just flat out base. While I am sympathetic with comments such as Zara’s, I don’t think that my personal “feelings” or objections have their source in concern for the employees being compelled to work at a job where their physical attributes are part of the commercial equation; nor am I really troubled by the “capitalistic” aspects of the situation. I just think its “cheap” and that their “mission statement” is ridiculously shallow when it purports to “provide a family of hospitality and services that achieves excellence and enhances lifestyles.” Excuse me, but did they say “enhances lifestyles?” I also find their use of the word “family” curious. What lifestyle are they promoting? I just find the whole concept “unhealthy” and base. But, what would I know, I’ve never been inside – their marketing material convinced me that I’m not interested. Really a rather remarkable achievement, since I love beer, hotwings, and attractive ladies.
Notwithstanding these personal views of mine, I do not think that it is either appropriate or beneficial (in the wider sense) to have government prohibit or outlaw Hooters. The reason, though, is not because I think that government has no legitimate role in regulating moral conduct. (This assumes that we are defining the word “moral” in the same way). The reason is because this level of “moral” conduct or “unhealthy” behavior is so low that governmental authority would be dangerously oppressive if it were allowed to prohibit at this level. In that sense, I agree with the notion that this is all a matter of personal decision, that those who disagree may choose not to participate, and that the market can decide whether the business flourishes and continues to provide “an environment of employee growth and development . . . while making positive contributions to [their] communities.” Yuck.
P.S. There are so many really grand and truly great things that are achieved simply because individuals are allowed individual and commercial freedom from governmental regulation. Hooters isn’t one of them in my opinion, and I guess my original comment was an indirect expression of my personal frustration that businesses such as Hooters become associated as one of the fruits of free expression. It is, but its a rather tasteless fruit to my palate.
May I point out an angle overlooked here? Has it occurred to anyone here that the men are not using the women at Hooters but rather the Hooters girls are using the men? After all, the Hooters girls are only wearing casual summer clothes to give their customers a cheap thrill and raking in big tips from horny male customers who think they might have a shot with one. It looks pretty harmless to me, a discount Playboy club for the masses.
Personally, I don’t much care for the food there, not that anyone remembers what they ate. It’s a bit too greasy for my taste. About the only palatable things are the pulled pork sandwich and grilled chicken.
Uh, which Hooters is that? The ones I went to, well, the girls were rather average size. Is it in Dubai or here in the States? Do you have an address? Do you have to ask to supersize your waitress or what? I just want to check it out for purposes of furthering discussion.
Ahem, aren’t you being a little desperate to claim that opening a hot chicken wing joint in Dubai is invading the globe? While I haven’t been to Hooters in a few years I don’t recall any of the waitresses being armed. If they were packing heat, it would be pretty easy to spot the weapons. I just don’t see Hooters as an occupying colonial power. Why do you? And if it were, I wish they would colonize and occupy me.
You might also consider that franchises are voluntary business enterprises. The investors in Dubai are not being forced at gunpoint to shell out money for this franchise nor are its customers brought against their will to the door in manacles. Do you have the same concern for all the clinics run by American doctors around the world?
Also, any crimes the terrorists commit are their fault, not ours. Stop blaming the victim. If the Islamists wanted to make war on moral corruption in Dubai, they could start by attacking all those hotel lobbies stocked with foreign hookers.
Hmmm. Dubai is becoming the leading modern city of the Middle East and Arab Muslim culture is disappearing from it. Why is that? Could it be that modernity and Arab Muslim culture don’t mix, like oil and water? Can Arab Muslim culture not adapt to influences from the outside? Does Arab Muslim culture fear change? Is Arab Muslim culture so weak that it can be wiped away by some chicken wings and short shorts? Discuss among yourselves.
However, I’ll note that nobody worried that American culture was disappearing when they opened the Lebanese Taverna all over the States. That’s the advantage of defining your culture in terms of individual liberty and freedom of speech instead of religion and hoary custom.
Actually, Zara, American colleges are mostly full of students paying their way with loans, which are pretty easy to get and a lot easier than joining the Army, which is a hard thing. Nobody in America has to join the Army to pay for college, despite all the propaganda on Al Jazeera to the contrary. For many Americans, the military is an attractive proposition in and of itself and a family tradition. That’s the way it was for me and all my friends in the military. College money is just the icing on the cake.
And, by the way, virtually nobody in the military goes to Iraq to kill people. For the most part, they’d rather pass out soccer balls and coloring books to the kids. That’s what they brag about in email home.
Then women are the greatest human rights violators in the world, buying pretty dresses and doing their hair and wearing high heels and perfume. They are simply advertising themselves as sexual objects to we helpless men who are defenseless against this relentless and effective marketing campaign. And now, Butterfly, you have opened my eyes to realize that all those chick shows you women love, like “Sex In The City,” are virtual Auschwitzes of objectification. I am so steamed about this, the next beautiful girl I see all dolled up, well, I’m going to make a citizen’s arrest.
I don’t know about CW, but I sure have. Capitalism works. I LOVE it!
Actually, yeah, that’s how it works in America. Usually, for most people you work shit jobs at first to move up to jobs that aren’t so shitty until you climb up to a job you really quite enjoy doing. All you have to do to make work that easy is to stop government interference of the workplace and let workers, managers, and businesses sort it out themselves.
That’s not the way it works at my Hooters. They may need to raise their standards.
That’s exactly the job description for being a fighter jock in the United States Air Force and it didn’t bother me at all.
Steve the American
Steve the American,
You right about what these girls do to the guys. I used to work at this place and so many of the guys would go there for lunch. Well… these guys weren’t the best looking boys on the block, but ….. when they went to Hooters, they sure thought they were. Those guys would leave the biggest tips because they got attention.
Those girls know how to work it and if men are stupid enough to leave big tips …. then so be it. More power to these females!
Off topic here… but has anyone seen any of these new coffee shops opening up in the States? They’re sorta like Stabucks but it’s a drive thru and the girls dress to impress (in provocative clothing – i.e. shorts, bikini tops & such) and get huge tips as well. The guys love it and the business is doing so well that she’s expanding into other states!
Zara, you know… there is a dress code at Hooters, but these girls choose to take a job there and choose to wear the clothing. And you’re wrong about all of them having big boobs. I’ve seen girls there that don’t. Personally, there are women who choose certain jobs to make quick money. These girls make really good tips… if the guys I worked w/ were any indication of that… then I can only imagine the money they’re raking in! Men like going to Hooters to look at the girls and to get flirted with…. no one makes these girls take these jobs. Matter of fact, the girls must like it because Hooters is VERY successful. They’re everywhere. But.. there are a lot of women out there that love to show their bodies… and it’s not just an American thing. I see it here too!
Good to have you back, Steve. Go easy on Zara :biggrin:
Woo, i should have guessed that this discussion would bring steve out the woodwork. Just saw us little geckos scrabbling around in the dirt and couldn’t help coming closer for a better look?
1) Obviously not all americans join the army to pay for college, but you know i’m pretty convinced that a large portion of your armed forces is just a “mercenary army of the poor”.
A guy from your own house of representatives (I think) said a “disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent.”
Capitalism works? Maybe for you. I find it degrading.
The rich get richer, poor stay poor.
The idea that if you work hard you will get somewhere (or even get by) is a myth. Of course it occurs in some cases.
It is a combination of good luck/ opportunities and hard work (in some cases). Do you really think that all people who are poor are poor because they don’t work hard enough?
Maybe you should pass by any construction site in Bahrain and then visit the site owners office – and you tell me whose working harder at the shittier job.
And tell me also how many of these owners worked through shit job after job and then made it into the air conditioned office.
And then tell me how many of these labourers will get to end up in an office?? kharaa
Moodz- I didn’t say Hooters discriminated against women. And really, using your physical training and abilities is NOT the same as allowing men to ogle at you in person while selling food and drinks. I am living, and let living thank you very much. I don’t want to enforce any ‘ideals’ i have on anyone, have you been following the discussion? I was arguing that my problem with hooters is (see above) NOT that it posed any kind of “islam-west” clash. This is what I have been talking about the whole way through.
Tooners – I really don’t think the large breats is a central part of the argument. I just think it sucks that human beings have to do this kind of work / be treated like this in order to earn money. And I don’t think that women are geniunely empowered by making guys feel attractive in order to get tips. There is a widely understood imbalance between men and women in the world and how many men (compared to women) have to act like this in order to earn money? (not that I would want them to)
Once again, I say to all concerned: I am not interested in banning places like hooters/ places that earn money from customers by allowing them to sleaze over women. Nor am I condemning women who work there, nor would I ever stop anyone from working there. For me thats not even part of the question.
My argument is this: rather than hooters posing a ‘west-islam’ problem, it is problematic to me because of the role it creates for the women working there.
And of course I respect people right to choose where they go. But don’t expect me to respect you if you go there.
Ps – Mahmood thanks for the link on prostitution laws.
zara,
I’m trying to find the logic in your argumentation. You say:
Are you speaking on behalf of those women or what? Before you can establish that they are in fact being used and degraded, shouldn’t you ask them? What answer do you think you’d get.
If they disproved your description of their situation, would you still hold on to it?
well well well!
what a discussion we have here!
steve, welcome back. we missed you. not.
zara, butterfly … i am really sorry. i am with the boys on this one. whilst i have only ever been in hooters once in my entire life, i would rather, given a choice, spend an evening with ‘american capitalists’ at hooters than spend it with the ‘taleban’ in afghanistan.
the way to stop the degradation of women is not by banning somewhere like hooters. or by passing judgement on those who frequent the place. but it is by ensuring the judicial and legal system that envelops these societies protect women and minorities when they are, indeed, degraded .. without specifying the number of witnesses that have to corraobrate evidence of said degradation. i.e., stating that there should be 4 women witnesses to each single male witness is much more of an insult to me than hooters.
so, even though i find it much more insulting and degrading to see men being fined peanuts for rape in our countries than to see people going into hooters, and even though i beleive in your right to freedom of expression, i would rather use my own freedom of expression to chnage the laws in our countries that protect women and minorities by ensuring that crimes like sexual harassment, violence and rape are met with signifcant penalties that are enforced than i am fussed about whether someone wants to go and look at someone whose comfortable with showing her own stuff …
well mahmood, I can’t tell you how much I’ve enjoyed this thread: like dropping a stone in a pond and watching the cascading ripples
Here’s another site, on the subject, an interview with Hooters Girls in Shanghai:
As you can see, they’re extremely vivacious, and don’t seem to feel they’re ‘exploited’ working there, or that ‘it sucks’ that they have to do that kind of work.
China is transitioning into the modern world quickly. The girl interviewed in the article is almost as ‘westernized’ in her views as any small-town American girl of that age. Which reinforces my view that the more flesh women in a society are able to display publicly, the more personal liberties, economic success, literacy, education, and higher standard of living and well being people in that society have.
And in fact if you look at the Human Development Index (HDI) which rates those elements of national well being, you will find that the top twenty countries on the planet have ‘westernized’ attitudes about personal freedoms, including sexual freedom – and in all of them (weather permitting) you will find women in skimpy clothing at beaches, pools, lakes, boardwalks, or in shorts and tank-tops on streets, avenues, parks, and other public places as well.
So if you really want a free, open society, with voluptuous half-naked women freely strolling the avenues, you should think about opening the first chain of topless dance clubs in the Middle East (Bosoms sounds like a good trade name for the business) and jump-start the march toward true freedom.
milter – prior to that remark i was asking for comparative numbers of places / jobs that are degrading to men. as for deciding these women are being degraded by their work. no i was not speaking on behalf of them, i was giving my opinion on their situation. For example- many of the labourers here work in terrible conditions but do not think that their rights are being violated. i can still say that i think they are being exploited right? or do i need to ask them first? and i’m sure some girls in hooters would say yes it makes me feel shit, and i’m sure some would say it’s fine/ i enjoy it. But in the same way, many americans think they are ‘free’, many women in the west feel that they are liberated and that feminism no longer applies. On both points i disagree with the analysis of their situation and i think it’s fair enough to say so.
Also, as a woman, i draw on the experience of feeling degraded when treated like a piece of meat for entertainment or titillation.
jasra jedi – I’ll repeat myself again:
I am not interested in banning places like hooters/ places that earn money from customers by allowing them to sleaze over women. Nor am I condemning women who work there, nor would I ever stop anyone from working there. For me thats not even part of the question.
My argument is this: rather than hooters posing a ‘west-islam’ problem, it is problematic to me because of the role it creates for the women working there.
Cmon guys
I would like it if there was no kind of exploitation in the workplace – especially not sexual/gender based exploitation.
But i really don’t think that will happen by banning or outlawing these practices.
So if you have ANY other argument rather than ‘we dont want to have ethical police’ and ‘if you don’t like it don’t go’ (because yes i don’t want ethicial police and no i won’t go) I’d LOVE to hear it.
That’s funny because i was listening to a Bbc report the other day on jayjerome -China’s alleged economic success: about peasant farmers being forced off their lands and about the uneven distribution of wealth which leaves the rich (and some middle class) getting richer, and the majority of the poor stay poor.
Classic capitalist ‘development’.
But yea man, i definitely think people should be free to wear as much or little as they choose to. I just differentiate between choosing to wear a skimpy top because it’s hot outside, and showing of my body to be used as a gimmick to get guys to buy food and drinks.
Zara: “Woo, i should have guessed that this discussion would bring steve out the woodwork. Just saw us little geckos scrabbling around in the dirt and couldn’t help coming closer for a better look?”
And I love you, too, Zara.
By the way, Mahmood, I very much like what you’ve done with these comments.
Zara: “Obviously not all americans join the army to pay for college, but you know i’m pretty convinced that a large portion of your armed forces is just a “mercenary army of the poor”.”
Zara, you are undoubtedly convinced of this false notion out of the disinformation pounded into your head every day by the wildly slanted Arab media. First, very few Americans would consider themselves poor. Pretty much every American thinks he/she is in the middle class. Second, there is a large portion of the country for whom flag and country is part of their religion. For them, the Marines is their Harvard. Third, nobody joins the Army for the money. If you ran that by any GI, they would laugh at you. Any guy who is fit enough to join the Army can get a construction job that pays way more.
Zara, what you are missing is the patriotism of ordinary Americans which leads them into the military and the pervasive sense in every service and at every rank that America should spread freedom and democracy.
Zara: “A guy from your own house of representatives (I think) said a “disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent.””
That’s because the military is just about the fairest and least biased employer in America. Minorities know that they can advance as far as their talent will take them in the military. If you are poor and have graduated from high school, the military can do you a world of good, mostly by making a man of you. Many a vet will tell you exactly that. It’s an odd argument that castigates the military for taking in poor people and training them.
It’s a clever piece of dishonest rhetoric to claim that privileged Americans are not in the enlisted ranks of the military. If you’ve got money, you will probably graduate from college and join as an officer, not as an enlisted man.
However, there is a kernel of truth to the charge that in the elite universities of the blue states there is a lack of patriotism combined with a disdain for the military that has reduced enlistments to a trickle. That reflects shame on them, not the military. Yet, I note that the US military has fared well without them, becoming the best trained, educated, equipped, and led military in the history of mankind.
Zara: “Capitalism works? Maybe for you. I find it degrading. The rich get richer, poor stay poor.”
It certainly has worked well for me and my family. My dad came from a dirt poor family, all of whom worked their way up into the middle class. Many of us kids have improved on their success, going to college and grad school to work our way up into the upper middle class. It’s fabulous.
That is the story of America. The Federal Reserve published a report a few years ago that pointed out that all but 2% of the lowest quintile of income earners in America move up into the middle quintiles or higher within twenty years. In other words, most poor in America work their way up into the middle class. A few don’t. I suspect most of that is due to bad decisions they’ve made, probably with respect to drug and alcohol use, and few to bad luck.
It doesn’t work that way in the Middle East because Arab society is stratified, your opportunities limited to your family contacts. There is also the problem with the rulers governing by person whim rather than the rule of law, with the law not made to protect individual liberty and property, and with what little good law there is being negligently applied for the good of the people.
And by the way, your “rich get richer poor stay poor” scheme is wrong in America. I’ve pointed out the Fed Reserve study that shows the poor move up to the middle class. The other finding of that study is that the rich move down into the middle class. They blow their money, it gets dissipated among their heirs, or their business falters. That’s why there is no permanent aristocracy of the rich in America. The richest American families of a century ago are virtually all middle class now. Another myth debunked.
Zara: “The idea that if you work hard you will get somewhere (or even get by) is a myth. Of course it occurs in some cases. It is a combination of good luck/ opportunities and hard work (in some cases). Do you really think that all people who are poor are poor because they don’t work hard enough?”
I don’t think it, I know it, at least in America. Of course, outside the Western world, your view is quite accurate. Take a look at the Forbes list of American billionaires and you’ll find most of them are self-made, like Bill Gates. Only a tiny few inherited their money. What is happenning on a big scale with the billionaires is happenning on a moderate scale with most middle class families in the US. Working hard to get ahead is how it’s done in America.
The poor in America are poor mostly due to the bad choices they make in their lives. If you graduate from high school, take any job that pays, and don’t have children until after you are married, you will not be poor for long in America. Violate those, and your life is going to be hard. Of course, the surest way to become poor is to drink and do drugs until you’ve laid waste to your life.
Now there is a tiny minority of the poor who got that way due to sheer bad luck or catastrophic health problems, but they are few.
Zara: “Maybe you should pass by any construction site in Bahrain and then visit the site owners office – and you tell me whose working harder at the shittier job. And tell me also how many of these owners worked through shit job after job and then made it into the air conditioned office. And then tell me how many of these labourers will get to end up in an office??”
Point taken. Follow America’s example and put an end to that injustice.
Steve
there’s something wrong when people claim that everyone has “free choice” to do what they want ( i.e. be a stripper, prostitute, etc).
african slaves in the US also had “free choice”: the free choice between picking cotton, or getting whipped. the slaveowners and the rest of society are obviously not to be blamed if the slaves “freely choose” to give away their labour. in fact, we should be thankful to the slaveowners for providing the slaves with food and a place to sleep, otherwise they would all be hungry and homeless.
obviously, the above analogy is a bit extreme for the case of hooters, but the point is valid nonetheless.
what is always missing from the supporters of the “free choice” argument is history and context. as if slavery has nothing to do with the condition of US blacks today; as if the effects of colonialism have nothing to do with state of third-world countries today; as if the history of male domination has nothing to do with the roles that society has created for women today.
Jasra Jedi: “steve, welcome back. we missed you. not.”
What a fine welcome that was, Jasra. No “Hey, how are ya, where ya been, watcha been doin’?” I would have expected you to meet me at the door of Mahmood’s Den with a cold drink and a plate of warm cookies, escort me to a comfy chair, and rub my tired shoulders while admitting that after long thought, I had been right about everything after all.
And really, hasn’t it been kinda boring without me?
Jasra Jedi: “zara, butterfly … i am really sorry. i am with the boys on this one. whilst i have only ever been in hooters once in my entire life, i would rather, given a choice, spend an evening with ‘american capitalists’ at hooters than spend it with the ‘taleban’ in afghanistan.”
Another victory for the American cultural invasion of the world! WE’RE NUMBER ONE! Me and my fellow American capitalists invite you, JJ, to belly up to the bar at Hooters for a cold one. However, I’d rather have the victory dinner at a nice cajun restaurant.
Jasra Jedi: “the way to stop the degradation of women is not by banning somewhere like hooters. or by passing judgement on those who frequent the place. but it is by ensuring the judicial and legal system that envelops these societies protect women and minorities when they are, indeed, degraded .. “
The way to protect women is to make individual liberty and equality the cultural norm. The laws will follow and reflect the will of the people.
Steve
Zara
You might want to digest this. Perhaps is will open your eyes on a few subjects concering the US Military.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm
Chanad what are you going on about? Let’s analyze the situation a bit here:
1. Hooters are predominantly in affluent countries
2. Jobs are readily available, some jobs at that level probably pay about the same hourly rates, maybe a bit less, and maybe they will not receive as generous tips, but they do provide good employment
3. Therefore, a girl does have a choice in getting other jobs practically in any company or restaurant if she chooses
So where is the subjugation and absence of choice here? And how can you compare this situation with the erstwhile slaves in America or anywhere else for that matter?
Not particularly. We actually did have discussions without completely being required to bow to American supremacy every time we needed to use a punctuation mark.
But now that you are here, I suspect that you wouldn’t want to raise another situation where you would again be marginalised, castigated or asked to leave?
CW,
You know I was thinking of posting that link or the one from the DOD, but I thought it would be a waste of time for someone who says stuff like:
China’s alleged economic success:……Obviously shows you are not a capitalitic pig, Zara.
uneven distribution of wealth …..Glad you feel that way, Zara; I’m a little short this week so send all your money to me asap.
rather than hooters posing a ‘west-islam’ problem,…….Whoever said that, leave the building now for trying to incite a riot.
A guy from your own house of representatives (I think)……Oh that was Mr. Rogers or PeeWee Herman, I think.
pretty convinced that a large portion of your armed forces is just a “mercenary army of the poor”………wrong again. Read CW’s link; get it right. A mercenary army of the middle class.
Capitalism works? Maybe for you. I find it degrading……..Sounds like we won’t be expecting a visit from you anytime soon….too bad. What system don’t you find degrading, my dear?
Anyway, CW after I stopped snickering and doing the same as Milter in trying to figure out the logic, I realized I like Zara’s attitude. It says a lot about things that there is a healthy dose of skepticism in one so young; that’s a good thing.
:sleeping:
M
It is good to see some skepticism. But will that be tempered once confronted with the facts? That’s the differance between “healthy” and “unhealthy” skepticism I think.
But in the end to Zara I am nothing but a Capitalist Pig since I am a business owner. :w00t:
Sorry, don’t know how that sleepy guy got in there.
CW,
Doubt the skepticism will be tempered with the facts; it’s more a function of age for a lot of people. It’s got to be hard for young people these days with so much information available through the media and internet to understand what is real and what is someone’s subjective opinion or a media bias. Who do you believe? Counterpunch or the DOD. I got to thinking about it the other day when my middle one said about the news…You can’t believe anyone anymore. You have to think for yourself and figure it out. Maybe there is hope, but I am not betting the farm that Zara will read or believe your link.
Mahmood: “Not particularly. We actually did have discussions without completely being required to bow to American supremacy every time we needed to use a punctuation mark.”
Not missed? I find that hard to believe. Everybody loves Steve the American, though some are in denial. Deep denial for some. Deep, deep denial for others.
Mahmood, you would find me much less willing to tout Americanosity everywhere, particularly when America is slandered, had I not endured for decades an ignorant litany of abuse that held America to blame for every evil in the world, from the evil of Happy Meals to harvesting Iraqi organs to cooking the planet to a boil. I’ve had enough of that.
However, since you are such a genial host and so tolerant of party-crashers like me, I will not demand you bow to America no matter how many punctuation marks you use. I think that’s very generous for an evil colonialist oppressor such as myself, don’t you? Instead, I recommend that you down the amber-colored beverage of your choice everytime I praise America, the greatest nation in human history. See, there’s one there. Bottom’s UP!
Mahmood: “But now that you are here, I suspect that you wouldn’t want to raise another situation where you would again be marginalised, castigated or asked to leave?”
There’s no telling, Mahmood. If you should throw your support behind a warmongering terrorist organization that says its strength is that it loves death while its opponents’ weakness is they love life, well, I may well be vociferous in supporting the life-lovers. And really, Mahmood, to be an American patriot is to live a life of marginalization, castigation, and defenestration. I’ve been told to leave from much rougher joints than this and much less politely. It’s part of the job description. I’ve come to accept it, even expect it, sometimes even enjoy it.
However, to allay your fears, I have no plans to camp here nor even to post regularly. I am busy engaging the domestic foes of America, people who lack your hospitality and manners, very nasty radical people. As you can imagine, it takes up a lot of my time. Here’s an example, with respect to the anti-war demonstration in Washington last Saturday. Now these are people who really hate America, not like you, who is only kinda faking distaste with America now and then so as not to look like a sell-out. Don’t worry. I will keep your guilty secret.
Have A Nice Day! :biggrin:
Steve That Damned American
Hi Steve…
I agree with some of what you had to say (like a broken watch, that’s right twice a day) though, honestly, some of your observations are skewed too sharply to the right…
For instance, the reason military enlistments have fallen precipitously has nothing to do with disdain for the military in elite blue state universities: it has to do with the fact we have a bozo running the country who with the advice of bungling fools in his inner circle sent our military off on a wild goose chase for the wrong reasons, ignored the advice of senior military officers who recommended double the number of troops, refused to equip the forces properly, cut funds for their health and welfare, and hasn’t a clue how to resolve the mess he created. So, if you’re a bright, intelligent young person who doesn’t want to get their arms and legs blown off for no good patriotic reasons, you’re certainly not going to enlist until the Keystone Kops presently running the U.S. are evicted from office.
And the numbers you quoted about upward mobility are off the mark somewhat. The Federal Reserve report you mention was prepared by the Federal Reserve Bank Of Dallas, and they were ‘interpreting’ results from the University of Michigan’s Panel Survey on Income Dynamics. From the statistics in the survey, the Fed of Dallas concluded that 5% of individuals who started out in the bottom quintile of income distribution in the mid 1970s were still there in the 1991, and that most of those in the bottom quintile (1-fifth) ended up in the middle or top income classes.
However, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco issued a subsequent report that wasn’t as optimistic. Quoting other studies, using the same data, statisticians came up with much more modest estimates of earnings progression, concluding that “more than one-half of those who started at the bottom of the income distribution in 1967 and 1977 remained at the bottom of the distribution ten years later—in 1976 and 1986. Moreover, only ten percent of those in the bottom in 1967 and 1977 had moved to the top 40 percent of the distribution by the end of the ten year period.”
So there is upward mobility, but not as much as you stated. One out of ten makes decent money; four out of ten end up in the middle class (and I’m sure I don’t have to tell you how they’re getting screwed under the present administration) and five out of ten are ‘stuck in mobile with the memphis blues again.’
The good news is that we now have 415 billionaires in the US. And if we put our noses to the grindstone, one out of every 480,000 of us will be able to join that exclusive club (better odds than those Big Spin lotteries, but still, I’m not holding my breath).
Jay
Military recruitment numbers are steady to above average. Each branch of the Military is pretty much spot on in its recruitment goals.
yes… but to accomplish that they had to lower the recruitment standards, and increase the sign-up bonuses as stated here:
but lets drop the topic — this is Mahmood’s Bahraini blog, and not about our red-blue-state politics…
J
My problems with Hooters: I’m writing this in response to the exhausting debate on Mahmood’s Den.
1) It’s sexist
In order to earn their wages, are there any places that require men to fulfill a masculine stereotype and show off their body? I doubt it, because men have not been sexualised and objectified to the same (extreme) degree that women have been.
I mean in a world where more and more people are starting to say that men and women are equals, doesn’t anyone find it strange that such job requirements have only been made of women? And does this not suggest some inherent sexism in the work?
I’m sure people will argue that Hooters is sexist because it won’t employ men as ‘scantily clad’ servers. But as the free market dictates, it seems that there isn’t a demand for this.
What this suggests to me is that within our patriarchal, sexist societies, there is a demand for women to act as sex objects to sell products. And Hooters is cashing in on it.
2) It objectifies women (turns them into a product) to sell other products to men:
“Because she is the emblem of spending ability and the chief spender, she is also the most effective seller of this world’s goods. Every survey ever held has shown that the image of an attractive woman is the most effective advertising gimmick.” (Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch)
Or, to paraphrase, shall we use the Hooters employee rule book?
“Customers can go to many place for wings and beer, but it is our Hooters Girls who make our concept unique. Hooters offers its customers the look of the ‘All American Cheerleader, Surfer, Girl Next Door.” The essence of the Hooters Concept is entertainment through female sex appeal, of which the LOOK is a key part. When you are in the Hooters Girl Uniform you are literally playing a role. Having been cast for that role, you must comply with the Image and Grooming Standards that the role requires.”
So, in plain English: Hooters girls must comply to the stereotypes (listed above) by dressing in the Hooters uniform and following nail/hair/make up/ jewellery orders to enable the company to gain a market advantage over other wings and beer places.
Or the Hooters acknowledgment form for waitresses?
“… the Hooters concept is based on female sex appeal and the work environment is one in which joking an innuendo based on female sex appeal is commonplace. I also expressly acknowledge an affirm I do not find my job duties, uniform requirements, or work environment to be offensive, intimidating, hostile or unwelcome.”
To me, this reads: In order to spare Hooters the hassle of harassment lawsuits, if you work here you have to agree that you are being used to sell the ‘Hooters concept’ / wings and beer. And you have to obey our definition of ‘female sex appeal’ in order to sell the concept/ wings and beer. Also, you must agree not to find sexist or lewd jokes and comments offensive intimidating, hostile or unwelcome.
My question is – where is the protection for the girls in case a customer, hyped up on the beer and flirtation with pretty waitresses, goes too far? And she feels violated? Is there any redress for her? Or does that fall under the job duties?
Basically, Hooters have created and are marketing a product – the “Hooters Girl” in order to sell their more ordinary products – beer and wings.
Problem? “Objectification also refers to behavior in which one person treats another person as an object and not as a fellow human being with feelings and consciousness of his or her own.”
Sexual objectification is dehumanisation. And we women are human beings!
It’s such a stupid sentence to write, is it so outrageous to think?
The best this dehumanisation gives us good old fashioned sexism (where the male gender is considered superior to the female), the worst gives us violence against women.
But they are connected.
And sexism is dehumanising for men too. Although it is perhaps not as damaging because it confines men into the position of domination in the equation male = strong, superior and female = weak, inferior. But that’s a separate issue.
3) It reinforces already existing mythological stereotypes about women:
“The stereotype is the Eternal Feminine. She is the sexual object sought by all men, and by all women… Her value is solely attested by the demand she excites in others … There are stringent limits to the variations on the stereotype, for nothing much interfere with her function as a sex object.” (Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch)
So, Hooters have worked out how to turn the enduring stereotype of women into a literal, living and breathing product. So what is this ‘female sex appeal’ that they keep talking about?
From Hooters, are we to understand that our ‘genetic sex appeal’ can be found in showing breasts, showing legs, wearing tan coloured tights, leaving our hair down, and wearing make up to ‘accentuate features’?
Are we to learn from this that our ‘genetic sex appeal’ cannot include any expressions of individuality, no ‘bizarre haircuts’, tattoos, brightly coloured nail polish, tattoos, anything beyond the limits of a Hooters girl look?
What about the girls that don’t look like this? The ones with ‘bizarre haircuts’, or the ones who don’t like wearing make, the ones who don’t leave their hair down? Does this mean that they are somehow lacking in the ‘genetic sex appeal’??
Or the girls who don’t always want to look like this? Don’t want to conform to some mass produced idea of sexuality? What if they can’t be bothered to be the carefully constructed Hooters girl?
What the hell does ‘wholesome yet sexy’ mean anyways? And why does some advertising gimmick get to set limits on the sexuality of half of the world’s population?
Why can’t sexuality or sex appeal be something individual, something personal and real – rather than some idea created in a boardroom and conformed to by those who are employed to market it?
Of course the Hooters stereotype is the not the root of the problem, sexism and stereotyping is everywhere. Like the song says, beauty magazines will only make you feel fat.
But Hooters certainly does its part to perpetuate it.
4) It runs an authoritarian workplace:
“Personally I’m in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions in the society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism we can’t have democracy by definition.
“Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level — there’s a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward.
“Just as I’m opposed to political fascism, I’m opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it’s pointless to talk about democracy.” (Noam Chomsky, Business Today)
See when I criticize capitalism, or say I find it degrading, people immediately assume I’m talking about profiteering. But what about the anti-democratic organisation in capitalist businesses?
While its true that many countries in the West, and the US have established a small degree of democracy in their political systems, to me it is clearly limited. And I think it’s lazy and arrogant for people to sit back and say ‘we worked it out, we’re free’ instead of continuing to develop and spread democracy within their countries. Run universities democratically, run corporations democratically, run the media democratically? Instill a good and (democratically) available to all education system. (Note to America: maybe this is where you should concentrate on ‘promoting freedom and democracy’).
For me, a big problem with capitalism is its anti-democratic organisation. For example, in Hooters, where the big boss man can stop the worker girl from earning her wages if she ‘violates’ the Hooter Girl dress code. Why?
“The essence of Hooters is the Hooters Girl. Because it is essential to our success that the Hooters Girl image is always properly maintained, failure to comply with these Image and Grooming Standards may result in discipline up to and including termination. Your general manager has the final authority on all matters involving dress, accessory, and grooming requirements for the staff.”
For a company from a country that claims to be all about freedom and fairness, they sure don’t seem to think much of valuing the individual or personal freedoms.
In short, do I think Hooters opening in Dubai will contribute to a) a clash between ‘Islamic’ and ‘Western’ cultures (whatever these distinctions entail) or b) the corrosion of local culture?
Well, only in as much as franchises promote a homogenized mono-culture.
But I think there are many more, and more compelling reasons to have a problem with the place.
I would never advocate banning Hooters as a means to challenge the problems it perpetuates. But challenging what Hooters stands for and whether or not it is acceptable, for me is part of the wider struggle for womens’ rights, human rights, and dignity, and against sexism and economic exploitation.
zara,
I don’t really know where to start, but, let me start with something positive
:happy:
At first sight your comments reminded me of some of the heated arguments that were flying through the air during the time of the women’s liberation movements in the sixties and seventies in my own country. Having read your comments a couple of times I realize they are not as uncompromising as some of those that came from the political left wing of that time. They left no forgiveness for the women that didn’t agree with the “liberators”.
The resemblance I see between your arguments and theirs is the fact that you seem to think you’re in possesion of a higher degree of truth than the woman working at Hooters are. Isn’t that a bit degrading for those that work there and are happy at it?
What’s the difference between that and statements like: “He (add the name of whichever God you like) knows better than you do what is good for you and what is bad for you”.
You are comparing the situation of women working at Hooters to that of migrant workers in Bahrain. I hope you have included that of house maids. I think we both agree that those people are in a very precarious situation.
There may be other ways of comparing their situation, but to me these are the most important ones:
1: How many women at Hooters get their passports confiscated the moment they start working for Hooters?
2: How many women at Hooters can leave their job the moment they don’t like it without the risk of imprisonment.
3: How many migrant workers in Bahrain are protected by proper legislation?
4: How many of the migrant workers do you think would like to be protected by the laws that protect the women at Hooters?
Maybe I’ve misunderstood you, maybe your arguments against Hooters are not in defence of the “ignorant people”?
Zara,
Well, just as I hit the “Submit comment” button, I realized you had answered my last comment, at least partially.
It all seems to be more about the relationship between the two sexes and how we administer those feelings.
Do women feel attracted to men the same way that men are attracted to women?
Men have never (as a general rule) tried to hide the way they feel about women. If we assume that men and women share the attraction towards the other sex (anything else would be sexist, wouldn’t it?) and if we accept that those feelings are only natural, then you can’t really blame men for expressing those feelings.
You can blame men for not allowing women to show those same feelings in some parts of the world, but I think you’ll find it hard to find anything in American or European legislation that prohibits it.
If you accept that sexual attraction between the two sexes is equal and natural and should not be forbidden, instead of attacking men, shouldn’t you be out there shouting: “Women, show men you like a good looking ass or firm stomach”. If you could get enough women to share that view, maybe we would see lot of “Bums” all over the world with half naked men serving salads and fruits
:biggrin:
But Miter we already have half naked men serving salads and fruits in San Fransico and Provincetown! How much more do we need? :kissing:
CerebralWaste
…. that just goes to show my ignorance of the big wide world
Zara, you’re being too idealistic. On a nebulous level, yes I agree with you.
In a pragmatic practical sense: “sex sells”, it always has and always will do and as long as participants on both sides have an agreement and understanding of what is on offer, it is not up to us to interfere nor impose our set of values on anyone. People are different from animals as they have a conscience to guide them through a multitude of moral chaos they encounter; I would rather let that be the primary judge on how a person behaves.
Hooters creates the environment which is conducive to doing business which capitalise on the sex-appeal of women to their predominantly male customers and adequately compensates their employees for providing that service. Said employees are fully able to leave at any time they like; Hooters Girls are employed universally – if I understand their employment contract adequately – on an hourly basis, a status which amplifies that particular freedom of choice.
Therefore, Hooters employs an above-board policy with no hidden agendas; thus, women choosing to work there are actually safer and better looked after than even women working at checkouts in supermarkets.
I’m sorry, what exactly to do you find un-sexy in the above? As a man, yes I do find your description very sexy on a physical and psychological level. The operative word is “genetic”, that’s how we were made and these very attributes are the tools of nature to ensure our perpetual existence! Why is it this particular way in humans and absolutely the reverse in the animal kingdom is another matter!
That would be for another chain probably called HooterZ!
I am absolutely convinced that those individuals have their market too and you will find establishments dedicated to those peccadilloes. As far as Hooters is concerned; however, they do not fit the image they want to milk.
A quick targeted Google search on Flickr suggests these kind of images! (strict filtering for content is applied on the link, remove the filter (on Google) to find more images)
It is, but maybe not at Hooters. People don’t go to Hooters to seek “the beauty within”, they go there to unwind, gawk, drink, and walk out soon thereafter with their harmless fantasies.
Yes, I agree. Not a lot of people like looking in mirrors, I strongly suspect that women working at Hooters don’t have that particular problem. They are selling the fantasy. They are doing men a public service! :w00t:
In the 70s, I remember having a Playboy Club in Bahrain! It was in Umm Al-Hassam near the Moon Plaza hotel. Girls there wore the bunny outfits, they enjoyed a roaring trade – I suspect – judging by the many people I witnessed utilising that establishment. There were other themed entertainment venues then as well I suspect, yet, none of those affected the country much. What drastically did, in fact, is the insistence on facial hair and the propensity for shorter thobes.
You don’t see the opening of Hooters in the area as a propagation of a clash of cultures? I do, and for the better. People will loosen up and when they return back to their countries from visiting Hooters in Dubai they will at least start having discussions and our women, maybe, will start to appreciate that they too have a choice and throw away the ingrained view that they are victims and it is them, not men, who should be blamed for the ills that befall them.
hey mahmood
i tried to summarise my argument in the above so as not to get dragged into side arguments about us military recruitment etc.
the only thing i have to add now, is that no i don’t blame men for the ills which fall upon women. i think patriarchy and sexism are limiting and damaging to men AND women.
and women are not all victims, but we are an underclass in this system. if that doesn’t bother you, fine – but you should acknowledge that many many women are victims – unless you are denying the global problem of violence against women.
finally, yes maybe i am being idealistic. but i feel you are being too worldly.
perhaps because you are a businessman and i’m just a young fool? it might be acceptable to you that everything, including sexuality, has a market value.
i’d rather imagine, hope for and work towards something better.
agreed
and most of the time they are their own enemy!
yes on the first and I would never deny a glaring fact as the latter
well, I hope you find room to grow. Being idealistic is good and healthy, but being pragmatic is more conducive to propagating that idealism!
Being “worldly” is not a sin, but a facet that should be pursued relentlessly.
Believe me, the more people travel (physically and mentally) the more open they become regarding other cultures and the more tolerant they get. Age and experience does help in that too. Sometimes.