Originally posted by loveme4whoiam+--> (loveme4whoiam)But then I also understand that some people will object to the objectification of women, but then it comes down to whether or not the individual women there mind being objectivified.[/b]
Absolutely. I mean, after browsing the web for a few minutes, it appears that Hooters has a policy of only employing good looking folks....and good looking folks tend to get "objectivified". After all, the women working there obviously feel comfortable wearing that attire and they'll likely wear similar outfits when they're not working....and they'll get "objectivified" then as well.
Heck, "objectification" happens to a degree whatever someone wears. I've "objectivified" people....and hopefully, though this is a long shot ( <_< ), others have "objectivified" me. And that, in and of itself, isn't a bad thing as far as I can see.
Rather, what matters in my opinion, are the oppressive social relationships and power structures that are combined with said "objectification". I mean, in the abstract, the "objectification" that occurs in, say, the Porn Industry is no way a "bad thing"....it's all the other shit that goes with it that makes said Industry shit. The actual act of two consenting adults fucking each other and distributing it in video form, is in no way harmful.
Furthermore, wikipedia defines "objectification" as "the way in which one person treats another person as an object and not as a human being" [link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification)]. I don't know whether the definition you're using is similar to that or not, but, frankly, as vague as that is, if that is what constitutes "objectification", then everyone "objectifies" everyone else to a degree.
If you phone a Plumber to fix a leaking pipe, you're not really viewing said Plumber as a "human being"....rather, you're viewing he or she as, essentially, an instrument to be used. Though that Tradesmen always get cups of tea from householders suggests that we also view them as human beings. <_<
But, anyway, you get the point. That is, all of us from time to time will "objectify" a person in order to get something done. I mean, for instance, one could be in an intensely loving and caring relationship, but at certain times each partner is going to view the other as an "object" which they can use to derive sexual pleasure. Heck, when my old girl asks me to put the kettle on, I very much doubt she views me as a "human being"....rather, I'm an "object" she can, well, "use" to get herself a cuppa; and vice versa.
But I'm straying here....and your point about what the women think was a good one. To be honest, I don't know how many job opportunities your average "Hooters Girl" has, but I imagine there is a degree of flexibility. So, I'd imagine that the "Hooters Girls", generally speaking, aren't all that bothered by a bunch of plonkers frothing at the mouth....because, if truth be told, if someone is daft enough to think that because these women dress in an "outrageous outfit" they're going to be "easy", then plonker is probably a fitting description. Though, possibly, something more harsh would do. <_<
Originally posted by bayano+--> (bayano)firstly, that was exactly my point- try a union organizing campaign there and fight for ALL of the rights....[/b]
That I'd agree with, 100%. But, as I said, personally, the issues that I would consider productive with regards Union organising, would not be those that are related to attire.
Originally posted by bayano
its a job that invites sexual harassments- from both the bosses and the patrons.
As you yourself point out, "sexual harassment exists in all jobs"....regardless of uniform. A women who wears a business suit can get sexually harassed, so can a Nurse, a Teacher and so on. But, whether this is more prevalent at Hooters or not, is of little importance....in the grand scheme of things.
By this I mean that no matter what a woman wears, she has the right to conduct her life without dunderheaded neanderthals groping her. And to frame this around the issue of the uniforms is, in my opinion, completely fucking reactionary....though I don't think that is a conscious thing on your part.
You see, essentially, what you are saying is that because these women look "easy", they're going to get harrassed....and, therefore, they should "tone it down". Well, no. This is the problem of society at large and the social relations of said society....and I see little point in, essentially, blaming the victim.
That is, if someone has long hear and people start pulling their hair, should the person cut their hair or should we stop other people from pulling said persons hair? The answers quite simple in my opinion....and I'd say it applied to the "Hooters Girls" as well.
Sure, when all is said and done, perhaps the most rational approach would be to avoid scenarios which will increase the likelihood of harrassment....and plenty of people probably do do that. But, from our perspective, there's nothing empowering about that....and it's, essentially, just a capitulation to subjugation. Because, frankly, every member of society has a sovereign right to wear whatever the fuck they want without some fuckwit harassing them.
Originally posted by bayano
dignity is taken away from the workers far more at a hooters than at most fast food chains.
Really??? :blink:
So you assign a higher value to the spotty kid working at McDonald's than you do the beautiful leggy blond working at Hooters. Fuck right off.
Dignity, as defined by the dictionary, means "The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect" [link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dignity)]....and, frankly, although I've never been to Hooters, I suspect that the women working there are shown more "respect" than someone working in Pizza Hut. Or, for that matter, a Casualty Nurse who gets punches thrown at her on a Friday or Saturday night.
But that's just from the perspective of what the customers will do, the bosses are another question. And, frankly, not many bosses treat their staff with "respect"....but, still, there are probably worse places than Hooters; and better places for that matter. I mean, if a Foreman on a Construction Site tells the new kid to do something quickly without the appropriate safety equipment, there is no "respect" there....and, possibly, said worker could get seriously injured.
Heck, recently in America there was a Mine that caved in (?). And, if I remember correctly, said Mine had numerous faults....which the Management knew about. Where was the extra "respect" that the Miners are supposed to be awarded? Simple, it wasn't there....and never was!
I mean, Hooters is probably not the best place to work, nor is it the worst. But the basis of this thread was that it showed "the sick mind of capitalism" and you assert that "Hooters Girl" have far less dignity. Neither claim do I find to be particularly valid, if truth be told....and I don't see the validity in favour of these hypothesise to be particularly appealing.
Originally posted by bayano
....secondly its at a beach where you need to wear a swimsuit....
No, you don't. (http://www.boardshop.co.uk/images/products/large/pulse-wmns-wetsuit-543.jpg) Actually, from a practical perspective, a wetsuit may just be more appropriate in certain scenarios....and it would put Baywatch out of business for sure. <_<
Originally posted by bayano
....those of us who would oppose a hooters also oppose those advertisements....
Out of interest, on what grounds do you "oppose" said advertisements?
Originally posted by bayano
....oppose clubs that exploit women.
Do you "oppose" the Clubs in and of themselves? Or do you just "oppose" the power structures that those Clubs use?
Originally posted by bayano
again, another argument that makes no sense.
Actually, I was just making the point that Hooters in particular was not anything special. Certainly, not special enough to warrant it being used as an example for "the sick mind of capitalism".
Originally posted by bayano
and then you lay that "capitalism is the problem not the sexualization of women workers,"....
To be honest, I have absolutely no fucking clue what "the sexualization of women workers" actually means. To me, and I suspect Ali.Cat, it seems as though you have a particular notion about the dress codes women should adhere to. Nothing too skimpy, or too tight, or too small and so on....essentially, I suspect that you would like them to "dress like ladies". Well, that's all nice and dandy, but, frankly, I don't think it's any of our business how women choose to dress....our personal preferences are, really, just that.
Originally posted by bayano
look, dont feel attacked just bcuz you patronize businesses that exploit women sexually....
I've actually never been to a "wet t-shirt night". I do, as it happens, frequent Clubs that have or have had Podium Dancers, but frankly I don't see much point in them. You can't have a laugh or dance with a Podium Dancer, but if someone enjoys doing that, then that's their business....and not mine.
Sure, they're "objectivifying" themselves, but, as I said, that, in and of itself, is not harmful. The harmful stuff is the oppressive social relations that go along with all this and make Podium Dancing a job instead of a hobby. And the same applies to "wet t-shirt contests".
Additionally, and sort of related to this subject, a while ago there was a thread on this board about Prostitution. Myself, and quite a few other members, have been to a brothel and paid for sex. A few people found that particularly reprehensible but, if memory serves me correctly, they were pretty much rebutted. If you like, I'll try and find the thread for you....certainly, it relates to the subject we're discussing here.
Originally posted by bayano
....and that is where you cross the line into being antifeminist and proudly sexist.
Yeah buddy, whatever you say.
Out of interest, if the uniforms that the workers at a particularly business are "sexploitative", then are those uniforms "sexploitative" in and of themselves? That is, is a Nightclub a "sexploitative"? And, if so, if one were to defend the institutions of Saturday Night Clubbing, would that make one an "antifeminist and proudly sexist"? :blink:
[email protected]
....especially these days where it is ok for me and women to be sexy and proud of it.
Exactamundo.
Every person should have a sovereign to dress however the fuck they want....and, as I've said above, the problem isn't one of bad dress codes, it's of sexual neanderthals being arses because of their outdated sexual misconceptions.
Ali.Cat
Here in Canada it is completely legal for both men and women to walk around topless....
Scandalous.