As you may have seen from the recent press, the oh-so-tasteful-and-not-sexist-in-any-way-at all restaurant chain Hooters have put in an application to open up a new branch in Cardiff. You may also have seen that there’s been some opposition to the application, especially from feminists. There’s the Say No to Hooters in Cardiff Facebook group here for example (if you’re on Facebook, just click to join, it’s dead easy), and there’s the Say No to Hooters in Cardiff petition here (again it’s really easy to add your name – all you have to do is click on the link and fill out a couple of boxes).
So how have Hooters reacted to fact that some people have spoken out against the proposed new restaurant? Have they respectfully argued the case for how and why they don’t think they’re particularly sexist for example? Or have they perhaps argued that at least they’re providing jobs and helping boost the local economy and how that can only be a darned good thing in the current dire economic climate?
No, of course they bloody well haven’t: this is Hooters we’re talking about ffs, not some ethical yoghurt weaving company that actually gives a shit about not offending people. No, instead Hooters, or should I say Hooters’ fans, because of course there’s no evidence to suggest that the proprietors themselves are actively involved in the let’s heap scorn on the humourless femnazis and show what a bunch of sexist homophobic tossers we truly are in the process campaign that’s now firmly under-way, have pulled out all the stops.
Here’s an extract from a piece on the Brew Wales website for instance, entitled “Rug-Munchers moan about new Cardiff bar” (and no, I’m not linking)
“Last week it was announced that an American theme bar by the name of Hooters wants to open in Cardiff, causing much outrage and even a protest from the rug-munching-denim-overall-wearing-not-using-imac-brigade. Okay darlings, we supposedly live in a free-market economy – if a company wants to open a perfectly legal business then they should be allowed to. What happened today in Cardiff, outside the John Lewis Department store, was that the objectors to the opening of the perfectly legal business were soliciting autographs from shoppers in order to present a petition to Cardiff Council Licensing Department to stop Hooters from being allowed to open, without explaining any of the facts about the comapny.”
See what they did there? They called feminists the “rug-munching-denim-overall-wearing-not-using-imac-brigade” Hahahahaha! ZOMG stop me now before I split my fucking sides from laughing so much….
And here are some quotes from the (unofficial) @hooters_cardiff Twitter account:
“Lots of flat chested hairy legged protestors outside John Lewis, Cardiff Library then the Hayes this afternoon, more free publicity”
“homophobia, quite the opposite, nothing better than a good girl on girl DVD”
“Here’s a great advert to annoy the hairy legged brigade”
“Good afternoon fellow teeters, hope you are all having a good time and not letting those nasty rugists annoy you”
“what is that expression, judge a tree by its fruit. Except lesbians cant breed and as for what they wear….shudder”
“stereotyping is nasty, as I say, that’s the whole problem with all those hairy legged carpet munching dykes”
“Follow friday, well to many to recommend so just click on any of my followers (expect the badly dressed ones with moustaches, aka feminists)”
“glad I am amusing someone, have been under fire from munchers and hairy legged”
And on and on and on….
Some feminists on Twitter have, quite understandably, taken the bait, and have attempted to engage the Hooters’ tweeter in discussion. Others, like me, have chosen to ignore or block him/her (did I mention that the Hooters’ tweeter is deliberately following some quite high profile fems on the site?) And yes, I realise that by writing this I’m now contributing to giving them far more publicity than they deserve, but fuck it, I’m not going to stay silent and let misogynists like this off the hook. Darn, did I say misogynists? Sorry, I forgot we weren’t supposed to be using that term anymore what with it being so overused ‘n’ all. Still, at least I haven’t used ‘sexualistion’ yet. Argh! I just did it didn’t I? Ah well, in for a penny in for a pound and all that….
So anyway, I could give you an intelligent well thought out treatise on why and how such lesbophobia and misogyny is not okay, even if it is purporting to be tongue-in-cheek and all a bit of a laugh, but frankly I can’t be arsed to waste my time de-constructing the blatant assshattery evidenced above.
All I will say is, the only people conforming to any kind of stereotype in this recent debacle are the Hooters crowd, and as far as I’m concerned they should keep it up. Because if anyone wants to make the case to Cardiff council as to how and why Hooters promotes and perpetuates sexism and demeans and degrades women, the evidence is all there, on the Internet, for everyone to see.
So, way to go Hooters fans. Oh, and thanks for doing our work for us.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
‘ I could give you an intelligent well thought out treatise on why and how such lesbophobia and misogyny is not okay, even if it is purporting to be tongue-in-cheek and all a bit of a laugh, but frankly I can’t be arsed to waste my time de-constructing the blatant assshattery evidenced above.’
that sums up current feminism as far as I am concerned. Some of us can be arsed to deconstruct blatant asshattery… and some of us do so intelligently.
Just because someone else makes ‘stupid’ claims or stereotypes people and is offensive, should not stop feminists from providing detailed, evidence-based, intelligent reasoning for their positions and actions. Unless, that is they are unable to.
By the way, one feminist called the hooters tweeter a ‘tiny-dicked misogynist’. Intelligent eh?
I disagree Quiet Riot Girl, why should I (or anyone else) have to engage in reasoned and well thought out discussion when all I will get is abuse and misogyny from the other party?
I don’t want to put words in other peoples mouths but why shouldn’t Cath use her efforts for something she feels might be more constructive?
Why do these discussions *always* have to start from the very basic level “homophobia and open misogyny are wrong, please let me, the marginalised educate you”?
I suppose Hooters holds the same sort of relationship to brothels and strip clubs that Nuts and Zoo magazines do to hardcore porn. The users are sexist dullards, but sexist dullards without the courage of their convictions, half-arsed chauvinists, steeped in a sort of bland, vanilla misogyny that permits them to deploy against detractors the catch-all response “Haven’t you got a sense of humour?” So some cheerful abuse of the “tiny-dicked misogynist” flavour is probably more effective than any more serious, incisive analysis. And they might even understand it, which is a bonus.
“I disagree Quiet Riot Girl, why should I (or anyone else) have to engage in reasoned and well thought out discussion when all I will get is abuse and misogyny from the other party?”
Because we are reasoned and think things out well and they’re abusive misogynists? My question would be the opposite: how can we criticise their halfwitted rants against moustachioed straw-dykes if we argue in exactly the same way?
Besides, QRG wasn’t suggesting debating them but deconstructing them. You think that “rug-munching-denim-overall-wearing-not-using-imac-brigade” isn’t a bit weird and probably quite revealing? You know how lots of straight men wear denim and would be the first to sign up for a rug-munching brigade, yet put one between them and hotpants carrying beer and these ones suddenly get upset. It’s weird.
The feminist=lesbian trope has probably been analysed to death plenty of times. But the fact that, apart from the I-Mac thing that doesn’t even make any sense, they haven’t thought of any new shit stereotypes in thirty years, that’s got to be telling too. What do you make of “rugists” the guy who doesn’t even feel the need to append ‘rug’ or ‘carpet’ to the word ‘muncher’ any more. If you’ve a taste for idiocy, and can read irony without seeing it as a get-out-of-misogyny-free card, these people are absolutely fascinating.
PS One of those comments is blatantly taking the piss out of all the others. Leave the poor boy alone.
Great point Cath – the tweets do make the case all by themselves. What is there to analyse? I see no point in engaging either – blocked them yesterday.
thanks Alex. I am not sure if Cath or many other feminists really know what ‘deconstruction’ means. I am still waiting for them to prove me wrong.
p.s. I am pretty sure the tweeter is a woman, if her photos are to be believed.
QRG
I think you overrate your importance and influence if you think that Cath or any other feminists have to prove anything to you.
they don’t have to obviously. But if ever they proved me wrong, just by being the intelligent, critical, deep thinkers that feminists really should have amongst their ranks, not for my sake, for the sake of feminists everywhere, I would fall off my high horse and happily break a limb or two for the sake of the cause.
I’ve engaged, although I have to say I did so without grasping the back story – Antipodean ignorance to an extent. I dislike these sorts of chains – I vaguely remember some guy running a cafe/bar in NZ where the women had to wear see-through tops. It was pretty awful and I can certainly understand where the wanting to ban and block sentiment comes from.
Thing is, I probably would have engaged even if I had realised what Hooters was about. This is mainly because I want to stand up to these people and want to prove that I/we as feminists can take them on at their game. They go for the hairy-legged feminist putdowns – I respond in kind. I feel that I’ve already done that to an extent. The follower I had on twitter seems to have gone away.
One thing that really irritates me is the chucking around of ‘free market economy’ and ‘freedom of speech’ to justify some people doing whatever the hell they want and everybody else has to shut up about it.
It’s just… that’s not what that even means.
Free-market economy doesn’t mean that I have to just shrug my shoulders and happily agree to a Hooters opening up down the road (if Cardiff can be referred to as ‘down the road’ from London, and I guess the answer is ‘probably not’). I have every damn right to speak up and oppose something that I disagree with and try to influence as many people as I can to do the same.
The Brew Wales post is satire, if you bother to read the site you will find another article about brewing beer from dead people!
Damn, I’m a hairy-legged rug munching BI… Oh well, marginalised by both sides AGAIN… 😉
spotting satire? conducting deconstruction? an interest in and understanding of the marginal positions of bisexual people? Maybe we are asking just a little too much of feminism here…
choosing to not oppose the opening of a restaurant is not ‘shrugging our shoulders’ and ‘happily’ accepting the status quo. It is showing some knowledge of how capitalism works. and how you can’t just ‘shut down’ the bits of it that irk you most. Why don’t you try and shut down Playboy? Let’s see you take on the Heff. That would be worth watching.
@ Arfur what exactly are you satirising in your “rug-munchers” post? Are you satirising someone who thinks that calling a group of women lesbians is a really cutting insult that will shut them up and invalidate their arguments and opinions? Are you satirising someone who thinks that pointing to a company’s own PR puff-piece about how nice it is to its workers, and saying that “by the smiles on the faces of the workers, it looks like they have a good time” is a substantial argument in support of that company?
Those tired old arguments are indeed ripe for satirising, so well done!
(I looked at the hooters cardiff tweets – really too confusing and bizarre to make sense of. But their “ruggists” obsession? Good grief.)
Lesbian – not a bad word or otherwise a bad thing to be attributed or misattributed to someone.
Not removing body hair – not a terrible insult either, as it is not the end of the world if a person decides not to remove body hair. I bet you don’t use Immac either Arfur.
Alex, I think they probably meant ‘immac’ not I-Mac, immac was the name of some hair removal cream, but it changed quite a few years ago IIRC (jeez, get with the times, brew wales writers!). Unless there’s a trope about how feminazis love apple products I’ve never heard of, of course!
When this issue was being discussed on The F-Word, someone who claimed to work at hooters posted a long comment which included a mention that employment is hard to come by nowadays and people need money, then a few lines later said something like “and if it’s so bad the women can just quit”. Priceless!
This is all paraphrased by the way because I can’t find the link, apologies for that.
QRG- I see your comments on a lot of the blogs I read, based on that it comes across like you seem to be more interested in arguing with bloggers than discussing Feminist issues.
“Alex, I think they probably meant ‘immac’ not I-Mac, immac was the name of some hair removal cream, but it changed quite a few years ago IIRC (jeez, get with the times, brew wales writers!).”
That’s actually slightly weirder. There was me thinking they were referring to some trend among hairy-legged feminists not to use Apple products, when it turns out they were telling us that people who don’t use leg-hair removal products have hairy legs. If this is satire it’s pushing Poe’s Law brilliantly.
I think QRG is onto something with that just being how capitalism works. Hooters exists because women are willing to put their bodies on display for money, and because men want to be served beer by a woman in a short skirt with big jugs. Picketing restaurants isn’t going to change that. Though having said that, I’m buggered if I know what is.
p.s. I am pretty sure the tweeter is a woman, if her photos are to be believed.
Well, QRG, I’m pretty sure you’re a man, if your posts are to be believed.
Just one hairy-legged, rug-munching dyke’s opinion.
Maybe I am a man, who knows?
My interest is in gender, and in campaigning to change how we approach gender issues.
My own blog, which has been obliquely referred to is http://www.quietgirlriot.wordpress.com
Feel free to make your opinions known of my writings, and indeed my gender identity there.
choosing to not oppose the opening of a restaurant is not ‘shrugging our shoulders’ and ‘happily’ accepting the status quo. It is showing some knowledge of how capitalism works.
There is capitalism and there is a social structure: within the structure not actively resistung a norm means that you are read as being in agreement with it, no matter what you personally happen to think. So yes, there is merit in fighting.
PS.: Saying, that Cath and other feminists do not really know what deconstruction means only because they don’t happen to share your point of views/frame of reference makes you look like an arrogant asshole. Yes, you would fall off your high horse if those feminists you criticize would “prove you wrong” (after saying they don’t need to prove anything to you) by “being the intelligent, critical, deep thinkers that feminists really should have amongst their ranks, not for my sake, for the sake of feminists everywhere”. I guess you get to judge what “intelligent, critical, deep” means (Can I have a definition?).
Sry for the mistakes, it’s getting late here/I’m getting tired.
hey – i engaged. me and BookElfLeeds were told we were obviously too ugly to work in hooters and that’s why we didn’t want one to open. so we set up a hash tag – #toouglytoworkinhooters (because i believe treating women like objects is wrong etc etc)
tbh if the only insults they could come up with was ‘lesbian’ and ‘hairy’ i’m not really insulted, although obviously it doesn’t excuse their terrible behaviour.
i pointed out that not only was it a sexist organisation for objectifying women, and refusing to employ men, it was also homophobic, transphobic and ablist. i won’t repeat the response here.
also – just a general comment about blogging. as a blogger myself, sometimes i can’t be bothered to cite every source and deconstruct every argument because it’s my blog and i write what i want too. if i want to write a piece based on my opinion or pondering something or other, then i should be allowed to, without being criticsed for not going in to every single detail. it’s one of the joys of blogging. and it isn’t like those who criticise always do the thing they are criticising. (fact checking, for eg!!)
so cath – i don’t blame you for not ‘fully deconstructing the homophobia of hooters’. it’s your blog – your rules! and, like you, i am fed up of starting a conversation ‘but, you see, the initial problems are here, leading to here’ because, one of the lovely things about writing and talking in feminist groups is that you feel you can assume an understanding of the basic ideas that homophobia = bad and sexism = bad without having to explain yourself.
‘Hooters exists because women are willing to put their bodies on display for money, ‘
but we live in a world where women’s value is often put on their appearance, where there’s a gender pay gap, low social mobility – lots of reasons beyond ‘women are willing to wear crop tops’.
it isn’t as simple as that! why do we live in a world where women can earn money simply by having good genetics? why are we living in a world where a woman’s body is her worth? why are we told to put up and shut up when pointing out that hiring someone because they have a typical nice body isn’t ok? why do brand values trump equality, homophobia, ablism, sexism?
if i went to my job interview, and was told, sorry but your tits aren’t big enough for you to work here, i could sue. that’s how capitalism works as well. why are hooters excused from that?
QRG – ‘spotting satire? conducting deconstruction? an interest in and understanding of the marginal positions of bisexual people? Maybe we are asking just a little too much of feminism here…’
yeah – coz feminism NEVER does those things! not every post can cover every issue. and there’s plenty of good satire in the world that doesn’t rely on calling women rug-munchers.
I was really really chuffed to get followed by @hooters_cardiff, as I said on twitter, it makes up for never getting on Red Watch.
I’m going to get a load of Hooters logoed vest tops and make up some “too ugly for hooters” t-shirts in time for reclaim the night, possibly saying ‘feminism-deconstructing perceptions of heteronormative “beauty” since 1895’ on the back, I figure that, since they are allowed to use satire to purpetrate their political stance, so am I! I might also wear the orange shorts, though would be a little cold in November!
If anyone fancies joining me with this, let me know. I have personally absolutly nothing against a woman or man being paid a living wage for being attractive, its the capitalisation of beauty I’m against, and it should be pointed out that they are being paid for being attractive in the heteronormative sense and this is wrong when other bar workers in other bars, who can’t get a job at Hooters because they are male/not heteronomatively attractive are on minimum wage but still getting felt up, because the customers now believe this is an acceptable way to treat people who work in the bar industry.
Brilliant! I want one 🙂
In further news, apart from referring to this piece yesterday as “self-important crap from another ruggist”, the Hooters tweeter claimed that they’d taken the time to reply to this article by posting a “polite and non confrontational” comment in the comment thread, which I’d then deleted.
Just to be clear. I didn’t delete the comment: it’s still sitting in my comments pending tray (and I’m happy to supply a screenshot of said comment if necessary). I took the decision not to let it through, as is my right btw (my blog my rules etc), because as it says in my comment policy, personal abuse will not be tolerated on this blog.
Perhaps the Hooters tweeter needs to revisit their definition of “polite and non confrontational”, being as they chose to end the comment by telling me to piss off back to my self-help group…..
I know I am an arrogant arsehole. But I think social movements need intellectual, possibly arrogant thinkers and writers. Contemporary feminism lacks intellectual balls right now.
This debate merely proves my arrogant point.
BookElfLeeds says
its the capitalisation of beauty I’m against, and it should be pointed out that they are being paid for being attractive in the heteronormative sense and this is wrong when other bar workers in other bars, who can’t get a job at Hooters because they are male/not heteronomatively attractive are on minimum wage but still getting felt up, because the customers now believe this is an acceptable way to treat people who work in the bar industry.
And i agree
I think barmaids were getting groped long before Hooters came along. Your cause and effect logic is all f-ed up here, sianushka and bookelf.
You want to deal with sexual harassment? You have to talk to men about masculinity. But I rarely see feminists engaging with men and masculinities. Not in a positive, only in a negative way.
QRG – yes of course groping happened before hooters, i’m not stupid! but it doesn’t mean it is acceptable to set up a restaurant who’s raison d’etre is giving people the opportunity to grope women, who’s business model is based on sexual harassment being ok and ‘funny’ and ‘ironic’.
but then – i’m not an intellectual so i guess it is very easy for me to mix up cause and effect…(eyes roll!)
i find you very often say that feminists don’t do this and don’t do that which completely is not my experience. i agree that it is vital for feminism to engage positively with men. that’s why most feminists i know support the white ribbon campaign for example, or, in BFN’s case, have mixed meetings and had men in feminism meetings. it doesn’t need to be us and them, whilst still recognising the importance of all female space etc.
as in ‘men in feminism’ as a subject, not men being present in meetings about feminism. although both happens!
But I don’t mean ‘men in feminism’ – I mean men. In general. Men who would never dream of identifying as feminist. Not men who may be sympathetic to ‘the cause’.
The white ribbon campaign is for men campaigning against men’s violence against women? what about campaigns about men’s violence against men? or, heaven forfend, women’s violence against men? or women’s violence against women? or any violence against gender queer people?
I know you are not stupid. But your analysis of gender within capitalism, is not very clever. Hooters raison d’etre is to make money, like any other business. Loads of business make money through exploitation of women, and the use of women’s bodies. and also of men’s bodies. Bodies are what we haul to work every day.
anyway Hooters is opening in Cardiff. But there will be others to campaign against I am sure.
of course there are campaign against men’s violence against men – for example anti knife crime campaigns and initiatives. and there are campaigns against violence against gender queer people, i know because my mum used to help run one. unfortunately i don’t know about names and numbers, but they exist, and need to be supported. awareness needs to be raised and the horrror of homophobic violence and DV within homosexual relationships needs to be remembered. the heteronormative reporting of DV is frankly upsetting and infuriating.
but i think it is up to men to rally and organise to tackle violence against men, just as women have done for women. we were talking about this just last night, how men need to work together to tackle violence against men, for many reasons. for example, the issues a male victim might face, may be different to those a woman faces. shame, embarrassment – it wouldn’t work to co-opt female centric services to support men. strategies to tackle violence can be learnt from the feminist/anti VAWG movement, but i really believe men need to rally together to tackle the violence they face.
it is perhaps harder to tackle women’s violence against men and women. i think perhaps the answer lies in first of all admitting that it happens, as i know from people i know that it does, and tackling the wideheld belief, stereotype even, that women are nurturing and therefore cannot be violent. because they can, physically, sexually and emotionally. once it is admitted, then tackling it and changing it can happen. female violence against men – again men need to work together to support victims and survivors and strive to build support services and networks, just as women have done for women.
apologies for the derail cath.
‘Loads of business make money through exploitation of women, and the use of women’s bodies. and also of men’s bodies. Bodies are what we haul to work every day.’
so because loads of businesses do it, then that’s ok? is it ok that loads of factories in the far east employ women in sub human conditions, refuse to let women go to the toilet, leading to miscarriages, because loads of other businesses do? just because something is common doesn’t make it right, or inevitable. this sense of bad things happening being inevitable is something i’m seeing a lot on the blogosphere at the moment and it’s pissing me off! lots of people, lots of businesses do lots of bad things all the time. should we not protest against it because it’s common? by that thinking, having any kind of campaign against violence as you suggested above is futile because, after all, lots of people are violent.
I really disagree that men should tackle men’s violence against men, and women should tackle men’s violence against women… That’s one reason why I no longer identify as feminist. I see myself as a person and I feel I have some responsibility for all my fellow humans. I don’t know how to explain it sianushka, any more than I have.
I am not doing nothing. I am just doing something different from you, because I disagree with your approach to gender and capitalism, and I disagree with your sectarian approach to campaigning on ‘women’s issues’ and ‘men’s issues’.
But I know ‘feminism’ will always rely on this divide between ‘men’ and ‘women’. That is ITS raison d’etre. She is welcome to her.
i wasn’t saying you were doing nothing. i don’t agree with an us and them, men vs women approach either but i do think that men need to rally around other men to tackle violence because the issues are different and need different methods of support and different responses. i am just so fed up of men having a go at feminism for not supporting male victims of violence, when men have an equal responsibility as women to tackle all forms of violence.
i guess we are never going to agree on this but it has been an interesting debate all the same.
Quiet Riot Girl: Stamping her feet at feminists for not paying enough attention to what she wants them to since 2010.
You really should trademark it, you know.
Also, to each his/her own, but just to disseminate some relevant information here:
Every time somebody lies to QRG and claims it was an “interesting debate” to listen to him/her rail against feminists for not centering men, among other things, the baby Jesus cries. And I can prove it because I have deconstructed the tears with my feminist intelligence.
The users are sexist dullards, but sexist dullards without the courage of their convictions, half-arsed chauvinists, steeped in a sort of bland, vanilla misogyny that permits them to deploy against detractors the catch-all response
Oh Tim Footman, I think I love you (platonically of course being a rug muncher).
You think that “rug-munching-denim-overall-wearing-not-using-imac-brigade” isn’t a bit weird and probably quite revealing? You know how lots of straight men wear denim and would be the first to sign up for a rug-munching brigade, yet put one between them and hotpants carrying beer and these ones suddenly get upset. It’s weird.
Not really, a large number of heterosexual men are shit scared of the idea that there are women around who aren’t attracted to them. Because it plays into their deepest, darkest secret fear. That women find them boring and insignificant. That’s why they feel compelled to do this stuff. They’re so unsure of their own attractiveness to females they think they have to terrorise women into fancying them by threatening to call them names if they don’t.
Does this face look bothered?
I know I am an arrogant arsehole.
Well so am I pet, it’s just some of us have more to be arrogant about than others.
You lot have at least managed to make me genuinely laugh now. Thanks!
Yours in sisterhood, or is that brotherhood?
Quiet Riot Boy
apparently they are opening in bristol. watch this space for protesting.
Joan, LOL!
You do realise you are presenting me in a similar way the Hooters tweeter presented you, don’t you?
Her ‘rug-munching’ ‘hairy-legged’ comments are all about making out you are not ‘feminine’, not ‘proper women’.
Your comments that I may be a ‘man’ and am a ‘him/her’ do exactly the same.
The difference is, I am not offended. I take it as a compliment to be ‘not a proper woman’ in this context.
Not the same, QRG. (Sorry, Baby Jesus, for even engaging, but it’s fucking hot out anyway so I could use the showering of your sobs to cool me off right now.)
Calling women lesbians for caring about women is not an insult, though not always accurate either. But it’s not the same to call someone a rug-muncher, i.e. lesbian, and to call them a man. And the rug-munching attempt-to-insult is being trotted out as a response to caring about women, not in response to centering men.
Whereas the sometimes-people-wonder-if-Elly’s-a-male postulating is only occasionally said in open spaces in response to the fact that you are always. trying. to. make. it. about. males. Which is what males do.
Men /= lesbians.
centering men / = caring about women
See how that works?
I’d say “nice try, though,” snidely except it’s so far from one that I can’t bring myself.
Oh, deconstruct this, QRG.
QRG
Or alternatively, they simply illustrate that you’re an anonymous commenter on the Internet and so no one can be sure or wants to assume that you are who/what you say you are.
But anyway, believe it or not this discussion isn’t actually about you QRG. So, back to Hooters, remember them? Thanks for the heads-up sianushka – keep us posted re Bristol.
will do. we’ve got until 1st september to submit late objections (because we didn’t realise it was happening we missed the original consultation which, surprise surprise, didn’t seem to give a flying f*** about it’s gender equality impact and didn’t consult the council’s women’s forum) so will keep you informed.
it is very unlikely we will be successful (cardiff one gone ahead) but it is important to have your voice heard. i still can’t quite get my head round how they can so openly flout so many discrimination laws because the brand trumps all. also, it is worth trying to get the licensing committee to question how hooters mgmt will deal with inappropriate touching of waiting staff. if they say they would eject offenders, then they can get in to a lot of trouble, as technically it is illegal to inappropriately touch someone so the incident should be reported to the police. i know this has worked in planning permission being rejected for lap dancing clubs in the past so might be worth bringing up.
i understand why moral objections aren’t considered in planning applications but i don’t see my objections as being about morals – they are about respect and equality.
Deconstruct This.
Haha great line. I might get a t-shirt with that on.
This has been a most illuminating discussion.
Cath if you want full photo-ID and a birth certificate and a copy of my DNA to prove my ‘femaleness’ just ask. But I know it is not about me. The issues this discussion have raised are about how feminism currently seems to position gender as ‘male’ versus ‘female’…
Sorry, Cath, I’m to blame for helping make it about QRG. I will say this (and you’re free to delete if you’re irritated that I even am saying this much more, obviously, your blog and stuff) and leave it alone –
I have met women who are plenty irritating enough that I know for a fact it’s possible that you are female, Elly. I’m sorry for my part in flippantly saying you may or may not be male. I don’t personally care if you are or not, female that is. You’re male-centered either way. That’s what gets on anyone’s nerves, which you obviously already know, or you wouldn’t come here and everywhere bleating about it all the time in your obsessive efforts to irritate people.
Male and female are biological sexes though, not “genders.”
“Well so am I pet, it’s just some of us have more to be arrogant about than others.”
Ha! True, that.
QRG, it’s probably a good thing you’re no longer calling yourself a feminist, because if anything you’re posted here is anything to go by, you’re not one. The thing that contemporary feminism is really lacking is *actual feminists* who understand the basic tenets of feminism (none of which involve spoon feeding men), and the more of those that either a) read some actual feminist theory or b) distance themselves from feminism the better. What good is a movement if half of the members don’t know why they’re there?
Feminism doesn’t position gender as male vs female, feminism positions gender as a harmful and oppressive social construct. Patriarchy positions gender as male vs female, and for the last 239623946239469238 years, males have been winning hands down. In light of this, forgive us mean feminists for not giving a fuck about men as a social class. Poor them, however will they cope without my feminist approval? Why would they care?
Back to Hooters, I’m sick of hearing “You just don’t understand capitalism111!!!!#” and “it’s like, supply and demand innit?” as some sort of response. I particularly enjoyed it when someone actually signed the petition to say as much. Genius, that. The supply and demand argument is fabulous though. Yes, there’s *demand* for attractive, half naked women, and if men *demand* attractive half naked women, they should damn well get attractive, half naked women, right? It makes no difference, because it’s not like women are human beings or anything, is it?
If men want to call me a hairy legged dyke… and what? Every time a disgusting male expects me to be insulted by being called a lesbian I glow a little bit inside, absolutely overjoyed at the fact that as a certified dyke I have no need to have to allow men like that into my life, ever. Yeah, I am a rug muncher and you know what, it’s fucking fantastic.
I have met women who are plenty irritating enough that I know for a fact it’s possible that you are female, Elly. I’m sorry for my part in flippantly saying you may or may not be male. I don’t personally care if you are or not, female that is. You’re male-centered either way. That’s what gets on anyone’s nerves, which you obviously already know, or you wouldn’t come here and everywhere bleating about it all the time in your obsessive efforts to irritate people.
Joan, thank you so much for having the patience. Seconded 100%. QRG is either male or so male-identified that it doesn’t even matter anymore. And yes, female and male are sexes, not genders. If you don’t understand that you also probably don’t understand what a fool you are making of yourself.
It’s not like feminists can’t deconstruct these pitiful arguments; we’ve done so enough times that it’s like, ugh, do some reading. QRG, your position is as old as the hills, boring, and not in the least challenging.
Indeed SamC. There is demand for child prostitution. There is also supply. What a happy capitalist world we live in .
Anyhoots, back to Hooters. Have they reckoned with mumsnet….?
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1016502-Hooters-in-Cardiff
Ya see folks it’s one thing to open, it’s another thing to stay open. Assuming your lease is (already) signed sealed and delivered, it must have break clauses in in, right? And assuming enough Cardiff peeps say they’re not going to use St Davids (http://www.stdavidscardiff.com/) and actually do it, because of the presence of Hooters….
I see that St Davids have a twitter feed oh tweeters
http://twitter.com/StDavidsCardiff
Thanks for that Polly.
And I see the Hooters Cardiff tweeter has now deleted their Twitter account….
there’s a petition to stop hooters opening
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/saynotohootersinbristol/
the most important thing is residents objecting. lots and lots of people live near the proposed site – it is slap bang in the middle of one of the biggest housing developments in bristol.
so if you know anyone who lives on the bristol waterfront, get them writing to the council.
i’ve had lots of people telling me there are more important issues. but objectification is important. it is part of the great continuum that results in seeing women as objects, that leads to violence. if you don’t fight the little battles…
I said gender (the social contstuct of society) is positioned as ‘male v female’ by feminists. I know the difference between sex and gender. I don’t know if you do though.
I retain my belief which is borne out by your posts, that you see ‘men’ as a distinct group who are a threat to ‘women’.
It doesn’t matter about our specific spat with each other here.
I am glad I love men and gender queer and transgender people and women.
Feminism is up a dark alley and it is never going to see the light of day again, in my opinion.
I retain my belief which is borne out by your posts, that you see ‘men’ as a distinct group who are a threat to ‘women’.
I don’t know where anyone could have got the impression that men are a threat to women. Reality maybe? But on behalf of ‘feminism’ (cos that’s the kind of woman I am, speaking on behalf of whole movements) can I say QRG you’re probably mistaking me for someone who cares?
Back to Hooters. I think you need to be tactical Sianushka. I agree with the nearby residents objecting thing, in terms of licensing laws it’s pretty important. They need to object (in writing preferably) to the licensing committee though. If the building they’re using isn’t already in use/specified as a restaurant, they may well need planning permission for change of use. So keep an eye out on planning apps. You can usually search by the address on the local authority’s website.
PS cath, on the ‘lesbian as insult’ thing have you seen this bit of fuckwittage in t’grauniad? (the comments I mean). Yes I do understand your point, I’m not sure you understand mine though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/aug/20/street-harassment
It would make a great CiF piece….
I hadn’t read the comments until then Polly – interesting* discussion.
*By which I mean, jeez some people really don’t get it do they?
S’riously it does seem to be a point that some folks find exceedingly hard to grasp. Reminds me of this…
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2010/07/homophobia_appa
And just to confirm (for my own benefit) that I am not speaking Martian or something, the problem with using ‘lesbian’, ‘dyke’ ‘rugist’ (sounds like a nineteenth century art movement to me) or anything else as an insult is that they are homophobic tossers who think it’s the worst thing you can call a woman. Not that *lesbian* IS an insult or being thought a lesbian is bad. There IS a distinction there.
We seemed to understand this perfectly well when Jason Donovan sued the face for implying he was gay when he wasn’t…. Remember that? Had to go round for ages afterward denying he was homophobic. Halcyon days. We are moving rapidly backwards I fear.
‘I don’t know where anyone could have got the impression that men are a threat to women. Reality maybe?’
Not in my reality. I don’t know why this view is not challenged more by other feminists. Either you want men on side-or you don’t. If you don’t then I don’t know what you are trying to achieve? Separation from men altogether?
It is. You only have to read The F Word or Feministing or any number of other fun feminist sites to see so-called 3rd wavers rushing to defend men and to ensure that the word “some” always precedes the word “men” in sentences such as the one you quote above.
But as you’re well aware QRG, feminism is a broad church. So yes, some feminists are separatists, and what of it?
Nah it’s ok Cath, I just imagined all the women I know who’ve been raped/beaten up/nearly murdered/murdered by men, clearly. Sorry PEOPLE who’ve been raped/beaten up/nearly murdered/murdered by PEOPLE. And all those people being harassed by people in the street, and earning less because they’re people, and being sacked for being pregnant, the way people often are, and dying in childbirth, the way people do. That’s why I’m a people-ist.
Either you want men on side-or you don’t.
I don’t give a toss what men, sorry people do, as long as they stop abusing women, sorry people. They can be on side, off side, or somewhere in the middle. No skin off my nose.
Thanks you have made your positions quite clear. kind of mind-boggling, but clear.
Well we made our positions clear ages ago QRG, you just seem to not like them. Which you’re quite entitled to do, but complaining that a person holds the opinions they hold seems a bit like complaining that water is wet. IE not really going to achieve anything, though it’s undoubtedly based on fact. I don’t care personally but this stuff is using up valuable pixels and my carbon footprint is growing by the millisecond. For dawg’s sake won’t you think of the planet!
Unless you think we’re going to suddenly say “OH MY GOD QRG THE SCALES HAVE FALLEN FROM MY EYES. “THE LAST 3,679,454 TIMES, I JUST DIDN’T GET IT WHEN SOMEONE TOLD ME I WAS JUST A BITTER MAN HATER, BUT NOW I DO! THANK YOU, THANK YOU QRG!
The Amazonian tree frogs’ blood is on your hands QRG. I hope you can live with that.
Oh well, QRG, you can always run back to your blog and post a tearful apology to the boyz on behalf of women, particularly feminists, for our mediocrity as human beings. I mean women. Now that’s feminism!
Nice to see you read my blog Valerie M! Hope you enjoy the porno.
I don’t read your blog, QRG. I clicked through the other day to see if you could be believed, got as far as the ‘oh boys I’m so sorreeee the radfems won’t suck your dicks, but hey I will’ post and clicked away laughing. I did not see the porn on your blog, but it doesn’t surprise me that you’re a rapist by proxy as well as a misogynist.
…and I’m going to drop this with apologies to Cath. It’s really not cool to get into a days long knock-down-drag-out on your blog. 😦
@Polly
“I don’t give a toss what men, sorry people do, as long as they stop abusing women, sorry people. They can be on side, off side, or somewhere in the middle. No skin off my nose.”
Er, I’ve stopped. I know I’ve done my bit and I’m off the hook now, but are you sure you don’t want any help with the rest of this dismantling heteronormative patriarchy thing, as I’ve now got a bit more free time?
@ValerieM
What is a “rapist by proxy”? I tried googling it and got John Thune, the Pope, Saddam Hussein, some kind of RPGer and women who make false rape accusations. So that’s three leaders and two fantasy beings, but no real explanation. Help!
Proxy.
n. pl. prox·ies
1. A person authorized to act for another; an agent or substitute.
2. The authority to act for another.
3. The written authorization to act in place of another.
sigh.
alex.
we shouldn’t have to caveat every mention of men with ‘not all’ and ‘some’. congrats on not being violent. here’s a cookie. well done.
sadly, with around 2000 rapes every week according to stats from the pixel project today, not all men are getting their cookies.
anyway – back to hooters.
We’re having a meeting in Bristol tonight to try and challenge the licensing committee which sits on 1st Sept. Interestingly, the police have now got involved, as they are concerned that the opening of Hooters will mean that the number of alcohol licensed premises in the area – already at saturation point – will go over the limit that the police and council have imposed. So, technically, the council could be forced to say no to hooters as this is in a cumulative impact zone, which carries a so-called rebuttal decision. This means, that all things being equal, a license shouldn’t be granted.
However, nothing is guaranteed so it is still worth fighting back. What is striking is that Hooters Bristol have already started training their management, even though it hasn’t been given the go ahead yet! Puns around being cocky come to mind…
As per usual, my friends at the Bristol Evening Post are firmly in the anti feminist camp, calling campaigns against hooters fatuous, and lucky me, who didn’t even get involved in the disturbing comments thread beneath the article, has been called ‘crazed’ and had a picture put up of how misogynist EP readers imagine i look like. Nice.
But am I the one doing the raping or am I the one issuing the proxy? I need to know my job description.
Sianushka:
‘we shouldn’t have to caveat every mention of men with ‘not all’ and ‘some’’
Yes, yes we should.
P.s. Alex was being ironic I believe and doesn’t want a cookie for not being violent. He probably thinks it should be the least we could expect of him.
Sianushka –
Not every mention: depends on the semantics. For example, Polly’s comment is “fine” (not that it matters what I think). It says she doesn’t believe men have a role in feminism beyond not being abusers, and, so long as those men who are abusers stop, she doesn’t care what men do. It would be weird to include the “some” in her post. Men don’t have a positive role, just a negative one that needs correcting as and when.
At the same time, there are posts where the “some” is obviously excluded deliberately: where it’s natural and obvious to write “some men”, and the writer has made a conscious choice to delete it. (Especially since, from what I’ve read online, feminists tend to be scrupulously careful with their language and try to be inclusive). So it’s often not about caveats, but about the writer choosing to hold out a flat palm and say “men who are reading this: no matter how sympathetic you are, even if you agree with every one of my points, I don’t like you for what you are, I judge you for what you are, and don’t care what you think”.
And that’s fine too. It doesn’t stop me agreeing or disagreeing, and I accept that as a guy interested in feminist issues I just have to put up with it. It just makes me think the writer has an intellectual blindspot, so I’m more inclined to check their sources and stats. If they’re biased enough to omit “some” – which isn’t really that hard to type in the interests of accuracy – what else are they going to distort?
How can a linguist resist a discussion about quantitative adjectives and why feminists should apply them before every noun?
“Nice to see you read my blog Valerie M! Hope you enjoy the porno.”
Porno is a weapon against women. I know this because men have used porno to attack me and lots of other women throughout our lives in a staggering variety of ways. I know it because a Feministing-approved porno called “Porn For Kerry” did not feature sexy Democrats getting it on but mocked Republicans like “Ann Cunter” by inviting Democrats to masturbate over their sexual debasement.
Quiet Riot Girl’s language (like everything else said about porn outside the self-delusional sexpoz Fortress of Solicitude) reveals she believes porno is a weapon to use against women.
Pornsturbators tend to react negatively when I read a list of titles out loud to make the point of how porno’s hatred of women far exceeds porno’s love of sex. Now I have another example to pull out the next time someone disingenuously applies “some” before porno to deny its inherent, primary appeal is misogyny.
Yes, thank you Sam. That’s what I would have said if polly hadn’t been using the brain cell.
I like what damegadoor had to say. Language is always worth interrogating, in my opinion. And SOME feminists seem to interrogate other people’s language much more than their own.
As for Sam- ‘Pornsturbators’ is a fantastic addition to my lexicon. Thanks!
you sure you don’t want any help with the rest of this dismantling heteronormative patriarchy thing, as I’ve now got a bit more free time?
Nah that’ll be fine Alex. All it needs really is for men to butt out of women’s lives when they’re not invited in. (ie stop imposing heteronormative patriarchy, cos that’s what HP is). And the Amazonian tree frogs will thank you too. Brucie bonus…
And you and QRG can be very happy together. Or unhappy. Don’t much care.
This is a really great thread. I know it’s gone ‘off-topic’ but in a way it has really got to the core of what feminism is. And what it isn’t. If I showed this discussion to anyone outside of the people who regularly contribute to this blog, I wonder what they would think.
I don’t know if the people here really want to change the world, or just stay in their cosy little ghetto of being separate from the world. Because if they do want to change the world, they are going to have to engage with people who disagree with them. And who have different genitalia from them.
Nah I don’t want to change the world. I want females (well those that want to be) to be free. And I don’t really care what you think. “Separate from the world”? Chance would be a fine thing eh QRG? Since we will always have you to demand we get with the heteronormative programme any time we try!
To be clear. I’m not asking nicely for my freedom. I’m taking it. If you want to stay enslaved – your problem. Not mine.
What happens to men? Their problem, not mine.
If I showed this discussion to anyone outside of the people who regularly contribute to this blog, I wonder what they would think.
To quote Nigel Molesworth, I neither kno nor care.
Brilliant. I’ve got nothing to add to that, I just wanted to repeat it 🙂
Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.
Pat Robertson
’nuff said.
PS QRG top tip, your homophobia is showing. Just a tad. But on the plus side you might get a job writing for the Mail. They pay pretty well.
damagedoor – i do agree with you on the importance of language, and believe me, i have had the debate about the inculsion of ‘some’ many times!
so i do agree we need to think about its importance.
i guess i didn’t feel the need to include it in this instance because i was writing on a feminist blog, where i felt it would be understood what i meant, and it does get a bit wearing having to qualify everything all the time…
i don’t want to be separate, or ghettoized from the world thank you very much. i want to make the world a better place for women and for men. by fighting against patriarchy. being ghettoized is so much hard work, having to explain yourself and your stance and fighting all the time.
IN hooters news – the lovely people at the evening post, who so delight in slagging off women, minority ethnic groups, gay people and immigrants to go along with their owner Paul Dacre’s rule book, are writing yet another pro hooters anti woman article tomorrow. So proud of my city’s media!
being ghettoized is so much hard work, having to explain yourself and your stance and fighting all the time.
Not really, that’s the joy of it. I don’t ‘have’ to explain myself at all as I would have to do if I opted in to QRG’s heteronormative ‘world’. And being separate by choice from those who do not have your best interests at heart, or simply don’t interest you is not the same as being ‘ghettoized’. The latter is a privileged group excluding the less privileged. The former is a less privileged group telling the privileged group to do one.
I am thankful for my privilege. I shall leave you in peace.
In sisterhood, still,
QRG
‘The latter is a privileged group excluding the less privileged. The former is a less privileged group telling the privileged group to do one.’
brilliant!
Oh no, it turns out that males are oppressed by feminists after all! I was wrong!
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2010/08/guest_post_some#comment79060
I take it all back…….(and yes I should get my own blog).
(sorry it’s a few comments up, I can’t post links either).
I love this:*
Buying kitchens: that’s real oppression that is!**
*not
**sarcasm
And yes Polly, it’s time you got another blog. Your readers/fans/well me anyway, demand it 🙂
Yes please Polly, please get another blog, I miss your blog Cows Gone Wild
Flipping eck Cath, I’d fallen into a light coma and missed the kitchen thing. I bought my own kitchen (and installed it). Does that mean I oppressed myself?
This! This!
As for choice and relativity, there are feminists who rail against male supremacy, who, arguably, oppress themselves in doing so. Political lesbians, for example, who refuse to sleep with men until rape and male violence against women no longer exists. Such an absolutist approach hardly seems like a choice, when there are plenty of men horrified by the thought of violence against women, and when the end result only seems to exacerbate gender conflict, which ultimately benefits neither men nor women.
Extra-fucking-ordinary. Sorry Cath, will stop hijacking your blog now. Off to oppress myself by not having sex with men.
Haha
You’re not just oppressing yourself Polly. Your refusal to shag any of those nice male feminists oppresses us all, ‘cos it helps exacerbate gender conflict.
Or something.
See, it’s all your fault Polly. I bloody knew it!
Update on Hooters:
So, we discovered that Marks and Spencer are leasing their premises to Hooters (and, rumour has, financially helping out as they are struggling to lease the building)
We thought a good tack to take would be to email the chair at M&S to say ‘oy! do you know what you’re doing?’ along with a flyering campaign in our local store. if you want to email you can find details and model letter here:
http://www.ukfeminista.org.uk/blog/2010/08/27/67-masbuildinghooters.html#comment-161
The trolls on the EP are getting nastier and nastier too.
Many of the trolls on EP seem to have abused the thread as a means to harass other people – and, somewhat tellingly, many also appear to be racist and homophobic as well as sexist. If these inane failed bullies are representative of a cross-section of Hooters’ clientele then, quite frankly, how pathetic.
Certain Hooters’ apologists seem overly keen to swiftly change the subject onto blaming immigrants and people of other cultures, races and religions for this, that and the other. Is there some far-right involvement, here – or is this bizarre off-topic-ness just another manifestation of the usual anonymous, cowardly un-imaginative bigotry coming from people who are too embarrassed to admit that they can muster no cogent argument?
At any rate, I’d guess that the one posting as “House of Zog” on there is a bit of a dead give-away, probably. Now, ain’t that just what “Family-friendly wholesome clean-living” Hooters needs right now – a wacko far-right conspiracy theorist on their side?!
So, hooters has been given the go ahead in bristol.
i couldn’t go to the meeting as it was delayed by 2 hours (!!) and i had to go back to work.
Apparently the councillors asked what was on the menu and helen mott yelled out ‘sexism!’ The Lib Dem councillor, Guy Pulteney, threatened to eject her.
He gave them the license because, don’t you know it, hooters will offer the area ‘something really different’
because, sexism is so original! so different! so unlike anything we’ve seen before!
Just so you know, Cllr Pulteney sits on the domestic violence committee for BCC and has not only passed this sexist license, but was the only councillor in a previous sitting to vote in favour of a (turned down) lap dancing club license.
with friends like these…
Shit. Sorry to hear that Sian.
Cllr Pulteney sounds like one to keep an eye on. Bloody Lib Dems!
“Apparently the councillors asked what was on the menu and helen mott yelled out ‘sexism!’ The Lib Dem councillor, Guy Pulteney, threatened to eject her. ”
What for telling the truth?
So much for freedom of speech!
indeed.
in more news the evening post commenters have resorted to calling me:
‘Sian “two mums” Norris’
coz, you know, if you have two mums, you cannot be allowed to have an opinion. them’s the rules!
they are so horrible!
I think we will be planning some kind of guerilla style protests once it opens so watch this space!
Oh, and interestingly, the council are only reading the petition against hooters today – a day after the decision was made. which is very strange.
They really show themselves up, Sian. They don’t realise just how much of an embarrassment they are with their obnoxious behaviour – through making such personal, vicious attacks on you they’ve actually revealed more about themselves than they’re smart enough to realise. Besides, they’re far too cowardly to unwrap themselves from their comfortable egos and to step outside of themselves for a moment to take a good, hard honest look at how the rest of us actually see them. When faced with a person of integrity such as yourself all they can do is go into denial mode and utter the inane and banal.
I really admire your work in standing up to Hooters – a company whose employment practises and consequent legal history obviously ooze just as much unsavoury greasy slime as their food and, evidently – if certain of the pro-Hooters’ posters on those threads go – some of their clientele. I, for one, will definitely be looking forward to Hooters getting shown up for the idiotic slimeball ‘firm’ it really is because they really are behaving so arrogantly that this will happen and they will alienate so many people. Good luck with your guerrilla tactics, Sian! The bigger they are; the harder they’ll fall.
Oh, and interestingly, the council are only reading the petition against hooters today – a day after the decision was made. which is very strange.
Was it a formal objection? May be worth raising with the local government ombudsman if so.
The homophobic knobs should be locked in a room for all eternity with the rotting corpse of Bernard Manning.
Sian – What horrible people. Ignore them, and carry on doing a fantastic job.
polly – we missed the deadline for the formal objection because they were very subtle – the sign said ‘gallus’ and we only found out it was a hooters via a friend.
thanks for the supportive comments – all very idiotic. i would be interested to know how much hooters will be paying the EP for a full page ad, as a thank you for all the positive coverage they’ve had from them the last couple of weeks…
Intriguingly, back in early 2008 when Harriet Harman was Minister for Women & Equality under a Labour government Hooters had these same plans http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/04/hooters_coming for expansion but intriguingly they don’t seem to have come to fruition until 2010 when Tory, Theresa May is Minister for Women & Equality under a brand new Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition government with a Tory Prime Minister.
Is this pure coincidence, or is there more (perhaps going on behind-the-scenes) to Hooters very sudden green-light to set up shop here, there and everywhere than meets the eye? Whatever the pros and cons of the Women & Equality Unit under the last Labour government, would Hooters have dared tried to expand in Britain whilst Harriet Harman was Minister for Women & Equality?
Great discussion, some of the commenters above.
And the misogynistic bile that spews forth on comments/twitter from men who are outraged that their Hooters will be taken away from them does absolutely prove your point Cath.
I genuinely have no idea what mental gymnastics a person has to perform to think that a restaurant whose brand is based on female employees’ breasts/bodies being available for the enjoyment of male customers is not sexist. It’s either that or Hooters supporters. Just. Don’t Care. That’s the two-fold argument I seem to be hit with when I mention that Hooters might be a bit disrespectful/threatening/dehumanising: 1) it is not! 2) I don’t care anyway! Hooters is just another branch of the sex/porn industry and such should be exempt from any criticism because it gives men jollies.
I wrote to M&S to complain about their leasing property to Gallus, aka Hooters, and received an email telling me it was ‘an economic decision’ and they weren’t able to comment on theHooters’ ethos. Well that’s ok then!
i didn’t get a reply emily! My letter was quite harsh.
We are going to the council meeting tonight to present our petition and demand answers as to why the licence was passed despite police opposition.
of course, the press did not report the numbers of petition signatures (over 700) or how, by ignoring the police, a precedent was broken over CIZ.
and the EP will be reporting about it again tomorrow.
She’s at it again BTW. Men are oppressed by not being allowed to vote in feminist groups. It’s true!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/10/kyriarchy-and-patriarchy
It’s enough to make you weep isn’t it. For shame, when will the oppression of men ever end?
Yep, I was commenting on that thread last night. Just ridiculous!
‘To be clear. I’m not asking nicely for my freedom. I’m taking it’.
Repeating this again. You kick ass, Polly.
I mocked the same ridiculous article on the F-word, on my blog.
Ah yes I see now Cath (I can never be bothered to read through when it gets to 200 comments, just stick my two penn’orth on the end). And soooo badly written. Does she even know what she’s on about?
It’s when I read stuff like that that I breathe a big sigh of relief and thank the invisible sky pixie that I never went in for academia Polly. She’s written complete bloody gobbledygook.
I tend to think you can either construct an argument or you can’t, acadamentia notwithstanding (though law is a useful discipline, because you learn to cite your authority for saying anything). It’s just a basic lack of brains that’s the problem. Strangely enough though she works for the law society!
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/writers?query=h
That got deleted off cif. It was relevant though because someone else asked if she was trying to flog a book. Not yet, but no doubt she will be soon.
If you’re a twenty something female and want to get published in a newspaper attack feminism. And you’ll get published even if you can’t argue your way out of a paper bag.
Oh and she’s just said that patriarchy is dead (in response to my point about honour killings and focus on white western affluent women) because she was only writing about the UK. Because obviously honour killings don’t happen in the UK. And every woman in the UK is white, western and affluent.
What was that about kyriarchy again?
damn straight cath and polly.
what a stupid article.
also, there are more feminist networks than LFN. some welcome men, some let men vote. i know it’s a bit off topic but it is pissing me off that she has now written two articles in a row based on a very narrow view of one or two groups.
i’d love her to go and speak to that woman who had her nose and ears chopped off and explain to her how patriarchy is dead.
I’d love her to speak to one of the thousands of women dismissed in the UK for being pregnant and tell them patriarchy is dead. She assumes that because we have legislation, it is applied. Or she could speak to me, working for a public sector organisation where in my pay band there is an 8% pay gap.
Not true Ms Hodgson, not true.
Exactly.
altho, in all fairness, i am a twenty something female who got published in a national newspaper (and in print) and i wrote three very positive articles about feminism!
Yeah, but was your piece well written Sian? Katie Roiphe made a name for herself by attacking feminism, but she can write as well. Nichi Hodgson’s pieces are pretentious, self contradictory, gobbledegook. She likes to think that she get’s criticised just because she’s upsetting feminists. No, it’s because she’s ALSO a crap writer. Not everyone who criticised her on CiF is a feminist.
definitely.
From the author’s final comment:
Oh those poor poor men, the discrimination they’re subjected to by political feminists refusing to go out with them is nothing short of outrageous!
LOL. ROFLMAO even. That is too too funny, I actually AM LOLing as we speak (and I haven’t even had anything to drink after that dude accused me of being ‘under the influence from one bottle of black sheep ale).
Who will save the poor menz from the refusal of political feminists to shag them? Everywhere I go, the cry arises, Polly, you are INFRINGING MY HUMAN RIGHTS by refusing to love cock (oh no sorry that was that drunk on the train).
On a more serious note how is Nichi Hodgson’s attitude distinguishable from rampant lesbophobia. Oh that’s right, it isn’t.
Really she should do stand up though. Hi-fucking-larious.
I’m waiting BTW for her next ‘nasty lesbians oppressed me’ piece on her blog. She’s already done one about TFW backlash.
It’s not. In fact have you read the rant on her blog re how terrible it is that sometimes books she wants to buy are shelved in the LGBT section, forcing her to go to the one place in the bookshop she wouldn’t want to be seen dead in. (Obviously I’m paraphrasing and she’s not that blatant, but it’s what it boils down to imo)
But she’s omnisexual. And Lexophilic. You could get six months for that once upon a time.
Googles *lexophile*
PMSL!
There’s only one appropriate response to these lesbophobic ‘omnisexuals’. Thank you Smack the pony, I love you.
I’ve gone right off her now
LOL!
Hi all, I just really don’t know how to start this comment after the epic amount of hate above!
This next sentence may drive you all to grab your pitch forks but… dundun duuuuuun I’M A HOOTERS GIRL! :O shock horror hehe
Just wanted to air a few things (almost definately going to get attacked by much more intelligent people then me but im just giving another point of view)
I have the most fun job in the world, it is pushing me to be the best I can at what i want to acheive in life and I wont let anyone stop me. I’m an extremely driven individual but I cant deny that alot of the comments above stung a bit.
I’m not going to try and justify my job, career path or anything just wanted to let you all known the Hooters Cardiff is full of hard-working and intelligent young women who have chosen to do this job. Many of the girls are students with a wide variety of degrees from drama, to events management and medicine.
As to the Twitter account all I can say is if you met our management you would understand that they are entirely professional, look after us all well and would never say such degrading drivel as the things tweeted.
Any one has the right to take their own route in life, be it working in Hooters, eating in Hooters, writing a blog, Being a feminist etc.
To close my point Ill ask any of you to come in and meet us? maybe you’ll hate what you see but at least you would have first hand experience and therefore be able to make a fair judgement?
Thanks for reading!
Hey Abee, don’t panic, we’re not into hating other women (or grabbing pitch forks!)
I’m sure most the Hooters girls are intelligent young women, a lot of women waitress to put themselves through uni etc (i did, and shop work, and temping).
However i think one of the issues I have, and perhaps is worth considering, is how Hooters contributes to an idea that there is an idealised female body and that women should try and fit in to that. As the caring and sharing (!) comments on Twitter informed us (written by people who clearly do hate women and would like to use pitch forks against us!), you wouldn’t get a job as a Hooters girl unless you fitted the body ideal as prescribed by Hooters.
This is problematic. it is fetishizing parts of the woman’s body (mainly her breasts) and saying that the achievement of having nice breasts is the greatest achievement of all. It is telling young women that they must conform to a body ideal, and telling older women that they’re bodies are useless and obsolete because they don’t conform to a body ideal.
We are surrounded by messages telling us how to be beautiful, how to be sexy, how to perform sexuality.Hooters perpetuates this, it states that beauty is curvy, smily with long hair etc, and that being attractive to men and laughing at their jokes, even if their jokes are sexual harassment, is the key to success as a Hooters girl.
I hope you don’t feel that this is attacking you because it really isn’t meant to, and i would hate for any woman to feel attacked for choices they have made. As you say, we all have the right to make our own choices in life. it is more an anger that corporations like Hooters are so insistently trying to reduce women to body types in order to make huge amounts of cash by fuelling women’s insecurities. Whilst, no doubt, paying their workers the minimum wage!
I met a woman who was interviewing for Hooters who seemed very insecure about her appearance. But working somewhere that puts your body shape above all else is just going to make it worse. As ladytron said ‘they only love you when you’re 17…’ !!