Quick: name the most dangerous kind woman in the world to a femisogynist! If you said a beautiful woman who embraces her femininity and sex appeal and enjoys pleasing men, then you win. Women aren’t supposed to enjoy making themselves look beautiful and sexy, and especially not for a man. They’re especially not supposed to enjoy catering to men. Smiling, flirting, joking, all for the entertainment of a man, is akin to blasphemy. Considering that, it’s no surprise that a British woman and so-called feminist would find Hooters to be the most offensive bar in Britain.
Hooters is everything that man-hating femifascists hate. An entire restaurant centered around the pleasing of men? With pretty, sexy girls whose jobs involve serving men, it’s no wonder it makes their heads spin. And while Hooters is not classy by anyone’s definition, is it really fair to call it the most offensive bar in Britain? What is so offensive about Hooters, anyways?
I remember, as a student in the Seventies, interviewing one of the last Playboy bunnies at the club on Park Lane.
I asked the young woman in fishnet tights how it felt to be part of a dying breed.
Peeling off her false eyelashes, she said the world had moved on – women were no longer to be viewed as objects. Fast forward 30 years and, again, I’m talking to a young woman in tights with false eyelashes.
But while there was something tongue-in-cheek and marginally glamorous about the bunny outfit, the clothes the women working in Hooters are wearing look cheap and nasty.
Orange Lycra shorts, low-cut T-shirts with Hooters’s slogan ‘delightfully tacky’, white socks and plimsolls and, of course, a wide smile are all obligatory – it is just so awful.
Right — Playboy is not as bad, because it was “tongue-in-cheek.” Hooters is skankier than Playboy, even though Hooters waitresses don’t bare all in a magazine for millions of men to see. The Playboy comparison makes no sense whatsoever anyways, when you consider that Liz Jones, the author, talks about Playboy as part of a dying breed and refers to it in the past tense. It’s ridiculous when one remembers that, oh yeah, Playboy is still around, and Playboy models get completely naked, whereas Hooters waitresses just wear slightly slutty outfits.
Jones then bemoans that Hooters would have the audacity to open a second location in the UK. After all, if femisogynists don’t like something, it shouldn’t be allowed to exist, right? Who cares about stuff like the free market? One might think that if Hooters was really so offensive, they wouldn’t be such a successful restaurant, but that’s just the patriarchy. Or something.
There are now 455 branches worldwide, including four in China – but only one branch in the UK, here in the Midlands.
A second branch is planned for Bristol, at a site leased to it by Marks & Spencer. The city council has already granted the U.S. chain planning permission, saying it ‘offers something different’, despite local residents and women’s groups mounting a campaign.
Sian Norris, founder of the Say No To Hooters In Bristol protest group, says: ‘People claim it’s a bit fun. But it’s part of a culture where women are only seen as sexual objects, not as full human beings.’
And thus we come to another disturbing aspect of today’s feminist extremism. If a woman dares to let herself be seen as sexy, then she is solely a sex object, and nothing else. And not only is she a sex object, but she’s also either a willing tool of the patriarchy or an idiot who doesn’t know she’s being used. After all, a woman can’t possibly be sexy and beautiful and intelligent at the same time, right?
But wait a second — are the Hooters uniforms really even that scandalous anymore?