portland independent media center  
images audio video
promoted newswire article commentary united states

media criticism

Why is the Corporate Media Doing Marketing for Hooters?

It seems that every other day we're hearing about "Hooters" from the corporate media. Every time Hooters opens a new dive, they're on it. With everything happening in the world, they somehow find the time to cover this "story." Today, I'm hearing about a Hooters airline where men "get what they want" (snicker snicker nudge nudge).
With the perfectly timed "death" of Reagan, there is precious little else getting through the airwaves these days. The fact that more Americans have died in Iraq for bush's oil was buried deep in the back pages, the discovery of memos from the bush administration authorizing torture of prisoners hardly made a wave. Reagan's death has served to eclipse these stories, and all according to plan.

Yet somehow, when we're so "busy" with reagan that nothing else gets through the noise, a long, coy, human interest story about a new business venture entailing the exploitation of women manages to make the headlines. It seemed odd, watching young women's asses so unceremoniously bulging out of orange satin disco shorts while a giggling, winking anchor happily expounded upon the "eye candy" and the endless possibilities for "fun" aboard the new hooters airlines. A corporate head in an orange satin tie stood near a bevy of hooters flight attendants and explained that, "Whatever men want, they will get on these flights. We're all about fun. We take the customers seriously."

Is the corporate media getting a kickback from hooters and other corporations that they keep shamelessly promoting on so-called "news" shows? Or is this just more of the mindless depths to which "journalists" have sunk to keep us in the dark about real issues here in the real world, where a real war is going on and real people are really dying. Yes, it strikes me as odd that the only news out there right now, amid all of the war and corruption and ignorance being committed all over the world in our names, amid the gathering of the G8, amid mass protests in sfo and elsewhere, the only news is a very old, senile, dead past president who likely died years ago, and yet another "scoop" of young women stuffed into undignified and no longer fashionable attire for the pleasure of wealthy yet grubby, senile old men. (Maybe there is a pattern here after all.)

huh? 10.Jun.2004 07:28

someone else

"Whatever men want, they will get on these flights. We're all about fun. We take the customers seriously."

are they hiring prostitutes?

on prostitution 10.Jun.2004 08:16

MW

>are they hiring prostitutes?

They're hooters. That's what they are: Pimps. They ask women to sell sex for their profit. Whether they actually engage in intercourse or not, they're pimping women's bodies.

What's the news? 10.Jun.2004 10:11

Mother

What is it that you find newsy about this?

That it's Hooters?

TV is in it for the money?

Sex sells?

Men (and many women ;-) like T & A?

So what is so wrong with Hooters? 10.Jun.2004 12:17

x-hoot

I worked at one for 2 years before I got married and it was a great job. The pay wasn't all that great but the tips more than made up for it. And the guys who went there never laid a hand on me in the place or after hours, even with the short shorts and tank top. Hey, if you got it, flaunt it. I had fun working there. You could tell a dirty joke without some PC eco-cow getting in your face all the time. I wasn't "pimped" as some would suggest. If you didn't want to get a bit brazen with the customers, you didn't have to.

We had one lady apply who was butt ugly and when she was shot down, she took the "well you're just sexist" stance as well. Well honey, no one wants to look at 200 pounds of lard when you can look at 100 pounds of honey instead. Hooters is successful because they give the guys what they want; a fun place to hang out, see some T&A (nice firm T&A for a change) and have fun.

Some of the cows around this area are just jealous is all. Now I'm married, have a great man, nice house and a kid on the way. And I'm planning on still being able to fit into my Hooters shirt 10-15 years down the line.

It's just jealousy.

x-hooter, please read 10.Jun.2004 12:43

strongbad

I know it's easy to just chalk it up to jealousy, that that's why some women and men are not happy with Hooter's et al. But let me tell ya, as a large breasted woman (and damn attractive if i say so myself) it pisses me off to the nth degree that if i wear a shirt that isn't 3 sizes too big, guys stare at my breast and immediately lower their opinion of me. how many times have i been out at a bar or party, a guy sees my huge breasts, and thinks "wow, i bet she's easy". and why wouldn't he think that. when there are women who are more than happy to show it off and get paid for dressing like a slut. constantly putting that image in front of men just reinforces the objectification of women that you yourself have added to. don't kid yourself by thinking you weren't being pimped

You're Damn Right! 10.Jun.2004 13:21

Sick of It

Thank you, Strongbad! You are right on the money.

On what's wrong with hooters and what's newsy about this 10.Jun.2004 14:37

CatWoman

Starting with the easy one first: "What is it that you find newsy about this?"

That's the whole point of the article. Hooters is not news. Yet it keeps taking up the airwaves. Even now, when they're so busy parading a dead reagan around that they can't find time to report on the explosive documents unearthed in the capital. Too busy to let the people know bushCo nonchalantly authorized torture -- TORTURE -- of human beings, but not too busy to show us some trademarked rumps and let us know where we can find them if we have the cash? Please.

The weird, sad little treatise on how great it was to work for Hooters is more difficult to address. My first instinct is to write it off as either a troll (it's written in a troll voice if ever I heard one), or a PR person for Hooters. The reference to women with too much dignity to don satin shorts and defer to the male gaze as "cows" and "eco-cows" suggests to me as much.

But although I believe this particular piece was written by a troll, the fact remains that there are people out there who really don't understand the problem with a place like Hooters. This issue has come up here before, and when it does, people invariably defend the pleasure of a little T and A, or they defend the right of women to appear half naked in public if they want to.

That's not the issue, though. The issue is the gross, gratuitous commercialization of Woman. It's capitalist objectification of human beings. It's exploitation. (And before you say it, yes, any paid labor is exploitive. But this type of degradation is qualitatively different.)

If women want to take off their clothes and walk down Burnside, I support them in that. You go, grrls. If a woman wants to take off her shirt and dance in Pioneer square, I support that too.

What I do not support is an economic system in which women are compelled to do these things so that someone else can profit from it. I do not support a system where it's considered acceptable for people to be given the choice of being objectified or starving.

As Strongbad so eloquently put it, "don't kid yourself by thinking you weren't being pimped."

If a woman, or man for that matter, wants to dance naked in the streets, that's a free and beautiful expression that I would welcome. But, as you may know, that's not allowed in our society. That would be illegal. It's only legal when there's money to be made -- by someone other than the woman herself. By, for example, Hooters. THAT is the issue.

I'm not small chested either 10.Jun.2004 14:40

x-hoot

In fact I had them pumped up a bit when I turned 21. I love the attention they give me.

I just wanted to put my 2 cents in on this subject. I'm very happy and loving life. But I guess that really pisses off people when they can't control me or make me think as they do.

I'm a bitch-princess and proud of it.

Ta-ta lard butts! Have fun!

. 10.Jun.2004 14:57

.

"In fact I had them pumped up a bit when I turned 21. I love the attention they give me."
"I'm a bitch-princess and proud of it."

What a fine mother you'll make.

How Sad. 10.Jun.2004 15:01

regarding x hoot

>I guess that really pisses off people when they can't control me or make me think as they do.

After just admitting to having invasive and dangerous surgery to make her more appealing to the grubby, sweaty fat guys who leer at hooter girls, she says people can't control her? After extolling the virtues of being a body type the hooter establishment says is good, a body type she had to pay money and gain scars for, she says others can't "make me think as they do"?

Either this is a troll, or this girl is really in denial.

Oh, sure 10.Jun.2004 15:13

x-hoot

"The weird, sad little treatise on how great it was to work for Hooters is more difficult to address. My first instinct is to write it off as either a troll (it's written in a troll voice if ever I heard one), or a PR person for Hooters. The reference to women with too much dignity to don satin shorts and defer to the male gaze as "cows" and "eco-cows" suggests to me as much. "

God forbid anyone actually enjoy what they do (or did in my case). I had a blast working there. Made a lot of friends and some decent cash. What's wrong with that?

By the way, I wasn't defering the male gaze as "cows". That reference was for the women who thought I shouldn't be working there and the attitude they brought against me for doing my own thing. I got called more names than you can imagine simply for doing a job that some women didn't agree with. So F.O.A.D Bitch. If I'm angry at the "cattle" it's because you fired the first shot, not me.

"It's only legal when there's money to be made "

Damm right it is. I don't give it away for free. No one should.

"What a fine mother you'll make"

Thank you. My husband thinks I will too (he's reading this with me and laughing as well).

You can justify yourselves all you want. This site is a riot. I may post here more often.

Let's not distort reality 10.Jun.2004 15:31

James

"If a woman, or man for that matter, wants to dance naked in the streets, that's a free and beautiful expression that I would welcome. But, as you may know, that's not allowed in our society. That would be illegal. It's only legal when there's money to be made -- by someone other than the woman herself. By, for example, Hooters. THAT is the issue."

You're really stretching things, there. I certainly support men and women in whatever naked street adventures their hearts desire. But the fact is that some people don't.

Dancing naked in the streets is not illegal because it's done for fun or beauty. It's illegal because it is done in public, where some may be offended. Conversely, dancing naked in a bar, or scantily clad at Hooters, is lawful not because it is done for profit, but because it is done in private. In private, all involved have implicitly agreed to the rules of the game.

And yes, it is true. Women serving food at Hooters are objectified and exploited by capitalists. But the reverse is just as true as well: the men and women being served are exploited by the women who they have made objects of. This is, in other words, a free market between consenting adults.

The corporate media, if Media Watcher's anecdotal analysis is correct, spends significant time discussing Hooters because of the video reels which go with their soundbites. A large segment of their viewers enjoy the video of women's breasts which is inevitably shown as the news item is read. 'Hooters' is one of the few subjects in which it is thought to be acceptable for the corporate media to show video centered on breasts.

It is not a choice between Iraq and Hooters. If the corporate media focused all of their time on Iraq, their viewers would stop viewing. (Indeed; some might begin spending more time at Hooters).

For the rest of us who do care about Iraq, we have quite a few other choices.

Hmmm? 10.Jun.2004 16:18

questions

"If I'm angry at the "cattle" it's because you fired the first shot, not me."

Who is this person talking to? Did anyone fire a shot at him/her?

I know, I thought it was a troll too. And maybe it is. But trolls are usually not this dumb: "By the way, I wasn't defering the male gaze as "cows"." Um, no one said you were "defering the male gaze as cows." The comment had to do with defering to the male gaze. As in, being deferential to the male gaze. The "male gaze" being a term used to describe the manner in which women are expected to behave in some situations (notably, the corporate media) which they would not normally behave except that it suits some immature but profitable male fantasy about women. Um...is it worth explaining this further?

Oh. and james. What on earth! "'Hooters' is one of the few subjects in which it is thought to be acceptable for the corporate media to show video centered on breasts." Since when does the corporate media shy away from using breasts to sell everything from toothpaste to cars?

To be more precise 10.Jun.2004 16:32

James

"Since when does the corporate media shy away from using breasts to sell everything from toothpaste to cars?"

The corporate news media then, as opposed to other forms of corporate media.

Did I stumble into the Playboy Forum? 10.Jun.2004 18:58

Father Time

Reading the first few posts, I thought I might have stumbled into the Playboy forum or the "Ask Dr. Ruth" section of Cosmo. Personally, although I strive to stay firmly in the non-ogling camp whenever possible, I am a male, and as such may not be qualified to speak to this topic. I would probably also be classed by x-hoot as an eco-cow, however, so I'm not sure where that leaves me...

Anyway.

Just a quick legal clarification. Public nudity is in fact NOT illegal, at least according to the Oregon Revised Statutes. It is only against the law if the person exposes their "genitals" with the "intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person."

As a result, nude sunbathing, firewalking, or, CatWoman, dancing (provided it doesn't involve mirrors or a pole) would appear to be perfectly legal behaviour.

That having been said, however, I would be remiss not to point out that some specific municipalities have their own more intrusive laws and conservative legal definitions, and since I do not live in PDX proper myself, I can't speak to the Portland city code. So streak at your own risk.

Besides, even if not definitively illegal, it's highly likely that the PoPo would just arrest you for something else - offensive littering for placing your clothes on the ground, disorderly conduct for stopping traffic. You know the drill.

Anyway, feel free to research for yourself at the ORS site:  http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/

By the way: I vote Troll on x-hoot. Too sad to be true.

Peace and love

legal? 10.Jun.2004 19:20

not so fast

I clearly remember a woman who believed it was legal for her to walk down the street without a shirt on a hot day. Someone told her it was legal. Since men do this all the time, she apparently thought it was ridiculous for women to be afraid to do it. She walked across the burnside bridge, and before she reached the other side, officer friendly was upon her. He told her, contrary to any other advice she may have received, it was decidedly NOT legal. (So if you're a man, you're free to expose your chest, free to cool off in the heat. If you're a woman, though, it is illegal. Unless you're doing it to "give men what they want" at hooters.)

"x-hoot" not even a woman 10.Jun.2004 19:49

"x-hoot" = DISINFORMATIONALIST

provocateur troll.

previous Hooters stories reposted on Portland IMC 10.Jun.2004 19:51

with comments

200 California Hooters Applicants Videotaped While Dressing
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/284208.shtml

900 Young Women Apply to Work at Oregon's First HOOTERS in Beaverton!
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283075.shtml

Exactly 10.Jun.2004 21:51

James

"however, I would be remiss not to point out that some specific municipalities have their own more intrusive laws and conservative legal definitions, and since I do not live in PDX proper myself, I can't speak to the Portland city code."

Exactly. And in Portland, Chapter 14A.40 Section 30 prohibits exposure of genitals regardless of the intent of the person displaying their genitals. (Sexual, or not). As far as I know, there is no exception made for art, bona fide or otherwise.

 http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?&a=15423&c=28512

You do make a good point, though. Nudity is surely not illegal throughout the state, as visitors to Sauvie Island or Cock Rock might have noticed. More evidence of the fact that restrictions on nudity have nothing to do with profit motives.

OH GNOS!!!!!!!!!!!! 12.Jun.2004 19:04

too frustrated to be polite

oh gnos!!! when will the police state stop forcing women to sell their bodies and making men pay for it!!!!!!!!! when the revolution comes, men and women will be androgynous like that army of lovers video from 1980 and there will be no sex only polite minuets and tofu tea cakes.