Do you know what our problem with Hooters is? It is poor man's sexy.
Yesterday we heard that Hooters were planning to open six new franchises in Auckland, Wellington, Queenstown and Christchurch. There was moral panic. How disgusting! How disturbing! How offensive to women's rights!
I know because that was my exact reaction. I was one of the people waving my hands in the air busily being appalled.
But to be honest, I don't know if I had a right to be.
I completely agree with comments made by Eleanor Butterworth that the objectification of women has a complex and influential relationship with domestic violence. But that's not quite the point I want to make here.
Yes, Hooters openly encourages people to see women as sex objects. But no way is it the only business that does so. Erm, the advertising industry anybody? Women on TV practically have an orgasm every time they eat a tub of yoghurt. Who knew a pot of peachy bacteria was so arousing?
What about in hospitality? How many ugly women do you see serving in upmarket bars and clubs in the Viaduct and Britomart? A bartending friend of mine once told me that her and the girls always wore low cut tops when serving. Management liked it, customers liked it and they liked it - they got tipped more.
What about retail? The girls selling us their wares, in their tiny shorts and strappy tops, are invariably beautiful. So beautiful they could come to work covered in lettuce and look sexy. That's not a normal cross section of society. Someone in management has discreetly decided that they will only take gorgeous women.
Heaps of businesses encourage us to see women as beautiful, sexual objects.
But why then do we get so vitriolic about Hooters? Yes they objectify women. But aren't they just doing what everyone else is?
Is it because they're so upfront about their attitude to women? They make no secret of wanting hot, skinny girls who wear clothes so tight they double as gastric bands. Possibly. Perhaps we don't object so much to retail stores or flash bars because they don't make their perky policies so blatant. They don't have to flash the flesh... it's just implied that they should. It's easier to ignore. Hooters blatant approach makes them more honest and also an easier target.
But I can't help thinking it's also to do with money. Okay, so Hooters is upfront. They take sexy women and they want them to dress in a specifically sexy way.
However, designer lingerie line Agent Provocateur is famous for wanting beautiful women. Former employee Eva Wiseman wrote in the Guardian in 2011 that AP originally hired her by scrawling "good hair!" on her CV. It also requires women to wear an outfit, the gloriously seductive nurse dress that has gone on to become a cult lingerie collector's piece.
An Agent Provocateur model poses at a store opening in London. Is this kind of sexy less offensive?
Photo / Getty
What's the difference? Hooters is poor man's sexy. Tiny shorts, lots of boob, lots of tight tees. Agent Provocateur is sexy - but rich man's sexy. Lacy cleavage, shiny high heels, silky hold ups.
They both promote women as sex symbols. But one does it in an expensive way. And being expensive means we associate it with good taste, refinement and even artistic significance. That makes it much more palatable to us.
A clear example of this is the slightly tacky Australian lingerie brand Honey Birdettes. They require their sales girls to wear skimpy clothing that shows off their skimpier lingerie. This gets a fair amount of raised eyebrows and judgemental snorts. When Agent Provocateur asks their girls to wear similarly suggestive outfits, men and women think they're stunning. There's a mysterious glamour and prestige to being an AP girl. I'd sell my liver to be one. But would I work for Honey Birdettes or Hooters? No. It's amazing what money can do to your judgement.
Would we be so disgusted if Hooters was a swanky new Viaduct bar that hired waitresses dressed in silk pencil skirts and stockings? I don't think so.
I'm not trying to argue that Hooters is okay. It serves to highlight how endemic female objectification is across a number of industries. I'm just trying to point out that we probably feel happier to hate on it because it, as its strap line says, is "delightfully tacky."
