By David Futrelle
Have you heard the bad news about Hooters? The infamous “breastaurant” chain, a place where America’s creepiest dads and granddads could live out their fantasies of gawking at their waitresses’ boobs without the owners of said boobs being able to complain about it, has been, well, sagging a bit lately.
According to Business Insider, “the number of Hooters locations in the US has dropped by more than 7% from 2012 to 2016, and sales have stagnated, according to industry reports.”
Some are blaming the chain’s troubles on millennials’ alleged lack of interest in boobs, at least compared with their breast-obsessed elders. And maybe they have a point. What’s a business based on boobs supposed to do in an ass-obsessed world like ours? Why should millennials pay to eat overpriced wings while staring at boobs when they could be home eating ass for free?
One enterprising young game developer has some ideas. In a series of tweets (starting here), Eric Adam Hovis explained how he would “fix” Hooters to make it more appealing to geeky millennial dudes like him.
Waitresses aren’t there to be looked at! They’re there to be TALKED at!
DEBATE NIGHT! Come on down to Hooters and DEBATE our GEISHAS! Did we mention the FREE WINGS?
Just remember to tip your waitress, at least if she lets you win the “debate.”
What’s better than FREE WINGS? FREE EMOTIONAL LABOR from women with huge bazongas!
But of course. Because millennial men are clearly entitled to all this attention from “smart and pretty women” for practically nothing.
Yes, because what human interaction could possibly be more “meaningful” than a”debate” between some dude and a woman who knows that if she challenges him in any significant way he’ll stiff her on the tip? Especially when she has to endure hour after hour of such “debates,” on topics not of her choosing, every single shift, while delivering up plate after plate of wings and jalapeno poppers with a giant smile plastered on her face?
Well, Mr. Hovis got his free debate all right. His tweets inspired a wave of comments and jokes on Twitter and elsewhere. Let’s just say that his ideas weren’t quite as well received as he was perhaps expecting, particularly by women.
Hovis, who actually sees himself as something of a feminist (or, as he puts it half jokingly in his Twitter bio, as a “Berniecrat progressive leftist sjw libtard feminazi betacuck”), has spent much of the last several days “clarifying” and rethinking his suggestions in a series of followup tweets and in a blog post he’s already revised and rewritten several times.
He insists he didn’t mean to suggest that “waitresses/bartenders should … have to be people’s therapists” — I’m not quite sure how this denial squares with his bit about “‘problem listener’ hostesses” who would basically be serving as therapists. He also declares that everyone at his new, improved Hooters “should be paid a living wage” — despite his demand that the restaurants also be ‘”SUPER CHEAP.” Oh, and he also thinks “Hooters should be more body-inclusive” even though his reference to “smart and pretty” waitresses in his original tweets made clear that he thinks looks should play a big part in the company’s hiring decisions.
But Hovis’ original tweets are much more, well, revealing than his somewhat less-that-altogether-convincing “clarifications.” And that’s because his original tweets reflect something about our society’s insidious tendency to dump emotional labor onto women, and to demand that women do this labor largely for free.
Many if not most of us could benefit from having someone listen to our problems. But this responsibility shouldn’t be foisted off on hostesses working for a casual dining chain famous for its skimpy outfits. Nor should it be foisted on wives or girlfriends. People should be able to get the therapy they need from actual therapists, well-trained professionals paid for their expertise. And, like Hovis’ imaginary improved Hooters, this service should be “SUPER CHEAP” if not free, with costs subsidized by a beefed-up health insurance system based on Single-Payer or Medicare for All (as should the rest of our medical expenses).
And if after all this you still want some hot wigs, well, there are better places to get them from than Hooters.
This is why computers and other devices should have built in hands that extend out and slap people when they’re about to write something significantly wrong-headed.
I almost feel sorry for this guy for the supreme dunking he’s received for his tweets. It’s hard to even get mad at him, his ‘thoughts’ are just so cringe-inducing and embarrassing.
But yeah, in an ideal world, we would all have people who supported us and listened to us, plus access to quality, professional therapy if it was needed. As for emotional labour, oof. At work, caring about students is a big part of what I do, and it can have incredible results, as people find their confidence and start to thrive. But in both personal and professional contexts, the question of “am I giving too much?” or “am I not giving enough?” is a constant anxiety.
On a far more silly level, please no-one ask for the typo in the last line to be corrected; I’m very fond of it 🙂
Some MGTOWs complain about having to function as “emotional tampons” for emotionally needy (according to the MGTOWs) women. Now, this dude here wants women who already work as waitresses to be extremely underpaid / unpaid therapists, AKA “emotional tampons”.
I’ve held numerous customer service jobs. One of the worst things about these jobs, overall, was people using me as a captive, unpaid sounding board / therapist. Now, I’m not what’s known as a “people person”, and the emotional labor I was obliged to perform tended to deplete my energy more than anything else. I’m certain many of the customers who used me in this way were quite aware of what they were doing.
One other thing about Hooters waitresses: They’re required to wear full makeup and have their hair styled, not just thrown into a ponytail. I’ve noticed the few I’ve seen off-work also have their nails manicured. I don’t know if it’s required of them, though. All these grooming requirements take time and *money*.
The one and only time I ever ate at a Hooters was when a friend of mine and I were waiting for a movie to start. We hadn’t seen each other for a while after having been room/housemates for five years so we talked to each other and completely ignored the fact that there were busty waitresses around.
Early 2006. I had won two tickets to an early screening of V for Vendetta. My friend was the only one in our group of friends interested in seeing it. Probably because he was the only one in our group who was still local and not in a serious relationship or married (my one extra ticket could not cover a couple).
I do not remember the food. Which means it was acceptable enough, neither noticeably good or bad. I don’t really remember the waitresses.
I used to really enjoy this blog. Not only was it roasting people who well deserved it, but it did it in a smart, funny way that made a good, intelligent points.
I’m guessing it’s a lot harder to find appropriate targets these days, things have shifted a bit. Personally, and perhaps this is just me, but it feels like lately the posts are about assumptions of the people being discussed, rather than what the they actually said. And the roasting just comes off as angry and heckling for the sake of it, rather than to drive a point home.
But what bothers me most is that the people you’re targeting are edge cases. They clearly have problematic attitudes, but they also have redeeming qualities that deserve to be highlighted as well. By just roasting them you’re just highlighting the divide for entertainment purposes, which I feel feeds into the more toxic elements of feminism. And I doubt the people in question will actually read it, but the attitude isn’t a helpful one to promote.
God. It’s bad enough dudebros trawl around the internet foisting debates on women who didn’t express interest in debating anyone. Now they want to do it at restaurants too? Ick.
I’m not really clear on how this plan is supposed to work either. Servers tend to be working multiple tables at once and unless the place is dead are kept busy merely serving the food and drinks. How are they supposed to have time to debate or provide therapy to the customers too? There would have to be one server for every customer. This would cost the restaurant a whole lot of money and would definitely prevent the experience from being low cost. I’m not an expert on geisha houses by any means, but I’m pretty sure that the clients are wealthier men and there’s a reason for that. Wanting this kind of skilled and individualized attention for the cost of a fast food meal is entitled on a level that is just mind boggling.
On top of everything else wrong with this dude’s proposal, this system would all but guarantee that the hostesses at MasterdeBaters would be harassed by customers who expect the hostesses would be blown away by their Superior Intellect and definitely want to date them.
I mean, it’s not like women in customer service positions aren’t ALREADY propositioned by creepy assholes who think that a woman being nice to them as required by her job means she’s seconds away from jumping on his dick. But I’m sure that the proposed system would just make things worse, given the types of dudes who would be attracted to the setup in the first place, and the fact that dudes seem to assume that emotional labor is something that is only provided by a wife/girlfriend.
@wwth
It would be much more expensive, for sure. Anecdata time: I once worked at a gentlemen’s club – waitresses in lingerie, each assigned to ‘serve’ a specific table, the whole deal. We had to light their cigarettes for them, chat to them, pour their drinks, etc. That place was incredibly pricey. Not that we saw much of the money, obv.
I am a little ashamed to admit that I was sucked in by this man’s proposal briefly. To one raised as a lower-middle-class, white, heterosexual male, (as I was,) it seems superficially good for all involved. This is why it is important for white heterosexual men (and for all people, really, but for white heterosexual men especially) to read and listen to the experiences and opinions of people of other demographics: because their privileged position in society hides them from them, as the walls of a castle hide its lord from the outside.
This reminded me, Fox news says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a coward for refusing to debate Mr. Logical, Ben Shapiro. Apparently, when running for political office you must debate anyone who asks you, no matter how underqualified or irrelevant they are. Of course, if you’re a woman you must also be all things to all men at all times.
Just move to Japan. Plenty of hostess clubs have this exact business model. You just need to buy alcohol by the bottle, at the club rate. This may exceed the “be cheap” requirement though.
Since everything else seems to be covered by other commentary, lemme just point out that “millennials are killing boobs” is further than even I thought that stupid trend would go >_>
Who on earth would possibly think that a “debate” between a waitress, one of the least well-paid positions in a restaurant, and a customer, the chief source of income that keeps said restaurant in operation is even remotely close to a good idea? That’s like asking the entry-level data entry clerks to “debate” the company stockholders in order to maintain their job. That’s not a debate, that’s ego-stroking.
And on top of all that now we’re going to say that the purely emotional satisfaction of the customer is part of the package? It’s already difficult enough to satisfy ornery customers when they have to objectively prove that a service or product doesn’t meet their needs but now we’re just going to give them free reign to just say “I don’t feel satisfied” with no justification? Why not just give every person who enters the restaurant a little slip of paper with checkboxes that says “Server: Fire/Keep”.
And ON TOP of all that, opening the doors wide open to debate the staff, well, people who have a burning desire to “debate” with random
conventionally attractive womenstrangers about anything at all are usually people with a chip on their shoulder and not very level-headed. Not the kind of people who should have power over another person’s means to live.Even IF we just totally ignore the harassment H-bomb that this theoretical establishment would become, it would self-implode worse than a bastard child of Enron from bad reviews alone. It’s guaranteed to get bad reviews because it’s literally targets a demographic of ill-tempered, immature men.
Seriously, who on earth would even think up an idea like th-
Oh.
Game developer.
Yup.
That’s exactly the kind of fantastical “business” idea that I imagine a white male yuppie programmer to think up.
Henceforth, Hooters shall be known as Sea Lions.
I’m trying to imagine how this would work on a date. Would their dining companion be off the hook for providing a “Feminism Is Cancer” rebuttal, or would these supreme gentlemen carry on two debates at once?
@Laughter at Bigots
Make that the two of us, friend. Though the OP isn’t quite on the incel/MGTOW/Redpiller end of the misogyny spectrum, his proposal was pretty brogressive, and that in itself is deserving of correction.
Not to mention that most of the replies in this thread have automatically (and probably correctly) assumed that it would be the men who shade closer to incel who would visit Hooters in the first place…
(Tangent: Is it considered tone-policing to feel that the dunking the OP got was disproportionate?)
I wouldn’t call it tone policing, but I’ve got to disagree with you. I think that the reason we get to a place in which so many men are violently misogynistic is because casual misogyny is just so normalized. And we let it slide. All the time. I’m glad this stuff is getting called out more. We need the opinion that women exist to serve men do become socially unacceptable. Or else it’s not going to change.
Yeah, pay women peanuts so you can have the pleasure of boring us to death with your silly opinions, dude. That’s even MORE fun than paying us peanuts to let you ogle our boobs. /s
@wwth
I’m all for having casual misogyny being called out (Heaven knows I’m not blameless of it). I’m just wondering if having a thousand people telling the OP specifically (since they’re directly replying to him) the same thing (“your idea is problematic and you should rethink this”) in varying tones of anger and seriousness is really…I’m struggling to find the right word…nice? productive?
(I’m mostly pondering this as an attempt to figure out where my personal line between activism and bullying lies, so apologies if this is getting self-indulgent.)
I’m not sure it’s productive or convincing for him, but it does set an example. Other men might see the fallout from making a boneheaded remark like that and start to think before the opine on what women should be doing for them. Women might see and feel empowered too speak up when a man treats them like they must prioritize men’s feelings over absolutely everything else. The reason there’s such a backlash against “political correctness” is because this stuff works. Not all at once. But eventually.
Of course, if anyone threatened him or harassed him over this, I’m against that.
It could be my own biases though. I’m not by nature a people pleaser. As the trolls we get here could attest to. I resent the fuck out of the expectation that women provide emotional labor to any man who decides she should. It’s a bit of a rage button for me!
Hello.
You think that you think ? Is it some kind of inception ?
Anyway, are you sure you have explored all your cliché list ? And geisha still means “artist” (and it is basically genderless, out of context), even if in occidental minds it is still only associated to sex entertainer women in some kind of traditionnal japanese outfit (and as research motors bring those stereotypes first when you do a request on this word, this is not going to change quickly).
Game developper, ha ? Well, would you be happy if someone engage you in a debate while you are crunching to meet the deadline of your videogame production (and being paid almost nothing for the code you piss) ?
Well, after thinking that you are thinking, i am suggesting that you debate you debatting with yourself. You would be able to pay yourself with peanuts, and you would be able to debate with someone with the same level of smartness ! Total win !
Have a nice day.
@NotTom
I think “brogressives” have always been considered ‘acceptable targets’ by this blog. The comments section, at least, doesn’t care for them.
While I believe that some of the negative assumptions about the OP are unwarranted (I don’t think he’s gone Redpill, for example), and I’m still uncomfortable about the tendency of Twitter to become a dog-pile, no one deserves to get a free pass from criticism just because they’re mostly in the right.
The more salient point of this post was not about OP’s statements, but rather to point out the fact that his statements contained embedded in them the expectation put on women to do emotional labor for free (or as a side job) for any man who asks. This is, by its sheer pervasiveness, quite an important attitude to correct. What’s more, passively accepting it as a thing gives cover to more overtly misogynist talking points (e.g. “women are more suited to nurturing roles”).
Ehh, the fact that OP kept digging instead of saying “I was wrong, I apologize, and I will do better next time” gives me pause about exactly how much of the roasting (on this blog, at least) was unwarranted.
I don’t quite see a general trend in recent posts of targeting “edge cases” (i.e. people with problematic attitudes but redeeming qualities).
Recent posts (from oldest to newest) have been about
– rape advocates,
– Literal Nazi Andrew Anglin,
– Jordan Peterson,
– some incel who doesn’t know how cattle-farming works,
– some Reddit fat-shaming edgelord,
an evo-psych journal with alarmingly shoddy research,
– Macho Trump memers,
– Jordan Peterson (again),
– Qanon believers,
– some Reddit dom getting self-owned by an IQ test, and
– Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort.
Pretty edgy (I make no apologies for that pun), but I don’t see anyone with “redeeming qualities” in that rogues’ gallery.
If anyone has, as their main takeaway from this post, that it is permissible to try to get their knives into this guy, they are simply terrible people who would be given no quarter on this site. I believe the readers of this blog are more sober-headed than that.
@NotTom:
Are you effin’ kidding? The Trump regime has created the ultimate target-rich environment. 😛
Quite the opposite. I could do ten posts a day based on horrible stuff on incels.me alone. I don’t because that would be too fucking depressing. And also because ten posts a day is rather a lot of posts.
@NotTom:
I have seen a slight shift in tone in the past year or so,
but its gone from “these people have hilariously bad arguments and logic” to “these people are actual terrorists and an active threat to the life and safety of others”.
Considering the real world raise of violent extremism seen in incels and other groups David has started to go from comedy writer to legit journalist and (probably) the worlds foremost expert on incel radicalization and violence.
@TreePerson
Things David Futrelle is not an expert in:
1. Terrorism
2. Incel Violence
3. Men’s Rights
4. Economics
5. Really anything requiring a level of cognitive functioning that might go beyond that needed to pass the 5th grade with a C average.
Things David IS an expert:
1. Stuffing his face with moon pies
2. Rolling over on his back for women who wouldn’t even touch him, let alone rub his belly for being such a good boy.