I’m impressed. The editorial in today’s Missoulian, following a less than impressive news story earlier in the week, is an impressive critique of the kind of soft patriarchy that characterizes the Hooters restaurant chain:
The fact is that Hooters is a business that values its female employees first and foremost for their sex appeal.
That’s why we won’t be taking our families there. And why we wouldn’t want our daughters or sons working there. No matter how good the food may be or how many TVs are tuned into sports, we won’t patronize a restaurant that makes its money by objectifying women.
The editorial strikes exactly the right note. Of course, a restaurant like Hooters should be allowed to come to town– it doesn’t break any laws, apparently serves food, and has groups of people willing to both work and eat there.
That being said, I, like the author of the Missoulian editorial, won’t be eating there, precisely because it does degrade women, and frankly, creeps me out. I can only imagine what embarrassing things I would have to say to order food there. Somehow, I get the idea that the people who thought it was clever to name a restaurant after a euphemism for breasts might making ordering chicken incredibly awkward.
In a time when feminism is an even dirtier word than liberal and people who stand up to question sexist institutions are demonized as humorless zealots, it’s refreshing to see the editorial staff of the Missoulian critique the chain’s objectification of women.
Of course, we’ll see how that applies to its advertising policy.