The “Image Standard” At Hooters: Small, Extra Small, Double-Extra Small
Hooters is making headlines because a 5’8″, 132 pound server was told, during her performance review, to lose weight. It was the “uniform evaluation” portion of the performance review, which is presumably when they critique your body and then threaten to fire you. Lovely.
[She was told] she would be given a free gym membership and had 30 days to improve, and if she did not, she would be separated from the company. The company’s uniforms are offered in small, extra small and double-extra small.
Says Hooters:
“Our practice of upholding an image standard based on appearance, attitude and fitness for Hooters girls is both legal and fair. It is not unlike the standard used by the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders or the Radio City Music Hall Rockettes.”
I’m not even sure what, as a feminist, to think about Hooters qua Hooters. That level of objectification of women is just gross, but do women know what they’re signing up for when they choose to work there? Is this story only a story because the woman is clearly not overweight? What if she were? Or are you like Michael Scott and my friends Carrie and Brian, who love the hot wings? What do you guys think?
Via @RevoltRealWomen on Twitter.
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: Feminism, Food, The Office
Email us
There are other places that serve hot wings without the side order of objectification.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for her. Hooters discriminates based on weight, period. I understand why this is interesting from a culture standpoint, as our standards are so f’d that a woman of her proportions is deemed unfit to serve wings in tiny shorts, but why is it different, from a legal standpoint, when they discriminate against someone who is 132 vs 232? Maybe she was complaining about this company all along, but benefiting from it and then speaking up only when the arbitrary discrimination standards suddenly apply to her? It rubs me the wrong way.
5’8″, 132lbs is a BMI of 20.1, well under the official “overweight” cutoff of 25.
I wouldn’t want to work at Hooters anyway, but I do assume they’re basing their determination on looks not BMI.
It’s gross, sure, but you know what you’re getting into when you apply to work at Hooters.
I LOVE that they tried to compare serving wings in tiny shorts to being a Rockette or a professional cheerleader, like that would make the whole thing more wholesome. Both gross and hilarious.
Of course she knew what she was signing up for. It’s very clearly stated in the employee manual (which you can find by googling).
I wrote a light-hearted little critique when Hooters opened up in our Montana town a few years ago. The girls were, as promised, cute and sweet; the food was mediocre; and the general premise is kind of distasteful, but hey, this is America.
Boy, you should see the anti-feminist freakout in the comments, though. The spittle was flying!
http://www.newwest.net/city/article/hooters_in_missoula_when_more_than_a_mouthful_still_isnt_quite_enough/C8/L8/
Yeah, I mean I think it’s a given that Hooters discriminates based on appearance and honestly I’m not even going to go there when questioning the legality of it. Modeling does the same thing, professional cheerleaders do the same thing, strip clubs do the same thing… it’s just par for the course in the world of objectification.
You get what you sign up for. I 100% believe it’s only in the news because the girl clearly isn’t overweight- if it were a truly fat girl, then no one would care. There would probably be laughter “Who wants to see a fat girl in little orange shorts?”
So, I have a little sympathy for this girl, but at the same time, she knew what she was getting into when she started working there and signed whatever contract they make them sign. And while I think comparing themselves to the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders is a bit rich, it’s the same thing fundamentally: you keep the body or you’re out. Period.
I am so glad we don’t have Hooters in Australia. It’s disgusting.
I’m not really sure why this would be making headlines though, considering it’s well established they are 100% focused on looks here. Is this girl really surprised? Do they really think it’s worse that they’re discriminating on something small rather than something large (pardon the pun). It doesn’t make it any less wrong though.
If this poor woman was working at say Applebees or T.G.I Friday’s I would be quite indignant. As it is, I have the barest of sympathies. Hooters is really only known for two things: wings and the appearance of their female staff. How Hooters has made such discrimination legal is beyond me, but the fact of the matter is anyone applying to work there should know the deal.
And maybe it is a bit presumptuous to compare themselves to DCC, but it is a similar deal. The DCC is all about appearances and girls have been cut for having the smallest ounce of extra fat.
The only reason this story got press was because this woman is clearly not overweight. It puts Hooters in a bad light and allows readers to go “Oh gosh! Isn’t that horrible!”. But if the woman was 100 lbs heavier this wouldn’t be news at all, for most people would either take Hooters side or just not even care.
I worked at a local greenhouse for a summer, long story, and remember when the guys all talked about their trip to Hooters for lunch or something. I lost total respect for all of them. Course that may have been because every one of them I had also gone to church with… ick.
Did no one else find the regional manager hysterical? I’d LOVE to see Hooters give HIM the same 30 day gym membership–and listen to the screams.
This makes me sick.
The reason I am sickened is that high profile companies pursue actions that so clearly promote fat fear, which in my mind is synonymous to fear-of-women-in-our-natural-state. Rules like this are another way of diminishing women and telling them to take up less space lest they be considered “unacceptable”.
Further, the fact that the weight this woman is at based on her height is so bloody thin makes me even angrier. Policies like this promote eating disorders, just sayin.
I don’t think this could happen in Canada where I am from. I hope not anyways! There are pretty strict laws against this in our charter of rights and freedoms. This kind of thing does still happen I am sure, but it’s much more subtle and no one would overtly come out and say “lose weight”.
You might want to inform your friends that their wings are actually terrible.
I say this as someone who grew up in Buffalo, where we take our wings seriously.
Michigan is the only US state with a law against weight discrimination. Weight discrimination is not included in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor is it against the law in any of the provinces. I’m from Michigan and I work for a provincial government in Canada, BTW.
Also, there’s a Hooters in Toronto’s entertainment district.
Going to Hooters for the wings? Isn’t that like “I only read PLAYBOY for the articles”????
Hey I am 5 8″ and I weight a little more than that …guess I can not be a hooters girl…This is discrimination…There is a site I like that they are talking about this.http://opinion.ezwingame.com/topics/should-hooters-fire-fat-waitresses
I guess I also can’t understand why this is getting press now, considering that the story just seems to be ‘but she’s not even fat!’ The fact that MI bans weight discrimination means that she might have a case (and for a jury, she would def. be a better test case than someone who’s 5’8″ and 260-ish, like me), but that’s not the focus so far.
So – legal brain says that this might be interesting, but sociological brain says that this is just the same-old, same-old when it comes to Hooters.
As for people who go there, I don’t respect that decision, because no wings are good enough to make that type of objectification palatable. I do have a double standard in that I withold judgment for the waitresses – the money can be damn good, and so I see it as being similar to working in a non-unionized strip club. When there are few equivalent job options available, it can be a reasonable choice, even though it’s def. reinforcing many unfortunate cultural norms.
The “But the wings are so good!” argument never sways me. You want good wings, you can go to most bars in America. Hell, it’s likely they will be served to you by conventionally attractive women there, too.
I kinda feel bad for this girl, but not too bad, because I’m sure there’s an Applebee’s or a Famous Dave’s on the same block that would hire her.
I’m going to pull the old “I know a guy who knows a guy” cuz I don’t want to out people I know, but two guys I know went to Hooters in Vegas a few years ago expecting it to be awesome based on all the hoopla and they came back all upset because their waitress was very obviously pregnant and it stuck out of her shirt and she sort of rested her prego belly on the table while she was taking their order. I could NOT stop laughing! Awww did oo remember that the Hooters are attached to real people and it made oo saaad?
Hahaha, Punchy, that’s awesome. “Awww did oo remember that the Hooters are attached to real people and it made oo saaad?”
Hahaha!
First of all, Hooter’s wings suck. Second, Hooters itself sucks and I don’t have much sympathy for her either. What does one expect, working at that place? Nevermind, how ugly and tacky the Hooters uniform is.
First of all, I doubt that this standard is being enforced all around the country. We used to go to a Hooters to watch PPV sports, and several of those girls were either pregnant or looked like they would’ve gotten the same talk as this girl.
I have to say, if you work somewhere in which there is a specific “all the waitresses here are sexy” type of environment, don’t get surprised if this happens. You might find that sexy is in the eye of the beholder – namely your managers.
Lots of commenters are saying they have no sympathy for her, yet she may not exactly have been swimming in job opportunities when she decided to work there. She was 18 years old, presumably just out of high school, and a recession was under way; it seems a little harsh to shame her for taking what work she could get because she “knew what she was getting into”.
Anyway, I like the euphemistic use of “fitness” in the company’s statement. I’m sure they test their waitresses’ resting heart rates and lung capacities when deciding who to hire and fire, right?
Video response on the Hooters extra small issue. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ttgcx_GLN0
Re: Shaming her for working at hooters.
I have no problem with her working at Hooters. I don’t even really have a problem with her wanting to keep her job, or being offended that they think she doesn’t look good enough in the “uniform.” She doesn’t wear the largest size, she may have trouble figuring out WHY if she thinks she looks OK.
However, I do think that she must have had some idea of what was expected from her when she began working there, and if she didn’t, then I’m truly sorry for her, however, I can’t exactly fault Hooters here because, as much as I dislike their policy in general, at least it’s up front and they aren’t giving the illusion that they don’t care what you look like.
My hairdresser used to be a waitress and was fired from Hooters for “gaining too much weight,” her manager’s words. She was warned a few times, but she said the hardest part was not knowing how much was “too much” until she was fired.
I had to go there with friends once (it was not, never has been, never will be anywhere I would pick if given the choice) and I noticed right away that the waitresses were not any more attractive (or thinner) than what you would see at Chili’s or Applebee’s. They were younger but they had a distinctive whiff of skank about them. Several of the female patrons were much more attractive than the short-shorted Hooters girls.