• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hooters - should this teacher be suspended for this?

Was it correct to suspend this teacher for taking the students to "Hooters" restauran

  • Total voters
    81
I used to go to a topless hairdressers called Franks
 
Frodly said:
My high school football coach used to take us to hooters!! He thought hooters was like a 5 star restaurant!! :lol: So my answer would be absolutely no!! Though I do wish my high school football coach had been suspended for other reasons, notably because he was a completely **** coach.
Click to expand...

I concur on all counts. :lol:
 
Some people are acting as if these students were taken to a titty bar!
They were not. There is no nudity in Hooters. They serve chicken wings of various flavors.

I just do not see the crime here.
 
spud_meister said:
in the article it didn't actually say whether the parents new the kids were going to hoooters or not
Click to expand...

but what we do know is that the student of the upset parents expressed reservations about going to hooters. he was offered an alternative choice to eat and vetoed that option
 
I say teacher should have been suspended for exercising poor judgment. If the teacher had taken the kids to any other restaurant that did NOT have as its main attraction to objectify women, there would have been no problem, and if there was a hooters there, there were other options available.
 
Vader said:
Some people are acting as if these students were taken to a titty bar!
They were not. There is no nudity in Hooters. They serve chicken wings of various flavors.

I just do not see the crime here.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. She took them to an all ages restaurant...some people just have to over react about everything.
 
disneydude said:
EXACTLY. She took them to an all ages restaurant...some people just have to over react about everything.
Click to expand...

You still miss the point. It's up to parents to determine what is appropriate for their children. As this thread shows, some, for whatever reason, don't find Hooters to be an appropriate place for their kids. While I don't think I would have had a problem if I had been a parent of one of the kids, I also can clearly see that it is a potential problem, and when in doubt, you should err on the side of caution. That is why the teacher showed poor judgment.
 
Redress said:
You still miss the point. It's up to parents to determine what is appropriate for their children. As this thread shows, some, for whatever reason, don't find Hooters to be an appropriate place for their kids. While I don't think I would have had a problem if I had been a parent of one of the kids, I also can clearly see that it is a potential problem, and when in doubt, you should err on the side of caution. That is why the teacher showed poor judgment.
Click to expand...
oh my gosh, their kids got to see attractive women...attractive women with breasts even!!:shock: oh the humanity!!:mrgreen:
 
randel said:
oh my gosh, their kids got to see attractive women...attractive women with breasts even!!:shock: oh the humanity!!:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Thank you for still missing the point, and suggesting I am saying something entirely different from what I did say.
 
Redress said:
Thank you for still missing the point, and suggesting I am saying something entirely different from what I did say.
Click to expand...
nope, i don't believe that i missed the point...and i suggested nothing about what you were trying to say...i find it rather amusing that some would get their britches in a bunch over this...its not like the kids were taken to the local nudie club for the all you can eat buffet and the daily 4beers for 10 bucks...
 
randel said:
nope, i don't believe that i missed the point...and i suggested nothing about what you were trying to say...i find it rather amusing that some would get their britches in a bunch over this...its not like the kids were taken to the local nudie club for the all you can eat buffet and the daily 4beers for 10 bucks...
Click to expand...

But that's the point, it's their right to get their britches in a bunch over what their kids are exposed to. You and I may think it's stupid, but neither of us has the right to tell them how to raise their kids.
 
Redress said:
But that's the point, it's their right to get their britches in a bunch over what their kids are exposed to. You and I may think it's stupid, but neither of us has the right to tell them how to raise their kids.
Click to expand...
and its my right to think that they are being a bit anal retentive about it....honestly , what were they exposed to?? girls in white tops and orange shorts :doh:shock: and oh my gosh, what if they happened to be somewhat attractive....:shock:
 
I don't see what the big deal is. They see far more racy things on TV and movies everyday.
 
Ethereal said:
I don't see what the big deal is. They see far more racy things on TV and movies everyday.
Click to expand...
exactly....they can see much more on the ol' tv
 
randel said:
nope, i don't believe that i missed the point...and i suggested nothing about what you were trying to say...i find it rather amusing that some would get their britches in a bunch over this...its not like the kids were taken to the local nudie club for the all you can eat buffet and the daily 4beers for 10 bucks...
Click to expand...

It's also not like a school teacher couldn't find a restaurant that does not simply objectify women, to take his underage charges to for a meal.

Here is what the Hooters employee manual says about the restaurant:

An older version of the Hooters Employee Handbook (prior to October 2006), published in the The Smoking Gun reads:[15] which notes that:

Customers can go to many places for wings and beer, but it is our Hooters Girls who make our concept unique. Hooters offers its customers the look of the "All American Cheerleader, Surfer, Girl Next Door."

Female employees are required to sign that they "acknowledge and affirm" the following:

1. My job duties require I wear the designated Hooters Girl uniform.
2. My job duties require that I interact with and entertain the customers.
3. The Hooters concept is based on female sex appeal and the work environment is one in which joking and entertaining conversations are commonplace.
Click to expand...
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooters]Hooters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

No, teachers should not be taking underage kids to a restaurant where sex appeal of the waitresses IS the concept of the business, if there are more appropriate places available, and in this case there always are more appropriate places. I'm not saying lock the teacher up, teacher committed no crime, but teacher exercised poor judgment.
 
Ethereal said:
I don't see what the big deal is. They see far more racy things on TV and movies everyday.
Click to expand...

Some people like to apply their morality and perceptions on everyone else when they feel they've been wronged in one twisted way or another.
 
finebead said:
It's also not like a school teacher couldn't find a restaurant that does not simply objectify women,
Click to expand...

:lol: Those women objectify themselves, and then ugly b*tches complain about it.

finebead said:
to take his underage charges to for a meal.
Click to expand...

So there's an age limit on viewing sexually appealing women??? :shock:
 
finebead said:
It's also not like a school teacher couldn't find a restaurant that does not simply objectify women, to take his underage charges to for a meal.

Here is what the Hooters employee manual says about the restaurant:


Hooters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, teachers should not be taking underage kids to a restaurant where sex appeal of the waitresses IS the concept of the business, if there are more appropriate places available, and in this case there always are more appropriate places. I'm not saying lock the teacher up, teacher committed no crime, but teacher exercised poor judgment.
Click to expand...
they were exposed to the girl next door?? i have to ask, what is wrong with that?? kids can and do see much worse on tv....mtv and all the "reality" shows they have, music videos with scantily(sometimes alot less than a hooters girl uni) clad women, several prime time shows.......again, they seen some nice looking girls ...what is the problem??
 
randel said:
they were exposed to the girl next door?? i have to ask, what is wrong with that?? kids can and do see much worse on tv....mtv and all the "reality" shows they have, music videos with scantily(sometimes alot less than a hooters girl uni) clad women, several prime time shows.......again, they seen some nice looking girls ...what is the problem??
Click to expand...

What's wrong with that is a parent objected. Just because the same thing is on TV has nothing to do with it. Does this parent control TV viewing as well? We don't know but it is possible. Again it is a parents right and to my mind duty to determine what is and is not appropriate for their children.
 
finebead said:
It's also not like a school teacher couldn't find a restaurant that does not simply objectify women, to take his underage charges to for a meal.

Here is what the Hooters employee manual says about the restaurant:


Hooters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, teachers should not be taking underage kids to a restaurant where sex appeal of the waitresses IS the concept of the business, if there are more appropriate places available, and in this case there always are more appropriate places. I'm not saying lock the teacher up, teacher committed no crime, but teacher exercised poor judgment.
Click to expand...

Yea, God forbid we admit that "underage" people have sexual feelings. It's best to pretend they don't exist and repress natural, healthy feelings.

Newsflash! Girls have boobs and high school boys like them. GET OVER IT!
 
Redress said:
What's wrong with that is a parent objected. Just because the same thing is on TV has nothing to do with it. Does this parent control TV viewing as well? We don't know but it is possible. Again it is a parents right and to my mind duty to determine what is and is not appropriate for their children.
Click to expand...
so fine...a parent objected...was it worth a suspension for the teacher? i think not. i just think this is wayyyyyyy overblown.
 
randel said:
so fine...a parent objected...was it worth a suspension for the teacher? i think not. i just think this is wayyyyyyy overblown.
Click to expand...

The reason for the suspension is it was poor judgment on the part of the teacher. There are plenty of places that the teacher could have taken the kids that where much less likely to result in a parental complaint.
 
EpicDude86 said:
:lol: Those women objectify themselves, and then ugly b*tches complain about it.
Click to expand...
Nothing in this thread has been mentioned about the women complaining about their job. This is about a teacher taking school kids to Hooters.


So there's an age limit on viewing sexually appealing women??? :shock:
Click to expand...

There is a responsibility on the part of the school to only participate in wholesome activities for the kids that attend them, to assist in raising respectful and well balanced citizens. Bringing high schoolers to a business establishment whose own employee manual stated the concept is based on SEX APPEAL is unwise, and totally unnecessary. Other choices were available and should have been exercised. Whatever happens outside the school environment the school cannot control, but it can and MUST control those decisions under its control. The school did its duty well!
 
Redress said:
The reason for the suspension is it was poor judgment on the part of the teacher. There are plenty of places that the teacher could have taken the kids that where much less likely to result in a parental complaint.
Click to expand...
sure, the teacher could have taken them somewhere else...odds are that there might have been a couple of attractive women at this restaurant as well....is the teacher still guilty in your opinion of 'poor judgement' if she fed these kids in that restaurant as well??
 
finebead said:
Nothing in this thread has been mentioned about the women complaining about their job. This is about a teacher taking school kids to Hooters.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, allow me to dumb down my post since it seems to have slipped past you:

The women who apply, of their own free will, to Hooters are objectifying themselves, of their own free will, when agreeing to work there. Thus, Hot women who get these jobs at Hooters enrage ugly women who do not work at Hooters and who could not get work at Hooters, and they then complain that Hooters objectifies women.

capice?


finebead said:
There is a responsibility on the part of the school to only participate in wholesome activities for the kids that attend them, to assist in raising respectful and well balanced citizens. Bringing high schoolers to a business establishment whose own employee manual stated the concept is based on SEX APPEAL is unwise, and totally unnecessary. Other choices were available and should have been exercised. Whatever happens outside the school environment the school cannot control, but it can and MUST control those decisions under its control. The school did its duty well!
Click to expand...

I wonder, there was talk of the kids being asked their opinion. And while I know the teacher is the "responsible adult" if the kids wanted to go then good on them. It's not like the teacher forced them to go to Hooters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom