for a world free of sexploitation
AFL withdraws from Under 16's sponsorship deal with Hooters
A few weeks ago it was revealed that Hooters, a restaurant chain in which the waitresses are required to wear skimpy clothing and stay very thin or lose their job, had entered into a sponsorship deal with an under 16’s AFL football team on the Gold Coast. The deal comprised money and two Hooters Girls to cheer them on at all their games. Under community pressure, the AFL have since forced the club to withdraw from the deal.
"I hereby acknowledge...the work
environment is one in which joking
and innuendo based on female sex
appeal is commonplace."
From a Hooter's Employee Handbook revealed in 2006. Female employees are required to sign this statement. In any other work environment, this is known as sexual harassment.
For those unfamiliar with the Hooters brand, it is all about the waitresses in their tight tops and tiny shorts, Hooters being a euphemism for breasts. Hooters advertise themselves as a ‘family’ restaurant. Yep! Ogling breasts, objectifying women, that’s something families like to do together right?
Apparently it’s something that footballers like to do together too, with disastrous consequences for women. You would think that the AFL would try and do more to promote respect for women after incidents including harassment, rape and now a 16 year old girl pregnant after meeting two St Kilda AFL players at a high school football clinic. Do we really need another generation of young footballers who don't know how to treat women?
Ultimately they did pull out of the Hooters deal, citing a policy of promoting women’s equality, however they seemed reluctant to do so. Only after AFL Qld consulted with AFL Australia and the State Government did they recommend the deal be stopped. It is baffling that this decision was made in the first place, think about it - Hooters and 15 year old boys? By law, these are children we are talking about. This sponsorship arrangement reinforces sexist stereotypes, that women's involvement in sport is as decorative objects; that as sportsmen they are entitled to have scantily dressed women bouncing around them to entertain and provide them pleasure.
Melinda Tankard Reist wrote about this on her blog and appeared on Sunrise to discuss the issue when it first hit the media. It seems bizarre that Melinda needed to explain what was wrong with this arrangement. Objectification of women has become so normalized, many people are blind to it or have just given in. Hooters' fanclub has come out in full force, some of the letters to Sunrise were supportive of the arrangement. Someone said “my daughter works there and I can say that most of them don’t have very big breasts at all.” Another supporter said, “my son’s girlfriend wears less clothes than that.”
These criticisms of course, miss the point entirely. It is not about the size of the women’s breasts, or what other women might choose to wear. It is about the fact that these women are required to wear tight, skimpy clothing to draw attention to their bodies in the work place and as the name Hooters implies, specifically their breasts. In any other work environment, we would call it what it is: sexism and discrimination. Young footballers need to learn that women are more than their bodies and do not exist to satisfy their sexual needs. The collaboration of Hooters and an under 16's football team undermines this important message.
Would they get away with the ‘family restaurant’ label, or the under 16’s team sponsorship if they called themselves “Breasts” or “Tits” family restaurant? Lets get real here.
It is important to continue to highlight and challenge the ways in which women are objectified and the ways in which children are sexualised. In this case, the community has been effective speaking out about both. Lets keep it up.
Collective Shout continues to mobilise those concerned about the objectification of women and sexualisation of girls to speak out about these practices. If you haven't already done so, sign up today and encourage your friends to do the same.
Comment
-
Comment by Sophie on June 3, 2010 at 11:39pm -
Its begs belief that "families" actually eat at a restaurant called "Hooters". How do you explain it to your kids?
Anyway, whilst it's great news that the football club reversed it's tragic decision, it is bizarre that it was made in the first place. And they wonder why so many footballers hold a perversely sexual view of woman, and see themselves as little gods that can get whatever they want, just because they can run fast and catch a ball.
-
Comment by Michael on May 26, 2010 at 11:02pm -
Well done Queensland AFL for pulling the plug on the Broadbeach Cats’ sponsorship deal with Hooters. The club’s decision was not only a bad one for the players but a real ‘kick in the teeth’ to anyone trying to change the underbelly of football culture and the raising of boys to respect women. When are we going to wake up and see the connection between the objectification of women and men treating women badly?
© 2012 Created by Collective Shout.
You need to be a member of Collective Shout to add comments!
Join Collective Shout