Talk:Hooters/Archives/2020

External links

Can someone look at trimming the "External links". Any that can should be incorporated into the article because eight is in the territory of link farming. Otr500 (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC) .................................................................... Regarding "objectification," it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a section in the article discussing radical militant feminist objections (which are rampant online) to voluntary, consensual, adult behavior among executives, customers, and female employees at Hooters. Secondly, the article should discuss whether Hooters' bona fide occupational qualification defense to sex discrimination lawsuits brought by male plaintiffs has ever been accepted by a judge in a court case where the case went to trial. Thirdly, in the interesting "Employee handbook requirements" section, the article should discuss whether the requirements were dropped in a subsequent handbook, because the handbook under discussion in the article is described as an "older version." If the requirements were dropped, what replaced them?184.180.87.188 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC) ............................................... After I posted the above comment to this talk page, someone apparently butchered the article by entirely removing its discussion of "reverse" sex discrimination lawsuits against Hooters. Please restore this discussion, which was, after all, the most interesting part of the article. Also removed were the discussions of the (1) bona fide occupational qualification defense to sex discrimination lawsuits, and (2) the "Employee handbook requirements" section. Please restore these. It looks like someone from the company didn't want to give the male public any ideas for future lawsuits against Hooters.184.180.87.188 (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

This seems a valid concern. Many of the links or article content seem valid - for example the ELs to Breastaurant and Bikini barista at the very least are related content. S0091, as per 184.180.87.188 why are these considered undue weight? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)