Ugh indeed.  

I am always interested in the power/use of social inversion - like Generals serving the food to the Privates on Christmas day etc.  They are great teaching tools and can help people see the world in a different way (like the suggestion in the previous post about Stiller/Murphy in their new movie and the reviewers description of their 'styles' to inverse the names to see how racist it is).

The thing I find most offensive about this (and the countless other examples) is that it is such a shameless and overt attempt to divide people who might otherwise realize they have something in common.  Not to get all 'we need a proletarian revolution' (I think we do) but these types of divisions do serve to keep people alienated from one another, unable to see their similarities, constantly comparing themselves to others based on irrelevant criteria, and eliminating even the prospect of social solidarity (and hence social change).  A house divided, divide and conquer and all that... 

That is why I think the rhetoric around the 99% is so powerful: short, tall, skinny, fat, bald, etc. etc. you ARE the 99%.  The real problem, as the simplified numerical representation of the relationship of class bemoans, is the division of wealth in society - not height.  

"The first video is able to squeeze [...] homophobia into one commercial spot."

Where are you getting the homophobia from? The white guy says "he IS kinda cute" and the black guy raises his eyebrows in an "...ooookay" expression, but that's the extent of it. That seems more to me like a lack of a reaction than blatant homophobia, which is a surprise given that the people involved are men (and it's more common to react strongly and negatively to male homosexuality in American culture than to female homosexuality). Perhaps I just have low expectations for ads, but to me a lack of a real response to homosexual comments illustrates acceptance or indifference, not homophobia.

"and you still think shallow women are to blame for heightism?"

I assume you mean "...are solely to blame" in the context of the first sentence of this paragraph?

So *that's* what happened to a couple of the Hooter's restaurants here in Austin?  (At least 2 have gone out of business.) I guess the shrimp wasn't the big seller this past summer that they were expecting.

Unfortunately, the Hooter's near my house was replaced this nonsense: http://brickhousetavernandtap.com/gallery/

I love that the first video pretty shamelessly decapitates all the waitresses.  What a classic device.  I have always seen Hooters as a tacky and sexist institution but I haven't encountered many of their commercials.  The advertisers failed to disappoint here.

"From the people who brought you greasy chicken wings, overpriced beer, and casual sexism while you wait."
No argument on the sexism, but "greasy wings" and "overpriced beer"? I don't think you know what you're talking about there. "Crappy beer and overpriced wings" more like it.

I think this commentary is a little more racialized than necessary.  I'm also not sure how I feel on the homophobia comments.  Watching the commercial, it could go either way

My boyfriend is downright petite and I think he's gorgeous. It breaks my heart to hear him talk about feeling inadequate when he tells me every day that *my* body is perfect just the way it is.

> So here we have ads targeted at a male audience which
attempt to humiliate short men through comedic effect for the purpose of
highlighting their low grade frozen seafood and sophomoric titillation –
and you still think shallow women are to blame for heightism?

I don't see what the purpose of this statement is, other than to straw-man an argument that women contribute to heightism. I think it also inaccurately implies that men are solely responsible for heightism when that's not true either. It turns heightism into an issue which lends too much credit to one gender's contribution to the sociological reality of gender roles at worst, and at best it frames gender argumentation in the context of "it's the fault of women" vs. "it's the fault of men".

But if you want to see examples of shallow women who cut down short men, you don't have to look very far: http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/community/forums/thread/1378498

Aw, Geoff, why do you describe your employers as merely "a mid-sized corporate law firm"? Don't judge them on their size, dude. They're just as big as they feel they are!

For most brands, an ad like this would justly be a disaster. But Hooter's is a special case, for reasons that make me suspect this was a far more calculated marketing strategy than Mr Arnold gives them credit for.

The thing is, the Hooters brand has always flaunted its reactionary political incorrectness. It fully identifies itself not just with a particular aesthetic of sexism, but also with the entire idea that it is fundamentally not inclusive. Things that are considered crude and retrograde in society at large (i.e. ogling service staff, or hiring them on the basis of their cup size) are encouraged at Hooters, and that is the sole feature of their brand that distinguishes them from the competition.

But that presents a challenge to advertisers looking at the numbers and realizing that the base demographic (working-class heterosexual white men) is a decreasing share of the population, with shrinking disposable income, and an ever increasing range of alternative dining options. So the ads had to find a way to maintain the brand's crude, un-PC image while also expanding their base by appearing ethnically diverse, inclusive of female customers, and acceptable to a more "upscale" clientele (hence the actors in business attire).

The solution? Find another group to objectify in a crude and juvenile way, one that tends to be the target of mockery across the lines of race, class, age, and gender. They could've chosen fat people, but that's an unwise image to pair with greasy fattening food. They could've chosen people with disabilities, but mainstream audiences are increasingly uncomfortable with that kind of humor. So...they went for short people. In a sick way, it actually makes perfect sense.

(I hope nobody construes this as a defense of Hooters, as I am most definitely not among their fans)

Couldn't the message really be that where as short and tall are usually equal, this summer short is better than tall? This is still heightism, but not in the ways discussed in the post.

There doesn't really seem to be a negative connotation to being short at all. In the first commercial, the "shrimp" is made to look like he is seated. Everyone is confused because he looks average, just like they do, but he is getting all of the attention. When it is revealed that he is very short, it becomes obvious that he is in fashion.

Same with the second video: no one says short is bad, all they say is short is something to be envious of. It is humorous that the average looking short guy is "winning" when all the well dressed celebrities are loosing.

I just don't see "blatantly playing off of the societal notion that short men have very little social worth" in either of these videos. They were very carefully constructed as to not offend short people.

The only thing that kind of bothers me is that the actor chosen looks like a tall guy without legs (made short using special effects), where as there are short people out there that weren't chosen for the role because of their stature. Admittedly it may have ruined the desired effect of fooling you in the first commercial. Plus, because it is so fake, real short people are less likely to be offended.

Didn't notice if anyone commented on it so sorry if a rehashing.... But did anyone else find it interesting that they seem to have used a male actor who was likely within the average height range of men and not an actual little person? Beyond their bigoted commercial message, why not hire an actual short person?

Maybe little people who are actors don't like being mocked so horribly and used as the butt of some stupid ass joke/advertisement?

The whole thing is reprehensible. Never been in a Hooters, never plan to. 

I am short myself (5'1") and I even found these ads flattering. Besides, it is all humor guys come on! Even me at my height would love being next to a couple of sexy tall women. Now, the usage of shrimp might be offending but it goes well with the ad. Unlike all those other commercials that actually tend to offend or put down short men, this one flatters me.