So what, an employer isn't allowed to do away with a position that they don't think is needed anymore?jz11 wrote: ↑02 Feb 2018, 19:14so here is another question, why did you just support the possible reduction freedom of their choice? let me explain - F1 dropped the grid girls, which led to reduced demand for models at model agencies, which will lead to reduced income to the employed work force - there is no dispute about it, it exactly what happened
The only thing that is faulty, is asking what people think about something that have no clue either way. Do you honestly think half the people that voted either way on that poll have actually watched an F1 race or know what those grid girls look like? If the aim is to grow the sport, which I take as a reasonable assumption, the question asked should have been "now that grid girls have been banned, are you more interested in watching cars racing around in circles" - to which I am quite optimistic, the answer would be a resounding No.
You have to weigh up the two things. Yes, a tiny minority of women may lose a single weekends work throughout the year. However, I think the damage done by the further objectification of women is far greater than the loss they've suffered. Ultimately, I believe that we should be trying to build a society that moves beyond appreciating women purely for looks alone. It's called progress. People are constantly having to change their profession as progress moves forwards. Should we have banned the computer to protect the jobs of short-hand typists?jz11 wrote: ↑02 Feb 2018, 19:14the survey might have been done by Shaolin Monks for all I care, it still doesn't change the fact that they asked the "wrong" question, because the result of the poll will tell you with any degree of certainty absolutely nothing about whether that action of dropping the grid girls will increase the fan or viewership base of the sport, but it will give the F1M board some support for their actions, and then there are media relations departments in such companies, who may have been asked to get peoples opinion on the boards actions, and guess who they turn to is such casesbonjon1979 wrote: ↑02 Feb 2018, 18:43The survey was done by Yougov. Not Liberty. Yougov took no action to remove grid girls. They are an independent survey group, dude.jz11 wrote: ↑02 Feb 2018, 18:41
dude.... would you start watching is EXACTLY the right question to ask to see if your actions had the desired result - enlarge the fan base of the sport, it is BILLION times more unskewed than asking - did we do the right thing dropping the grid girls...
I don't even...
I can't even...
here is a question for you bonjon1979 - do you support free and uninfluenced career choice for women? and I will guess the answer - yes
so here is another question, why did you just support the possible reduction freedom of their choice? let me explain - F1 dropped the grid girls, which led to reduced demand for models at model agencies, which will lead to reduced income to the employed work force - there is no dispute about it, it exactly what happened
so the thing is not really about freedom for women to choose what they want to do, you simply want to have an effect on what you think is appropriate for them to do
No, the guys who are allowed to, but chose not to make absolutely everything about looking at women.
No - who chose to separate time spent watching cars racing from time spent thinking about sex.Or cant look at women when a car is around ?
No - no one's saying that. Instead, they're (they being the FOM) saying "I as your employer get to say whether or not I want a job doing, and I don't want that job done any more". No one is telling women "you can't go and work as a bimbo holding a sign up. They're saying "we don't want bimbos holding signs up at our events.Real men that are telling women "you cant do that job because I find it offensive".
What's ironic about that?Ironically adding to that a real man called moose is saying all this.
No one's trying to save the world but you here - this is just the FOM choosing how they want to run their show, the only people trying to "save the world" are trying to change a simple decision about what the show contains into some culture war.Stop being over sensitive and if you must try and save the world
Wait, you're saying "because people in the Middle East use women as objects, the FOM should too"? I'm not sure how that logic works.have a go at educating some of the men in the middle east about using women as objects. Then you will see how wrong you are on this one.
I personally don't care one way or the other.
If someone is truly "disturbed" that the grid girls are gone, that person has some issues they need to get addressed as far as I'm concerned!Phil wrote: ↑02 Feb 2018, 19:22I'm probably willing to bet, given the predominant male audience of F1, there are more disturbed by the banning of grid girls (and the reasons given) then those that probably could care less either way or those that feel strongly about them 'sending the wrong message'.
I'd wager the people complaining they are gone are an equally overly sensitive minority!NathanOlder wrote: ↑02 Feb 2018, 19:29Excellent post Phil. Over reacting to an over sensitive minority is exactly how it is. And the majority lose out because of it.
Very true. If they saw the photos i posted near the start of this thread, the people in this poll would have probably voted, and then asked, how do i become a grid girl
The dancers are there to dance, they are professional dancers. The walk on girls are there to look pretty for the men watching and in attendance and escort the men to the stage. What they're wearing is irrelevant, it's not a ban on skimpy outfits.NathanOlder wrote: ↑02 Feb 2018, 18:45Similar question id like someone to try and answer if possible,
In the darts, they ditched the walk on girls, 2 women wearing dresses. Dresses you'd wear in a night club, but still dresses. Last night in the darts they still had 4 cheer leaders on stage wearing skimpy hot pants and a tight matching top.
What is going on ?
Walking to a stage/dancing on a stage. Both there for the show , nothing more. Neither make the sporting side any better, just adds some glamour. Pulling neitheror both is only fairMcHonda wrote: ↑02 Feb 2018, 19:43The dancers are there to dance, they are professional dancers. The walk on girls are there to look pretty for the men watching and in attendance and escort the men to the stage. What they're wearing is irrelevant, it's not a ban on skimpy outfits.NathanOlder wrote: ↑02 Feb 2018, 18:45Similar question id like someone to try and answer if possible,
In the darts, they ditched the walk on girls, 2 women wearing dresses. Dresses you'd wear in a night club, but still dresses. Last night in the darts they still had 4 cheer leaders on stage wearing skimpy hot pants and a tight matching top.
What is going on ?
If you genuinely can't tell the difference then it explains why you can't understand Liberty's move.
One is solely there to look good for men, one is there to dance.NathanOlder wrote: ↑02 Feb 2018, 19:46Walking to a stage/dancing on a stage. Both there for the show , nothing more. Neither make the sporting side any better, just adds some glamour. Pulling neitheror both is only fairMcHonda wrote: ↑02 Feb 2018, 19:43The dancers are there to dance, they are professional dancers. The walk on girls are there to look pretty for the men watching and in attendance and escort the men to the stage. What they're wearing is irrelevant, it's not a ban on skimpy outfits.NathanOlder wrote: ↑02 Feb 2018, 18:45Similar question id like someone to try and answer if possible,
In the darts, they ditched the walk on girls, 2 women wearing dresses. Dresses you'd wear in a night club, but still dresses. Last night in the darts they still had 4 cheer leaders on stage wearing skimpy hot pants and a tight matching top.
What is going on ?
If you genuinely can't tell the difference then it explains why you can't understand Liberty's move.
