D
Deleted member 13603
Guest
Well said Roger Mellie!
Aa Club we are truly ahead of our time
- Thread starter PhilK66
- Start date
roger_mellie
Vital Youth Team
"You just don't get it Roger, do you. I've tried my (inadequate) best so I'll give up now. In 20 years time see how people view these issues.
By way of analogy I suppose my mate in his council job who has closed down some rogue landlords is to blame for making people homeless."
I think its you that isn't getting it. The point you make is exactly what I'm saying.
He isn't to blame. The rogue landlords are. The same as the grid girls aren't to blame, the men that want to grope and abuse based on the way girls/dress look are.
By way of analogy I suppose my mate in his council job who has closed down some rogue landlords is to blame for making people homeless."
I think its you that isn't getting it. The point you make is exactly what I'm saying.
He isn't to blame. The rogue landlords are. The same as the grid girls aren't to blame, the men that want to grope and abuse based on the way girls/dress look are.
GillsBluenose
Vital Football Hero
They want more than fairness these days. That's the point. I agree that a man and woman doing EXACTLY the same job with the same experience and working the same hours should earn the same salary and have the same opportunities. However, there is a lot of positive discrimination going on with, for instance, some women only lists when selecting election candidates, particularly Labour.
All the Men only Golf Clubs have been made to accept women and yet men are often banned from women's exercise classes on the basis that they might make the women feel uncomfortable.
I am glad to be out of a working environment where I was constantly holding the fort and keeping the ship afloat while serving clients in the absence of some women who would take extended maternity leave(s) and then expect to come back to their same grade level and often get promoted above the rest of us, even if they work part time. I accept that also applies to men taking extended paternity leave which is rarer but IMO just as wrong. Not my problem now.
Hopefully your son's career prospects do not suffer from such issues and that your daughter benefits from them. Of course, your son could marry a high earning woman in the brave new world and become a house husband. Looks like being a growing sector.
Positions of power are overwhelmingly dominated by men. When it's broadly equal then job done.
As a feminist and like all the others I know, that's all I'm asking for.
What's your problem Bluenose? I've never heard a feminist wanting more than fairness (perhaps some exist but I don't know any).
On second thoughts, don't bother. We aren't going to persuade eachother.
Here's a thought for you. On average, 2 women are killed by their partners each week. That's a figure I don't want to be seen equalised (not any killed of course). I wonder what the figure is for women killing men. Any idea?
As a feminist and like all the others I know, that's all I'm asking for.
What's your problem Bluenose? I've never heard a feminist wanting more than fairness (perhaps some exist but I don't know any).
On second thoughts, don't bother. We aren't going to persuade eachother.
Here's a thought for you. On average, 2 women are killed by their partners each week. That's a figure I don't want to be seen equalised (not any killed of course). I wonder what the figure is for women killing men. Any idea?
Nobby_66
Vital Football Hero
Out of boredom at work the other day, I picked up a copy of The Sun (hate the rag normally but needs must and all that).
Anyway, there was an article by a female columnist who said she was a staunch feminist and regular campaigner for women's rights (No reason to disbelieve her and I'm assuming she is a regular writer). She was saying, like many on here, that the whole sorry affair had gone way too far and that the petty banning of walk on girls, grid girls and the like was detracting from the great work that has been done over the years in finally getting close to equality for women.
I can totally see her point, all these latest stories seem to have done is make the whole idea of feminism look, to some people, like another case of "political correctness gone mad", to quote a saying I hate, which is ironic really as many true feminists probably agree. She also echoed the views of many on here, including me, who can't ignore the irony of women losing their jobs because someone has got offended on their behalf or has acted in a certain way because someone else MIGHT be offended when all along, no one has asked the girls what THEY think or what THEY want.
To reinforce this, I saw a grid girl being interviewed on tv who had the right hump as she had lost a job she loved that paid well and allowed her to travel the world and meet some interesting and famous people. She genuinely loved her job and stated that for each individual job she would ask what outfit or uniform she was required to wear and that if she felt it inappropriate she would turn that particular job down but that this never stopped her being offered more work. Surely that has to be fair enough? She's never been forced to wear a certain outfit and never been refused work based on past refusal to wear something she wasn't happy to wear
Sounds like yet another knee jerk reaction where a whole group of innocent victims have been punished because it's easier than punishing the few people who have caused the problem, i.e. the sad old men who groped the girls way back at the Presidents Club. THAT sounds like true discrimination to me. Surely a true feminist would be concentrating more on that wouldn't they?
Anyway, there was an article by a female columnist who said she was a staunch feminist and regular campaigner for women's rights (No reason to disbelieve her and I'm assuming she is a regular writer). She was saying, like many on here, that the whole sorry affair had gone way too far and that the petty banning of walk on girls, grid girls and the like was detracting from the great work that has been done over the years in finally getting close to equality for women.
I can totally see her point, all these latest stories seem to have done is make the whole idea of feminism look, to some people, like another case of "political correctness gone mad", to quote a saying I hate, which is ironic really as many true feminists probably agree. She also echoed the views of many on here, including me, who can't ignore the irony of women losing their jobs because someone has got offended on their behalf or has acted in a certain way because someone else MIGHT be offended when all along, no one has asked the girls what THEY think or what THEY want.
To reinforce this, I saw a grid girl being interviewed on tv who had the right hump as she had lost a job she loved that paid well and allowed her to travel the world and meet some interesting and famous people. She genuinely loved her job and stated that for each individual job she would ask what outfit or uniform she was required to wear and that if she felt it inappropriate she would turn that particular job down but that this never stopped her being offered more work. Surely that has to be fair enough? She's never been forced to wear a certain outfit and never been refused work based on past refusal to wear something she wasn't happy to wear
Sounds like yet another knee jerk reaction where a whole group of innocent victims have been punished because it's easier than punishing the few people who have caused the problem, i.e. the sad old men who groped the girls way back at the Presidents Club. THAT sounds like true discrimination to me. Surely a true feminist would be concentrating more on that wouldn't they?
Razorpound
Vital Squad Member
All sounds like mid-life crisis or, period problems to me!
roger_mellie
Vital Youth Team
Nobby that's it exactly.
Baghdad_Rob
Vital 1st Team Regular
The feminist view is that gender is the only reason for differences and therefore are morally entitled to a 50-50% split. Multiple research shows there are a wide range of factors that determine why different jobs are generally dominated by different genders. Most of those factors are the result of men and women making different life choices.
I take it that as a feminist you approve of Theresa May being prime minister now and Margaret Thatcher in the past as these were both women in positions of power?
In terms of your final question, where did you get that statistic from? I looked on the official government statistics pages and it doesn't provide those numbers.
GillsBluenose
Vital Football Hero
I think that you will find that, on average, men are stronger than women so while scumbags remain in this world that statistic is not likely to change.
But you are talking about crime which is an entirely different subject. Falsely accusing someone of rape when you panic after cheating on your partner is a crime as well. Have a look at the past month's news if you want to quote gender statistics on that.
There is always a small minority that will give any gender, race or religion a bad name.
Another slant that I find puzzling is that there seems to be an assumption that most women are easily taken advantage of. Some obviously are but think about all the women you know. Are they really that meek on the whole? Most that I know are pretty formidable and have always stuck up for themselves but I am probably not typical.
NorthamptonGills
Vital Youth Team
A couple of flaws in your arguments Tarian
Shelter estimate that there are about 279,000 long term empty rental properties in the UK and roughly 300,000 people living in temporary accommodation, hostels or sleeping rough. That suggests that the problem is not primarily due to immigration or house building as you suggest but that rental prices across the board are the main factor
Similarly you say that statistically there will always be a roughly fixed number of people below 60% of median income, this would be the case if you were talking about average or mean income but not median (mid-point). The median UK household disposable income (before housing costs) is 27,000 whereas the average is over 32,000. I think a measure that says a household with a child with an income below 16500 could reasonably be classified as being extremely low income (figures from the ONS)
If the minimum wage was the mid-point salary then there could feasibly be no families below 60% of the median. Inflated wages mean that the cost of living rises which makes poverty a wide-spread reality in our society at the moment I'm afraid
ThreeSixes
Vital Football Hero
I have a teenage daughter and 2 teenage sons. My daughter has more opportunities than my sons do. She can get a job or go to University, but she can also have a child and get a free council house, or get married and become a housewife.
There are more women than men in University, and there are extensive laws to stop sexual discrimination in the workplace. Men earn more on average than women, but there are reasons for this that aren't sexual discrimination, your daughter will have every chance of earning the same as her male peers.
nitram77
Vital 1st Team Regular
There has been historical discrimination since the dawn of mankind, including that word.
Even today mothers will have a tendency to buy different toys for male and female children, so it isn't just men who are to blame for the way things are. At what point do we except that equality has been reached? how do we measure equality? will there ever be a time when everyone believes they are treated fairly?.
Even today mothers will have a tendency to buy different toys for male and female children, so it isn't just men who are to blame for the way things are. At what point do we except that equality has been reached? how do we measure equality? will there ever be a time when everyone believes they are treated fairly?.
townendgill
Vital Reserves Team
The businesses that have caved in to this pressure, or are thinking of doing so, would do well to look at what happened to Marvel comics. They received criticism due to the perceived whiteness, maleness and straightness of their protagonists. So they bowed to pressure and rebooted titles like Ironman (swapping characters genders, races and sexualities), put diversity front and center of everything they did. Sales dropped (which is an understatement). People who owned comic book shops have to buy a certain amount of each title as decreed by the publisher, so they had stock they couldn't shift. Is this because comic book readers and shop owners are racist, sexist, homophobes? I'd say the success of titles like Black Panther and Captain Marvel would suggest not. What there has been, in the USA, at least, is a series of co-ordinated efforts by people who are not actually fans of the industry in question putting pressure on getting something they don't like changed. Not because they read it and were offended by it, but merely that they were merely offended that something they didn't deem suitable was allowed to exist. They've been doing the same in the video games, board games, and other industries too. They are no different to those ultra-conservative Christian "moral majority" types. Only what is "offensive" has changed. Any businesses or industries that listens to these people over their actual consumers are fools.
MedwayModernist
Vital Squad Member
To get back to the original point of grid girls at the F1 - you've got to ask yourself what purpose are they serving?
The sport itself is the priority that the company is marketing, so they should be focusing on that.
There is nothing wrong with the modelling and glamour profession, but the question is whether this belongs in what is trying to be a family friendly sport is a valid one.
If you think back to the era when F1 was started, women were virtually second class citizens, men earned all the money and made all the decisions, and so all the advertising and marketing was aimed at them. Hence the F1 having scantily clad models selling cigarettes to make the men more interested in watching the racing - which lets face it - is a tactic that's always going to work!
So, to answer my original question, why are they there, well surely it's to titilate men in their living room whilst watching F1, the old "something for the Dad's" rule. The company themselves had decided that it's just not necessary anymore, and not something they want their brand associated with, and fair play to them. There is nothing wrong with the glamour industry, and if you want to buy a subscription to playboy, or go to spearmint rhinos you can, and fair play to you, but does it need to be a part of F1?
The F1 company today has decided that there are going to be grid kids instead now, which I think is a fantastic move. Getting young boys and girls in to meet the drivers and see the pits and tracks etc, is going to be great for aspiring drivers and mechanics, and will help motivate the next generation to get interested in motorsport.
Imagine a six year old girl looking at a grid girl with Lewis Hamilton, she's probably not gonna be that inspired, or she could be tacitly advised that a woman's place is wearing the skimpy outfit next to the racing driver. If she now sees an 11 year old go karting girl next to Lewis, she might think that she's got a chance to do that, and be a racing driver herself. I know what I'd prefer my (entirely hypothetical) daughter to be exposed to.
The sport itself is the priority that the company is marketing, so they should be focusing on that.
There is nothing wrong with the modelling and glamour profession, but the question is whether this belongs in what is trying to be a family friendly sport is a valid one.
If you think back to the era when F1 was started, women were virtually second class citizens, men earned all the money and made all the decisions, and so all the advertising and marketing was aimed at them. Hence the F1 having scantily clad models selling cigarettes to make the men more interested in watching the racing - which lets face it - is a tactic that's always going to work!
So, to answer my original question, why are they there, well surely it's to titilate men in their living room whilst watching F1, the old "something for the Dad's" rule. The company themselves had decided that it's just not necessary anymore, and not something they want their brand associated with, and fair play to them. There is nothing wrong with the glamour industry, and if you want to buy a subscription to playboy, or go to spearmint rhinos you can, and fair play to you, but does it need to be a part of F1?
The F1 company today has decided that there are going to be grid kids instead now, which I think is a fantastic move. Getting young boys and girls in to meet the drivers and see the pits and tracks etc, is going to be great for aspiring drivers and mechanics, and will help motivate the next generation to get interested in motorsport.
Imagine a six year old girl looking at a grid girl with Lewis Hamilton, she's probably not gonna be that inspired, or she could be tacitly advised that a woman's place is wearing the skimpy outfit next to the racing driver. If she now sees an 11 year old go karting girl next to Lewis, she might think that she's got a chance to do that, and be a racing driver herself. I know what I'd prefer my (entirely hypothetical) daughter to be exposed to.
Nobby_66
Vital Football Hero
I think we can all count to ten without a girl holding up a card. One grid girl actually said that without her help, how would the driver know which grid position he should be in?
That's all going a bit far.
I'm not saying the grid girls should come back, just that they should have at least been consulted as to how they felt about the whole sorry affair. I'll bet this whole decision was made by a man? That's discrimination surely? A male dominated sport getting rid of women, I can't believe no one can see that!
. I have no preference, I don't even watch F1 and never paid much notice to the Gems but they obviously help sell and promote the sport so why not let them carry on with a job they love? It was mentioned above that modelling to sell perfume etc is ok well this is surely modelling to sell F1?
As nice as the idea of grid kids is, I fail to see what it actually does for the sport other than make it look like the bosses are "doing the right thing" and as much as a poster was ridiculed for suggesting it would be a paedophiles heaven, how long will it be before someone claims they were touched by some lecherous old team director or pit crew member? Think I'm exaggerating, take a look at today's news.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not jumping up and down because my weekly fix of crumpet has been taken off the telly, I just feel that this decision has probably done more harm than good to the true meaning of feminism and the work that women (and men) are doing to promote women's rights.
As for the grid kid idea helping aspiring drivers and mechanics, get real. These will, most likely, be kids of the rich and influential who press palms and do deals with F1 in an attempt to get Tarquin and Tara on the grid with Lewis and his mates.
If you really want to stop the objectification of women, why not ban the porn industry where women are seen purely as bodies for (usually degrading) sex?
Oh, hang on, that's one of THE biggest industries in the world isn't it? Perhaps we'll just leave that one for now :26:
That's all going a bit far.
I'm not saying the grid girls should come back, just that they should have at least been consulted as to how they felt about the whole sorry affair. I'll bet this whole decision was made by a man? That's discrimination surely? A male dominated sport getting rid of women, I can't believe no one can see that!
. I have no preference, I don't even watch F1 and never paid much notice to the Gems but they obviously help sell and promote the sport so why not let them carry on with a job they love? It was mentioned above that modelling to sell perfume etc is ok well this is surely modelling to sell F1?
As nice as the idea of grid kids is, I fail to see what it actually does for the sport other than make it look like the bosses are "doing the right thing" and as much as a poster was ridiculed for suggesting it would be a paedophiles heaven, how long will it be before someone claims they were touched by some lecherous old team director or pit crew member? Think I'm exaggerating, take a look at today's news.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not jumping up and down because my weekly fix of crumpet has been taken off the telly, I just feel that this decision has probably done more harm than good to the true meaning of feminism and the work that women (and men) are doing to promote women's rights.
As for the grid kid idea helping aspiring drivers and mechanics, get real. These will, most likely, be kids of the rich and influential who press palms and do deals with F1 in an attempt to get Tarquin and Tara on the grid with Lewis and his mates.
If you really want to stop the objectification of women, why not ban the porn industry where women are seen purely as bodies for (usually degrading) sex?
Oh, hang on, that's one of THE biggest industries in the world isn't it? Perhaps we'll just leave that one for now :26:
Baghdad_Rob
Vital 1st Team Regular
Its not 1950 and has long not been the case that it is only men with jobs and money. Attitudes have changed greatly since then so modern man shouldn't be judged on 70 years ago. Plus the Grid Girls aren't on the screen that much anyway with the general business of the pits.
Below if I am able to attach then there are the grid girls from last year from Silverstone, Monza, France, Germany and Singapore. Aside from the Singapore uniform which looks like a Sexy Nurse uniform from a fancy dress shop, is what the girls are wearing that scantily or titillating? Outside Europe, especially in countries with a higher muslim population, then they are even more covered up. If what they are wearing is objectification of women then women should be banned from modelling completely.
Attachments
Razorpound
Vital Squad Member
So the anti-sex brigade has won. There will no longer be Grid Girls.
Instead they are replaced by children!! Starting them off early!!
Instead they are replaced by children!! Starting them off early!!
