Grid and Walk On Girls

[Which Tyler]

AKA, the grid girls and walk-on girls are there for the purpose of objectification. The other mentioned are there to serve a purpose, with any objectification being secondary at best.

You could also argue that the former are told what to dress by the event organiser, whilst the latter are in control of their own wardrobe (or their employees are). I'm unconvinced by that argument personally, but it certainly gets made. FTR, the same argument gets made about any "slutty" uniforms dictated by employers.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

I take your point and have no idea who the arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable is, but the comparison doesn't exactly work. Beyoncé et al. are (I'm told) providing musical entertainment in addition to dressing like streetwalkers, others in MTV videos are contributing to something that could be argued to be a form of art in addition to being ***illating. Walk on girls and grid girls on the other hand serve no purpose other than to ***illate.

Probably some sad 40 year-old virgin who hates life.

 

[RedruthRFC]

AKA, the grid girls and walk-on girls are there for the purpose of objectification. The other mentioned are there to serve a purpose, with any objectification being secondary at best.

You could also argue that the former are told what to dress by the event organiser, whilst the latter are in control of their own wardrobe (or their employees are). I'm unconvinced by that argument personally, but it certainly gets made. FTR, the same argument gets made about any "slutty" uniforms dictated by employers.

I'm not sure it's quite as black and white as you're making out. I'd imagine that managers and directors give artists little option about how to dress and even less to others featuring in pop videos. I'd also be amazed if there aren't pop videos out there featuring people whose primary purpose was to ***illate. However the point remains that it can be argued that all of these people are there with a purpose other than to ***illate.

FWIW, I can into this pretty meh and it's still something I really can't get remotely upset about, but having read around the subject and thought it through, it all seems to come down to the word objectify. If the walk on girls and pit girls are being objectified, then I don't see how anyone could argue that their presence is a good thing. As they serve no other purpose than to ***illate, I don't see how you can argue that they're not being objectified. I wouldn't go so far as to say they're a bad enough thing that they should be banned and I'm not even sure that if I had the choice as the head of the FIA / PDC I would bother rocking the boat by getting rid of them, but as that person in charge, I'd be happier without them. In that position, I would be more bothered about the outdated image it gave my sport than the objectification of women. As a (albeit old fashioned, miserable) fan of sport, I'm not a fan of most types of razmataz and would put this in that category. I see it as detracting from the sport itself and implying that that it's not entertaining enough to stand on its own two feet.

I'd be interested to hear whether the remainers agree with my thought process and whether you're pro-remain because you don't think it's serious enough to take action on or if you disagree with my thought process, at what point.

Edit: re: your final point, I have never understand how Hooters manage to trade in the UK, although I suppose you could say the same of plenty of other businesses that manage to work their way around employment / equality laws.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42872257

This will upset the Puritans! Good on you, Lynsay!

 

[GarethGriffiths]

I'm not sure it's quite as black and white as you're making out. I'd imagine that managers and directors give artists little option about how to dress and even less to others featuring in pop videos. I'd also be amazed if there aren't pop videos out there featuring people whose primary purpose was to ***illate. However the point remains that it can be argued that all of these people are there with a purpose other than to ***illate.

FWIW, I can into this pretty meh and it's still something I really can't get remotely upset about, but having read around the subject and thought it through, it all seems to come down to the word objectify. If the walk on girls and pit girls are being objectified, then I don't see how anyone could argue that their presence is a good thing. As they serve no other purpose than to ***illate, I don't see how you can argue that they're not being objectified. I wouldn't go so far as to say they're a bad enough thing that they should be banned and I'm not even sure that if I had the choice as the head of the FIA / PDC I would bother rocking the boat by getting rid of them, but as that person in charge, I'd be happier without them. In that position, I would be more bothered about the outdated image it gave my sport than the objectification of women. As a (albeit old fashioned, miserable) fan of sport, I'm not a fan of most types of razmataz and would put this in that category. I see it as detracting from the sport itself and implying that that it's not entertaining enough to stand on its own two feet.

I'd be interested to hear whether the remainers agree with my thought process and whether you're pro-remain because you don't think it's serious enough to take action on or if you disagree with my thought process, at what point.

Edit: re: your final point, I have never understand how Hooters manage to trade in the UK, although I suppose you could say the same of plenty of other businesses that manage to work their way around employment / equality laws.

Interestingly, I once had an online tete-a-tete with a supposed male 'feminist' about women; he believed that all women needed defending from 'male predators' and that men had to change and apologise on behalf of their sex (he was one of these 'Women, I Apologise' guys).

Not long after he made the post, I saw tagged photos of him at Hooters in Nottingham and in a strip club.

It reminded me of that music video by Genesis where Phil, Mike and Tony are spoofing Oral Roberts and the 'God TV' frauds claiming to be speaking the name of the Lord, when in reality they are cashing in and doing it for their pleasure and benefit and not that of other more deserving people.

This might rub some up the wrong way, but I think most male feminists are frauds who are just hoping to get their nuts up. Just my opinion though

 

[RedruthRFC]

None of which other than a passing mention of Hooters is relevant to my post or the questions I asked!

 

[McTallshort]

I take your point and have no idea who the arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable is, but the comparison doesn't exactly work. Beyoncé et al. are (I'm told) providing musical entertainment in addition to dressing like streetwalkers, others in MTV videos are contributing to something that could be argued to be a form of art in addition to being ***illating. Walk on girls and grid girls on the other hand serve no purpose other than to ***illate.

Half naked women sell. Darts or music videos it's the same thing. Get Beyoncé to cover up on all her videos and see how that goes

 

[GarethGriffiths]

None of which other than a passing mention of Hooters is relevant to my post or the questions I asked!

Hysteria and puritanism must only apply some of the time, or when people feel sufficiently 'triggered' or angered and can make a name for themselves.

There are people who have got 'offended' over Hooters, in the past, and a few people jumped on the bandwagon as they wanted to appear 'hip' and 'with it'.

If these feminists really cared about women and their rights, they'd have:

* Marched up to Rochdale and Rotherham asap and protested about the well documented rape of young girls in these towns
* Told Boko Haram to their faces stop the FGM'ing of young women
* Demanded sanctions and legal action against countries where grown men can marry child brides - countries where girls as young as 12 are vaginally penetrated and impregnated

Oh but wait, that would be RACIST...

These Walk on Girls and Pit Girls are just a very easy target, IMO.

 

[Which Tyler]

So, in summary of this thread, it would seem that the only people (well, person) who really care strongly about this issue are the special snowflake right wing biggots who's rights to objectify women are being repressed?
Whilst for the rest of us, it's just a sign that the world is moving on, and they won't be missed, and were maybe a little distasteful but far from the worst example.

 

[ncurd]

I think you summed it up Which Tyler

I've not a single argument to why they should exist other than they did and we shouldn't go banning things. And as they weren't banned that's not an issue here.

I suppose you could say some women have been put out of work but as the world modernises jobs become redundant sadly. It happens everywhere else.

 

[ncurd]

Also I think you'll find those 'so called feminists' would of and have objected to all three of those things...

 

[GarethGriffiths]

So, in summary of this thread, it would seem that the only people (well, person) who really care strongly about this issue are the special snowflake right wing biggots who's rights to objectify women are being repressed?
Whilst for the rest of us, it's just a sign that the world is moving on, and they won't be missed, and were maybe a little distasteful but far from the worst example.

Oh dearie me.

Have an alternative point of view and you're a snowflake, really you couldn't make it up.

I suppose that somebody like David Gandy objectifies men, using such rationale - oh muh feelings and triggers!

Which Tyler has given me the biggest belly laugh of the year thus far, fair play. Like most faux liberals, he retorts with cheekiness/rudeness and can't/won't answer the points I raised.

Ncurd, I hope that some of what you have said is right, because the only protesters I recall in Rochdale and Rotherham were definitely not liberal feminists. If they do stand against FGM and Child Brides then I hope they visit places where these practices are deemed acceptable.

It's certainly regression rather than progression - I suppose that the next fake outrage will be that Josh Navidi is culturally appropriating Rastafarians with his dreadlocks or something similar.

 

[ncurd]

Oh were talking about literal protesting as opposed to just being opposed to something sorry that was happening over the grid girls?

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Oh were talking about literal protesting as opposed to just being opposed to something sorry that was happening over the grid girls?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, unless you are picking and choosing what to be 'offended' about.

I'll ask you and the other liberals this:

Agree or Disagree: 'Women, Minority Ethnic people, Homosexual people and Disabled people need protecting by progressive politics, and they need others to speak upon their behalf.'

 

[ncurd]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, unless you are picking and choosing what to be 'offended' about.

I'll ask you and the other liberals this:

Agree or Disagree: 'Women, Minority Ethnic people, Homosexual people and Disabled people need protecting by progressive politics, and they need others to speak upon their behalf.'

Now your just talking **** they are offended by those things and have worked hard to stop those things from happening within this country and have continued to campaign for legislation for powers to them from happening. but you'd know that is paid attention to politics instead of just knee jerk tabloid right wing reaction everything.

Your agree or disagree contains three parts which only the first part has a black of white answer.

Women, Minority Ethnic people, Homosexual people and Disabled people need protecting - Agree

by progressive politics, - On what politics works at defending them against those wishing to do them harm. I hate the term 'progressive' as most of the time the so called progressive parties argue between themselves abut who;s actually being progressive.

and they need others to speak upon their behalf - some do some don't, some bring to bear the volume of of their problem some need a megaphone so they are actually heard.



Now I have rugby match to watch which is supposedly what this forum is about.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

You just about saved yourself with your last comment of 'some do, some don't'.

We are all individuals, and it should be up to the individual to make a choice and not the group-think of one side of the political spectrum or the other.

Women, Minority Ethnic people, Homosexual people and Disabled people need protecting by progressive politics and they need others to speak upon their behalf - Disagree for the most part.

Why do they need protecting? These communities, we are told are robust and can speak up for themselves. Perhaps apart from the Disabled, the other groups are definitely not 'special needs' and I would consider anybody who thought of these people as 'special needs' as a disgusting bigot who should be denied oxygen.

There is harm being done to all communities regardless of race, ability, gender, age, faith etc. and perhaps we need to take a broader view and say we cannot only focus on certain groups but we must focus on improving society as a whole. Yes , I've had racist abuse hurled at me, but you know what - you can't fix stupid and there will always be people in the world who hate on others based on ethnicity, gender, sexuality etc. By improving chances for all people, and treating everybody as the same, the knock-on effect will be that you reduce issues such as these in society.

My concern is that what has been done with banning the Grid Girls and Walk On Girls is not being done for purely altruistic reasons - it is point-scoring and political as they are an easy target. There are worse things facing women in society, hence my examples above, so why not fight these bigger targets and issues which both sides agree are wholly wrong.

Why not have men or transgender people doing these roles? That would have been truly progressive and I don't think that most people would have minded.

Had they consulted the women in question and then agreed with them, then fine. However, it was definitely a hatchet job done to punish these women.

It's actually the Politics forum, but hey ho - enjoy the game.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

If only we could learn from the past, regarding sex equality and nobody being offended:

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Yes they are objectified but so are models.
Why not have gender-less mannequins instead of models then if going down that route?
Now i could be wrong but weren't Grid Girls pretty classy on the whole in terms of outfits, (TBH can't remember but looking at pictures they are wearing clothes that you would expect people with that figure to wear anyway on the streets on the whole, at least in the F1 they where i think).

Should these women be punished for looking attractive?

I just don't see the progression aspect from this really. What does it really mean? Oh these models will not be objectified here but will do elsewhere because guess what they are model. Or should Modelling in general be banned because the focus should be on the things they are modelling not the model

It's not like F1 have said they are going to promote at the very bottom to help increase the numbers of womenin the industry they are just saying nope to Grid girls. WOW what heros of women...


I can understand why people feel it has no place in the modern world, but where does it stop really?

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Yes they are objectified but so are models.
Why not have gender-less mannequins instead of models then if going down that route?
Now i could be wrong but weren't Grid Girls pretty classy on the whole in terms of outfits, (TBH can't remember but looking at pictures they are wearing clothes that you would expect people with that figure to wear anyway on the streets on the whole, at least in the F1 they where i think).

Should these women be punished for looking attractive?

I just don't see the progression aspect from this really. What does it really mean? Oh these models will not be objectified here but will do elsewhere because guess what they are model. Or should Modelling in general be banned because the focus should be on the things they are modelling not the model

It's not like F1 have said they are going to promote at the very bottom to help increase the numbers of womenin the industry they are just saying nope to Grid girls. WOW what heros of women...


I can understand why people feel it has no place in the modern world, but where does it stop really?

Very well said, Tigs, my thoughts exactly.

As I said earlier, if people feel offended and insulted by these girls then turn the sodding TV channel over. Some people just WANT to be offended, as it gives them some sense of purpose.

 

[ncurd]

I'm not offended by this I mean I don't see the point of them at all but it doesn't offend me and never spoken for their removal.

But I'm a huge F1 fan if it did offend me why should I not speak up about something when it is the sport I love?