Grid and Walk On Girls

[MarkyH]

@GarethGriffiths

1. How do you know, for sure, that people criticising the decision to remove these ladies from their employment is a pretence? I think that is a very dodgy statement to be making as you don't know what people are thinking for sure. To me, they are girls doing (or were doing) a job, nothing else. If somebody sees them as sexual or sex objects, maybe that person is at fault and needs educating instead of everybody else who disagrees with the decision that has been made.

Their employment as a grid girl/walk on girl is to do with nothing else other than as a sex object, they have very little role to play and are recruited purely to 'look good'. It offers nothing more than to ***illate simple men.

Yes, people do see them as sex objects, not all of us, but how can we educate them if we continue to objectify them for simple pleasures.

Also, what's the point of them?

2. Employment positions should only ever be offered to people on merit - that is, they have the right skills needed and required. To give one of these ladies a position within the company/group 'just because you are trying to look good' is just tokenism, and is actually more sexist and discriminatory than we are supposed to believe that the role of a Grid Girl/Walk On Girl is/was. These ladies had the skills necessary to fulfil their role, therefore why the hullabaloo? If they had been FORCED to do this role then I would have said definitely ban it and also legal action should have been taken,

If you were of a race, or a sex that had a history of objectification then tokenism isn't so bad, it's there to make it an equal playing field that we've taken away due to a history that objectifies everyone other than the white working man. In an ideal world we'd have no horrible history to contend with and yes, it would be on merit, but we're not there yet. Just to add in most cases we do employ on merit, but employment law is there for all so it's not abused.

3. Were the ladies in question consulted about the decision made to retire their positions? I notice that nobody wants to answer that question.

Irrelevant I'm afraid. I wouldn't be consulted if the company I worked for wanted to retire my position. If the company I work for decided to hire pretty girls holding signs on the stairs I'd be shocked. Thankfully I work for a progressive company.

4. Yes, people lose their jobs, but these ladies are being forced out. I don't see that any of the pro-feminist groups online are willing to help them find alternative employment or to fund any depreciation in their finances. Surely, women (and men) fought for the right for women to do whatever they wanted with their bodies - whether that be topless modelling, being a Grid Girl or even being a civil engineer. Is it now that women can only do what certain people say they can do? That, in my opinion, is a backward step and says a lot about the society we are living in where the rights of one group over-ride the feelings and thoughts of others.

objectification

noun

1.
the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.

"the objectification of women as sexual possessions"

No one is saying modelling should be banned, or pornography; that is there to please male and females. The industry doesn't objectify women, as I'm sure they earn more than the males in that industry.

Models sell products, and while I admit to knowing little about the industry I'm sure male and females are employed to make a product look good, to teach us simple folk what we should attain in life (and I hate that, advertising, but its not the same, its not objectification) as they are selling us a product. In F1/Darts the girls are they for the 'WAHAY CRACKING ***S' brigade! Putting a Betway sash over them does not answer the question.

Having a female that exists just to be looked at is pathetic. 'Here hold this sign and look pretty will ya love'

Also worth remembering that one day as a walk on girl at Silverstone is only a small part of their job, and their agency will no doubt find other modelling work for them

As I've already said, a moratorium on these positions coupled with debate and arguments presented for and against would have been better - with the ladies in question having the final say.

No, the employee never gets the final say, in all jobs

If I was to say that Taylor Swift or Beyonce should have a ban, as they perform scantily clad in some of their music videos and have suggestible lyrics in their songs, I would be laughed out of the room. Yet, aren't impressionable young girls going to pick up on how Taylor and Beyonce look and act and mimic them? Strange that there is little desire to want them banned. Personally, I think that controlling Taylor and Beyonce as well as any other female on the planet is out of my control and remit, and that respecting the individual rights of people matters more than some overall group-think that because something feels wrong it must be stopped without asking questions first.

Women have the choice to wear and do what they want, Beyonce isn't standing there holding a sign, she's using her skills and talent to do what she wants. A woman's body is their own to do what they want with, and If a female wants to stand outside with a sign that's fine by me, but by employing a female to hold a sign just to look good isn't the same. That's objectification….

Its not about what clothes they wear, or what they choose to do (WOMEN CAN WEAR WHAT THEY WANT), its all about a role they are paid to do and how thatobjectifys them, and you'd be hard pushed to find an argument to say that isn't the case in F1 & Darts

 

[profitius]

F1 are thinking of replacing the grid girls with grid kids! Kids running around an F1 grid :s

 

[GarethGriffiths]

So they can wear what they want, but must not be objectified... right I see...

Anyway, Grid Kids are in so what could possibly go wrong?

Just going to take issue with:

If you were of a race, or a sex that had a history of objectification then tokenism isn't so bad, it's there to make it an equal playing field that we've taken away due to a history that objectifies everyone other than the white working man. In an ideal world we'd have no horrible history to contend with and yes, it would be on merit, but we're not there yet. Just to add in most cases we do employ on merit, but employment law is there for all so it's not abused.

Tokenism is actually more racist than you would think; you cannot employ black or homosexual people just to'box tick' or because you fear the wrath of the screeching permanently offended brigade - jobs should be given all the time on merit. You cannot employ, for instance, a black person who knows nothing about his or her company role and whom would only feel upset and stressed doing that job. That, to me, is a bigger abuse of employment law.

The colour of my skin and your skin is not a passport to success - hard work and graft is a passport.

Again, Race and Sex/Gender seem to be the only things that matter - what about being Poor or Disabled? Do they not matter, having been objectified through time and possibly even to this very day?

It's all very noble to want to say sorry for historical racism towards black people. Fine, I accept that, but don't beat yourselves up about it and wear sackcloth and ashes all day long. The best way you can help Black people is to treat them as you would anybody else - we are not a special needs group, and we have the right to stand and fall by ourselves.

You will always have people who are racist (or who just don't like a particular group of people) - that is an uncomfortable fact of life. Instead of browbeating, let's look at how we can benefit society for all races and genders - that means applying the same rules for all, no positive discrimination and everybody to be given the same chance in life. Do that, and I am quite sure that will lead to a more cohesive society and yes let people fail - sometimes from failing, that gives them the drive to succeed (look at the many business men and women of all races, sex, gender etc. who started out with nothing and whom have made a fortune for themselves).

Irrelevant I'm afraid. I wouldn't be consulted if the company I worked for wanted to retire my position. If the company I work for decided to hire pretty girls holding signs on the stairs I'd be shocked. Thankfully I work for a progressive company.

You would not even take legal advice if you thought that your company was being unfair? A friend of mine has been told that his position at Blackpool Football Club is to be retired, due to the ongoing financial uncertainties at Bloomfield Road, and that he should fight it via the Unions/Courts. He has rent to pay and a family to provide for, not that it matters to most.

The employee can always challenge a decision made, and when my Mother was incorrectly TUPEd over from her existing work contract to a new one with worse conditions she sued and received a very good pay out. That will no doubt upset people but ha!

Going back to the Models - perhaps Models should have their own Union as well? Though I generally do not like Unions, in cases like this they might have some merit. Not only would their work be guaranteed, they would also be safe against sexual predators like Weinstein. My niece is a model and considers the recent decision a step backwards for true feminism. She's a good looking girl, but if you can't see the difference between art and nudity then that's sad for you. Would you demand a child running naked on a beach cover up because somebody might get offended (or worse)? Since when did the rights of the offended trump (oops trigger word) the rights of others to earn money from their figure? Nudity does not equal sex - I thought that was taught as standard as Progressiveness?

Puritanism does not always equal Progressiveness.

If somebody considered you an irrelevance and thought that you should be retired, I bet you'd (quite rightly) be the first one to complain.

I still say bring on the Transgendered Grid Peoples!