Political Correctness Gone Mad Again

Roar87 · 12 Feb 2018 at 14:35

MikeTheNative said:
If the only argument for them is a model will lose a weekend of work a year, are they really needed at all?

Nah they travel around with the teams, it's not just one weekend of work a year, it's a main portion of their income for most.

DAIR · 12 Feb 2018 at 14:36

So what do they do during the off-season? Hibernate?

VincentHanna · 12 Feb 2018 at 14:47

Roar87 said:
Nah they travel around with the teams, it's not just one weekend of work a year, it's a main portion of their income for most.

Is that a definite though? I googled it and couldn't find anything definitive to say they travel around the World with the teams.

This article suggests they used 'Grid Guys' in the Monaco GP in 2015
http://www.news.com.au/sport/motors...s/news-story/7ef8c2137a1b867da4b30c873819a61f

Surely that indicates they use local models?

Irish_Tom · 12 Feb 2018 at 14:58

I’m pretty sure they use local models because they always look different at every race. Unless the podium girls are different to the grid girls?

arknor · 12 Feb 2018 at 17:21

pretty sure grid girls were always locals.
same for podium girls.

didn't F1 ban teams bringing models with them? probably only jordan did it. I don't remember other teams being so tacky

Angilion · 12 Feb 2018 at 18:36

Irish_Tom said:
[..]
I expect that some of the other comments you received made the same mistake — so on our part, we should have read it more carefully. On your part, if you'd included the totals next to each group at the start, it could have avoided any confusion.

I assumed that people would notice that the totals were different, but I put the totals in anyway.

I expect that some people made presumptions based on their own views.

Angilion · 12 Feb 2018 at 18:59

krooton said:
Surely a more accurate analogy would be:

A is allowed to pick only up to 10 apples and up to 4 pears.
B is allowed to pick only up to 4 apples and up to 10 pears.

For equality, both A and B should be allowed the same thresholds for picking each type of fruit.

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

That's a different issue. A valid one, but a different one. These people aren't talking about individuals and opportunities. They're talking about group identities and outcomes. The "gender pay gap" is a particularly well known example.

I'll redo the analogy to take into account the distinction you make:

A is allowed to pick only up to 10 apples and up to 4 pears.
B is allowed to pick only up to 4 apples and up to 10 pears.

The A-ist and B-ist views don't fundamentally change because they're thinking in terms of group identities.

From an A-ist point of view the issue is that there is a pear gap.
From a B-ist point of view the issue is that there is an apple gap.

Even if we go with the distinction you make (which is at best a minority position in group advocacy ideologies), the results would be as follows.

Least unequal A-ism, with the pear gap removed:

A is allowed to pick up to 10 apples and up to 7 pears.
B is allowed to pick up to 4 apples and up to 7 pears.

Least unequal B-ism, with the apple gap removed:

A is allowed to pick up to 7 apples and up to 4 pears.
B is allowed to pick up to 7 apples and up to 10 pears.

Irish_Tom · 12 Feb 2018 at 19:05

Angilion said:
I assumed that people would notice that the totals were different, but I put the totals in anyway.

You know what, I had to re-read your post for a third time (once when I initially replied, once when I posted earlier today and just now) before I realised where you put the totals in.

Maybe it's just my poor reading comprehension, but if I had written your post I would have formatted it like this:

A has 3 £20 notes, 1 £10 note, 2 £5 notes and £8 in coins (£88 total).
B has 1 £20 note, 1 £10 notes, 8 £5 notes and £10 in coins (£80 total).

Angilion said:
I expect that some people made presumptions based on their own views.

The thing is, I don't think it necessarily had anything to do with any bias, or of any preconceived notions about what you as a person would say on the topic.

I think it was just a general lack of understanding of what you were trying to explain, partly because I didn't read it carefully enough and partly because it could have been written more clearly.

Angilion · 12 Feb 2018 at 19:12

Irish_Tom said:
You know what, I had to re-read your post for a third time (once when I initially replied, once when I posted earlier today and just now) before I realised where you put the totals in.

Maybe it's just my poor reading comprehension, but if I had written your post I would have formatted it like this:

That's a fair point. Your suggested format would have been clearer.

Part of the problem is that I didn't consider the totals in the analogy to be important. And still don't. I think it's a distraction from the main point.

stockhausen · 12 Feb 2018 at 22:14

aardvark said:
ermm, what?

I am not a fan of the House of Lords.
A former boxing ring card girl is hardly a "disinterested observer" where the objectification of women is concerned.
If we have to suffer the parasites in the House of Lords, they really should concern themselves with something more important than "Grid girls".

OK?

Diddums · 12 Feb 2018 at 22:28

Well River Island have certainly made sure they never see a(nother?) penny from me.

VincentHanna · 12 Feb 2018 at 23:23

So we are clear that these grid girl models have literally lost 3 days of work of of the calendar year.

It's not a massive inconvenience is it?

Ayahuasca · 12 Feb 2018 at 23:45

VincentHanna said:
So we are clear that these grid girl models have literally lost 3 days of work of of the calendar year.

It's not a massive inconvenience is it?

Not when you put it that simply, but what if we start doing that to every role a certain group defines as sexist?

arknor · 13 Feb 2018 at 00:16

Ayahuasca said:
Not when you put it that simply, but what if we start doing that to every role a certain group defines as sexist?

all the womenz were going crazy about some tongan half naked oiled up guy taking part in the recent Olympics

wheres the outrage women? oh wait its fine if its a guy completely sexualised. but women can't even wear fairly smart clothing at a grand prix

XeNoN89 · 13 Feb 2018 at 11:30

Diddums said:
Well River Island have certainly made sure they never see a(nother?) penny from me.

Yep, I keep seeing their gender politics propaganda advert on TV. Never buying stuff from there again, although I haven't bought anything there for years anyway

Hades · 13 Feb 2018 at 11:42

Diddums said:
Well River Island have certainly made sure they never see a(nother?) penny from me.

What have they done?

EDIT: Is it the genderless kids clothing range?

VincentHanna · 13 Feb 2018 at 11:49

River Island is pretty much aimed at teenagers and young adults anyway

My 36 year old self wouldn't shop in there because i'd look like an idiot.

MikeTheNative · 13 Feb 2018 at 12:04

So why did you stop shopping at River Island? 'Was it the poor treatment of UK based workers'? 'The awful conditions of their sweat shops?' 'Use of children in 3rd world countries? ' '
Nah there was a TV advert I didn't like'

Disclaimer I haven't seem the advert.

insideline · 13 Feb 2018 at 12:21

Roar87 said:
Nah they travel around with the teams, it's not just one weekend of work a year, it's a main portion of their income for most.

Where did you get this information ? Its almost certainly false as F1 has been using local models for each F1 event for many years now.

Hades · 13 Feb 2018 at 12:38

As expected this is now spreading to other industries. It seems feminism is destroying women's jobs. Who'd a thunk it eh?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43036944

Political Correctness Gone Mad Again

Capodecina