A lot of these arguments bring this up.
It's a complete falacy.
No one owes these women or anyone a job.
It's like they are defending some protected species of animal.
Political Correctness Gone Mad Again
- Thread starter albert
- Start date
A lot of these arguments bring this up.
It's a complete falacy.
No one owes these women or anyone a job.
It's like they are defending some protected species of animal.
Fascist Free USyd and the Socialist Alternative Club had organised a protest against it. so a bunch of Marxists......
'A “ban” on the film Morley referenced in Melbourne last year was a private screening, organised by a men’s rights group, that was cancelled by the cinema'
So it seems commercial entities are willing to bow to Marxist pressure groups
Its very likely that H and M have now taken quite severe measures now to ensure that nothing like what appears to be an innocent but unfortunate oversight in a European advertisement photo doesnt have massive global impact on their business.... And other companies will be taking note also... and this will of course be influenced by the actions of radical Marxists ........
Protestors have ransacked H&M stores in South Africa amid continued anger over a “racist” promotional image on the retailer’s website.
The demonstrations were organised by the radical Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF)
A bunch of errrr ... radical Marxists
I think you should check yourself in your rush to virtue signal..... (are you perchance one of those white, male, 'feminist', 'anti-racists' who thinks you can speak on the behalf of all women and people of colour?)
Because you are apparently so arrogant to think that you can speak for the child concerned and his parents who thought it was a big fuss over nothing
"Am the mum and this is one of hundreds of outfits my son has modelled... Stop crying Wolf all the time, unnecessary issue here... Get over it," wrote Ms Mango in a social media post
Pitfalls of commenting on a smart phone should read 'radical Marxist action'
Last edited:
Changed it to a link for the Guardian (no paywall)
No employer owes these women a job is one statement............. and it is a true one generally.
However, otherwise unconcerned, third parties putting pressure on organisations to stop employing women consensually undertaking a fully clothed modelling/ promo job is quite another.
Its very interesting to see how some people react in his scenario.
I suggest its positively immoral to say that its ok for a third party to put pressure on an organisation to stop employing the women in these circumstances especially if they then try and excuse it by saying that the women's concerned work situation was never inherently particularly secure so that makes it ok to mess up their employment.
There is either a justified reasons for putting pressure on F1 and Darts to stop eploying them or not. The security or lack thereof of any ones employment is irrelevant tot his argument.
Just think that through in your head.......
Are you suggesting it ok to consciously do or support an act which makes a bad thing happen to another person just because there was a relatively high statistical likelihood that it would have happened at some point regardless of your intervention?
There is either a good argument that these women should be stopped from doing these jobs or not.
Organisations making change to their workforce makeup because of things like changes in technologies (like banks with counter staff due to internet banking) because of their customers and how they use the businesses services is quite different to companies no longer employing people in certain roles because of the adherents of a radical ideology, which isn't otherwise concerned with the business at hand, putting pressure (often with the fear of significant disruption and often violence) on the companies.
Last edited:
I would be amazed that women aren’t watching F1 because of grid girls.
I'd be equally amazed if people/men watched for the grid girls.
There is a credible argument that grid girls enhance the glamour aspect of it making it more attractive to women themselves.
It’s the whole concept of having attractive ex’s makes you more attractive to other women.
What is F1 otherwise? A bunch of blokes messing about with cars. That’s a great sell to women!
I have seen no evidence that this would be the case and plenty to suggest that the decision is not motivated by potential loss of income from the fans (or any potential fans) but due to the fear of a wider action, lead by a radical fringe, either against the sports directly or their advertisers or broadcasters
In December (of 2017), BBC Sport carried out a vote on whether 'grid girls' should be part of Formula 1, with 60% saying that they should be.
"We regularly review all aspects of our events and this move has been made following feedback from our host broadcasters," said a PDC spokesperson.
Quite laughable that the broadcasters for Darts put pressure on the PDC to drop the women given that the biggest advertisers for darts are gambling companies and there can be no doubt that their activities actually do cause significant harm to society
And I don't know you sex or sexuality but are you suggesting that women have really been discouraged from going to the darts or F1 because of a few attractive, clothed women being present..... I suggest its total nonsense
Last edited:
People watch entertainment like this at least partially for the spectacle, glamourous women can be argued to add to this (at least for some customers). Even womens magazine, aimed at heterosexual women are jam pack full of attractive partially clothed women.
I haven't seen a compelling argument or evidence presented that the presence of paid, clothed attractive women at an event would to any significant degree dissuade any persons from attending or watching
Last edited:
Is there actually evidence of a femanist group approaching the board of directors and marketing and voicing their dislike of portrayal of these women being paid to do what they do?
Or did F1 just wake up after some financial and marketing research and think, we literally won't lose anything but gain the possibility to attract a larger female market share than previously, obviously, in a male centric sport?
Do you honestly think anything they do isn't in the persute of more money. This is a fantastic opportunity for to them to break a female market that has been previously seen as nothing more than sexual accessories.
My god the world will be so glorious in 2100.
I don't think it's that at all but more a case of companies running scared. They are literally terrified of their brand being tainted by this current trend of women's/radical groups to target anything or anyone they consider to be fair game. It's trial by social media, put simply bullying on a global scale.
Last edited:
One word regarding the above - TRUE!
The radical feminists will be going after every avenue where a woman can make money by being attractive......this to them is the height of unfairness (usually as they are 18 stone blue haired monsters).....and at the same time, they can stick the knife into men, by saying men are objectifying/perving over them in the process.....win win.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,620
I know that I’ll be in a minority of
one on here, but having once glanced
up from a book, and very accidentally
caught a couple of minutes of cars
going round and round a circuit on TV
I’m amazed that anyone watches it.
Kids are F1's primary audience these days so it makes sense, serious racing fans have long since abandoned F1. I only really follow it now for the off-track drama/politics. I'd rather see them use grid 'hunks' for a time though just to see if the far left are stupid enough to bring up equality/sexism.
Common sense isn't so common these days it seems.
Its all stems from the wider ideology of Marxism... essentially this wicked ideology asserts that desired social outcome should be an equality of outcome. Of course seeking some sort of universal 'cosmic justice' for all doesn't result in everyone being pulled up towards the higher echelons of whatever metric is at stake.... quite the opposite as Yaron Brook explains here with a basketball analogy if you want equality of outcome the talented and hard working individuals must at the least be deliberately held back, if not crippled (or in its most extreme case killed)
Hence Marxism delivers economically a greater equality of poverty whereby income inequality might decrease but global levels of poverty increase 'an equal share of misery'
Hence why there is the general tendency for more radical feminists to actually deliberately take steps to make themselves less attractive and why they seek to prevent other women from capitalising on their (potentially higher levels of) unevenly distributed natural attractiveness (no doubt combined with a lot of maintenance and in some cases human enhancement)
And its why the Khmer Rouge's (Officially The Communist Party of Kampuchea) killing of millions of its own citizens is entirely in line with wicked Marxist ideology .........
'The Khmer Rouge also began to implement their radical Maoist and Marxist-Leninist transformation program at this time. They wanted to transform Cambodia into a rural, classless society in which there were no rich people, no poor people, and no exploitation.'
The Khmer Rouge did not pervert socialist/ Marxist ideology....... far from it they took it closer then most did to its logical conclusion... that being an equality of outcome
So I don't argue against the removal of 'walk on girls' for darts or 'grid girls' for F1 because I care for these sports directly.
In fact I care very little for either sport I just believe there is a wider issue here.... namely the increased tendency of people, especially the young to think that Socialism might be a good idea....... when history shows this not to be the case
Last edited: