Should the darts and other sports ban 'walk on girls'?

[Voll Blau]

Funny how none of these girls seem to be giving their ex-employers any stick over what are just commercial decisions. It wouldn't have affected the PDC or F1's audience one bit if they'd simply decided to ignore any calls to change their policy.

 

So far as I can see, the only organisation vaguely cited with pressuring either to do so is the Women's Sport Trust - and even then it was only with a very general statement issued AFTER the PDC's decision. Ross Brawn said as far back as December that F1 was reviewing its policy?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/42346331

[David Guiza]

First they came for the gender pay gap, and I did not speak out—

Because I'm a bloke.

Then they came for the cat-callers, and I did not speak out— 

Because I'm a bloke.

Then they came for the sexual harassment victims, and I did not speak out— 

Because I'm bloke.

Then they came for the grid girls —

and I suddenly remembered that women are equal.

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

First they came for the gender pay gap, and I did not speak out—

Because I'm a bloke.

Then they came for the cat-callers, and I did not speak out— 

Because I'm a bloke.

Then they came for the sexual harassment victims, and I did not speak out— 

Because I'm bloke.

Then they came for the grid girls —

and I suddenly remembered that women are equal.

Who has actually defended sexual predators on here? I honestly can't think of one person.

 

It's great that men are now deciding what jobs women can and can't do though, just what Pankhurst was aiming for I imagine.

[Guest MattP]

For anyone interested in the gender pay and feminism in general this interview is a fantastic watch. 

 

The way it's been distorted into something it isn't is actually quite fascinating. 

 

 

Edited 1 February 2018 by MattP

[David Guiza]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Who has actually defended sexual predators on here? I honestly can't think of one person.

 

It's great that men are now deciding what jobs women can and can't do though, just what Pankhurst was aiming for I imagine.

It was more aimed at the general public outcry, grown men angrily texting 5Live about the hypocrisy between what Little Mix wear on stage and what Grid Girls wear being one fine example. 

 

I don't think Pankhurst dreamed of women being used as public billboards or eye-candy for people who can't go a couple of hours at a sporting event without something to ogle either. I assume you will be making the same cries when those blokes whom dress up as superheroes for Dominos Pizza are laid off too? #justiceforbatman 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Who has actually defended sexual predators on here? I honestly can't think of one person.

 

It's great that men are now deciding what jobs women can and can't do though, just what Pankhurst was aiming for I imagine.

Defending sexual predators and enabling them by refusing to listen to their victims isn't quite the same thing. The latter is still deemed socially acceptable in a lot of places. It is telling that this particular issue has turned heads when all the other manifold issues that still exist regarding gender issues are largely ignored by those focusing on this issue, which I think was the point DG was trying to make.

 

FWIW I think the decision about such things should be between the employer and employee alone as long as coercion isn't a factor - which I don't think it was in this case.

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

It was more aimed at the general public outcry, grown men angrily texting 5Live about the hypocrisy between what Little Mix wear on stage and what Grid Girls wear being one fine example. 

 

I don't think Pankhurst dreamed of women being used as public billboards or eye-candy for people who can't go a couple of hours at a sporting event without something to ogle either. I assume you will be making the same cries when those blokes whom dress up as superheroes for Dominos Pizza are laid off too? #justiceforbatman 

If they are forced out of work then yes I would (assuming I was aware of it).

 

It's not my job to demand someone does something, can't do something or shout and scream so they can't or won't do something I don't agree with. Everyone should be free to pursue personal choice.

 

Because of that opinion I'll now be assumed to be turning a blind eye to rapists. 

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

For anyone interested in the gender pay and feminism in general this interview is a fantastic watch. 

 

The way it's been distorted into something it isn't is actually quite fascinating. 

 

 

Had an interesting discussion about this interview a few days back, lots of reasoned disagreement and it was certainly an interesting interview.

 

One comment, in particular, was interesting:

 

"They (the two named people, but their larger "sides" as well) are having a different discourse - talking about different things for a different purpose. Peterson is apparently trying to have a science-based descriptive discussion about what the world is like. Newman seems to be having a moral discussion about what is right and wrong, with a strong framing for non-neutrality - she feels she is representing a historically oppressed group against a member of the historically oppressing group who is presenting himself as an authority about justifications (she feels) for the oppression.

The solution for listening is not to ignore the other discourse by enforcing the standards of your own discourse ("stop egging and distorting, be more accurate"), but to understand where the other party is coming from. You can't talk neutrally about the description of the world if the other party (from your view) is justifying oppression."

 

And also:

 

"If you want to read about what the person is claiming, you read the peer-reviewed paper. Anything else just adds useless drama and more opportunities for misunderstanding, which is why (anonymous) peer review was invented in the first place."

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Had an interesting discussion about this interview a few days back, lots of reasoned disagreement and it was certainly an interesting interview.

 

One comment, in particular, was interesting:

 

"They (the two named people, but their larger "sides" as well) are having a different discourse - talking about different things for a different purpose. Peterson is apparently trying to have a science-based descriptive discussion about what the world is like. Newman seems to be having a moral discussion about what is right and wrong, with a strong framing for non-neutrality - she feels she is representing a historically oppressed group against a member of the historically oppressing group who is presenting himself as an authority about justifications (she feels) for the oppression.

The solution for listening is not to ignore the other discourse by enforcing the standards of your own discourse ("stop egging and distorting, be more accurate"), but to understand where the other party is coming from. You can't talk neutrally about the description of the world if the other party (from your view) is justifying oppression."

 

And also:

 

"If you want to read about what the person is claiming, you read the peer-reviewed paper. Anything else just adds useless drama and more opportunities for misunderstanding, which is why (anonymous) peer review was invented in the first place."

It wasn't Newman's finest hour was it?

 

I don't think I've ever seen an interview where logic based on research and fact totally obliterated fashionable opinion.

 

I'm amazed Peterson stuck with it, on the fourth or fifth time she claimed "so you are saying" followed by something he hadn't said I would have walked out, he has far more patience than me, I've ordered his book.

[David Guiza]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

If they are forced out of work then yes I would (assuming I was aware of it).

 

It's not my job to demand someone does something, can't do something or shout and scream so they can't or won't do something I don't agree with. Everyone should be free to pursue personal choice.

 

Because of that opinion I'll now be assumed to be turning a blind eye to rapists. 

No disrespect, but I find it hard to believe that you would care even half as much about a migrant earning minimum wage to advertise a pizza chain as you do about this. However, I will take your word for that

 

Absolutely, but that's not the point I was making. Of course I feel sorry for the women involved because they have lost their job and a result a probably reasonable paycheck too, but, as Lecsmac says, it's utterly ridiculous that so many people are jumping to the defence of the Grid Girls from an equality perspective whilst almost simultaneously turning their backs to other gender related issues. I suspect, though I may be wrong (it has been known) that a topic on Foxestalk or a radio discussion about cat-calling wouldn't get as many male voices defending women and that's just a little sad. 

Edited 1 February 2018 by David Guiza

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

It wasn't Newman's finest hour was it?

 

I don't think I've ever seen an interview where logic based on research and fact totally obliterated fashionable opinion.

 

I'm amazed Peterson stuck with it, on the fourth or fifth time she claimed "so you are saying" followed by something he hadn't said I would have walked out, he has far more patience than me, I've ordered his book.

Another comment from the same discussion, actually, to give opinion about the interviewer and what you've said here, says it better than I could:

 

"I am in the minority who both enjoyed the interview and didn't think there was any particular unilateral failure of communication. It just seemed to me to be a fair challenge to Dr. Peterson's assumptions. She gave him ample time to respond but didn't allow his word to remain unchallenged. I think there's great value in this kind of polemical style of conversation, this kind of combative journalism, even if the reason for it was pure ideological hostility.

 

I didn't think it was a failure of communication, at least for the most part, but an honest disagreement of interpretation on what the consequences of his words would be for society. Whether the inquisitive style was intentional or not is almost beside the point, I think the end result was that Dr. Peterson was forced to clarify his positions and to expose the big issues at stake here. I think there is utility in these kinds of exchanges because it doesn't hide the severe gulf between different ideological positions.

 

I have a different interpretation of what the frequent "so you're saying" interjections mean. She might equally have said "So, are you saying that X" or "But you're not saying that X?" or something similar. She wasn't putting words into his mouth as much as trying to draw out some possible (least charitable) interpretations and consequences of his statement. Only about maybe 20% of the time did I feel that her follow-up bore no logical relationship to what had come before. It is true that she was not being charitable and her interpretations were often stretching his views to the breaking point. But I think this only made the interview that much better. I'd like to see more interviews like this, e.g. with left-leaning ideologues, feminists, etc. Better warfare than hypocritical peace. It was clearly very good for Dr. Peterson's reputation, too."

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

No disrespect, but I find it hard to believe that you would care even half as much about a migrant earning minimum wage to advertise a pizza chain as you do about this. However, I will take your word for that

 

Absolutely, but that's not the point I was making. Of course I feel sorry for the women involved because they have lost their job and a result a probably reasonable paycheck too, but, as Lecsmac says, it's utterly ridiculous that so many people are jumping to the defence of the Grid Girls from an equality perspective whilst almost simultaneously turning their backs to other gender related issues. I suspect, though I may be wrong (it has been known) that a topic on Foxestalk or a radio discussion about cat-calling wouldn't get as many male voices defending women and that's just a little sad. 

I don't really see the correlation with the first point here? What does a migrant being exploited by Pizza Hut (on minimum wage) have to do with Grid Girls (who don't feel exploited it seems) losing work because of changing attitudes?

 

Really can't see why the two would be compared as they are totally different. 

[Finnaldo]

38 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Another comment from the same discussion, actually, to give opinion about the interviewer and what you've said here, says it better than I could:

 

"I am in the minority who both enjoyed the interview and didn't think there was any particular unilateral failure of communication. It just seemed to me to be a fair challenge to Dr. Peterson's assumptions. She gave him ample time to respond but didn't allow his word to remain unchallenged. I think there's great value in this kind of polemical style of conversation, this kind of combative journalism, even if the reason for it was pure ideological hostility.

 

I didn't think it was a failure of communication, at least for the most part, but an honest disagreement of interpretation on what the consequences of his words would be for society. Whether the inquisitive style was intentional or not is almost beside the point, I think the end result was that Dr. Peterson was forced to clarify his positions and to expose the big issues at stake here. I think there is utility in these kinds of exchanges because it doesn't hide the severe gulf between different ideological positions.

 

I have a different interpretation of what the frequent "so you're saying" interjections mean. She might equally have said "So, are you saying that X" or "But you're not saying that X?" or something similar. She wasn't putting words into his mouth as much as trying to draw out some possible (least charitable) interpretations and consequences of his statement. Only about maybe 20% of the time did I feel that her follow-up bore no logical relationship to what had come before. It is true that she was not being charitable and her interpretations were often stretching his views to the breaking point. But I think this only made the interview that much better. I'd like to see more interviews like this, e.g. with left-leaning ideologues, feminists, etc. Better warfare than hypocritical peace. It was clearly very good for Dr. Peterson's reputation, too."

 

To be fair, Dr Peterson gives plenty of evidence of outcome based on real life applications (Scandinavia, where women are more likely to be nurses and men more likely to be builders despite exhaustive initiatives and drives to render gender roles totally sterile), but rather than challenge the research, or the point at all, she claims that Peterson is stating women can't be involved in these fields, despite him quite clearly saying it's MORE LIKELY rather than impossible. He goes on to give personal examples  of women he's helped in certain male-dominated career and she AGAIN tries to steer the conversation to him suggesting women are weak and incapable, again absolutely nothing to do with his previous point.

 

It would be drawing out an interpretation if it was in any way linked to the studies or personal case he's citating, but rather she makes a broad blanket statement that's barely connected to the Peterson's argument. I'd argue the only time she really offered a counterpoint she walked straight into Peterson's logic and she got stung to the point she had to admit he 'gotcha'. Her attempt to mock the lobster point he made at the end was pathetic and showed she felt she was obviously 'losing' the argument.

 

On a side note, cheers for linking the JBP video Matt, I have a lot of time for his content and it's clear he has societal improvement at the top of his agenda, without being antagonistically conservative or socialist.

Edited 1 February 2018 by Finnaldo

[RonnieTodger]

"While the practice of employing grid girls has been a staple of Formula 1 Grands Prix for decades, we feel this custom does not resonate with our brand values and clearly is at odds with modern day societal norms. We don’t believe the practice is appropriate or relevant to Formula 1 and its fans, old and new, across the world.”

 

Translation: "We had no problem with it until the darts ones were binned off, so we've done it too". 

[simFox]

I get the feeling, it would only be a matter of time before the F1 got outed by a president's club style infiltration of raucous afterparty behaviour and lewd proposals towards the girls. The reality is, many will be losing their chance to dance with money. But at least the ugly ones won't feel like they're missing out.

[leicsmac]

Going back to Peterson for a moment, here's a more comprehensive look at his views than the interviewer on Channel 4 had to offer:

 

https://medium.com/@aaronhuertas/a-field-guide-to-jordan-petersons-political-arguments-312153eac99a

 

Would be interested in knowing peoples thoughts.

[simFox]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Going back to Peterson for a moment, here's a more comprehensive look at his views than the interviewer on Channel 4 had to offer:

 

https://medium.com/@aaronhuertas/a-field-guide-to-jordan-petersons-political-arguments-312153eac99a

 

Would be interested in knowing peoples thoughts.

I get both sides. I don't believe we're on the cusp of some neo-marxist gender genocide due to the recognition of trans gender rights, but the whole gender rights issue has a noisy and rather influential minority that is misconstruing the natural identity of otherwise binary normal people, i.e. my kids.

 

There is probably more confusion and inability to recognise what people are or want to be simply because these people refuse to acknowledge or believe the differences exist and this is what our children are being taught.

 

I don't know, it's all a bit confusing.

 

What I do know, having had two daughters, and no boy, I declared to my wife, sister and mother that my daughter will be the next Lewis Hamilton/warrior princess. However, despite my best efforts to interest my eldest in cars, physicality, sports and male paraphernalia, her interests are makeup, shoes, clothes and dolly's. There's no equality of outcome, just equal opportunity, but the uptake will result in an unequal distribution based on our biological, physical and emotional differences, unless of course you are trans, so I suppose that means, in order to be accommodating, those differences don't exist because some peer reviewed university trans gender study professor said so.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

On 01/02/2018 at 13:52, MattP said:

For anyone interested in the gender pay and feminism in general this interview is a fantastic watch. 

 

The way it's been distorted into something it isn't is actually quite fascinating. 

 

 

 

Wow, he’s one hell of an intellectual.

 

Quite frankly, Kathy Newman had no chance here - and it’s understandable why - not because she’s a dumb bitch, far from it - but because he’s lived high level psychology and whatever else to the extent he’s a walking encyclopaedia - whereas Newman and her researchers probably had at best 12 working hours to prepare.

 

The format of a live interview also wasn’t helpful to Newman - it allowed little chance to pause and digest what was being said. Indeed if felt she was a bit too eager to jump in at times.

 

See interviews are tough... there’s a lot more going on than what the other person is saying - time / flow / which camera / question script / editor in your ear / etc. It’s not just having a conversation.

 

 

If there’s a couple of criticism’s I would aim towards Jordan, although I expect he toned his level of language down, it was still too high brow for his audience. It could have done with further simplification. 

 

The second critisicm was that he seemed to be ‘enjoying' playing with Newman too much - making himself look worse that what he actually was. 

 

if you take these two points and put them together - you can now understand why some people would take his well constructed views as something completely alien to what he's actually saying - because they simply don't understand the fine lines of the argument he is presenting and so go with an emotional underatanding. 

 

@MattP. Your right about the book thing - hoping my Uni library has someth8ng

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Wow, he’s one hell of an intellectual.

 

Quite frankly, Kathy Newman had no chance here - and it’s understandable why - not because she’s a dumb bitch, far from it - but because he’s lived high level psychology and whatever else to the extent he’s a walking encyclopaedia - whereas Newman and her researchers probably had at best 12 working hours to prepare.

 

The format of a live interview also wasn’t helpful to Newman - it allowed little chance to pause and digest what was being said. Indeed if felt she was a bit too eager to jump in at times.

 

See interviews are tough... there’s a lot more going on than what the other person is saying - time / flow / which camera / question script / editor in your ear / etc. It’s not just having a conversation.

 

 

If there’s a couple of criticism’s I would aim towards Jordan, although I expect he toned his level of language down, it was still too high brow for his audience. It could have done with further simplification. 

 

The second critisicm was that he seemed to be ‘enjoying' playing with Newman too much - making himself look worse that what he actually was. 

 

if you take these two points and put them together - you can now understand why some people would take his well constructed views as something completely alien to what he's actually saying - because they simply don't understand the fine lines of the argument he is presenting and so go with an emotional underatanding. 

 

@MattP. Your right about the book thing - hoping my Uni library has someth8ng

Do have a look at the article I posted above DJ - offers something of a better refutal of Peterson's arguments.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Do have a look at the article I posted above DJ - offers something of a better refutal of Peterson's arguments.

 

Well i started reading Aaron’s article... but for me, it drifts off my attention. Seems to go on and on, bring up some strawman arguments and then... I stopped. I did watch the ‘Pepe flag’ interview - but not sure what that proves. 

 

Now i should also point out, I don’t know this Jordan guy that well - the video is the first i’ve seen of him, but the ideas he floated were very interesting, quite nuanced ideas.

 

I particularly liked his take on “equality” and gender, because it seemed to recognise the animalistic traits in humans and differences between men and women on a general level and address the fact there can be different types of equality. 

 

His use of generalisations was interesting as well - in that when you’re looking for traits, generalisation is useful, but if you are looking at a fault or something you want to change, looking at the headline generalisation is no good, you need to break it down further and further still. 

 

The only thing i didn’t like - I saw inmyself how agreeable I’ve been... making me a bloody women!

 

 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

@leicsmac

 

I’ve tried going through that article again. For me, it’s more of a rant - it doesn’t hold a evidence; disagreement; why flow to it. I also came across this line and thought... no, not a good line;

 

Basically, if your points are so complex and nuanced it takes hundreds of hours to explain them, your points are probably not particularly relevant to a political debate.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, simFox said:

I get both sides. I don't believe we're on the cusp of some neo-marxist gender genocide due to the recognition of trans gender rights, but the whole gender rights issue has a noisy and rather influential minority that is misconstruing the natural identity of otherwise binary normal people, i.e. my kids.

 

There is probably more confusion and inability to recognise what people are or want to be simply because these people refuse to acknowledge or believe the differences exist and this is what our children are being taught.

 

I don't know, it's all a bit confusing.

 

What I do know, having had two daughters, and no boy, I declared to my wife, sister and mother that my daughter will be the next Lewis Hamilton/warrior princess. However, despite my best efforts to interest my eldest in cars, physicality, sports and male paraphernalia, her interests are makeup, shoes, clothes and dolly's. There's no equality of outcome, just equal opportunity, but the uptake will result in an unequal distribution based on our biological, physical and emotional differences, unless of course you are trans, so I suppose that means, in order to be accommodating, those differences don't exist because some peer reviewed university trans gender study professor said so.

There's something in that.

 

I like to think that the one constant is that people have the freedom to self-determine. The distribution will be unequal, but equality of opportunity, as you say, without judgement.

 

 

1 hour ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Well i started reading Aaron’s article... but for me, it drifts off my attention. Seems to go on and on, bring up some strawman arguments and then... I stopped. I did watch the ‘Pepe flag’ interview - but not sure what that proves. 

 

Now i should also point out, I don’t know this Jordan guy that well - the video is the first i’ve seen of him, but the ideas he floated were very interesting, quite nuanced ideas.

 

I particularly liked his take on “equality” and gender, because it seemed to recognise the animalistic traits in humans and differences between men and women on a general level and address the fact there can be different types of equality. 

 

His use of generalisations was interesting as well - in that when you’re looking for traits, generalisation is useful, but if you are looking at a fault or something you want to change, looking at the headline generalisation is no good, you need to break it down further and further still. 

 

The only thing i didn’t like - I saw inmyself how agreeable I’ve been... making me a bloody women!

 

 

 

1 hour ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

@leicsmac

 

I’ve tried going through that article again. For me, it’s more of a rant - it doesn’t hold a evidence; disagreement; why flow to it. I also came across this line and thought... no, not a good line;

 

Basically, if your points are so complex and nuanced it takes hundreds of hours to explain them, your points are probably not particularly relevant to a political debate.

That's interesting, and also a little disconcerting on my part. I honestly thought it was well-structured and addressed at least some of the points he made in a well-referenced fashion. Perhaps that's my own bias talking. For instance, as the article says, it would indeed be easy for Peterson to not misgender a student by simply using their given name, or by, you know, accepting their right to identify as their chosen gender and not presuming to know that person better than they know themselves.

 

The author also emphasises a lot of positives regarding him and makes it very clear that in their opinion he isn't anywhere near the alt-right - which is true.

 

Regarding the line you bolded, I do think it could have been worded and parsed better than it is; I've seen that argument used too often to disregard scientists talking about a scientific issue that might become political, and my stance then has always been that the person listening to the argument should educate themselves to the level of complexity, not the speaker should dumb themselves down to the level of the listener, and the same applies here.

[Rogstanley]

Didn’t Peterson say in the channel 4 interview that he would use any pronoun he was asked to use by a student in his class though? It seemed to me that he didn’t have an issue with doing that, but he did have an issue with making it a legal matter. 

 

He definitely smashed the gender pay gap thing to pieces so fair play to him for that. Tempted to give his book a go but as a rule I don’t read self help books so I’m not sure. Also unlike apparently most of his fans I’m not in the market for a new Jesus so don’t really feel like I need a new set of commandments.

 

 

[Izzy]

18 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Tempted to give his book a go but as a rule I don’t read self help books so I’m not sure. Also unlike apparently most of his fans I’m not in the market for a new Jesus so don’t really feel like I need a new set of commandments.

 

Self help books are pretty much all I read.

 

If you’re tempted then try it - you might even like it.

 

Who knows, you might then start reading more self help books and become less bitter and angry?

 

Open your mind to the possibilities Rog...

[Rogstanley]

38 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Self help books are pretty much all I read.

 

If you’re tempted then try it - you might even like it.

 

Who knows, you might then start reading more self help books and become less bitter and angry?

 

Open your mind to the possibilities Rog...

 

 

I’m neither bitter nor angry but do appreciate that my posts may sometimes come across that way.

 

Years ago I read a couple of self-help books. Can’t remember which ones but I’m sure they were considered classics. They didn’t do anything for me in fact just made me more negative for having spent time considering problems I didn’t really have.

 

If you or anyone else finds them helpful then crack on, they’re just not for me.

Edited 4 February 2018 by Rogstanley