Is SJWism not just a new, rebranded form of sexual puritanism?

01-02-2018 09:46PM

https://twitter.com/rebeccageldard/status/958718387361861633?s=17

https://twitter.com/LucyStokes_/status/958838990903349249?s=17

hatrickpatrick · 01-02-2018 09:48PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not when it comes to marketing. You analyse your target audience and work to make yourself attractive to them.

I really don't think that's what's happening here, though. If it is, then fair enough. But I think it has a lot more to do with the risk of external pressure - clickbait articles by the likes of Luna O'Neilly getting plastered all over the internet and leading to scathing headlines, as opposed to any actual drop off in viewership figures.

Captain Obvious · 01-02-2018 09:52PM

Omackeral wrote: »

Did I say that? Do F1 girls take their kit off in the pit-lane? That's news to me if they do. Your porn comparison isn't apt here so now you're hitting back all sarky. Promo girls are nothing to do with watching pornography, the fact you can equate them says more about you tbh.

Promo girls are about using sexual appeal to promote something. Their historical appeal is in markets focused on men. These days marketing is focused on broader audiences who are not vulnerable to the same marketing techniques. I'm not equating promo girls to porn. I'm saying the people who think they are part of a sport can still get their pretty girl fix from porn. Because to imply that the promo girls are somehow part of the sport and anything more to these people than an unnecessary sexual focus is just nonsense.

pleas advice · 01-02-2018 09:52PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

As the person who actually wrote the comment I think I'm in a bette rposition to say what I was referring to.

B.A._Baracus wrote:

Also I'm not offended :pac:

Yes you are. You're offended that Formula One no longer shares your vision of what the sport should be. They've decided to focus on the cars, you want pretty women.

Hmmm...

Except nobody has been able to produce any evidence of pressure involved in this decision. The people who made the decision themselves have said it's to do with improving the brand. The fact of the matter is that pretty girls in sports don't really attract women or families and in many cases can put them off. And in a society where you have HD porn at the click of a button are these pretty girls even that much of a draw to men?

Hmmmmm

Captain Obvious · 01-02-2018 09:53PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I really don't think that's what's happening here, though. If it is, then fair enough. But I think it has a lot more to do with the risk of external pressure - clickbait articles by the likes of Luna O'Neilly getting plastered all over the internet and leading to scathing headlines, as opposed to any actual drop off in viewership figures.

Except there is no evidence of any pressure in this instance.

Captain Obvious · 01-02-2018 09:54PM

pleas advice wrote: »

Hmmm...

Hmmmmm

Hmmm

hatrickpatrick · 01-02-2018 09:57PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Except there is no evidence of any pressure in this instance.

They literally used the phrase "today's societal norms". Societal norms are in and of themselves pressure by virtue of existing at all, and I'm just saying I despise seeing people or organisations cave in to them.

Also, there is evidence that it's more than an internal decision:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/formula-one-grid-girls-dropped-for-2018-season-amid-sexism-row-a3754541.html

It came just days after the Professional Darts Corporation announced it would no long use scantily-clad women to escort male players onto the stage.

The PDC faced pressure from fans and broadcasters to stop the practice in a row over sexism.

Campaigners called on other sports including motor racing, boxing and cycling to follow the PDC in deciding to no longer use walk-on girls.

So clearly this is about trying to pre-empt a similar sh!t-storm.

Beanntraigheach · 01-02-2018 09:59PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

These people should lay their cards on the table and state what their end game really is

What society will really look like after they have finished with it

It's just slowly drip drip drip

ThinkProgress · 01-02-2018 10:42PM

Ask yourself this... is it really sexist to promote the notion, that women are the more visually appealing gender!? I would consider it a great compliment tbh!

You don't have to be a straight male to recognise this. Even gay men and straight women are capable of recognising the beauty of many women! (without being sexually attracted to them)

It's usually just ugly feminists that object to women being viewed as beautiful.

vetinari · 01-02-2018 11:15PM

Some amount of snowflakes on this.
F1 themselves decided to drop the grid lane girls.
They certainly didn't have to. That was their decision.
As I said before, anti - SJWers are the biggest snowflakes out there.
Trawling the internet to find something to get offended at.

paleoperson · 01-02-2018 11:22PM

vetinari wrote: »

Some amount of snowflakes on this.
F1 themselves decided to drop the grid lane girls.
They certainly didn't have to. That was their decision.
As I said before, anti - SJWers are the biggest snowflakes out there.
Trawling the internet to find something to get offended at.

I had to audibly laugh out loud at this bit, that kind of bitter, black kind of laugh at something that is too serious to be funny but it's just so ridiculous that you have to.

The entire culture is changing so rapidly to become sexless and so politically correct to the point where we can't even turn on tv or pick up a newspaper anymore without seeing it and you come up with this. Movies, tv shows, games all getting ruined and this is your response.

Will I Am Not · 01-02-2018 11:25PM

vetinari wrote: »

Some amount of snowflakes on this.
F1 themselves decided to drop the grid lane girls.
They certainly didn't have to. That was their decision.
As I said before, anti - SJWers are the biggest snowflakes out there.
Trawling the internet to find something to get offended at.

I heard this being discussed on 2 radio stations today and I’ve seen it in the paper.

35cent · 01-02-2018 11:34PM

I think they made the wrong decision on this. The women that did the job seemed to enjoy it judging by their reaction to these rulings and why can't they do it anyway? It's like the people who complain about it don't realise that they do it by choice. Also, I've barely heard any complains about grid girls from anyone really so I'm sceptical about of a boost in ratings anyway.

Greentopia · 01-02-2018 11:41PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They literally used the phrase "today's societal norms". Societal norms are in and of themselves pressure by virtue of existing at all, and I'm just saying I despise seeing people or organisations cave in to them.

Also, there is evidence that it's more than an internal decision:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/formula-one-grid-girls-dropped-for-2018-season-amid-sexism-row-a3754541.html

So clearly this is about trying to pre-empt a similar sh!t-storm.

An expression used because they didn't want to say it's bad for their commercial interests, so they use the PC angle.

Darts in particular has become much more popular in the past few years with huge increases in viewing figures for the big tournaments year on year on Sky.
Demographics have changed too, it's no longer viewed just by middle age working class men down the pub, it's appealing to a younger audience and a more well heeled one. More and more women watch it now too:

"A third of the darts audience on Sky over the last four years has also been female."http://www.smg-insight.com/darts-bigger-more-diverse-than-you-think/

PDC World number 1 Michael Van Gerwen has said "The PDC wants more people to see it as a sport. It does not interest me (walk-on girls). It is just a sport."

That's the nub of it and the reason behind this change of heart-they want to broaden the appeal of the sport yet further because that means more viewing figures, more sponsorship, higher attendance figures-more ticket sales, and so more profit for the sports governing bodies.

Having Barbie dolls parade around on stage is a throw back to the old image of darts and to cater for a more diverse audience they're updating it's image.
It's just business.

Greentopia · 01-02-2018 11:49PM

35cent wrote: »

I think they made the wrong decision on this. The women that did the job seemed to enjoy it judging by their reaction to these rulings and why can't they do it anyway? It's like the people who complain about it don't realise that they do it by choice. Also, I've barely heard any complains about grid girls from anyone really so I'm sceptical about of a boost in ratings anyway.

If they enjoy it so much they can do it for free, no? but of course they won't. They do it for the money, take that away and none of them would be interested. I have no idea about ratings figures for F1 but if it's not going well you can be sure the bosses would have no problem getting rid of the girls if they think it will broaden the fan base of the sport.
And if it's going well but their research shows they can get more female or younger viewers by ditching the girls that's exactly what they will do. Like I said in my last post-it's business.

Wibbs · 01-02-2018 11:58PM

Yep, as Greeny said above it's just business. They're going with where they think the flow of money might be.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yes you are. You're offended that Formula One no longer shares your vision of what the sport should be. They've decided to focus on the cars, you want pretty women.

Hahahhahha... oh wait you're serious? Like above it's just business. I hate to break it to you, but they've always focused on the cars(and drivers) right from the very earliest days with Nuvolari flying along with a ciggie in his mouth. And they focused on the glamour of the whole affair as that got the bums on seats. This included glamorous women.

The main driver(no pun) for this isn't some perpetually adolescent overweight purple haired "feminist" with a nose ring having yet another mentaller over yet another "trigger", but much more to do with the fact that F1 has been bleeding viewers and spectators for the last decade(at least). Much of it down to the sheer bloody boredom of it these days. It's 99% nerds on laptops tweaking the tech and "driver tactics" operating a rarely exciting noisy parade of we know who will won . Give me strength.. :rolleyes:

The main driver of this is trying to get more of the Middle East and other markets into the game to swell numbers and especially in the Middle East Dolly Birds don't go down too well as they prefer their women cloistered and tented from head to foot.

Always follow the money. If the F1 movers and shakers - enough of whom will find themselves on expensive yachts with equally expensive "escorts" to play with - thought that buck naked track girls meant more money, they'd go for it in a big way.

pleas advice · 02-02-2018 12:06AM

Greentopia wrote: »

If they enjoy it so much they can do it for free, no? but of course they won't. They do it for the money,...

Same could be said of the drivers?

B.A._Baracus · 02-02-2018 12:12AM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

As the person who actually wrote the comment I think I'm in a bette rposition to say what I was referring to.

Yes you are. You're offended that Formula One no longer shares your vision of what the sport should be. They've decided to focus on the cars, you want pretty women.

I've never even watched more than 1 minute of f1 in my life. Too boring.

But what's it like to be up your own hole?
I say that because you've labeled me as someone who loves pretty women and f1 :pac: (how wrong lol)

Starting to hate the ****e people post in order to win arguments online. Attack the poster never the post eh? Twist what they say to win an 'internet argument' now that's pathetic lol.

But hey mate. Why not quote me twisting some more. Go on. Call me a member of the kkk or something :pac:

02-02-2018 12:12AM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

It's their hatred of the working classes

They hate the middle and upper classes too.

FunLover18 · 02-02-2018 12:14AM

The grid girls serve no purpose, anyone could do it, call it "glamour" all you want but it's pure sex appeal and it sets a bad example to young viewers of both genders that women are just "glamorous" objects to be used in the decoration and promotion of male-orientated activities. The issue isn't that women are being sexy and dressing scantily, the issue is that they're doing it in order to promote a product.

NIMAN · 02-02-2018 12:15AM

I see Michael Lester's replacement was announced today....I would nearly have staked my mortgage on it being a woman.

NIMAN · 02-02-2018 12:17AM

How are Miss World/Universe/Ireland etc allowed to continue?

Are they next for the chop?

PopePalpatine · 02-02-2018 12:17AM

Wibbs wrote: »

The main driver(no pun) for this isn't some perpetually adolescent overweight purple haired "feminist" with a nose ring having yet another mentaller over yet another "trigger", but much more to do with the fact that F1 has been bleeding viewers and spectators for the last decade(at least). Much of it down to the sheer bloody boredom of it these days. It's 99% nerds on laptops tweaking the tech and "driver tactics" operating a rarely exciting noisy parade of we know who will won . Give me strength.. :rolleyes:

The main driver of this is trying to get more of the Middle East and other markets into the game to swell numbers and especially in the Middle East Dolly Birds don't go down too well as they prefer their women cloistered and tented from head to foot.

Always follow the money. If the F1 movers and shakers - enough of whom will find themselves on expensive yachts with equally expensive "escorts" to play with - thought that buck naked track girls meant more money, they'd go for it in a big way.

Sticking it behind a paywall in its largest markets (for example, in France only 4 races will be shown free-to-air this year, and of course you've got Sky Sports over here) doesn't help either, and I feel this issue is a useful distraction from that for their new owners.

paleoperson · 02-02-2018 12:18AM

FunLover18 wrote: »

The grid girls serve no purpose, anyone could do it, call it "glamour" all you want but it's pure sex appeal and it sets a bad example to young viewers of both genders that women are just "glamorous" objects to be used in the decoration and promotion of male-orientated activities. The issue isn't that women are being sexy and dressing scantily, the issue is that they're doing it in order to promote a product.

This post isn't exactly befitting of your username, bet you're loads of fun at parties. What a load of codology. It doesn't serve no purpose and it doesn't "set a bad example to young viewers". By the way they also have racing and champagne "in order to promote a product".

FunLover18 · 02-02-2018 12:24AM

paleoperson wrote: »

This post isn't exactly befitting of your username, bet you're loads of fun at parties. What a load of codology. It doesn't serve no purpose and it doesn't "set a bad example to young viewers". By the way they also have racing and champagne "in order to promote a product".

Please enlighten me, what purpose does it serve? And what message do they send if not that women are display objects to be ogled?

35cent · 02-02-2018 12:26AM

Greentopia wrote: »

If they enjoy it so much they can do it for free, no? but of course they won't. They do it for the money, take that away and none of them would be interested. I have no idea about ratings figures for F1 but if it's not going well you can be sure the bosses would have no problem getting rid of the girls if they think it will broaden the fan base of the sport.
And if it's going well but their research shows they can get more female or younger viewers by ditching the girls that's exactly what they will do. Like I said in my last post-it's business.

Well as someone said below, same can be said for the drivers as well as actors, musicians, heck anyone who enjoys their job.

On your second point, I actually agree with you. I think this was done for business reasons rather than moral reasons or whatever. I just think that they overestimated the effect that this will in terms of broadening the audience.

conorhal · 02-02-2018 12:27AM

Beanntraigheach wrote: »

There's a strangely old-fashioned view of women that's become increasingly prevalent of late too:
delicate, vulnerable, innocent creatures who need constant protection from sex-crazed, bestial men.

It's positively Victorian.

Noted feminist Camille Paglia has said as much, only much more controversially...

Greentopia · 02-02-2018 12:30AM

pleas advice wrote: »

Same could be said of the drivers?

Yes of course the drivers do it for the money. I'm sure they love the sport too, but the chance to become a well known name in the sport if they're successful and earn top prize money are the main reasons why they risk their lives in those cars.

None of them would get near any of those cars if they only wanted to do it for free as they are too valuable to the owners.

I didn't make any judgements on the walk on girls, they are free to work when and where they please, just as the bosses of these sports are free to employ them or not, as they see fit.

Will I Am Not · 02-02-2018 12:36AM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I've never even watched more than 1 minute of f1 in my life. Too boring.

But what's it like to be up your own hole?
I say that because you've labeled me as someone who loves pretty women and f1 :pac: (how wrong lol)

Starting to hate the ****e people post in order to win arguments online. Attack the poster never the post eh? Twist what they say to win an 'internet argument' now that's pathetic lol.

But hey mate. Why not quote me twisting some more. Go on. Call me a member of the kkk or something :pac:

That was a strange post. I particularly liked how they made a point of you not getting to say what they meant and subsequently went on to inform you of what you like about a sport you don’t watch.

paleoperson · 02-02-2018 12:37AM

FunLover18 wrote: »

Please enlighten me, what purpose does it serve? And what message do they send if not that women are display objects to be ogled?

Please enlighten you? I'm not going to answer someone who is already being sarcastic about my answer in the question, what an obnoxious way to ask someone something.

Is SJWism not just a new, rebranded form of sexual puritanism?

Comments