Vuelta Podium Girls Change

rick_chasey

Matthewfalle wrote:

no, not really. think you lot may be to a certain extent though........

have a ponder about it in the context of certain posts and see what you come up with.

If ya think f1 dropping grid girls is to do with “protecting” the women, ya wrong.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

no, not really. think you lot may be to a certain extent though........

have a ponder about it in the context of certain posts and see what you come up with.

If ya think f1 dropping grid girls is to do with “protecting” the women, ya wrong.

It's probably actually about the new owners cutting overheads.

salsiccia1

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

no, not really. think you lot may be to a certain extent though........

have a ponder about it in the context of certain posts and see what you come up with.

If ya think f1 dropping grid girls is to do with “protecting” the women, ya wrong.

It's probably actually about the new owners cutting overheads.

I doubt it; the grid girls will be a drop in the ocean with the amount of money that sloshes around F1. It's probably more about protecting current revenues. They've seen the direction the wind is blowing and acted accordingly, I reckon. Wrong motive, right outcome IMHO.

Matthewfalle

Salsiccia1 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

no, not really. think you lot may be to a certain extent though........

have a ponder about it in the context of certain posts and see what you come up with.

If ya think f1 dropping grid girls is to do with “protecting” the women, ya wrong.

It's probably actually about the new owners cutting overheads.

I doubt it; the grid girls will be a drop in the ocean with the amount of money that sloshes around F1. It's probably more about protecting current revenues. They've seen the direction the wind is blowing and acted accordingly, I reckon. Wrong motive, right outcome IMHO.

Of course its to do with revenues. FFS, its obvious. The odious powers that be at F1 (and I must admit to having an insider view) are obsessed with nothing but money, money, money.

But I'm intrigued as to why a bunch of males think its the right outcome considering a lot of people make their only living from it. Don't hear nobody hear clamouring for male models to be banned......

I also presume that no one on here will be clamouring for Flavio et al to leave their wives ..............

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

no, not really. think you lot may be to a certain extent though........

have a ponder about it in the context of certain posts and see what you come up with.

If ya think f1 dropping grid girls is to do with “protecting” the women, ya wrong.

Richard's words of wisdom for this evening.

Thanks for that dude.

pblakeney

If anyone on here, or elsewhere, can find a podium girl happy with this outcome then all will be vindicated. If not then it is just people being outraged on behalf of others who do not appreciate the outrage.

Matthewfalle

PBlakeney wrote:

If anyone on here, or elsewhere, can find a podium girl happy with this outcome then all will be vindicated. If not then it is just people being outraged on behalf of others who do not appreciate the outrage.

Yeah, but being outraged on behalf of others is like the right thing to do in new arrival North London innit......

DeVlaeminck

Matthewfalle wrote:

[



But I'm intrigued as to why a bunch of males think its the right outcome considering a lot of people make their only living from it. Don't hear nobody hear clamouring for male models to be banned......

..............

It's been made quite clear why some on here have an opposing view to yours, it gives the impression that the role of women is purely to stand there and look pretty, the "podium girls" may benefit financially but that is at the expense of it contributing albeit in a small way to inequality of the sexes.

For that reason I'd agree with those who would rather the role of looking pretty on podiums become open to both sexes (my preferred option) or was done away with. It's not about protecting women (except in the broader sense) or some kind of prudishness, I'm quite happy for women to do the job so long as it's not seen as a job only for women.

Matthewfalle

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

[



But I'm intrigued as to why a bunch of males think its the right outcome considering a lot of people make their only living from it. Don't hear nobody hear clamouring for male models to be banned......

..............

It's been made quite clear why some on here have an opposing view to yours, it gives the impression that the role of women is purely to stand there and look pretty, the "podium girls" may benefit financially but that is at the expense of it contributing albeit in a small way to inequality of the sexes.

For that reason I'd agree with those who would rather the role of looking pretty on podiums become open to both sexes (my preferred option) or was done away with. It's not about protecting women (except in the broader sense) or some kind of prudishness, I'm quite happy for women to do the job so long as it's not seen as a job only for women.

But what if they want to do it? After all, no one is forcing them to do it.

Surely then its males pushing their opinion onto females and restricting free movement and choice of employment, ergo human rights?

Or doesn't that count in the eyes of the righteous?

Bizarre, innit.

Matthewfalle

Surely inequality of the sexes is expressly proven in this thread?

inseine

Matthewfalle wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

[



But I'm intrigued as to why a bunch of males think its the right outcome considering a lot of people make their only living from it. Don't hear nobody hear clamouring for male models to be banned......

..............

It's been made quite clear why some on here have an opposing view to yours, it gives the impression that the role of women is purely to stand there and look pretty, the "podium girls" may benefit financially but that is at the expense of it contributing albeit in a small way to inequality of the sexes.

For that reason I'd agree with those who would rather the role of looking pretty on podiums become open to both sexes (my preferred option) or was done away with. It's not about protecting women (except in the broader sense) or some kind of prudishness, I'm quite happy for women to do the job so long as it's not seen as a job only for women.

But what if they want to do it? After all, no one is forcing them to do it.

Surely then its males pushing their opinion onto females and restricting free movement and choice of employment, ergo human rights?

Or doesn't that count in the eyes of the righteous?

Bizarre, innit.

Some people seem to have s huge problem listening, or perhaps undestanding. I've been told by several people 'what right have I (a man) to dictate what a woman does as a job?'. It's about about objectifying women. As a father of a daughter I'm ashamed to see men seen as doers and women as objects. Yes, I don't care about one individuals choice if it's wrong. You're ok with the picture I posted of bikini clad podium 'girls'. Maybe the women who used to drape themselves naked over cars at the motor show were happy with their job. Thankfully the world realized it wasn't right.

gsk82

Middle class white man needs to stop deciding what offends everyone who isn't a middle class white man. It's pathetic and boring. This is 100% media driven. Lazy executives making snap decisions because they've seen on the news (usually quoting some attention seeker on Facebook or Twitter) that 21st century men and women are offended by EVERYTHING!

My usually Sunday ride had been delayed today so my riding buddy can drop his 19 year old daughter off at a photo shoot for a hair dressers. She's going because she enjoys it and wants to work in tv/ film/ media and it'll help her along the way.

Matthewfalle

inseine wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

[



But I'm intrigued as to why a bunch of males think its the right outcome considering a lot of people make their only living from it. Don't hear nobody hear clamouring for male models to be banned......

..............

It's been made quite clear why some on here have an opposing view to yours, it gives the impression that the role of women is purely to stand there and look pretty, the "podium girls" may benefit financially but that is at the expense of it contributing albeit in a small way to inequality of the sexes.

For that reason I'd agree with those who would rather the role of looking pretty on podiums become open to both sexes (my preferred option) or was done away with. It's not about protecting women (except in the broader sense) or some kind of prudishness, I'm quite happy for women to do the job so long as it's not seen as a job only for women.

But what if they want to do it? After all, no one is forcing them to do it.

Surely then its males pushing their opinion onto females and restricting free movement and choice of employment, ergo human rights?

Or doesn't that count in the eyes of the righteous?

Bizarre, innit.

Some people seem to have s huge problem listening, or perhaps undestanding. I've been told by several people 'what right have I (a man) to dictate what a woman does as a job?'. It's about about objectifying women. As a father of a daughter I'm ashamed to see men seen as doers and women as objects. Yes, I don't care about one individuals choice if it's wrong. You're ok with the picture I posted of bikini clad podium 'girls'. Maybe the women who used to drape themselves naked over cars at the motor show were happy with their job. Thankfully the world realized it wasn't right.

its only not right in your eyes.

have you spoken to the girls doing this job for their thoughts? Didn't think so.

you don't care about one individual's choice if its wrong in your eyes. what if your daughter wants to be a model when she grows up? Are you going to forbid her, Dickensian style?

No_Ta_Doctor

I love how this thread goes from "podium girls are a sexist anachronism" to

THEY'RE GOING TO BAN MODELS!!!!!

mamba80

I thought i d have quick look at what all the fuss is about... there is no doubt about it, the girls might not think they are helping negative societal attitudes and themselves being objectified but really? short skirts, 5inch heels, chest forward, bum back, all drop dead gorgeous.

Sure be offended that they are going but dont pretend that the vast majority of men are nt looking at them thinking "i'd xxxx her"

Personally, i d have DeV solution and have a 50/50 split of male and female grid "people"

Matthewfalle

No tA Doctor wrote:

I love how this thread goes from "podium girls are a sexist anachronism" to

THEY'RE GOING TO BAN MODELS!!!!!

Not everyone will be banning models, just inseine I think.

I think generally everyone else is ok with models.

Vino'sGhost

the thing with the liberal pc police is that they are almost always anything other than liberal.

I can only imagine they're incapable of thinking beyond binary concepts .Complex multi threaded consideration is in itself something to rail against.Of course its not just different positions that must be railed against but the volume must be high and the holder of those views must be shouted down and assigned damaging labels.

It's funny to see so much Trump like behaviour.

rick_chasey

Matthewfalle wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

[



But I'm intrigued as to why a bunch of males think its the right outcome considering a lot of people make their only living from it. Don't hear nobody hear clamouring for male models to be banned......

..............

It's been made quite clear why some on here have an opposing view to yours, it gives the impression that the role of women is purely to stand there and look pretty, the "podium girls" may benefit financially but that is at the expense of it contributing albeit in a small way to inequality of the sexes.

For that reason I'd agree with those who would rather the role of looking pretty on podiums become open to both sexes (my preferred option) or was done away with. It's not about protecting women (except in the broader sense) or some kind of prudishness, I'm quite happy for women to do the job so long as it's not seen as a job only for women.

But what if they want to do it? After all, no one is forcing them to do it.

Surely then its males pushing their opinion onto females and restricting free movement and choice of employment, ergo human rights?

Or doesn't that count in the eyes of the righteous?

Bizarre, innit.

No one is forcing f1 to drop ‘em either.

They probably feel it’s a bit of a relic and their project is improved without it.

It is occurring during a phase where feminist arguments regarding roles and gender are gaining more traction with the general public. Maybe it’s related, maybe it isn’t.

You know what the arguments are, right?

rick_chasey

Vino'sGhost wrote:

the thing with the liberal pc police is that they are almost always anything other than liberal.

I can only imagine they're incapable of thinking beyond binary concepts .Complex multi threaded consideration is in itself something to rail against.Of course its not just different positions that must be railed against but the volume must be high and the holder of those views must be shouted down and assigned damaging labels.

It's funny to see so much Trump like behaviour.

A new tact after calling them ugly I see.

DeVlaeminck

Matthewfalle wrote:

But what if they want to do it? After all, no one is forcing them to do it.

.

What if I want to sell heroin for a living? It's not about protecting the podium girls it's about the good of the wider society, I'll happily admit the women doing the job get a net benefit, it's a collective action problem innit.

ballysmate

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

But what if they want to do it? After all, no one is forcing them to do it.

.

What if I want to sell heroin for a living? It's not about protecting the podium girls it's about the good of the wider society, I'll happily admit the women doing the job get a net benefit, it's a collective action problem innit.

You do know that that activity is illegal don't you? Whereas standing on a podium or holding a sponsor's bill board...

The good of the wider society? Taking away the freedom of choice of profession or job from people is not the way to benefit the 'wider society' is it?

Matthewfalle

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

But what if they want to do it? After all, no one is forcing them to do it.

.

What if I want to sell heroin for a living? It's not about protecting the podium girls it's about the good of the wider society, I'll happily admit the women doing the job get a net benefit, it's a collective action problem innit.

Sorry dude but that's tosh.

Comparing selling smack to standing on a podium/grid? Even I fail to see any connection. Then again, they are both lifestyle and employment choices.....

"It's about the good of the wider society"? What - taking away people's choice of employment and lifestyle? The average grid girl et al has less than 0000.1% in common with anyone who wears a suit.

"It's a collective action problem". Buzzwords that actually mean nothing.

The protesters on here fail to realise that the ladies doing this aren't being trafficked, they aren't being forced into it - they want to do it and would probably give any male on here clamouring for their role to be disbanded the big middle finger.


As an aside, I'm still waiting for the North London massif plan for these ladies to pay their mortgage now their bi-monthly pay cheque has gone. Or doesn't this matter in your rented flat and Rapha in the cupboard? Didn't think so so long as you can sit there with a latte in your hand happy at your role in the emancipation of the modern lady.

No_Ta_Doctor

Ballysmate wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

But what if they want to do it? After all, no one is forcing them to do it.

.

What if I want to sell heroin for a living? It's not about protecting the podium girls it's about the good of the wider society, I'll happily admit the women doing the job get a net benefit, it's a collective action problem innit.

You do know that that activity is illegal don't you? Whereas standing on a podium or holding a sponsor's bill board...

The good of the wider society? Taking away the freedom of choice of profession or job from people is not the way to benefit the 'wider society' is it?

Errr.... Are you aware that you're arguing that taking away the freedom of choice of profession from people is wrong while dismissing an example (heroin dealer) where freedom of choice is literally, explicitly and legally removed from people because "it's illegal"?

I'm not equating heroin dealers with podium girls (and neither was DeVlaeminck) but surely you can see that you're not making any sense?

ballysmate

No tA Doctor wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

But what if they want to do it? After all, no one is forcing them to do it.

.

What if I want to sell heroin for a living? It's not about protecting the podium girls it's about the good of the wider society, I'll happily admit the women doing the job get a net benefit, it's a collective action problem innit.

You do know that that activity is illegal don't you? Whereas standing on a podium or holding a sponsor's bill board...

The good of the wider society? Taking away the freedom of choice of profession or job from people is not the way to benefit the 'wider society' is it?

Errr.... Are you aware that you're arguing that taking away the freedom of choice of profession from people is wrong while dismissing an example (heroin dealer) where freedom of choice is literally, explicitly and legally removed from people because "it's illegal"?

I'm not equating heroin dealers with podium girls (and neither was DeVlaeminck) but surely you can see that you're not making any sense?

Well for the particularly hard of thinking, I will insert the word 'legal' in my post.

The good of the wider society? Taking away the freedom of choice of legal profession/job from people is not the way to benefit the 'wider society' is it?

And DeVlaeminck appeared to be comparing the rights to deal H and the right to make a honest living in a manner he didn't approve of.

trivial_poursuivant

I’ve mentioned this before but here it is again for the self righteous

These podium girls are not just there for the few minutes of handing out flowers and kisses to the winners. They work long days doing hosting work for the corporate side. The sponsors employ these people to entertain clients, hand out freebies etc etc. This is to bring in more custom. They do this to bring in more money essentially. Money that sponsors give as prize money. Now, if you do away with a part of that structure and your income from it is reduced, then guess what? So will be prize money if the sponsors didn’t see a financial gain out of it. Do you think they employ people to do all this for fun? So, If there is less money from sponsors, and therefore prize money. How the hell do these ‘offended’ women athletes ever expect to earn as much as the men? The men’s sport is hardly flush with cash. Many teams are on shoestring budgets. Forget about mega bucks Team Sky. They are very much the exception to the rule. A team can have a few decent paid individuals but the domestiques in road racing are not. And that’s in the Elite leagues. Drop down a few divisions and it’s a pittance.

These girls, who so offend people probably play a more valuable role than many givevthem credit for. If they’re spending close to 12 hours a day on their feet, a few minutes in the lime light of the winners podium is well earned in my opinion. And people want to deny them that yet demand better pay. Take your pick or find another sport

Ben6899

Matthewfalle wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

But what if they want to do it? After all, no one is forcing them to do it.

.

What if I want to sell heroin for a living? It's not about protecting the podium girls it's about the good of the wider society, I'll happily admit the women doing the job get a net benefit, it's a collective action problem innit.

Sorry dude but that's tosh.

Comparing selling smack to standing on a podium/grid? Even I fail to see any connection. Then again, they are both lifestyle and employment choices.....

"It's about the good of the wider society"? What - taking away people's choice of employment and lifestyle? The average grid girl et al has less than 0000.1% in common with anyone who wears a suit.

"It's a collective action problem". Buzzwords that actually mean nothing.

The protesters on here fail to realise that the ladies doing this aren't being trafficked, they aren't being forced into it - they want to do it and would probably give any male on here clamouring for their role to be disbanded the big middle finger.


As an aside, I'm still waiting for the North London massif plan for these ladies to pay their mortgage now their bi-monthly pay cheque has gone. Or doesn't this matter in your rented flat and Rapha in the cupboard? Didn't think so so long as you can sit there with a latte in your hand happy at your role in the emancipation of the modern lady.

Don't tar all North London dwelling, Rapha owners with the same brush!

I've already been told "don't worry, there's still Babestation mate" because I've explained why I don't think this isn't a straight forward debate whatsoever.

But I'd expect that from certain individuals in Pro Race - most cliquey section of these fora by a long shot.

No_Ta_Doctor

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

I’ve mentioned this before but here it is again for the self righteous

These podium girls are not just there for the few minutes of handing out flowers and kisses to the winners. They work long days doing hosting work for the corporate side. The sponsors employ these people to entertain clients, hand out freebies etc etc. This is to bring in more custom. They do this to bring in more money essentially. Money that sponsors give as prize money. Now, if you do away with a part of that structure and your income from it is reduced, then guess what? So will be prize money if the sponsors didn’t see a financial gain out of it. Do you think they employ people to do all this for fun? So, If there is less money from sponsors, and therefore prize money. How the hell do these ‘offended’ women athletes ever expect to earn as much as the men? The men’s sport is hardly flush with cash. Many teams are on shoestring budgets. Forget about mega bucks Team Sky. They are very much the exception to the rule. A team can have a few decent paid individuals but the domestiques in road racing are not. And that’s in the Elite leagues. Drop down a few divisions and it’s a pittance.

These girls, who so offend people probably play a more valuable role than many givevthem credit for. If they’re spending close to 12 hours a day on their feet, a few minutes in the lime light of the winners podium is well earned in my opinion. And people want to deny them that yet demand better pay. Take your pick or find another sport

And for the hard of thinking, this was dealt with explicitly in the article written by a professional bike racer whose opinion was summarily discounted because podium girls were around before she started cycling.

Stevo_666

Purely for balance and information, there are some pictures of podium girls in the 'big girls' thread, in case anyone is interested

No_Ta_Doctor

Ballysmate wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

But what if they want to do it? After all, no one is forcing them to do it.

.

What if I want to sell heroin for a living? It's not about protecting the podium girls it's about the good of the wider society, I'll happily admit the women doing the job get a net benefit, it's a collective action problem innit.

You do know that that activity is illegal don't you? Whereas standing on a podium or holding a sponsor's bill board...

The good of the wider society? Taking away the freedom of choice of profession or job from people is not the way to benefit the 'wider society' is it?

Errr.... Are you aware that you're arguing that taking away the freedom of choice of profession from people is wrong while dismissing an example (heroin dealer) where freedom of choice is literally, explicitly and legally removed from people because "it's illegal"?

I'm not equating heroin dealers with podium girls (and neither was DeVlaeminck) but surely you can see that you're not making any sense?

Well for the particularly hard of thinking, I will insert the word 'legal' in my post.

The good of the wider society? Taking away the freedom of choice of legal profession/job from people is not the way to benefit the 'wider society' is it?

And DeVlaeminck appeared to be comparing the rights to deal H and the right to make a honest living in a manner he didn't approve of.

You're still not making any sense at all. Heroin hasn't always been illegal. At one point it was criminalised. Before that, selling heroin was a legal choice of profession.

The point that was being made was that the good of wider society can be taken into account in judging whether a particular profession is a good or bad thing. In some cases it's blindingly obvious, like the heroin dealer. In other cases there might be more subtle effects of the profession you'd have to look for.

Legality is largely irrelevant anyway, this was a moral discussion. For legal employment with adverse societal effects, how about advertising tobacco?

trivial_poursuivant

No tA Doctor wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

I’ve mentioned this before but here it is again for the self righteous

These podium girls are not just there for the few minutes of handing out flowers and kisses to the winners. They work long days doing hosting work for the corporate side. The sponsors employ these people to entertain clients, hand out freebies etc etc. This is to bring in more custom. They do this to bring in more money essentially. Money that sponsors give as prize money. Now, if you do away with a part of that structure and your income from it is reduced, then guess what? So will be prize money if the sponsors didn’t see a financial gain out of it. Do you think they employ people to do all this for fun? So, If there is less money from sponsors, and therefore prize money. How the hell do these ‘offended’ women athletes ever expect to earn as much as the men? The men’s sport is hardly flush with cash. Many teams are on shoestring budgets. Forget about mega bucks Team Sky. They are very much the exception to the rule. A team can have a few decent paid individuals but the domestiques in road racing are not. And that’s in the Elite leagues. Drop down a few divisions and it’s a pittance.

These girls, who so offend people probably play a more valuable role than many givevthem credit for. If they’re spending close to 12 hours a day on their feet, a few minutes in the lime light of the winners podium is well earned in my opinion. And people want to deny them that yet demand better pay. Take your pick or find another sport

And for the hard of thinking, this was dealt with explicitly in the article written by a professional bike racer whose opinion was summarily discounted because podium girls were around before she started cycling.

Well then. Explain how women will be able to be better paid? You seem to have all the answers since your dismissive of anyone else’s. So come on. How? Give us all an answer as to where the money will come from.