Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

Triceratops Ballet

givyjoe wrote: »

Utter nonsense, what possible other reason do you really believe that they were considering dropping grid girls for? other then pressure from feminists and the like?

I suppose you'll be telling us the darts girls were dropped for this other mysterious reason too?

to diversify their market share and appeal to a wider market, I outlined it very clearly above.
Market demands change over time. Fact. To increase market share companies often change their offering. Fact.

Calhoun

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Both are male dominated sports trying to diversify their markets, it's unrealistic to think they won't look at their current set up and say what are any potential barriers to us gaining a wider market share. "Maybe women are put off because they see it as a very laddish sport, What might put women off? I wonder if we tried to make it seem more family friendly?" so they tried it. They were never going to be legally required to get rid of these models, so there was not actual threat. They made a business decision.
But I can see how when you feel under attack from feminism, it's easy to turn feminism into the cause of everything, kind of like how some people turn the patriarchy into the cause of everything.

You are being disingenious, none of this was ever about legal threats . It's all about the baying social justice mobs roaming online moving from one outrage to the other and the damage the leave to businesses and people in their wake.

If you look at twitter hashtags as an example you can see the narrative from these people talking about who they were targeting next.

I can also see why you don't want to believe this has anything to do with feminism, when you believe in a system that directly benefits you and your gender it's hard when it comes under attack. Rather than call out bad behavior we come up with seemingly rational excuses to sanitize and make it seem normal.

givyjoe

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

to diversify their market share and appeal to a wider market, I outlined it very clearly above.
Market demands change over time. Fact. To increase market share companies often change their offering. Fact.

I didn't see that post before my reply.

It's quite obvious that none of the above is the reason behind why they have done it, but by all means, keep telling yourself it's a possibility.

Also, your comparison of comparing those 'blaming' feminism as being comparable to blaming 'the patriarchy' is utterly ludicrous. The patriarchy isn't an active moment looking to push for social change, rightly or wrongly at this point.

Feminism in its current form has arguably completely lost the run of itself, there is no organised patriarchy movement to 'blame' for anything. I'm certainly not getting outraged on the behalf of other men nor am I trying to dictate to them what jobs they should or shouldn't do.

silverharp

next on the block should be women's tennis :pac:

Calhoun

Just to be clear btw I don't really care about the grid or the dart girls as, I am not a fan of either sport and generally I am more interested in the sport than looking at a nice lady holding a sign.

What I do care about is rewriting what is actually happening online and how it's being used as a tool to censor and control.

givyjoe

silverharp wrote: »

next on the block should be women's tennis :pac:

To be fair, I think Women's Beach Volleyball will be up first!

Triceratops Ballet

silverharp wrote: »

next on the block should be women's tennis :pac:

unlikely Serena is a kween dontcha know!

Triceratops Ballet

Calhoun wrote: »

You are being disingenious, none of this was ever about legal threats . It's all about the baying social justice mobs roaming online moving from one outrage to the other and the damage the leave to businesses and people in their wake.

If you look at twitter hashtags as an example you can see the narrative from these people talking about who they were targeting next.

How am I being disingenuous? it makes no sense for me to post sh1t I don't believe in a thread where it will be picked apart?

I'm saying the action was taken off the businesses own bat, there was no talk of making the practice illegal, so they weren't FORCED to make the change by law.
The two sports we're talking about are also male dominated, the majority of their paying punters are men who probably range from admiring the girls or not noticing them because they're more interested in the sport. So the pressure to make the change did not come from their existing market, in fact it may be detrimental to it, but still they made the change. to believe there is no possible business motivation behind decisions a business makes is naive at best wilfully ignorant at worst.

The people twitter hashtagging at these companies, are more than likely not fans of the organisations, so their opinions are of little worth to the companies, unless they reinforce a belief about the sport that the companies themselves have identified as a marketing weakness and a barrier to increasing their market share.

Calhoun wrote: »

I can also see why you don't want to believe this has anything to do with feminism, when you believe in a system that directly benefits you and your gender it's hard when it comes under attack. Rather than call out bad behavior we come up with seemingly rational excuses to sanitize and make it seem normal.

Feminism has been under attack since it's inception, so this it nothing new. Secondly, I'm a feminist but that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to call out feminist zealots when their rantings and actions undermine what is an entirely valid movement. You might think all feminists are on a quest for female supremacy, but it's not a fact.
The fact is I'm not willing to see blame for this change entirely laid at the feet of feminists, when the business could have just done nothing, what was going to happen if they did nothing, feminists would boycott F1 and Darts? on average what percentage of feminists do you think support those two sports that it would make an impact?

Triceratops Ballet

I'll actually add I've nothing against these women doing the job, they're entitled to earn money, and if they're doing it and enjoying it and getting paid for it then fair play, they've a better life than most!

silverharp

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Feminism has been under attack since it's inception, so this it nothing new. Secondly, I'm a feminist but that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to call out feminist zealots when their rantings and actions undermine what is an entirely valid movement. You might think all feminists are on a quest for female supremacy, but it's not a fact.
The fact is I'm not willing to see blame for this change entirely laid at the feet of feminists, when the business could have just done nothing, what was going to happen if they did nothing, feminists would boycott F1 and Darts? on average what percentage of feminists do you think support those two sports that it would make an impact?

corporations are very risk adverse and moreso the insurance companies behind them. this will have come up at a risk committee meeting, and its just all downside as it generates a lot of what if's? what if one of these girls thinks one of the drivers got a bit handsy yada yada, close it down as the insurance company has just said it wont cover claims by these girls for example or the risk that some well known group start targeting sponsors of the sport.

givyjoe

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

How am I being disingenuous? it makes no sense for me to post sh1t I don't believe in a thread where it will be picked apart?

I'm saying the action was taken off the businesses own bat, there was no talk of making the practice illegal, so they weren't FORCED to make the change by law.
The two sports we're talking about are also male dominated, the majority of their paying punters are men who probably range from admiring the girls or not noticing them because they're more interested in the sport. So the pressure to make the change did not come from their existing market, in fact it may be detrimental to it, but still they made the change. to believe there is no possible business motivation behind decisions a business makes is naive at best wilfully ignorant at worst.

The people twitter hashtagging at these companies, are more than likely not fans of the organisations, so their opinions are of little worth to the companies, unless they reinforce a belief about the sport that the companies themselves have identified as a marketing weakness and a barrier to increasing their market share.




Feminism has been under attack since it's inception, so this it nothing new. Secondly, I'm a feminist but that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to call out feminist zealots when their rantings and actions undermine what is an entirely valid movement. You might think all feminists are on a quest for female supremacy, but it's not a fact.
The fact is I'm not willing to see blame for this change entirely laid at the feet of feminists, when the business could have just done nothing, what was going to happen if they did nothing, feminists would boycott F1 and Darts? on average what percentage of feminists do you think support those two sports that it would make an impact?

Do you really think they dropped the girls because they want to appeal to more women? Or do you maybe think they want to keep their advertisers sweet, who perhaps wouldn't want to be continuing to support a 'sexist' sport. They are simply giving in to hysterical mob rule/pressure coming from feminists. It really is that simple.

Triceratops Ballet

givyjoe wrote: »

Do you really think they dropped the girls because they want to appeal to more women? Or do you maybe think they want to keep their advertisers sweet, who perhaps wouldn't want to be continuing to support a 'sexist' sport. They are simply giving in to hysterical mob rule/pressure coming from feminists. It really is that simple.

I mean I've already said that I really do believe it's a possibility!
You don't think it's at all possible that they want to appeal to a wider audience? like not at all, you think they believe that they make enough money as it is and they don't need any new fans?

Calhoun

You are being disingenious because if you have been an observer of what I'd happening in the world of 2017/2018, it's not enough for companies to only take into account the feelings of their paying customers. The damage the hordes of social justice warriors can do to business is significant enough that they feel it's not worth the risk keeping it in place.

You don't even acknowledge this as a factor because it doesn't fit the narrative.

I know your a feminist otherwise you wouldn't be defending these modern day witch hunts. How was it one of the feminist on Twitter explained it , the grid girls showed the patriarchy at it's worst because it had successful men on the podium and dumb pretty girls on the grid.

Calhoun

Just on the topic of business decision, i also believe they are making these decisions for valid business reasons. They know if they don't do it and they come under the spotlight of the mongol online hordes they will lose advertisers or worse.

There possibly was an element of other business reasons they are doing it for but i am afraid when something like this happens after a very public campaign from online SJW groups they are going to catch heat from it.

Triceratops Ballet

Calhoun wrote: »

You are being disingenious because if you have been an observer of what I'd happening in the world of 2017/2018, it's not enough for companies to only take into account the feelings of their paying customers. The damage the hordes of social justice warriors can do to business is significant enough that they feel it's not worth the risk keeping it in place.

You don't even acknowledge this as a factor because it doesn't fit the narrative.

I know your a feminist otherwise you wouldn't be defending these modern day witch hunts. How was it one of the feminist on Twitter explained it , the grid girls showed the patriarchy at it's worst because it had successful men on the podium and dumb pretty girls on the grid.

Right well that's not what disingenuous means, I'm not lying or insincere. These are my beliefs on the issue of models being let go from their jobs in sport.

Are these twitter #tags you're talking about before or after the fact? ime a lot of this stuff comes out of the woodwork after a decision is made, like "yes we 100% support this thing we didn't know existed until now" that's different to actively campaigning for something to end. I'm not aware of any vociferous online campaigns leading up to the F1 decision (of course that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, so if you have links I'm willing to be corrected)

Calhoun

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Right well that's not what disingenuous means, I'm not lying or insincere. These are my beliefs on the issue of models being let go from their jobs in sport.

Are these twitter #tags you're talking about before or after the fact? ime a lot of this stuff comes out of the woodwork after a decision is made, like "yes we 100% support this thing we didn't know existed until now" that's different to actively campaigning for something to end. I'm not aware of any vociferous online campaigns leading up to the F1 decision (of course that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, so if you have links I'm willing to be corrected)

If you really aren't aware of what goes online my apologies and i take it back. I am under the impression that any adult in with a phone and twitter is aware of what goes on.

I also agree with some of what you are saying dont get me wrong, businesses predominately make decisions based upon their income generating abilities but my problem is the removal of the cause and effect in which led us to where wer are now.

Main two hashtags doing the rounds at the moment are #Gridgirls #DartGirls, there was one for the PDG that kicked it all off. It was the original PDG that then started to target F1 and another sport.

Calhoun

Oh looks like the mob have found new victims Rory Best and Henderson.

Triceratops Ballet

Calhoun wrote: »

If you really aren't aware of what goes online my apologies and i take it back. I am under the impression that any adult in with a phone and twitter is aware of what goes on.

I also agree with some of what you are saying dont get me wrong, businesses predominately make decisions based upon their income generating abilities but my problem is the removal of the cause and effect in which led us to where wer are now.

Main two hashtags doing the rounds at the moment are #Gridgirls #DartGirls, there was one for the PDG that kicked it all off. It was the original PDG that then started to target F1 and another sport.

I don't have twitter TBF I'm normally only aware of stuff "blowing up on twitter" when boards blows up with people being outraged at people being outraged on twitter, or something makes the news.

For the purposes of educating myself, I searched the #gridgirls prior to the announcement made by F1, limiting my search results to tweets prior to 24th of Jan I scrolled back quite a bit and the majority of results were actually just pics of grid girls, or links to pics of them, or links to interviews with them.
I searched again for the combination of #gridgirls and #equality in the same time period to ensure I was getting the right kind of overlap. I didn't scroll back as far on this one, as the majority of tweets thrown up were not relevant and seemed to be weighted on the equality #
Granted it's not scientific but I don't see signs of a sustained twitter campaign to get these girls removed from their jobs, in advance of the announcement.

When I remove the date specification I do see a lot of tweets after the fact celebrating it, which as I said earlier is a common bandwagon issue, people who've never heard of grid girls celebrating this change, as if they had some part in it.

backspin.

Calhoun wrote: »

Businesses aren't stupid after the pdg made it's announcement twitter was full of the social justice folk targeting formula 1 and one other sport ( I can't remember)

They knew they were next on the chopping board for the thought and moral police, so they made a decision to prevent negative press.

And they didn't escape negative press. Plenty will be annoyed they caved into the radical feminists.

Pawwed Rig

Calhoun wrote: »

Oh looks like the mob have found new victims Rory Best and Henderson.

It was fairly ill advised if you ask me

Calhoun

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It was fairly ill advised if you ask me

On one level yes but what about innocent until proven guilty ?

What if they do not get charged for the crime and are found to be completely innocent?

terryduff12

Sure ever man is guilty they would have you believe, and there is no such think as a woman's prison.

Zulu

No

Yeah think about that

iptba

Calhoun wrote: »

Oh looks like the mob have found new victims Rory Best and Henderson.

#notmycaptain now trending on Twitter.

Pawwed Rig

Calhoun wrote: »

On one level yes but what about innocent until proven guilty ?

What if they do not get charged for the crime and are found to be completely innocent?

Great. Welcome them back to the team then. Until then the IRFU needs to keep away imo.

Calhoun

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Great. Welcome them back to the team then. Until then the IRFU needs to keep away imo.

This is what's wrong with the world, any accusation regardless of proof or not and you need to be excommunicated.

It's not as simple as just welcome them back then.

If we are looking for examples of sexism against men this is it.

Pawwed Rig

The IRFU is a representative organisation. It shouldn't be involving itself with one side or other in a court case that it is not directly involved in.

OldRio

Pat, the IRFU are not involved. The players are friends of the accused.

Pawwed Rig

OldRio wrote: »

Pat, the IRFU are not involved. The players are friends of the accused.

One of them was the Irish captain with permission to be absent from the French game preparations. They could not get this permission without the IRFU involvement to some degree. The timing was also horrendous in that they chose the day that the girl was testifying to attend. Why not attend on a different day?
Never mind the fact that he should have been concentrating on an important international fixture.

OldRio

Sorry Pat but the IRFU were not involved.
No way in God's earth would they get involved in this.

Best and Henderson attended because they are Ulster team mates with the accused.

What was happening on the day they attended has nothing to do with the IRFU.

Should they have attended is another question. That is a personal choice up to the individuals.

razorblunt

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

One of them was the Irish captain with permission to be absent from the French game preparations. They could not get this permission without the IRFU involvement to some degree. The timing was also horrendous in that they chose the day that the girl was testifying to attend. Why not attend on a different day?
Never mind the fact that he should have been concentrating on an important international fixture.

It was a non training day, no permission needed.
Let’s not facts get in the way, right.

Pawwed Rig

razorblunt wrote: »

It was a non training day, no permission needed.
Let’s not facts get in the way, right.

The day before a match? Don't believe a word of that

As the captain of the Ireland team he represents it whether he likes it or not.

Calhoun

Guys stop getting in the way of a good witch Hunt. Bests career must be destroyed now as he has upset the gods of social justice.

razorblunt

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The day before a match? Don't believe a word of that

As the captain of the Ireland team he represents it whether he likes it or not.

The match was yesterday, the day before was Friday, they weren’t there on Fiday.

Pawwed Rig

Calhoun wrote: »

Guys stop getting in the way of a good witch Hunt. Bests career must be destroyed now as he has upset the gods of social justice.

Saying an action was 'ill advised' is hardly a witch hunt or an attempt to destroy a career.
Slight over reaction there I think. And if you have ever read any of my posts you would know I am no SJW but sure throw out the insult anyway rather than argue the point.

Calhoun

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Saying an action was 'ill advised' is hardly a witch hunt or an attempt to destroy a career.
Slight over reaction there I think. And if you have ever read any of my posts you would know I am no SJW but sure throw out the insult anyway rather than argue the point.

How is this an insult ? I was talking to the other two being sarcastic as we are going against the grain of popular opinion.

However as for your contribution, you have said it's I'll advised without and explanation, you have ignored posts above which illustrate he wasn't acting on behalf of the IRFU.

Why is it ill advised if he was acting on his own free will.

The witch Hunt I refer to is the media and usual SJW commentators online who would use the hashtag above

Cookie_Monster

Calhoun wrote: »

Just on the topic of business decision, i also believe they are making these decisions for valid business reasons. They know if they don't do it and they come under the spotlight of the mongol online hordes they will lose advertisers or worse.

There possibly was an element of other business reasons they are doing it for but i am afraid when something like this happens after a very public campaign from online SJW groups they are going to catch heat from it.

If it were an actual business decision for sensible reasons why then are they still travelling to Bahrain? The obvious double standards at play here are pretty low. Grid girls are just an easy target, no one will ever force them to pull out of Bahrain, there's too much money in it for F1. Democracy and women's rights be damned.

Calhoun

Looks like Best was asked to attend the trial by senior council, the judge has had to come out to clarify.

I wonder if pitch forks will be down or does he still need to be punished.

tritium

Calhoun wrote: »

Looks like Best was asked to attend the trial by senior council, the judge has had to come out to clarify.

I wonder if pitch forks will be down or does he still need to be punished.

Looking at commentary elsewhere on there will still be a few that are happy to tell us how it’s indicative of patriarchy etc

Calhoun

tritium wrote: »

Looking at commentary elsewhere on there will still be a few that are happy to tell us how it’s indicative of patriarchy etc

People would rather a damage a male celebrities career than admit they had been wrong and or apologize.

Tells you all about the current trend and how people are abusing the online platform to take people down.

Makes you wonder about where the likes of online is going as, if we keep taking people like this seriously we will eventually bring some serious controls on what you can say online.

Saruhashi

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-the-only-reason-rory-best-attended-rape-trial-was-because-he-was-asked-to-do-so-36568544.html

How many from these Twitter "mobs" will even know that they got this wrong, never mind admitting that they got it wrong.

pilly

Saruhashi wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-the-only-reason-rory-best-attended-rape-trial-was-because-he-was-asked-to-do-so-36568544.html

How many from these Twitter "mobs" will even know that they got this wrong, never mind admitting that they got it wrong.

It still doesn't make sense to me. Why would senior counsel ask him to be there? Was he a witness?

Zulu

No

Character witness.

Calhoun

pilly wrote: »

It still doesn't make sense to me. Why would senior counsel ask him to be there? Was he a witness?

What do you think happened ? That a judge and the law profession are sticking their knecks on the line for no reason?

pilly

Calhoun wrote:

What do you think happened ? That a judge and the law profession are sticking their knecks on the line for no reason?

Jesus H, I'm asking a question! There really is no need for such over reaction.

Calhoun

pilly wrote: »

Jesus H, I'm asking a question! There really is no need for such over reaction.

I am not over reacting I am trying to understand how people find it hard to understand why he would have been asked to attend.

After seeing reaction online where people are fishing to paint this as patriarchy at play you can understand.

We are also in a thread on sexism against men, which is why I asked for clarity.

JRant

We are now at a point where even attending such a trial puts a character witness under the spotlight. If ever there was proof needed that a complete media blackout and the accused/accuser anonymity is required for such cases then this is it.

If the meer act of sitting in a courtroom can lead to such uproar then I dispair for where this could end.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

People would rather a damage a male celebrities career than admit they had been wrong and or apologize.

Well, naturally, personal responsibility is not a prized attribute unless it's being forcibly applied to men by 'others'.

But it's all justified because women who were victimized in the past were ignored or dismissed by those in authority. They (the media, women or feminist males) now have a green light to attack any man online. The evidence isn't needed. Verification of claims isn't needed. Nor is the identity of the accuser, although the accused name will be spread far and wide in association. And no need to set things straight should his innocence be proven because by then, another person will be targeted for internet assassination. (although ever notice how many of the accusations are genuinely difficult to prove or disprove, so there will always be some doubt about 'his' innocence)

So, no... you're not going to see any apologies or confessions of being wrong... because they'll be relying on the rather short attention span of people, and they'll just shift focus. And even if they did stay on the same target, there are heaps of vague justifications to "cover" their behavior...

*** Oh, just to clarify... you might see an apology or acknowledgment of being wrong in a single paragraph at the top of an article, and then another two pages explaining why they should have been right and ending on an opinion piece of the overall toxic environment that makes victims of women. It's like the Aziz online case, most articles did two paragraphs pointing out all that was wrong with the original article, and then two pages complaining about Aziz based on the info reported by the unknown accuser with a final few paragraphs showing how men in general are untrustworthy.

silverharp

not going to die on a hill for Tesco but is this potential case taking the michael? some law firm either are or are going to take a case against tesco because the warehouse staff are paid more than the shop floor staff. they are different jobs ffs and this being sold as a gender case even though Im sure both sexes are free to apply for either job? dont see a strong case here unless everyone loses the run of themselves


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-07/tesco-faces-equal-pay-case-that-seeks-as-much-as-5-6-billion

As the U.K. forces companies to disclose the gap between men’s and women’s pay, the country’s biggest private employer is confronted with a massive demand from workers feeling short-changed.

Supermarket chain Tesco Plc has been presented with claims that law firm Leigh Day says could eventually total as much as 4 billion pounds ($5.6 billion). The firm contends that female shop-floor workers are unfairly paid less than their male counterparts in warehouses and says more than 200,000 workers could be entitled to compensation.

“There really should be no argument that workers in stores, compared to those working in distribution centers, contribute at least equal value to the vast profits made by Tesco,” Leigh Day lawyer Paula Lee said. Tesco said it hadn’t received the claims.


Staff in Tesco’s stores are paid around 8 pounds an hour, while their counterparts in distribution centers may get in excess of 11.50 pounds, Leigh Day said. The firm said it has been approached by more than 1,000 people either currently or formerly employed by Tesco.

hots

silverharp wrote: »

“There really should be no argument that workers in stores, compared to those working in distribution centers, contribute at least equal value to the vast profits made by Tesco,” Leigh Day lawyer Paula Lee said. Tesco said it hadn’t received the claims.

How is that relevant?:pac: Supply and demand, if shop floor workers want to earn the same as those in the warehouse then they can go and work in the warehouse.