Feminists outrage at walk on/Grid girls, F1 & Darts models ban. Your thoughts?

[Aura7541]

Teeqoz said:

Your argument is that it's a net loss of grid girl jobs, and my argument is that I don't care, because the owners of F1 made the call that those positions weren't worth keeping on to. They are entirely within their rights to do so, as long as they follow any laws and regulations that apply to them.

If your argument is simply I don't care, then that's a poor argument altogether. In addition, the owners of F1 vaguely explained that grid girls do not resonate with their 'brand values', but never elaborated further than that. And again, you're pivoting to another topic with the talk about legality. Nowhere in my comments did I mention about the owners' rights to their decisions until you did.

That should also answer who "they" are - those who made this decision, namely the owners. . Obviously it's their will too remove grid girls, because ultimately, regardless of potential outside influences, they made the decision. Of course the grid girls can disagree, I assume most people would disagree with a decision that results in yourself losing your job, but it's not their decision to make - it's the F1 owners, again as long as they follow laws and regulations that apply when making such a decision.

I will point to the last sentence of my first paragraph.

How on earth could I prove that keeping grid girls would lead to a net loss in profits? That's a hypothetical that no one could prove. And that's not even what I'm saying - I'm saying that the owners seem to think it was more likely that keeping grid girls would result in a net loss in profits than the opposite. If not, why would they have removed them?

No, but you attempted to compared this situation with the telegraphist vs the telephone. I pointed out that this was a false equivalence since the technological advances made the telegraphist profession obsolete and therefore, a waste of money. So if you want to make that comparison, then you must look at both situations from an economical standpoint. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Obviously, your comparison does not work because grid girls are not being rendered obsolete by technological advances. It's because of the reason of "not resonating with 'brand values' " of which they were never specified.

The owners of F1 might be mistaken, maybe it would have paid of to keep grid girls, but that's another thing entirely - they made the judgement that removing grid girls was more likely to pay off than keeping them.

But that was not the point of my original argument. My point was that the removal of the positions from F1 could lead to a net loss for the grid girls unless Formula E opens more positions. Please address my points directly rather than beating around the bush.

The telegraphist example was arbitrary - the point is that no one has made any decision to ban grid girls, the F1 owners just made the call that employing them isn't in their financial interest, much like telegraphists. There is more concrete evidence for why employing telegraphists doesn't make sense for phone companies, but ultimately, both decisions are based on what the respective companies judge as being in their best interests.

And I showed how that comparison isn't exactly sound and you haven't exactly refuted my specific points either. In addition, citation needed on that it isn't in their financial interest. On their official announcement, they said that grid girls do not resonate with their 'brand values' and are at odds with 'modern societal norms'. What do they mean by that? How do you know that those reasons are directly connected to their financial interests? What are your sources for your conclusions?

It sucks that people who certainly enjoyed their job lost opportunities to do so, but it's fair for F1 to make that decision.

You don't have to make this point ad nauseaum for the third time. Once is good enough.

Do you know what is also fair? Me criticizing F1's decisions.