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

[DonFerrari]

Aura7541 said:

Teeqoz said:

Maybe I should remind you that it was you who first replied to my comment. I'm not changing the subject at all - everything I've written here has been connected to what I originally started discussing with Mummelman, which you joined in on when you replied to me. If the only thing you wanted to say is that there will be fewer grid girl jobs now than before, then we don't need to have this discussion. We agree. There absolutely will be fewer grid girl positions as a result if this. What I view as the essence of this discussion is if that is a problem or not.

However, as I pointed out already, you decided to go with a false equivalence in which I explained how that wasn't a good refutation. It was an apples to oranges comparison. In addition, I directly addressed your response to Mummelman, so I certainly did not make a non sequitor.

Could you explain how it's a poor argument?

Not everything I write is a direct response to something you've said. Surely that's understandable. When I say "as long as the follow laws and regulations", I do that to cover all bases. Because a company isn't always in their right to fire someone. I try to be precise in my wording, so I included that, if not, the statement would be incomplete. It was never meant as an implication that you meant otherwise. And it has nothing to do with pivoting the argument to something else.

Because that wasn't what I was arguing about and I don't cover all bases for the sake of it. You don't need to cover all bases if you know what the focus of the conversation is. Just address the arguments directly.

I didn't equate grid girls to telegraphists. I did however draw a comparison because some sides are similar (ie. neither job is "banned", just that companies evaluate that the position isn't worth it for whatever reason. In the telegraphist case, that reason was technological advancement, in F1's case, it appears to be an assessment of societal norms and what the public likes and dislikes. I already explained this).

However, you haven't exactly proved that F1 deemed grid girls aren't 'worth it'. You can cite 'societal norms' as the reason, but that's such a vague reason as opposed to the telegraphist example where the reason was specific, i.e. it was because of the technological advances of the telephone. It doesn't take 3 seconds to realize that the difference between the reasons of both situations greatly contrast in terms of specificity. What are these 'societal norms' exactly? How do we know that F1's perception of these 'societal norms' are not the result of external pressure?

If you want to provide a good example, then you need to provide one that is almost identical, not just one that happens to have a few similarities.

Oh, it absoluely will lead to fewer positions for grid girls. But I don't see the problem with that. Demand for any job can go up and down. So? I'm not beating around the bush. What's with the passive-agressiveness?

It limits the options for those who are let go and hits them financially, as well. It takes time for them to find another job and who knows if that will pay as well as their original job. That may hinder them from advancing their careers and moving up. New jobs don't just pop out of thin air.

In addition, I don't see how me being passive-aggressive is relevant to the conversation. If you're uncomfortable, then that's the nature of debate and plus, I would be breaking the rules if I were to actually be aggressive.

Every for-profit business ultimately makes every decision based on what they evaluate as being in their best interest (maybe with the exception of some privately owned businesses where the owner(s) attempt to use their business as a vehicle for change. SpaceX probably belongs in that category, or at least did belong there. If Formula 1 belongs in that category, then this becomes a different discussion, because then F1 wasn't pressured by outside groups to do this.)

This includes F1. Of course they might be mistaken in their evaluation, as obviously no company makes only flawless decisions. So there absolutely is a possibility that this will end up hurting F1 financially, but the F1 owners wouldn't make this decision unless they thought it would benefit them.

You realize that you don't need to repeat the same argument. I said already that once is good enough. Plus, you don't know definitively that F1 wasn't pressured by outside groups. As long as the probability is not 0%, then we need to acknowledge that it is possibility and therefore, the decision may not be a purely financial one. Rather, it may be because of F1's fear of PR backlash with money as their secondary, downstream concern. However, if F1's fear is unfounded, then the decision would also not be a sound one financially. As long as F1 continues to not elaborate on their vague reasons, this possibility shall remain on the table.

Yup, it is totally fair for you to disagree and criticize F1's decision. I haven't said otherwise. Even though I don't agree with said criticism, you are free to do criticize as much as you want, and if enough people share your sentiment, F1 might have to reconsider their decision.

I can say with confidence that we agree on this part.

He agreed with me that it may have been by external pressure... but that we should complain at the F1 managers not the people making they change. And that if those groups would make they lose money then it was their decision to keep making money, some strange sideway to make a point.