Feminists were nagging until the point that the owners had no choice but to give in. Otherwise they would have been publicly shamed to no end and ultimately lost their female viewership.

However, it is still their own choice to work as a grid girl. Not to mention, this isn't some measly minimum-wage McDonald's job. It actually pays quite well and it offers upward mobility for those who want to do more professional modeling.

What poll are you talking about?

The one on the video in the OP?

You didn't take my points seriously because of how you judge my character? Surely arguments should be judged on their own merit, on not based on your own opinion of the person making them?

Most female celebs may be feminists, but they aren't the fringe feminists that you are constantly outraged about. Same with media and "the left". 

As for the pussyhat march, again, I don't see how that's related to the type of fringe feminism you complain about. Sure, there were definitely fringe feminists supporting it, but you wouldn't judge a large group based on a minority, would you? 

Sure, the wage gap isn't real, and males and females are pretty much equal in terms of rights, but if you can't see how society still pushes boys and girls in different directions (walking into a toy store should be enough to ilustrate this), then this discussion will be fruitless.

I'm trying to get you to explain to me how feminists could force the owners of these tournaments to stop this practice. Could you answer that? How did feminists force them to do this?

And I'd appreciate if you could stop trying to explain to me what I'm trying to do. I'm pretty sure I know more about what I'm trying to do, so you don't have to make up things to tell me.

PS: Check out the underlined part in italics. If you have to choose one thing to reply to, I'd prefer if it was that.

No, it's because you're saying absurd things about the influence of feminists. Celeb feminists are pretty bat shit. A bunch of them cut their hair super short in protest to trump getting elected. Maybe you haven't seen any of their speeches.

Sex-negative feminism is fairly popular within feminism. If they're against sex work, porn or the sexual freedom of women and men, they are basically one. I tried to look up any demographic breakdown of how many feminists agree with either side. I couldn't find anything. I know that the more radical ones are like the TERFs.

I don't see the toy thing as an issue. Males and females have different tastes/preferences. It's mainly biological and not social.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/gender-toys-children-toy-preferences-hormones_n_1827727.html

To that underlined bit, I already mentioned this a few times. They used social pressure.

I did. I summarized what you were trying to do with your words. Feminists have a shit ton of influence and are able to put a megaton of social pressure on companies. The wage gap as they try to paint it is a myth but they somehow get alot of people to believe in that santa clause regardless of being able to google it. Companies for the most part won't fight against that bullshit claim because they're afraid of being labeled the s word. They just give them raises.

Anita made a career out of this stuff. She's involved in that anthem game even though she has zero expertise in anything but calling something sexist and she gets paid for it. They're taking her advice..... and they're paying her for it.

That sport's main consumer is guys. Why would they remove pretty girls in appealing clothing from the sport? It doesn't make sense considering that most guys like attractive women. There was some sex negative feminist involved in this that was guilt tripping the owners and they caved.

Uhm... okay, they cut their hair? You're gonna have to come up with better examples than that, people can do whatever they want with their hair as far as I'm concerned...

There is far too little evidence to say it's "mainly biological and not social". Does biology play an important role? Sure, but society sure does its very best to influence and increase this difference in interests even more. Biological biases are exacerbated by society's influence.

Social pressure arises because of consequences. You can't have social pressure, unless there are larger consequences behind it. To use an informal example, the reason you'd rather not openly fart in a large group of people is because it could result in an awkward situation and possibly affect your social status - generally make you feel uncomfortable. That's because farting in a large group of people has over time become behaviour that is generally looked down upon.

So what are the consequences that forced the F1 owners' hands? I don't doubt that there were consequences. Specifically, financial ones, because a large enough group of people don't really want to mix models together with formula 1 racing, that the owners probably fear it could alienate some viewers. AKA the owners are adapting to what they think their audience wants. So what do you suggest? Should we force the owners of the tournament to reinstate the practice against their will, even though they've made a judgement call against it?

What feminists own Formula 1 or a dart tournament?

Exactly how can feminists force those owners to stop them from conducting business as they want to? They can't. Simple as that. I've already explained this in another post, but unless there's a financial argument (in which case you can hardly blame "feminism", you can't force neither advertisers nor viewers to accept their policies) or the owners themselves agreed with the viewpoint and made the call themselves, there's no way this would happen.