Darts walk on girls chalked off.

For once I can see the feminist side to this.
Whilst it may seem quite harmless having mute sexy girls parading around at these kind of events, there are ramifications in other walks of life.

For example my niece who works for an estate agency had to attend an auction to assist with proceedings, after handing out info she had to stand next to the auctioneer during the actual auction. She was asked (in a seemingly joking yet serious way) before the event to wear a short skirt and plenty of slap.
Not right imo. Now we all know that if girls dont comply with their bosses wishes they can lose favour and be got rid off.

I can see that banning this practise would/should tell the guys expecting girls to act like this that its not really on in the modern world and is in fact quite sexist behaviour.

Can you explain why Its empowering to women to tell them that they can't do a job that they want to do and very much enjoy?

Feminism is supposed to be about choice. This is the opposite of that. This is removing choice because some women are shouting loudly about they "need educating"
 
Can you explain why Its empowering to women to tell them that they can't do a job that they want to do and very much enjoy?

Feminism is supposed to be about choice. This is the opposite of that. This is removing choice because some women are shouting loudly about they "need educating"

Its not a straightforward and simple answer. I can see both sides, but in reality what has happened is that these businesses have a made a commercial and social decision. They will have sat down and asked themselves, do these girls add significant value to the event - answer obviously not otherwise they would have been retained. Do they present us, or our brand and our partner brands in a positive light, again the answer they will have come to will be, not really they make us look a bit old fashioned.

The "teeth gnashing left" and "extreme feminists" are not the ones that have driven this change. There was no huge campaign that caused this - this wasn't driven by a targeted social media campaign against "walk on" girls and grid girls. This change has been driven by the men* in charge of these events who have said to themselves, look there is nothing technically wrong with what we are doing, but in reality its a bit wanky, lets get rid.

Whilst some, maybe even most of the women employed as models enjoyed it and made decent money from it. This does not mean that they were individually empowered by it (some may have been, but there is no guarantee) and certainly i think you would find it very difficult to argue that women as a whole were empowered by it. Indeed, to answer your question, there are two ways in which i can see this decision will help empower all women rather than the lucky few who are deemed attractive enough to be a live model at these type of events:

1. These modelling jobs, from the highest level at the F1 down to a local level highlighted by Nimrod at a local auction house, all put forward the image that a woman's worth is predominantly in her looks. I hope that we can all agree that this is not true! This attitude (not driven solely by this, but this is one of the most extreme examples of it) then pervades society in a negative way in many forms.

A great example of this, is they number of professional women being assumed to be the "secretary" in a work situation, when they are in fact the boss, a reporter, a lawyer, whatever this happens all the time and is in part a result of the way women are portrayed in the media. Improving the way women are shown in the media helps improve the way they are treated in real life.

2. As highlighted in the Presidents Club incidents, these jobs can and do put these women in very difficult situations. I am not suggesting that there has ever been any example of a darts or ring girl being assaulted or made to feel uncomfortable but surely, even if we are reducing the opportunity for this to happen to 1 person (that's 1 sister, daughter, niece) then it is a positive move right?

Finally, I would also add that feminism is not about "choice" as you put it, it is about the "advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." Interestingly for all of the people who are championing the "rights" of these working women throughout the 27 pages of answers, i have not seen one arguing for genuine equality. So, i am willing to state here and now that i will join you in demanding the reinstatement of the "walk on girls" and grid girls, just as soon as they joined by an equal number of scantily clad men doing the same thing - because of course at that point, everyone would be happy right!

* this is an assumption
 
Its not a straightforward and simple answer. I can see both sides, but in reality what has happened is that these businesses have a made a commercial and social decision. They will have sat down and asked themselves, do these girls add significant value to the event - answer obviously not otherwise they would have been retained. Do they present us, or our brand and our partner brands in a positive light, again the answer they will have come to will be, not really they make us look a bit old fashioned.

The "teeth gnashing left" and "extreme feminists" are not the ones that have driven this change. There was no huge campaign that caused this - this wasn't driven by a targeted social media campaign against "walk on" girls and grid girls. This change has been driven by the men* in charge of these events who have said to themselves, look there is nothing technically wrong with what we are doing, but in reality its a bit wanky, lets get rid.

Whilst some, maybe even most of the women employed as models enjoyed it and made decent money from it. This does not mean that they were individually empowered by it (some may have been, but there is no guarantee) and certainly i think you would find it very difficult to argue that women as a whole were empowered by it. Indeed, to answer your question, there are two ways in which i can see this decision will help empower all women rather than the lucky few who are deemed attractive enough to be a live model at these type of events:

1. These modelling jobs, from the highest level at the F1 down to a local level highlighted by Nimrod at a local auction house, all put forward the image that a woman's worth is predominantly in her looks. I hope that we can all agree that this is not true! This attitude (not driven solely by this, but this is one of the most extreme examples of it) then pervades society in a negative way in many forms.

A great example of this, is they number of professional women being assumed to be the "secretary" in a work situation, when they are in fact the boss, a reporter, a lawyer, whatever this happens all the time and is in part a result of the way women are portrayed in the media. Improving the way women are shown in the media helps improve the way they are treated in real life.

2. As highlighted in the Presidents Club incidents, these jobs can and do put these women in very difficult situations. I am not suggesting that there has ever been any example of a darts or ring girl being assaulted or made to feel uncomfortable but surely, even if we are reducing the opportunity for this to happen to 1 person (that's 1 sister, daughter, niece) then it is a positive move right?

Finally, I would also add that feminism is not about "choice" as you put it, it is about the "advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." Interestingly for all of the people who are championing the "rights" of these working women throughout the 27 pages of answers, i have not seen one arguing for genuine equality. So, i am willing to state here and now that i will join you in demanding the reinstatement of the "walk on girls" and grid girls, just as soon as they joined by an equal number of scantily clad men doing the same thing - because of course at that point, everyone would be happy right!

* this is an assumption

How are you defining equality?

It's a long post and I don't have time to point out all the wrong thought in it but you appear to believe that men and women are identical and therefore outcomes should be equal. This is simply not true. Men and Men are not identical. Should all men achieve equal outcome?
 
How are you defining equality?

It's a long post and I don't have time to point out all the wrong thought in it but you appear to believe that men and women are identical and therefore outcomes should be equal. This is simply not true. Men and Men are not identical. Should all men achieve equal outcome?

I appreciate that its a long post, but please do point out any errors once you have the time.

A quick google gives me the definition of equality simply as "the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities". Sounds reasonable to me, so to use that to answer your question:

Whilst I do recognize that men and women are different, I do not believe that there should be a different status afforded to anyone based on gender and i am even more certain that the rights or opportunities of any individual should not have anything to do with their gender. Are you saying that because men and women are different, they should have a different set of rights or opportunities, because that is certainly not what our society believes based on the laws of the land?
 
Last edited:
are they any different to say a perfume advert on the TV which uses semi-naked men & women to advertise a product?
I don't think that's quite the same. Perfumes are typically selling the image of high fashion. They don't get just any good looking person to appear in their adverts, they get catwalk models who might actually appear modelling the brand that the perfume is based on. Using models to advertise Gucci's new perfume is like using David Beckham to advertise David Beckham's new perfume. That's the brand.
 
I don't think that's quite the same. Perfumes are typically selling the image of high fashion. They don't get just any good looking person to appear in their adverts, they get catwalk models who might actually appear modelling the brand that the perfume is based on. Using models to advertise Gucci's new perfume is like using David Beckham to advertise David Beckham's new perfume. That's the brand.

Sorry can't agree with any of that.
Most advertisement is the selling of an image, and they pretty much do use good looking people to appear in their adverts. For instance, Chris Hemsworth (Hugo Boss), Josh Holloway (CK, D&G, DKNY, Davidoff), Scott Eastwood (Davidoff).
 
Sorry can't agree with any of that.
Most advertisement is the selling of an image, and they pretty much do use good looking people to appear in their adverts. For instance, Chris Hemsworth (Hugo Boss), Josh Holloway (CK, D&G, DKNY, Davidoff), Scott Eastwood (Davidoff).

Agree with you flip flop. The main difference is that perfume ads generally treat both sexes equally. That is where the issue with Ring girls et al lies.
 
Agree with you flip flop. The main difference is that perfume ads generally treat both sexes equally. That is where the issue with Ring girls et al lies.

It would be if you didn't overlook one simple fact: target audience

There's one prevailing adage in advertisement that comes up again and again 'Sex sells'.
Motorsport, Boxing & Darts are predominately male viewer sports and hence why females are mostly used to promote/advertise products.
It's also why certain brands/companies get attracted to sponsoring these events. They are specifically wanting to target a certain demographic - men (i.e. I can't ever remember seeing a Tampon advert stuck on the side of a racing car.)
 
All the manufactured outrage is just daft.

How many of you went to Crystal Palace away really excited you would see the half time dancers. I know I didn't, I don't watch darts to see the walk on girls, I don't watch F1 full stop.

All this manufactured outrage does is give the "anti-pc" brigade a tool to claim that the nation is being ruined by liberals. If your life is so sad you are angry you will not be able to see the walk on girls at the darts, I do feel sorry for you. Try Xhamster or something, you can see pubes on there.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.