Mr. Jessop, that's a sad story. That's only one side of things, though. We have a de facto team boss with Claire Williams, and, until recently, had another with Monisha Kaltenborn. More and more women are getting into engineering. It'd be great if we could have some female drivers (it's one of the few sports where direct competition would be possible between men and women), but I understand increasing numbers of women are competing in lower formulae.
Taking away grid girls doesn't magically create more engineering jobs that can only be done by women. All it does it is take work away from women.
Also, as I said yesterday, I hardly bother at all with pre- or post-race nonsense, so don't see the grid girls. My concern is with sacrificing freedom of choice and women's work on the altar of political correctness. There's nothing pro-women about making women poorer.
WRT to the driving, I thought there was some evidence that in general, women don't perform quite as well as men under high-G force situations. Whether that general case still holds at the extremes (i.e. whether the tails to the ability-curve track each other), I don't know, but I can see how physiognomy of, say, neck muscles might make a difference in that respect in a way that it has less impact on, say, rallying or formula ford.
There
On female drivers, there have been a few, most notably Danica Patrick in US Indycars who’s won races. The G-forces are an issue, but we have female fighter pilots now so it can be overcome with sufficient training. The reasons there are so few women around F1 as drivers is that there are so few in the lower formulae. Increasing numbers of female engineers around though, which is a very good thing.
Regardless of the politics, men are going to find the female form attractive until the ends of time. Attractive women will always have an advantage, or disadvantage, in that, depending on your point-of-view. Indeed, as attractive people do in life more generally.
I don't think having some women work as glamour models, or models, affects my view of women in the workplace anymore than it does having some men working in similar industries. I like mixed environments. But, we're all human, all think about sex, and sex does just happen sometimes. In the workplace it does so quite regularly and probably more regularly, now, than it did 40-50 years ago.
I'd like to see a bit more tolerance, a bit more common sense and a bit less ideology.
Mr. Jessop, that's a sad story. That's only one side of things, though. We have a de facto team boss with Claire Williams, and, until recently, had another with Monisha Kaltenborn. More and more women are getting into engineering. It'd be great if we could have some female drivers (it's one of the few sports where direct competition would be possible between men and women), but I understand increasing numbers of women are competing in lower formulae.
Taking away grid girls doesn't magically create more engineering jobs that can only be done by women. All it does it is take work away from women.
Also, as I said yesterday, I hardly bother at all with pre- or post-race nonsense, so don't see the grid girls. My concern is with sacrificing freedom of choice and women's work on the altar of political correctness. There's nothing pro-women about making women poorer.
That depends on what the women have to do to make them richer. FWIW, I dislike the objectification that the grid girls are clearly there to cater for and can well understand why the culture that uses them as such puts other women off becoming involved in the industry. To the extent that they do a useful job holding umbrellas or car number boards, no doubt they could still do that without the need for such figure-enhancing outfits, which would make the job opportunities more open.
WRT to the driving, I thought there was some evidence that in general, women don't perform quite as well as men under high-G force situations. Whether that general case still holds at the extremes (i.e. whether the tails to the ability-curve track each other), I don't know, but I can see how physiognomy of, say, neck muscles might make a difference in that respect in a way that it has less impact on, say, rallying or formula ford.
There have been good interviews today from two ladies called Kelly Brook and Katie Price, who I think most British men have seen naked and have earned millions in the last 20 years. Both started modelling careers as grid girls and in similar promotional roles, Page 3 etc. It’s fair to say they don’t like the idea that a bunch of middle class feminists would deny them the same career choices now.
I suppose the question F1 is asking itself is whether it wants to be seen as an entry-level industry for the likes of Katie Price. The world is rarely short of career opportunities for women who see a future for themselves in taking their clothes off.
Off topic here, but just wanted to record my thanks to Cyclefree for her excellent article yesterday. Deliberately provocative but not invalidly so, it's a case that anyone who thinks (despite the evidence of last June), Corbyn can't win needs to answer.
Sure, there are differences too - most obviously Corbyn's lack of experience not just in government but in being part of any team where discipline matters. Even so, these are not as important as some think in restricting his capacity to win, though they would be in his capacity to govern.
No historic or international parallel works perfectly but the baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. As long as we understand and control for the differences, the similarities should tell us a lot.
I have been impressed by how much Jeremy Corbyn has been willing to trim to be a normal politician. Nothing in his background will have prepared him for that. His problem though is that he forgets the expediencies he has made. He lacks self-discipline, something that could never be said of Margaret Thatcher.
I can at least have some respect for Dan Hodges (in this one limited aspect) in that he was a lot more honest about it and just joined the Conservative party
Mr. Jessop, that's a sad story. That's only one side of things, though. We have a de facto team boss with Claire Williams, and, until recently, had another with Monisha Kaltenborn. More and more women are getting into engineering. It'd be great if we could have some female drivers (it's one of the few sports where direct competition would be possible between men and women), but I understand increasing numbers of women are competing in lower formulae.
Taking away grid girls doesn't magically create more engineering jobs that can only be done by women. All it does it is take work away from women.
Also, as I said yesterday, I hardly bother at all with pre- or post-race nonsense, so don't see the grid girls. My concern is with sacrificing freedom of choice and women's work on the altar of political correctness. There's nothing pro-women about making women poorer.
That depends on what the women have to do to make them richer. FWIW, I dislike the objectification that the grid girls are clearly there to cater for and can well understand why the culture that uses them as such puts other women off becoming involved in the industry. To the extent that they do a useful job holding umbrellas or car number boards, no doubt they could still do that without the need for such figure-enhancing outfits, which would make the job opportunities more open.
WRT to the driving, I thought there was some evidence that in general, women don't perform quite as well as men under high-G force situations. Whether that general case still holds at the extremes (i.e. whether the tails to the ability-curve track each other), I don't know, but I can see how physiognomy of, say, neck muscles might make a difference in that respect in a way that it has less impact on, say, rallying or formula ford.
AIUI women are, on a height-to-height basis, slightly more susceptible to G-forces (height and mass having more effect than gender: greater height makes you more susceptible, more mass less susceptible). However military studies have shown that any such differences are insignificant when it comes to fighter pilots, whose G-regime is probably harsher than F1.
Hence a trained short, muscular woman would have greater tolerance to G-forces than a trained tall, gangly man. Either man or woman, when trained, would beat an untrained person of either gender.
It should be remembered that many of the Mercury 13 women passed many of the same tests as the Mercury 7 men when it came to astronaut selection; they were not allowed to progress to further testing, although Funk privately did the phase-III tests and passed.
@elashton: On latest BuzzFeed scoop revealing that gov analysis shows that cutting EU immigration will hit UK economy, No 10 says we will remain an "open and tolerant country" with a "strong and resilient economy"
"But who cares, as long as they can ogle attractive women on the TV?"
What's wrong with appreciating a pretty woman? If you start banning that, the population explosion will be solved quickly. I'm sure you're aware of the 'Lysenko' problem in Russia during the 1930s?
The 'May' problem in the Conservative Party has no easy solution. If only she were a looker. And yes, I know I'm shallow.
I'm not a puritan - I have no problem with pretty women being on TV to appeal to men (and vice versa). However there is a case of where it fits from a business perspective. The presence of a pretty woman that appeals to a man might repel a female viewer, and F1 wants (and needs) to be a global sport of appeal to both men and women.
The grid girls really serve no practical purpose that cannot be provided by alternative means, and IMO it makes no sense from a business perspective to keep them. And removing them frees up valuable room on the grid for the celebs and important people that is the *real* F1 business. (tm).
I suspect this is one of those things that will be looked back on in a few years as bizarre and incomprehensible. Like the Black-and-White Minstrel Show, or Love Thy Neighbour, or denying gay couples the rights afforded heterosexual couples, or primogeniture of the UK Crown. It's sadly not a short list.
Off topic here, but just wanted to record my thanks to Cyclefree for her excellent article yesterday. Deliberately provocative but not invalidly so, it's a case that anyone who thinks (despite the evidence of last June), Corbyn can't win needs to answer.
Sure, there are differences too - most obviously Corbyn's lack of experience not just in government but in being part of any team where discipline matters. Even so, these are not as important as some think in restricting his capacity to win, though they would be in his capacity to govern.
No historic or international parallel works perfectly but the baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. As long as we understand and control for the differences, the similarities should tell us a lot.
I have been impressed by how much Jeremy Corbyn has been willing to trim to be a normal politician. Nothing in his background will have prepared him for that. His problem though is that he forgets the expediencies he has made. He lacks self-discipline, something that could never be said of Margaret Thatcher.
Sensible people would have thought that the contortions required to go from loathing military-industrial complexes to leading one would be a trim too far.
"However there is a case of where it fits from a business perspective"
I wouldn't worry about formula 1 in that regard. I'm sure they'll do what's commercially beneficial. After all, they've made a moving traffic jam a great commercial success (apologies to Mr Dancer).
As an old git, I am slightly pleased by this sudden return to puritanism in some ways. The girls are obviously weak and need protecting sometimes by the self-elected elite who are the font of all wisdom.
Mr. Jessop, that's a sad story. That's only one side of things, though. We have a de facto team boss with Claire Williams, and, until recently, had another with Monisha Kaltenborn. More and more women are getting into engineering. It'd be great if we could have some female drivers (it's one of the few sports where direct competition would be possible between men and women), but I understand increasing numbers of women are competing in lower formulae.
Taking away grid girls doesn't magically create more engineering jobs that can only be done by women. All it does it is take work away from women.
Also, as I said yesterday, I hardly bother at all with pre- or post-race nonsense, so don't see the grid girls. My concern is with sacrificing freedom of choice and women's work on the altar of political correctness. There's nothing pro-women about making women poorer.
But it's not 'freedom of choice'. If it was, men should have the 'freedom of choice' to be a grid-guy. It's an employment opportunity, and one whose time is sadly past from a business perspective.
Next time you go to your local supermarket, would you want women dressed in bikinis directing you to the nearest available checkout, or would you think it was slightly inappropriate?
As for your engineering point: it's bogus. Young people prosper with role models, and whilst the likes of Claire Williams is a good role model for a young girl wanting to become the next Newey, John Barnard or Ross Brawn, the grid-girls are precisely the opposite.
Taking away grid girls doesn't magically create more engineering jobs that can only be done by women. All it does it is take work away from women.
Also, as I said yesterday, I hardly bother at all with pre- or post-race nonsense, so don't see the grid girls. My concern is with sacrificing freedom of choice and women's work on the altar of political correctness. There's nothing pro-women about making women poorer.
That depends on what the women have to do to make them richer. FWIW, I dislike the objectification that the grid girls are clearly there to cater for and can well understand why the culture that uses them as such puts other women off becoming involved in the industry. To the extent that they do a useful job holding umbrellas or car number boards, no doubt they could still do that without the need for such figure-enhancing outfits, which would make the job opportunities more open.
WRT to the driving, I thought there was some evidence that in general, women don't perform quite as well as men under high-G force situations. Whether that general case still holds at the extremes (i.e. whether the tails to the ability-curve track each other), I don't know, but I can see how physiognomy of, say, neck muscles might make a difference in that respect in a way that it has less impact on, say, rallying or formula ford.
There have been good interviews today from two ladies called Kelly Brook and Katie Price, who I think most British men have seen naked and have earned millions in the last 20 years. Both started modelling careers as grid girls and in similar promotional roles, Page 3 etc. It’s fair to say they don’t like the idea that a bunch of middle class feminists would deny them the same career choices now.
I suppose the question F1 is asking itself is whether it wants to be seen as an entry-level industry for the likes of Katie Price. The world is rarely short of career opportunities for women who see a future for themselves in taking their clothes off.
Indeed, and that’s their decision. I happen to think it’s the wrong decision but I’m still going to be an F1 fan without the grid girls there. I just think it’s denying an income to those women who wish to do these things. They will still have to have someone marking spots on the grid for the drivers with or without the grid girls.
I wonder if the feminists are going to go for the boxing ring girls next?
Incidentally, the issue of UK nationals driving trucks on the continent is a Freedom of Movement issue, not a Customs Union one. So Turkish truck drivers can't take their goods into the EU without a permit even though the goods themselves can travel freely. The other thing is that the permits are a national competence not an EU one. If you want to drive a truck to Austria, you will need a trucking permit from the Netherlands and Germany as well as Austria*. All of them have their own tight quotas.
Jonathan Portes misses the more serious point: Daniel Hannan still sees saboteurs everywhere.
I've found it hard to maintain my long-held respect for Daniel Hannan. I expected him to muck in, take some responsibility, and help make Leave a success, but he seems to prefer to stand to one side whilst critiquing everyone else.
By contrast, my respect for Gove remains immense (and Raab to a lesser extent) because both believe in it, are pragmatic, and are doing the hard graft to make it work.
(before anyone accuses me of the same, I applied to join DExEU to help out but I couldn't afford to take the £35k salary cut. If I could have, I would have.)
So you put financial well-being ahead of (helping to bring about) sovereignty?
I couldn't pay my mortgage, nor support my wife as she's still building her career. I'm not suicidal !
I was more frustrated at the total lack of flexibility within the civil service in recruiting short-term private sector talent to help them out.
I think that's a wonderful, satirical subversion of the norm. If "dolly birds" - as my dad used to say - were no longer a feature of TV quiz shows, then they wouldn't be there.
And lets not forget that Rachel Riley and Susie Dent are good examples of women on a TV show not just for their looks (however short Rachel's skirt is!).
EDIT: I have no problem with women choosing to do this line of work, but I see it as problematic that the roles are there at all.
Taking away grid girls doesn't magically create more engineering jobs that can only be done by women. All it does it is take work away from women.
Also, as I said yesterday, I hardly bother at all with pre- or post-race nonsense, so don't see the grid girls. My concern is with sacrificing freedom of choice and women's work on the altar of political correctness. There's nothing pro-women about making women poorer.
That depends on what the women have to do to make them richer. FWIW, I dislike the objectification that the grid girls are clearly there to cater for and can well understand why the culture that uses them as such puts other women off becoming involved in the industry. To the extent that they do a useful job holding umbrellas or car number boards, no doubt they could still do that without the need for such figure-enhancing outfits, which would make the job opportunities more open.
WRT to the driving, I thought there was some evidence that in general, women don't perform quite as well as men under high-G force situations. Whether that general case still holds at the extremes (i.e. whether the tails to the ability-curve track each other), I don't know, but I can see how physiognomy of, say, neck muscles might make a difference in that respect in a way that it has less impact on, say, rallying or formula ford.
There have been good interviews today from two ladies called Kelly Brook and Katie Price, who I think most British men have seen naked and have earned millions in the last 20 years. Both started modelling careers as grid girls and in similar promotional roles, Page 3 etc. It’s fair to say they don’t like the idea that a bunch of middle class feminists would deny them the same career choices now.
I suppose the question F1 is asking itself is whether it wants to be seen as an entry-level industry for the likes of Katie Price. The world is rarely short of career opportunities for women who see a future for themselves in taking their clothes off.
Indeed, and that’s their decision. I happen to think it’s the wrong decision but I’m still going to be an F1 fan without the grid girls there. I just think it’s denying an income to those women who wish to do these things. They will still have to have someone marking spots on the grid for the drivers with or without the grid girls.
I wonder if the feminists are going to go for the boxing ring girls next?
What about the women who would be happy to do the job, but are deemed not to have the necessary attributes required to stand there holding a sign?
The minister threatening to resign can not be that senior if they are not in the Cabinet.
More likely bitter that they were not promoted in the last reshuffle. Noted the minister is male so competing against females who are being positively discriminated in favour of.
Mr. Herdson, worth noting that grid girls have been wearing more and more modest outfits recently, in F1 at least. Bikinis they are not.
That's true, though the very fact that the outfits have been changing shows that the decision to do away with them entirely is the conclusion of a process that was already well under way.
Apparently the Rachel Riley photo going around yesterday of her standing in front of “OK I SQUIRT” was from the daytime Countdown, not the late night Cats version! Dare I say that when she was hired, they were looking for someone who was, umm, telegenic, as well as being good at maths.
Good to see the grid girls are campaigning against their unemployment.
Regardless of the politics, men are going to find the female form attractive until the ends of time. Attractive women will always have an advantage, or disadvantage, in that, depending on your point-of-view. Indeed, as attractive people do in life more generally.
I don't think having some women work as glamour models, or models, affects my view of women in the workplace anymore than it does having some men working in similar industries. I like mixed environments. But, we're all human, all think about sex, and sex does just happen sometimes. In the workplace it does so quite regularly and probably more regularly, now, than it did 40-50 years ago.
I'd like to see a bit more tolerance, a bit more common sense and a bit less ideology.
That's the point: this F1 decision is common sense and *not* ideological.
As for your other point: women working as glamour models may not affect your view of women in the workplace, but it may affect the view a young girl has of her future prospects in the workplace. Role models count.
If all an intelligent, attractive girl sees when growing up is scantily-clad women, then she is likely to want to become a scantily-clad woman when she grows up. And fair enough. But if she also sees a few women doing amazing things - running an F1 team, designing computer chips, starting a successful business (*), then she is more likely to choose to try to emulate those role models. It's their choice. And I'd argue that's positive for them and the country.
Many women have very attractive bodies. They can also have very attractive minds.
(*) I would say running the country, but our current incumbent makes that a mixed message!
Taking away grid girls doesn't magically create more engineering jobs that can only be done by women. All it does it is take work away from women.
Also, as I said yesterday, I hardly bother at all with pre- or post-race nonsense, so don't see the grid girls. My concern is with sacrificing freedom of choice and women's work on the altar of political correctness. There's nothing pro-women about making women poorer.
That depends on what the women have to do to make them richer. FWIW, I dislike the objectification that the grid girls are clearly there to cater for and can well understand why the culture that uses them as such puts other women off becoming involved in the industry. To the extent that they do a useful job holding umbrellas or car number boards, no doubt they could still do that without the need for such figure-enhancing outfits, which would make the job opportunities more open.
WRT to the driving, I thought there was some evidence that in general, women don't perform quite as well as men under high-G force situations. Whether that general case still holds at the extremes (i.e. whether the tails to the ability-curve track each other), I don't know, but I can see how physiognomy of, say, neck muscles might make a difference in that respect in a way that it has less impact on, say, rallying or formula ford.
There have been good interviews today from two ladies called Kelly Brook and Katie Price, who I think most British men have seen naked and have earned millions in the last 20 years. Both started modelling careers as grid girls and in similar promotional roles, Page 3 etc. It’s fair to say they don’t like the idea that a bunch of middle class feminists would deny them the same career choices now.
I suppose the question F1 is asking itself is whether it wants to be seen as an entry-level industry for the likes of Katie Price. The world is rarely short of career opportunities for women who see a future for themselves in taking their clothes off.
Indeed, and that’s their decision. I happen to think it’s the wrong decision but I’m still going to be an F1 fan without the grid girls there. I just think it’s denying an income to those women who wish to do these things. They will still have to have someone marking spots on the grid for the drivers with or without the grid girls.
I wonder if the feminists are going to go for the boxing ring girls next?
What about the women who would be happy to do the job, but are deemed not to have the necessary attributes required to stand there holding a sign?
Life is tough. See the fashion industry, Sky Sports News presenters, etc. etc.
The minister threatening to resign can not be that senior if they are not in the Cabinet.
More likely bitter that they were not promoted in the last reshuffle. Noted the minister is male so competing against females who are being positively discriminated in favour of.
There's also a Cabinet source briefing against May.
"But who cares, as long as they can ogle attractive women on the TV?"
What's wrong with appreciating a pretty woman? If you start banning that, the population explosion will be solved quickly. I'm sure you're aware of the 'Lysenko' problem in Russia during the 1930s?
The 'May' problem in the Conservative Party has no easy solution. If only she were a looker. And yes, I know I'm shallow.
I'm not a puritan - I have no problem with pretty women being on TV to appeal to men (and vice versa). However there is a case of where it fits from a business perspective. The presence of a pretty woman that appeals to a man might repel a female viewer, and F1 wants (and needs) to be a global sport of appeal to both men and women.
The grid girls really serve no practical purpose that cannot be provided by alternative means, and IMO it makes no sense from a business perspective to keep them. And removing them frees up valuable room on the grid for the celebs and important people that is the *real* F1 business. (tm).
It may be that lesbian women are more predisposed to watch F1, in which case grid girls could be an attraction for that customer segment.
Mr. Sandpit, I doubt there'll be a change, though.
So far, Liberty has managed to pointless change a logo, introduce a ridiculous seven compound set of dry tyres, and axe grid girls.
All they need to do now is sort out: declining revenues shrinking audiences uneven pay structure new engine rules new rule-making structure
Mr. 565, I'm not sure. I should stress, I'm not any of the chaps pictured
Mr. Jessop, what's wrong with modelling? As for 'what women see'/role models, Claire Williams leads the Williams team (her father remains team principal but due to poor health she's the de facto boss on a day-to-day basis) and increasing numbers of female engineers are coming through.
姨 means aunt, and 梅 whilst obviously a direct transliteration to May actually means plum amusingly enough , the pinyin is Méi Yí so basically May with a large flourish on the vowels
I can at least have some respect for Dan Hodges (in this one limited aspect) in that he was a lot more honest about it and just joined the Conservative party
Erm, when was this?
Apologies, been looking for it and maybe I was wrong about him actually joining the party he just came out as a supporter for them, which is close enough to what I'd like the crazies at labouruncut to do
Mr. Sandpit, I doubt there'll be a change, though.
So far, Liberty has managed to pointless change a logo, introduce a ridiculous seven compound set of dry tyres, and axe grid girls.
All they need to do now is sort out: declining revenues shrinking audiences uneven pay structure new engine rules new rule-making structure
Mr. 565, I'm not sure. I should stress, I'm not any of the chaps pictured
Mr. Jessop, what's wrong with modelling? As for 'what women see'/role models, Claire Williams leads the Williams team (her father remains team principal but due to poor health she's the de facto boss on a day-to-day basis) and increasing numbers of female engineers are coming through.
See my previous post about role models.
And there's nothing wrong with modelling (as long as there is not exploitation). But women should be given as many other choices aside from modelling as men get.
Note the anonymous government source comment that a deal looks less than odds on. That really stood out for me.
Does it change your betfair impact assesment ?
Not really. No deal Brexit would take effect on the 2 year anniversary, and deal Brexit would take effect that date unless there's unanimous agreement otherwise.
I can at least have some respect for Dan Hodges (in this one limited aspect) in that he was a lot more honest about it and just joined the Conservative party
Erm, when was this?
Apologies, been looking for it and maybe I was wrong about him actually joining the party he just came out as a supporter for them, which is close enough to what I'd like the crazies at labouruncut to do
Hodges is a strange case. Back in the Miliband era he adopted the persona of the principled Labour centrist appalled at the party's direction and general haplessness. These days (from the little I see) he seems indistinguishable for any ardent May loyalist. Is he even particularly pro-EU anymore? (He once used to boast about his enthusiasm for a European army and straight bananas.) Curious chap.
TSE if you are around could you link to that Michael Fabricant, Thomas the Tank Engine thing again. I thought it was great but can’t now find it. Or anyone here who knows how to find it. Thanks.
Regardless of the politics, men are going to find the female form attractive until the ends of time. Attractive women will always have an advantage, or disadvantage, in that, depending on your point-of-view. Indeed, as attractive people do in life more generally.
I don't think having some women work as glamour models, or models, affects my view of women in the workplace anymore than it does having some men working in similar industries. I like mixed environments. But, we're all human, all think about sex, and sex does just happen sometimes. In the workplace it does so quite regularly and probably more regularly, now, than it did 40-50 years ago.
I'd like to see a bit more tolerance, a bit more common sense and a bit less ideology.
That's the point: this F1 decision is common sense and *not* ideological.
As for your other point: women working as glamour models may not affect your view of women in the workplace, but it may affect the view a young girl has of her future prospects in the workplace. Role models count.
If all an intelligent, attractive girl sees when growing up is scantily-clad women, then she is likely to want to become a scantily-clad woman when she grows up. And fair enough. But if she also sees a few women doing amazing things - running an F1 team, designing computer chips, starting a successful business (*), then she is more likely to choose to try to emulate those role models. It's their choice. And I'd argue that's positive for them and the country.
Many women have very attractive bodies. They can also have very attractive minds.
(*) I would say running the country, but our current incumbent makes that a mixed message!
That post is a bit of a non-sequiter, for me. No-one said women can't have both attractive bodies and minds.
Scantily-clad women aren't all an intelligent, attractive girl sees as role models. She might see those, sure, just as I see male footballers, braindead male models on Love Island, and talent show contenders, but she can - and should - see women doing other amazing things, as you outline, in science, maths and medicine. One doesn't preclude, or exclude, the other.
There are issues with segments of our working-class youth, who see few attractive career options other than sport, celebrity or talent shows, and I'd say that's a problem for both genders. But, I'd be focussing on the poverty of aspiration, and social mobility, to fix that.
I'd also be wary of being offended on behalf of others, or trying to take the moral high-ground but actually just ending up sounding quite patronising.
Plenty genuinely enjoy it, or see it as harmless, and are certainly not distracted by an ultra-feminist ideology that is offended by the fact men are sexually attracted to the female form.
TSE if you are around could you link to that Michael Fabricant, Thomas the Tank Engine thing again. I thought it was great but can’t now find it. Or anyone here who knows how to find it. Thanks.
Mr. Sandpit, I doubt there'll be a change, though.
So far, Liberty has managed to pointless change a logo, introduce a ridiculous seven compound set of dry tyres, and axe grid girls.
All they need to do now is sort out: declining revenues shrinking audiences uneven pay structure new engine rules new rule-making structure
Mr. 565, I'm not sure. I should stress, I'm not any of the chaps pictured
Mr. Jessop, what's wrong with modelling? As for 'what women see'/role models, Claire Williams leads the Williams team (her father remains team principal but due to poor health she's the de facto boss on a day-to-day basis) and increasing numbers of female engineers are coming through.
See my previous post about role models.
And there's nothing wrong with modelling (as long as there is not exploitation). But women should be given as many other choices aside from modelling as men get.
Indeed, but banning grid girls doesn’t do much about that, except to make a bunch of women unemployed.
As we have discussed on here before, you know I’m hugely in favour of initiatives to get more women involved in STEM subjects, and in the last few years there’s clearly been a visible increase in the number of women in technical roles in F1 - as opposed to just the marketing, PR and catering roles of a decade ago. AIUI there’s also a much larger number of women at the F1 factories who don’t travel around to the races.
TSE if you are around could you link to that Michael Fabricant, Thomas the Tank Engine thing again. I thought it was great but can’t now find it. Or anyone here who knows how to find it. Thanks.
The interviews show there is an interest in women leaders in China's relentlessly male dominated politics. (There isn't a single female provincial level party Party Secretary - these are the people with the real power). At the national level the only women are from ethnic minorities (the Mongols seem to have particularly powerful women) or are involved in "women's business" like family planning or HR.
Having said that, the leaders of both Taiwan and Hong Kong are women. It's not necessarily a cultural barrier.
It may be that lesbian women are more predisposed to watch F1, in which case grid girls could be an attraction for that customer segment
It's a shame there is no obvious source for pictures of naked and scantily clad women (or men). Luckily F1 is there to satisfy those baser needs.
It is all part of a greater plot, blocking porn online, taking away grid girls....
Yeah, so all the perverted men will go and harass real women instead. Go the sistas!
It can easily be argued that it works the other way: that the objectification of women leads to more abuse and harassment by weak-minded fools. I don't fully buy into that argument myself, but I think there is a kernel of truth in it.
I'm very bemused by those who defend the groping of waitresses at a corporate event and condemn the abuse of women in Rotherham, Rochdale etc. They are both about exploitation of a power differential, and are all worthy of condemnation. The identity of the culprits should have nothing to do with it.
As an aside, IMV that's the real problem with the glamour industry: in many areas it is too prone to exploitation. That's not an argument for banning the glamour industry. Instead it needs to be cleaned up (fnarr), and the women and men at the sharp end need empowering. Although that is easier said than done.
It may be that lesbian women are more predisposed to watch F1, in which case grid girls could be an attraction for that customer segment
It's a shame there is no obvious source for pictures of naked and scantily clad women (or men). Luckily F1 is there to satisfy those baser needs.
It is all part of a greater plot, blocking porn online, taking away grid girls....
Yeah, so all the perverted men will go and harass real women instead. Go the sistas!
It can easily be argued that it works the other way: that the objectification of women leads to more abuse and harassment by weak-minded fools. I don't fully buy into that argument myself, but I think there is a kernel of truth in it.
Women are already being harrassed. It is part of almost every woman's daily life.
"A poll, commissioned by housing charity Shelter, has revealed that over 250,000 women have been asked to trade sexual favours in return for free, or discounted, accommodation in the past five years, reports The Times. An estimated 140,000 of those cases were seen in just the past year."
Mr. Sandpit, I doubt there'll be a change, though.
So far, Liberty has managed to pointless change a logo, introduce a ridiculous seven compound set of dry tyres, and axe grid girls.
All they need to do now is sort out: declining revenues shrinking audiences uneven pay structure new engine rules new rule-making structure
Mr. 565, I'm not sure. I should stress, I'm not any of the chaps pictured
Mr. Jessop, what's wrong with modelling? As for 'what women see'/role models, Claire Williams leads the Williams team (her father remains team principal but due to poor health she's the de facto boss on a day-to-day basis) and increasing numbers of female engineers are coming through.
See my previous post about role models.
And there's nothing wrong with modelling (as long as there is not exploitation). But women should be given as many other choices aside from modelling as men get.
Indeed, but banning grid girls doesn’t do much about that, except to make a bunch of women unemployed.
As we have discussed on here before, you know I’m hugely in favour of initiatives to get more women involved in STEM subjects, and in the last few years there’s clearly been a visible increase in the number of women in technical roles in F1 - as opposed to just the marketing, PR and catering roles of a decade ago. AIUI there’s also a much larger number of women at the F1 factories who don’t travel around to the races.
They're not full-time grid-girls ffs! It's a temporary contract for a weekend at most! I really hope they're not relying on that money to live on.
It's sad that a country like Turkey, which is backwards wrt women in so many ways, has a much higher proportion of women going into STEM subjects than we have. Although in some ways that is the result of a patriarchal view that women with degrees in STEM are more 'valuable' when it comes to marriage ...
I can at least have some respect for Dan Hodges (in this one limited aspect) in that he was a lot more honest about it and just joined the Conservative party
Erm, when was this?
Apologies, been looking for it and maybe I was wrong about him actually joining the party he just came out as a supporter for them, which is close enough to what I'd like the crazies at labouruncut to do
Hodges is a strange case. Back in the Miliband era he adopted the persona of the principled Labour centrist appalled at the party's direction and general haplessness. These days (from the little I see) he seems indistinguishable for any ardent May loyalist. Is he even particularly pro-EU anymore? (He once used to boast about his enthusiasm for a European army and straight bananas.) Curious chap.
Don't want to assume the worst of him but maybe rather than a huge change in his politics he was just following the money as a writer?
I suppose an argument could be made this his political views are better served by the current Conservatives rather than Labour so he is being generally supportive of the Conservatives...
The cynic in me might suggest that was true a few years ago and he just used his position to harm Labour before switching.
Indeed, but banning grid girls doesn’t do much about that, except to make a bunch of women unemployed. .
They’re not banned - the private company has just made a decision that they don’t want them any more. Sports and businesses have to evolve to stay relevant.
Note the anonymous government source comment that a deal looks less than odds on. That really stood out for me.
It stood out as illogical for me... if no deal is calamity and we are not properly preparing, then surely there will be a deal!? We will just sign up to what is on offer.
It may be that lesbian women are more predisposed to watch F1, in which case grid girls could be an attraction for that customer segment
It's a shame there is no obvious source for pictures of naked and scantily clad women (or men). Luckily F1 is there to satisfy those baser needs.
It is all part of a greater plot, blocking porn online, taking away grid girls....
Yeah, so all the perverted men will go and harass real women instead. Go the sistas!
It can easily be argued that it works the other way: that the objectification of women leads to more abuse and harassment by weak-minded fools. I don't fully buy into that argument myself, but I think there is a kernel of truth in it.
Women are already being harrassed. It is part of almost every woman's daily life.
"A poll, commissioned by housing charity Shelter, has revealed that over 250,000 women have been asked to trade sexual favours in return for free, or discounted, accommodation in the past five years, reports The Times. An estimated 140,000 of those cases were seen in just the past year."
Mr. Sandpit, I doubt there'll be a change, though.
So far, Liberty has managed to pointless change a logo, introduce a ridiculous seven compound set of dry tyres, and axe grid girls.
All they need to do now is sort out: declining revenues shrinking audiences uneven pay structure new engine rules new rule-making structure
Mr. 565, I'm not sure. I should stress, I'm not any of the chaps pictured
Mr. Jessop, what's wrong with modelling? As for 'what women see'/role models, Claire Williams leads the Williams team (her father remains team principal but due to poor health she's the de facto boss on a day-to-day basis) and increasing numbers of female engineers are coming through.
See my previous post about role models.
And there's nothing wrong with modelling (as long as there is not exploitation). But women should be given as many other choices aside from modelling as men get.
Indeed, but banning grid girls doesn’t do much about that, except to make a bunch of women unemployed.
As we have discussed on here before, you know I’m hugely in favour of initiatives to get more women involved in STEM subjects, and in the last few years there’s clearly been a visible increase in the number of women in technical roles in F1 - as opposed to just the marketing, PR and catering roles of a decade ago. AIUI there’s also a much larger number of women at the F1 factories who don’t travel around to the races.
They're not full-time grid-girls ffs! It's a temporary contract for a weekend at most! I really hope they're not relying on that money to live on.
It's sad that a country like Turkey, which is backwards wrt women in so many ways, has a much higher proportion of women going into STEM subjects than we have. Although in some ways that is the result of a patriarchal view that women with degrees in STEM are more 'valuable' when it comes to marriage ...
From the postings of the model that Mr Dancer linked to earlier, she seems to work most weekends as a grid girl or similar promotional things in the motorsport industry, is probably earning a fair proportion of her income from it. Ironically the money the models earn from promo work means they need to do less of the “glamour” modelling.
No doubt some of them also do more lucrative escorting, those girls will just find another way to make sure they’re at the same event as the rich men.
I’d make STEM degrees free and liberal arts degrees £25k a year, but it’s unlikely to be my decision anytime soon!
If there really were a government minister on the point of resigning in protest against May, would he really tip off the Sun beforehand this removing the element of surprise and the shock impact of his resignation?
Almost certainly not, and I very much doubt whether there is any such minister and that there will be any such resignation in 2018.
On freedom of movement, I'm surprised that more publicity hasn't been given to the fact that it is the EU, not the UK, which proposes to deny the continuation of existing rights to EU citizens. Although they've agreed that EU citizens who happen to be British and who live in one of the EU27 countries will retain that right, they intend to take away their existing right to move to other EU countries. I suppose it is possible that Theresa May is trying to shift this position, or alternatively she might once again be setting herself up for backing down for nothing in return.
Finally: Osborne on the Today programme. Listen, and weep for what we have lost.
Surely the issue is that post Brexit we constitute a 3rd country, assuming that we do not stay in the EEA. Residence rights for 3rd country nationals are a national rather than EU area of sovereignty. A British national moving from Spain to Italy becomes a 3rd country national in Italy.
I am sure that Brexiteers would want to respect national sovereignty over EU sovereignty in such matters.
Note the anonymous government source comment that a deal looks less than odds on. That really stood out for me.
It stood out as illogical for me... if no deal is calamity and we are not properly preparing, then surely there will be a deal!? We will just sign up to what is on offer.
But we are not preparing,or if we are we are doing a fantastic job of keeping it oh so secret and whilst the Brexiteer tail is wagging the Tory dog we seem to be doomed to indecision.
Indeed, but banning grid girls doesn’t do much about that, except to make a bunch of women unemployed. .
They’re not banned - the private company has just made a decision that they don’t want them any more. Sports and businesses have to evolve to stay relevant.
They’re banned. They weren’t hired by F1 but by the promotors of the individual events. F1 has told the event promotors that they are no longer to hire the grid girls.
It may be that lesbian women are more predisposed to watch F1, in which case grid girls could be an attraction for that customer segment
It's a shame there is no obvious source for pictures of naked and scantily clad women (or men). Luckily F1 is there to satisfy those baser needs.
It is all part of a greater plot, blocking porn online, taking away grid girls....
Yeah, so all the perverted men will go and harass real women instead. Go the sistas!
It can easily be argued that it works the other way: that the objectification of women leads to more abuse and harassment by weak-minded fools. I don't fully buy into that argument myself, but I think there is a kernel of truth in it.
I'm very bemused by those who defend the groping of waitresses at a corporate event and condemn the abuse of women in Rotherham, Rochdale etc. They are both about exploitation of a power differential, and are all worthy of condemnation. The identity of the culprits should have nothing to do with it.
As an aside, IMV that's the real problem with the glamour industry: in many areas it is too prone to exploitation. That's not an argument for banning the glamour industry. Instead it needs to be cleaned up (fnarr), and the women and men at the sharp end need empowering. Although that is easier said than done.
I don't think many people are defending the right to grope. But child rape is an order of magnitude worse.
Indeed, but banning grid girls doesn’t do much about that, except to make a bunch of women unemployed. .
They’re not banned - the private company has just made a decision that they don’t want them any more. Sports and businesses have to evolve to stay relevant.
They’re banned. They weren’t hired by F1 but by the promotors of the individual events. F1 has told the event promotors that they are no longer to hire the grid girls.
Note the anonymous government source comment that a deal looks less than odds on. That really stood out for me.
It stood out as illogical for me... if no deal is calamity and we are not properly preparing, then surely there will be a deal!? We will just sign up to what is on offer.
The deal in this case requires continuing Freedom of Movement. No Deal is a calamity in practice while Deal is a calamity for some very powerful and committed people. The point is, it will have to be one or the other.
The situation hasn't changed an iota since the Referendum. There are four basic choices for us, all of them bad in some way, including reversing a democratic vote to leave. We are not in the frame of mind to make difficult decisions, as the referendum was sold on a completely false set of assumptions (without those false assumptions we would not have voted to leave). Hence the vacuum. But vacuums must and will be filled.
Indeed, but banning grid girls doesn’t do much about that, except to make a bunch of women unemployed. .
They’re not banned - the private company has just made a decision that they don’t want them any more. Sports and businesses have to evolve to stay relevant.
They’re banned. They weren’t hired by F1 but by the promotors of the individual events. F1 has told the event promotors that they are no longer to hire the grid girls.
It may be that lesbian women are more predisposed to watch F1, in which case grid girls could be an attraction for that customer segment
It's a shame there is no obvious source for pictures of naked and scantily clad women (or men). Luckily F1 is there to satisfy those baser needs.
It is all part of a greater plot, blocking porn online, taking away grid girls....
Yeah, so all the perverted men will go and harass real women instead. Go the sistas!
It can easily be argued that it works the other way: that the objectification of women leads to more abuse and harassment by weak-minded fools. I don't fully buy into that argument myself, but I think there is a kernel of truth in it.
I'm very bemused by those who defend the groping of waitresses at a corporate event and condemn the abuse of women in Rotherham, Rochdale etc. They are both about exploitation of a power differential, and are all worthy of condemnation. The identity of the culprits should have nothing to do with it.
As an aside, IMV that's the real problem with the glamour industry: in many areas it is too prone to exploitation. That's not an argument for banning the glamour industry. Instead it needs to be cleaned up (fnarr), and the women and men at the sharp end need empowering. Although that is easier said than done.
I don't think many people are defending the right to grope. But child rape is an order of magnitude worse.
(Snip)
But the root cause is the same (and the mentioned cases are no just about child rape, but about a multitude of different offences). In all these cases there's a power differential being abused.
It does appear that some on here see the identity of the perpetrator as being more important than the crime itself.
In addition, it can be argued that too often, such 'minor' abuse as groping grows into other, worse behaviour. If perpetrators of 'minor' abuses learn the error of their ways quickly, then they won't progress.
I can at least have some respect for Dan Hodges (in this one limited aspect) in that he was a lot more honest about it and just joined the Conservative party
Erm, when was this?
Apologies, been looking for it and maybe I was wrong about him actually joining the party he just came out as a supporter for them, which is close enough to what I'd like the crazies at labouruncut to do
Thanks & no probs: I thought I would have noticed if he had.
It stood out as illogical for me... if no deal is calamity and we are not properly preparing, then surely there will be a deal!? We will just sign up to what is on offer.
It may be that lesbian women are more predisposed to watch F1, in which case grid girls could be an attraction for that customer segment
It's a shame there is no obvious source for pictures of naked and scantily clad women (or men). Luckily F1 is there to satisfy those baser needs.
It is all part of a greater plot, blocking porn online, taking away grid girls....
Yeah, so all the perverted men will go and harass real women instead. Go the sistas!
It can easily be argued that it works the other way: that the objectification of women leads to more abuse and harassment by weak-minded fools. I don't fully buy into that argument myself, but I think there is a kernel of truth in it.
Women are already being harrassed. It is part of almost every woman's daily life.
"A poll, commissioned by housing charity Shelter, has revealed that over 250,000 women have been asked to trade sexual favours in return for free, or discounted, accommodation in the past five years, reports The Times. An estimated 140,000 of those cases were seen in just the past year."
I meant that as "more (abuse and harassment)" rather "than (more abuse) and harassment".
The poll you mention is awful, and there ought to be more research into it and its effects.
It is why a lot of women get worked up about the issue. Like the Westminster stuff or Harvey Weinstein, what do you do when a man who has power over you, such as a boss or a landlord, makes such a request? And it happens. It happens frequently.
Feminism, at its core, is about one thing - that men and women should be treated equally. That is it.
The Guardian has a piece this morning on 'emotional support animals', cconsequent on some American woman not being allowed to take her peacock on board an aeroplane. Ordinary commercial flight. Apparently it was an ESA, and therefore essential to her well being.
Bleeding Gordon Bennett!!!!
It’s a big thing among the first class flyers of California apparently. They get a letter from their doctor saying they’ll be emotionally distressed if their dog/cat/whatever isn’t allowed to fly with them in the cabin. Apparently this makes them ‘disabled’ according to law and the airline is bound to go along with the scam.
The law doesn't say that. The law specifically described service animals, like guide dogs, and 'ESA' animals don't meet the bar. Pet owners just hope to cause the airlines enough embaressment to force them to allow their pet on with them.
This is causing huge problems for people with genuine service animals in America as they are getting backlash from people pushing back against bogus ESAs.
I’ve heard it described as being under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the airline could be potentially sued by rich actress with a comfort pet dog and 10m Twitter followers, so they let these pets on the plane rather than test the law in court.
I agree it must be a nightmare for anyone deaf or blind with a genuine service dog caught in the backlash.
Not to mention any passenger on the plane with asthma triggered by cat hair. An asthma attack on a plane is no joke.
When did so many adults start behaving like demanding cry-babies? More importantly, when did we stop just telling them not to be so silly and selfish?
The situation hasn't changed an iota since the Referendum. There are four basic choices for us, all of them bad in some way, including reversing a democratic vote to leave. We are not in the frame of mind to make difficult decisions, as the referendum was sold on a completely false set of assumptions (without those false assumptions we would not have voted to leave). Hence the vacuum. But vacuums must and will be filled.
Exactly correct Mr FF, but I am increasingly of the opinion that we, as a country, are going to have to cliff-edge Brexit before we learn the obvious.
When did so many adults start behaving like demanding cry-babies? More importantly, when did we stop just telling them not to be so silly and selfish?
Probably not too long after Ambulance-Chasers were allowed to advertise on TV. "Are you annoyed enough to sue somebody and cost them a fortune in legal fees? Call us - no win, no fee! Launch law suits with total impunity. Call now on 08000-SUE-YOU"
Most people and businesses would rather pay-off the awkward customer or change their rules to avoid the issue. Court cases cost too much in time and money, even if they are groundless.
It may be that lesbian women are more predisposed to watch F1, in which case grid girls could be an attraction for that customer segment
It's a shame there is no obvious source for pictures of naked and scantily clad women (or men). Luckily F1 is there to satisfy those baser needs.
It is all part of a greater plot, blocking porn online, taking away grid girls....
Yeah, so all the perverted men will go and harass real women instead. Go the sistas!
It can easily be argued that it works the other way: that the objectification of women leads to more abuse and harassment by weak-minded fools. I don't fully buy into that argument myself, but I think there is a kernel of truth in it.
Women are already being harrassed. It is part of almost every woman's daily life.
"A poll, commissioned by housing charity Shelter, has revealed that over 250,000 women have been asked to trade sexual favours in return for free, or discounted, accommodation in the past five years, reports The Times. An estimated 140,000 of those cases were seen in just the past year."
I meant that as "more (abuse and harassment)" rather "than (more abuse) and harassment".
The poll you mention is awful, and there ought to be more research into it and its effects.
It is why a lot of women get worked up about the issue. Like the Westminster stuff or Harvey Weinstein, what do you do when a man who has power over you, such as a boss or a landlord, makes such a request? And it happens. It happens frequently.
Feminism, at its core, is about one thing - that men and women should be treated equally. That is it.
That is what it should be about. For many of its opponents, it's about censorship, bans and special pleading.
Indeed, but banning grid girls doesn’t do much about that, except to make a bunch of women unemployed. .
They’re not banned - the private company has just made a decision that they don’t want them any more. Sports and businesses have to evolve to stay relevant.
They’re banned. They weren’t hired by F1 but by the promotors of the individual events. F1 has told the event promotors that they are no longer to hire the grid girls.
The Guardian has a piece this morning on 'emotional support animals', cconsequent on some American woman not being allowed to take her peacock on board an aeroplane. Ordinary commercial flight. Apparently it was an ESA, and therefore essential to her well being.
Bleeding Gordon Bennett!!!!
It’s a big thing among the first class flyers of California apparently. They get a letter from their doctor saying they’ll be emotionally distressed if their dog/cat/whatever isn’t allowed to fly with them in the cabin. Apparently this makes them ‘disabled’ according to law and the airline is bound to go along with the scam.
The law doesn't say that. The law specifically described service animals, like guide dogs, and 'ESA' animals don't meet the bar. Pet owners just hope to cause the airlines enough embaressment to force them to allow their pet on with them.
This is causing huge problems for people with genuine service animals in America as they are getting backlash from people pushing back against bogus ESAs.
I’ve heard it described as being under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the airline could be potentially sued by rich actress with a comfort pet dog and 10m Twitter followers, so they let these pets on the plane rather than test the law in court.
I agree it must be a nightmare for anyone deaf or blind with a genuine service dog caught in the backlash.
Not to mention any passenger on the plane with asthma triggered by cat hair. An asthma attack on a plane is no joke.
When did so many adults start behaving like demanding cry-babies? More importantly, when did we stop just telling them not to be so silly and selfish?
It stood out as illogical for me... if no deal is calamity and we are not properly preparing, then surely there will be a deal!? We will just sign up to what is on offer.
I wonder if British Truckers are for Leave or Remain, or May's Schrodingers Brexit.
I see four possible outcomes as they affect our trucking industry:
1. We go for permanent "vassal state" association with the EU. FoM is key here. 2. Trucking stops at the channel. The containers are taken off the trailers and placed on EU trucks on the other side* with EU national drivers. The UK may or may not unilaterally allow those EU27 drivers and trucks to operate within the UK for efficiency reasons. 3. The UK negotiates ad hoc arrangements for permits with each of the EU27 countries that will allow UK trucks and drivers to operate on their territories. 4. We rejoin the EU (has to be a possibility, given the poor alternatives?)
*Edit I am not sure the ports are set up for this. Ferries are RoRo.
I wonder if British Truckers are for Leave or Remain, or May's Schrodingers Brexit.
Is Schrodingers Brexit where shipments in the truck exist in potentia until the Customs open the back and look and then the probability function collapses to reveal goods, cargo, immigrants or empty space?
It may be that lesbian women are more predisposed to watch F1, in which case grid girls could be an attraction for that customer segment
It's a shame there is no obvious source for pictures of naked and scantily clad women (or men). Luckily F1 is there to satisfy those baser needs.
It is all part of a greater plot, blocking porn online, taking away grid girls....
Yeah, so all the perverted men will go and harass real women instead. Go the sistas!
It can easily be argued that it works the other way: that the objectification of women leads to more abuse and harassment by weak-minded fools. I don't fully buy into that argument myself, but I think there is a kernel of truth in it.
Women are already being harrassed. It is part of almost every woman's daily life.
"A poll, commissioned by housing charity Shelter, has revealed that over 250,000 women have been asked to trade sexual favours in return for free, or discounted, accommodation in the past five years, reports The Times. An estimated 140,000 of those cases were seen in just the past year."
I meant that as "more (abuse and harassment)" rather "than (more abuse) and harassment".
The poll you mention is awful, and there ought to be more research into it and its effects.
It is why a lot of women get worked up about the issue. Like the Westminster stuff or Harvey Weinstein, what do you do when a man who has power over you, such as a boss or a landlord, makes such a request? And it happens. It happens frequently.
Feminism, at its core, is about one thing - that men and women should be treated equally. That is it.
Indeed. But there’s degrees of all this.
Some people last week were equating a bawdy gentlemen’s dinner with mass rape in Rotherham. Today people are equating the banning of grid girls with Harvey Weinstein’s casting couch.
"The story about a disgruntled civil servant was spread by a disgruntled civil servant"
The story about a disgruntled civil servant was spread by a disgruntled newspaper editor. (Who, by pure coincidence, is a former minister in the same department)
Not sure what the British trucking industry and the "right to grope" has got to do with a thread on a government minister planning to resign over May's leadership.
It may be that lesbian women are more predisposed to watch F1, in which case grid girls could be an attraction for that customer segment
It's a shame there is no obvious source for pictures of naked and scantily clad women (or men). Luckily F1 is there to satisfy those baser needs.
It is all part of a greater plot, blocking porn online, taking away grid girls....
Yeah, so all the perverted men will go and harass real women instead. Go the sistas!
It can easily be argued that it works the other way: that the objectification of women leads to more abuse and harassment by weak-minded fools. I don't fully buy into that argument myself, but I think there is a kernel of truth in it.
Women are already being harrassed. It is part of almost every woman's daily life.
"A poll, commissioned by housing charity Shelter, has revealed that over 250,000 women have been asked to trade sexual favours in return for free, or discounted, accommodation in the past five years, reports The Times. An estimated 140,000 of those cases were seen in just the past year."
I meant that as "more (abuse and harassment)" rather "than (more abuse) and harassment".
The poll you mention is awful, and there ought to be more research into it and its effects.
It is why a lot of women get worked up about the issue. Like the Westminster stuff or Harvey Weinstein, what do you do when a man who has power over you, such as a boss or a landlord, makes such a request? And it happens. It happens frequently.
Feminism, at its core, is about one thing - that men and women should be treated equally. That is it.
Indeed. But there’s degrees of all this.
Some people last week were equating a bawdy gentlemen’s dinner with mass rape in Rotherham. Today people are equating the banning of grid girls with Harvey Weinstein’s casting couch.
Still growing strongly, if not as strongly as at the end of last year and a downward trend on the rate of growth. What I thought particularly encouraging is that exports are by far the strongest area of growth, optimism remains high and employment in manufacturing is ticking up as a result. Figures are consistent with 0.6% growth in January, apparently.
The situation hasn't changed an iota since the Referendum. There are four basic choices for us, all of them bad in some way, including reversing a democratic vote to leave. We are not in the frame of mind to make difficult decisions, as the referendum was sold on a completely false set of assumptions (without those false assumptions we would not have voted to leave). Hence the vacuum. But vacuums must and will be filled.
Exactly correct Mr FF, but I am increasingly of the opinion that we, as a country, are going to have to cliff-edge Brexit before we learn the obvious.
I hope not and that sense will prevail. I'm an inveterate optimist
Not sure what the British trucking industry and the "right to grope" has got to do with a thread on a government minister planning to resign over May's leadership.
No minister is planning to resign. If they were, they'd have done so without any prior notice in order to maximise the story. The very fact that there is media coverage of what, when you read the article, are claims that the minister is "close to resigning" rather than planning to do so, is all the proof you need that no-one is going anywhere - at least, not this week.
Comments
I don't think having some women work as glamour models, or models, affects my view of women in the workplace anymore than it does having some men working in similar industries. I like mixed environments. But, we're all human, all think about sex, and sex does just happen sometimes. In the workplace it does so quite regularly and probably more regularly, now, than it did 40-50 years ago.
I'd like to see a bit more tolerance, a bit more common sense and a bit less ideology.
"However there is a case of where it fits from a business perspective"
I wouldn't worry about formula 1 in that regard. I'm sure they'll do what's commercially beneficial. After all, they've made a moving traffic jam a great commercial success (apologies to Mr Dancer).
As an old git, I am slightly pleased by this sudden return to puritanism in some ways. The girls are obviously weak and need protecting sometimes by the self-elected elite who are the font of all wisdom.
Next time you go to your local supermarket, would you want women dressed in bikinis directing you to the nearest available checkout, or would you think it was slightly inappropriate?
As for your engineering point: it's bogus. Young people prosper with role models, and whilst the likes of Claire Williams is a good role model for a young girl wanting to become the next Newey, John Barnard or Ross Brawn, the grid-girls are precisely the opposite.
https://twitter.com/rebeccageldard/status/958840157960114176
I wonder if the feminists are going to go for the boxing ring girls next?
*Not Australia as I wrote - it's not THAT bad.
I was more frustrated at the total lack of flexibility within the civil service in recruiting short-term private sector talent to help them out.
And lets not forget that Rachel Riley and Susie Dent are good examples of women on a TV show not just for their looks (however short Rachel's skirt is!).
EDIT: I have no problem with women choosing to do this line of work, but I see it as problematic that the roles are there at all.
More likely bitter that they were not promoted in the last reshuffle. Noted the minister is male so competing against females who are being positively discriminated in favour of.
Good to see the grid girls are campaigning against their unemployment.
As for your other point: women working as glamour models may not affect your view of women in the workplace, but it may affect the view a young girl has of her future prospects in the workplace. Role models count.
If all an intelligent, attractive girl sees when growing up is scantily-clad women, then she is likely to want to become a scantily-clad woman when she grows up. And fair enough. But if she also sees a few women doing amazing things - running an F1 team, designing computer chips, starting a successful business (*), then she is more likely to choose to try to emulate those role models. It's their choice. And I'd argue that's positive for them and the country.
Many women have very attractive bodies. They can also have very attractive minds.
(*) I would say running the country, but our current incumbent makes that a mixed message!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5471805/theresa-may-approved-dossier-showing-any-form-of-brexit-will-harm-uk-economy/
A Cabinet source said: “The study is clearly an attempt to bounce Michael and Boris into accepted close EU alignment.
“It’s disappointing that the PM allowed projections as flawed as this to go ahead.”
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--a46P-jC8--/c_fill,fl_progressive,g_center,h_450,q_80,w_800/198knpcb49442jpg.jpg
It may be that lesbian women are more predisposed to watch F1, in which case grid girls could be an attraction for that customer segment.
So far, Liberty has managed to pointless change a logo, introduce a ridiculous seven compound set of dry tyres, and axe grid girls.
All they need to do now is sort out:
declining revenues
shrinking audiences
uneven pay structure
new engine rules
new rule-making structure
Mr. 565, I'm not sure. I should stress, I'm not any of the chaps pictured
Mr. Jessop, what's wrong with modelling? As for 'what women see'/role models, Claire Williams leads the Williams team (her father remains team principal but due to poor health she's the de facto boss on a day-to-day basis) and increasing numbers of female engineers are coming through.
Looks like a new Liverpool in London...
And there's nothing wrong with modelling (as long as there is not exploitation). But women should be given as many other choices aside from modelling as men get.
https://twitter.com/NickJTimothy/status/958980725818167296
Scantily-clad women aren't all an intelligent, attractive girl sees as role models. She might see those, sure, just as I see male footballers, braindead male models on Love Island, and talent show contenders, but she can - and should - see women doing other amazing things, as you outline, in science, maths and medicine. One doesn't preclude, or exclude, the other.
There are issues with segments of our working-class youth, who see few attractive career options other than sport, celebrity or talent shows, and I'd say that's a problem for both genders. But, I'd be focussing on the poverty of aspiration, and social mobility, to fix that.
I'd also be wary of being offended on behalf of others, or trying to take the moral high-ground but actually just ending up sounding quite patronising.
Plenty genuinely enjoy it, or see it as harmless, and are certainly not distracted by an ultra-feminist ideology that is offended by the fact men are sexually attracted to the female form.
As we have discussed on here before, you know I’m hugely in favour of initiatives to get more women involved in STEM subjects, and in the last few years there’s clearly been a visible increase in the number of women in technical roles in F1 - as opposed to just the marketing, PR and catering roles of a decade ago. AIUI there’s also a much larger number of women at the F1 factories who don’t travel around to the races.
Having said that, the leaders of both Taiwan and Hong Kong are women. It's not necessarily a cultural barrier.
I'm very bemused by those who defend the groping of waitresses at a corporate event and condemn the abuse of women in Rotherham, Rochdale etc. They are both about exploitation of a power differential, and are all worthy of condemnation. The identity of the culprits should have nothing to do with it.
As an aside, IMV that's the real problem with the glamour industry: in many areas it is too prone to exploitation. That's not an argument for banning the glamour industry. Instead it needs to be cleaned up (fnarr), and the women and men at the sharp end need empowering. Although that is easier said than done.
"A poll, commissioned by housing charity Shelter, has revealed that over 250,000 women have been asked to trade sexual favours in return for free, or discounted, accommodation in the past five years, reports The Times. An estimated 140,000 of those cases were seen in just the past year."
https://www.the-pool.com/news-views/latest-news/2018/5/Over-250000-women-have-been-asked-for-sex-in-exchange-for-rent
It's sad that a country like Turkey, which is backwards wrt women in so many ways, has a much higher proportion of women going into STEM subjects than we have. Although in some ways that is the result of a patriarchal view that women with degrees in STEM are more 'valuable' when it comes to marriage ...
I suppose an argument could be made this his political views are better served by the current Conservatives rather than Labour so he is being generally supportive of the Conservatives...
The cynic in me might suggest that was true a few years ago and he just used his position to harm Labour before switching.
The poll you mention is awful, and there ought to be more research into it and its effects.
No doubt some of them also do more lucrative escorting, those girls will just find another way to make sure they’re at the same event as the rich men.
I’d make STEM degrees free and liberal arts degrees £25k a year, but it’s unlikely to be my decision anytime soon!
Almost certainly not, and I very much doubt whether there is any such minister and that there will be any such resignation in 2018.
I am sure that Brexiteers would want to respect national sovereignty over EU sovereignty in such matters.
I agree about the glamour industry.
The situation hasn't changed an iota since the Referendum. There are four basic choices for us, all of them bad in some way, including reversing a democratic vote to leave. We are not in the frame of mind to make difficult decisions, as the referendum was sold on a completely false set of assumptions (without those false assumptions we would not have voted to leave). Hence the vacuum. But vacuums must and will be filled.
F1 is still standing.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/959006977656524800
It does appear that some on here see the identity of the perpetrator as being more important than the crime itself.
In addition, it can be argued that too often, such 'minor' abuse as groping grows into other, worse behaviour. If perpetrators of 'minor' abuses learn the error of their ways quickly, then they won't progress.
https://twitter.com/BrexitCentral/status/940968166905217024
Feminism, at its core, is about one thing - that men and women should be treated equally. That is it.
When did so many adults start behaving like demanding cry-babies? More importantly, when did we stop just telling them not to be so silly and selfish?
Most people and businesses would rather pay-off the awkward customer or change their rules to avoid the issue. Court cases cost too much in time and money, even if they are groundless.
1. We go for permanent "vassal state" association with the EU. FoM is key here.
2. Trucking stops at the channel. The containers are taken off the trailers and placed on EU trucks on the other side* with EU national drivers. The UK may or may not unilaterally allow those EU27 drivers and trucks to operate within the UK for efficiency reasons.
3. The UK negotiates ad hoc arrangements for permits with each of the EU27 countries that will allow UK trucks and drivers to operate on their territories.
4. We rejoin the EU (has to be a possibility, given the poor alternatives?)
*Edit I am not sure the ports are set up for this. Ferries are RoRo.
Some people last week were equating a bawdy gentlemen’s dinner with mass rape in Rotherham. Today people are equating the banning of grid girls with Harvey Weinstein’s casting couch.
Bill Maher, that well known Conservative, gets the balance right.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=N1MZRowhMtc
(Who, by pure coincidence, is a former minister in the same department)
And a bit duller than previously..
Still growing strongly, if not as strongly as at the end of last year and a downward trend on the rate of growth. What I thought particularly encouraging is that exports are by far the strongest area of growth, optimism remains high and employment in manufacturing is ticking up as a result. Figures are consistent with 0.6% growth in January, apparently.
All in all a goodish start to the year.