"no partner for a woman" Hang on, is he calling gay men/bachelors useless? Is our anatomical function of reproduction our only use? The meaning of human life anatomically is to reproduce. So even though I don't really understand whether or not he is making it as an argument. It is correct anatomically. Fortunately I don't agree with it morally. I believe you should be able to love whoever you love. You can't change who you fall in love with.
"YouTube is a male domain, primarily" - Suuuuuure. Maybe the toxic comment sections you stir up are! Go on YouTube, How many users are male and how many female?
Here's the answer according to YouTube in their January 2018 statistics... Female users account for 38% of users and male users account for 62%.
YouTube IS predominantly a male site.
Tumblr is primarily female" - Yet again with the generalisations! Yet again, the interviewer doesn't focus on the right detail.
In a 2015 study it was revealed that just under 80% of the active user base was female and just over 20% was male. Tumblr IS therefore primarily Female.
"Some young men never hear words of encouragement in their entire lives" If you'd blame feminism for this then you're not only a fool but a dangerous fool. "
If that makes him a dangerous fool, what would it have made Valerie Solanas who blamed men for all wrong doing in the world and stated that ALL men are SCUM and should never be encouraged and even argued men should be killed?
Valerie Solanas by the way was the feminist extremist that attempted to murder Andy Warhol and published the SCUM manifesto...
"Women want men to be competent, because they want a competent partner. They can't dominate a competent partner." - This kind of social-Darwinist fucking nonsense bullshit is POISON. Firstly: what about lesbians? Secondly: what about women who view men as something other than potential partners? Thirdly: what the fuck - you're baldly saying that women innately want to be submissive to men? I could draw a million counterexamples to that - obviously men's traditional dominance is built on brute strength and testosterone-fuelled aggression, but have women really always wanted to be treated like commodities? Don't disagree with that. I think my partner enjoys dominating me and not in the fun way.
"Equality of outcome" - what the hell does this mean? Is an outcome when someone is employed? The result of their work? I didn't understand that one either.
"The domain of physical conflict is off-limits for (women)" - so, are you arguing that men shouldn't evolve to settle differences peacefully? Furthermore, you're arguing that women can't participate in physical conflict?
I understood that to be him, referring to physical conflict between men and women. Which can be disproven watching the odd episode of cops, police interceptors or other late night reality tv shows focusing on modern drinking culture.
"If the consumer economy had a sex, it would be female. Women drive 70-80% of all consumer purchasing, through a combination of their buying power and influence. Influence means that even when a woman isn’t paying for something herself, she is often the influence or veto vote behind someone else’s purchase."
"it's been rather uncomfortable" - You're getting paid to air your views and spread your beliefs among the population. You're a popular academic. you're comparing this to the struggle of people who are ACTUALLY SUICIDAL
No, he really isn't. He just states that she should have the right to risk offending him in the pursuit of truth, just as he risks offending others in a pursuit of truth. He then even says that she is perfectly right to do so and it freezes the crap out of the interviewer because she has realised he is spot on.
"the philosophy that claims that group identity is paramount is the same as that which killed millions of people in the Soviet Union and China" - The interviewer handles this terribly, but really she's right in saying he's being an alt-right troll here. He's comparing people who just want the freedom to ask others to address them in a certain manner to top-down totalitarian government, by throwing the whole lot into some vague strawman called 'identity politics'. It's fucking insane, but it's catchy, because it justifies bigotry, and people love to be bigoted.
I think you're right that he is trolling here, however regarding the Identity politics why should he pretend that others are something that they are anatomically not? Once again I don't care what people get up to in their private life, but don't like to be forced to use labels either positively or negatively for others...
Not trying to pick any fights, just coming back with what I feel are fair responses to your points (hence some agreement).
OK. Thanks for responding even-handedly and constructively.
Regarding YouTube and Tumblr...well, 63/38 is technically a majority but speaking about it like it's some sort of male realm is poisonous and awful considering that that 38% is still, like, a billion people. It's misleading and irrelevant. The Tumblr statistic is more pronounced but it's still extremely dangerous to say it appertains to a single gender when there are a great many users from other genders. It would be like saying that Charlton Athletic has a male fanbase.
Regarding Valerie Solanas...well I've seen the Scum Manifesto and found it quite funny tbh...she was an extremist of course, but an enormous outlier. Saying that all feminists think like her would be like saying that all Brexiters think like Thomas Mair. And so you're yet to address my claim that (the overwhelming majority of) feminists don't want to discourage men so much as behaviour that most of us would find repulsive anyway.
"A woman is often an influence or veto vote over goods bought" smells like grade-A horseshit to me! Their 80% figure is basically 'all goods bought by women, or men who happen to live with women".
There are different kinds of offence. There's the kind that ruffles the feathers of a wealthy academic. There's also the kind that makes trans people kill themselves. And there are many shades in between. Not all offence is equal!
I don't think people should be forced to use labels, but I think they should respect other people and treat them as they've been requested to.
Find it all a bit pathetic but sadly it’s the way things are going.
Of course the use of ‘glamour girls’ are not necessary to any sporting occasion. But then again nor are MC’s, music, fireworks, mascots, dancers, hospitality, food and drinks, commentators and all other aspects that add to ‘the package’, whether that’s attending ot or watching at home.
We are heading for an age of fear and blandness. Let’s hope equality really is applied. I look forward to watching a prime time family entertainment programme like Take Me Out where a bloke doesn’t have to take his shirt off for 30 women to ogle and pass comment on his body. Or Loose Women where they have the butlers in the buff on.
But that’s all a bit of harmless fun, isn’t it?
You started it smudge banning wouldya
Whoooaa, when did that happen FFS?
Stand down Mehmet, AFKA fell at first hurdle.
In fact, I'm looking into a Wouldya for tomorrow night bud
I am not sorry grid girls are going. But if they were not going, I'd still be a fan of F1 and I have not campaigned for them to go in any way. Being a fan of F1 I was fully aware that the new owners were looking at the future of grid girls. I also knew that they were not worried or influenced by the caricature the alt-right like to bring in the blame for it all. The fact is, the owners of F1 have the power to decide how they run their sport. And they probably have the same view of grid girls as I do. It doesn't mean they are raging feminists, but they might not be comfortable with it so decided to stop it.
Now those that feel comfortable with it,even like it and feel it adds to the sport, are entitled to their opinion. They are entitled to lobby for the return of grid girls. But what is wrong, is to start blaming everybody who is not to blame for their own political points. I don't know the people behind Liberty Media all that well, but I think I am not too far out in suggesting they are white, middle aged, conservative leaning individuals. It isn't a leftist conspiracy as some want to prortray. White middle aged conservatives are fully entitled to see the practice as old fashioned.
Strong opinions should never be forbidden but it is right that when they are given, that they can be challenged factuallyand with rigour. Otherwise you are saying it is fine to blame A or B even when we know it is C. You get people foaming at the mouth over this. You can even get some people that decide to take action because they are so angry. Like the bloke that got sentenced for his terrorist attack in Finsbury Park this week (He was looking for Jeremy Corbyn apparently) or the bloke that that killed Jo Cox. The people that stir these nutters up do not seek to see the terrible conclusions of course, but we all have a responsibility to get us much information before we start getting outraged.
I am not sorry grid girls are going. But if they were not going, I'd still be a fan of F1 and I have not campaigned for them to go in any way. Being a fan of F1 I was fully aware that the new owners were looking at the future of grid girls. I also knew that they were not worried or influenced by the caricature the alt-right like to bring in the blame for it all. The fact is, the owners of F1 have the power to decide how they run their sport. And they probably have the same view of grid girls as I do. It doesn't mean they are raging feminists, but they might not be comfortable with it so decided to stop it.
Now those that feel comfortable with it,even like it and feel it adds to the sport, are entitled to their opinion. They are entitled to lobby for the return of grid girls. But what is wrong, is to start blaming everybody who is not to blame for their own political points. I don't know the people behind Liberty Media all that well, but I think I am not too far out in suggesting they are white, middle aged, conservative leaning individuals. It isn't a leftist conspiracy as some want to prortray. White middle aged conservatives are fully entitled to see the practice as old fashioned.
Strong opinions should never be forbidden but it is right that when they are given, that they can be challenged factuallyand with rigour. Otherwise you are saying it is fine to blame A or B even when we know it is C. You get people foaming at the mouth over this. You can even get some people that decide to take action because they are so angry. Like the bloke that got sentenced for his terrorist attack in Finsbury Park this week (He was looking for Jeremy Corbyn apparently) or the bloke that that killed Jo Cox. The people that stir these nutters up do not seek to see the terrible conclusions of course, but we all have a responsibility to get us much information before we start getting outraged.
I tried knocking this crap on the head earlier but clearly failed. (I should say that personally, I don't care either way about darts or grid girls but find cheerleaders a bit, well, creepy).
So, to recap. Using the "company values" line is just bollocks. First, Liberty Media, which owns the F1 brand also owns The Atlanta Braves, a baseball franchise. Next week they are auditioning for "The Tomahawk Team" for the 2018 season. They look remarkably similar to the F1 grid girls to. me.
Second, John Malone is chairman of both Liberty Media and Liberty Global. The latter own Virgin Media. It seems it is not against "company values" for Virgin's cable service to run these channels (according to wiki): Television X Nightly, Playboy TV Nightly, Adult Channel, XXX Brits, Xrated 40+, Xrated Couples, Xrated Hook-Ups, Television X, Playboy TV, Adult Channel, Babenation.
So whatever, you can't claim that the Liberty management are fine upstanding people and are uncomfortable with the concept. Instead, they are just being economical with the truth and hoping no one will notice.
But I am not saying they shoudn't be criticised, it is just the rabid indignant seem to want to blame stereotypes to make cheap political points rather than the decision of Liberty Media. I am going to share something with you - Greenham Common type feminists have absolutely no influence over F1.
It may not have been all of them uncomfortable with it, and those that were may have been uncomfortable with it in the context of F1. My point is we are not talking about raging feminists here! We were not present in the meeting in which they made the decision.
I find it unbelievable that this kind of sexism still exists in our so called modern society, on second thoughts considering how fucked up it is, maybe not.
Sure there may be women who are comfortable using their body as a means of earning a better wage and perhaps men too and fair enough, it is after all their choice but to think these options are still out there is laughable.
It would appear that some people, probably mostly men, can’t see a women unless she’s got her, tits out/in her underwear/short skirt or prancing around in a swimsuit holding a number above her head, how neaderthal is that?
That kind of imagery has rarely done it for me, subtlety is far more sexier, nor would it entice me to go somewhere because there might be scantily clad women.
Of course we’ve now got tokenism with some men doing the same but we know how dangerous this imagery is to some young kids who see this ridiculous stereotyping of the female and male body as something to strive for, how bloody sad is that? Let all the CL males on here send in pictures of themselves with their shirts off and let’s see how many of us have a six pack and all that bollox.
The fact that advertising, magazines, sponsors etc still continue to play out this neanderthal behaviour is irresponsible and fucking ridiculous because sadly a lot of people still fall for it!
Comments
Keep the young ladies if you wish but let’s embrace this visual eye candy for the fairer sex. It’s the least they deserve.
In fact, I'm looking into a Wouldya for tomorrow night bud
Atleast kalle Saureland wont let us down with some top notch ring card girls
Anyone who says a pretty girl can’t promote something with her looks
Is the sort of fella you couldn’t trust with your mrs
But was also caught in the friend zone for years as a youngster and has harboured that resentment in to adulthood
How moronic.
Now those that feel comfortable with it,even like it and feel it adds to the sport, are entitled to their opinion. They are entitled to lobby for the return of grid girls. But what is wrong, is to start blaming everybody who is not to blame for their own political points. I don't know the people behind Liberty Media all that well, but I think I am not too far out in suggesting they are white, middle aged, conservative leaning individuals. It isn't a leftist conspiracy as some want to prortray. White middle aged conservatives are fully entitled to see the practice as old fashioned.
Strong opinions should never be forbidden but it is right that when they are given, that they can be challenged factuallyand with rigour. Otherwise you are saying it is fine to blame A or B even when we know it is C. You get people foaming at the mouth over this. You can even get some people that decide to take action because they are so angry. Like the bloke that got sentenced for his terrorist attack in Finsbury Park this week (He was looking for Jeremy Corbyn apparently) or the bloke that that killed Jo Cox. The people that stir these nutters up do not seek to see the terrible conclusions of course, but we all have a responsibility to get us much information before we start getting outraged.
So, to recap. Using the "company values" line is just bollocks. First, Liberty Media, which owns the F1 brand also owns The Atlanta Braves, a baseball franchise. Next week they are auditioning for "The Tomahawk Team" for the 2018 season.
They look remarkably similar to the F1 grid girls to. me.
Second, John Malone is chairman of both Liberty Media and Liberty Global. The latter own Virgin Media. It seems it is not against "company values" for Virgin's cable service to run these channels (according to wiki): Television X Nightly, Playboy TV Nightly, Adult Channel, XXX Brits, Xrated 40+, Xrated Couples, Xrated Hook-Ups, Television X, Playboy TV, Adult Channel, Babenation.
So whatever, you can't claim that the Liberty management are fine upstanding people and are uncomfortable with the concept. Instead, they are just being economical with the truth and hoping no one will notice.
It may not have been all of them uncomfortable with it, and those that were may have been uncomfortable with it in the context of F1. My point is we are not talking about raging feminists here! We were not present in the meeting in which they made the decision.
Sure there may be women who are comfortable using their body as a means of earning a better wage and perhaps men too and fair enough, it is after all their choice but to think these options are still out there is laughable.
It would appear that some people, probably mostly men, can’t see a women unless she’s got her, tits out/in her underwear/short skirt or prancing around in a swimsuit holding a number above her head, how neaderthal is that?
That kind of imagery has rarely done it for me, subtlety is far more sexier, nor would it entice me to go somewhere because there might be scantily clad women.
Of course we’ve now got tokenism with some men doing the same but we know how dangerous this imagery is to some young kids who see this ridiculous stereotyping of the female and male body as something to strive for, how bloody sad is that? Let all the CL males on here send in pictures of themselves with their shirts off and let’s see how many of us have a six pack and all that bollox.
The fact that advertising, magazines, sponsors etc still continue to play out this neanderthal behaviour is irresponsible and fucking ridiculous because sadly a lot of people still fall for it!