Rugby League - man's game!

[RP London]

5 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

Just a way for them to seem progressive and appease the angry mob.

All the while they take billions from despot anti-human rights regimes around the world. 

World gone mad.

yes when put like that it is a very minor issue...  but still one worth sorting out.. 

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Kayakman said:

I really don't know what you people are arguing about.

that looks like a Rugby Union shirt... she disgusts me! 

[Kayakman]

11 minutes ago, RP London said:

that looks like a Rugby Union shirt... she disgusts me! 

Sorry won't happen again...I've sent us both to the sin bin for punishment.

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Sorry won't happen again...I've sent us both to the sin bin for punishment.

theres an image i didnt need 

[Shadow]

I managed to blag some hospitality with an endurance racing team in 2016 at Silverstone, they had grid girls that were fully covered but the lycra outfits they wore were so tight they looked more like an all over body tattoo. They spent most of their time applying more make up, checking their phones and sitting in the bar waiting to be called out to the grid. I'm not convinced they were an integral part of the team.

[Mattrhino]

40 minutes ago, RP London said:

yes when put like that it is a very minor issue...  but still one worth sorting out.. 

Your right it is a very minir issue. I probably won't even realise next year.

My biggest gripe is the hypocrisy. They will get massive plaudits by the lefty loons who couldn't care less about the sport. 

I would rather the sport and the wider public look at getting rid of its partnerships with the despot regimes than restricting the trade of models which is a profession they chose.

[RP London]

Just now, Mattrhino said:

Your right it is a very minir issue. I probably won't even realise next year.

My biggest gripe is the hypocrisy. They will get massive plaudits by the lefty loons who couldn't care less about the sport. 

I would rather the sport and the wider public look at getting rid of its partnerships with the despot regimes than restricting the trade of models which is a profession they chose.

dont disagree with most of that.

[Evil Homer]

15 hours ago, MZH said:

Why do they need to be challenged? All people have said is that they dont really like the idea of girls playing rugby. No one has said it is wrong or needs to be banned, just that its not for them. Its an opinion.

Sticking with your gay example. Who really cares if someone is  homophobic if they never cause any harm through it? People are quite entitled to think it is wrong if thats what they really believe. Don't get me wrong, I think its a real shame if they do and its none of their business anyway. But do you want everyone to be made to watch clips of men kissing, Clockwork Orange style until they are comfortable with the idea? 

They should be challenged because these attitudes are fundamentally wrong. I fully appreciate that for many people being quietly sexist/racist/homophobic but not actively discriminatory is probably the best we can hope for, but that doesn't mean it's ok. If you don't understand why people casually expressing bigoted views without any specific intent to cause harm is still a problem then I don't know what to tell you.

And I explicitly stated that people don't have to 'watch' anything if they don't want to, nobody is being forced to do anything. I don't particularly want to watch women's RL either, but not because I have any sort of issue with them doing it. I just find it a little strange that people would feel uncomfortable with the idea of girls playing rugby any moreso than the idea of girls being put on a stage to be ogled and leered at by large crowds of predominantly drunk middle-aged men. Neither of them make me uncomfortable because it's what they want to do.

15 hours ago, MZH said:

Your definition of prejudice is a little off aswell. I don't really like the idea of someone I have never met in Russia risking their life by doing a base jump. It has absolutely no impact on me. Is that a prejudiced view? What is so fundamentally wrong about someone being concerned about the safety of a woman that it needs to be challenged? When the Titanic was going down and they said women and children first. Was that prejudiced? Should it have just been a free for all with the strongest (the men) surviving? At least it wouldn't have been sexist.

Well no, if you were against people in Russia base jumping but happy with people from other countries doing it then that would be prejudice. If you are unhappy with the idea of women/girls playing RL due to the risk of injury but happy to see men/boys playing then yes, that's prejudice. No idea why you feel it's relevant to compare that to people leaving a sinking ship, men are in general physically stronger than women and children so of course it's sensible for the physically weaker ones to be allowed to leave first in a life-or-death emergency, nobody has questioned that.

15 hours ago, MZH said:

If someone knows about rugby league, has watched womens rugby league and made their own mind up that they disagree with it. Then that is by definition almost the opposite of prejudice.

If a girl wants to play rugby. Great. If a girl wants to wear a skimpy bikini and parade about a boxing ring. Great. Whatever anyone else thinks about it should be irrelevant. But that doesnt mean they arent allowed an opinion on it.

It depends what they 'disagree' with. If they disagree with the idea of them playing because they are women then yes, once again, that is prejudice. Of course people can state their opinion, if I say my opinion is that I don't like black people then I'm still racist, if people say they don't like the idea of women doing contact sports then they're still sexist, you can't sugarcoat it.

[Evil Homer]

3 hours ago, RP London said:

there are 3 different categories as far as I can see it:

1. someone who just prefers "ladylike" women.. everyone has their "type" if you prefer "ladylike" women (i dont like that term but get what you mean by it) then that is fine.. some people like blondes, big boobs etc.. that does not make you sexist of course..

No, it's still sexist if you're applying that to a non-sexual context. If we're talking about who we most want to sleep with then I too prefer 'ladylike' women but we aren't talking about that, we're talking about women playing sports, whether or not you find them sexually attractive is not relevant to the discussion.

[Ackroman]

5 hours ago, Spidey said:

Women (or men) have the right to be as “ladylike” as they want, but it shouldn’t define who they are, or what sports they want to play. 

How does science explain that only “proper men” should play rugby league?

Women can do what they want. Only certain things they do interest me. Playing rugby league isn't one of them.

Who said that?

[RP London]

55 minutes ago, Evil Homer said:

No, it's still sexist if you're applying that to a non-sexual context. If we're talking about who we most want to sleep with then I too prefer 'ladylike' women but we aren't talking about that, we're talking about women playing sports, whether or not you find them sexually attractive is not relevant to the discussion.

I don’t agree that you cannot apply this to non sexual attraction.. however I would argue that most people that feel this way strongly would also be sexist.. so I do agree with you in the broadest terms... 

i also agree with most points you have made on this and do find the attitude strange... 

i’m also still intrigued by the scientific argument that men and women are different but that all women should act the same and that they none should have similarities to men... 

[Chrispmartha]

13 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Pretty pathetic thread to be honest, the growth area for sports isnt middle aged straight white men. Its women and minorities and they will be a big part of our future. If some dont like that or it makes them uncomfortable its their loss. They lost, the rest of the world moved on and they can sit grumbling in to their pint about how brave they are to denigrate women or vulnerable groups and espouse old ideas in a 'pc culture gone made' while the rest of the world ignores them, calls them a d1k under their breath gets on with creating a better and more open world.

And for the guys upset at the lack of scantily clad girls at sporting events, dude, wait until you see the rest of the internet besides RL forums, the things you can see in the privacy of your own home these days!! and the best part is your not stood at a sporting event with your mates.

^ this

[Trinity]

15 hours ago, Spidey said:

The term “Ladylike” in itself can be construed as sexist. Suggesting women have to behevave in a certain way defined by their gender is the issue here. 

Why can a man be aggressive but not a woman?

They can be as aggressive as they like I really don't care, I just don't want to watch it, it's quite simple really, if there's something you don't like then don't watch instead of constantly looking for something to be offended by, it's tedious.

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, Trinity said:

They can be as aggressive as they like I really don't care, I just don't want to watch it, it's quite simple really, if there's something you don't like then don't watch instead of constantly looking for something to be offended by, it's tedious.

Nobody has criticised a single person for not wanting to watch something.

[RP London]

3 hours ago, Trinity said:

They can be as aggressive as they like I really don't care, I just don't want to watch it, it's quite simple really, if there's something you don't like then don't watch instead of constantly looking for something to be offended by, it's tedious.

No one has a problem with your opinion that you don't want to watch it. No one is looking to be offended and I dont think anyone is offended, that line is tedious in itself. There is a massive difference between people being offended and people having a discussion about whether something is offensive to others, there is also a massive difference between being offended and just thinking something is plain wrong. 

i am not offended by your point of view or your choice in watching it or not.. I am not offended by the language that is used in the original article.. I am perplexed by someone in this day and age would use it and want to, quite blatantly, cause offense to others though. 

There is far too much of people getting offended on other people's behalf but I dont think this is the case here but people are picking up that it is genuinly offensive and outdated and its an interesting debate on why people do or dont like something.. you seem to have taken offence to some of the arguments put here though which is bizarre as the majority of us are not calling you sexist we are just arguing our point of view against your point of view.. 

The one bit of your argument I do find offensive is your use of the "science" argument when science would prove very much the case against sexism and racism rather than any sort of argument for it and to say otherwise is plain wrong.

[Spidey]

3 hours ago, Trinity said:

They can be as aggressive as they like I really don't care, I just don't want to watch it, it's quite simple really, if there's something you don't like then don't watch instead of constantly looking for something to be offended by, it's tedious.

You previously said

“It's not very lady like at all to behave in an aggressive manner”

Suggests you don’t want women being aggressive as that goes against their gender

That was my issue, not that you won’t watch women’s rugby. I’m more concerned about the reasons 

I’m not offended either BTW

[Evil Homer]

11 minutes ago, Spidey said:

That was my issue, not that you won’t watch women’s rugby. I’m more concerned about the reasons 

It's the old 'behind closed doors' argument that homophobes tend to use. "What they do in their own home is up to them but don't bring it around me".

[Niels]

I did watch the darts tonight.

I noticed that the cheerleaders were still on stage so they have kept their jobs whilst the walk on girls have lost theirs. 

It all seems very selective.

I thought the girls were very professional and obviously well trained to walk, and somehow the walk on just felt flat and amateurish without them.

 

 

 

[Mattrhino]

4 hours ago, Niels said:

I did watch the darts tonight.

I noticed that the cheerleaders were still on stage so they have kept their jobs whilst the walk on girls have lost theirs. 

It all seems very selective.

I thought the girls were very professional and obviously well trained to walk, and somehow the walk on just felt flat and amateurish without them.

 

 

 

It's the same with the F1. They  are getting rid of the "grid girls" but failed to mention the "podium" and "corridor" girls. So most are assuming they are staying. Plus all the sponsors will still have all thier own girls like Monster and Red Bull etc.. So it really just shows how much of a hollow gesture this whole thing is.

[Dave T]

7 hours ago, Niels said:

I did watch the darts tonight.

I noticed that the cheerleaders were still on stage so they have kept their jobs whilst the walk on girls have lost theirs. 

It all seems very selective.

I thought the girls were very professional and obviously well trained to walk, and somehow the walk on just felt flat and amateurish without them.

 

 

 

I suppose the difference is that cheerleaders are there for their talent. If they couldnt dance they wouldnt be there.

Pit girls simply need to look good for rich blokes and walk on girls in darts need to look hot for stag parties.

Sport having hot women hanging around just as eye candy for the men who play and watch the sport appears to be on its way out.

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Mattrhino said:

It's the same with the F1. They  are getting rid of the "grid girls" but failed to mention the "podium" and "corridor" girls. So most are assuming they are staying. Plus all the sponsors will still have all thier own girls like Monster and Red Bull etc.. So it really just shows how much of a hollow gesture this whole thing is.

What would you say the purpose and rationale is for the roles you mention above?

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, Mattrhino said:

It's the same with the F1. They  are getting rid of the "grid girls" but failed to mention the "podium" and "corridor" girls. So most are assuming they are staying. Plus all the sponsors will still have all thier own girls like Monster and Red Bull etc.. So it really just shows how much of a hollow gesture this whole thing is.

It shows who the sponsors are advertising to, I guess.

Which is why, for example, F1 is responding to, not feminists, but the owners of venues like Silverstone. In that case, their sponsors will now include a lot of women in decision-making roles. The kind who will be wined and dined at the event. The kind whose satisfaction leads to the money that F1 needs.

[Shadow]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Sport having hot women hanging around just as eye candy for the pervs who can't get through 40 minutes without a w**k appears to be on its way out.

That's how I see it anyway 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

It shows who the sponsors are advertising to, I guess.

Which is why, for example, F1 is responding to, not feminists, but the owners of venues like Silverstone. In that case, their sponsors will now include a lot of women in decision-making roles. The kind who will be wined and dined at the event. The kind whose satisfaction leads to the money that F1 needs.

Indeed.

I have been to so many events, and was involved in a work even myself recently where the promo staff are young pretty girls and the management are blokes.

Ive no issues with attempts to balance that out.

[Mattrhino]

21 hours ago, Dave T said:

What would you say the purpose and rationale is for the roles you mention above?

You mean the purpose if the "corridor" girls who clap the winning drivers into the winners enclosure which imo is much more weird and creepy than the grid girls. This and the other roles are to sell the glitz and glamour of the event or the item they are selling. Just as a 50ft billboard of a half naked bloke in Calvin Klien boxers is doing.

I can join the herd and clap the F1 for doing a wonderful thing. But in reality I see it as an empty gesture.

By the way I don't have a vested interest so if modelling of all types dissapeared tommorow it wouldn't be missed by me. But I don't see the massive moral schism between the F1 grid girl getting a few thousand quid for a weekends work wearing a tight dress or the Armani model in her underwear.