Objectifying Women?

A right load of bollocks...

Re: Objectifying Women?

Postby HobbitFeet » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:08 pm

Dean wrote:How come Sky have banned walk on girls for Barry Hearn’s sport, Darts, but haven’t banned them for his sons sport, Boxing?



because his son is better looking
User avatar
HobbitFeet
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17533
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: Objectifying Women?

Postby Nucks » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:10 pm

Do they have men in swim attire at women’s boxing events, to tell us what round is coming up?
User avatar
Nucks
 
Posts: 9032
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:59 am
Location: Behind the curtains

Re: Objectifying Women?

Postby Dean » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:12 pm

Nucks wrote:Do they have men in swim attire at women’s boxing events, to tell us what round is coming up?


Not that I’ve noticed, no...
User avatar
Dean
 
Posts: 47578
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:02 pm

Re: Objectifying Women?

Postby McAz » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:14 pm

Dean wrote:How come Sky have banned walk on girls for Barry Hearn’s sport, Darts, but haven’t banned them for his sons sport, Boxing?

I saw some very tasty ring girls from Texas yesterday on BoxNation. Don’t know about Sky but Warren had little choice over the presentation, even assuming he wanted to have.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 43441
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Objectifying Women?

Postby Trapper John » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:14 pm

Dean wrote:How come Sky have banned walk on girls for Barry Hearn’s sport, Darts, but haven’t banned them for his sons sport, Boxing?


YET is the simple answer to that

I'm also wondering how actually committed Sky are too it, rather than just being forced to follow suit by the other broadcasters.

As Sky is pretty much the only provider of popular boxing in the UK they can pretty much please themselves, so by not doing what you said, shows they don't really give a fuck.
User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 35974
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am
Location: Champions league next season - prediction date: 10/5/2018

Re: Objectifying Women?

Postby Rolluplostinspace » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:15 pm

I suspect there's a few scandals brewing and getting shut of the girls is look we acted straight away after we heard rumours .... :dunno:
User avatar
Rolluplostinspace
 
Posts: 18689
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Objectifying Women?

Postby Dean » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:16 pm

Trapper John wrote:
Dean wrote:How come Sky have banned walk on girls for Barry Hearn’s sport, Darts, but haven’t banned them for his sons sport, Boxing?


YET is the simple answer to that

I'm also wondering how actually committed Sky are too it, rather than just being forced to follow suit by the other broadcasters.

As Sky is pretty much the only provider of popular boxing in the UK they can pretty much please themselves, so by not doing what you said, shows they don't really give a fuck.


Box Nation is another provider for Boxing, run by Frank Warren. He has no plans to ban ring girls either.

Boxing ring girls actually wear a lot less than walk on girls too...
User avatar
Dean
 
Posts: 47578
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:02 pm

Re: Objectifying Women?

Postby McAz » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:16 pm

Trapper John wrote:
Dean wrote:How come Sky have banned walk on girls for Barry Hearn’s sport, Darts, but haven’t banned them for his sons sport, Boxing?


YET is the simple answer to that

I'm also wondering how actually committed Sky are too it, rather than just being forced to follow suit by the other broadcasters.

As Sky is pretty much the only provider of popular boxing in the UK they can pretty much please themselves, so by not doing what you said, shows they don't really give a fuck.

BT and BoxNation - and now ITV Box Office - eclipse Sky’s coverage by a mile.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 43441
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Objectifying Women?

Postby McAz » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:19 pm

Dean wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Dean wrote:How come Sky have banned walk on girls for Barry Hearn’s sport, Darts, but haven’t banned them for his sons sport, Boxing?


YET is the simple answer to that

I'm also wondering how actually committed Sky are too it, rather than just being forced to follow suit by the other broadcasters.

As Sky is pretty much the only provider of popular boxing in the UK they can pretty much please themselves, so by not doing what you said, shows they don't really give a fuck.


Box Nation is another provider for Boxing, run by Frank Warren. He has no plans to ban ring girls either.

Boxing ring girls actually wear a lot less than walk on girls too...


He doesn’t, but BoxNation is a subscription only channel - as are the numerous pay-to-wank channels.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 43441
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Objectifying Women?

Postby Trapper John » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:21 pm

McAz wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Dean wrote:How come Sky have banned walk on girls for Barry Hearn’s sport, Darts, but haven’t banned them for his sons sport, Boxing?


YET is the simple answer to that

I'm also wondering how actually committed Sky are too it, rather than just being forced to follow suit by the other broadcasters.

As Sky is pretty much the only provider of popular boxing in the UK they can pretty much please themselves, so by not doing what you said, shows they don't really give a fuck.

BT and BoxNation - and now ITV Box Office - eclipse Sky’s coverage by a mile.


Dean said SKY in a specific question and I said popular boxing.
User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 35974
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am
Location: Champions league next season - prediction date: 10/5/2018

Re: Objectifying Women?

Postby McAz » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:22 pm

Rolluplostinspace wrote:I suspect there's a few scandals brewing and getting shut of the girls is look we acted straight away after we heard rumours .... :dunno:

You may well have a point ~ it’ll be interesting to see if anything like that emerges.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 43441
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Objectifying Women?

Postby Dean » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:23 pm

McAz wrote:
Dean wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Dean wrote:How come Sky have banned walk on girls for Barry Hearn’s sport, Darts, but haven’t banned them for his sons sport, Boxing?


YET is the simple answer to that

I'm also wondering how actually committed Sky are too it, rather than just being forced to follow suit by the other broadcasters.

As Sky is pretty much the only provider of popular boxing in the UK they can pretty much please themselves, so by not doing what you said, shows they don't really give a fuck.


Box Nation is another provider for Boxing, run by Frank Warren. He has no plans to ban ring girls either.

Boxing ring girls actually wear a lot less than walk on girls too...



He doesn’t, but BoxNation is a subscription only channel - as are the numerous pay-to-wank channels.


Sky Sports is subscription too, with extra costs for PPV fights. I find it odd that Sky would ban Darts walk on girls but not the Boxing ring girls...
User avatar
Dean
 
Posts: 47578
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:02 pm

Re: Objectifying Women?

Postby Rolluplostinspace » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:23 pm

Nucks wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
Nucks wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
Fletch wrote:
The real reason is corporate advertising being affected by all the revelations in Hollywood and the fall out from rich men behaving badly at events. Sports drop them rather than lose revenue in case of any public backlash. The official reason seems to be 'it's not the image we want for our sport'. As someone said earlier, they all woke up one day and thought sod the tradition and decades without issue, we are going to stop having them at events. Of course they did...


So you've contradicted your earlier point about it all being contrived and unnecessary.
:woteva:


I think Fletch brings up a good point. I think this is a knock-on effect of a small group of wealthy & powerful men behaving badly which has been in the spotlight a lot recently. They are perhaps worried that similar allegations may come to light and want to head it off at the pass. It’s not surprising that many media sites have gone with it being down to the big, bad feminists because who runs these sites? Could it be rich and powerful men? Hmm.

While it is probably true that groups have lobbied in the past to change things, I haven’t seen the evidence in this case. A tweet from Women’s Sports Trust AFTER the darts decision saying they approve and Boxing and cycling could consider doing similar is hardly lobbying.

I also agree with you, LM, that things often get said to shut down actual discussion about feminism.


It is a good point. But he contradicted his previous not such a good point. At least he saw sense in the end.
Posters do like to throw the odd spanner in the works don't they? Wonder why they want to derail proper discussions on feminism, especially that so called liberal Avon. :roll:


I have a feeling most men who are up in arms about the darts and F1 girls really only care because of how these women look, and in other circumstances wouldn’t take much notice of women’s issues or loss of employment.

I've made a few posts regarding automation at the checkouts putting many women out of work and saying those poor souls are now on the dole with It's sanction mentality and so on.
Many of these women will never find an equal paypacket again.
Guys who get laid off that job are often offered other work in the warehouse ... so I'm told locally.
I did notice you said mostly but suspect you meant mainly.
User avatar
Rolluplostinspace
 
Posts: 18689
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Objectifying Women?

Postby McAz » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:23 pm

Trapper John wrote:
McAz wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Dean wrote:How come Sky have banned walk on girls for Barry Hearn’s sport, Darts, but haven’t banned them for his sons sport, Boxing?


YET is the simple answer to that

I'm also wondering how actually committed Sky are too it, rather than just being forced to follow suit by the other broadcasters.

As Sky is pretty much the only provider of popular boxing in the UK they can pretty much please themselves, so by not doing what you said, shows they don't really give a fuck.

BT and BoxNation - and now ITV Box Office - eclipse Sky’s coverage by a mile.


Dean said SKY in a specific question and I said popular boxing.


What popular boxing does Sky provide for free - I must have missed it?
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 43441
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Objectifying Women?

Postby Rolluplostinspace » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:24 pm

Dean wrote:
Trapper John wrote:Bullseye!


I’m surprised that people still fall for Avon’s sweetly sick, middle of the road, Googled take on things.

:doomed:
User avatar
Rolluplostinspace
 
Posts: 18689
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:12 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Sleeping Dogs' Arms

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests

cron