That petition to keep the walk on girls in darts now has 45k signatures, I only had a quick scan but it looks like about 50% of sigs are from girls.

https://www.change.org/...d=7259882&jb=261

Agreed.

The original aim of the podium girls was to get news coverage. A picture in the local or national paper. The goal still applies today, although people for some reason fall back on the "its tradition" excuse.

Race organizers want eyeballs on the event/results. Whether that be the paper, magazine, TV, or internet. Pretty girls attract the attention of both men and women.

50% of men's magazines feature beautiful women on the cover. That percentage for women's magazines is over 80%. Both men and women find attractive women sexy. Sex sells because men and women have one purpose on this earth and that is to survive long enough to procreate. Everything else in our lives is secondary.

Huh, my wife and I must have missed the memo because we decided not to have children.

outliers.

I am sure you both like to fuck (or did).

A red herring? The people actually doing the work aren't relevant? I'm going to quote an article by a pretty successful ring girl... Arianny Celeste.

“There’s this misconception that [ring girls are] talentless, no brains, and I think I’ve paved the way for girls in my position to see this is a great opportunity,” Celeste, who is based in Los Angeles, said at her photo shoot for The Post.
“I saw an opportunity to be more than a ring girl,” she added. “I’ve built it into a business.”
The 31-year-old has leveraged the high-profile gig into side jobs as a model, TV host and brand ambassador with more than 2.9 million Instagram followers. She has sponsorships with 1st Phorm muscle supplements and Fit Tea, and she’s starred in a Bud Light Lime ad. In the next year, she plans to launch a music career, a T-shirt line and a fitness Web site.
One person who’s not impressed? UFC fighter Ronda Rousey.
“I don’t know if the ring girls get paid too much or the fighters don’t get paid enough,” the fighter said at a 2015 event. “But yeah, there’s definitely a lot more in what the fighters do than what they [ring girls] do. So I think that’s one thing that’s unfair.” (Entry-level fighters are reportedly paid around $8,000 per match.)

The sour grapes by Rousey wasn't that ring girls exist... but she thought they were over paid and did less. The article goes on to detail that the "ring girls" do more than walk around a ring a few times... it is something they actually spend time working towards.

Maybe relevant, but not to some huge degree. When a particular role becomes less relevant due to changes in technology or culture, often the people losing the jobs don't get much say. Court reporters are slowly disappearing because of automated dictation/recording. I don't hear many people say, "But the court reporters still *feel* like they're useful, so we should keep them." That's not how the world works.

If you need memo, you will extinct. Your choice (probably not your choice, you only think you made this choice, but nature made it for you), only strong have privilege of passing their genes.

In modern culture, particularly in affluent parts of the world, procreation tends to drop in the priority level of a lot of people. They push it to later, have fewer, or not at all. A little counter-intuitive, because affluent people are theoretically *best* positioned to raise offspring. They just choose not to. I suspect this isn't nature trying to kill off rich people, but there's probably other plausible explanations in the scientific realms.

But this phenomena was parodied to great effect in the movie "Idiocracy."

The Tour de France itself was just a stunt to sell papers, so ...

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

They took a great idea and put tits on it.

Banning podium girls would be a disaster. It's important to show women what women should look like. Most women are fat and ugly as it is. They make no effort whatever and expect men to take an interest in them. We need podium girls to set an example so women make an effort to keep slim. I blame weak feeble men who allow their wives and girlfriends to get fat and let themselves go.

As for banning the girls in formula one, James Hunt and Graham Hill will be turning their graves.

James Hunt, absolute legend.

"Sex: breakfast of champions" embroidered onto his overalls.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...legend-lives-on.html

I'm late to this thread but thought I'd put my two bobs worth as the poll is still up and 2/3 have not voted that the girls are a relic of the past ...

REALLY?? Let me just put on my short skirt while I go for my swim, bike and run ... 🙄 (Btw we were required to wear skirts in gym class when I was growing up - that is most def a relic of the past, I hope!!)

Paul I agree with what you've said here, I think it does harm women's sports to an extent and it does objectify women. Someone asked for thoughts on gender roles ... well, to be frank I can't think of one specific that men or women should strictly adhere to, but they exist due to history and tradition.

I do cringe whenever I see cheerleaders but when I see that there are a few guys in the mix ... it's all good. So podium people (not just girls) are ok. Equal opportunity .. give us some eye candy too haha

Also the poster way above me saying there are lots of ugly women out there .. mate, are you meaning to say that all in pink? I hope so!

“modern culture” I wonder what that is? Social media etc…
It is not the nature that tries to kill “smart” people.

One theory I have read somewhere recently:

Back in the days not that long ago, every war we had different regimes were first mass killing educated people. It was easier to control the dumb crowd after those events.
In today modern era mass killing would not work, plus they were very unproductive.
Today we have “modern internet culture” pushing “narcissistic self-centered behaviors” to cause elite extinction (not the top top elite) in natural way. Takes a little longer, but while they keep working and producing it makes much more economic sense.

You seem to have missed the entirety of my point in the post you quoted.
Not much I can do about that.
The rest of your point is pretty worthless to me since it supposes I believe the competence or willingness of the individuals is the point at issue.

I don't think I missed a thing... you and I just think about this sort of thing way different. I believe you equated a loss of models being used at sporting events to new technology being used for court reporting... two different sorts of things IMO. Agree to disagree on this one.

I think it is a relevant point and not only do these models get it as well... it can be a career. Not just some short term gig. Again.. agree to disagree.

Nope, I said nothing about court reporting. I think you're confusing me with another poster.

Edit: The post you're referring to was Trail's post #132. His argument is not quite the same as mine.
My argument is that it's not the podium girls themselves I'm worried about. It's what it communicates to, and about, our society and how it impacts our thinking and treatment of each other. Many on this thread have argued that if the podium girls are happy it's no-one else's business. I disagree.

This is way off topic, but population economics has observed this trend post industrial revolution. By modern culture, I assume that is what is being refereed to; not so much the advent of the internet, but more the advent of the steam engine. There are many different factors at play here that contribute to this, but differences in birth rates have been observed between industrialized and non-industrialized nations. These factors include income effect vs. substitution effect, access to family planning, and of course culture.

A much better topic ;)

Yeah, in most countries, as they become more developed birth rates decrease.
There are a bunch of factors but they don't seem terribly mysterious to me. The following are all typical of "more developed" counties.

• Education and availability with regards family planning
• Increased sexual equality (women more likely to pursue careers, also less likely to keep having children in hopes of a boy!)
• Low rates of infant mortality
• Less influenced by religious influence towards large families

My apologies for the misquote.

Apparently F1 had gotten wind of this discussion and done this:

https://www.theguardian.com/...rid-girls-new-season

Welcome to the 21st century F1. I applaud you and am glad that you are here while two thirds of slowtwitcher pollees are not ;)

I agree with everything you said, but that person was either joking, trolling, or living on another planet.
--

I voted that podium girls are a sad relic. To me podium girls are paraded out like a prize for the winner. Win the race and the tour hostesses will pin a jersey on you and give you a kiss on the cheek. I don't like the message this sends, and I don't like what this says about our society. I consider the message it sends to a little girl about her place in society. Equally as important, I consider what it says to little boys about gender roles.

To address a few common points in the thread:

I have read that it is the parent's responsibility to instill values in their children, not the TDF. I fully agree that it is the parents' responsibility to instill values in their children, but how many children grow up without two parents, and even those that do have two parents, how many are actually responsible? I reject the notion that society and culture do not play a role in instilling values in both children and adults.

I have read these decisions should be left up to women. I do not subscribe to the notions that women's rights are exclusively women's issues, LGBT rights are exclusive LGBT issues, and civil rights are exclusively minorities' issues. I think these are society's issues and everyone shares responsibility in them.

I have read that tour hostesses would be more acceptable if we had podium men as well. To me this view considers tour hostesses in a vacuum. The difference between a man being objectified and displayed in a subservient role and a women doing the same thing is that women have had to overcome generations of gender stereotypes to break free from that role in society. While I don't necessarily agree with either, they are different in my eyes.

I have read that it is "her" choice to express her sexuality and there is nothing wrong with beautiful people expressing that beauty. I agree fully that it is an individual's choice and there is nothing wrong with expressing your sexuality or beauty. Where I think there is an issue that our society places value on using pretty women as prizes and in subservient roles.

I have read that as long as women think that it is ok, it must be ok. My counter to that is that I have seen female news anchors argue that women are not fit to serve as president of the United States due to gender differences.

Gender equality is trending in the right direction. The number of women CEO's of fortune 500 companies is at an all time high of 32/500, which while pathetic is an improvement. What I am almost certain of is that by the time the next generation of CEO's, corporate board members, elected officials, etc. take over, women will represent a much higher portion than they do today.

As I step down from my soapbox, I realize that there are credible arguments to be made for both sides of this issue. I do not view Podium Girls as a huge barrier to gender equality. I simply think it is a representation of a frame of thinking that is a remnant of inequities that we as a society, both men and women, have fought so hard to overcome.

And F1 always had the trophies presented by various politicians or the like, and the Turkish GP got axed because of something something something Cyprus.

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

http://metro.co.uk/...tter_impression=true

The ban-the-girls arguments have a strong moralistic tone that unsettles me. Why are you certain its wrong? Why is it wrong for everyone?

Do the hostesses represent women in a subservient role? I don't see them doing anything that is demeaning. Why are they referred to as mere eye candy? They are the pinnacle of eye candy. I'm sure each hostess would say that she has spent a lot of time and effort to win that spot. And given the complexity of humans, I'm sure each hostess has many remarkable accomplishments, in addition to her beauty.

This ban-the-girls thing is a form of feminism that doesn't tolerate a difference of opinion. It also doesn't tolerate women's full expression of sexuality. It seems chaste and prude.