Fire & Ice Girls: Sexist Anachronism?

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Can someone, anyone of Exiled, BBQ, or Q, point out where V suggested in any sense that these women were idiots, where he tried to oppress them, where he tried to save them from himself?

How did V, who (if I'm reading it right) said their outfits didn't seem overly sexual or remotely inappropriate, become an oppressor of women?

Come on.

EDIT: To add extra clarity, you're aware that not wanting something isn't the same as not being okay with it, right? The two aren't logically equivalent.

I didn't direct my comment at V.

[tknez16]

Here's a question: why does it need to be necessary in order to be acceptable? Is frivolity not allowed?

While these girls aren't dressed ultra-conservatively, they also aren't dressed inappropriately for a family event, given what the majority of our society deems acceptable. Hardly an image for the "spank bank."

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

If it is all about the hockey action your best bet is to watch it at home on a good tv with the sound off. You'll have a controlled environment with no distractions.

I love the dome during play. The players shouting, the puck banging off the endboards, the skates slicing through the ice, the crowd all feeling the same emotion at the same time (or as with the Habs game, opposite emotions simultaneously).

And then a whistle blows and some stupid garbage happens that isn't hockey related and I die a little inside.

[V]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm also not sure where this idea came from that we're trying to save the girls from themselves.

It's not about the girls, its about whether or not it's necessary within the context of a hockey game. Most, if not all of the girls obviously enjoy their jobs.

I'd say that the Flames organization has determined that all off-ice entertainment at the games are necessary. They've probably done studies that suggest for the average person attending their games they require additional entertainment over and above the actual on-ice product. And I also think necessary is totally the wrong word. The entertainment is beneficial to the organization, because it makes people enjoy the full experience of attending a hockey game more. People that have a more enjoyable experience will be more likely to spend money while they're there, and will also be more likely to come back.

So while the entertainment doesn't directly serve the on-ice product, it does serve the interests of the organization.

Specifically regarding the FoI girls, they probably also found that marketing their product, both at the game and away from it with a group of individuals was beneficial. They probably also wanted that face of their organization to be full of attractive people. They probably also thought that their target market would prefer if those people were female.

Is any of that necessary? Probably not, the Flames would exist without the FoI girls. But they most definitely believe that the crew is beneficial to them.

Now, if none of that addressed your argument, I apologize. I'm really groping around here in the dark trying to fully grasp your point.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You're making up arguments that haven't been presented in this thread.

they've been presented in the article

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well you must be one special snowflake then if you're the only person in the world not affected by these things.

Yeah - because everyone in the world thinks the way you think they do.

Special snowflake? Way to be mature about someone not agreeing with your point of view.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by devel

Really? So you're saying that every bit of entertainment for every age needs to be sexualized because we're sexual beings?

No, I'm saying that adding a bit of sex appeal is not an issue, because sex is not inherently bad, and it adds value - the value of entertainment.

Originally Posted by devel

So I'll say it again. I do not believe that selling sex is necessary at family events.

I think the fighting on ice is a lot less "family" than some girls in skirts. The pervasive idea that it's cool to expose kids to violence, but not sex, is asinine. If your kids are ok watching a couple grown men pound the snot out of each other, they are unlikely to become misogynist sex fiends by seeing a few young girls in outfits less revealing than you can see on a Sunday afternoon at the Stampede.

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

And then a whistle blows and some stupid garbage happens that isn't hockey related and I die a little inside.

Wow. Talk about over dramatic

Maybe it's time you re evaluate your viewpoint. If you are seriously bothered by the kiss cam or Harvey the hound banging on his drum its time to take a step back.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I love the dome during play. The players shouting, the puck banging off the endboards, the skates slicing through the ice, the crowd all feeling the same emotion at the same time (or as with the Habs game, opposite emotions simultaneously).

And then a whistle blows and some stupid garbage happens that isn't hockey related and I die a little inside.

Jeebus. You are being ridiculous.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by photon

Or you could address the argument rather than the poster.

Bating is also a sport in forum posting.

[rbochan]

This thread gave me Ebola.

[4X4]

And after all these years, I was so sure Calgary had stepped out of the stone age. World class, top ranking female (and male) tennis players wear less than that. Time to start another crusade?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Yeah - because everyone in the world thinks the way you think they do.

Special snowflake? Way to be mature about someone not agreeing with your point of view.

It's pretty arrogant and egotistical to maintain the belief that external factors do not influence your perceptions in any subject, especially a topic as subjective as physical attractiveness. Do you think that the majority of cover models, actresses, trophy wives, etc., being usually white, with generally Northern/Western European facial features, body types, hair, make-up, clothing, etc., is because they are objectively more attractive and suitable mates, or do you think there might be some underlying systemic #### going on there? And I'm using women as an example in this discussion, but it applies to their male counterparts as well.

I'm also questioning your criteria for a "suitable mate." How does someone being thin, fat, tall, short, blonde, or brunette display any kind of information related to their ability to bear and raise children?

[_Q_]

Yeah because everyone in North America wants a 5'10" blonde, blue eyed, white girl with a small waist and D cup boobs as their wife. All of us do because you said so and we're terrible people for it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Yeah because everyone in North America wants a 5'10" blonde, blue eyed, white girl with a small waist and D cup boobs as their wife. All of us do because you said so and we're terrible people for it.

Please provide the quote you're attributing this argument too. I'm not seeing it in my post.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's pretty arrogant and egotistical to maintain the belief that external factors do not influence your perceptions in any subject, especially a topic as subjective as physical attractiveness. Do you that the majority of cover models, actresses, trophy wives, etc., being usually white, with generally Northern/Western European facial features, body types, hair, make-up, clothing, etc., is because they are objectively more attractive and suitable mates, or do you think there might be some underlying systemic #### going on there? And I'm using women as an example in this discussion, but it applies to their male counterparts as well.

I'm also questioning your criteria for a "suitable mate." How does someone being thin, fat, tall, short, blonde, or brunette display any kind of information related to their ability to bear and raise children?

Pretty ignorant to make things up that I didn't say, "external factors do not influence your perceptions in any subject". Whatever, that's your mandate in these type of threads. You and Pych...

Clearly you're not able to handle the conversation without making things up and throwing around insults to bait the conversation into a direction you prefer.

Have fun.

Oh, and nice post above

Originally Posted by rubecube

Please provide the quote you're attributing this argument too. I'm not seeing it in my post.

Hi Pot.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Pretty ignorant to make things up that I didn't say, "external factors do not influence your perceptions in any subject". Whatever, that's your mandate in these type of threads. You and Pych...

Clearly you're not able to handle the conversation without making things up and throwing around insults to bait the conversation into a direction you prefer.

Have fun.

Other than calling you a snowflake, which I apologize for doing, I'm not sure I've done any of that. Have I misrepresented anything you've said? You threw out a blanket statement regarding attractiveness and mate-suitability. I'm questioning your assumptions and you're accusing me of baiting you.

If you're not willing to either defend your statements, or accept anycritique of them, then why throw them out in the first place?

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Please provide the quote you're attributing this argument too. I'm not seeing it in my post.
rubecube is online now Report Post

You never said it out right but it was implied in your post below.

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's pretty arrogant and egotistical to maintain the belief that external factors do not influence your perceptions in any subject, especially a topic as subjective as physical attractiveness. Do you that the majority of cover models, actresses, trophy wives, etc., being usually white, with generally Northern/Western European facial features, body types, hair, make-up, clothing, etc., is because they are objectively more attractive and suitable mates, or do you think there might be some underlying systemic #### going on there? And I'm using women as an example in this discussion, but it applies to their male counterparts as well.

I'm also questioning your criteria for a "suitable mate." How does someone being thin, fat, tall, short, blonde, or brunette display any kind of information related to their ability to bear and raise children?

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Other than calling you a snowflake, which I apologize for doing, I'm not sure I've done any of that. Have I misrepresented anything you've said? You threw out a blanket statement regarding attractiveness and mate-suitability. I'm questioning your assumptions and you're accusing me of baiting you.

If you're not willing to either defend your statements, or accept anycritique of them, then why throw them out in the first place?

You've claimed that I suggested I'm not able to be influenced by anything external on any subject (outright lie) and then referred to me as arrogant and egotistical based on said lie.

How do you expect to engage anyone when doing things like that?

You also claim you know how I think better than I do. How does that even make any sense. You don't know me.

I can throw out any statement I choose and accept or defend those statements as I see fit, engaging someone who goes the direction you do seems to be a waste of time given the posts you've come back with.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by _Q_

You never said it out right but it was implied in your post below.

Right, but I was talking about generalized standards of beauty, not necessarily who you would want to marry, mate with, etc.