Fire & Ice Girls: Sexist Anachronism?

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think a plausible alternative solution is to do what the NHL did for the 80 or 90 odd years before they started tarting up young women/girls and sending them out to be stared at by the men in the crowd.

We should be honest here and quit with the flimsy rationalizations.

This isn't about giving young women a springboard to another career, giving the girls a chance for some extra cash, cleaning the ice, practicing their dance routines, or inspiring young girls.

It is 100% about T&A. The only reason they are there is so male customers can look at the tits and asses of young women.

It doesn't matter who knows who, whose friend loves the job, some weird "right" they have to do what they want... they are only there so people can look at their tits and asses.

The vicitimization here is getting outta control.

Count me in as another poster who knows a girl who worked as a F&I girl. She did it because she wanted to. She did it because she is a hockey fan, saw a lot of free Flames games, met the Flames, and so on. She loved it.

There's a strange "we know better than you, you are a stupid lemming and you need to be told how to behave" undertone to this post. Stop being so judgemental.

Does Saudi Arabia have the right idea? All women should be covered from head to toe while in public because men are pigs?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by nik-

You should contact the Flames and voice your displeasure.

Kindly indicate where I expressed my displeasure.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So a man or an older and/or unattractive woman should be able to apply for and get the job too then, right? If it's just about cleaning the ice, then being an attractive young woman isn't a required attribute.

As I said before, if you want to defend the concept of Ice Girls, go right ahead, but use better reasoning than this. At least be honest about the situation and don't pretend they're not hired for their looks when it's blatantly obvious that they absolutely are.

Red herring and purposeful misinterpretation. You have issues with logic.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Red herring and purposeful misinterpretation. You have issues with logic.

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

The vicitimization here is getting outta control.

Count me in as another poster who knows a girl who worked as a F&I girl. She did it because she wanted to. She did it because she is a hockey fan, saw a lot of free Flames games, met the Flames, and so on. She loved it.

There's a strange "we know better than you, you are a stupid lemming and you need to be told how to behave" undertone to this post. Stop being so judgemental.

Does Saudi Arabia have the right idea? All women should be covered from head to toe while in public because men are pigs?

I'm not saying you're wrong here, but I think the bolded statement is easily the greatest misconception, misrepresentation, misinterpretation posted in this entire thread.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think a plausible alternative solution is to do what the NHL did for the 80 or 90 odd years before they started tarting up young women/girls and sending them out to be stared at by the men in the crowd.

We should be honest here and quit with the flimsy rationalizations.

This isn't about giving young women a springboard to another career, giving the girls a chance for some extra cash, cleaning the ice, practicing their dance routines, or inspiring young girls.

It is 100% about T&A. The only reason they are there is so male customers can look at the tits and asses of young women.

It doesn't matter who knows who, whose friend loves the job, some weird "right" they have to do what they want... they are only there so people can look at their tits and asses.

If it is solely about injecting some t&a into the game and pleasing some male fans the Flames are doing a pretty poor job. The outfits are certain ly not showing enough t&a to put on a good show. The jerseys don't even show any cleavage.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Red herring and purposeful misinterpretation. You have issues with logic.

Originally Posted by AcGold

Society has much more pertinent issues to focus on like homeless people or spousal abuse.

...

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

I went for lunch recently at a restaurant downtown and based on the women working there I am surprised no one says anything about them. They were all 25 or under, attractive and wearing short skirts. I'm not sure how thats any different than the women on the ice

Tips?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

The vicitimization here is getting outta control.

Victimization? What's that supposed to mean? I'm not claiming to be a victim.

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

Count me in as another poster who knows a girl who worked as a F&I girl. She did it because she wanted to. She did it because she is a hockey fan, saw a lot of free Flames games, met the Flames, and so on. She loved it.

Good for her. I don't doubt it. Does she think she was there for a reason other than for men to look at her tits and ass?

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

There's a strange "we know better than you, you are a stupid lemming and you need to be told how to behave" undertone to this post. Stop being so judgemental.

Who did I tell how to behave? Those girls are there for people to look at their tits and asses. That's all I said. If you think they aren't there for that, tell us why they are dressed the way they are.

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

Does Saudi Arabia have the right idea? All women should be covered from head to toe while in public because men are pigs?

Yes. You figured me out. I believe that the girls in skimpy outfits are there to be ogled, so our society should be modelled on a backwards theocracy. Way to put the pieces together.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Stanathan

Still not making things up, it's qualified with an "if".

Ah the ol' Glenn Beck deflection.

"I'm not saying Obama is a Muslim extremest homosexual bent on corrupting americas youth, I'm just asking questions!"

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Victimization? What's that supposed to mean? I'm not claiming to be a victim.

The self righteousness is oozing from this post. I bet you're fun at parties.

[photon]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

The self righteousness is oozing from this post. I bet you're fun at parties.

Or you could address the argument rather than the poster.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

The self righteousness is oozing from this post. I bet you're fun at parties.

I don't think you know what "victimization" or "self righteousness" actually mean. I am fun at parties! I know the words I'm using!

[Antithesis]

Don't get me started on parties. That's the next thing we're going to get rid of.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

The self righteousness is oozing from this post. I bet you're fun at parties.

"I'm sorry sir, but your credit and collateral are unacceptable."

"But please!" I blurted, "You have to listen! I'm really fun at parties!"

"I'm sorry, but we just can't accept "Funhaver" as an acceptable occupation, and your form was filled out in silly string. Please put down the rubber chicken and leave."

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Should women be stopped from themselves? Is that the argument at play here?

Go ahead Underoos.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't think you know what "victimization" or "self righteousness" actually mean. I am fun at parties! I know the words I'm using!

Look out kids we've got a clever one on our hands.

How good did you feel after posting that?

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

...

You don't know what red herring means then. I was not attempting to change the focus of conversation and that is clear as where you brought up something else in the core of your discussion. Anyways, it's clear you have no intentions to think critically or consider other people's viewpoints. This isn't a discussion, it's a circular argument about semantics. I have no interest in discussing things further with you.

[MRCboicgy]

What, there's money involved in being a mod?! I think Ken's been holding out on me...

Anything that makes this a place where more and more people feel comfortable is a good thing, and you can still get away with a ton of stuff on here that wouldn't pass anywhere else except maybe Reddit, but it's not Reddit or the Sun comments section or Youtube.

I've said this to others before, so I'll say it here: the evolution of the site reflects really how this city is growing up (knowing full well, not everyone on here is Calgarian). This isn't an Old Boys Club city as much as it used to be, and so the Flames fanbase has shifted as well.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by AcGold

You don't know what red herring means then.

"We shouldn't concern ourselves with Issue X because Issue Y is more important" is the classic textbook example of a red herring fallacy, and that's exactly what you did by bringing homelessness and spousal abuse into the conversation.

I have no interest in discussing things further with you.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't think you know what "victimization" or "self righteousness" actually mean. I am fun at parties! I know the words I'm using!

I have it on good authority that people who know which words they are using are not, in fact, fun at parties.

Exiled, AcGold, and I are the ones who are cool at parties. We know that self righteous means super cool. We except that red herring means red fish. And irregardless of all that, we know your just walking around here like a big principle, treating us like lowery students. You panspermia!

[ricosuave]

I'm a little late to the party, but I just wanted to say that I saw Bingo eating one of these today... suspicious, no?