Fire & Ice Girls: Sexist Anachronism?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'd like one of you guys to point where I've even feigned some kind of concern for the girls themselves (because their situation is so concerning), or even something to that effect.

I'll wait.

Oh please. It's in the thread and I don't think it warrants me going through it as we went back and forth and it came out to you whining about the F&I girls all about tits and ass. If the topic wasn't concerning you wouldn't have several posts in it. We all know there are a handful of posters here at CP that feel they are as Locke said "of moral superiority" and you have never tried hard to conceal that you are part of that camp. If that makes you feel good about yourself then I'm happy for you but don't pretend you aren't that guy.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Oh please. It's in the thread and I don't think it warrants me going through it as we went back and forth and it came out to you whining about the F&I girls all about tits and ass. If the topic wasn't concerning you wouldn't have several posts in it. We all know there are a handful of posters here at CP that feel they are as Locke said "of moral superiority" and you have never tried hard to conceal that you are part of that camp. If that makes you feel good about yourself then I'm happy for you but don't pretend you aren't that guy.

I just think it's hilarious that you guys ignore my points regarding the practice and the spectacle and somehow have twisted it into a (ugh) strawman that I'm somehow concerned about the women themselves being underdressed or exploited.

It's literally been happening since like, post #20. I think the only person who expressed concern over the women being exploited was UCB. It certainly wasn't me however.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I just think it's hilarious that you guys ignore my points regarding the practice and the spectacle and somehow have twisted it into a (ugh) strawman that I'm somehow concerned about the women themselves being underdressed or exploited.

It's literally been happening since like, post #20. I think the only person who expressed concern over the women being exploited was UCB. It certainly wasn't me however.

You have absolutely got to be &%$@ing @$%&ing me.

Please, for the love of White Knights everywhere (not a perverted or racist sexual act...yet...) tell us what your point actually was.

We've screwed around for 25 pages and every possible topic under the sun has been touched upon and yet we're evidently not there yet. I'm betting that if we separated the wheat from the chaff in this thread it'd be two to three posts long and most of those are mine, so lets get to it shall we?

In 200 words or less, your point, please. Because I honestly believe that you have something relevant important to say but its been lost in the maelstrom, so now lets have it. Clearly. Succinctly. Without pretense.

[PsYcNeT]

The necessity

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Of needing "Ice Girls", rather than a standard custodial crew. Particularly, one that has restrictions on the size, attractiveness, age, and gender of those who qualify for the position.

I'm pretty sure I've hashed this over at least 3 times now.

I've also made a call for other posters to be intellectually honest about their end of the argument, which has been summarily ignored.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

Just the opposite, I got married.

I find these types of threads tiring. Flawed, circuitous arguments lacking any semblance of logic or cognizance of the real world and white knights in shining armour with delusions of grandeur and feelings of moral superiority rushing to defend people who dont need defending.

Its like a bad Monty Python skit.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly you mean by the bolded. Is it that you I think it takes far more effort to recognize and critique structural problems and inequalities, and to try to propose solutions that might actually reduce said inequalities than it does to sit back and say "well that's not how the real world is," which is really a bizarre and unhelpful statement to add to a conversation that's challenging existing social norms. I mean there's the obvious problem of it being a subjective statement masquerading as objective fact, but it's also contending a point that's already been conceded to some degree. Those challenging social norms know how the world works and they're dissatisfied with it. That's the point of the entire conversation.

Maybe that's not your point and you're more alluding to the perceptions of inequality being inaccurate or unrealistic, but I think again this is problematic in that perceptions are shaped by lived experiences, so one person's "real world" is going to look different than someone else's, depending on a variety of factors.

As for the "white knight" thing, it's a term often used by MRAs and other sexists to denigrate and trivialize the opinions of men who support various women's or feminist causes by insinuating such support is secretly a ploy to get laid, which is a pretty sexist opinion to hold when you consider it. I don't think that's what you were implying, but to say that defending or aligning oneself with the causes of women, minorities, etc., is due to "delusions of grandeur" is in somewhat of the same cynical vein as the way in which the MRAs use the term.

I personally don't view the F&I Girls as particularly sexist, but I can see how they might make certain fans feel as though their patronage isn't as valued as a heterosexual man's. However, I'm not going to question the sincerity of those who do claim they're sexist by framing their arguments as an act of disingenuous gallantry.

EDIT: I also don't think this is a serious discussion about inequality, social norms, etc., but I've seen the terms "white knight" and "real world" tossed about quite a bit, so I wanted to get down to the root of them.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

The necessity

I'm pretty sure I've hashed this over at least 3 times now.

I've also made a call for other posters to be intellectually honest about their end of the argument, which has been summarily ignored.

Okay. Thank you for that.

I disagree with you, but I come from a business background, but I see your point.

It isnt, strictly speaking, necessary, but neither is it wildly unconventional from a sports perspective. And in many ways I see the Ice Girls as a vastly superior alternative to full-blown Cheerleaders.

That said, the Ice Girls dont sell tickets and very few people really care who scrapes the ice. If you have people in wheelchairs with shovels welded to them that might actually sell some tickets. Whats FlamesGimp up to these days?

Can we give the crowd paintguns? That may be pushing the limits....

Either way, they arent skating around in bikinis waving their T&A in anyone's face. Their attire is quite modest and in no way family inappropriate. I know this because I asked my wife if their skirts were too short or their shirts were too revealing. She laughed and laughed. Hell, shes still laughing as I sit here typing this. Its actually quite distracting.

Hell, she even mentioned: "Do you honestly think those are their legs? They're wearing those flesh-coloured leggings so they dont freeze their asses off."

So the grand total of skin being shown is their faces and a tiny patch of their upper chest that I dont think does much for anyone. And no, I am not going back to the Urban Dictionary twice in one day just to check.

At the end of the day, this is all much ado about absolutely nothing. Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing" actually had much more to do about a great many things than this discussion.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm trying to figure out what exactly you mean by the bolded. Is it that you I think it takes far more effort to recognize and critique structural problems and inequalities, and to try to propose solutions that might actually reduce said inequalities than it does to sit back and say "well that's not how the real world is," which is really a bizarre and unhelpful statement to add to a conversation that's challenging existing social norms. I mean there's the obvious problem of it being a subjective statement masquerading as objective fact, but it's also contending a point that's already been conceded to some degree. Those challenging social norms know how the world works and they're dissatisfied with it. That's the point of the entire conversation.

Maybe that's not your point and you're more alluding to the perceptions of inequality being inaccurate or unrealistic, but I think again this is problematic in that perceptions are shaped by lived experiences, so one person's "real world" is going to look different than someone else's, depending on a variety of factors.

As for the "white knight" thing, it's a term often used by MRAs and other sexists to denigrate and trivialize the opinions of men who support various women's or feminist causes by insinuating such support is secretly a ploy to get laid, which is a pretty sexist opinion to hold when you consider it. I don't think that's what you were implying, but to say that defending or aligning oneself with the causes of women, minorities, etc., is due to "delusions of grandeur" is in somewhat of the same cynical vein as the way in which the MRAs use the term.

I personally don't view the F&I Girls as particularly sexist, but I can see how they might make certain fans feel as though their patronage isn't as valued as a heterosexual man's. However, I'm not going to question the sincerity of those who do claim they're sexist by framing their arguments as an act of disingenuous gallantry.

Interesting question. I have to leave work right now, but I'll be sure to respond to this tomorrow. I hate responding to things like this from my phone.

[polak]

No way. This is still going....

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by rubecube

\As for the "white knight" thing, it's a term often used by MRAs and other sexists to denigrate and trivialize the opinions of men who support various women's or feminist causes by insinuating such support is secretly a ploy to get laid, which is a pretty sexist opinion to hold when you consider it. I don't think that's what you were implying, but to say that defending or aligning oneself with the causes of women, minorities, etc., is due to "delusions of grandeur" is in somewhat of the same cynical vein as the way in which the MRAs use the term.

Actually, MRA's and their ilk have co-opted the term "White Knight" into what you (and PsYcNeT) think it means, when, in it's original form/usage, it means exactly what Locke defined it as.

[Itse]

Came to check if thread still terrible.

Leaving not surprised.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Actually, MRA's and their ilk have co-opted the term "White Knight" into what you (and PsYcNeT) think it means, when, in it's original form/usage, it means exactly what Locke defined it as.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[united]

Originally Posted by rubecube

As for the "white knight" thing, it's a term often used by MRAs and other sexists to denigrate and trivialize the opinions of men who support various women's or feminist causes by insinuating such support is secretly a ploy to get laid, which is a pretty sexist opinion to hold when you consider it. I don't think that's what you were implying, but to say that defending or aligning oneself with the causes of women, minorities, etc., is due to "delusions of grandeur" is in somewhat of the same cynical vein as the way in which the MRAs use the term.

So what you're saying is #notallmen vigorously support feminism just to secretely get laid

[undercoverbrother]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/restau...ints-1.3012522

[troutman]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/restau...ints-1.3012522

Bettina Burgess, who practises in Gowlings’ Waterloo Region office in southern Ontario, said males and females can have different dress codes, but they must be of similar types for a business to avoid sex discrimination complaints.

So if the male Ice Crew wears leather vests and chaps, it's all good.

[Bill Bumface]

^If they enforce that male staff must wear equally revealing clothing as female staff, the strippers are going to get awfully awkward.

[polak]

Wouldn't one of the employees have to complain? I can assure you the girls WANT to dress like that.

Also, they're more part of the entertainment crew than the ice crew.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by polak

I can assure you the girls WANT to dress like that

As a female who works in the industry?

[polak]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

As a female who works in the industry?

Anecdotal, like my posts when this thread first popped up but...

I know a Fire and Ice girl and one of the Stampeder Outriders/Roughnecks what ever you call them.

They both gush about how awesome it is and it's not like either are low on volunteers.

This news article is just someone who has no say in this game bitching about what other girls are doing.

Basically the news article version of this pic:

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I've also made a call for other posters to be intellectually honest about their end of the argument, which has been summarily ignored.

Lololol. Welcome to the internet.

Although I'm not suggesting you resign yourself to it; keep on keepin' on. In fact, I've thought about this thread topic and decided I don't care, so in the spirit of solidarity and the interest of holding people accountable for their bull**** straw men, I agree with Psycnet's views, whatever those might actually be.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by troutman

Bettina Burgess, who practises in Gowlings’ Waterloo Region office in southern Ontario, said males and females can have different dress codes, but they must be of similar types for a business to avoid sex discrimination complaints.

While I'm sympathetic to their concerns, I do wonder where the outrage is over the fact that in two-thirds of the bars and restaurants in this city, the chances of getting a job as a waiter if you're a guy is pretty much nil.

Women have to wear certain clothes to work at these bars = discrimination

Men can't work at these bars at all = ?