[Other Sport] Darts girls face axe

[Baldseagull]

So then you'd have to be thick as **** to think that's what other people expect you to look like. Given the vast majority don't expect anyone to look like that.

It's funny that if you ask most blokes they'll say they prefer women to wear as little make up as possible suggesting they prefer the more natural look. Yet women still cake the shit on regardless.

Same goes for ridiculous high heels. Men don't care about them, men think they are impractical and uncomfortable, thus pointless.

That's all down to women.

Or an impressionable young person, which was the point the other poster was making.

 

[SeagullRic]

I do wish people who get upset about this threw as much passion into fighting for women's rights globally on suffrage, legal rights, FGM, child brides, honour killings, bonded slavery, arranged marriages and suchlike.

Not sure anyone suggesting this might not be a terrible thing has said they're 'upset' about this have they? The people seemingly outraged are actually those annoyed with the change.

 

[Baldseagull]

For the record, it does not bother me if they are there or not, I find it a bit worrying that so many blokes sign a petition to have them there though.

 

[A1X]

Reading back through the thread, I can't help noticing that among the mass accusations and counter-accusations of being (variously) snowflakes and cucks and broflakes and all that jazz, hardly anyone seems to have noted that the real reason for the change appears to be that it's what the TV companies themselves have asked for. It has nothing to do with offending anyone or misogyny or any of that, it's purely a commercial decision which Sky and ITV have taken. Which in turn translates into cold, hard cash for the PDC, so no amount of online petitions are going to change anything.

Has anyone actually thought about asking the TV companies why they came to that decision? Or is it easier just to use it as an excuse to rail against "PC GONE MAD!!!!" and not have to think about it too much?

 

[alfredmizen]

Can't stand waking up next to a woman who gets up out of bed and her face imprint is still on the pillow.

my sheets looked like the shroud of turin on saturday and sunday mornings when some of my 'companions' left in my younger days

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-42851554

The snowflakes really are running the asylum .

OI! I'm a snowflake and I like the darts girls.

 

[scamander]

Reading back through the thread, I can't help noticing that among the mass accusations and counter-accusations of being (variously) snowflakes and cucks and broflakes and all that jazz, hardly anyone seems to have noted that the real reason for the change appears to be that it's what the TV companies themselves have asked for. It has nothing to do with offending anyone or misogyny or any of that, it's purely a commercial decision which Sky and ITV have taken. Which in turn translates into cold, hard cash for the PDC, so no amount of online petitions are going to change anything.

Has anyone actually thought about asking the TV companies why they came to that decision? Or is it easier just to use it as an excuse to rail against "PC GONE MAD!!!!" and not have to think about it too much?

Pretty much nails it for me. Sponsors have a huge influence in sport, for example remember Bentdner getting a huge fine for showing a non-approved sponsor on his boxer shorts? The reason for a yellow card for removing your shirt is that the shirts sponsor wants their name front and centre in the celebrations (which usually form the action shots used in the media when posting reports or highlights).

Presumably the sponsors/advertisers don't want that association anymore. It's a commercial decision.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

my sheets looked like the shroud of turin on saturday and sunday mornings when some of my 'companions' left in my younger days

Oh happy days....." Do you want some tea or coffee luv? "...." No thanks, I've still got some Vodka left from last night "

 

[alfredmizen]

Oh happy days....." Do you want some tea or coffee luv? "...." No thanks, I've still got some Vodka left from last night "

sounds about right

 

[alfredmizen]

Pretty much nails it for me. Sponsors have a huge influence in sport, for example remember Bentdner getting a huge fine for showing a non-approved sponsor on his boxer shorts? The reason for a yellow card for removing your shirt is that the shirts sponsor wants their name front and centre in the celebrations (which usually form the action shots used in the media when posting reports or highlights).

Presumably the sponsors/advertisers don't want that association anymore. It's a commercial decision.

yes , but youre not quite getting "it" , why dont sponsors want it ? Because of pressure from the likes of these

 

[Buzzer]

Not sure anyone suggesting this might not be a terrible thing has said they're 'upset' about this have they? The people seemingly outraged are actually those annoyed with the change.

Apologies, it wasn't really a dig at any specific person here but rather those in the news. I notice for instance that the Women's Sport Trust has been very vocal in their opposition to these walk-on women but unless I've missed it, they've not made any comments in support of Nazi Paikidze, the American chess champion who boycotted the Chess World Cup because the Iranians who hosted it insisted all women cover their heads.

It's just my opinion but I think it's far more oppressive to force women into doing something they don't want to do rather than banning something that some women are happy to do.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Reading back through the thread, I can't help noticing that among the mass accusations and counter-accusations of being (variously) snowflakes and cucks and broflakes and all that jazz, hardly anyone seems to have noted that the real reason for the change appears to be that it's what the TV companies themselves have asked for. It has nothing to do with offending anyone or misogyny or any of that, it's purely a commercial decision which Sky and ITV have taken. Which in turn translates into cold, hard cash for the PDC, so no amount of online petitions are going to change anything.

Has anyone actually thought about asking the TV companies why they came to that decision? Or is it easier just to use it as an excuse to rail against "PC GONE MAD!!!!" and not have to think about it too much?

EXACTLY. A huge income stream is through commercial tv and advertising. The only thing that has triggered this is whether advertisers are concerned about their 'brand' association. A few key clients have said their not sure their brand aligns with pretty girls bringing the players on. Commercial decision pure and simple.

 

[scamander]

yes , but youre not quite getting "it" , why dont sponsors want it ? Because of pressure from the likes of these ]

If that was the case then why change now? This isn't new as I remember Millie being in Viz way back in the day. It's easy to blame or cite a particular group as responsible. I'd say the reality is far more a conscious approach to rebranding. Darts has become big and it's got a wider audience than ever. If they are trying to pitch more to female viewers or fans then they've probably done some basic marketing analysis and realised that the darts girls doesn't sit well with this demographic.

Getting more women to the events means any darts event has a whole new avenue in terms of marketing and advertising. I'd say it's realisation of this, and the need to secure it, which has driven the folk involved to think this way.

 

[SeagullRic]

Apologies, it wasn't really a dig at any specific person here but rather those in the news. I notice for instance that the Women's Sport Trust has been very vocal in their opposition to these walk-on women but unless I've missed it, they've not made any comments in support of Nazi Paikidze, the American chess champion who boycotted the Chess World Cup because the Iranians who hosted it insisted all women cover their heads.

It's just my opinion but I think it's far more oppressive to force women into doing something they don't want to do rather than banning something that some women are happy to do.

No need to apologise, and thanks for clarifying. I'd agree with your comparison to be honest, and feel there can be a double standards at times- as much in the reporting on occasions as the reactions of groups themselves.

I'd also add the distinction that, thankfully, the two aren't mutually exclusive so you can oppose what walk-on women represents and Nazi Paikidze with no trouble whatsoever.

 

[Buzzer]

I'd also add the distinction that, thankfully, the two aren't mutually exclusive so you can oppose what walk-on women represents and Nazi Paikidze with no trouble whatsoever.

You're right and I'm falling into the trap of whataboutery by making the comparison but even so I think there is a perception that some of the much bigger issues are being avoided and this is what fuels the "it's all PC gone mad" cynics and trolls.

 

[SeagullRic]

You're right and I'm falling into the trap of whataboutery by making the comparison but even so I think there is a perception that some of the much bigger issues are being avoided and this is what fuels the "it's all PC gone mad" cynics and trolls.

I'd completely agree to be honest, that perception holds things back significantly and more time should be spent 1) Dealing with those 'bigger' issues and 2) Explaining how they are all parts of the same process

 

[A1X]

I think one of the problems is the bigger issues are often far harder to fix, and as such take longer. For example, in the case of Nazi Paikidze it's a wider cultural issue in that part of the world which can only really be resolved with a couple of generations of education, and this is already being done. But it's not "sexy" so you don't hear about it, whereas "PC GONE MAD STUFF BANNED" flogs papers so it's all you hear about. It also isn't helped that chess doesn't have the kind of financial decision making going on that darts does, and as I mentioned earlier this is a money-driven commercial decision. Until chess has sponsors prepared to throw their weight around then issues like the Iranian tournament are going to keep happening as there is not that initial shove to force things over the line.

 

[alfredmizen]

If that was the case then why change now? This isn't new as I remember Millie being in Viz way back in the day. It's easy to blame or cite a particular group as responsible. I'd say the reality is far more a conscious approach to rebranding. Darts has become big and it's got a wider audience than ever. If they are trying to pitch more to female viewers or fans then they've probably done some basic marketing analysis and realised that the darts girls doesn't sit well with this demographic.

Getting more women to the events means any darts event has a whole new avenue in terms of marketing and advertising. I'd say it's realisation of this, and the need to secure it, which has driven the folk involved to think this way.

Darts is nowhere near as big and the audience is nowhere near as wide as it used to be , and do you REALLY think tbat the sort of woman who could be persuaded to either watch darts on tv or go along in person will be influenced by whether there are scantily clad females or not ?

 

[alfredmizen]

EXACTLY. A huge income stream is through commercial tv and advertising. The only thing that has triggered this is whether advertisers are concerned about their 'brand' association. A few key clients have said their not sure their brand aligns with pretty girls bringing the players on. Commercial decision pure and simple.

A commercial decision they have gaken in response go "pressure" from people who wouldnt be seen dead at the darts or watching on tv.

 

[The Clamp]

you upper class tit-----------maybe your not worth looking at

You're. If you plan on taking me to task please at least do yourself the service of employing correct grammar.