Some people’s crosses are other people’s badges of honor.
Unfortunately, NASCAR’s heyday imho ended around the mid-90s.
Back then, you could name about 10+ drivers who were different characters in their own right: Richard Petty, Darrell Waltrip, Dale Earnhardt, Harry Gant, Bobby Allison, Bill Elliot, Buddy Baker, Cale Yarborough, Neil Bonnett, Dave Marcis (always somehow got a ride for each race/season). Sheet, the list goes on. Nowadays, snores-ville in terms of interesting drivers.
3 Likes
I’m trying to imagine what the male version of this would be. Are there any jobs that men are actively barred from because it’s frowned upon by the thought police? The only one that springs to mind is working in a nursery (basically if a man wants to look after little kids, everyone assumes he must be a pedophile). Not really equivalent though. I’m trying to think of a job that men aren’t allowed to do because it’s viewed as a violation of their human rights to do it. Any ideas?
Prostitution again? I thought we already had a thread about that. 
Doesn’t really work. Prostitution is illegal in most countries, so that clouds the issue. Anything that men are (legally) permitted to do, but don’t, because society says its improper?
“Some jobs become obsolete in the name of progress” 
Your job loss is my…er, our progress. You got to love the chutzpah on those #metoo folks.
Right, no society has ever told males what not to do. 
I’m afraid you lost me there.
I’m just trying to come up with a male equivalent of ‘grid girls’ whose job has become ‘obsolete in the name of progress’. Coal mining perhaps?
Bull fighter? Seems to be happening. There are probably others in this vein. I’d look though to countless other lines of work that have simply become irrelevant for one reason or other over the years.
2 Likes
Good example.
I was trying to assess the issue in a wider context; in other words is it valid to assert that some jobs genuinely do become obsolete? Obviously, it does happen, but how do you draw the distinction between a job that really is ‘obsolete’ and one that’s just being targeted for political reasons? My criteria would be (a) it serves no economic purpose and (b) on balance delivers more social harm than good. Bullfighters fail test (b) but not (a). Grid girls, neither one.
I’m not sure there is an important distinction to be made. If there was, I’d look to see if there was evidence that it was actually being targeted to start. Actually there’s a big difference with the bullfighters–there’s been some efforts at legislation against the practice. That hasn’t happened in this case. Here, as I said originally, it’s a business decision. It hasn’t been shown that I can see that they received any significant organized pressure about this. But even if they had, the business ownership would have to make a business decision whether they wanted to continue this business practice or not based on prevailing circumstances. If that happens because of economic or social factors, I don’t think it makes much difference in the end. It comes down to the bottom line. That’s capitalism, and I find it amusing that people who would probably shout Capitalism! at you at high volume seem to be the most incensed about this. One would hope that the business would take the interests of its employees into account and not take such decisions lightly.
in boxing? Do the men have to fight with their nipples covered up and pink gloves too?
Do minority groups with an agenda like feminists decide if a job is obsolete? I thought that was a consequence of lack of demand.
As I said before, if we are talking about morals (and not legality), and there’s some consensus about something being immoral, then public money shouldn’t be used for that thing. If it’s private money the state can only regulate it a bit so it doesn’t affect the society. But a group of hysteric, fat, smelly frustrated people shouldn’t decide the legality of something based on their morals (and frustrations). They don’t want to go to an event with hotties? GOOD, better for the audience. But if they stop other people from going there, then someone please call the animal control service. And of course let’s keep these people away from law making.
4 Likes
I’m going to make a copy of the previous before someone edits it.
Oh, I see what you mean. But obsolete and society says it’s improper are not the same thing. (If you just want jobs society says are improper for men, you already answered your own question. Even an agent known to Forumosans has been spotted advertising – on a different site – illegal kindergarten positions that are only open to female applicants.)
My criteria would be (a) it serves no economic purpose and (b) on balance delivers more social harm than good. Bullfighters fail test (b) but not (a). Grid girls, neither one.
Test B is subjective. What counts as social harm? What counts as social good? Who gets to decide?
Test A is also problematic. Let’s say anything that persuades people to spend money (or not) counts as an economic purpose. If a rich man hires a bunch of models to be part of his retinue, who can say if he’s doing it only for pleasure or only as a business decision (to generate more wealth later on because people take him more seriously because oh wow he has a retinue of beautiful women so he must be rich and powerful)? Even if he just wants them for pleasure, he will inadvertently cause the second effect (also alienating some people who think he’s an obsolete sleazebag). The full economic picture is hard to grasp, without brain implants in every human directly or indirectly affected.
If there’s no clear information on whether or not people buy (or decline to buy) tickets because of the presence (or absence) of grid girls, the employers are making a gamble by laying them off. But then again, it was also a gamble to hire them in the first place.
Wait – who are we talking about, wrestlers or bullfight fans?
But if they stop other people from going there, then someone please call the animal control service. And of course let’s keep these people away from law making.
Oh, we’re talking about the bulls themselves? Then you can relax. I don’t think Dr. Milker is going to get elected. 
(For the record, I’m not calling wrestlers or bullfight fans any of those things. But cows are kind of smelly, so I am insinuating that about Dr. M.)
Frowned upon somewhat: bathroom attendant.
Yet they setup themselves in many cases.
they’re called “land whales”, use the proper terminology!
1 Like
Those don’t impose the legality of anything, it was already legal to attend those events before. Also, AFAIK, they don’t go and stop people from attending their shit. OTOH, feminists boycott events that they don’t like even going to the door of the venue and not letting pass people who paid for an entry ticket. An example of tolerance.