Formula 1 Scraps The Use Of Grid Girls For The 2018 SeasonFormula 1

[LennyB]

See post #210 in this thread for a perfect example of that.

The post you just posted?

 

[Roo]

The post you just posted?

Yep.

I don't take myself too seriously, and often feel the world would be improved if that attitude was more common.

 

[LennyB]

Yep.

I don't take myself too seriously, and often feel the world would be improved if that attitude was more common.

Now I somehow feel left out, I don't agree with you and I'm jipped out of my insult

 

[AerodyManiac]

But bellboys actually serve a purpose other than 'eye-candy' for half the potential audience. How much enjoyment do grid girls actually add to the sport?

You don’t know. While grid girls definitely aren’t the focus of entire motorsport events, I think that motorsport is still primarily a sport for entertainment, and as such elements which increase the entertainment factor should remain, especially so when it doesn’t do any harm to society. Just the same way bellboys should be retained in an industry which aims to maximize customer comfort.

Personally I don’t see any harm to anybody with retaining grid girls.

 

[TheCracker]

It's clear that the rest of my latest response went unread. Didn't the article mention, which was repeated multiple times by me and others, that F1 were 'considering replacements'? If they have to so desperately tell the media that they would use children in place of adult women then there is definitely a void to fill.

But it’s still a void. Just because they say they want to replace unnecessary women with unnecessary children doesn’t mean either are needed. They still serve no actual purpose.

 

[Famine]

I don't take myself too seriously, and often feel the world would be improved if that attitude was more common.

I'm helping; I don't take you too seriously either.

 

[Roo]

I'm helping; I don't take you too seriously either.

I'm just glad someone noticed.

 

[twitcher]

Why not? Everyone else is, youself included.



I can't help but think you're reading far too much into @TheCracker's throwaway joke comment.



Then vote with your wallet and don't buy those products or watch that entertainment. If it turns out the majority either agree with the politics or don't care, then either a) start your own business and run it the way you want or b) suck it up, buttercup. This appears to be the thinking in the Opinions sub-forum, as much with election results as business decisions.



This is another reason I brought up the Manor team's closing. An entire team of mechanics, engineers, drivers etc. lose the exposure to the top teams of working in F1, but noone mentions it. As soon as grid girls lose the opportunity it's suddenly a big deal. Why?

These women can still be employed by sponsering brands in F1, if they can get the job, just as mechanics etc can still be employed by other teams if they're good enough. The other option is they work in other modelling fields, whilst the mechanics go to other championships.

I'll be blunt here. The way it comes across to me - and prehaps I'm reading this incorrectly - is that big business decisions only become worthy of comment if they disagree with the views of the person commenting. That's why I posted



- I was being only slightly tongue in cheek.

At the end of the day, this decision by F1 only affects the women and just like everyone else that gets made redundant, tough. Find another job. I know being made redundant sucks - I've experienced it myself - but you just have to get on with showing how worthy you are of employment to other potential employers. Complain if you want, but it won't help.

Aside from the women involved:



That. This entire thread and the coverage in the wider world encapsulates the saying "a mountain made out of a molehill". Like so many events it's just a conduit to attacking people who don't agree with you. See post #210 in this thread for a perfect example of that.

Wow, rant much? We're having a friendly discussion, and you're entire point here is to get other people to shut up and move on. Ok then...

I'm reading too far into the Cracker's comment? Why can't I read into it as far as I want? That's the whole bloody issue with so much of what's going on now. People have these knee jerk reactions to non-issues, come up with all these "brilliant ideas"(like a plastic jug) without really putting much or any thought into the principle of what they are arguing for or against.


Next, I agree with you that if I don't like the message a company is pushing, I can not buy their products. Thanks for the useful tip :up: I was responding to someone who said "Political Correctness and marketing go hand in hand," which, in my opinion is hogwash, given what's going on in the Comic book industry, trading card game industry, video game industry, etc. Many companies in these industries have tried social justice and political correctness, and it has negatively hurt their sales figures. That's all I was saying...if a business wants to push a PC agenda, then sure, I have every right to not buy their stuff...which is exactly what is happening on certain industries.

So again, you've berated anyone talking about this, claiming we're making mountains out of molehills....so I guess we should all just shut the hell up and stop talking...or just agree with you. I mean, it's not like there's other motorsports going on this weekend. Quick check, you haven't posted jack squat in the #B12Hr thread, are you even watching that? If not, then why so against people spending their time discussing something, regardless of the issue. Follow your own advice...don't like the convo, move on, log out, go for a walk.

Edit: just to add, the hypocrisy is real. You're just having fun, people shouldn't take you too serious. But if I have a semi-serious, half hearted, tongue in cheek "analysis" of someone water jug idea....all of a sudden, it's ubber serious, looking too far into things, making mountains out of molehills, nothing to see here, shut up and move on.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Wow, rant much? We're having a friendly discussion, and you're entire point here is to get other people to shut up and move on. Ok then...

I'm reading too far into the Cracker's comment? Why can't I read into it as far as I want? That's the whole bloody issue with so much of what's going on now. People have these knee jerk reactions to non-issues, come up with all these "brilliant ideas"(like a plastic jug) without really putting much or any thought into the principle of what they are arguing for or against.


Next, I agree with you that if I don't like the message a company is pushing, I can not buy their products. Thanks for the useful tip :up: I was responding to someone who said "Political Correctness and marketing go hand in hand," which, in my opinion is hogwash, given what's going on in the Comic book industry, trading card game industry, video game industry, etc. Many companies in these industries have tried social justice and political correctness, and it has negatively hurt their sales figures. That's all I was saying...if a business wants to push a PC agenda, then sure, I have every right to not buy their stuff...which is exactly what is happening on certain industries.

So again, you've berated anyone talking about this, claiming we're making mountains out of molehills....so I guess we should all just shut the hell up and stop talking...or just agree with you. I mean, it's not like there's other motorsports going on this weekend. Quick check, you haven't posted jack squat in the #B12Hr thread, are you even watching that? If not, then why so against people spending their time discussing something, regardless of the issue. Follow your own advice...don't like the convo, move on, log out, go for a walk.

Edit: just to add, the hypocrisy is real. You're just having fun, people shouldn't take you too serious. But if I have a semi-serious, half hearted, tongue in cheek "analysis" of someone water jug idea....all of a sudden, ita inner serious, looking too far into things, making mountains out of molehills, nothing to see here, shut up and move on.

👍👍 But I'm afraid to say I'm not sure what the water jug analogy is about.

 

[Betty blue]

Modeling is a decent career, and most of those girls want to be there to participate and to be looked at. It's not like they are forced to do it unwillingly. It's one of the very few things women are involved to do in F1. This decision should be made by a woman or at least they should have created more involvement for them. F1 is looking very sexism!

 

[twitcher]

👍👍 But I'm afraid to say I'm not sure what the water jug analogy is about.

Someone said, "why not just replace the grid girls with plastic jugs of water that hold up the grid signs". Basically, a weighted, plastic base to hold up the sign.

So, being silly, I decided to look at that idea in more depth. What does the plastic base look like? Square, round, triangle? What if it looked like a duck...is that still PC? What if the plastic base looked like a human? How human looking is the plastic base allowed to be before it crosses the line into "objectifying humans"?

Think of it another way. Instead of having a real woman hold the grid sign, could you have a life sized cardboard cutout of a woman holding the grid sign? Would that be politically correct enough? My gut tells me no. But what about a cardboard cutout of the Easter Bunny....I can't see anyone having issue with that, can you?

So I guess the point I'm getting at hear is that, it seems people would be ok with anything holding the sign, so long as it isn't a human, or doesn't look human. Something I just find odd, to say the least.


I took it even farther, going off the notion that since F1 is high tech, they could have robots hold the grid signs. So again, my question is, how human could the robots look before people started getting offended. I proposed the extreme of a sexbot holding the sign, which I presume would not be ok. So there is a limit on how human or how sexual the sign holding robot could be, I'm just curious as to where that line actually is.

 

[Belifant]

It's science, I'm not sure what you're arguing about. You're in the business of selling your looks. You have an opportunity to expose your looks to hundreds of millions of people. It's now gone. There are other jobs you can and will take but this job no longer exists. You no long have that opportunity to expose yourself to a good portion of the free world and thereby market your marketables directly to this specific audience. You now have less opportunity. Simply math. Whether they can or do get another job, or thousands of jobs is irrelevant. And taking a gig at the local auto show isn't the same as exposure to 1/3 of a billion people. Simple math. This job is gone and the exposure that probably the biggest audience they have even been exposed to, and for some, may ever be exposed to is gone. To argue that's not the case is illogical.

I don't argue that. I argue that you equal random exposure to income/jobs. That's just not how the business works. What's the point of all that exposure if almost nobody notices you on tv, let alone goes and finds out your name to hire you for a job?

That can be interpreted as "this used to come off less trashy than it does today". In otherwords, it used to enhance their brand image and now it appears to hurt. Times change, and they are being mindful of that when considering how they portray themselves. No PC backlash fears are needed to interpret that.

Finally someone understands. Basic marketing.

 

[2clicks]

Someone said, "why not just replace the grid girls with plastic jugs of water that hold up the grid signs". Basically, a weighted, plastic base to hold up the sign.

So, being silly, I decided to look at that idea in more depth. What does the plastic base look like? Square, round, triangle? What if it looked like a duck...is that still PC? What if the plastic base looked like a human? How human looking is the plastic base allowed to be before it crosses the line into "objectifying humans"?

Additionally, someone would have to manually move those replacement props around.

 

[GTP_Patrick1]

PC run amok. NFL suffering from it now too.

 

[twitcher]

Additionally, someone would have to manually move those replacement props around.

True....and I suppose the attire and perhaps even gender of the sign mover would come into question. If it's a woman, the arguement could be, "what, you think woman can't do more than just move a sign around???" If it's a man, then it's "too many men in Motorsport, the sign mover should be a woman!!!"

You could eliminate the problem by having robots move the signs...but there again, you run into the issue of "how human can the robots look" before you end up back at the start of this debate.

 

[2clicks]

You could eliminate the problem by having robots move the signs...but there again, you run into the issue of "how human can the robots look" before you end up back at the start of this debate.

And also, "how do we keep the manufacturing and maintenance costs lower than the pay demands of 20+ young women?"

 

[SlipZtrEm]

You literally are just making things up and being dismissive to support your side of the argument.

That's a really strange approach to take to @F1GTR telling you about the experience he has in a related field.

FWIW, I don't think either of you are incorrect, it's just a matter of efficiency. Yes, being an F1 grid girl is putting one's self in front of millions of eyeballs, but how many of them can further a potential career in modelling versus booking a gig in an editorial? If you cast a wide enough net you're bound to catch something, but it hardly seems like the most direct line if the goal is really modelling as a profession. I'm seriously doubting any grid girls are just getting started in the world of modelling, and using it as their shot to make it big.

given what's going on in the Comic book industry, trading card game industry, video game industry, etc. Many companies in these industries have tried social justice and political correctness, and it has negatively hurt their sales figures.

Without wanting to go too far off-topic, I think it's good you brought this up, as I was just reading an article on it:
https://screenrant.com/marvel-diversity-comic-sales-single-issue/

TL;DR version: single-issue sales of more visibly diverse series are down, but trade paperback and digital sales are up. The article makes a questionable jump about the reasons why — the unwelcoming nature of the typical comic book store for those interested in these books is a hard one to pin down, though I wouldn't argue it's a factor at some level — but it shows that diversity isn't hurting sales overall, it's just shifting them to different avenues.

Also, what was the highest-grossing comic book movie of 2017? Which upcoming comic book movie's pre-sale ticket numbers have beat every other one in the genre?

Binning grid girls is a business decision by Liberty to appeal to more people — the existing fanbase of F1 isn't getting any younger. I don't know if it'll be successful, since I doubt a lot of women will suddenly start tuning into a sport they've previously not watched because of it, but I can at least understand where the decision came from.

It's no different from a company like Aerie boasting it uses non-touched-up models in its ad campaigns. It did before that, but when there was a swell of controversy around that subject, a calculated business decision was made to appeal to a certain demographic.

 

[Dotini]

Glamor and sex appeal have long been associated with motor racing in general, and with the Grand Prix "circus" in particular.

Yeah, maybe, but for how long really? Do the pit dollies go back to the sixties? I think so, but before then the poverty pervading Europe may have precluded it, I don't know.

Anyway, all things must pass. Times change, along with the economics and the moral values. It seems a strange time when women are being put out of work by feminists, if that is a core part of the underlying reasons.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That's a really strange approach to take to @F1GTR telling you about the experience he has in a related field.

FWIW, I don't think either of you are incorrect, it's just a matter of efficiency. Yes, being an F1 grid girl is putting one's self in front of millions of eyeballs, but how many of them can further a potential career in modelling versus booking a gig in an editorial? If you cast a wide enough net you're bound to catch something, but it hardly seems like the most direct line if the goal is really modelling as a profession. I'm seriously doubting any grid girls are just getting started in the world of modelling, and using it as their shot to make it big.

My point would be, the net is now a little bit smaller. As anyone familiar with social media, youtube, television or any media at all really, the primary concern is always views and clicks. You can have the smartest ad in the world but if no one watches it's ineffective. In a business where look are everything it's ludicrous to simply dismiss the concerns of those involved when an opportunity to be exposed to this size of an audience is now gone. This has nothing to do with the "rightness" of the decision, just stating a fact that the women involved now have that much less opportunity, in addition of course to whatever direct and indirect working opportunities came out of being hired and meeting people onsite.

 

[twitcher]

That's a really strange approach to take to @F1GTR telling you about the experience he has in a related field.

FWIW, I don't think either of you are incorrect, it's just a matter of efficiency. Yes, being an F1 grid girl is putting one's self in front of millions of eyeballs, but how many of them can further a potential career in modelling versus booking a gig in an editorial? If you cast a wide enough net you're bound to catch something, but it hardly seems like the most direct line if the goal is really modelling as a profession. I'm seriously doubting any grid girls are just getting started in the world of modelling, and using it as their shot to make it big.



Without wanting to go too far off-topic, I think it's good you brought this up, as I was just reading an article on it:
https://screenrant.com/marvel-diversity-comic-sales-single-issue/

TL;DR version: single-issue sales of more visibly diverse series are down, but trade paperback and digital sales are up. The article makes a questionable jump about the reasons why — the unwelcoming nature of the typical comic book store for those interested in these books is a hard one to pin down, though I wouldn't argue it's a factor at some level — but it shows that diversity isn't hurting sales overall, it's just shifting them to different avenues.

Also, what was the highest-grossing comic book movie of 2017? Which upcoming comic book movie's pre-sale ticket numbers have beat every other one in the genre?

Binning grid girls is a business decision by Liberty to appeal to more people — the existing fanbase of F1 isn't getting any younger. I don't know if it'll be successful, since I doubt a lot of women will suddenly start tuning into a sport they've previously not watched because of it, but I can at least understand where the decision came from.

It's no different from a company like Aerie boasting it uses non-touched-up models in its ad campaigns. It did before that, but when there was a swell of controversy around that subject, a calculated business decision was made to appeal to a certain demographic.

Thanks for the that link, it's interesting.

I agree that it's Liberties choice to make this business decision. I said before I personally don't like a company pushing an agenda, which I stand.by, but at the same time agree that to stay successful, a company must "keep up with the times", so to speak.

In this specific case though, is it fair to say that the arguement - the keeping up with the times - is that "women are more than just sign holders" (which I agree with!). To which I see two paths - bin them, or expand the role of the sign holder person (while making steps to desexualiza the attire to a reasonable extend, and add some gender diversity to the role)

Liberty chose the "bin them" option, and made a fair amount of noise about doing so. They could have just turned up in Melbourne, no grid girls, and most people wouldn't have noticed...but with car reveals still weeks away, it's been a quiet week for F1. They could have also just said, "ok, we're going to turn over the responsibility of a grid person to the team - man, woman, boy, girl, whoever the team wants to have bold the sign, that's who'll do it". But they didn't, they did this seemingly triumphant, "we're binning grid girls, aren't you proud of us!" Or perhaps that's just the way most media presented the move by Liberty, I suppose that could be the case too.

I'm rambling now....killing time until #B12Hr starts

 

[Inzyman]

​

Well there was no concern obviously.....................until they all lost their jobs! It's the hypocrisy of the whole thing which is the issue. Who are they really trying to please here? Make no mistake, F1 do not care about women being objectified, it's only about share price. " If we can appear to be part of the progressive left movement we can possible increase market share. " You think this would be happening if they thought it would negatively impact on the bottom line...........Me thinks not.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The arguments that point out that the grid girls aren't forced to do it and that many of them actively enjoy the work are irrelevant. The sport's owners don't want to be a business where people are employed simply to be looked at. It's their business, their choice. Furthermore (and please correct me if I'm wrong) it isn't the end of promotional models at F1 weekends full-stop, they're just not in the shop front.

 

[Inzyman]

When they are on the grid, yes, but they do other stuff off camera which would constitute involvement like meet and greets with fans, autograph signings, giving away swag, doing performances (dancing) etc. Some of them become somewhat celebrities in their own right if you look at something like the Monster Girls. So in a way they do add something to the event.



I feel that the opposite has been happing, there have been quite a few races in the past few years where organisers have actually been dressing them much more conservatively. Now they wear trouser suits and rain jackets and the years of tank tops and miniskirts have been numbered for a while now, so I don't see what was so wrong with them continuing being involved in the sport.



Out will come the headlines 'Women Loose Jobs To Metal Poles'... the outrage

Blame the feminists rather than consider why they might have considered the move in the first place: got it.

Here's another take:

I don't know how many of you have any kids, but pretend you do for a second.

Let's say one of them is an 8-year-old girl. She's getting interested in cars and F1 because - well, her dad is, and 8-year-olds think their parents are the best people in the world and want to bond through common interests.

So she's watching F1 with her dad and absorbing every minute. But she notices that the only girls in the sport are just standing there in matching clothing on the grid, then sod off for the entirety of the race, then reappear just to line the walls as the men walk to the podium, hand out the trophies, give the TV interviews etc.

If your 8-year-old is inspired by the sport and wants to get involved in future, are grid girls the best representation of what she could achieve? How easy might it be as a parent trying to explain why the only women she's seeing in three or four hours of coverage - aside from the occasional TV presenter - are there just to make some of the camera shots a bit prettier? Why can her brother grow up to be a racing driver or a mechanic or team manager or race director if her only realistic chance of getting into F1 is as a brolly dolly?

Now I'm sure 8-year-old girls want to look pretty themselves, but I'm also sure plenty have ambitions to do cool things when they grow up. If she grows up and wants to be a model herself then more power to her, but it'd be nice to think that young kids aren't being discouraged before they've even started down a career path.

But no, it's definitely feminists and political correctness rather than logic and promoting broader opportunities.

Hand here is another take...............Straight after she sits down to watch on her IPAD the great Feminist Beyonce, what does she thinks then??

If a model’s good enough to book an F1 gig she’ll book other jobs all year round pretty easily, especially if they're with a decent agency.



On modelling and fashion, it's important to note that models in campaigns and adverts are often cast for their ability to portray a certain attitude or ideal. They may (self deprecatingly) refer to themselves as living clothes racks but they're more like actors really. It's why Kate Moss was (and is) so popular, she could transform herself into so many different kinds of women.

I won't miss the grid girls at all really. In fact I usually tune in on the warm up lap and then get up and do some other stuff while the podium interviews are on. The way some people around the internet have complained about this makes me wonder if they even watch F1 for the racing.

If F1 had a problem with what the grid girls contributed to the sport why didn't they attempt to expand the role they did rather than banning them. It's almost like F1 is reinforcing the much mistaken belief that they were good for little else. I guess women who don't do much should be done away with then?! That's going to send a great message to all the girls watching the sport, now there are NO women on the screen!



I absolutely understand what your saying but is being a grid girl such an undesirable thing? There's this sentiment that it's somehow a disappointment that someone's daughter ends up doing it. It's a serious role that has opened the doors for many girls to build into all sorts of things, not just modelling.

Just through being in that environment and meeting the right people there is the potential to move across into the sport in a more hands on capacity such as being in team staff where you see quite a few women. If you enjoy the sport I would say working in it in any capacity should make you happy and proud, seeing grid girls should make girls watching feel proud.

TV shouldn't be the only conduit for their aspiration. Yes there is gender inequity on TV, underrepresentation all over the shop (now even more thanks to F1) but as a parent kids need to know that there are plenty of things going on off camera that offer maybe a better angle or way into that sport. Also you should be honest and explain to them that things still have a way to go in certain areas but there are always the trailblazers that make it happen.

Now THAT's a good post............

 

[Inzyman]

Does anybody know what the replacement will be? Some kind of bus stop sign with a number on it, or will it be one of the mechanics who just happens to be the most pleasing on the eye.

Sorry, nothing pleasing to anyone's eyes are allowed..........

 

[Inzyman]

Good! Next up let’s get rid of the models draping themselves all over the vehicles at car shows.

Let's not be half arsed about it, let's get rid of them everywhere. Every Sport, Corporate function, promotional campaigns, advertising, fashion shops, video clips, newsreaders, weather girls............................................

 

[Belifant]

it's simple marketing and brand strategy. For some products and target groups it makes sense to have girls, for some it does not. Just look at advertising. Do you see a half naked girl selling you a credit for a house? Do you see a man in a suit selling you LEGO? Do you see a guy in shorts and a Hawaii shirt sell you heart medicine? Wouldn't make sense, and you wouldn't buy.

Owners of high value brands like this put a lot of thought into every little detail in regards to the appearance of the brand. And now F1 has simply decided to update their approach. Nothing has to stay forever. No conspiracy.

 

[Roo]

Wow, rant much?

Nope.

We're having a friendly discussion

I'd suggest not everyone in this thread is being as civil and friendly as you and I would like - the one-line comments about PC SJWs and similar. I appreciate you taking the time to consider what I and others have written, and reply with a reasonable answer.

and you're entire point here is to get other people to shut up and move on. Ok then...

I'm reading too far into the Cracker's comment? Why can't I read into it as far as I want?

So again, you've berated anyone talking about this, claiming we're making mountains out of molehills....so I guess we should all just shut the hell up and stop talking...or just agree with you.

Do what you like. I've not told anyone to stop talking about it, or that anyone should agree with me. All I've said is that there's been an overreaction to a minor decision, and questioned why decisions or events with similar but much further reaching consequences don't achieve the same reaction - a question noone has attempted to answer. I have a hypothesis - that the reaction is emotional based on a desire to see "attractive" women with not enough self control to step back and see how little it matters - but I hope I'm wrong. I want to be wrong because it paints people in a negative light, but every time I see someone's post blaming political correctness, feminists, or social justice warriors, that's the impression I receive of them.

Quick check, you haven't posted jack squat in the #B12Hr thread, are you even watching that?

I will be watching it when the race is uploaded. I can't stay up all night to watch it live. Until then I'm staying out of the thread to avoid spoilers.

Edit: just to add, the hypocrisy is real. You're just having fun, people shouldn't take you too serious. But if I have a semi-serious, half hearted, tongue in cheek "analysis" of someone water jug idea....all of a sudden, it's ubber serious, looking too far into things, making mountains out of molehills, nothing to see here, shut up and move on.

It didn't come across as semi-serious, tongue in cheek or (I think you ment) light-hearted. It came across as a rant. But at least I know how you felt when you read my light-hearted comment, so shall we call it a draw?

One more thing I'll add - and this IS light hearted and tongue in cheek, so please take it as such - is the role reversal that seems to me to have taken place in this thread, like some sort of Shakespearean comedy: you've got @Johnnypenso, usually a right-leaning, conservative fellow, suddenly arguing on behalf of the individual against a large business (correct me if I'm wrong), and folks such as @TenEightyOne (picking you out as the most recent comment in this vein, again, correct if applicable) saying it's nothing more than a business decision and a private company can do that if they so wish.

 

[LennyB]

arguing on behalf of the individual against a large business

That is what conservatives do, protect the minority from the majority.

 

[Roo]

That is what conservatives do, protect the minority from the majority.

Ah, I must have misunderstood then. Not being political, my impression was that the right wing of politics seemed to be more in favour of the individuals that run privately-owned businesses succeeding, occasionally at the expense of the individuals at the bottom of the company; it appeared that the rich, powerful individual was protected, but not the less well-off folks at the bottom of the tree. Hence why it seemed to me that would equate to backing up the owners of F1 at the expense of the grid girls, as the individual is protecing his business, and querying why when individuals loose out when a team shuts down (in F1 terms, the individuals (minority) of Manor not being protected from the decisions of F1's then commercial rights holder (majority, when he had other teams backing him up in not wanting F1's prize money spread more equally)) there was no outcry.

Ensuring the grid girls retained jobs when the individuals at the top have decided that it would benefit their business not to have them seems a bit anti-minority in purely numerical terms, so I guess it depends on how you define a minority.

I can't say I'm clear on that point of view, but prehaps the waters are a little less muddy. Every day's a school day.

 

[LennyB]

Ensuring the grid girls retained jobs when the individuals at the top have decided that it would benefit their business not to have them seems a bit anti-minority in purely numerical terms, so I guess it depends on how you define a minority.

It's true that telling a business what it can and cannot do is not a conservative value so in that sense one would say to leave the business alone as it is indeed a minority. The idea is not to protect the girl from the company, the idea is to protect both the girl and the company. It is their choice what jobs they provide unless they are being strong armed in which case the girl is the victim.