The thought that the removal of 24 jobs is going to make an impact in the glamour industry is ridiculous.

Well it would make a really big dent in the F1 glamour industry. And after you suceed in that are you telling me you won’t move protest onto another field?

I’ve already explained my position. Did you not read it?

Anyway. All you are doing is clutching at any straw you can find to try and justify your position, which I think is simply down to social conservatism rather than innate sexism. Inertia, if you like. As in, my life is fine, so everything’s fine, why change anything?

Junkyard – I don’t think it’s outlandish, just Darwinism 101 no?

Missed this lesson where they said this [below] when i was at Uni, perhaps I was to busy risking everything to get laid ?

Men do stupid, pointless, dangerous stuff because as long as their cock still works after the life threatening injury, it’s worth the risk of death to attract a mate!

I do remember the bit where they said that dead people dont breed 😉

I am not aware of a culture where the most foolhardy risk takers are the one with harems of women to breed with.

Aracer-

You were suggesting lack of participation, not lack of people competing. If it’s danger which is the issue it should stop participation, not competition – it’s no more dangerous to compete (arguably for rock climbing competing is a lot safer).

Do your own research, but for rock climbing I’d expect the numbers of women competing to be quite high relative to other sports anyway.

No- I wasn’t. I’ve always been talking about competition. Getting girls to participate is not an issue- getting them to compete is.
The reason it’s different is intrinsic/extrinsic again. Getting fit and mastering a hobby is quite different than the all-consuming sacrifices needing to be made to compete at the top level of dangerous sports. Relating it to the Darwinism thread again- as the risks get higher, the rewards for a woman get lower. Pushing your own comfort zone keeps you in control. Trying to outdo the dare-devil next to you for something as arbitrary (in evolutionary terms) as a point or a prize fund just stops being worth the risk if you value the stash of eggs in your ovaries. Whereas the testosterone hit delivered to males on winning teams makes them ignorant!

Where did the improvements in driver safety come from over the years? By and large not from the drivers that’s for sure! That status, that podium kiss and that inevitable swarm of post race groupies was worth a very high chance of death because testosterone makes men stupid 😆

No, I think we’ve got your measure quite well at this point – though thanks for confirming that you’re not paying attention to the points anybody else is making.

😆

Missed this lesson where they said this [below] when i was at Uni

I thought it was quite succinctly put 😆

Because I don’t believe women in general are that weak they look at grid girls and think to themselves that because they are the only women they see, that is all they are good for.

This.

…and if that were the case then men would be looking at F1 drivers and thinking that’s all we were good for, and you don’t hear many men say “I want to work in IT, but alas TV as told me I can only be an F1 driver.”

NO one is saying conditioning or conformity or stereotyping or whatever you call it is that linear or from just one event. However to claim this drip drip effect of this and other aspects of sexism has no effect is false.

Where did the improvements in driver safety come from over the years?By and large not from the drivers that’s for sure!

OH dear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Formula_One_regulations

they were at loss less keen on dying that you seem to think

Jackie Stewart after Ronnie peterson in particular marks a big change bit feel free to avail yourself of the facts

I am not aware of a culture where the most foolhardy risk takers are the one with harems of women to breed with.

I didn’t say the risks had to be foolhardy. In fact they are carefully conceived within the rules of each sport. And as per that article, most blend tactics and strategy alongside physical prowess.

That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if the cast of Jackass don’t get their fair share of groupies 😆

Sorry, you confused me by writing:

Though my point remains that for those sports I mentioned the danger is an inherent part of participating, not competing, and if it was the danger putting women off then it would put them off participating.

Getting girls to participate is not an issue

actually it is

Though I come back to rock climbing – it’s largely a participation rather than a competition sport (though as mentioned my understanding is that the number of women competing compares favourably with other less dangerous sports). However as I also mentioned, competing is in general a lot safer than participating – all the really dangerous stuff happens outside of competition or training for competition, and there’s a really healthy number of women doing that. Though whilst it’s not formalised competition neither is it just taking part in the way you seem to imply women favour – for the majority of climbers a big part of it is not only pushing the level you climb at, but also the excitement of the “danger” involved in doing so. I know a fairly equal number of male and female climbers and there doesn’t seem to be any gender based difference – some of the men aren’t very bold and some of the boldest are women.

Hence your argument about it being the danger women shy away from is pish 😉

I thought it was quite succinctly put

I think your view that genetics is a vastly bigger factor than conditioning is spot on. I think the detail of your theory of the drivers of all that need a bitlot more thought. 😀

FWIW Outofbreath’s theory is: Women can only bang out one kid every 10 months or so. Therefore nurturing each kid is critical and nurturing kids is boring. Therefore the women who can thrive on boredom will on average have more children surviving to adulthood.

Women who got bored with breast-feeding and thought sod it I’m going out on exciting mammoth hunts will have been great fun to be with, but in surviving offspring terms they will have been an evolutionary dead end.

Meanwhile the blokes who like excitement will have been good providers and perhaps even a bit more prone to shagging more women so those blokes typically will have been successful in evolutionary terms.

A few million years down the line you have men who like to go out on mountain bikes and women who like to stay home and nurture kids. Or maybe it’s all a conspiracy and we’ve been brainwashed by the lizard people to live lives we don’t really like.

This.[/quote]

…is deflecting the argument onto safe ground for rene, and ignoring the point he was asked to address. Since rene is incapable of doing it and since you appear to agree with him, would you like to take on the challenge and address the actual reasons given for it not being harmless, rather than strawmanning?

I think your view that genetics is a vastly bigger factor than conditioning is spot on. I think the detail of your theory of the drivers of all that need a bit more thought.

Lets find some way of testing that without millennia of conditioning…

But back to some simple points…
If the person holding the brolly was a team member wearing a team shirt and trousers/skirt would that bother you?
If they had not been there would you be calling for them to be there?
What other jobs do you think would be done better by a young woman wearing skimpy clothing?

Ok lazy sentence- apologies but I was still thinking in relation to the study but anyhow…

I’m mostly making this up as I go along to support what my gut instinct is so it’s going to take some polishing 😆

I still think pushing your own limits is different to competing. To beat somebody else for little more than pride (and of course the shot of testosterone that men experience by ‘winning’ ) is completely different!

I don’t think women are genetically adverse to danger. In fact a woman in maternal mode is probably the most willing of all to face it head on! The imperative to preserve her biological investment in the child is even more overriding than that of a man to spread his seed.
But adversarial risks purely in the name of competition to score kudos over an opponent? I’m not so sure…

Jackie Stewart after Ronnie peterson in particular marks a big change bit feel free to avail yourself of the facts

Yeah, I kind of see your point but I also wonder (from documentaries I’ve seen) how much the drivers also suddenly felt/became exploited? It seems to coincide with the explosion in investment and development and become far more of a team sport.

I bet for the 22+ years when they didn’t really worry about safety that they found the time and enthusiasm to tweak and tune the engines for a nudge more powerz 😆

If the person holding the brolly was a team member wearing a team shirt and trousers/skirt would that bother you?

No.

If they had not been there would you be calling for them to be there?

You know what, if there were two award ceremonys one with a general buzz that included scantily glad ladies, and one that was like a Taliban wedding I might well gravitate to the first. But basically no, I watch a lot of grass root motorsport and zero F1 and award ceremonies are of zero interest to me.

What other jobs do you think would be done better by a young woman wearing skimpy clothing?

Look around you, and any job you see that is predominantly done by young women wearing skimpy clothing is almost certainly a job that is done better by a young woman wearing skimpy clothing. Sorry, but that’s life. There’s a reason Marie Claire and Cosmopolitan aren’t fully of hairy mingers.

A few million years down the line you have men who like to go out on mountain bikes and women who like to stay home and nurture kids.

This is plausible, but not relevant to the topic. As I said, even if that’s true, and MOST women want to stay home and not bother, it definitely isn’t true of all women. So why should those for whom it isn’t true have to struggle to do what they want? Why should that minority have to swim uphill to get even a small amount of the opportunity that men get? That is simply not fair.

My daughter for example is physically very powerful for her age. So let’s say she takes up rugby. She will never be a pro so she will have to work and train on the side, consequently she’ll never be as good as she could be, and things will be much harder. If I’d had a boy, he could have been pro.

That’s not fair is it? When it’s purely because women’s rugby doesn’t get the respect and hence airtime and hence money that the men’s game does.

And women’s cycling is even worse.

Sorry, but that’s life.

The moment you say that is the moment you’ve run out of arguments and therefore lost.

It is life, yes, and like many things in life it’s not great and we’d like to change it for the better. But why would you care? You’re a bloke.

Look around you, and any job you see that is predominantly done by young women wearing skimpy clothing is almost certainly a job that is done better by a young woman wearing skimpy clothing.

Hang on. Skimpy clad women are better at holding umbrellas than men? Or are you saying their job is something other than holding the umbrella? Maybe it’s a ceremonial role?

A bit like the football mascots then? Are you saying they should stop using local kids and start using scantily clad women?

When it’s purely because women’s rugby doesn’t get the respect and hence airtime and hence money that the men’s game does

That’s not why.

Similarly, the fact that there are far fewer women than men who earn their livelihoods playing sports can be viewed as an effect, rather than a cause, of lesser female sports interest. For example, the premier men’s basketball league in the U.S., the National Basketball Association (NBA), has sponsored a women’s professional league (WNBA) since 1997, and the attendance and viewership is a small fraction of the NBA’s and has not grown [114]. Similarly, in the late 1990s a magazine was launched called Sports Illustrated Women (SI Women). SI Women was targeted to appeal to girls and women who wanted follow high-level women’s sports in the way that Sports Illustrated caters to the interests of male sports fans. However, publication of SI Women ceased in 2002 because there was not a market to support it [115], [116]. Other magazines focusing on elite female athletes have also failed to gain large readerships [115].

Women’s sport doesn’t yield the same interest/coverage/sponsorship because they aren’t fanatical followers of sports like what men are. Again, testosterone has the answer. Support the winning team? Boom, collect 10 testosterones. Crushing defeat for your tribe again? Parking fine, pay 10 testosterones please 😆

BERNHARDT, P. C., J. M. DABBS, JR., J. A. FIELDEN, AND C. D. LUTTER. Testosterone changes during vicarious experiences of winning and losing among fans at sporting events. PHYSIOL BEHAV 65(1) 59–62, 1998.—Basking in reflected glory, in which individuals increase their self-esteem by identifying with successful others, is usually regarded as a cognitive process that can affect behavior. It may also involve physiological processes, including changes in the production of endocrine hormones. The present research involved two studies of changes in testosterone levels among fans watching their favorite sports teams win or lose. In the first study, participants were eight male fans attending a basketball game between traditional college rivals. In the second study, participants were 21 male fans watching a televised World Cup soccer match between traditional international rivals. Participants provided saliva samples for testosterone assay before and after the contest. In both studies, mean testosterone level increased in the fans of winning teams and decreased in the fans of losing teams. These findings suggest that watching one’s heroes win or lose has physiological consequences that extend beyond changes in mood and self-esteem.

This is plausible, but not relevant to the topic. As I said, even if that’s true, and MOST women want to stay home and not bother, it definitely isn’t true of all women. So why should those for whom it isn’t true have to struggle to do what they want? Why should that minority have to swim uphill to get even a small amount of the opportunity that men get? That is simply not fair.

My daughter for example is physically very powerful for her age. So let’s say she takes up rugby. She will never be a pro so she will have to work and train on the side, consequently she’ll never be as good as she could be, and things will be much harder. If I’d had a boy, he could have been pro.

That’s not fair is it? When it’s purely because women’s rugby doesn’t get the respect and hence airtime and hence money that the men’s game does.

And women’s cycling is even worse.

a) You’re arguing to reduce her options. b) You’ve got cause and effect mixed up. Broadly speaking airtime follows demand, airtime doesn’t create demand.

It is life, yes, and like many things in life it’s not great and we’d like.tnchamge it for the better.

You’re arguing to make it worse, not better. Your whole argument is to reduce options for women. You think women shouldn’t look at attractive women in Marie Claire, so you want to ban it. You want to ban posing on podiums.

This is all based on your own value system. You imposing what you think is best on women.

If women want to stop buying Marie Claire they will. They really don’t need you to force it on them.

Women’s sport doesn’t yield the same interest/coverage/sponsorship because they aren’t fanatical followers of sports like what men are. Again,

Many things are the issue, picking one sport there and a relatively short experiment into promotion is not that sound.
The UK and from what I have seen in the US are in a bit of a bubble. Take a look down here in Oz, Netball live on TV, Womens AFL – just launched and live on TV getting good viewing figures, Women’s Ashes delivering a massive increase in attendance and viewing, you have many other sports getting great viewing and participation and wins fought for just as hard as the men do.

But in reality

I’m mostly making this up as I go along to support what my gut instinct is so it’s going to take some polishing

This is probably the most accurate thing you have said.

Or are you saying their job is something other than holding the umbrella?

Yes. Their job is to get pictures and film of the event into the media. If it was just about umbrella holding they wouldn’t have a job and some grotty mechanic would be holding it.

[IMG]http://i68.tinypic.com/2e1x2dv.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/axed6d.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/2j1n0xe.jpg[/IMG]

Hang on. Skimpy clad women are better at holding umbrellas than men? Or are you saying their job is something other than holding the umbrella? Maybe it’s a ceremonial role?

Yes, in a way it is. The grid girl/monster girl/podium girl has to have the looks, approachable and happy demeanour to attract the cameras to her, to create brand exposure for the sponsors on her clothing.

So yes, the job is more than “just holding an umbrella” – it’s being the visible and desirable face of the brands she represents.

That may not be to your liking/morals, but doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

Sadly there’s not enough acceptance these days that people can have different opinions. Everything doesn’t have to be distilled into some back & white “right/wrong” polarity. But the internet seems to have destroyed people’s capacity to agree to disagree peacefully, and instead need to “win” arguments.

You’ve got cause and effect mixed up. Broadly speaking airtime follows demand, airtime doesn’t create demand.

You’ll have to back that up because I disagree.

Your whole argument is to reduce options for women. You think women shouldn’t look at attractive women in Marie Claire, so you want to ban it. You want to ban posing on podiums

What the ****? What total bollocks! I’ve not argued banning anything or reducing any women’s options. Women can work being ogled at as much as they like in women ogling shops. What I don’t want is event organisers to hire women to make the place look pretty whilst not giving a shit about women’s competition.

My whole argument is against things that reinforce sexist attitudes. Because subtle passive sexism reduces women’s options. I do not want to reduce women’s options and I don’t want anything banned.

You must be windinge up at this stage or something, I dunno how you can be this bad at making a point.

Maybe you should start again and set it out for me?

Sadly there’s not enough acceptance these days that people can have different opinions.

That’s just whining. You’re upset about being challenged.

But the internet seems to have destroyed people’s capacity to agree to disagree peacefully

Go through my posting history.

Yes. Their job is to get pictures and film of the event into the media. If it was just about umbrella holding they wouldn’t have a job and some grotty mechanic would be holding it.

Yep I can hear them at Sky/BBC/Various sports desks right now.
Lets have more of those 2 at the back of the grid I know they have no chance of winning but look at the _____

Really F1 needs them to spice it up a bit? Make it more interesting? Get more coverage?

Motor sport is one of the few sporting activities in which men and women can compete alongside each other on an equal footing, yet as they currently make up only eight per cent of registered licence holders, women are hugely under-represented among competitors.

Nonetheless, there are thousands of women actively involved in British motor sport, organising events, running clubs and associations, timekeeping, marshalling and fulfilling a host of other support roles without which the sport itself could not function.You wouldn’t think there was any women involved other than standing around looking pretty from this thread. Actual fact pit girls are in the minority.

You wouldn’t think there was any women involved other than standing around looking pretty from this thread. Actual fact pit girls are in the minority.

Perhaps the others need to flash a bit more flesh then and we would all know about them 🙄

What I don’t want is event organisers to hire women to make the place look pretty whilst not giving a shit about women’s competition.

My whole argument is against things that reinforce sexist attitudes. Because subtle passive sexism reduces women’s options. I do not want to reduce women’s options and I don’t want anything banned.

That doesn’t make sense. Organisers give a shit about what makes them cash. It’s a business. Susie Wolff clearly hasn’t felt disqualified from indulging her motor racing habit by the presence of grid girls any more than Hamilton would suddenly feel undermined by the Grid guy above.

Your whole argument is based on a smug opinion of what constitutes sexism. Paying a glamorous model a fair wage to enhance my brand is not inherently sexist. That’s the flaw in your logic. If nobody has been excluded from holding that position based on their gender then it’s not sexist.
By referring to it as ‘subtle’ or ‘passive’ you are just making excuses for the fact it’s just your opinion. It’s a business arrangement between the viewer, the sponsor, the team, the promoters and the model- beyond choosing not to watch, you have no grounds on which to object. You are simply being a bigot.

Perhaps the others need to flash a bit more flesh then and we would all know about them

Given the amount of posters who said they don’t even watch motorsport then I doubt it.

Take a look down here in Oz, Netball live on TV, Womens AFL – just launched and live on TV getting good viewing figures, Women’s Ashes delivering a massive increase in attendance and viewing, you have many other sports getting great viewing and participation and wins fought for just as hard as the men do.

But who’s watching? In Germany, 68% of the viewers of woman’s football are men. waiting for them to swap shirts at full time

It’s the audience demographic that drives sponsorship.

But who’s watching?

People, back to the old argument that you need x million viewers before you show it on TV. Who’s watching whatever repeated drivel is on sky sports 11 at the moment, they have the bandwidth to show repeats of dull games why not showcase a lot more.

The main reason seems to be not to offend men.

and so is:

(as has been pointed out repeatedly – but you guys like arguing that irrelevant point because it’s one where you feel on safe ground)

Hmm, so you’re saying that if it is something people have been excluded from based on their gender then it is sexist…

By referring to it as ‘subtle’ or ‘passive’ you are just making excuses for the fact it’s just your opinion.

Nope – it has also been explained repeatedly on this thread, I suggest you go and reread rather than make up your own interpretations of things to suit your agenda.

I wonder how the super feminists feel about fashion models, nude sculpture or paintings of the female form.

The idea that society can’t celebrate beauty and also promote gender equality is nonsense.

g5604 – Member

I wonder how the super feminists feel about fashion models, nude sculpture or paintings of the female form.

I won’t link them to my back catalogue of photographs then lol

Name all the famous female drivers who are role models for them then

that is so sexist – since when does a role model have to be the same sex as you are.

By referring to it as ‘subtle’ or ‘passive’ you are just making excuses for the fact it’s just your opinion.

Do you think it’s just me making this up? Do you think I just pulled this idea out of my arse one morning?

This discussion has been going on for quite a while…