[Closed] Podium Girls - do they still have a place at races - what do you think ?

TROLL IS A BIT STRONG. YOULL NEED TO BRAND 75% OF PEOPLE ON HERE OTHERWISE. IVE SAID NOTHING OFENSIVE OR NASTY SO CHILL OUT DUDE.

@faustus

I dont think it is that clear cut, [i]society [/i]develops over many hundreds of generations, as has our intellect and emotional awareness. And stereotypes are normally developed through observation (and then extrapolation).

A stereotype doesn't preclude the possibility that it is untrue, but if it wasn't observable it wouldn't become a stereotype.

Stereotypes of gender roles in society are created by the society itself

But where did it come from in that society?
The very deep question is what drove that development in society in the first place, at some point this bias was either [i]there [/i]or started to develop, why was it not challenged at the time?

If you go back to 'year zero' as it were, did society develop with a male bias due to a physical or emotional difference in the sexes? (that may or may not be as prevalent in modern times)

Did it [i]naturally [/i]develop, or was it [i]imposed [/i] (presumably due to male thuggery and physical dominance?) or some other reason.

Certainly societal gender stereotyping [i]perpetuates [/i]the bias and that can and should be challenged, but if you could wipe the societal stereotypes out and start again, would we end up in the same position due to some baser instinct, or would modern humans with their more advanced intellect logical reasoning develop a different and more equal society?

I appreciate I've veered off topic, but this is always a topic that has fascinated me, possibly as a result of coming from a family where my mother was the high earner/provider and essentially alpha-parent, and it seemed at odds with most of my peers of the time, but still certain traits specific to the sexes would be apparent.

[i]CHILL OUT DUDE[/i]

says the man, shouting.

i forgot to turn caps off lol. i humbly apologise. check my post before and youll see i was using them. 😳

alpinestar = Neanderthal man although that was picked up a few pages back in this thread. Guess you don't like wimminz on here either.

C_G, do you not get the irony of your generalisations about "neanderthal men".

50 shades of grey, magic mike XXL, Colin Firth in a wet shirt in P&P. All that 'mummmy porn' objectifies men.It's not a bad thing though, its just a thing.

Neanderthal womman clearly had a thing for objectifying mens bodies to.

[img]

http://www.britainexplorer.com/images/article_images/The_Top_Ten_Geoglyphs/cerne-abbas-giant-geoglyph.jp g" rel="nofollow" >

I think v8ninety unwittingly highlights precisely why society is gender biased in favour of men. It's nothing to do with genetic or biological differences, because these have absolutely nothing to do with people's ability to fulfil any role in society.

EDIT; I should have just written; 'what Amedius said' and saved myself five minutes...

amedias: It's fascinating to me too. You should read that Economist "Manhood" essay I linked to.

It is an interesting point. I don't think society has developed in a linear way, and there may have been times when things were more equal. But I think societal stereotypes have come from male dominance (in all its forms) and the kind of society that is build to best serve that dominance. That societal bias has been part of its development over generations, and the reason why it is so ingrained and therefore so difficult to change. It has not been challenged before, because the status quo very much suited those who benefitted from the imbalance. I don't think the cause of the initial bias matters so much as the anckowledment that it should change..?

Amedias and v8 - it is interesting that this is where the debate has ended up at least! I think in essence I mean that 'nature' has perhaps been given to much weight in the argument, and should not get in the way of what 'nurture' has the power to do...

C_G, do you not get the irony of your generalisations about "neanderthal men".

50 shades of grey, magic mike XXL, Colin Firth in a wet shirt in P&P. All that 'mummmy porn' objectifies men.It's not a bad thing though, its just a thing.

Neanderthal womman clearly had a thing for objectifying mens bodies to.

tinas - I've lived through the 70's where sexism and racism was rife and thankfully there have been improvements. Whilst the world has at long last woken up to the fact that women enjoy sex/watch p0rn/use sex toys, it still doesn't alter the fact that sexism still exists and doesn't appear to be going away any time soon.

thanks for than nedrapier, I'll check it out when I have time to read it properly 🙂

I don't think the cause of the initial bias matters so much as the anckowledment that it should change..?

I think in essence I mean that 'nature' has perhaps been given to much weight in the argument, and should not get in the way of what 'nurture' has the power to do...

I don't disagree that change should happen, and the status quo should be challenged, but I think a proper understanding of the reasons it exists, both minor and major would better equip us to drive that change.

For example, if we were to assume that it is say 90% nurture and that nature only has a bit part in it all, we'd could put all our efforts into trying to challenge the societal aspects, and then find ourselves totally scuppered if nature actually plays a larger part than we thought.

Likewise if we were to assume the reverse and try to tackle the nature (how?) we might find that society continues to produce the imbalance.

I guess I'm just fascinated by it in general, and believe that a fuller understanding would be beneficial to all in both appreciating how we got to the stage we're at, and also how to go about changing it.

The thought that worries me most is that sexism and gender imbalance might be fundamentally ingrained in us as a species at a biological level, which would be a terrible (but not unexpected if you look wider in nature) thing for us as a society as it will mean a perpetual and very difficult uphill battle.

For now I choose the believe (hope!) that this is not the case and that equality of opportunity* for all is a real possibility.

* I will always refer to this specifically as then it does not preclude the possibility that there is some natural balance or predisposition for one gender to take a majority in one particular area of society, but by choice rather than imposed, and without barriers to those who choose an alternative.

This is the current type of grid girl outfit in F1 (Canadian GP a week or so ago)
[img] [/img]

Now, that's clear progress from the bikini clad models we've looked at but they're still just there as objects I reckon though not overtly sexu@l ones as in our cycling example.

I think the suggestion of kids is generally a good one though maybe parading around racing cars wouldn't be ideal from a safety/practical perspective.

Now, that's clear progress from the bikini clad models we've looked at but they're still just there as objects I reckon though not overtly sexu@l ones as in our cycling example.

Well I expect that for some people, a woman hidden under a tarp would be sufficient so long as they knew she was under there but...

50 shades of grey, magic mike XXL, Colin Firth in a wet shirt in P&P. All that 'mummmy porn' objectifies men.It's not a bad thing though, its just a thing.

There is a huge difference between writing erotic fiction and simply using women as eye candy for something completely unrelated.

v8 - you say that men *tend* towards x and women y - that's fine, that may or may not be true, but that does NOT mean anyone is allowed to make generalisations based on those tendencies because there will always be many many exceptions. If you allow generalisations then the many women who are athletic and competitive will end up being given the shitty end of the stick - as they are already.

Let's say 80% of women don't care about competitive sport and 80% of men do - should you give the remaining women only 25% of the funding that men get? 25% of the exposure? Should there be 25% of the teams in the league?

No - equal OPPORTUNITY is vital. Kids need to be shown that they CAN do the things they want to do regardless of what gender they are. So what if fewer women take up whatever sport it is - the opportunity needs to be there. It's another example of why pure market forces are not good enough.

How many kids haven't pursued something they were good at because they didn't feel comfortable doing it, becuase it made them feel out of place, because none of their friends were interested in it or thought it was a bit weird? Lots, I'll bet.

There was an advert on telly a while back for something fairly commerical, forget what, but it showed a girl being good at running as a kid then becoming a housewife and finally seeing her own daughter succeed as an athlete.. hugely moving.. anyone got a clip?

EDIT may have strayed off-topic a little here, but it's about subversive sexism which is the consequence of generalising based on gender.

Kids on the podium is a great idea, how inspiring.

All this 'fundamental laws of nature' stuff is garbage. Give people the opportunities and you'll likely find that the cap fits them nicely, whatever the cap happens to be- sport, education, research, commerce, whatever.

All this 'fundamental laws of nature' stuff is garbage.

Dunno about "all". [i]Generally[/i], men fancy women and women fancy men. We'd be pretty stuffed as a species if that wasn't the case.

Mol, I don't disagree with a word of that. And I wouldn't go as far to to say that my mind is made up on the nature vs nurture argument either; I used to be a strong believer in societal/parental influence, but having watched my two boys and my partners girl grow up, I've realised that it's not as simple as that...

OK, all of you spouting the genetics crap (pushing me so close to a Godwin's law moment). Say I have a daughter, say she wants to do something SOCIETY (sexist, remember) says is for men. When exactly do you imagine I'll have the conversation with her that she can't possibly do said activity as, being a girl, she is genetically disadvantaged in that regard.

Now switch it round, say I have a son, and he wants to do something SOCIETY says is for girls. Will genetics come in to it? No...

The whole genetic argument comes to the conclusion that women are WEAKER than men, never the other way round...

All this 'fundamental laws of nature' stuff is garbage

I think to dismiss genetic and natural differences as garbage is as dangerous as making generalisations based on societal conditioning.

There [b][i]are [/i][/b]differences, whether or not they influence societal outcomes and to what extent is what is up for debate, discussion and influencing.

Nature will play a part in what your life goals, strengths and weaknesses are, there's no argument that there are exceptions within both genders, but there are some traits which are more prevalent in one than the other, this is NOT BAD in and of itself, it's when we allow society to build rules and expectations and coercions based on the traits rather than the individual that we have a problem.

It is OK to expect that if you view society as a whole that some roles will show a larger proportion of women than men.

It is not OK to expect that 'a' man or 'a' woman will take on those roles simply [i]because [/i]they are a man/woman.

The key message is that nobody should be pushed into or excluded from any avenue based on that societal conditioning or gender stereotyping.

The whole genetic argument comes to the conclusion that women are WEAKER than men, never the other way round...

It really really doesn't!

When it does, that is the result of a societal bias, exactly what you are arguing is the problem.

The fact that there are physical and genetic differences is neither a problem nor a barrier, but how society interprets those difference is 100% the problem.

Go back to year-zero situations for example:

It is obvious how some stereotypes have developed.

- Women can bear children, men can't
- While women are heavily pregnant and for a while after giving birth they are less physically capable, can't farm, can't forage, can't hunt.
- In a small family unit or small tribe this task falls to those who can, the males.

Bang! beginning of societal stereotype with women as the at home mother, and man as the provider.

This was not a result of a sexist oppression, this was nature.

Right now we are in a position as a society where we s people are numerous enough, and diverse enough that on a practical level, the male can stay at home raising children just as easily as the female, and since hunting and farming and manual labour are less of a requirement, moder family life can be provided for just as easily by the female as the male.

But the societal pressures and stereotyping continue to exist, but they did not start from there, it started due to a natural and genetic difference.

To deny that is to deny how we ended up where we are, and if you don't fully understand or accept the reason why some things are so deeply ingrained in us as a species it makes it much harder to change it.

But it should change.

It's very subtle though, fin25. Deny people the opportunities and many won't necessarily even know what they are missing. The hard conversation you talk about maybe never happens since the person has picked up that the activity is not for them. Would a 10 year old girl watch MOTO GP or that podium in Belgium or similar and think 'yup, that looks right up my street'? They might just go and do something else which is deemed 'right' for them.

Amedias, clearly I was writing in the context of the discussion, I do not need schooled on men/women being different. Deny opportunities then blame the inevitable results on fundamental natural preferences = garbage, for clarity.

Fin25 I think you've missed the point entirely. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that either gender is more or less suited to any modern day roles. But to not recognise that there are definite biological differences between the sexes is to wildly oversimplify the issue.

Out of interest, do you have children? Only my views changed markedly after ha I got mine.

Edit; what Amedias said, again. He (she? 😉 ) must have a lot more time on his hands this morning than I...

A useful summary of the genetic argument and why it is wrong:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/15/girls-boys-think-same-way

The genetic/biological/'nature' argument is less up for debate than should be believed, as life goals/strengths and weaknesess/traits are way, way more socially conditioned than they are by biological factors.

The genetic/biological/'nature' argument is less up for debate than should be believed, as life goals/strengths and weaknesess/traits are way, way more socially conditioned than they are by biological factors.

I agree on that aspect, but I think the societal conditioning stems from much more basic physical differences that go back further in time than we realise.

At a biological level the genders have no difference mentally, but the societal conditioning started so many generations ago it manifests itself as though there is a difference.

We train the differences in as a society, but when and why did we first start doing that?

Shame we don't have a reset button to start again properly 🙁

Can I move the debate on from the suggestion of kids instead of girlies, and suggest.... tigers.

They're majestic creatures, and lets be honest.... trophy cermonies are incredibly tedius affairs, so the addition of a potenially hungry predator with huge claws and razor sharp tetth could greatly enliven proceedings

Or even better - stage some kind of circus - Neanderthals vs Tigers.

Comedy gold. Still cannot believe that the "I'm normal and like to look at the women but not if it as my daughter" comment was still a justifiable argument. I think I last heard that one late 70's early 80's. As earlier, great satire.

If sex sells stuff, the stuff aint worth it. I suspect thought marketing has developed somewhat in the last few years.

Enjoy the future everyone, it's going to be really, really stupid.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Ok, I'll withdraw the marketing has developed comment.

Where can I get that rather attractive chapstick?
It may sell better if the tube was carbon look a like.

@fin25, to some degree you seem to be attacking those of us discussing nature vs nurture as if we do not agree with you.

We do agree that we live in a fundamentally sexist society.

We're trying to discuss [i]how [/i]that happened, we all know it did, and we all know that it continues to do so, we also all agree that it needs to change, but part of driving that change requires us to understand how it happened in order to address that cause.

We did not simply one day as a species/society 'decide' to be sexist, it developed over time, and the why and how is important to drive the change.

If it is 100% society created then when do you think our society 'became' sexist and imbalanced?

Was there an imbalance at the very beginnings of society with small nomadic hunter/gatherer groups?

When and why did it 'start' so to speak?

The one thing this thread has done is provide me with more food for thought and a few more articles and topics to read up on, as ever my mind is open and intrigued...

If you're trying to sell clothes, make up, or similar aesthetic related stuff then yes I can see the reason for having nice looking men/women modelling the merchandise. But WTF does a bike/car race or any other sporting event need models for? Prize giving or brolly holding 🙄 should be done by people involved/interested in the sport not by someone paid to stand there and look nice (male or female).

But to not recognise that there are definite biological differences between the sexes is to wildly oversimplify the issue

There may be statistical variations in the populations of male and female. But there are also statistical variations between people within each gender. The variations between individuals are so great as to drown out any tendencies based on gender. In other words, for every competitive man I'll show you a competitive woman, for every sensitive woman I'll show you a sensitive man*.

Do you not see how dangerous it is to use gender differences (IF they exist) for any kind of marketing or planning? It creates stereotypes, and stereotypes create prejudice. Statistically and historically, girls might play with princess dolls. So companies create girly marketing based on princess, and produce princess marketing. Now you come and explain to my tearful three year old why there are no superhero knickers in the shop in her size but tons of princess ones. What's she going to take away from that? That some things are for girls only and some things for boys only.

We ordered some boys superhero ones from the website. Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, the Flash - no ****ing Wonderwoman 👿

I've got two girls, 3 and 6, even at this age we're constantly having to explain to them that there's no such thing as girly things or boy things. Why there are no women on telly playing football (until the WC was on), driving fast cars or playing rugby. Constantly having to fight against marketers telling them that the pricess crap is for them and the superheros that they love are for boys. Heartbreaking at times.

* gender stereotyping cuts both ways, incidentally. There are a fair few women out there who think that all men are philandering beer swilling football watching thoughtless scumbags. I'm frequently stereotyped, only difference is it doesn't affect my career. Or self esteem, because these things are just laughed off. Boys will be boys, they say 🙄

As interesting as that article is, I'm unconvinced. It fails to address the differences in character that develop during and after puberty, driven by hormones.

It fails to address the differences in character that develop during and after puberty

We are not our hormones FFS! You're stereotyping us all right now!

Testosterone might promote certain behaviour, but you can't label all men beacuse they have it.

All that stuff aside - podiums are the public display of a sport, those are the pics that go in the papers and on the news websites, that is what the general public sees.

And on that theme - why are the mens podiums always last ? I used to do the women last when I had the power to decide - show that the women's race is just as important, and some respect for the female athletes.

And I gave Jenny Copnall the number one plate at the national champs a few years ago, as defending female national champ. The commissaire spent ages trying to find a rule that said I couldn't do that and came up with "it is tradition that the male champion gets the number one plate". Well tough. Jenny seemed pretty happy.

I mentioned this to a friend (who has represented Britain at Olympic level) who came up with "but if you do the women's podium last people might leave" which had never really occurred to me. And is sad.

Look at Tracy Moseley and her huge and sustained success internationally. Her race is less important ?

Anyways this thread has been very interesting - thanks !

"but if you do the women's podium last people might leave"

We are not our hormones FFS! You're stereotyping us all right now!

Not that only thinking of these two hormones isn't a gender-stereotype driven oversimplification, but an added fun complexity is that in functioning normally our bodies convert testosterone and oestrogen into each other 😀

There are a fair few women out there who think that all men are philandering beer swilling football watching thoughtless scumbags.

hels - Member

And on that theme - why are the mens podiums always last ? I used to do the women last when I had the power to decide - show that the women's race is just as important, and some respect for the female athletes.

Friend of mine raced leogang wc the other day, I don't usually pay much attention to anything but the podiums so I'd never noticed before just how hard it is to find the full womens' results. Like, going on mtb news websites and clicking "full results" and getting hundreds of dudes and the top 5 women. FOR SOME REASON.

Behaviour at puberty has no bearing on the societal sexism applied from birth. Society also frames behaviour to meet its own sterotyping needs...

And don't start me on Cove and their oo-er phnar phnar aren't we naughty bike names. Cos the sport really needs more sexual references.

I stickered over my Hooker to say Librarian. The big bike brands do themselves no favours in the middle aged spinster market, and that's a huge demographic.

[i]The big bike brands do themselves no favours in the middle aged spinster market, and that's a huge demographic.[/i]

*likes*

The big bike brands do themselves no favours in the middle aged spinster market, and that's a huge demographic.

😆

I have been thinking for a while that it is time motorsport (and other sports) ditched this practice. When you see the F1 drivers going up to the podium flanked by lots of pretty women it just seems a bit wrong. They have a job to do in hospitality, displaying drvier names etc but why can't that job also be performed by men? I don't think it would go amiss to have a mixture of grid women and men.

At the weekend I saw a friend tagged in FB photo (he works for Monster Energy) which was an overhead shot of the Monster Compound at the Moto GP in Spain. It was of an enclosed area (high railings that look like bars) with the monster girls in but at the front middle was a pool in front of the fence with the girls in bikinis. There was a 10-12 row deep crowd of mainly men trying to get a look/photo and it just struck me as a bit sad that we still have this kind of thing.