[Closed] F1 Grid Girls under review

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

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?

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 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 😆

[quote=rene59 ]If you think I'm going back to read all this pish again then you really don't know me!

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.

[quote=molgrips ]I've already explained my position. Did you not read it?

😆

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 😆

[quote=crosshair ]No- I wasn't. I've always been talking about competition.

Sorry, you confused me by writing:

[quote=crosshair ]I contest that the more risk involved, the lower the percentage of women participants there will ever be.

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 [s]bit[/s]lot 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.

[quote=outofbreath ]

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.

...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.

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?

[b]No.[/b]

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 [b]no[/b], 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 a[b]ny job you see that is predominantly done by young women wearing skimpy clothing[/b] 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 [b]respect[/b] 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,

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

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://i67.tinypic.com/2uizy14.jpg [/IMG][IMG] http://i64.tinypic.com/axed6d.jpg [/IMG][IMG] http://i63.tinypic.com/116ozkm.jpg [/IMG][IMG] http://i64.tinypic.com/2j1n0xe.jpg [/IMG][IMG] http://i68.tinypic.com/2nvbekp.jp g" target="_blank">http://i68.tinypic.com/2e1x2dv.jpg [/IMG][IMG] http://i67.tinypic.com/2uizy14.jpg [/IMG][IMG] http://i64.tinypic.com/axed6d.jpg [/IMG][IMG] http://i63.tinypic.com/116ozkm.jpg [/IMG][IMG] http://i64.tinypic.com/2j1n0xe.jpg [/IMG][IMG] http://i68.tinypic.com/2nvbekp.jp g"/> [/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.

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.

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

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. [s]waiting for them to swap shirts at full time[/s]

It's the audience demographic that drives sponsorship.

But who's watching?

The main reason seems to be not to offend men.

[quote=outofbreath ]You think women shouldn't look at attractive women in Marie Claire, so you want to ban it.

[img] [/img]

and so is:

[quote=crosshair ]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.

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

[quote=crosshair ]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.

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...

In this context- yes. You seem to have adopted 'socially oppressed victims of sexism' as a family badge of honour.

Scantily clad grid girls are not stopping women from driving racing cars.
Removing grids girls won't promote female racers.

There are very good evolutionary reasons why society has eveolved in the way it has. Banning stuff a few snowflakes find offfensive will not undo this.

In a free society, the ratio of women to men in some things will be 80/20 and in another it may be 20/80.

There will never be a huge percentage of women motor racers- it just doesn't scratch their itch like it does for men. This is not sexist- it's genetic. As long as the ones that do endeavour to compete are encouraged equally and treated fairly then it's not sexist.

Scantily clad grid girls do not prove that aspiring female race drivers are having to overcome unnecessary hurdles.

Of course it bloody does!

There are very good evolutionary reasons why society has eveolved in the way it has.

We dont have pit girls for evolutionary reasons anymore than we have the internet and trolls* for evolutionary reasons. you seem to think every aspect of social life is for evolutionary reasons, its not. I have no idea why you would think this or think its a reasonable answer to every problem posed to you. Have you got an evolutionary reasons for why we evolved to side step questions by simply saying evolution innit ? 😉

Scantily clad grid girls do not prove that aspiring female race drivers are having to overcome unnecessary hurdles.

* I am not accusing you of trolling but we cannot fall back on hard to prove evolutionary reasons for any behaviour we currently observe in humanity

I think it's all too easy to blame "society", "the patriachy" etc etc. Start closer to home. Give your daughters a wide range of experiences, be proactive, tell her she can be whatever she wants to be whether it's a grid girl, a scientist, an air hostess,an engineer or whatever, then FOLLOW THROUGH. When she finds something she enjoys and is good at, go all in to help her achieve her dream. Stop looking to someone else to "permit" it.

Creating a constant negative narrative of "society stops you" etc is hardly an empowering and encouraging way to motivate someone is it?

apart form the hurdle where their only role in the sport is to be the scantily clad girl.

And yet the Woman In Motorsport ambassador who has actually driven at the top level of motorsport thinks otherwise.

You know you had to use both the singular and use the past tense for her driving dont you.

Junkyard- Of course we can- evolution hasn't stopped!

It's my own idea yes but it doesn't take much googling to back it up.

You honestly think there's no genetic pay off for a woman looking glamorous? The reason a predominantly male sport with a male fan base is enhanced by the presence of attractive women is the epitome of the evolution explanation! It's just designed to further enhance the testosterone boost you get as a male fan when your team wins by association. (See stuff I linked earlier)

Where does freedom of choice come into this? Have the grid girls been coerced or press-ganged into the role? Are they able to say 'yes' or 'no' to the job vacancy? Are they remunerated to a level which they individually find acceptable?

Are the Chippendales still going? Have any of you been to one of their shows? The objectification there makes the grid girl issue an interesting one.

The ladies are not scantily clad. They have a shirt and a top on. You see their arms and a bit above the knee. I see more skin on triathlete males

evolution hasn't stopped!

You honestly think there's no genetic pay off for a woman looking glamorous?

Have you got an evolutionary reason for why you never address the point made and simply deliver bucket loads of straw?

There are very good evolutionary reasons why society has eveolved in the way it has.

Are the Chippendales still going? Have any of you been to one of their shows? The objectification there makes the grid girl issue an interesting one.

[img] [/img]

The argument is not that modeling, stripping, porn or whatever is wrong (that's a different topic). The point is about grid girls.

Tits and ass (and willies if that's your thing too) are awesome. If people want to exchange money to see them that's fine.

The problem is when a TV spectacle seen by millions of kids is as polarised as it is. Then people grow up with attitudes like:

There are very good evolutionary reasons why society has eveolved in the way it has. Banning stuff a few snowflakes find offfensive will not undo this.

I'm pretty sure just paraphrased the Confederacy's justification for slavery.

[quote=g5604 ]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.

[quote=slackalice ]Are the Chippendales still going? Have any of you been to one of their shows? The objectification there makes the grid girl issue an interesting one.

I reckon I'm going to get a whole field full of strawmen out of this thread

In various states of undress, for your pleasure, for evolutionary reasons 😉

apart form the hurdle where their only role in the sport is to be the scantily clad girl.

We dont have pit girls for evolutionary reasons anymore than we have the internet and trolls* for evolutionary reasons. you seem to think every aspect of social life is for evolutionary reasons, its not. I have no idea why you would think this or think its a reasonable answer to every problem posed to you. Have you got an evolutionary reasons for why we evolved to side step questions by simply saying evolution innit ?

I think there are quite obvious evolutionary undertones to nearly everything we do. I've backed this up with some links that agree.

I don't think motorsport needs to change because for the reasons I've explained at length already, it's not ever going to be a level playing field. Women just don't care about participating in and following motorsport in the same way.

It's not sexist for a sport to be male dominated in participation and presentation if it's statistically done and followed mainly by men!!

You moral crusaders are only seeking to tidy it up to fit your own flawed assumptions.

[quote=crosshair ]I don't think motorsport needs to change because for the reasons I've explained at length already, it's not ever going to be a level playing field. Women just don't care about participating in and following motorsport in the same way.

Woo, another one for my field

It's not sexist for a sport to be male dominated in participation and presentation if it's statistically done and followed mainly by men!!

So if a sport is male dominated in participation and support, let's not bother to do anything at all to change that, because you might upset all those red blooded real men who follow it?

Women just don't care about participating in and following motorsport in the same way.

Some women do. This is the while problem right here. You think you know what all women want and are prepared to defend the decisions of men about women.

SOME women do want to compete. But they don't get a fair crack of the whip (thinking cycling mainly here) just because men like you think that they don't deserve one.

Men are in control here aren't they?

Are the Chippendales still going? Have any of you been to one of their shows? The objectification there makes the grid girl issue an interesting one.

Well no, because a strip show is purely for that purpose. You only go if you want to see scantily clad men.

F1 is supposed to be a sport, not a T&A show. If it wants to be that, it can GTFO the telly.

SOME women do want to compete. But they don't get a fair crack of the whip (thinking cycling mainly here) just because men like you think that they don't deserve one.

Men are in control here aren't they?

Yes men ARE in charge here. The dads.

If my daughter wanted to do something where there was a perceived blocker, I could either cry about society, the patriachy and oppression, or step up and get the blocker out of the way.

I think there are quite obvious evolutionary undertones to nearly everything we do. I've backed this up with some links that agree.

That assumption is deeply flawed as well. Much of what we do is socialisation, culture, history etc hence why we have such diversity in human beings, attitudes and culture, the world over, yet all are still evolving. Not everything is an ESS.

You moral crusaders are only seeking to tidy it up to fit your own flawed assumptions.

there will now be joey essex's walking around the pits taking pout selfies of themselves, while wearing a pair of jeans that cuts the blood off to their testes

Right as fun as this has been, I'm going to knock down some of those strawmen in an attempt to move this debate on:

1) Nobody is suggesting that there will ever be a 50/50 split in drivers on the F1 grid - we all agree that women aren't naturally so predisposed to sport.

2) Nobody is suggesting that the grid girls are a direct impediment to women who are already racing cars getting a F1 drive.

3) The existence of scantily clad women (or men) in situations where the whole point is scantily clad women or men (ie burlesque shows, womens magazines etc.) is irrelevant.

anybody using one of those lazy arguments is going to get referred back to this post

I could either cry about society, the patriachy and oppression, or step up and get the blocker out of the way

Some women do

Yes and they are able to progress as far as they their ability takes them. The lack of F1 professional drivers is nothing more than a statistical fact.
F1 is not broken.

...and as a supplementary for those using such arguments, the actual point is as follows:

We're not expecting a 50/50 split, simply at not discouraging those smaller % of women who are interested in such things (the lower % of women interested in such things doesn't mean that none are)

Grid girls aren't a direct impediment, it's more subtle than that (way too subtle for some of you lot who just like to look at pretty girls). What they are is part of a theme which implies that women's role is to stand around and look pretty (yes I do follow motorsport, I know about Claire Williams*, but she is a rarity like Susie, most of the presented image of women in F1 is them standing around looking pretty).

* being a red blooded male with certain fairly normal tastes I appreciate the presence of Claire Williams - it's not about suppressing such feelings

[quote=crosshair ]Yes and they are able to progress as far as they their ability takes them. The lack of F1 professional drivers is nothing more than a statistical fact.
F1 is not broken.

Well that didn't take long http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/f1-grid-girls-under-review/page/9#post-8912297 point 2

I wish you the very best in overcoming the sexism inherent in society - let us know when you have defeated it all will you?

I'm not talking about changing society. I'm talking about proactive parenting and ensuring nothing holds my kids back from pursuing what they want.

If everyone got their head down and dealt with the micro level things like empowering their own children, rather than virtue signalling, we'd have a stronger society where people felt able to do what they wanted, if they found their niche and worked hard, supported by their parents.

The fact that this whole debate revolves round f1 is a bit bizarre really..

Molgrips house in ten years time when grid girls have been banned..

'daddy...can I be an f1 driver one day.. There's no reason that a woman couldn't be successful in this sport, and you have always tought me that about gender bias etc etc.. Can I give it a go?'

Molgrips.. 'don't be daft... It's ridiculously expensive and normal people can't afford it... .'

'but daddy.. You said I could do anything I wanted...'

Molgrips..'hang on a moment darling.. Let me quickly log in to stw and try to get rich people banned....'

Exactly.
Let's say I have a son and a daughter both interested in becoming an F1 driver. In what way would my daughter face greater obstacles than my son?

[quote=andyrm ]I'm not talking about changing society. I'm talking about proactive parenting and ensuring nothing holds my kids back from pursuing what they want.

Good luck with equal opportunities for your kids who didn't go to Eton and Oxbridge - you're right, no need to change society.

If everyone got their head down and dealt with the micro level things like empowering their own children, rather than virtue signalling, we'd have a stronger society where people felt able to do what they wanted, if they found their niche and worked hard, supported by their parents.

Are supporting your kids and wanting to change society mutually exclusive? Though you win a special prize for distilling the argument about casual sexism down to "virtue signalling".

[quote=crosshair ]Exactly.
Let's say I have a son and a daughter both interested in becoming an F1 driver. In what way would my daughter face greater obstacles than my son?

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/f1-grid-girls-under-review/page/9#post-8912297 point 2

This thread would be two pages long if all the straw men posts were removed

In what way would my daughter face greater obstacles than my son?

I'm not talking about changing society.

I could either cry about society, the patriachy and oppression, or step up and get the blocker out of the way

If a young girl looked at F1 and decided that due to seeing grid girls the only role for her was as a grid girl then she likely isn't going to be cut out for F1 racing anyway.

Oops forgot one:

4) Nobody is suggesting grid girls directly makes other girls think that is their only possible role, it's more subtle than that

[quote=Junkyard ]This thread would be two pages long if all the straw men posts were removed

How about if you also removed all [s]my[/s] the posts pointing out the straw men?

Good luck with equal opportunities for your kids who didn't go to Eton and Oxbridge - you're right, no need to change society.

Here's where the bullshit "inequality" thing falls down mate.

We weren't wealthy (both parents came from northern council estates but worked hard to give us a better life than they had).

My youngest sister showed great aptitude for science, my parents pushed school and sixth form teachers & heads of department hard on a weekly basis to ensure she got the level of support she needed. She then got a scholarship to Cambridge to read natural sciences on the basis of her results and aptitude. She's now based in Switzerland working as a material science researcher at a spin off from the university of Zurich.

Did we have any advantage? No. She got there because my parents identified their kid was good at something and did whatever it took and broke down barriers to achieve it. Nothing to do with society, privilege or anything else.

My point is that it's too easy to blame "society" or other bogeymen and spend time and effort complaining about it, when that energy could be better spent dealing at a micro level. Personal responsibility for you and yours.

F1 is supposed to be a sport, not a T&A show.

F1 is a vehicle (SWIDTSTW?!) for the purpose of making money from danger, testosterone, glamour, vanity, noise, speed and multi-millionaire aspirations.

From the vendors of drinking water to the paid orange-u-tan pseudo-groupies, from the branded spanners to the Gillette-ad-looking drivers. All simply a supporting cast to generate cash from punters and for sponsors. It's a perfect circle, and it will go around and around for as long as it continues to attract the teams and punters. The status quo is a massive earner. See also other 'sports'.

One might as well argue that the Big Brother show is 'supposed to be a social experiment'' 😉

Sport has winners and losers. But remember, 'everyone's a winner' at the fairground. Just like the man says.

*Edit - and this: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/nov/29/formula-one-toto-wolff-criticse-all-women-series-plans

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

I suggest you read any variety if research in socio-economic advantage and outcomes.

Did we have any advantage? No. She got there because my parents identified their kid was good at something and did whatever it took and broke down barriers to achieve it. Nothing to do with society, privilege or anything else.

Well apart from the advantage of good parents, who worked hard ,strived and pushed for her

And this is what we should be focusing on. Making parents understand the importance of striving, pushing and supporting their own kids, not expecting society to hold doors open.

All 3 of us have done well in our respective and vastly different fields because we were taught that we could do whatever we wanted, and that we'd be supported if we worked hard at it.

WHOOSH