[Closed] F1 Grid Girls under review

Men and women are not intrinsically motivated in the same ways.

See the problem in this sentence?

You said 'Men are this' and 'Women are that'.

So maybe 80% of women aren't motivated to compete. Fine, whatever, that's up to you. But the other 20% shouldn't be dissuaded because of that. THIS is the problem. And this cuts both ways - for every gifted woman footballer who ends up giving up on her dreams there's a male builder who always wanted to be a florist but felt the banter of his mates cut a little too deeply.

Gender equality is not the only thing that suffers with social pressure. Look at homosexuality.

We were brought up to believe we could do what we wanted, and whatever path that was, we should aim to be the best we can at it. Whether that's sales, science, a binman or whatever. Be the best at the thing you choose to do and are good at.

Right, but what you are told and what you see all around you are two different things. This is the key point. There's no point saying you can be whatever you want, when you're conditioned not to want it.

I notice it's the men giving this argument of 'we can do whatever we want'. Maybe it's the men who feel they can more than the women? Why did my wife never realise she would be a good engineer? She never identified with that kind of career.

But do you not think you're conditioning your kids to look down on a job/person, because in your opinion it shouldn't exist?

No. People can model, people can be porn stars, whatever. You should be empowered to do what you want to do. But the F1 organisers shouldn't hire women to be totty.

Formula One is a joke, a circus; it seems so distant, so far removed from real life that it's odd that this has even come up.

I think if the discussion was about a proper sport that normal people do then the question would hold some merit.

But it's men being paid millions to drive a car worth millions round a track that cost millions in some exotic location that none of us will ever see. It's a fantasy world. Looking to Formula One for morality is bizarre.

Would I object to my currently 3 year old daughter wanting to be a grid girl/monster girl? Nope. I've always taught her she can do what she wants. If it makes her happy, fair play.

That's my view. I don't see it as being any different to being a dancer or a jobbing actor getting one gig a year working in Panto. By which I mean if you to work in entertainment/performing arts you have to take whatever vaguely 'theatrical' work is available, and for 99.9pc of people in the industry that isn't going to be Beatrice in Much Ado About Nothing. (I saw two ballerinas today busking.)

I'd have thought being a podium girl is more rewarding and better paid than many jobs.

The transaction is different with acting or dancing or even porn. In a strip club, you pay to go in and see strippers. They take your money in exchange for something, a skilled performance that you've specifically gone in for.

In F1, it's about racing, but they've adorned it with girls to titillate the men who are watching it. The women aren't the focus of the transaction, they're just there to sweeten it. The women are peripheral to the men.

The problem isn't the girls who are doing it, it's the organisers who have defined the job.

Yes - so as girls grow up they feel like the sport's not for them. Why is this? Maybe it's because society conditions them this way?

My personal opinion, not backed up by anything I've read, is that puberty kicks in and their imperatives change. It's not an evolutionary sound strategy for women to risk their limited stash of eggs in an ego fuelled peacock display.

Ok - so the women don't like to compete thing.

Why are there so many women in athletics or tennis? Running clubs seem to have plenty of women in them from what I can tell. But cycling clubs - not so much. If what you were saying were true it would be the case across the board. But it seems to me that more young women are more likely to be able to see themselves doing a sport that already has lots of women doing it. And the clubs and events therefore also have a decent gender balance and that makes it more likely that more women will continue to join. How many times have you read women on this forum saying they're put off by the male domination?

How many times have you said 'yeah, I can see myself doing that' ? You make decisions based on how you view yourself.

I would wear skirts and dresses if they made them for men's bodies, and they were accepted by society. They fact they aren't is another example of gender segregation isn't it? What's your point?

If you felt that strongly you could have them custom made. For society to deem it acceptable someone has to start. Why not you? Oh that's right, it's easier to pick on someone else minding their own business doing something they love. You all like to talk the talk but don't walk the walk. It's more of an example of demand as oppossed to segregation. Same way that most cycling shops don't stock much in the way of 48" waist shorts. It's not to reinforce stereotypes that cyclists are all skinny.

No, but it's a step down the road towards erasing society's gender bias. My wife would've made a great engineer. But she was brought up in a family that were still passively embedded in traditional gender roles without realising it, and even at the same time as overtly trying to promote equality. They didn't stop her from studying engineering, but she never asked to. And she never asked because she just couldn't see herself doing it.

Should we stop women from being cleaners? You know to stop the encouragement of gender roles. A women being a cleaner isn't much of a role model to young girls, they should have aspirations to run the company in the building the cleaners clean. I'll have a word with my mother who was a cleaner all her days, her mother before her as well. They worked hard to support and raise their family and took pride in their work, as they would have done if they so happened to have been grid girls.

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

As I understand it, motorsport is a mixed sport in that women and men can compete together. The fact that there are not a lot of high profile female drivers suggests that they aren't good enough or motivated enough to compete at the highest level. Perhaps a womens version should be created instead but that would mean admitting that in general women are not as good at motor racing as men.

You have no way of knowing this and if we want equality we need to remove all the barriers.

If I want to remove a wall I need to take out every brick, One brick wont make any difference till that one brick makes the wall collapse

You have no way of knowing the opposite, but screw that who cares who loses out as a consequence? As long as you get your way.

Yes - so as girls grow up they feel like the sport's not for them. Why is this? Maybe it's because society conditions them this way?

Maybe women are immune to the conditioning and men are not in which case women have been right all along. Maybe it's better to do less sport, to wear a bit of makeup and to pose on podiums and the conditioning of men is preventing us from realizing that?

Seems a bit mental for a man to tell women: "You're being conditioned, and so am I. But my conditioning is the right conditioning and your's is the wrong conditioning because it makes you like stuff my conditioning makes me find boring so I want to ban one of the things you like doing."

Most women do sport so they don't get fat. It's a means to an end. Perhaps they want to become podium girls? Who knows....

See the problem in this sentence?

You said 'Men are this' and 'Women are that'.

I don't know what you are referring to? I don't say that in your quote?

So maybe 80% of women aren't motivated to compete. Fine, whatever, that's up to you. But the other 20% shouldn't be dissuaded because of that. THIS is the problem

I don't believe they are! The reason it's not 80/20 male/female by the time they get to F1 is summed up by Susie Wolff again:

"Some people get the impression it's only hard for women to get into F1, but there are thousands of very talented male racers out there trying to get in and never do," Williams development driver Susie Wolff tells BBC Sport.

She's right. Even if you are talented, there are still only 24 seats on the grid and only a handful of those - if any - become vacant each year.

In a sport requiring very masculine skill set- mainly an ignorant blind eye to mortal danger, it's inevitable that women aren't going to be as prevalent.

Deny the human condition all you like, knock down all the perceived barriers you like and nothing will change! Nature innit.

For society to deem it acceptable someone has to start. Why not you?

I'm not brave enough.

Oh that's right, it's easier to pick on someone else minding their own business doing something they love.

I AM NOT CRITICISING THE GIRLS. Would you like it repeated a few more times?

Seems a bit mental for a man to tell women: "You're being conditioned, and so am I. But my conditioning is the right conditioning and your's is the wrong conditioning because it makes you like stuff my conditioning makes me find boring so I want to ban one of the things you like doing."

What does this even mean? I don't think my point is coming across still.

I'm telling you (men) that there is a problem with gender conditioning. Now I didn't just make this up. There's actually quite a lot of writing been done on this subject by women. Did you know that?

Should we stop women from being cleaners?

You've utterly failed to grasp the idea here - or you are wilfully ignoring it so you don't have to criticise yourself. No, we shouldn't discourage women from being cleaners. We should however encourage men not to view women as cleaners or other subordinate jobs.

[quote=crosshair ]Junkyard- read the study.
Even when 50/50 participation at grass roots level was achieved, no more women were inspired to compete!
So to compare that to F1, even if the numbers of girls and boys doing karting was 50/50, there's no evidence that this would lead to any more women aspiring to be professional drivers.

All that study says is that men are naturally more predisposed to take part in sport than women [b]on average[/b] - not only does it not say what you're claiming, you're extrapolating wildly to suggest that for the smaller percentage of women who are inspired by sport the lack of female role models in motor sport makes no difference to them. You have zero evidence for that, and that report certainly doesn't provide it.

Still finding it hilarious that blokes on here think they know better than Susie Wolff about women's motivations in motorsport - and that you all seem to think arguing this point reinforces your arguments.

Deny the human condition all you like, knock down all the perceived barriers you like and nothing will change! Nature innit.

This isn't really about the numbers of women F1 drivers.

If women really do make worse racing drivers then where's the women's F1 series? That's what they do in other sports where women are clearly slower/weaker.

I don't know what you are referring to? I don't say that in your quote?

You justified your argument for sexism with a generalisation. Trying to make the same point as aracer, which is that even if 80% of women don't want to compete at sport, the other 20% shouldn't lose out.

[quote=crosshair ]I don't believe they are!

Yes, we've already gathered that - but Susie does. I wonder who might be in the best position to provide a judgement on this.

No, nothing else Susie says contradicts that point - nobody is suggesting that the natural result is a grid half of which are women, however the number of women who have competed in history is still lower than would be expected given relative natural dispositions. Given significant inherent sexism in society it would be remarkable if that hasn't had an effect - to deny that is to deny reality.

My personal opinion, not backed up by anything I've read, is that puberty kicks in and their imperatives change. It's not an evolutionary sound strategy for women to risk their limited stash of eggs in an ego fuelled peacock display.

Something like that. Since having kids I've really seen how typically female traits that annoy the hell out of many blokes are actually really useful in child-rearing.

Ok - so the women don't like to compete thing.
Why are there so many women in athletics or tennis? Running clubs seem to have plenty of women in them from what I can tell. But cycling clubs - not so much.

Maybe ask a woman that? Personally, I think women are less keen on mechanical stuff. Happy to compete on horses or running, but less so on a bike or a car.

[quote=rene59 ]Should we stop women from being cleaners?

Your strawman is strawmanny. If cleaners wore skimpy outfits and their appearance was important to their job then you might have a point. I also note that men are cleaners too (I did it for a bit to earn some cash as a teenager) - you're the one suggesting it's a women's thing!

The fact that there are not a lot of high profile female drivers suggests that they aren't good enough or motivated enough to compete at the highest level.

In your opinion, because it wouldn't suit your argument to admit there might be other factors.

As long as you get your way.

Hi pot.

Ok - so the women don't like to compete thing.

Why are there so many women in athletics or tennis? Running clubs seem to have plenty of women in them from what I can tell. But cycling clubs - not so much. If what you were saying were true it would be the case across the board. But it seems to me that more young women are more likely to be able to see themselves doing a sport that already has lots of women doing it. And the clubs and events therefore also have a decent gender balance and that makes it more likely that more women will continue to join. How many times have you read women on this forum saying they're put off by the male domination?

How many times have you said 'yeah, I can see myself doing that' ? You make decisions based on how you view yourself.

Because the things you list initially are very much less dangerous! It's simple risk/reward. 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!
Cycling is borderline because it's possible to participate and compete in a fairly low risk fashion. The danger isn't always inherent.
I contest that the more risk involved, the lower the percentage of women participants there will ever be.

I AM NOT CRITICISING THE GIRLS. Would you like it repeated a few more times?

You just want to close down the opportunity they have to do what they love because you happen to dislike it.

We should however encourage men not to view women as cleaners or other subordinate jobs.

Applying that to grid girls you want them removed so that people watching won't be encouraged to view all women as capable of nothing more than standing around looking pretty. You don't think people are capable of working out that because some women like doing so doesn't mean that all women do or that they can't do anything else? While I'm sure there are a small percentage of morons out there who would fall into that category, removing grid girls is unlikely to change them. Instead you've just removed an opportunity for those who like to stand and look pretty and those who like to look at them standing looking pretty which were harmless enough.

[quote=rene59 ]You don't think people are capable of working out that because some women like doing so doesn't mean that all women do or that they can't do anything else?

I'm not sure how many times it has to be pointed out - the ability to intellectualise it like that doesn't stop it being casual sexism and part of an overall pervasive attitude in society.

Just saying hello.... ?

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!

CITE 😉
YOU do have some rather outlandish views of evolutionary biology.

Instead you've just removed an opportunity for those who like to stand and look pretty and those who like to look at them standing looking pretty which were harmless enough.

Its not harmless though for the reason stated many many times on this thread

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

This could be interesting:

skiing
rock climbing

Horse riding is an interesting one actually because it is incredibly dangerous yet it encourages so many women to seemingly contradict my argument about evolutionary imperatives.

However, I think it comes back to intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. A bit like how saving the country in WW2 was an extrinsic imperative that inspired women to take on careers not traditionally carried out by women.
Well, horse riding fits that mould too. The women I know who compete their horses by and large do so with a strong desire to see their horse do well! It's only the small percentage of outliers again that are ruthlessly intrinsically motivated to win for themselves at all costs.
Basically, their love for their steed tricks their body into thinking the mate has been found or something like that so the risks they take are more like a kind of maternal sacrifice than a guts or glory male escapade.

This could be interesting:

skiing
rock climbing

Cite figures for [b]professional competition[/b] please 🙂

Its not harmless though for the reason stated many many times on this thread

In your opinion.

No shit what I say is my opinion just like when you say " harmless enough" its your opinion

Stating this adds nothing.

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.

[quote=rene59 ]In your opinion.

So explain why that opinion is wrong (preferably by actually addressing the reasons given rather than avoiding them).

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.

That's not addressing the reasons given, that's deflecting the argument onto the ground you want to argue from, try again.

You try again.

Basically, their love for their steed tricks their body into thinking the mate has been found or something like that so the risks they take are more like a kind of maternal sacrifice than a guts or glory male escapade.

Well that's an interesting theory.

[quote=rene59 ]You try again.

😆 - you do enjoy deflecting - just to remind you, the challenge for you was to explain why the reasons given for it not being harmless are wrong. Probably best to start by reading what other people are saying to work out [b]exactly[/b] why they think it isn't harmless. Half points if you can successfully state why other people think it isn't harmless.

Junkyard - I don't think it's outlandish, just Darwinism 101 no?

From a Darwinian perspective, sports may be seen as one of the cultural activities invented to promote the acquisition of status. And acquiring status is—on average, in the long run, and in the ancestral environment to which our species is adapted—beneficial to an individual’s reproductive success. That is not to say that gaining status is our (only) conscious or unconscious motive for participating in a game. Many players and observers are primarily interested in the fun of the game. The claim that sports result from [evolutionary processes] means only that sports (like many other games and cultural practices) establish a reliable prestige hierarchy loosely based on (Darwinian) fitness, and that this function is the ultimate cause of sports.

From this article:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/if-darwin-were-a-sports-psychologist-evolution-and-athletics/

If you think I'm going back to read all this pish again then you really don't know me! 🙂

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!

Umm.. I don't. But the point AGAIN - even if that gender stereotypes were true on average, it should not end up discouraging those who do not fit the stereotype.

Societal norms pervade society still. Why does no-one have to come out as straight? Why do people remain in the closet?

Anyway. Why are there also fewer women in snooker, which isn't at all dangerous?

You just want to close down the opportunity they have to do what they love because you happen to dislike it.

The thought that the removal of 24 jobs is going to make an impact in the glamour industry is ridiculous. And I dislike sexism - not pretty girls. I rather like pretty girls.

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 😆

[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.

This.

...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 😆