Podium Girls – do they still have a place at races – what do you think ?

not asked to? – that doesn’t make it sexist

It sort of does.. Are they there because they are female ‘eye candy’? Yes. Therefore yes sexist.

Would I want my daughter to do that? No. Because I feel it’s demeaning and doesn’t result in a positive image for the girls or the products.

Kids doing it is a much better idea.

your not neanderthal just because you like a sexy bird standing infront of you. just a normal red blooded bloke with eyes. when you go a club you look and say shes a stunner. when you see a lass in a short skirt you say or think oh yes, shes fit. when you see a geezer in a muscle vest and speedos i bet you check out his junk. men and women are the same so dont come that crap love.

Kids doing it is a much better idea.

The sooner we can get kids into the workplace, the better.

sex sells, its nothing new.

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

brilliant satire from alpinestar

So should sex be used to sell products for kids since it’s adults that buy them?

dont come that crap love.

this place sometimes 🙁

I’ve often tried to wrestle the same topic that v8ninety raised in his last post.

our society is unbalanced, is that a result of a fundamental (trend) difference in the sexes and genetic makeup or a result of our society, or did one cause the other?

Personally I think it’s probably a bit of both, there’s no question that there are individuals from both sexes that buck the trend, but there is a trend and I would love to know if that’s nature or nurture.

I just don’t think that true equality is a realistic goal

If it is nature the above may hold true, if it is nurture then it doesn’t, it just may take a while to get there, but even if our genetic makeup as a species predisposes us to have an unequal society in that regard, one thing we can have, and should always strive for is equality of opportunity, as that is within our control, and sadly we are still not there.

Half-naked people bimbling around while we congratulate great athletes is just a bit odd, regardless of gender, the reason it happens is very much due to the inequality of our society, whatever the reasons for that inequality may be….

not asked to? – that doesn’t make it sexist

Pretty sure that’s workplace gender discrimination.

don’t have aproblem with it at all. TBF its the only interesting thing about F1 and road cycling. If I won a race, I’d rather be handed flowers/prize by an attractive woman than some bloke. Its not sexist to have dolly brollys and podium girls

those girls in that pic look like the typical skanky girls at local car shows. thats just tacky

Your two posts above illustrate the problem fantastically, well done. First post: “I would like a prize from someone I find attractive”, second post: “and definitely not from someone who is ‘skanky'”.

So the entire value of the person is how physically attractive you personally find them? You’ve reduced this person to an object for your own arousal – that’s the whole problem.

mt – Member
brilliant satire from alpinestar

+1

my STW detective senses have just aligned ‘alpinestar’ with ‘davidtayforth’…

SamB – Member
…You’ve reduced this person an entire gender to an object for your own arousal – that’s the whole problem.

i extrapolated a little bit, i hope you don’t mind.

your not neanderthal just because you like a sexy bird standing infront of you. just a normal red blooded bloke with eyes. when you go a club you look and say shes a stunner. when you see a lass in a short skirt you say or think oh yes, shes fit. when you see a geezer in a muscle vest and speedos i bet you check out his junk.

Nothing wrong with noticing other people and finding them attractive, as long as it’s in context. The context in your post being everyday people who have put an effort to make themselves look attractive (at a club, on the beach, etc).

Podium girls are not there because, on a normal Sunday afternoon, they’d be hanging around a podium in their bikinis. They’re there to serve as an object of titillation for audience.

one thing we can have, and should always strive for is equality of opportunity, as that is within our control, and sadly we are still not there.

Agreed. A laudable goal, which is closer than it has ever been in history. We’ve come a long way, but there’s a lot of work still to be done.

Sex sells in one particular way to one particular audience. When you have a sport/hobby/passtime/thing that isn’t specifically gendered, formulating your pitch like that is just stupid and exclusionary. If companies insist on it, that’s not wisdom or experience, it’s insecurity and habit.

Personally I have no preference either way on whether grid/podium girls should still be part of sport.

There has been a huge debate on motorsport forums recently due to the WEC (Le Mans) banning grid girls. Then the Monaco GP added to it by using ‘Grid Boys’ this year.

It has been a long time since the F1 grid girls have been scantily clad and I think was a planned move to try and appease, slightly, the anti factions.
Personally I think the bikini podium girls at a Woman’s race was very poorly thought out, bikini clad girls is very poorly thought out full stop nowadays and will always get a reaction, perhaps that’s what they wanted?

I have been involved in Motorsport for a number of years I’ve got to meet a number of grid girls, a lot of them are madder than a box of frogs and are a great laugh and really enjoy doing it as they earn some money from it, some are big motorsport fans, they all get to know each other and build friendships etc.

I’ll put this link here as an interview from someone who is a grid girl and why she did it…

Grid Girl Interview

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. The ‘fudamental’ differences you spoke of are generated by sterotypes. Stereotypes of gender roles in society are created by the society itself, not biological differneces. To claim that biological/genetic differences are what keeps genders and society unequal, is perceisly what perpetuates the problem. Yes, society is more equal than it has been, but the balance is still very out.

If you can acknowledge that it is societal attitudes that cause the issue, then it can be challenged and changed; it is not a matter of chicken and egg, or nurture and nature.

Yes, society is more equal than it has been, but the balance is still very out.

Yup, in more ways than you think. The economist has run a couple of articles recently on men being the weaker sex in developed countries’ labour markets.

Not free to read without a subscription, but some commentary:

The Economist proclaims that men are “The Weaker Sex”

Edit: I tell a lie, the main article is: http://www.economist.com/news/essays/21649050-badly-educated-men-rich-countries-have-not-adapted-well-trade-technology-or-feminism

hey, i am a straight normal guy who thinks the female form is sexy and if its in a bikini where ever i find it even better. i can tell you now that if i see a guy looking muscly/fit/toned although i get no thrill from it i do get envious as i know its what a bird oops sorry a lady would like and what id like to look like. tbh most the things ive said on here are simply to get the post a bit more interesting as a reaction to something is better than reading boring serious crap lol. i mean nothing by it, just keeps me amused untill i go to work.

if i had to be honest i dont mind half neked ladies prouncing about anywhere. wouldnt like it being my daughter if i had one but i dont mind it being someone elses. like i said just a normal geezer.

wouldnt like it being my daughter if i had one but i dont mind it being someone elses. like i said just a normal geezer.

obvious troll is obvious.

just to check did anyone notice at the bottom of this page is a womans boob in what looks like an advert for a bra or bikini lol. surprised noones complained about that or mentioned it yet. im disgusted.

FRESH GOODS FRIDAY.

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, society 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 there 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 naturally develop, or was it imposed (presumably due to male thuggery and physical dominance?) or some other reason.

Certainly societal gender stereotyping perpetuates 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.

CHILL OUT DUDE

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.

http://www.britainexplorer.com/images/article_images/The_Top_Ten_Geoglyphs/cerne-abbas-giant-geoglyph.jpg

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.

Nothing ‘unwitting’ about it. You have decided that the issue is down to nurture. I feel it is more complex than that. Of course a male or female can fulfil any role in society, but whether they have the drive to is the point. What makes women and men more suited or more interested in fulfilling roles in society, that’s the interesting question, with no clear answers. Of course nurture and society stereotypes form a large part of that, but what has caused those stereotypes and societal expectations to develop? There are differences in the way men and women think and view the world, and to not recognise the fact would be doing both genders a disservice.

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)

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.

Probably sexual enough for some to be able satisfy themselves.

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”. Generally, 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 are 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 because 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.