Andy_J
I hate Race cheats ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Quality and very true.
F1 considering an end to its misogynistic grid girls feature
- Thread starter ears
- Start date
I think the female model is the better hook. You look at her for her beauty and then you notice she's got a certain brand item. With the male model you may not even notice him to begin with, let alone notice a brand.
I'm fairly certain that in the event of any change there will always be people who complain. In this particular case it may be the result of masculinity being under attack in western culture. Feminists are trying to redefine it and squish it into a box. They come up with terms like "toxic masculinity" or just masculinity for short. I've never heard of "toxic femininity" however. So I think that some of the push back you may have observed is a result of that. Honestly though, if you're a secure male, you should have no problem seeing other good looking guys used as models. Heck, if it gets my wife to watch motorsports with me more, it's a bonus.
No, of course they're different.
But you appear unable to prove what you actually said. It's OK for that to just be an opinion, opinions is all I have on the subject.
You can prove that they are different, you can't prove this.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com...lay-nature-nurture-science-animals-evolution/
Please read that. Not only is there a preference for mechanical objects like autos among male humans, the data shows that this gendered preference crosses species and can be seen in non-human animals as well. This is hard scientific evidence that supports my claim.
I also offered as evidence the choice that students make in selecting a major. They are free to select anything they want and the gender preferences are quite clear. If you want to see more women in motorsports you better go over to your local university and put a gun to some girl's head and make her switch her major from early childhood development to mechanical engineering. Either that, or you need to accept the fact that people are freely choosing what they wish.
MoerasGrizzly
Premium
Pink was a boy's colour until the 40s. Riding horses was a man's sport. Women's football was banned in the 1920s up until the 70s because it became too popular. Just becuase there is a gender difference in something today doesn't mean that that gender difference is eternal. We could talk all day about nature vs nurture, the differences between generic men and generic women and how these differences are determined in our society, which is a subject that is far more complex then simple observations. The studies you have continiously linked troughout are all interesting and all point in different directions - and crucially, they are not *hard scientific evidence*. They are observations, which are all being used in our ongoing research of what drives gender differences. I can only tell you about it from second hand sources, as I studied geology (which is, incidently, rather equal in it's gender representation), which is a fancy way of saying that I don't really know what I'm talking about - but I know enough about the subject to say that neither do you
.What matters is Liberty Media. Bernie introduced Grid Girls because model companies gave him money to do so. Model companies don't really bring in money anymore. In the days of selfies and instragram they're being overtaken by freelancers, and the more seedy companies are being outmatched by Pornhub. The only reason we see this change now is because Liberty Media is seeing a chance to get more money for something or someone else to stand in front of the cars during the grid. I have no idea what that will be - idolizing children, mascots, plain old advertising boards, but model agencies at the moment can only exist because they manage to exploit labour law loopholes. That's not a sustainable business model, and you'd have to be an idiot to rely on that as a source of income. Which makes it not at all surprising that Bernie went for it
Last edited:
Thanks. I did read that but for me it still does not support your claim. In my opinion, you are projecting upon tenuously linked research and drawing conclusions that support your beliefs. That's OK, it's what most of us do.
Seeing the objectification of women in sport - not just motor sport - makes me uncomfortable. Seeing a 'grid girl' on TV just makes me feel like something is not right. And the further down the motorsport chain it gets, seeing it on a cold day at Donnington Park on ITV4, well the more degrading it seems.
I have a wife, I have a daughter. My daughter is too young for any of that yet but there'll come a day when she is not. And would I be uncomfortable at the thought of her stood there at Donnington Park on ITV4? Yes.
Would I be uncomfortable at the thought of the kind of people who are outraged at the demise of the grid girl ogling at her?
Yes. Very much. I'm glad it's gone from F1 and I hope it disappears from all sport.
Agreed that nobody watch the races for the girls, but there's nothing wrong with good eyecandy
But...but...it IS a men's sport! Women are obviously allowed to race equally alongside, but the fact is that no-one has been good enough. Yes there's been women in F1 before, but they were field-fillers. Danica is a one-off and by FAR the closest female who has been good enough for F1, but even she was still a bit far off to actually make it.
which is a fancy way of saying that I don't really know what I'm talking about - but I know enough about the subject to say that neither do you
I appreciate your honesty, but then you turn around and make a bunch of somewhat shaky assertions and conflate a lot of odd topics, that perhaps one could loosely associate with third wave feminist ideology. So I don't really get your point.
I'm curious as to why you feel that observational data on the behavior of non-human animals and human babies does not qualify as hard science? Also, what specifically gives you the impression that I don't know what I'm talking about?
Honestly, that sounds like pure conjecture. It may be a good guess, but it most likely is totally incorrect. I seriously doubt F1 ever relied on grid girls as a source of income.
How do you feel about the objectification of the drivers as spam in a can that risk death and almost certain injury for your entertainment? They are just disposable objectified meat afterall, aren't they? Their only usefulness is to be brave heroes putting their lives on the line so you can get an adrenaline rush watching their exploits week after week. Lets face it, motorsports is danger porn.
I'm very curious to hear your thoughts.
Last edited:
A woman after my own heart as she pretty much mirrors all my own opinions
MoerasGrizzly
Premium
Agreed that nobody watch the races for the girls, but there's nothing wrong with good eyecandy
But...but...it IS a men's sport! Women are obviously allowed to race equally alongside, but the fact is that no-one has been good enough. Yes there's been women in F1 before, but they were field-fillers. Danica is a one-off and by FAR the closest female who has been good enough for F1, but even she was still a bit far off to actually make it.
Programming is a man's job too. Rallying is a man's sport, that didn't prevent Michèle Mouton from entering and winning events, eventually quitting when they switched to Group A because she felt the cars were too slow. Drag racing is a man's sport, yet here we have Shirley Muldoney. In general, the US race scene has plenty of women racing drivers, despite it being a "man's sport". Taru Rinne was faster then Mika Häkkinen during karting before she switched to motorcycle racing. After a crash in Paul Ricard, Bernie Ecclestone banned her from competing. It's only a man's sport because a certain man wanted it to be that way.
But honestly, this doesn't really matter either - what matters is the people paying the tickets. Here's a thing for you: Consider Star Wars. Consider action figures. Both would traditionally be considered "boy things". Enter Rey.
Because you take observations and see them as proving your point, whilst forgetting the old adage of correlation not being equal to causation. You're taking observations in nature from primates and conjecturing them to a hypothesis on humans in motorsport, even whilst you are ignoring a lot of the nuances stated in the articles themselves. The observations themselves are good science (assuming that the articles reporting on them are decent, as science reporting in the media is in itself often bad), but that doesn't mean you can take the observation, ignore the bits you don't like, and then apply it to an entirely different field and just shout hard science. It's not a magic wand you can just wave around and hey your arguments are more sciency now. You're hypothesizing. Call it that.
Then it would be even more stupid to have them! Why waste space on grid girls when you can have something more lucrative on the grid? Something that you can actually rely on to bring in money?
I think they're elite sports people, the best in their profession whose skills and consistency, and ability to perform when necessary are constantly being tested against their peers.
I think that if that's the way you see them, maybe you should go and find an alternative form of entertainment. They might still have some dolly birds in wrestling. Give that a go.
Yes, enter Rey, a terrible character. But hey, the writers needed to put a strong female in the lead because we've never seen that before, *cough* Princess Leia, and they made Rey perfectly flawless and boring. It's that kind of garbage that is constantly shoved down our throats. When I was a kid and Star Wars was a thing, boys and girls played with action figures of both genders. It's pretty narrow minded thinking to suggest that a child is only attracted to figures of their own gender. I see that as a general problem with the SJW mindset, they are always selling people short. Just like the grid girls. You seem to believe that they are too stupid to make their own decisions on whether or not they wish to participate.
Numerous studies have been done in human children, the Nat Geo article only reinforced the findings by discovering a similar pattern in other primates. The studies back up my simple claim that females are more interested in people rather than objects from a very early age. Granted, it's only one piece of the puzzle, but if you fail to see the connection, then I can't help you.
There is plenty of other data sitting right in your lap. Take a look at sim racing. There is no barrier to entry other than money. And what exactly is the demographic makeup of this group? It is overwhelmingly skewed male. Now a typical feminist is likely to bust out their favorite conspiracy theory about the patriarchy. But we know better. Since real world racing seems to reflect pretty closely the gender balance we see in the barrier-free simulated world, what does that seem to imply? This isn't exactly rocket science here.
Race car drivers don't come out of some incubator in a Mercedes factory. Usually they are the product of a life long passion that starts fairly young. Do you seriously believe that in 2018, that if a girl wants to drive a car fast, that she is somehow prevented from doing so? And if nothing is preventing these girls from freely taking an interest, then the only logical explanation left is that they have other interests.
The same reason that newspapers and television channels don't run only advertising. It's called content. And grid girls happen to be part of the spectacle.
Grid girls are paid to simply stand around, look beautiful and entertain people. Drivers are paid to risk death and injury entertaining people. You seem to care about one group being exploited and not the other. I hate to say this, but your position sounds rather hypocritical.
Oh no, I'm not the one objecting, you are. I just wanted to see if you would be consistent, but it appears you may have a gender bias when it comes to exploitation. It's not unsurprising that a feminist would hold such a bias, as you often hear them complaining loudly about an imaginary gender pay gap, but don't seem to ever hear any outrage from them over the fact that 90% of workplace deaths are male. I see a connection here.
Anyway, thanks for your honesty. I may disagree with your puritanical view of women, but I respect that you've engaged with me.
I believe you did not read my reply. Do you think Ayrton Senna, Michael Schumacher, Alain Prost, any other racing driver, had the ambition as a child to risk death and injury in order to entertain? Or do think it was to compete and be the best at what they do?
I watch it for the competition, the skills, the performance under pressure. I watch it in the hope of not seeing a crash. I do not want to see injory or harm come to any individual, so I do not find the risk of that entertaining. At all. If there were magical cotton wool walls everywhere that absolutely 100% guaranteed nobody got injured, I would still find it as interesting as I do now.
You asked me my opinion on something and I did. Please respect that.
What do you mean by this? Please could you quote the text where I did what you are accusing me of so that I can understand what you mean?
MoerasGrizzly
Premium
You are again making conjecture. They're there because someone is paying them to be there. All this whining about feminism or SJWs or what have you is all hogwash - we are dealing with big companies here, who don't give a ****. All they care about is the money.
I bring up the toy market specifically because the big wigs there said that action figures were a boys thing. After The Force Awakens came out, toy companies only made Kylo Ren merchandise, becuase they believed that only boys would buy action figures and thought children were only attracted to figures of their own gender: Cue shelves being filled with unsold Kylo Ren merchandise whilst many a parent came in asking where the Rey toys were. To quote you again:
This is exactly the kind of thinking that was disproven here! Are you actually reading? Thanks to Disney's approach to Star Wars, many companies now believe that they have been selling themselves short by marketing what they previously considered to be "only boy things" to only boys. It's not political correctness*, it's money.
But that doesn't mean anything for a company like Liberty Media. You can easily say that women have other interests - what you can't say is if that behaviour can not be changed, just like it has been with a many other things that we now consider to be traditionally boys or girls only (like aforementioned colour pink or programming). It's where the money is.
If grid girls are content, their inclusion would be even more stupid. Nobody talks about the historical achievements of grid girls, nobody discusses who would be the quickest grid girl down Eau Rouge, they're just eye candy for a small part of the population - a spectacle that can not compete with the likes of the internet. It's just fat that Liberty Media is trimming. They don't actually add anything to the spectacle in a way that many sports teams do by having mascots or by having junior footballers standing on the field with their heroes, and the 'spectacle' they offer is outmatched by spectacle you can now easily find elsewhere.
* incidentally why are we calling this political correctness when half the people in this thread are clearly upset about this for political reasons?
Last edited:
Uhm, isn’t this exactly what you do? Taking selective bits and pieces and even questioning scientifical publications because it’s not supporting your hypotheses and view to this matter and ignoring their main subjects and only taking note to it’s side notes and nuances.
And then only express your hypotheses without presenting any substantiation. Probably because you and your fellow bystanders accept your shared hypotheses as the truth while denying facts that prove otherwise. Which makes it an impossible and polarized discussion because on a certain given time you can’t meet in the middle anymore where you can have our shared and opposite opinions. It isn’t that black and white. And there are many pitfalls you can easily step in to by contemporary social believes.
And in your latest posting you make a mistake: you can’t actually change behaviour biologically. You only can change it’s face by oppression and indoctrination. You can add abilities to your behaviour through education, but that’s mostly to correct anomalies of the psyche. You can’t change a homosexual person from being homosexual, you can’t change a person born with a mindset which differentiate from their body (transgender), just like you can’t change a pedophile for being pedophile (though they can learn to cope with it, since its rightfully socially not acceptable). Or albino’s for a matter of fact, one of the clearest samples as a biological anomaly. Those are biological given facts. But man are man and woman are woman biologically. All examples I mentioned are biological anomalies. But biological anomalies does not equal to labeling it as an social undesired defect (well, with a little exception for pedophelia).
But by stating you can change behaviour, you are unwillingly stating everyone could learn to behave and act through conformity of the society. That implies you are unwillingly supporting the act of “curing” people with a different biological and/or social behaviour. You don’t put literally in words, but it’s one of the consequences of your statement while you (hopefully) not really mean it that way.
Changing behaviour because of social pressure is the worst way mankind can go. And it works in two directions. Oppression of freedom to live the way you want, for example homosexual people not being able to live openly and savely in relationships. Other way around is everybody forcing to indoctrinate all kinds of non-existing genders (which imho opinion isn’t helping individual people who have a mindset which doesn’t fit in an standard social identity, because identity doesn’t equal to sexe).
What you probably wanted to express is that you can change contemporary society. Which always evolving and changes, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst.
Oh and I have to make it clear a last time: imho eyecandy doesn’t equal to misogyny and has nothing to do with equal rights. Oppression of women like in many religions is a true form of misogyny. Problem is they are often suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
‘Till so far my philosophical contribution to this topic. cheers!
I see that we disagree on certain aspects, and have different views as well. Nevertheless, I absolutely enjoy the cool, calm and rational arguments you use. I mean. I cannot disagree with your arguments, I don't look at it from the same point as you do. But it's 100% on point
It's been a pleasure to disagree with you 
