F1 considering an end to its misogynistic grid girls feature

[MoerasGrizzly]

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.

I am not questiong scientific publications, but I question both your and Slowdive's reading of them. The publications themselves mention a lot of nuances that are ignored. The sources you are quoting don't actually support your arguments. We are all taking bits and pieces that support our own hypothesises here, but slowdive is calling theirs *hard science*. That's the specific bit I am critiquing: Taking bits and pieces that support your hypothesis is not hard science, it's simply arguing with nerds on the internet. Nothing wrong with that, but don't glamorize it as if you're engaging in academic pursuits (well, academic pursuits other then binge drinking ).

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.

Ahum, have you considered parenting, hype, peer pressure?

I am not saying this. What I am saying is that behaviour is influenced by a non-zero-percentage of biological factors and a non-zero-percentage of nurtural factors. Like the source you linked when we first started talking does.

Bigger imaging studies and imaginative animal research now in the works promise to reveal much more about humanity’s inherent — although by no means uniform, and often not substantial — sex-associated cognitive differences and vulnerability to diseases.

Trying to assign exact percentages to the relative contributions of “culture” versus “biology” to the behavior of free-living human individuals in a complex social environment is tough at best. Halpern offers a succinct assessment: “The role of culture is not zero. The role of biology is not zero.”

That's all I have been saying: "It's complicated", and I think that as such it's silly to make sweeping proclamations about half the bloody planet. People who are experts in this field are still actively looking for the answers, and yet in here we find quite a few people who don't only seem to know the answer and claim it's hard science, but also are dead-sure that these answers apply to Formula 1 in particular.

 

[ears]

@MoerasGrizzly lots of kudos from here for neutrual, unbiased, considered and very well articulated posts.

 

[Patrick van der Meulen]

@MoerasGrizzly lots of kudos from here for neutrual, unbiased, considered and very well articulated posts.

You agree with @MoerasGrizzly. That does not equal to unbiased or neutral view. Nobody is unbiased here. And just like nobody does have the absolute truth. And I think we all agree the complexity of this matter. So thats our shared agreement. And we all have our own philosophical standpoint on which we certainly disagree.

And that’s fine, we may agree to disagree. And now I’m really out.

 

[Andy_J]

Can I cordially invite you guys to the Pit Babes thread in the paddock? We need some fresh content.

 

[ears]

Can I cordially invite you guys to the Pit Babes thread in the paddock? We need some fresh content.

 

[Andy_J]

Well that's a bit rude Mr Ears. But you are not invited anyway. You don't have the necessary qualification.

 

[ears]

Well that's a bit rude Mr Ears. But you are not invited anyway. You don't have the necessary qualification.

Ha I most certainly do not. Maybe I should join ... oh wait ...

 

[Andy_J]

Ha I most certainly do not. Maybe I should join ... oh wait ...

You are desperate to see some of the content in the Pit Babes thread now aren't you. Go on admit it. It's only natural. You are trying your hardest to resist.

 

[ears]

You are desperate to see some of the content in the Pit Babes thread now aren't you. Go on admit it. It's only natural. You are trying your hardest to resist.

I created a local copy of the thread before my membership ... expired ... as it was the main reason I joined in the first place.

It's now printed out and pinned to my walls in a display something akin to the pitbayeux tapestry.

 

[MoerasGrizzly]

Can I cordially invite you guys to the Pit Babes thread in the paddock? We need some fresh content.

Go off and watch some porn like a normal person!

 

[MoerasGrizzly]

@MoerasGrizzly lots of kudos from here for neutrual, unbiased, considered and very well articulated posts.

Although I would say that I put consideration into my posts, I can easily say I am not neutral or unbiased - nobody is

 

[Andy_J]

Go off and watch some porn like a normal person!

I actually don't watch Porn like you guys do because my wife would not approve. But thanks for pm'ing that free porn web address that you recommend.

 

[Slowdive]

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?

Do you think any grid girl had the childhood ambition to be called a mindless whore by someone on the internet? Or do you think they were just doing their best to look attractive and earn an easy paycheck doing something fun in an exciting environment? No matter how you slice it, this cuts both ways.

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.

That may all be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the drivers are being exploited and put at risk for profit. It seems to me, that by any metric, the drivers are being exploited far worse than any grid girl.

You asked me my opinion on something and I did. Please respect that.

I respect that you've shared your opinion with me, however I do not respect the substance of that opinion as I believe it damages our society and culture. It is a slippery slope with no end in sight, and is simply all about control at the end of the day. It's one group of humans telling another group of humans what is right and wrong, based on pretty shaky moral reasoning. Feminists are to the current generation what religious fundamentalists were 20 years ago.

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?

I was just stating, that I'm perfectly fine with both drivers and grid girls being "exploited", because in both cases they are willing participants, however it is you that is objecting to that exploitation (at least in regards to the female side of the equation). I have a very simple take on this: people should be allowed to participate in any profession they choose without interference from the moral concern brigade.

 

[ears]

Do you think any grid girl had the childhood ambition to be called a mindless whore by someone on the internet?

No, but I doubt that they were driven to become a grid girl from a young age, supported by parents who mortgaged and re-mortgaged their house in order to support them through the early 'grid girl' categories and so on.

I respect that you've shared your opinion with me, however I do not respect the substance of that opinion

What is the substance of my opinion?

as I believe it damages our society and culture. It is a slippery slope with no end in sight, and is simply all about control at the end of the day. It's one group of humans telling another group of humans what is right and wrong, based on pretty shaky moral reasoning. Feminists are to the current generation what religious fundamentalists were 20 years ago.

I think the opinion you're referring to was about racing drivers and whether I wanted them to die.

I have a very simple take on this: people should be allowed to participate in any profession they choose without interference from the moral concern brigade.

But it's not that simple is it? Because people do not have a right to get the job they want. I might want a job as a satellite dish installer, but if major satellite companies decide that they want to provide their subscription TV using the internet instead, then I'll have to get a different job.

 

[Slowdive]

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.

Indeed. And currently it is increasingly considered a good business decision to pander to the loud feminists. Have you not witnessed the virtual witch hunts online that ruin careers and cause toy manufacturers to pull products not deemed politically correct enough? If all Hollywood cared about was money, then why are they dumping stars like Kevin Spacey left and right? These are stars that have generated vast amounts of wealth for them.

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.

So do you think it's a good thing to attempt to socially engineer women to get them into motorsports? Should we also socially engineer men to get into knitting more? Is either action important? But I understand that Liberty Media is a business that wishes to raise their bottom line at all costs. I just think from a business perspective, that attempting to pander to a demographic that generally does not like your product, while at the same time ignoring your core is a mistake and won't move the needle at all. Look at Indycar and NASCAR. The lack of official grid girls in those series has not resulted in more female viewership.

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.

That's a bit of a straw man. No one is claiming that they are a focus or an integral part of the experience.

* incidentally why are we calling this political correctness when half the people in this thread are clearly upset about this for political reasons?

You are using a bit of semantic trickery there by calling the objections to this ban "political", when for the most part it clearly is not.

 

[Slowdive]

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

Absolutely. I think the thing I have to constantly remind myself of is that people I disagree with, generally have good intentions. And virtually no one is persuaded when they're angry.

Take care.

 

[Slowdive]

No, but I doubt that they were driven to become a grid girl from a young age, supported by parents who mortgaged and re-mortgaged their house in order to support them through the early 'grid girl' categories and so on.

Since when is having your parents mortgage their house so you can advance in your career a criteria on which we deem an occupation valid or not? Also, I don't think you can know the minds of every grid girl. I'm sure a lot of them aspired to be models when they were younger.

What is the substance of my opinion?

That you object to grid girls on the basis that it objectifies them and corrupts our morality.

I think the opinion you're referring to was about racing drivers and whether I wanted them to die.

I never suggested that you wanted them to die. I simply stated the indisputable fact that they are facing a significant risk of injury or death so that you can be entertained.

But it's not that simple is it? Because people do not have a right to get the job they want. I might want a job as a satellite dish installer, but if major satellite companies decide that they want to provide their subscription TV using the internet instead, then I'll have to get a different job.

If there were a group of people, much like yourself, who were out petitioning satellite providers to cease their service because somehow the satellites were irradiating frogs and turning them gay, yes I would oppose that group as well. In the case we're actually discussing, you're talking about eliminating a job on pretty specious moral grounds.

 

[Slowdive]

I am not questiong scientific publications, but I question both your and Slowdive's reading of them. The publications themselves mention a lot of nuances that are ignored. The sources you are quoting don't actually support your arguments. We are all taking bits and pieces that support our own hypothesises here, but slowdive is calling theirs *hard science*. That's the specific bit I am critiquing: Taking bits and pieces that support your hypothesis is not hard science, it's simply arguing with nerds on the internet. Nothing wrong with that, but don't glamorize it as if you're engaging in academic pursuits (well, academic pursuits other then binge drinking ).

I don't see where I said anything controversial. I stated that men and women have different innate interests and then backed up that claim with science. I suggested the result of this can be seen in the disparity of men and women in motorsports, given that there are no gender barriers to entry.

Unless you object to the basic science that has revealed gender differences, I don't see how you could object to my hypothesis.

I am not saying this. What I am saying is that behaviour is influenced by a non-zero-percentage of biological factors and a non-zero-percentage of nurtural factors. Like the source you linked when we first started talking does.

Did I ever say that environment doesn't also play a role? I figured that was so obvious that it need not be stated. Although, science is now discovering that environment plays a far less significant role than we imagined, based on several twins studies.

That's all I have been saying: "It's complicated",

This reminds me of an argument I've heard from creationists who say evolution is complicated, because the science disagrees with their opinion.

and I think that as such it's silly to make sweeping proclamations about half the bloody planet. People who are experts in this field are still actively looking for the answers, and yet in here we find quite a few people who don't only seem to know the answer and claim it's hard science, but also are dead-sure that these answers apply to Formula 1 in particular.

I see lots of straw man argumentation happening here. No one is saying all women (half the bloody planet) do not like motorsports for biological reasons. But rather, I suggested that biological reasons could help explain why generally speaking men are more interested than women.

And, yes, I stand behind my claim that the studies I pointed to are as a hard a science as you can get on the topic. Further, I never said I was "dead sure", that's just more straw manning. As a proponent of science I would rather say the data seems to suggest that there is a connection between biology and behavior in the case of females in motorsports. I may have wrongly assumed this was understood. If I caused confusion on your part, I apologize.

 

[Bobby Pennington]

Well I wondered if it was covered. As I can see it has been and then some. Some not so constructive which seems to be the norm these days

So, all of us here have or had a Mom. I've got a wife and 19 year old daughter. I know that women are the most beautiful and fantastic creatures in the world. I'm glad my name's not Mom because that's a job for very special people. Now with that out of the way, on to the subject at hand.

F1 without Grid Girls Women bring beauty and grace to any occasion they are involved in. I want grid girls. They're beautiful and add to the show. Women use their beauty as a tool in modeling, acting, singing etc. What's wrong with that?? I'm not a gawker, but I do look. Most of us are hardwired that way. As long as your respectful I see nothing wrong with it. After all, men use their brute strength, athleticism and lack of brains (if you're not laughing I can't help you) to do all kinds of things to generate money. The Isle of Man TT is the craziest thing I've ever seen, but I get it and so do the riders. Are both sexes being exploited? No! They choose a path and pursue their goals with the natural abilities they have and they work incredibly hard to maintain the level that will continue to let them earn a living or make a little extra money.

So bring back the women. After 53 years of seeing a man in the mirror I could use a little beauty in my life

 

[MoerasGrizzly]

This reminds me of an argument I've heard from creationists who say evolution is complicated, because the science disagrees with their opinion.

That makes no sense to me. Off course evolution is extremely complicated, it's why there's so much biodiversity. Why would that be an argument *for* creationism?