speedy_bob wrote:
I'm glad the practice is abandoned. It was cringe-worthy. Especially the clapping before the podium.
Some arguments you hear people stating just don't making any sense to me:
"They are taking away paid work of people that love what they are doing!"
So? Would that be your same reasoning when F1 decides to limit aero development and several aero engineers would be cut form F1? Truth is, that "argument" is never used when we discuss the way F1 could improve racing.
Only when it comes to grid girls we suddenly feel bad for their loss of income. They'll survive and find other modelling gigs.
Using this argument actually reeks of the exact "snowflake" behaviour the pro-gridgirl people (PGG) are accusing the no grid girls people (=NGG) of: "We are here to protect them poor girls livelihood (as if they need your protection) against the big, bad outside world!"
That smells of paternalism: only PGG'ers "really" know whats good for grid girls? Ugh.
Other argument: "I believe in freedom, so therefor I would not want to prevent any of these women of doing this job. Axing grid girls is limiting their freedom to earn an honest living, so I am against axing it!"
Fact is the owner of a series doesn't have to listen to the buyers of the product: if they decide they no longer want grid girls as part of their show, they can choose to do so.
"Forcing" them to NOT stop the practice in the name of "freedom", that sounds just silly to me. Or would you claim the owners should not have the freedom to decide on their product?
What if I state I want to freedom to do summersaults on the grid and I demand my freedom to do just that is respected? Would you fight for my freedom then too?
Believing in freedom (as I do) doesn't mean only believing in your own freedom and limiting others to exercise their right to theirs. Everyone is free to set up a rivaling series with plenty of grid girls.
Grid girls were intended as eye-candy. That several of these women have more to offer is without doubt. But that doesn't take away anything of that original intent: to be eye-candy, to attract the male gaze and to please parts of the male audience by getting dressed up in a certain way.
Have you ever seen an F1 journalist interviewing grid girls? Of course not, bc no one expects them to be anything other than be pretty and smile. How on earth is that acknowledging the fullness of their personality, knowledge and ambitions?
That is what objectification is all about: creating a situation where a human is barred from expressing their humanness fully, bc the person doing the objectification only wants the other person to "be" the thing they desire them to be.
If you choose to create a situation where people are only allowed to look pretty and shut up, what's in there for you then, I wonder?
The paedophile argument is even weaker: in football kids are used to introduce teams all the time and no one in their right mind would think of accusing the organizers of paedophilia.
Will see if other arguments appear, not enough time and willingness to address them all atm.

*I remain open for debate and none of my views should be considered as absolutes. Feel free to attack them with decent arguments.
Ill have a go lol,
1- your gonna compare an engineer to a model???...,
Can both employee's find a new job yes they can but whom has a higher likely hood of getting one? People can Sympathize with a model who we only see working a weekend gig losing their job vs a engineer that is making FAR more money and could more then likely afford to be out of work for a while. Also a aero engineer career isn't affected by being in the spot light (on tv) they are behind the scenes working and we as viewers don't develop any connection with that role/ person since we dont see them. When we do get glimpses of engineers what are they doing??? Looking extremely busy behind a monitor where u don't even see their face.
2,3- "only pro gid girls people know whats best"........"Fact is the owner of a series doesn't have to listen to the buyers of the product.....you claim the owners should not have the freedom to decide on their product?"
No not at all, i just don't agree with liberties claim of [its not in the direction we want the sport to go.] im pretty sure this is a political move behind the scene in this decision. Maybe as per new sponsorship or tv rights on new networks etc, who knows but liberty does have to listen to its buyers. If you are not catering to your target audience then your product will not be consumed. So somewhere along the food chain this topic was brought up and they have decided to remove it and thats fine. F1 is their baby and they can do what they wish but the charade of we are doing this for the sport is nonsense.
personally it doesnt effect me either way if the models are there or not. As some other members have stated I barely notice them as it is. Why because "sexual advertisement" is thrown in our faces every single day hundreds of times a day. To the point where the average person has become immune to such depictions and doesn't even see it anymore, i tune in for the racing not the models.
4- "Grid girls were intended as eye-candy.........Have you ever seen an F1 journalist interviewing grid girls? Of course not, bc no one expects them to be anything other than be pretty and smile......That is what objectification is all about"
Back in the day F1 drivers were the dare devils of the time, The risk takers. They were depicted as the heart throbs, privileged strong men whom were to be chosen to race. Women threw themselves at the chance to be with such a MANLY MAN. Which imo is where the whole playboy esc environment came from leading to having the involvement of women in the visual theatrics came about and that "tradition" was still embedded to this day.
Now with that being said why would a racing journalist want to interview a model? Shes not racing, shes not a sports figure. She isnt the story or what us the target audience want to see. In this small 30min window of her job she is a "grid girl" but that doesn't mean thats all they do. This is a small aspect of the job, idk what it all entails but its gotta be something if so many women constantly volunteer for this job. If it was as awful, degrading and demeaning as people make it appear to be woman wouldn't be doing it. They aren't slaves, its there choice to be a model and if they enjoy it then god bless em.
5- "The [Pedophile] argument is even weaker: in football kids are used to introduce teams all the time and no one in their right mind would think of accusing the organizers of [pedophilia]."
No one in there right mind would use kids a "sexual advertisement" thats why. That is why this argument wouldn't be brought forth. As such a stupid move would cripple any business and slap the pedophilia label to the brand.