planetf1.com

It seems that girls can be anything they want now, that's good.

Erm, as long as they want to be what some people want them to be that is.

I like looking at pretty women so

My quick research suggests SI and Swimsuit are owned by Time Inc.

To clarify my quip, I have no preference either way for grid girls or no. Yes I look at them with joy, but then I do at the cars, should they be banned?

No, my 'problem' is again, one group of people telling another group they can not do this or that while they want to and harm no one.
Hamilton has shown there are enough people who protest if a boy is told he is not to be of a particular appearance, where is it different to this.
They want to dress in this manner and do what they are doing. OK Liberty media are in a cleft stick and can not win so take the path of least resistance, understandable. My point stands though

Without taking sides too much, the fact that the people whose jobs are being eliminated object doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Coal workers don't like having their jobs eliminated either, but most people can agree that eliminating coal is the way forward.

It seems they have to be what feminists require them to be.

It seems to be a male decision telling women what they can and can't do, with a PR spin of not sexually objectifying women.

Except, there was nothing sexual about them anyway. Mostly its some sort of national dress or they look like flight crew. There was also no rule about it being only girls. I am sure you all remember the few times circuit promoters used male models as well, or a mixture. If this were about female objectification then Liberty could insist promoters hire even numbers of male and female models.

So actually, we're all discussing the PR spin and not what has happened:

Liberty have decided to remove the need to employ hostesses/translators/PR people that cost £10K and gain some PC PR in the media. I imagine there is a deal with some PR company to supply people for all the races. Or this is one way they are making it cheaper for promoters, which is one of their stated goals.

If it were about protecting women from objectification then it is an argument that can be used against the modelling industry as a whole, and quite ridiculous considered in that context.

Speaking as a former model who aspired to working in F1 and never made it, men should let women decide what roles we want to do. And for all the guys who want to help women be more than pretty things, tell your colleague how much you earn. You'll be helping there far more than taking away a £10k job from hard working models.

I noticed on the BBC tonight there were 2 female presenters, and a female 'w(h)ether girl'. Traditionally, male news readers sit behind a desk and read, this last decade or so when there have been mostly female presenters they stand for a 'full body view'. Has no one picked this up, or is it allowed in professions that can be 'prescribed'?
Wjy is it not acceptable in F1, but it is on UK national tv?

Blame Angela Rippon...

Use the internet. It has everything you need

People are upset not because they're ever gonna remember a forgettable fleeting moment a bunch of pretty faces and bodies walked past on TV, but because they see this as a sign (another sign) society is moving into puritanism, against expressions of sexuality, and imposing ever stricter norms on how people should act or what people should like. Which is all the most bizarre when it's coming from the left corner, the same corner that revolutionised society into accepting much less restrained expressions of sexuality (all kinds of sexuality, rightly so!) in previous decades. One thing is to promote equality and accept un-traditional models of sexuality, which is more than absolutely fine, another is to put pressure for people to stop expressing traditional heterosexual sexuality, which is what grid girls kind of were - and F1 absolutely did cave in to pressure because "let's ban grid girls" has been a buzz on these forums for the last few years, it's not a commercial decision out of nowhere from Liberty. And to cave in to societal pressure to stop expressing traditional heterosexual sexuality, from that angle it all seems kind of regressive to me, even if I can also see the opposite angle of progressiveness to it (to portray women as people, more than just a sexual object of desire).



Honestly, this isn't even about F1 at all (in fact I'm getting into subjects here that are very Paddock Club and nothing Racing Comments, if the mods want to move my post, it's fine). But F1 jumped both feet into a cultural conflict... I wonder if this partially was to get people talking about F1 in the off-season, it surely seems to have worked?



Also, a final point. Lots of people are saying this is to expand F1's target market from heterosexual men to well, everyone. And that's fine, everyone is of course welcome to enjoy F1. But I think people are a little deluded at just how much potential is there for F1 to expand in... these "other markets" (women and/or homosexual men). There is a reason why F1 is more popular with guys than girls, and I do not believe it is merely because of cultural norms (even if they may play a limited role). When I was a little kid and fell in love with F1 at the age of like, literally 3, nobody pushed me away from Barbie dolls and forced cars down my throat. I liked the speed, the adrenaline, the brute force aspect of it all, the late 80s turbo screamers, aggressive as hell, dangerous as hell. I replayed a VHS of crashes (in F1 and others) over and over again (which tbh looking back seems kind of morbid). I was obsessed with the competitive aspect and who was the best, who was the fastest. Now I cannot say my experience speaks for everyone, and I understand this is all a bit of a troglodyte caveman anecdote (I like to think as I aged I became more sensitive, and found other angles to also appreciate in the sport, but I'm biased).



But I simply do not think girls tend to get drawn to these same things as boys do. Speed, adrenaline, danger, competition, force. Some girls might, and that is absolutely fine, and this does not have to be linked to sexuality, it does not make you less of a girly girl. And other girls might find other things to like in the sport that attracts them to it. That is all great and we should encourage it, and indeed get rid of cultural blockages that forbid this all from happening. But I don't think we're ever gonna be in a world where boys don't get drawn to speed and adrenaline more than girls do. Somewhere a few pages back someone mentioned that the viewership is 92% men 8% women. Granted, there is indeed some potential to increase the female numbers here. Yet some people around think that having more men watchers than women watchers is wrong and F1 should strive to be nothing less than 50/50, which would represent perfect equality. I say that is not what equality is to me, because no matter how we strive to equate them, men and women will always tend to have certain different characteristics, so good ****ing luck in trying to change the world.



edit: and to clarify, I'm not even sure I'm for or against grid girls. I see both sides and like my fence on this. But I think people have done a terrible job of explaining the argument for them so had to jump in.

No I just don't like the political correctness of it all, I watch F1 for the drivers and the racing.

I've pinched this from someone else.

[Male, agree with ban]

I do a bit of work in women's sports development and asked some of the athletes I work with their opinions. It was a pretty even splits between "meh" and "why does this sport need pretty ladies when it's supposed to be about car racing".

Honestly, I voted the way I did because if I watch F1 with my daughter, I don't want the most prominent female faces she sees to be glorified umbrella holders there for the tittilation of male fans. If she's interested in motorsport, I don't want her to think "oh, the only way I could be involved in this is if I'm "classically attractive"".

Understand why people might feel differently but have no idea where a lot of the vitrol over this has come from. At the end of the day, it's racing, if seeing the hot women is so important, there is always Google.

How about Calderon? Or Claire Williams? Or even the TV presenters, who are prominent on TV. There are women in F1, not only the grid girls. Who are not glorified umbrella holders by the way, they do much more. (Apart from the clappers, that needs to stop!)

Don't get this wrong please, but I'd say it's down to you to teach her why she's got all she needs to make it in the world, rather than a TV show. I don't have kids, so I may be way off the mark here, but this is what feels right.

How about Calderon? Or Claire Williams? Or even the TV presenters, who are prominent on TV. There are women in F1, not only the grid girls. Who are not glorified umbrella holders by the way, they do much more. (Apart from the clappers, that needs to stop!)

Don't get this wrong please, but I'd say it's down to you to teach her why she's got all she needs to make it in the world, rather than a TV show. I don't have kids, so I may be way off the mark here, but this is what feels right.

As a previous poster mentioned, I think some people seem to feel that any recognition that an individual is attractive is a blow against feminism, and I think that's far from the truth. The logical conclusion of that is that all modelling should be phased out, but I don't know why that should be the case. And why should being a hostess be something young girls should not aspire to - there are plenty about outside of F1? I'm sure there are more than a few who actually like their jobs.

I feel like there's a massive difference between modelling, where the notion of attractiveness is pretty integral to the whole profession, and grid girls and the clappy girls who are basically a side show for what is an event focussed on cars racing.

For me, it's all about the context.

I feel like there's a massive difference between modelling, where the notion of attractiveness is pretty integral to the whole profession, and grid girls and the clappy girls who are basically a side show for what is an event focussed on cars racing.

For me, it's all about the context.

Grand prix promoters will work with their local ASN – the national sporting authorities as recognized by the FIA – to select youngsters who are already competing in karting or junior racing categories, based on merit or a lottery. The young racers will then be invited to stand alongside the 20 F1 drivers on the grid pre-race, as well as their families having paddock access on race day.

The thing is that for these young women, being a grid girl is an avenue through which they can make progress in their modeling careers. It's pictures for their portfolios and experience for their CV. It's also a chance to network and make contacts. They are not really there for the racing. They are there for their careers.

Likewise I think the drivers, mechanics and engineers who actually are there for the racing; are not at all concerned with what the grid girls are doing. They basically have almost no involvement with them other than standing next to them on the grid for a few minutes.

In other words, these Grand Prix weekends provide several people from different professions with opportunities to ply their trade. Yes, you have drivers, mechanics and engineers but you also have various vendors, performers and other groups of people there trying to make some money and/or forward their careers. Models were among those people. This push to ban them seems to be some kind of commentary on their profession; as though being a female model is somehow a ban-able offense. I just don't think it makes any sense at all; at least not as some kind of "pro-woman" act. It seems to instead attempt to infantalize women and remove their ability to choose what to do for themselves. I don't see grid girls as overly racy or offensive to be honest and I don't get the point of trying to shame them...

I (and I would hope the majority of people who share my viewpoint) have absolutely no issue with women taking the opportunity to be a grid girl if it is presented them. They're models, it's their job, more power to them! I really don't want to be seen as limiting their choices or infanticizing them.

What I have an issue with is organisations that decide "you know what this grid of cars needs? Some sexy women!". It just seems like such a ridiculous premise.

I get the point about more than just drivers, mechanics and other team personnel relying on F1 as a career. For me the difference is that people like vendors actually serve a purpose for the event.

1. The word ban is misleading. No one is banning anything. A particular services has been deemed undesirable. That's how the market works. There is no obligation on anyone to hire grid girls.

2. Hence most of the arguments in favour of grid girls, crying PC gone wrong and so on, are just an exercise in rationalisation.

3. Also the argument of puritanism is entirely false. No one is closing down pubs, theatres and places of entertainment, like real puritans used to do. Look up the word and the historical context. People are still free to display as much or as little flesh as they want.

4. Some poster even mentioned instagram, and wondered whether it should be next. This is a slippery slope fallacy. No one is trying to limit other people's sexuality or freedom.

5. Bottom line these girls offered little to the sport. If they are as intelligent and resourceful as they claim to be, then I am sure they can still be employed in hospitality / corporate hospitality or whatever they call it these days.

6. I also suspect they removed the grid girls to avoid any possible fall out from sexual harassment allegations. Such claims have become too damaging (and rightly) lately. So to err on the safe side is the smart thing to do in this case.

Just playing devils advocate but do grid girls do my harm/send a worse message than the presence of Susie Wolff - There because she married well. or Carma Jorda - Basically a model who could barely compete at GP3 level. At least the gird girls got their gigs on merit.

The presence of Carmen Jorda sent an absolutely terrible message. Wolff I think is different, because while she was never an F1-level driver she had some reason to be in the paddock and was by all accounts a decent development driver. But Jorda, no, she sent and continues to send a much worse message than the grid girls, and I'd be happy if they banned Jorda from the paddock.

...

As a previous poster mentioned, I think some people seem to feel that any recognition that an individual is attractive is a blow against feminism, and I think that's far from the truth. The logical conclusion of that is that all modelling should be phased out, but I don't know why that should be the case. And why should being a hostess be something young girls should not aspire to - there are plenty about outside of F1? I'm sure there are more than a few who actually like their jobs.

The clappers, on the other hand, are pretty cringeworthy IMO. Although I also don't think it's doing any real harm.

1. The word ban is misleading. No one is banning anything. A particular services has been deemed undesirable. That's how the market works. There is no obligation on anyone to hire grid girls.

5. Bottom line these girls offered little to the sport. If they are as intelligent and resourceful as they claim to be, then I am sure they can still be employed in hospitality / corporate hospitality or whatever they call it these days.

I don't think Wolff is much more merited in her presence than Jorda. Jorda is there because of looks, Wolff is there because her husband is one of the most influential men in the paddock. TBF Jorda at least she is actually there based on something she brings to the table. Even if it isn't driving.

Could a team hire an attractive female model to hold the drivers number if they wanted to? If not then it's a ban.

OK, but is there any evidence "the market" drove this decision?


But what about what the sport offered to the girls?

I don't know. If someone knows please chip in.

The question is, why should a team do that to begin with? For what purpose?

For whatever reason they like. Maybe they have signed a commercial deal with a swimwear company, maybe the team owner just wants to look at a pretty girl. But that's a deflection. You said it wasn't a ban, but it actually very much is. Look at the language used. Liberty aren't saying they will no longer be providing grid girls. They are saying there will be no grid girls.