planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:59 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

Grid Girl Ban
Female - Agree with ban 4%  4%  [ 4 ]
Female - Disagree with ban 6%  6%  [ 6 ]
Female - No preference 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
Male - Agree with ban 31%  31%  [ 31 ]
Male - Disagree with ban 39%  39%  [ 39 ]
Male - No preference 20%  20%  [ 20 ]
Total votes : 101
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
moby wrote:
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.


Or don't want them to be!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:40 pm
Posts: 167
Maybe we should just deal with the basics first, we could agree that groping and assaulting girls was wrong, and then concentrate on that in the short term ?

Then we could even keep the grid girls ( and boys (equal opportunity)) but have them as companions to child mascots (like in football or rugby) which would allow young fans to get involved more and promote a more family environment ?

Sorry that this solution is so simple and easy to initiate with little extra effort, I'm sure a more complicated system that doesn't work will be used as an alternate ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3108
There is a defence for keeping them being put forwards about how these girls are actually smart but everyone assumes they are dumb.

That essentially underlines the whole problem with them. They are just seen as eye candy. Their purpose is seen as solely being a sexually arousing version of this:

Image
source: buydirect4u.co.uk

Until grid girls got axed no one debated whether they were intelligent, multi lingual, provided information services, entertainment etc... they were just seen as glamourised eye candy for people with a compatible sexual orientation. And let's not retcon that debate, even those in favour of keeping them saw them in this way as the arguments for keeping them were based solely on it being "political correctness taking over" or "no one is forcing them to do it"

Ultimately - if they were providing services beyond holding up the placard - then these services will still be needed. All Liberty are removing is the part of their job that catches the public eye. If they were really working as a translator as well, then that job will still exist and if they were competent at it then they will still be employed doing it.

There is also the argument about taking away their jobs - well this swings two ways. Either the job was paying them not very much in which case it's not taking away their livelihood, but if it is taking away their livelihood, if we are paying them thousands of dollars per race... then that's huge savings and money that can be reinvested back into the sport.

It's strange how there is talk of trying to cap F1 budgets, or scale them back by tens of millions of dollars. Those tens of millions of dollars will be hundreds of F1 engineers losing their jobs. There's no outcry against that. The only argument for forwards not to scale back budgets has been because people feel F1 shouldn't be limited, not because we care whether Alex the Carbon Fibre Engineer can continue to pay their mortgage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9874
Location: Travelling around the world
pokerman wrote:
I like looking at pretty women so :thumbdown:

Use the internet. It has everything you need

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 8029
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:28 am
Posts: 59
Toby. wrote:
ohwell wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
Interestingly Liberty apparently own Sports Illustrated. So presumably that will no longer show pictures of American Football cheerleaders, and the infamous annual Swimsuit magazine is presumably no longer appropriate.... that is unless the alleged $35m of advertising revenue it generates influences the shareholders decision in anyway?

Interesting. I'd like to see if someone brings this up on social media and tags liberty asking for their official answer on this. Bunch of hypocrites trying too hard to be PC. Meh


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


Liberty Media own .5 million shares (approx 1%) of Time Inc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13767
moby wrote:
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


Agreed entirely.

To be honest had Liberty just said "we won't be using grid girls in 2018 because they're not needed" then I would have been fine with it. But they haven't done that. They've explicitly said it was social/political reasons. Those reasons don't add up for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:24 am
Posts: 2189
Exediron wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/02/formula-1-f1-grid-girls-eliminate-reaction-social-media

Interesting views from some of the girls

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.


Depends on your take on the argument but the difference here is that the taxpayer isn't being asked to foot the bill for the massive loss grid girls are costing the country.

People being negatively impacted by keeping them: 0
People being negatively impacted by getting rid of them: hundreds of women with lost income.

_________________
I remember when this website was all fields.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:56 pm
Posts: 864
I am glad that we are finally ushering in an era where we can pretend that women's bodies do not exist. It's also good to see that all the grid girls who liked their jobs got put out of their misery. Serves them right for thinking they knew what was good for them. Its 2018 and we live in an enlightened age after all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:20 am
Posts: 119
Location: London, UK
pokerman wrote:
moby wrote:
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.

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.

_________________
The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other's life. Rarely do members of one family grow up under the same roof.”
Richard Bach, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 8029
Shia Luck wrote:
pokerman wrote:
moby wrote:
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.

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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2343
moby wrote:
Shia Luck wrote:
pokerman wrote:
moby wrote:
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.

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...

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 8029
ALESI wrote:
moby wrote:
Shia Luck wrote:
pokerman wrote:
moby wrote:
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.

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...

:D

This is what I mean. Who decides if it is 'suitable' or not. She was quite happy to show her legs on TV, and I doubt anyone would call her a bimbo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26915
mcdo wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I like looking at pretty women so :thumbdown:

Use the internet. It has everything you need

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.

Quote:
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.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 8:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23226
pokerman wrote:
mcdo wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I like looking at pretty women so :thumbdown:

Use the internet. It has everything you need

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.

Quote:
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.

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 1426
Inappropriate comment removed


Last edited by Mod Blue on Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Breaking of forum rulea


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:18 am
Posts: 25
[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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
BackwardsInFlames wrote:
[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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:18 am
Posts: 25
Siao7 wrote:
BackwardsInFlames wrote:
[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.

I was thinking about Clare Williams when I wrote this paragraph and I think what I'm trying to get at is that while there are women in some very senior roles, it does feel that it comes back to the lowest common denominator of grid girls getting lots of visibility just because it's something to "get fans going".

I totally agree that it's my responsibility to teach my kids about this sort of thing but, at the same time, I think there is stuff society has a responsibility for too. I genuinely feel like that the impact of not having grid girls is pretty miniscule in the grand scheme of things and if it has any positive impacts regarding participation then it's probably worth it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23226
Siao7 wrote:
BackwardsInFlames wrote:
[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.

yeah, I'd second this. I don't think grid girls teach young girls that this is the only way to get into F1. And agree that it's not TV's job to guide a child in her career choices.

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.

This is about trying to take advantage of the prevailing mood by creating an issue out of nothing. I'd be very, very surprised if LM had actually crunched any numbers and come up with a larger audience simply by virtue of the absence of grid girls. Colour me cynical, but it's more about headline grabbing than any real concern for values


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:35 pm
Posts: 174
1. The word ban is misleading. No one is banning anything. A particular service 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.


Last edited by FrusEldar on Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:18 am
Posts: 25
Zoue wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
BackwardsInFlames wrote:
Zoue wrote:
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.


That's all ok, but I think a 5' interview with Williams is going to be much stronger than the grid girls on TV. And send a strong message to any females aspiring an F1 career.

The same argument goes both ways for me. If they add nothing to the show, but equally they don't do anything bad either, then why remove them?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5020
BackwardsInFlames wrote:
Zoue wrote:
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.

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...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1300
Fortunately, a reasonable solution has been found, and I personally (although I do like eye candy) support it.
Quote:
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.

http://www.racer.com/f1/item/147204-f1-grid-kids-to-replace-grid-girls

Just like football, engaging children during the pre-race/match ceremonies not only is inspiring for all, it provides motivation for all involved.
Image
http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/lionel-messi-kid-plastic-bag.jpg

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:18 am
Posts: 25
sandman1347 wrote:
BackwardsInFlames wrote:
Zoue wrote:
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.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5020
BackwardsInFlames wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
BackwardsInFlames wrote:
Zoue wrote:
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.

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.

Does Beyonce, Pink or Justin Bieber serve a purpose for the event? Because all of them have been hired to perform during F1 race weekends in the past. Why apply this rigid practicality only to grid girls?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13767
FrusEldar wrote:
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.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13767
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5565
Location: Michigan, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
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.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13767
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
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.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:20 am
Posts: 119
Location: London, UK
Zoue wrote:
...

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.


I couldn't agree more. (With both points). And yes, hospitality work is around outside of F1 for models. In the end of the day all the PR work going on off TV still has to be done by someone. It's not going to be the kids after all.

With the latest news it is clearly a 2 pronged PR operation. Pretty impressive actually. Liberty have the motorsport world arguing about sexism and feminism and while some public may have missed the news about that, (despite the opportune timing with boxing et al.) they now have doubled up by employing the up and coming talent, and kid news will definitely be all over the media. Quite a coup for them.

_________________
The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other's life. Rarely do members of one family grow up under the same roof.”
Richard Bach, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1016
FrusEldar wrote:
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.

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

FrusEldar wrote:
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.

But what about what the sport offered to the girls?

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3108
This whole debate is largely a microcosm of everything that goes wrong with debates in the news and on the internet. We have two sides addressing strawmen representations of the other and consequentially it goes nowhere.

Of course, the size and scale of the internet means that both sides can find genuine cases of people putting forwards the strawman argument with complete conviction of it and that only muddies the water even further.

With that in mind, as someone who is happy to see the back of grid girls, I just want to bust a few of the myths being claimed are arguments for getting rid of them - and while I have seen some cases of people arguing them as reasons, in my opinion - for the most part - anyone arguing these as reasons is spouting complete idiocy.

Grid girls should be scrapped because it's exploiting the models who do it
This is complete nonsense as the girls who do it are professional models, either part time or full time, and who do it voluntarily with the full knowledge of what it involves.

Grid girls should be scrapped for puritanical / prudish reasons
The reasons for getting rid of them have nothing to do with being against nudity, partial nudity or dressing in a sexually provocative manner.

The presence of Grid Girls prevents women from getting involved in Formula 1
While there is certainly a case that encouraging a a leering, alpha male, lecherous crowd is going to make Motorsport less appealing to women, and certainly gives the image of it as a boy's club, the grid girls themselves are not the most significant aspect of it. And while they may discourage girls from initially developing an interest in F1 (or maybe, more accurately, making them think it's not "for them") I don't think that once a girl has developed an interest in F1 the presence of grid girls is going to put her off.

Women shouldn't dress attractively
Most people, regardless of gender, will usually try to dress attractively. I don't actually think anyone is making this case, but a lot of people seem to be claiming this is a school of thought.


Obviously, I can't write a list as to why people *are* against Grid girls, as it's different for every person. However, I can list mine, and it boils down to the message it sends out.

You have 20 big name male drivers competing for the prize each weekend. They are the actors and the stars, their identity is known, we know who they are. They are then showered with women, disposable trophies each weekend. The clapping corridors of women lining the way to the podium are the worst example of this. Literally tens of women paid to clap a multi millionaire racing driver as his reward for winning the race. I mean, even if you are okay with the whole objectification and trophyism of women in that context, doesn't it somewhat diminish the credibility of the driver? I mean, Lewis Hamilton should be able to walk into a nightclub or a bar and immediately get swamped by ladies, yet the moment after he wins the race he's being congratulated by paid women to applaud his great achievement, and with no attempt to even disguise that fact. They are lined up either side like wallpaper and presented to him.

Of course, I have got the impression from this thread that actually most people are quite happy to ditch the clapping ladies, but the problem is, pandora's box has been opened. By having had them, it's highlighted the fact the grids girls are considered prizes. And just like the trophies we have a different one each weekend, local totty, bussed in as a perk for the driver. And to be clear, the objection here has nothing to do with any objections to free love or promiscuity, I'm as liberal as you can possibly imagine on that front, it's down to the gender divide they have grown to represent in the sport.

The men are the stars and make the overwhelming majority of the actual story, while the overwhelming majority of the women involved are nameless decorations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23226
mikeyg123 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
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.


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.

Yes, neither are there for motorsport reasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:35 pm
Posts: 174
mikeyg123 wrote:
Could a team hire an attractive female model to hold the drivers number if they wanted to? If not then it's a ban.


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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:35 pm
Posts: 174
DOLOMITE wrote:
FrusEldar wrote:
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.

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

FrusEldar wrote:
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.

But what about what the sport offered to the girls?


Yes, the owner of the F1 brand, decided he / she / they no longer need this particular service. If I frequent a topless bar and I decide that I had it with the nudity, and I go elsewhere, does this mean the "market" did not drive my decision? Free market, you can hire, you can unhire. You as a viewer if you don't like this sport, then you are free to switch sport.

What did the sport offer to the girls? I still don't get it why people seem to bend backwards in trying to defend this paternalistic point of view, aww poor girls will now be homeless, would no one think of the poor brilliant girls who are now ruined financially from this horrible decision. Every day people lose their jobs or have to adjust to new economic realities and yet no one bats an eyelid. Unless you are some hard core socialist, then I don't see why you choose to be so particularly concerned over this decision. Whatever the sport offered to the girls, does not mean that there is an obligation to continue the practice of grid girls in perpetuity. Things change. These days people become models simply by uploading selfies.

Nothing to see here, we need to move on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13767
FrusEldar wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Could a team hire an attractive female model to hold the drivers number if they wanted to? If not then it's a ban.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:35 pm
Posts: 174
mikeyg123 wrote:
FrusEldar wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Could a team hire an attractive female model to hold the drivers number if they wanted to? If not then it's a ban.


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.


It was a decision by the new owners to stop hiring the services of grid girls. Nowhere in the FIA regulations does it stipulate that there should be grid girls. I appreciate the use of emotional language to drive your point, but the word ban is entirely wrong and misleading.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:48 pm
Posts: 333
https://www.fia.com/news/fia-and-formul ... -grid-kids

They knew this all along obviously, but the new owners are amazing in generating publicity. Great idea as well. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Black_Flag_11, Google Adsense [Bot], Lotus49 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group