• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Formula 1 to stop using Grid Girls and women who just lost their job are fighting for it.

Mahadev

Member
Thank you progressives for ruining more lives.


They're not progressives, I'm a progressive, they're authoritarian puritans disguising as left while the corporate media system actively advertises and defends these useful idiots because they want to destroy the reputation of the actual left and divide them and the population in general; and they're succeeding. Well, screw them and their stupid drama.
 
Last edited:

Mahadev

Member
These things are not mutually exclusive. Agency is key.


They might not be in theory but they certainly are in practice. Women who don't toe the line are treated as the ignorant victims in the most condescending and passive-aggressive way possible. Women who like these jobs because, let's face it, most of them are easy and very lucrative, or women who defend women's right to do whatever the fuck they want are accused of internalized misogyny or being brainwashed by the patriarchy or similar condescending bullshit.
 

Lupingosei

Banned
Was this change actually in response to any group actively calling for the removal of grid girls? I don't see the issue with the company simply thinking it no longer fits their desired image.
Either way, having grid kids is ten times better anyway. Will probably be an amazing experience being out there with their F1 idols.

The problem unlike soccer where everybody can be with their idols, those grid kids will be recruited from cart and other driving competitions. So they only take people who already are in a way privileged, because they have the money to afford those hobbies for their kids.
 

JDB

Banned
The problem unlike soccer where everybody can be with their idols, those grid kids will be recruited from cart and other driving competitions. So they only take people who already are in a way privileged, because they have the money to afford those hobbies for their kids.
Don't really see that as that big of a deal. Either is better than grid girls.
 

Lupingosei

Banned
Don't really see that as that big of a deal. Either is better than grid girls.

Why? A lot of students got money for those jobs and they only had to work over the weekend. It was a good job for them and helped them to get ahead. Now people with already a lot of money take this opportunity away from them and a lot of people tell them, that they should be happy about it.
 

bufkus

Member
I blame religious conservatives more than I would feminists for this. sex positive feminists do not have a problem with scantily clad/objectified jobs as long as it's consensual.

Serious question, what are people trying to pull in this decade? How does this help anything?
I just don't understand how "liberals" have become so sex-negative and puritanical.

Stop blaming liberals for this. We are not responsible for it.
 
Last edited:

GotrekNoFelix

Neo Member
I think this is a more difficult and nuanced moral issue than so many people are presenting it as.

To try and break the question down into its component parts:

If you believe that a position of employment exists only to further harmful cultural ideas towards you, is it okay for you to be mad about it and call for that position to no longer exist?

It'd be like if in my office suddenly our CEO decided to hire scantily clad models to stand around as hot eye candy. It wouldn't be crazy if our female employees got mad at that and want those models to no longer be hired by us, and if I told my girlfriend about it and she got mad too, I don't think that would be unwarranted.

Even so, there's still the issue that people will lose jobs, which sucks. However, it's also understandable for women to ask that we move away from a culture where so many corners of it only include women if/when they can be reduced to sexual objects.
Yeah but what's wrong with women doing what they want to do for a living? Seems a bit backwards.
 

Dunki

Member
The opportunity is no longer there. It's grid kids now.
So? Does not chage the fact that so called feminists celebrated that women who loved what they are doing lost their jobs because they feel triggered by it. Modern Feminism should never become our social and moral compass.
 
Last edited:
Will someone please think about the children?

No seriously. It appears that Formula 1 has considered its long-term viability in the sports world ( if you consider driving a car a sport), and is grooming the Next Generation.

Once that was made known, the conversation should have shifted and that direction. Instead, some folks still want to throw fix about their T&A. Plenty of other places to get that, and these ladies shouldn't have any trouble finding future employment. I hear Vince McMahon wants to bring back the XFL for example. They are going to need some cheerleaders, dance team, flag girls, Etc.
 
So? Does not chage the fact that so called feminists celebrated that women who loved what they are doing lost their jobs because they feel triggered by it. Modern Feminism should never become our social and moral compass.

Feminists praised it and you're here bitching about it. Meanwhile it is a corporate decision.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dunki

Member
Feminists praised it and you're here bitching about it. Meanwhile it is a corporate decision.
So I guess you are never interested in these reasons? Why these decisions were made? Why they called it social norms" etc? How will you ever solve problems if you do not asks because of the why?
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Holy shit...Piers Morgan said something I agree with.

I find it funny that these sorts of things are what the feminists are so up in arms about, but no one is making a big deal about stuff like https://www.its4women.ie/ car insurance, because if discrimination is positive it doesn't matter right?...you know, so long as the women it benefits aren't also above average in attractiveness.

I find it odd that people like you will blame "feminists" instead of the people that got rid of the grid girls in the first place. It's not like they were forced by the govt to get rid of them. Stop finding ways to blame feminist for all these type of changes.
 
So I guess you are never interested in these reasons? Why these decisions were made? Why they called it social norms" etc? How will you ever solve problems if you do not asks because of the why?

Are you interested other than complaining about feminism?

You've been talking about this the entire time. At some point you gotta realize that they changed the tradition aiming to implement another strategy.
 

Dunki

Member
Are you interested other than complaining about feminism?

You've been talking about this the entire time. At some point you gotta realize that they changed the tradition aiming to implement another strategy.
I am interested in it because I think that this is the reason for the change and I think that this is a dangerous direction all of this is going. Formula one is just an example
 

NickFire

Member
Are you interested other than complaining about feminism?

You've been talking about this the entire time. At some point you gotta realize that they changed the tradition aiming to implement another strategy.
Let's be real - his complaints are 100% on topic whether we agree or disagree with them. What he complains of is the underlying reason they changed to another strategy. Suggesting he is not interested in the topic is unfair and untrue.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I am interested in it because I think that this is the reason for the change and I think that this is a dangerous direction all of this is going. Formula one is just an example

What's unfair is that you seem to think feminist have this HUGE level of power that they simply don't have. This is a corporation that made this decision based on what they perceive as changing social norms. These models should be ONLY pissed at the corporation and not any feminist at all.

Wanting social norms to change is one thing. But blaming people for corporate decisions is another.
 

Dunki

Member
What's unfair is that you seem to think feminist have this HUGE level of power that they simply don't have. This is a corporation that made this decision based on what they perceive as changing social norms. These models should be ONLY pissed at the corporation and not any feminist at all.

Wanting social norms to change is one thing. But blaming people for corporate decisions is another.
In all I blame social media and some media to make these things much bigger than they are. In a normal world these extremists would have spoken and done no one cares. With Social media these things beome huge. A small Minority of people can tweet something (true or not) and it will spread like a forest fire. But yes it does not help that many of these "modern" feminists are in media and "journalism" they try to paint pictures that do not exist in reality and that is why I think all this is dangerous.

In the 90 or 2000 no one would have cared about this change but these are different times and not for the better IMO.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
In all I blame social media and some media to make these things much bigger than they are. In a normal world these extremists would have spoken and done no one cares. With Social media these things beome huge. A small Minority of people can tweet something (true or not) and it will spread like a forest fire. But yes it does not help that many of these "modern" feminists are in media and "journalism" they try to paint pictures that do not exist in reality and that is why I think all this is dangerous.

In the 90 or 2000 no one would have cared about this change but these are different times and not for the better IMO.

Okay so now I like where you are going with it here. At least blaming social media makes sense (because blaming feminist makes no sense). Like someone in the thread said last week, I'm surprised that million and billion corporations still don't know how to handle or deal with the existence of social media. Maybe these companies need to hire PR firms ran by millennials. Or maybe they need to hire more millennials themselves, because how you categorized social media is 100% exactly right! Regardless if the hot new thing is true or not, social media does make things "FEEL" bigger than they really are. It applies so much more pressure than when I grew up in the 90s and 2000s.
 

NickFire

Member
What's unfair is that you seem to think feminist have this HUGE level of power that they simply don't have. This is a corporation that made this decision based on what they perceive as changing social norms. These models should be ONLY pissed at the corporation and not any feminist at all.

Wanting social norms to change is one thing. But blaming people for corporate decisions is another.
That's the standard talking point every time the group in question bullies a company into doing what they demanded via twitter lynch mob tactics. It does not make it true though. As CNN reminds us 6 times an hour, calling a banana an apple does not make it an apple. In this case, anyone not living under a rock knows how the story goes IMO. The same group of people get mad, attack on twitter and other social media relentlessly, bully the company into doing what they want, and then claim it was all the company's fault and not their own for the bullying tactics. Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat.

In this case, its laughable to suggest any social change beyond complaints had an effect. The only changing and relevant social norm is businesses are afraid of being labeled as misogynist, sexist, etc. That is due to the complaints (being thrown against them repetitively and publicly), and not because the audience suddenly decided they only like seeing women in trench coats.

Edit: I want to add to address your point above. We may be more in agreement than disagreement. I don't fault anyone for their personal views. My issue is that the manner those views are expressed via social media bully people and companies into going along to avoid being tarred and feathered.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
That's the standard talking point every time the group in question bullies a company into doing what they demanded via twitter lynch mob tactics. It does not make it true though. As CNN reminds us 6 times an hour, calling a banana an apple does not make it an apple. In this case, anyone not living under a rock knows how the story goes IMO. The same group of people get mad, attack on twitter and other social media relentlessly, bully the company into doing what they want, and then claim it was all the company's fault and not their own for the bullying tactics. Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat.
.
It would already help if journalists would stop wirting their articles based on tweets....
 

LordPezix

Member
Damn, does that mean the Monster and Red Bull girls that give out free drinks are going to go away too????

Fuck, I hope I find a redbull car on craigslist for cheap!
 

Rourkey

Member
Did radical feminists call for stopping gridgirls? Just trying to get some balance as Liberty seem to have come to this on their own without any campaign
 
Did radical feminists call for stopping gridgirls? Just trying to get some balance as Liberty seem to have come to this on their own without any campaign

This is all that they said:

“We feel this custom does not resonate with our brand values and clearly is at odds with modern day societal norms. We don’t believe the practice is appropriate or relevant to Formula One and its fans, old and new, across the world.”

“Over the last year we have looked at a number of areas which we felt needed updating so as to be more in tune with our vision,”

But ya know. Supposedly femnazi's have influence over motorsport organizational structures, and campaigned heavily over twitter and got it all ended. Yup.

But really, there was always criticism against it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also here it has something to do with biology and also the reception.

It is no secret that male tennis as an example is way more powerful and "athletic" than the women part and call it bad or good this form draws more people into the stadiums. It is the same with every other physical sport. A great example would be soccer. Women first class teams and world cup winner are getting easily beaten by unkown 15-17 year old boys. I That is the level of women soccer right now. And you can not deamnd that topclass women should earn the same as men. Same with Tennis: A Venus Williams in her prime could not even get into the male Top 200 list. There is such a huge difference here that it would be unfair if they get the same.

And for your Gridgirl argument: Wrong: There are women who use this as springbord into the sport as well. And most importantly these women love their jobs they never felt objectified or threaten. So why should they not allowed to do this? And let us be honest here. Formula one would be almoost impossible for women since they can not endure the HUGE physical requirement for this sport. Low class sure but not Fromula 1

Tennis is not a sport that pays its players in proportion to how much money they bring in. They just have an event pot and payout based on how far you get in that competition. Why shouldn't male and female players share a single pot? Saying that women tennis players don't draw as many crowds is of no consequence because Tennis is not a proportional paying sport.

People who get paid for something tend to want to be able to continue that thing, so that doesn't surprise me. I would be very surprised if there's any evidence that a significant amount of women used grid girls as springboard into the sport. There have been multiple female drivers in F1 before, and many more test drivers. So, it is possible for a female F1 league to exist.

It is a good point and it is how it works actually in Spanish football league, provided, you can prove that viewers are after particular player/team. Barcelona and Real are getting more money for their matches, than the rest of the league, because there are people who are specifically interested only in those teams.


Less in this context is misleading.
The question is: shouldn't the prize be proportional to the income of the tournament?
And the answer is apparently yes, and it works just fine like that (nobody even tries to suggest to change it) when it is "distinctly" different

But now we have "single" tournaments, which technically are two different tournaments (as people of different genders do not compete vs each other) that simply happen at the same time in the same location and the rules are changed.

It is apparently unfair, no matter the POV , it should be the same sum both times or income based sum both times.
Since it is a "sensitive" topic, nobody dares to argue for proportional always, on the other hand "the same" always simply wouldn't work in practice, so while lobby for it is much stronger, they can't achieve it.


I don't quite understand what you mean by "restricted" in this context. So if I'm an insanely skilled female driver, exactly what would stop me, what would not stop similarly skilled male driver?


No, and I've just given an example: volleyball. Even if you bar bikini aspect, women's games are more entertaining to watch, sometimes there is too much strength.

As I said above.

"Tennis is not a sport that pays its players in proportion to how much money they bring in. They just have an event pot and payout based on how far you get in that competition. Why shouldn't male and female players share a single pot? Saying that women tennis players don't draw as many crowds is of no consequence because Tennis is not a proportional paying sport."

TBH, I don't completely know what you mean by this " on the other hand "the same" always simply wouldn't work in practice, ". Why not?

Yeah but what's wrong with women doing what they want to do for a living? Seems a bit backwards.

I think it's more complicated than that. The argument isn't about the people doing the job, it's about the position even existing in the first place.
 

Dunki

Member
Tennis is not a sport that pays its players in proportion to how much money they bring in. They just have an event pot and payout based on how far you get in that competition. Why shouldn't male and female players share a single pot? Saying that women tennis players don't draw as many crowds is of no consequence because Tennis is not a proportional paying sport.

People who get paid for something tend to want to be able to continue that thing, so that doesn't surprise me. I would be very surprised if there's any evidence that a significant amount of women used grid girls as springboard into the sport. There have been multiple female drivers in F1 before, and many more test drivers. So, it is possible for a female F1 league to exist.

For this to happen with these kind of machines you need to overcome a physical obstacle. Formula 3 sure but one is a total different east IMO.

And for Tennis I do not think this is true. Again. The best women right now could most likely not even compete in the top 200 Worldrankings. And of course this will influence the attraction of the sport. Imagine these women would be paid on that standard. Women already getting way more than their male counterparts would get and this is totally fine. But you can not expect the same pay compared to the top male players in the world.
 
Last edited:
But this isn't true. People buy tickets to see men's finals, not to see "Federer's finals".


Because smaller tournaments can't afford it.

TV ratings go down when lesser-known players compete in finals, this can directly impact a tournament's bottom line.

Can smaller tournaments not afford it or would smaller tournaments just need to change the amount they pay out to male winners in order to further compensate female winners?
 

Dunki

Member
TV ratings go down when lesser-known players compete in finals, this can directly impact a tournament's bottom line.

Can smaller tournaments not afford it or would smaller tournaments just need to change the amount they pay out to male winners in order to further compensate female winners?
Again do you think it is fair that a women who can not beat a 250 placed man can earn the same amount that a Federer would get?
 

llien

Member
TV ratings go down when lesser-known players compete in finals, this can directly impact a tournament's bottom line.
Maybe for the next tournament, but not for the ongoing one.

Can smaller tournaments not afford it or would smaller tournaments just need to change the amount they pay out to male winners in order to further compensate female winners?
The former. I hope you still remember which scenario we are considering.

Again do you think it is fair that a women who can not beat a 250 placed man can earn the same amount that a Federer would get?
I fail to see how that is relevant.

Volleyball female teams would be destroyed by male teams, but attract more viewers.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
Maybe for the next tournament, but not for the ongoing one.


The former. I hope you still remember which scenario we are considering.


I fail to see how that is relevant.

Volleyball female teams would be destroyed by male teams, but attract more viewers.
haven't we already established that women overall do not attract more viewer in Tennis? And let us not forget. The most these men and women will earn is through sponsoring advertising etc.
 
Last edited:

llien

Member
haven't we already established that women overall do not attract more viewer in Tennis?
We have, but you made an argument "if a man can beat a women at sport, shouldn't he make more money". I provided you with an example, when it's not the case.
 
Maybe for the next tournament, but not for the ongoing one.


The former. I hope you still remember which scenario we are considering.


I fail to see how that is relevant.

Volleyball female teams would be destroyed by male teams, but attract more viewers.

Even if that financial effect is in the future, the effect is still there.

Aren't we considering the idea of male and female tennis players making the same tournament winnings? Maybe you know more than me, but I don't know of any ITF run tournaments that are that pressed for money that they would not exist if they had to pay women tournament winners the same as male winners.
 

llien

Member
Even if that financial effect is in the future, the effect is still there.
When such effects are singled out, they, perhaps, lead to increased payments. (e.g. Senna vs Prost drama) and it would be fair for them to request and get more for that, no issue.

Aren't we considering the idea of male and female tennis players making the same tournament winnings?
I was pointing the difference in payments when we call (gender) different tournaments "the same" and when we don't.

I don't know of any ITF run tournaments that are that pressed for money that they would not exist if they had to pay women tournament winners the same as male winners.

It's the difference in understanding of "equality" between us.
I don't see unfairness of Federer making more, and if it is not fair, why would one need to force tournament organizers to give up on their profits?

Try to apply "equal pay" principle as you understand it to Uber driver case.
 
When such effects are singled out, they, perhaps, lead to increased payments. (e.g. Senna vs Prost drama) and it would be fair for them to request and get more for that, no issue.


I was pointing the difference in payments when we call (gender) different tournaments "the same" and when we don't.



It's the difference in understanding of "equality" between us.
I don't see unfairness of Federer making more, and if it is not fair, why would one need to force tournament organizers to give up on their profits?

Try to apply "equal pay" principle as you understand it to Uber driver case.

My basic point about Tennis is that its payment structure is a "tournament winnings" payment structure, where the money paid is completely divorced from who you are or your commercial value, it's completely about what you achieve. Even though it would be morally fair for Federer to make more, that's just not what the payment structure of Tennis is, that's why it's weird to me for people to even bring commercial concerns into this. That's clearly not the driving concern of tennis tournaments when it comes to payout.

Even so, you could say "male and female events are completely different tournaments, therefore, why shouldn't have the same winnings". What I would say in response is that, commercially, to my knowledge, they are the same product, sponsorships and TV deals are not made for male/female specific tennis events. This isn't like the difference between the male and female world cup.

The uber driver case isn't applicable because they do take "who you are" into account. If you're experienced you make more on Uber. This is fine.
 

DonJimbo

Member
The only think that attracts people to watch F1 Nascar etc are Grid Girls
Grid Girls attract more people to watch and visit this races
 

Dunki

Member
My basic point about Tennis is that its payment structure is a "tournament winnings" payment structure, where the money paid is completely divorced from who you are or your commercial value, it's completely about what you achieve. Even though it would be morally fair for Federer to make more, that's just not what the payment structure of Tennis is, that's why it's weird to me for people to even bring commercial concerns into this. That's clearly not the driving concern of tennis tournaments when it comes to payout.

Even so, you could say "male and female events are completely different tournaments, therefore, why shouldn't have the same winnings". What I would say in response is that, commercially, to my knowledge, they are the same product, sponsorships and TV deals are not made for male/female specific tennis events. This isn't like the difference between the male and female world cup.

The uber driver case isn't applicable because they do take "who you are" into account. If you're experienced you make more on Uber. This is fine.

While it is not sport but fitting how about the model business in which women earn approx 75% more than men.
https://www.standard.co.uk/fashion/...ees-women-earn-75-more-than-men-a3597656.html
 

TrainedRage

Banned
Good! Now I don't have to look at those disgusting women, flaunting there natural beauty right in my face, personally insulting me with every hair flip and hand wave! Good riddance you sirens of the track, you harpies of the grid!
 

ZehDon

Gold Member
I blame religious conservatives more than I would feminists for this. sex positive feminists do not have a problem with scantily clad/objectified jobs as long as it's consensual...
As someone who could be painted a religious conservative, I have to disagree with this comment. Some of the photos of these women on the grid are downright tasteful, and the ones that might be considered risque are still more appropriate than most female recording artists' music videos these days. I don't think the issue is religious puritan thinking, or some bent of it. F1's response doesn't colour it a decision made to appease a religious group. I'm not quite sure where your drawing your conclusion from here.

I don't normally weigh in on this, but given the response from the actual grid girls, I've been thinking about this decision a bit. In my opinion, I think this may be the result of a... strange breed of tall poppy syndrome, one that's been creeping beneath the feminist movement, but usually kept in check by actual feminists pushing for positive gender equality. What I see here are women who aren't happy that this avenue of employment, or perhaps this level of public admiration, if I can use that expression here, isn't available to all women, based on their physical appearance. They fall short of the standards, so they push to have the standards removed, under the guise of feminism; if they fail to meet a certain physical standard, the issue must be the standard. I disagree with this. Positive body image is one thing. Restricting all marketing, PR displays, models, etc., to literally being just average looking people is something else, has little to do with gender equality, in my opinion. I make the distinction between grid girls, grid boys, etc., from something like Booth Babes that used to crowd the floors at E3, in that the Booth Babes' presence was almost grotesquely and exclusively sexualised, in a bit to attract people to their booths. The grid girls, while still aiming to present an attractive face for their brand, are not sexualised in the same way - well, perhaps not anymore. That change is the result of real, positive feminism, and something you can see in the positive response from those women themselves. They're still effectively used for marketing material, but for me, it's in the same way that advertisers hire good looking people to act in their advertisements, not in the same way as having girls in string bikinis bouncing up and down holding copies of "Daikatana".
 
How modern feminism works: "A shit ton of women who loved what they did lost their jobs, many of them losing their only source of income? Well, the job was sexist anyway due to the women being more beautiful than us, so hooray for progress!"

Soory, but I fail to see how women losing employment equates to a step forward for women's rights.
 

Shmunter

Member
Can’t have good looking women capitalising on their beauty.

Savage bump! Sorry, just catching up on Belgium leg and felt inspired to whinge.
 
Top Bottom