Vuelta Podium Girls Change

ballysmate

No tA Doctor wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Ah - the female pro bike racer who slags off podium/grid girls, is derogatory about them and their employment choices but still uses her sexuality as an above averagely (but not massively though) looking female in her marketing material?

Yeah that'll be the one.

And for every Amanda I'm sure there are at least the same who either don't care or would support employment choice.

Or is this the "oh they are a pro so they are sacred" argument?

I'm not aware of her "slagging off" podium/grid girls, nor have I seen a lot of sexualised marketing from her (she generally seems to be pictured in the highly alluring MTB helmet/body-armour combo).

I point out her article because she makes a good argument, provides supporting evidence, and because she has a stake in the outcome.

How does she have a stake in the outcome? She uses her physical attributes, be they strength, stamina, balance etc to win races. Podium girls use their attributes to promote events. Different fields.

ballysmate

bobmcstuff wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

But I'd expect that from certain individuals in Pro Race - most cliquey section of these fora by a long shot.

Have you been in BB recently?? It makes no sense - most threads seems to be conducted mainly using in-jokes...

Perhaps true.
But people posting there have the self awareness to know they are posting bollox. A self awareness sadly lacking in some other areas of the fora.

RichN95.

mamba80 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I agree with you, its hypocrisy.

I just think women should aspire to be the very best they can, if the proponents of grid girls would be happy their own daughters being one, then fair enough but the msg sent to all the girls that arent particularly good looking is that they are not "up to standard"

Yeah, whenever I watch F1 and see Claire Williams I see someone who had to make do with running a team because wasn't 'up to standard' like a Pit Girl. And Fran Millar had to be the business director of Sky because she couldn't hack it as a podium girl.

..and your point is? or is it just another argumentative post from you again.

My point is nobody is looking at a Grid Girl and thinking that it is the pinnacle of female achievement. So there is no standard to be 'up to'

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

As an aside, I'm still waiting for the North London massif plan for these ladies to pay their mortgage now their bi-monthly pay cheque has gone. Or doesn't this matter in your rented flat and Rapha in the cupboard? Didn't think so so long as you can sit there with a latte in your hand happy at your role in the emancipation of the modern lady.

Pass the sick bucket, you just want oggle good looking girls... as for their mortgage etc this argument was similar to those that want to continue with child labour in the last century or who justify Nike using kids on a dollar a day to make their $200 shoes.

If these are women are so talented, sought after etc they ll surely be able to find work in many other areas of the corp world.[

/quote]

Why should they give up their chosen employment? Who are you or I to say what is a fitting profession for a woman, or man come to that? If it's legal and someone is willing to pay them good money, then do it if that is their choice.

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I agree with you, its hypocrisy.

I just think women should aspire to be the very best they can, if the proponents of grid girls would be happy their own daughters being one, then fair enough but the msg sent to all the girls that arent particularly good looking is that they are not "up to standard"

Yeah, whenever I watch F1 and see Claire Williams I see someone who had to make do with running a team because wasn't 'up to standard' like a Pit Girl. And Fran Millar had to be the business director of Sky because she couldn't hack it as a podium girl.

..and your point is? or is it just another argumentative post from you again.

My point is nobody is looking at a Grid Girl and thinking that it is the pinnacle of female achievement. So there is no standard to be 'up to'

Nobody really looks at an accountant and thinks that that is the pinnacle of human achievement.

shortfall

Lookyhere wrote:

Must be really really tough to make it in a male dominated industry when the only advantage you have is Daddy owns the team and my darling brother (a top flight pro) is mates with Dave Brailsford.

Does make you wonder why there are not more girls from Doncaster at the top of F1 and SKY.

F1 is the epitome of privilege and nepotism. There isn't really a route into it for Daz from Scunthorpe who's dad is on the dole. It's a rich man's sport and rich men's son's are usually the ones who excel. There may be exceptions but the point is valid. So great, we've got rid of grid girls but we still race in dictatorships and you aren't going to make it unless your dad's a gazillionaire or he's well off and prepared to mortgage everything for you to have even a remote chance of getting on the grid. Well done, a real victory for egalitarianism fellas.

RichN95.

Lookyhere wrote:

Must be really really tough to make it in a male dominated industry when the only advantage you have is Daddy owns the team and my darling brother (a top flight pro) is mates with Dave Brailsford.

I think both of them spent a long time proving themselves before they got to their positions.

trivial_poursuivant

Shortfall wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Must be really really tough to make it in a male dominated industry when the only advantage you have is Daddy owns the team and my darling brother (a top flight pro) is mates with Dave Brailsford.

Does make you wonder why there are not more girls from Doncaster at the top of F1 and SKY.

F1 is the epitome of privilege and nepotism. There isn't really a route into it for Daz from Scunthorpe who's dad is on the dole. It's a rich man's sport and rich men's son's are usually the ones who excel. There be exceptions but the point is valid. So great, we've got rid of grid girls but we still race in dictatorships and you aren't going to make it unless your dad's a gazillionaire or he's well off and prepared to mortgage everything for you to have even a remote chance of getting on the grid. Well done, a real victory for egalitarianism fellas.

I would hardly call Lewis Hamilton’s background that of privilege and wealth. And he’s done pretty well despite Where he came from. Mixed race of working class background. I think he showed that it isn’t just the super rich that exist in the F1 bubble. Then there is Fernando Alonso of similar beginnings. Same as Vettel. Not exactly super rich background

RichN95.

Shortfall wrote:

F1 is the epitome of privilege and nepotism. There isn't really a route into it for Daz from Scunthorpe who's dad is on the dole. It's a rich man's sport and rich men's son's are usually the ones who excel. There be exceptions but the point is valid. So great, we've got rid of grid girls but we still race in dictatorships and you aren't going to make it unless your dad's a gazillionaire or he's well off and prepared to mortgage everything for you to have even a remote chance of getting on the grid. Well done, a real victory for egalitarianism fellas.

In Cardiff, the city and it's history is indelibly linked to the 1st Marquess of Bute. I looked up who the current Marquess is and it's Johnny Dumfries who I remember having a few drives for Lotus in the 1980s.

By as TP says above, the best tend to get their on merit.

shortfall

I take your point but Lewis Hamilton's dad lives near my friends in Hertfordshire and believe me, Lewis didn't come from the ghetto. His dad remortgaged his house and gambled his life savings to put him through kart racing, but then again that means you've got to have a house worth remortgaging - AND enough life savings to go kart racing which ain't cheap. My point is that if you were setting out to make F1 an ethical sport that was open to both sexes from all backgrounds then you wouldn't start by getting rid of Grid girls and then leave everything else that is wrong about it in place (which is precisely what has happened). It's pure tokenism from the owners of the sport who see this as an easy gesture to make with the way the wind's currently blowing.

https://www.raconteur.net/business/the- ... ormula-one

https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/12/07 ... rich-kids/

trivial_poursuivant

Hold on, you just said: “ It's a rich man's sport and rich men's son's are usually the ones who excel”

“you aren't going to make it unless your dad's a gazillionaire or he's well off and prepared to mortgage everything for you to have even a remote chance of getting on the grid.”

Now you use Lewis as the only example from the 3 I pointed out. His dad certainly isn’t super rich or a gazillionaire. Remortgaging the house is hardly the same. He didn’t exactly live in the playboy mansion.

It still doesn’t quite cover Fernando Alonso or Seb Vettel who came from similarly modest backgrounds. They were just good at what they do and were signed for by teams and rose though the sport.

shortfall

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Hold on, you just said: “ It's a rich man's sport and rich men's son's are usually the ones who excel”

“you aren't going to make it unless your dad's a gazillionaire or he's well off and prepared to mortgage everything for you to have even a remote chance of getting on the grid.”

Now you use Lewis as the only example from the 3 I pointed out. His dad certainly isn’t super rich or a gazillionaire. Remortgaging the house is hardly the same. He didn’t exactly live in the playboy mansion.

It still doesn’t quite cover Fernando Alonso or Seb Vettel who came from similarly modest backgrounds. They were just good at what they do and were signed for by teams and rose though the sport.

Ok (assuming you've read the links that support my argument) I don't know the backgrounds of Vettel and Alonso. Tell me about their history and route into F1 and then we can decide if they are typical of the sort of drivers who make it.

trivial_poursuivant

Shortfall wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Hold on, you just said: “ It's a rich man's sport and rich men's son's are usually the ones who excel”

“you aren't going to make it unless your dad's a gazillionaire or he's well off and prepared to mortgage everything for you to have even a remote chance of getting on the grid.”

Now you use Lewis as the only example from the 3 I pointed out. His dad certainly isn’t super rich or a gazillionaire. Remortgaging the house is hardly the same. He didn’t exactly live in the playboy mansion.

It still doesn’t quite cover Fernando Alonso or Seb Vettel who came from similarly modest backgrounds. They were just good at what they do and were signed for by teams and rose though the sport.

Ok (assuming you've read the links that support my argument) I don't know the backgrounds of Vettel and Alonso. Tell me about their history and route into F1 and then we can decide if they are typical of the sort of drivers who make it.

Just search wiki like you did with Lewis. Point is, your statement on only rich kids with rich dads making it is bollox. And the fact that you don’t even know already makes you even less qualified to make such a statement

shortfall

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Hold on, you just said: “ It's a rich man's sport and rich men's son's are usually the ones who excel”

“you aren't going to make it unless your dad's a gazillionaire or he's well off and prepared to mortgage everything for you to have even a remote chance of getting on the grid.”

Now you use Lewis as the only example from the 3 I pointed out. His dad certainly isn’t super rich or a gazillionaire. Remortgaging the house is hardly the same. He didn’t exactly live in the playboy mansion.

It still doesn’t quite cover Fernando Alonso or Seb Vettel who came from similarly modest backgrounds. They were just good at what they do and were signed for by teams and rose though the sport.

Ok (assuming you've read the links that support my argument) I don't know the backgrounds of Vettel and Alonso. Tell me about their history and route into F1 and then we can decide if they are typical of the sort of drivers who make it.

Just search wiki like you did with Lewis. Point is, your statement on only rich kids with rich dads making it is bollox. And the fact that you don’t even know already makes you even less qualified to make such a statement

Why so angry? I knew a little bit about Lewis Hamilton's background because my mate once showed me his Dad's house in Tewin. 31 Orchard Rd. It's not the Bronx, Google it. I know Lewis lived elsewhere with his Mum in Stevenage but it was his Dad who bankrolled him. Anthony Hamilton isn't a poor man although granted he's not a gazillionaire. I stand by my point that F1 is largely the preserve of the rich and their offspring but I'm happy for you to disagree, even if you seem really angry about it. Anyway, back on topic. Grid girls. They've gone. F1 still can't really lay claim to being a bastion of women's rights and equality just because of that one token gesture, not while they're accepting millions to race in countries with appalling records for their human rights and treatment of women. Can we agree on that?

trivial_poursuivant

Shortfall wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Hold on, you just said: “ It's a rich man's sport and rich men's son's are usually the ones who excel”

“you aren't going to make it unless your dad's a gazillionaire or he's well off and prepared to mortgage everything for you to have even a remote chance of getting on the grid.”

Now you use Lewis as the only example from the 3 I pointed out. His dad certainly isn’t super rich or a gazillionaire. Remortgaging the house is hardly the same. He didn’t exactly live in the playboy mansion.

It still doesn’t quite cover Fernando Alonso or Seb Vettel who came from similarly modest backgrounds. They were just good at what they do and were signed for by teams and rose though the sport.

Ok (assuming you've read the links that support my argument) I don't know the backgrounds of Vettel and Alonso. Tell me about their history and route into F1 and then we can decide if they are typical of the sort of drivers who make it.

Just search wiki like you did with Lewis. Point is, your statement on only rich kids with rich dads making it is bollox. And the fact that you don’t even know already makes you even less qualified to make such a statement

Why so angry? I knew a little bit about Lewis Hamilton's background because my mate once showed me his Dad's house in Tewin. 31 Orchard Rd. It's not the Bronx, Google it. I know Lewis lived elsewhere with his Mum in Stevenage but it was his Dad who bankrolled him. Anthony Hamilton isn't a poor man although granted he's not a gazillionaire. I stand by my point that F1 is largely the preserve of the rich and their offspring but I'm happy for you to disagree, even if you seem really angry about it. Anyway, back on topic. Grid girls. They've gone. F1 still can't really lay claim to being a bastion of women's rights and equality just because of that one token gesture, not while they're accepting millions to race in countries with appalling records for their human rights and treatment of women. Can we agree on that?

Angry? How to get an emotion out of a certain written comment? I’m just saying your statement was wrong.

shortfall

Here's what I actually said

It's a rich man's sport and rich men's son's are usually the ones who excel. There may be exceptions but the point is valid.

Note where I said "usually" and not "only" and where I said there may be exceptions. So you seemed angry because you distorted what I said and then claimed I was talking bollox. You were knocking down a strawman. Now if we were talking about football, or rugby, or snooker, or cricket, or athletics then you'd be able to list scores and scores of people who made it from humble backgrounds, but we're talking about F1 and you came up with 3, one of whom was Lewis Hamilton who's dad wasn't exactly poor. You won't tell me about Vettel and Alonso but because I can't be arsed to Google what their family background was like I'll take your point at face value. Would you accept that the grid isn't exactly stacked with the sons of dustmen, road sweepers and production workers?

trivial_poursuivant

Shortfall wrote:

Here's what I actually said

It's a rich man's sport and rich men's son's are usually the ones who excel. There may be exceptions but the point is valid.

Note where I said "usually" and not "only" and where I said there may be exceptions.

Them exceptions bring the 3 most dominant drivers of the past 20 years.

shortfall

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Here's what I actually said

It's a rich man's sport and rich men's son's are usually the ones who excel. There may be exceptions but the point is valid.

Note where I said "usually" and not "only" and where I said there may be exceptions.

Them exceptions bring the 3 most dominant drivers of the past 20 years.

Hardly the point though is it? It's probably the fact that their family riches didn't guarantee their seat that made them so successful. The point I am making is that F1 is a bastion of privilege, money, and the old boys network. There aren't many lads on the grid that came from nothing and what I am saying is that F1 needs to change that (and lots of other things) before p1ssing about with token gestures like putting Grid girls on the dole.

DeVlaeminck

Shortfall wrote:

DeVlaeminck

Shortfall wrote:

Them

Hardly the point though is it? It's probably the fact that their family riches didn't guarantee their seat that made them so successful. The point I am making is that F1 is a bastion of privilege, money, and the old boys network. There aren't many lads on the grid that came from nothing and what I am saying is that F1 needs to change that (and lots of other things) before p1ssing about with token gestures like putting Grid girls on the dole.

Completely separate issue, if I have a potentially fatal illness and a headache I wouldn't say I need to cure the fatal illness before taking a couple of paracetamol for the headache.

tangled_metal

So you're saying tackle the easier issues with sport first. Low hanging fruit if you like.

I like your idea. If you get easy wins first you can aim to generate a momentum towards modernisation and equality to tackle harder issues to confront. Kind of like women's suffrage, get the vote first then with time it'll lead to equality???

Optimistic?

shortfall

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Them

Hardly the point though is it? It's probably the fact that their family riches didn't guarantee their seat that made them so successful. The point I am making is that F1 is a bastion of privilege, money, and the old boys network. There aren't many lads on the grid that came from nothing and what I am saying is that F1 needs to change that (and lots of other things) before p1ssing about with token gestures like putting Grid girls on the dole.

Completely separate issue, if I have a potentially fatal illness and a headache I wouldn't say I need to cure the fatal illness before taking a couple of paracetamol for the headache.

Well using your analogy we could say that the patient (F1) has cured it's headache whilst completely ignoring the potentially fatal illness.

To use another analogy. Rik Waller is told by his doctor to reduce his calorie intake or die from an obesity related illness. He goes back in a month and the doctor asks him how he's getting on. " I started by giving up eating side salad with my Big Mac and fries. Well it's a start isn't it doctor?"

larkim

Accepting the real world that there is some beauty in the aesthetic of the way some people look, and whilst that may change over time with different body shapes being valued and appreciated, what I can't quite fathom out is why some of these sports (perhaps most obviously F1 and cycling) haven't just adopted a 50:50 male / female model split for all of these roles.

It removes the issue of objectifying just one sex, and recognises that in some circumstances a classically attractive human can be a pleasant adornment to a situation which is otherwise a little bland.

Whilst in principle I support the position that pure objectification of the human form is wrong, particularly when there are norms associated with it (e.g. specific body shapes etc), as this may have unintended consequences in terms of the behaviour of boys and girls as they grow up, I'm not entirely convinced that we will be able to remove this from society as it has evolutionary roots (e.g. the peacock displaying their feathers or the appealing protrusions of female apes) which will be very hard to eradicate. Finding other humans sexually attractive based on outward appearance is entirely natural, though what that attractiveness looks like undoubtedly changes through time.

So accept that we're only human, use male and female models in equal proportions for roles of equal value / prominence, exercise appropriate judgement in the garb that each are expected to wear and make sure that there are no trends towards body shapes which drive unhealthy behaviours in terms of the population at large.

Problem solved?

Ben6899

Pretty odd, giving out Anthony Hamilton's address.

larkim

In the spirit of balance, for anyone who wants to make a public stand against this sort of "political correctness gone mad" and support the economic rights of models (and, ahem, their agents to make money out of this), there's a march (!) in Birmingham on Saturday you might want to join.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/m ... p-14242770

salsiccia1

larkim wrote:

Accepting the real world that there is some beauty in the aesthetic of the way some people look, and whilst that may change over time with different body shapes being valued and appreciated, what I can't quite fathom out is why some of these sports (perhaps most obviously F1 and cycling) haven't just adopted a 50:50 male / female model split for all of these roles.

It removes the issue of objectifying just one sex, and recognises that in some circumstances a classically attractive human can be a pleasant adornment to a situation which is otherwise a little bland.

Whilst in principle I support the position that pure objectification of the human form is wrong, particularly when there are norms associated with it (e.g. specific body shapes etc), as this may have unintended consequences in terms of the behaviour of boys and girls as they grow up, I'm not entirely convinced that we will be able to remove this from society as it has evolutionary roots (e.g. the peacock displaying their feathers or the appealing protrusions of female apes) which will be very hard to eradicate. Finding other humans sexually attractive based on outward appearance is entirely natural, though what that attractiveness looks like undoubtedly changes through time.

So accept that we're only human, use male and female models in equal proportions for roles of equal value / prominence, exercise appropriate judgement in the garb that each are expected to wear and make sure that there are no trends towards body shapes which drive unhealthy behaviours in terms of the population at large.

Problem solved?

I'd say that's entirely reasonable.

larkim

Ben6899 wrote:

Pretty odd, giving out Anthony Hamilton's address.

It's publicly available here - https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/offi ... pointments

shortfall

Ben6899 wrote:

Pretty odd, giving out Anthony Hamilton's address.

He sold it a couple of years ago to an Indian Millionaire I believe.

Ben6899

larkim wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Pretty odd, giving out Anthony Hamilton's address.

It's publicly available here - https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/offi ... pointments

So it is. I didn't realise he's the Director of eight different companies...

bobmcstuff

Ballysmate wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

But I'd expect that from certain individuals in Pro Race - most cliquey section of these fora by a long shot.

Have you been in BB recently?? It makes no sense - most threads seems to be conducted mainly using in-jokes...

Perhaps true.
But people posting there have the self awareness to know they are posting bollox. A self awareness sadly lacking in some other areas of the fora.

Not convinced that BR is really any different to any other internet fora that I have been on (even if BB is an enlightened sunlit upland, which I'm not convinced about!).

Threads about contentious topics turn into slanging matches wherever they happen, in my experience. Forums don't deal well with nuance or tone.