the grid girl debate

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Is telling people to grow a pair of balls not a personal attack? After saying it's no skin off your back, it's an interestingly harsh statement to make. People who advocate keeping grid girls always seem to say they don't care that much..whilst telling us they should stay.

Houses, stones, glass and all that.

Think you're way off the mark here. No-one's 'advocating' keeping grid girls - but many are advocating the democratic freedom to run a business how the owners want, and to employ people to work as required, within the law.
If you don't like it, don't read it, don't watch it, don't look; can always go and be offended some place else.

Maybe of interest, I'm in Australia for a month and have been watching Big bash league cricket, there's a match every day and while many thousands of men, women and children pack the grounds it's also on free-to-air TV and is enormously popular, a real success for promoters and advertisers alike.
They have cheerleaders (sort of AFL-like) and most seem to be lightly-clad teenage girls. All part of the razzamatazz. This series only goes back to 2011 so not a long history or tradition but it's deemed a good idea. Seems it's not confined to motorsport as might be inferred by those with limited perspective.

[coppice]

It's not about being offended really , and of course it's legal, just as 'Gentlemen's Clubs ' and pornographic videos etc are legal ; I just find it embarrassing that my sport is so massively out of step with the times . Grid girls belong a long, long way back in the past . I go to watch racing , not girls trussed up in some bloke's wet dream fantasy idea of skimpy clothing.

[midgetman]

That's just about how I feel. I haven't been to Autosport International on spectator days recently to experience the seedier side of the sport, but it went through a very poor patch some years back, even to the extent of selling a stand to some kind of soft porn actress and model. It was so bad that I thought I'd wandered into the wrong show by mistake.

If you're so shallow that you find that enticing, there's Babe Station and any number of other seedy TV shows for you. I prefer something a bit more relevant to the sport.

It's not illegal, I don't even suppose it's exploitative unless we discover that the girls are reluctantly bussed in from low-wage regions and kept in poor conditions, but it's certainly nasty, tacky and I wish motor sport would rise above such crap.

Last year one of the kart events we ran at brought in kids from the local Majorette troupe to act as grid girls. Fair made my stomach churn, it was dreadfully tacky. Time to consign such activity to the 20th century where it belongs!

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

Think you're way off the mark here. No-one's 'advocating' keeping grid girls - but many are advocating the democratic freedom to run a business how the owners want, and to employ people to work as required, within the law.
If you don't like it, don't read it, don't watch it, don't look; can always go and be offended some place else.

with all due respect, was it not the legitimate owners of F1 (specifically their charge Ross Brawn) who have rekindled this debate on grid girls?

granted this has been a issue well before Liberty's time, but as far as i can tell the current reintroduction of this issue has been at their behest and a result of declining viewership and one attempt to make the 'show' more inclusive and thus more able to generate greater mass appeal...and ultimately more money for them.

so if the owners dont think they add value (perhaps even take away value) then should you not be supporting their point of view?


anyways, as an axiom, that owners have a democratic freedom to do as they please with their business (within the law of course), i would also argue that this forum exists in opposition to that.

we take issue with how much they charge for tickets, how much they charge for TV subscriptions, we take issues with how they determine rules, to whom they make historical payments, to where they choose to send the circus etc etc etc.

countless threads and posts take issue with the legal governance of BE, CVC, and now Liberty...so why is this a point to be raised in this thread and not any of the other threads where its perfectly acceptable to criticize the owner's business model?

i dare say this forum would be a far less busy place if we all accepted the notion that ownership gets to do what it wants with their toys.

[midgetman]

What sticks in my craw is the phrase "legitimate owners." Because they're not, are they? They are the commercial rights holders, they don't "own" a branch of motor racing.

But that's an aside. Grid girls. What else would you expect from a company that produced the Austen farrago. (It's a bit like an Austin Allegro without the charm)

It's odd, when you ask fans and the semi-interested alike what they want from the sport the answer "more crumpet, phwoah" doesn't feature. I bet if they scrapped the girls and spent the money on decent apps and more interactivity that's exactly what the viewer wants.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by bella

ah yes, the old "hot people use this product so you should too so you can get all the attention from the opposite sex" thing.

i don't make my product choices based on hot people, so maybe that's why i don't understand it all...

I don't understand it either but people do buy into "hot peoples" "life styles", hence all those awful magazines like Hello.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by midgetman

What sticks in my craw is the phrase "legitimate owners." Because they're not, are they? They are the commercial rights holders, they don't "own" a branch of motor racing.

But that's an aside. Grid girls. What else would you expect from a company that produced the Austen farrago. (It's a bit like an Austin Allegro without the charm)

It's odd, when you ask fans and the semi-interested alike what they want from the sport the answer "more crumpet, phwoah" doesn't feature. I bet if they scrapped the girls and spent the money on decent apps and more interactivity that's exactly what the viewer wants.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

I remember the Austin Allegro but I'm not too sure what the Austen farrago is, so I Googled it and came up with Houston farrago.

[bella]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't understand it either but people do buy into "hot peoples" "life styles", hence all those awful magazines like Hello.

this isn't too far away - i think the next thing we'll see is social media influencers being invited to grands prix - the lifestyle thing in magazines is now carefully curated instagram accounts and youtube accounts ranging from bikini models to lifestyle photographers and personal style bloggers. arguably that presence will mean more than random girls from local promotions agencies holding flags on the grid and better value for money for companies like heineken. their reach on social media is far, far greater and they're associated with something a lot more glamorous.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by bella

this isn't too far away - i think the next thing we'll see is social media influencers being invited to grands prix - the lifestyle thing in magazines is now carefully curated instagram accounts and youtube accounts ranging from bikini models to lifestyle photographers and personal style bloggers. arguably that presence will mean more than random girls from local promotions agencies holding flags on the grid and better value for money for companies like heineken. their reach on social media is far, far greater and they're associated with something a lot more glamorous.

I love all this 'social media influencer' nonsense, do you mean attention-seekers like Logan Paul for instance? They are all just 'some bloke on the internet' with an inflated idea of their own importance, producing fodder for the gullible, much of it of questionable taste. Why would Liberty use middle-men like that when their marketing and ad people can DIY? Especially if AIUI the aim is to make F1 more family-friendly.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by coppice

It's not about being offended really , and of course it's legal, just as 'Gentlemen's Clubs ' and pornographic videos etc are legal ; I just find it embarrassing that my sport is so massively out of step with the times . Grid girls belong a long, long way back in the past . I go to watch racing , not girls trussed up in some bloke's wet dream fantasy idea of skimpy clothing.

Saying something over and over doesn't make it true. Would you care to comment on the example I gave of it being very much of current times in other sport?
I go racing to race, but I don't let the presence of lycra-clad promo girls deter me. They even had half a dozen roaming the paddock and garages at the Spa 6 Hours meeting last year, some of the people I was with were happy to be photographed with them, I simply retreated to the shadows and avoided them. Live and let live.
When/if the cons outweigh the pros they will disappear; market forces will prevail.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

with all due respect, was it not the legitimate owners of F1 (specifically their charge Ross Brawn) who have rekindled this debate on grid girls?
No; they said they were looking at it, along with many other aspects. They didn't ask for a debate.

granted this has been a issue well before Liberty's time, but as far as i can tell the current reintroduction of this issue has been at their behest and a result of declining viewership and one attempt to make the 'show' more inclusive and thus more able to generate greater mass appeal...and ultimately more money for them.

so if the owners dont think they add value - think you just made that up - (perhaps even take away value) then should you not be supporting their point of view?
No, I am a free thinker and do not have to support their point of view.

anyways, as an axiom, that owners have a democratic freedom to do as they please with their business (within the law of course), i would also argue that this forum exists in opposition to that.
Pass that by me again - you are anti-democracy?

we take issue with how much they charge for tickets, how much they charge for TV subscriptions, we take issues with how they determine rules, to whom they make historical payments, to where they choose to send the circus etc etc etc.
'WE'? = just some bloke on the internet. Unless you are an appointed (not self-appointed) spokesman for an organisation that I'm unaware of...

countless threads and posts take issue with the legal governance of BE, CVC, and now Liberty...so why is this a point to be raised in this thread and not any of the other threads where its perfectly acceptable to criticize the owner's business model?

i dare say this forum would be a far less busy place if we all accepted the notion that ownership gets to do what it wants with their toys.

I took the easy but useful step of re-reading Post #1 and the linked BBC short report. I note the BBC ran a poll and then said:
'We asked you to vote on the issue and 60% of you said 'grid girls' should be part of Formula 1.'
So it would seem that some posters in this thread may well be the ones out of step with public opinion. No harm in that - until they try to impose on the freedom of thought of the others.
All IMHO of course....

[coppice]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

Saying something over and over doesn't make it true. Would you care to comment on the example I gave of it being very much of current times in other sport?
I go racing to race, but I don't let the presence of lycra-clad promo girls deter me. They even had half a dozen roaming the paddock and garages at the Spa 6 Hours meeting last year, some of the people I was with were happy to be photographed with them, I simply retreated to the shadows and avoided them. Live and let live.
When/if the cons outweigh the pros they will disappear; market forces will prevail.

Indeed it doesn't, but re-emphasing a point is sometimes appropriate.Your other point then - other sports have recently introduced promo girls ? In my view - and you can disagree of course - it is still anachronistic and crass , regardless of its popularity with some .

It's far more than market forces though - that's a very a narrow view, with respect . Just because there's a market for something doesn't make it acceptable to society as a whole. It isn't difficult to think of examples...

[bella]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

I love all this 'social media influencer' nonsense, do you mean attention-seekers like Logan Paul for instance? They are all just 'some bloke on the internet' with an inflated idea of their own importance, producing fodder for the gullible, much of it of questionable taste. Why would Liberty use middle-men like that when their marketing and ad people can DIY? Especially if AIUI the aim is to make F1 more family-friendly.

it's more complicated than that. call logan paul an attention seeker if you want (i happen to just thunk he's a foul human being) but if 15 million subscribers to his channel mean he's unimportant or irrelevant then you're probably kidding yourself. that's 15 million people he has influence over. that's a pretty scary figure. even zoella has 12 million, and both have second channels.

it's not just a sole method of marketing, it's one of many ways of getting to otherwise oblivious eyeballs. brands don't just buy magazine or tv space anymore. they pay influencers, or hand out free merchandise to them for "sampling" and promoting. dubai for example has a bit of a history of giving celebrities or influencers free or heavily discounted stays in exchange for being photographed there and the photos sold to the gossip media.

the people they'd probably be wise looking at would be the lifestyle and fashion influencers. they don't have a particularly wide reach like the youtube folk do but a couple at each grand prix from each country wouldn't do them any harm at all. it allows them to buy into that kind of lifestyle as well, and promote it through the aesthetic the influencers have. it might sound a bit nonsensical and poncey, but they ain't called influencers for nothing - it's how young people consume their marketing, and make their life decisions nowadays.

of course, doing that would mean those of you who need them would still get their pretty girls around. they'd just be doing a far better job of promoting the event and the brand than the promotional girls do now. their social exposure is minimal in comparison. after all, models are chosen for fashion campaigns not solely for their aesthetic merits but also their social media presence.

tl;dr - times are changing. there's better ways of promoting an event than having hot girls wear clothes bearing the event or brand sponsors.

[bella]

Originally Posted by coppice

Indeed it doesn't, but re-emphasing a point is sometimes appropriate.Your other point then - other sports have recently introduced promo girls ? In my view - and you can disagree of course - it is still anachronistic and crass , regardless of its popularity with some .

It's far more than market forces though - that's a very a narrow view, with respect . Just because there's a market for something doesn't make it acceptable to society as a whole. It isn't difficult to think of examples...

was watching the darts over new year - they have girls in short black dresses and plenty of cleavage walking the players to the oche, where cheerleaders are dancing to said players entrance music.

the girls in dresses were a bit lame, but sports over this side of the pond seem to be latching onto using cheerleaders to ~add atmosphere as well as provide camera fodder for relevant brands and identities without just plain old girls in branded outfits standing around.

like you say, it's outdated and also incredibly unimaginative.

[AndrewCherry]

As a man who in his own industry is trying to do as much as possible to reduce gender imbalance and discrimination, grid girls and the like make me sad. It's such a ridiculous thing to still have, and I don't think a lot of people realise quite how much so.

It is literally replacing furniture with women because they're prettier. It doesn't need a human to hold up a sign, I could design you a perfectly reasonable stand. The only reason it is a woman is because of how it looks, and at that point you've reduced a woman to an object for someone else's enjoyment. That's basically the definition of objectification.

Nobody here (as far as I know) is arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to wear whatever they want, as revealing as they like, etc. but this isn't that. This is women being dressed up and used as scenery, and the fact that some are paid well for it and presumably all do it voluntarily doesn't change the fact that what is happening is women as decoration.

Incidentally, the whole "promo girl" at trade shows etc. is going the same way. There have been boycotts and protests in my world over it, and rightly so - you demean women, you demean your intended audience, and you make the world a less welcoming place for majority of the people in it. Get rid.

[wnut]

This was written following Lewis' "boys shouldn't wear dresses", but applies very directly to the opinions and lack of tolerance expressed in this thread.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/03...-wear-dresses/

"I’ll leave you with the insightful words of President Ronald Reagan as a reminder that we can never be passive about preserving our freedom. “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction."

[S griffin]

People can disagree with him, but they shouldn't really go on a crusade against him for it

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by S griffin

People can disagree with him, but they shouldn't really go on a crusade against him for it

In this instance he was being criticised, rightly so in my mind, not so much for his views about boys in dresses, etc., but for the bullying element; i.e. for being shown berating a 4 year old child by filming it and posting it for the whole world to see.

This should have been a private matter, not something that was put up on the internet for the public to gawk at. But from what I understand, him bullying others is nothing new.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

In this instance he was being criticised, rightly so in my mind, not so much for his views about boys in dresses, etc., but for the bullying element; i.e. for being shown berating a 4 year old child by filming it and posting it for the whole world to see.

indeed, agree with your point Mike that by posting those messages publicly he rightly opens himself up to public scrutiny.

i dont think there is anything inherently unfair or wrong about people responding to his public posts...after all he wants people to see them and respond to them in the first place.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by S griffin

People can disagree with him, but they shouldn't really go on a crusade against him for it

For publicly shaming a 4 year old? Of course they should.

Lewis thinks dress code doesn't apply to him, but will shame children for wearing something different. What a great guy.

[S griffin]

It wasn't just 'a four year old' it was his nephew. And since when has Hamilton been bullying others? Judging by the haters you get on social media it seems the other way round...

[bjohnsonsmith]

Does Hamilton and his nephew, really have anything to do with Grid Girls?

[bella]

it's part of a wider discussion tbf, gender shouldn't really be something we judge people on (like race), but that utopia is a long way away unless people of all genders sort toxic masculinity out. and motorsport is a prime example of that, case in point the princess dress shenanigans.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by bella

it's part of a wider discussion tbf, gender shouldn't really be something we judge people on (like race), but that utopia is a long way away unless people of all genders sort toxic masculinity out. and motorsport is a prime example of that, case in point the princess dress shenanigans.

Maybe the topic should be Sexual Identity in Motorsport?

[bella]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Maybe the topic should be Sexual Identity in Motorsport?

meh. it has nothing to do with sexual identity in any shape or form. it's more "why men are ******s: a discussion"

whilst we still use women as decoration and trophies, no matter their attire, how can we expect our drivers and for that matter, all staff, to have a solid balanced view of women in the same way they have of men.

let's be real. easily 50% of fellas in the western world would have reacted the same, but very few would be in the position to be called out for it like lewis is being. from his perspective, he'd be wise to realise that much of the anger is at the societal behaviour as much as it is a very high profile role model and sports star perpetuating the attitude that being a princess isn't good enough for little boys.

bringing up kids with a non-gender stereotyped attitude doesn't break them or ruin them. your child will not be gay or trans just because you let them choose their own toys or their own outfits.