The new great grid girl debate

[Akrapovic]

Here's a question: Why are people upset with the decision not to rehire contractors?

An external contractor who does not get their contract renewed is not news. It happens thousands of times a day across the world. Companies don't need good reason not to hire contractors - they are agency staff and can simply be not required back with no notice.

So why is it when a team of 40 middle aged ladies are not required back, there's no twitter hashtags asking for them to be kept on? They've lost part time work too. And it was probably more regular than a grid girls work. Why is it people only care about contractors income when it just happens to be a scantily clad female?

Interesting which battles we chose to fight and the reasons we use to fight them.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Here's a question: Why are people upset with the decision not to rehire contractors?

An external contractor who does not get their contract renewed is not news. It happens thousands of times a day across the world. Companies don't need good reason not to hire contractors - they are agency staff and can simply be not required back with no notice.

So why is it when a team of 40 middle aged ladies are not required back, there's no twitter hashtags asking for them to be kept on? They've lost part time work too. And it was probably more regular than a grid girls work. Why is it people only care about contractors income when it just happens to be a scantily clad female?

Interesting which battles we chose to fight and the reasons we use to fight them.

They are far from middle aged. As for the contractual analogy, I think that's overly simplistic.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Here's a question: Why are people upset with the decision not to rehire contractors?

An external contractor who does not get their contract renewed is not news. It happens thousands of times a day across the world. Companies don't need good reason not to hire contractors - they are agency staff and can simply be not required back with no notice.

So why is it when a team of 40 middle aged ladies are not required back, there's no twitter hashtags asking for them to be kept on? They've lost part time work too. And it was probably more regular than a grid girls work. Why is it people only care about contractors income when it just happens to be a scantily clad female?

Interesting which battles we chose to fight and the reasons we use to fight them.

indeed.

a few weeks back Liberty announced that they were taking steps to consolidate and take over merchandise sales at GPs under a 'giant tent' concept along with a deal with DHL to offer delivery services.

on the surface a very sound idea in terms of meeting the needs of a changing/evolving/modern fan base and allowing FOM to better control how its brand is presented right?

but the flip side is that a lot of people are going to lose their jobs as the numerous individual stands that populate every event get phased out.

cant say i recall anyone complaining about those jobs disappearing.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

They are far from middle aged. As for the contractual analogy, I think that's overly simplistic.

I think it's just the posters way of cleverly (or, trying to be) suggesting that Liberty's decision is nothing more than a contractual matter between companies whereas it is actually a major decision that has polarised opinions of both males and females. Without reading back through the whole thread (or the other one) I assume the poster is anti grid girls.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

They are far from middle aged. As for the contractual analogy, I think that's overly simplistic.

I worded my post badly. I mean - when a team of 40 middle aged ladies in an office, lets say, accounts, are not required back, there is no twitter campaign for them. It's just a fact of life that contractors have this happen all the time and that's tough. But when it's a pretty lady to look at, suddenly we're depriving people of income and we should fight for them.

It isn't a simplistic argument - it is literally what is happening. The business has changed, and a group of external contractors are no longer required. That's so common it happens literally every single day around the world.

If Liberty decided that they didn't need 20 people to hand out hats and we lost 20 random guys from the paddock, we wouldn't have posts here saying "What about hat mans income! He loved that job! Look, here's a photo of him smiling!"

As chillibowl says, if we're going to have one giant merch tent then the guys selling that merch are no longer needed. Are we going to fight for their rights too? No? Why not? They loved that job, and need the income..right?

This is only a discussion because the girls are pretty and standing their to be looked at. Nobody cares otherwise. It's a complete false argument, used to hide the fact that they want some totty to look at.

Now if you want to make the argument about glamour and actually wanting to look at pretty girls, then that's fine - at least you're being honest and saying that you want to see that. But any sort of argument about income in an attempt to make it somehow a 'higher' argument becomes completely transparent when we fail to mention everybody else losing jobs on a daily basis through the same processes. If your opinion is that you want to see pretty girls, then that's your opinion and that's fine. I don't agree, but it's a valid point. But income? No, that's silly.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by morninggents

I think it's just the posters way of cleverly (or, trying to be) suggesting that Liberty's decision is nothing more than a contractual matter between companies whereas it is actually a major decision that has polarised opinions of both males and females. Without reading back through the whole thread (or the other one) I assume the poster is anti grid girls.

It's actually my way of trying to get people to be honest about why they want grid girls. The income argument is false and transparent.

If we want to have a discussion on a womans role and sexism, glamour, etc then fine - let's do that. That is an honest discussion. But tarting up the argument as purely about a persons income is being completely disingenuous because suddenly we only seem to care about a contractors income when it's a pretty lady.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I worded my post badly. I mean - when a team of 40 middle aged ladies in an office, lets say, accounts, are not required back, there is no twitter campaign for them. It's just a fact of life that contractors have this happen all the time and that's tough. But when it's a pretty lady to look at, suddenly we're depriving people of income and we should fight for them.

It isn't a simplistic argument - it is literally what is happening. The business has changed, and a group of external contractors are no longer required. That's so common it happens literally every single day around the world.

If Liberty decided that they didn't need 20 people to hand out hats and we lost 20 random guys from the paddock, we wouldn't have posts here saying "What about hat mans income! He loved that job! Look, here's a photo of him smiling!"

As chillibowl says, if we're going to have one giant merch tent then the guys selling that merch are no longer needed. Are we going to fight for their rights too? No? Why not? They loved that job, and need the income..right?

This is only a discussion because the girls are pretty and standing their to be looked at. Nobody cares otherwise. It's a complete false argument, used to hide the fact that they want some totty to look at.

Now if you want to make the argument about glamour and actually wanting to look at pretty girls, then that's fine - at least you're being honest and saying that you want to see that. But any sort of argument about income in an attempt to make it somehow a 'higher' argument becomes completely transparent when we fail to mention everybody else losing jobs on a daily basis through the same processes. If your opinion is that you want to see pretty girls, then that's your opinion and that's fine. I don't agree, but it's a valid point. But income? No, that's silly.

It's simplistic in that this is more than about a contract being terminated. This is about whether the use of grid girls is exploitative, still necessary and relevant in the modern day and age.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

It's simplistic in that this is more than about a contract being terminated. This is about whether the use of grid girls is exploitative, still necessary and relevant in the modern day and age.

And THAT is a discussion worth having. However, the argument of "it's about their income" is as simple as I stated, for the reasons stated.

[bella]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

But many women do have proper jobs in Motorsport ! Grid girls it seems are happy in their work from what I read ...

sorry, jeremy. it's not about the individual girls. this is what the girls themselves don't seem to understand either. nobody's doubting that it's an enjoyable job if you don't mind the odd dubious outfit. i could at this point bring out annoying statements like of course they enjoy their jobs, they've been manipulated into believing it's empowerment by the patriarchal society but there's no need for that at all. it's about making a step towards changing society so on a basic level women can go about our daily lives with the same freedoms as men. such as taking sex out of the workplace, freedom from harassment walking down the street and dealing with consent issues.

a sport (f1 is its own sport at this point) choosing not to use women as decoration is a small step towards saying that women aren't objects or decoration for the entertainment of men.

fwiw, f1 probably employs several times more grid girls at any given race than there are women working in engineering and car build at the circuit at the same time. including the support series.

[steve_r]

Grid girls did not actually do anything. Can't see why people are so upset about losing them. There are plenty of pretty girls to look at elsewhere, if that is what you want to do.

F1 does not need famous actors and pop stars pointlessly wandering around the grid, and it does not need grid girls pointlessly standing in a corrodor waiting for drivers to walk past on their way to the podium.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

And THAT is a discussion worth having. However, the argument of "it's about their income" is as simple as I stated, for the reasons stated.

The argument that "it's about their income" isn't irrelevant as an argument in itself but it's not what is at the heart of the matter.

[midgetman]

Yes it is irrelevant. No-one worries about the income of engineers when they call for budget caps, or for the income of drivers when they demand Driver X is dropped.

And as each race supplies its own grid staff, it must be a hell of a day's pay if it makes a substantial loss of income! What are we looking at. 150 quid tops?

All this faux concern is just a righteous cover for the "phwoar" factor.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The argument that "it's about their income" isn't irrelevant as an argument in itself but it's not what is at the heart of the matter.

It is irrelevant if that argument isn't used for poor hat man, who has also lost his job. It is a thinly veiled argument, used so somebody doesn't have to admit they want to look at pretty girls. If they actually cared about a contractors income, then there would be massive arguments and twitter outrage on a weekly basis.

Anyone using the "unemployed" card in this case is either being silly, or disingenuous. The problem I have here isn't that people want to look at pretty girls (I may not agree, but it's a valid opinion), but rather the poor attempt at making the argument more highbrow by pretending it's about something more than that.

The employment argument works better for series like BTCC, where the girls are hired by the teams and travel with them. But F1 girls get one weekend of work a year.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Yes it is irrelevant. No-one worries about the income of engineers when they call for budget caps, or for the income of drivers when they demand Driver X is dropped.

And as each race supplies its own grid staff, it must be a hell of a day's pay if it makes a substantial loss of income! What are we looking at. 150 quid tops?

All this faux concern is just a righteous cover for the "phwoar" factor.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

As I said, it isn't irrelevant as an argument in itself but that's as far as it goes, it has nothing to do with the actual role of grid girls, which is what is being contested.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

It is irrelevant if that argument isn't used for poor hat man, who has also lost his job. It is a thinly veiled argument, used so somebody doesn't have to admit they want to look at pretty girls. If they actually cared about a contractors income, then there would be massive arguments and twitter outrage on a weekly basis.

Anyone using the "unemployed" card in this case is either being silly, or disingenuous. The problem I have here isn't that people want to look at pretty girls (I may not agree, but it's a valid opinion), but rather the poor attempt at making the argument more highbrow by pretending it's about something more than that.

The employment argument works better for series like BTCC, where the girls are hired by the teams and travel with them. But F1 girls get one weekend of work a year.

The "unemployed" card is a distraction from the real issue and that, as I said before, is to do with whether the role of grid girls is exploitative, still necessary and relevant anymore.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Grid girls did not actually do anything. Can't see why people are so upset about losing them. There are plenty of pretty girls to look at elsewhere, if that is what you want to do.

F1 does not need famous actors and pop stars pointlessly wandering around the grid, and it does not need grid girls pointlessly standing in a corrodor waiting for drivers to walk past on their way to the podium.

I was wondering if they were getting rid of the grid girls precisely to give the actors and pop stars a higher profile on the grid.
Difficult to attract and interview the latest celebrity goddess as something special when she is surrounded by 20 very attractive women.
Get rid of them and the cameras can only focus on the celebrity trolls you wish to promote, job done, clear air!

[Paulaweybridge]

I am sure that the Goodwood Revival will still keep them 😉

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Paulaweybridge

I am sure that the Goodwood Revival will still keep them ��

Wise men, and I am sure the event will be all the better for their inclusion!

Nice to see a post from you again too Paula!

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by wnut

Wise men, and I am sure the event will be all the better for their inclusion!

Nice to see a post from you again too Paula!

Just curious, how will the event be better for their inclusion?

[Paulaweybridge]

Originally Posted by wnut

Wise men, and I am sure the event will be all the better for their inclusion!

Nice to see a post from you again too Paula!

Thanks hun 😀

[Paulaweybridge]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Just curious, how will the event be better for their inclusion?

Grid girls have been a part of motor racing for many years so if they were removed from an event that portrays the sport as it used to be, would in my mind be pointless and a shame.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Paulaweybridge

Grid girls have been a part of motor racing for many years so if they were removed from an event that portrays the sport as it used to be, would in my mind be pointless and a shame.

Yup, think you’re spot on there. And the ladies are in period attire, elegantly (and fully) dressed.... (At least, when I’ve been there.... )

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Paulaweybridge

Grid girls have been a part of motor racing for many years so if they were removed from an event that portrays the sport as it used to be, would in my mind be pointless and a shame.

Ok, that makes sense. So more event-specific then.

[Mike Harte]

I really, really don't get it; people seem to either want to live in the past, or believe that nothing changes with time.

Over the years, attitudes to so many things change. Just because it may have been acceptable for young ladies to be paid to parade themselves in skimpy attire during motor race proceedings, it doesn't mean that the practice needs to continue today.

To repeat myself, yet again, the presence of grid/podium/clapping staircase girls adds absolutely nothing to the racing action on the track. In fact, to me, it is more a fig leaf to provide "glamour" to Grand Prixes because there isn't any once the lights go off on the gantry.

And there's a point. All those who promote the argument about the "girls" being part of the tradition, don't seem to be clamouring for the scrapping of the gantry lights so that the traditional dropping flag can be resuscitated, or demanding that a person with no fear stands in the middle of the track waving a chequered flag like a modern day dervish to signify the end of the race.

[Akrapovic]

"Tradition" can be used for absolutely anything. I'm not sure that really works. Although it is more valid than the unemployment argument, for sure.