View Single Post
Old 8 Apr 2018, 13:56 (Ref:3813996)   #331
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,801
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
I generally have quit posting in this thread as I didn’t think I had anything new to contribute. We are many pages in and it is the same arguments going around in circles. I also firmly believe that people like Peter are unlikely to change their position given additional discussion. I just don’t see the point in further engagement. But I think Peter question below is interesting...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Mallett View Post
Ok but why wasn't the moral decision made before October 2017?
I read this as to why F1 didn’t make this change earlier. That the timing is more in sync with something like the #MeToo movement? Further, I think Peter is saying this is part of the “jumping on a bandwagon” argument. With the implication that it was not done for moral reasons. And if it wasn’t done for moral reasons then it is wrong?

Sorry if I am interpreting that wrong.

Let’s say for arguments sake that there was a bandwagon passing by and F1 jumped on it. Who can say what was in the hearts of those making the decision. Did they have a sudden epiphany and decide they should adopt a new moral stance, or maybe it was purely a commercial decision and morals played no part? Or maybe it wasn’t such a black and white decision (everyone loves to think the world is black and white) and maybe it was some balance of both (of which we will never know the ratios). Does it even matter?

I think back to stories of the segregation era here in the US. Across the entire country you would have had the entire spectrum of scenarios. Businesses who where fully segregated by choice due to their version of morals, others who were fully integrated due to a moral position and maybe others that were either segregated or integrated that might actually be operating against their moral principles. Maybe they had to make a business decision that may have been contrary to their moral position. Clearly when laws were changed, some were forced to operate in a way that was contrary to their moral positions. Does anyone argue it was not for the overall good? The country (and world) still has a long way to go yet, but progress has been made.

My point here is not that I am equating racial segregation to the issues of gender (some may and I am also ok with that), but I am saying... who cares why or when F1 made this decision. Their timing or reasoning can’t be a valid reason to attack the basic concept. Recent attacks on this paint it in a purely cynical way and also label it as a “fad” (time will tell!)

I would argue that race and gender issues are not a fad. Change has been a slow progression over centuries. And progress is never a smooth linear line graphed over time. Change comes in lurching jumps. They can and will be disruptive. Just as what we are seeing now.

But, the change does appear on a timeline and sometime it is significant enough that there is a clear before and an after. So trying to find meaning to why it happened at particular moment is best understood with hindsight. We can discuss it today, but don’t expect grand insight until we can look back.

With that being said... My opinion is that clearly the decision was not made in a vacuum. That what else that was going on in the world at that time was a factor. We can’t ignore the timing in relation to the #MeToo movement. That movement and the associated discussion allowed other long simmering gender related issues to bubble up from below. Some, such as grid girls, may not have been on many people’s radar, so this seems like it came out of nowhere. For others (I put myself in that camp), knew that it was a topic that lived just below the surface of the general collective consciousness.

And, regardless of what you think of that movement, it has a limited impact on how people should view the new stance by F1 on grid girls. That decision should be able to stand on it own merits.

Richard

Last edited by Richard C; 8 Apr 2018 at 14:04.
Richard C is online now  
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
Quote