Formula 1

[HotBurrito1]

Was just playing with my boys when I noticed that the telly had images of scantily clad women holding brollies over fully dressed male F1 competitors in the rain. When I say scantily clad, think leather mini skirt, bare midriff and leather halter bra -not standard wet weather clobber (at least I've never seen the like in the waterproofs section of Millets).

I never normally watch F1, so I don't know if this is usual, but I was annoyed to suddenly see this on the screen. Obviously, I can (and did) switch off. I really didn't want my boys to see the dubious message which was basically:'stand there in your bra, hold the brolly and look sexy love, whilst the men actually do something'. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

[TheSmallClanger]

I expect it's the usual guff about one doing it to finance either a PhD, or her own competition career, and the other writing a screenplay, and another one having Grade 8 piano. /sarcasm

Whatever the talents these people have, they are not actually demonstrating them.

[caroldecker]

Maybe they are demonstrating their talents? Maybe they are 'air headed bimbos' whose most lucrative career choice is being models/pit babes etc. Not all people can earn monry from their brain, so that leaves unskilled work. I would expect they earn more there than unskilled work where looks are irrelevant.
Should they not capitalise on thier best earning potential because it causes issues for us?
I 'compete' with other people for a job/promotion etc in the field I am best at and do not worry that someone else has 'suffered' because i have got the job and they are still unemployed - should we expand this to include them?

[TheSmallClanger]

Standing still, smiling and giving pecks on the cheek to sweaty men isn't really a talent. Anyone can do that if they want to.

[libertarianj]

I expect it's the usual guff about one doing it to finance either a PhD, or her own competition career, and the other writing a screenplay, and another one having Grade 8 piano. /sarcasm

Whatever the talents these people have, they are not actually demonstrating them.

er but why should they?, maybe they enjoy modelling? For all you know they could be the next Adrian Newey or Ross Brawn if they wanted to be, but maybe they can't be arsed or don't want the commitment. I notice there are number of female mechanics/ engineers/ pit crew these days anyway. Like Gill Jones for example:

wtvbam.com/news/articles/2013/apr/21/red-bull-put-a-woman-on-the-podium-in-f1-first/

[Frettchen]

The problem, as I see it, is not the sport so much as the men who run the sport. Yes, Bernie Ecclestone, I'm looking at you.

I was at Silverstone last weekend. There were women there, but we were far outnumbered by the men (which did mean the queues for the loos/showers were shorter...) but I do think the female fanbase is rising.

The thing is there ARE female F1 engineers, drivers and even a Team Principle. The women are there, it's just that breaking in to F1 is a lifelong thing; to be a driver you have to be karting from the age of 5 (ish) and it helps to have an F1 driver for a parent. It's an expensive hobby and young girls don't generally get put into toy cars when their brothers do. (Which is wrong; girls should be able to play in cars and boys in toy kitchens if they want... but that's another rant.) To be an engineer you have to have made the right education/training choices, and again the vast majority of young girls either don't want to study engineering, or are convinced not to because it's not a 'girly' thing to do. (As before with the toy cars; this is a thing in need of change.)

I think F1 will get there, but I think it's going to take another generation to edge out the old-fashioned men at the top and to allow a more free-thinking group of people to take the reins and to realise that women can match the men both physically and mentally. I'm not excusing or forgiving Bernie and his chums, just picking my battles.

Then we'll see what happens to the air hostess-esque podium girls. Either they'll be joined by young men in zazzy costumes, or they'll disappear completely.

[libertarianj]

Thank you Buffy for replying back in depth...... however you have not addressed any of the points i have made and instead just tried to force through some incredibly lame analogy assumption. And why do you need to hide behind an analogy and not tell it how it is?

Maybe you should write to Gill and ask her if she was hard done to or if she was just a token female engineer who was pushed up the ranks to meet the equal opps criteria? I often refute objectification theory but i think some real objectification is being done by you guys, as you regard yourselves as some superior beings, who know what's best for those other 'stupid women' who choose to do modelling instead of using their full potential to be F1 engineers. That is real objectification, not some bloke being attracted to a pretty girl posing on page 3. That's human instinct at the end of the day and our race would become extinct if it wasn't for this basic mechanism. But you regarding other women as lesser individuals is objectification and is pure jealousy.

And unlike yourself i did not get some sadistic pleasure out of writing this piece. Also maybe you should stop trying to speak for womankind and speak for yourself. You claim you are a reasonable feminist?

[EduCated]

Isn't Formula 1 one

[EduCated]

*of the few sports that has no gender divisions and men and women can compete equally? Yet despite this there's only been about 3 female F1 drivers, which is really quite sad when it's a sport with a lot of potential for talented women to compete in.

[libertarianj]

sorry i think i was being a bit harsh, reading my response back. You have been very reasonable and think i was maybe getting at some of the other posters.

However with regards to my refutation of objectification theory, i have explained numerous times on various threads on here be that page 3, lads mags, lap dancing clubs or formula 1 it's always been the same and i haven't just said it's bollocks, i have said it is flawed.
Why is that?, well it assumes what people are thinking, with no regard to individuality. It's an attempt to make physical attraction something sinister and bad. What is so wrong about being attracted/ being turned on by images of the opposite sex (same sex for some people) in a magazine, tv, video, real life etc clothed or unclothed? It's a perfectly natural response and not something that i believe should ever be suppressed. Of course there will be some idiots out there who do objectify women and vice versa but to say the majority of society will somehow be warped, influenced is basically saying people can't be trusted, which is basically censorship.

[scallopsrgreat]

Hear, hear Buffy.

[libertarianj]

Objectification happens when the sexual attraction is based upon a collection of pleasingly arranged body parts without recognising that a person, with thoughts, feelings, funny jokes, annoying habits, lives inside those body parts.

yeah that's kind of the theory but how many people do you know who actually think like this? i can't say i know of anyone who display that kind of behaviour other than normal physical attraction. I mean come on who actually thinks 'ah yeah she's a nice collection of pleasingly arranged body parts'? I think anyone who does is quickly escorted back to the asylum.

But actually, the problem isn't with individuals objectifying other individuals, it is with a culture in which pictures of women-as-body-parts seem very prevalent in a way that men-as-body-parts (while they exist) seem less prevalent. But even if the quantities were equal, I still perceive a problem in that women seem so much more likely to be judged upon their looks (ref Marion whatserface) than men.

Why is it not a problem with individuals? Why blame the majority? This goes back to the nanny state way of thinking where a few people misbehave, so the majority have to penalised. As i said before objectification is saying people can't be trusted to see attractive images of the opposite/ same sex, be that podium girls, boy bands, page 3 or naked blokes in the Gay Times or Heat. Objectification is trying to put words in peoples mouths, it's telling them how they should think and behave, where at the end of the day it's just one massive assumption.

[scallopsrgreat]

I can't say i know of anyone who display that kind of behaviour other than normal physical attraction

The Everday Sexism Project are being inundated with examples of this type of behaviour. Here is a taster from Bartoli winning Wimbledon:

twitter.com/EverydaySexism/status/353537169354276865/photo/1 And that was just the tip of the iceberg.

[scallopsrgreat]

Every time a bloke cat calls a woman on the street, that is objectification. He feels entitled to impose his thoughts and feelings on a woman without thinking or caring about her thoughts or feelings. That isn't "physical attraction" it is objectification. The woman is an object there for the man's pleasure (or displeasure depending on the nature of the harrassment).

[grimbletart]

Steady on there Buffy - you are bringing logic and objectivity into the debate...

[libertarianj]

I think that it is impossible to tell how much influence each of these influences has at any particular time for any given person.

exactly which is why the objectification assumption falls down.

Also of those idiots in that twitter link, how do you know it is down to societies influence that has led them to make those comments? There could be all manner of reasons to why they are acting like they do.

It's not saying that men will never be allowed to look at pictures of attractive women ever again because some prudish feminists object. It's saying why do those images have to present women in the way that they do? In the example of Page 3 and Podium Girls, they're presented as pretty things to be looked down upon because pretty is all they are. And sadly, that bleeds into our culture.
Looked down upon? by who? how do you know this? Sorry but this is just one assumption after another.
I notice that you conveniently choose to omit the boy bands and Heat magazine models i mentioned earlier. Not wanting to talk about those?

With your example of car insurance, well there is a clear defined link that driving cars will inevitably result in accidents, however banning page 3 or podium girls for example is different matter as there is no reliable evidence to say that it would reduce sexism or objectification.

[scallopsrgreat]

Also of those idiots in that twitter link, how do you know it is down to societies influence that has led them to make those comments? There could be all manner of reasons to why they are acting like they do. Ok give us a few then?

exactly which is why the objectification assumption falls down. No it doesn't. Why do you think it does?

Objectifying men isn't going to stop the objectification of women and nor does it negate it.