planetf1.com

Interesting results on the poll, the majority of both male and female voting on the forum are against the ban, albeit by a small margin. I thought the result would be the same, but the split would be bigger. Anyway, let's see if we notice the difference in the races this year

I'm glad to see that there are more women who at least lurk on this forum than I thought.

RaggedMan wrote:I'm glad to see that there are more women who at least lurk on this forum than I thought.

Or people clicking the wrong choice (intentionally or not).

RaggedMan wrote:I'm glad to see that there are more women who at least lurk on this forum than I thought.

There's some who are relatively frequent posters as well. Most of them don't want the kind of attention that comes with knowing they're a female poster.

Herb wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:I'm glad to see that there are more women who at least lurk on this forum than I thought.

Or people clicking the wrong choice (intentionally or not).

Great example of why women often don't want to self identify on the internet. Some man will always claim they are are males lying, tho the "women only post cos they're looking for attention" BS is more common.

I self identified as female and an ex-model on this thread. Take a look how many posters engaged on that or asked for insight into a topic they know nothing about and how many just carried on espousing their own (sometimes prejudiced) views, no?

Considering that women's views being ignored (or the models who work in the industry at least) and that it was a decision taken by men as a PR exercise, I wonder if the thread is not a microcosm of how the decision was taken in the first place.

Shia Luck wrote:I self identified as female and an ex-model on this thread. Take a look how many posters engaged on that or asked for insight into a topic they know nothing about and how many just carried on espousing their own (sometimes prejudiced) views, no?

Considering that women's views being ignored (or the models who work in the industry at least) and that it was a decision taken by men as a PR exercise, I wonder if the thread is not a microcosm of how the decision was taken in the first place.

I responded to your post at the time, and I didn't get anything back. That makes your complaints about people not engaging your post seem a little hypocritical, but fair enough.

I certainly acknowledge that as a female and a former model you have a very valid insight into the discussion, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with your viewpoint on it. As I've made clear my issue with Grid Girls in the form they were presented doesn't have anything to do with feeling that the models were being exploited or treated unfairly - I object to the continued and insulting sexualization of sports, and the implication that such sexualization is needed to attract viewers - so while your view as a former model is interesting and no-doubt relevant to the issues some people are raising, it doesn't dispel everyone's complaints.

There are many examples where those who are losing jobs may object to a change, but the change is still a good thing - most of those examples are much more clear-cut cases of progress than the Grid Girl ban, granted, but the point still stands: it is natural for anyone who is losing a job to think a change is bad, but their opinion is not automatically correct.

Shia Luck wrote:

Herb wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:I'm glad to see that there are more women who at least lurk on this forum than I thought.

Or people clicking the wrong choice (intentionally or not).

Great example of why women often don't want to self identify on the internet. Some man will always claim they are are males lying, tho the "women only post cos they're looking for attention" BS is more common.

I self identified as female and an ex-model on this thread. Take a look how many posters engaged on that or asked for insight into a topic they know nothing about and how many just carried on espousing their own (sometimes prejudiced) views, no?

Considering that women's views being ignored (or the models who work in the industry at least) and that it was a decision taken by men as a PR exercise, I wonder if the thread is not a microcosm of how the decision was taken in the first place.

i don’t think being a female necessarily gives you greater insight into the suitability or appropriateness of grid girls. The fact that women have not all voted the same way demonstrates that. All opinions are interesting, but one’s gender doesn’t make one automatically right

Exediron wrote: I responded to your post at the time, and I didn't get anything back. That makes your complaints about people not engaging your post seem a little hypocritical, but fair enough.

I certainly acknowledge that as a female and a former model you have a very valid insight into the discussion, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with your viewpoint on it. As I've made clear my issue with Grid Girls in the form they were presented doesn't have anything to do with feeling that the models were being exploited or treated unfairly - I object to the continued and insulting sexualization of sports, and the implication that such sexualization is needed to attract viewers - so while your view as a former model is interesting and no-doubt relevant to the issues some people are raising, it doesn't dispel everyone's complaints.

You did indeed respond. one of a very very few who did. However, your argument is that all use of women in PR or advertising at least, somehow equals sexualisation of the product, in spite of the fact that neither the outfits nor the models' actions are in any way sexual. That is an argument against modelling as an industry and something I had already addressed in a previous post. I shouldn't have to repeatedly explain myself, should I?

Zoue wrote:i don’t think being a female necessarily gives you greater insight into the suitability or appropriateness of grid girls. The fact that women have not all voted the same way demonstrates that. All opinions are interesting, but one’s gender doesn’t make one automatically right

Ok, how about my being an ex model? Does that not give me greater insight into what actually goes on than a man or a woman who has never been involved?

No point quoting myself. My post is only 2 above this.

If you read it, and indeed any of my posts, I do not ever claim that being female makes me automatically correct, so I'd appreciate not being accused of such with strawman arguments.

Shia Luck wrote:

Exediron wrote: I responded to your post at the time, and I didn't get anything back. That makes your complaints about people not engaging your post seem a little hypocritical, but fair enough.

I certainly acknowledge that as a female and a former model you have a very valid insight into the discussion, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with your viewpoint on it. As I've made clear my issue with Grid Girls in the form they were presented doesn't have anything to do with feeling that the models were being exploited or treated unfairly - I object to the continued and insulting sexualization of sports, and the implication that such sexualization is needed to attract viewers - so while your view as a former model is interesting and no-doubt relevant to the issues some people are raising, it doesn't dispel everyone's complaints.

You did indeed respond. one of a very very few who did. However, your argument is that all use of women in PR or advertising at least, somehow equals sexualisation of the product, in spite of the fact that neither the outfits nor the models' actions are in any way sexual. That is an argument against modelling as an industry and something I had already addressed in a previous post. I shouldn't have to repeatedly explain myself, should I?

Zoue wrote:i don’t think being a female necessarily gives you greater insight into the suitability or appropriateness of grid girls. The fact that women have not all voted the same way demonstrates that. All opinions are interesting, but one’s gender doesn’t make one automatically right

Ok, how about my being an ex model? Does that not give me greater insight into what actually goes on than a man or a woman who has never been involved?

No point quoting myself. My post is only 2 above this.

If you read it, and indeed any of my posts, I do not ever claim that being female makes me automatically correct, so I'd appreciate not being accused of such with strawman arguments.

Hi Shia, on the bold part; not sure about the inner works of modelling, but in my profession (engineering) there are so many different sectors and disciplines that don't make me an expert to talk about everything engineering-wise. Greater insight? Maybe, if it is close to my discipline, but my industry is so vast that I have heard engineers talking straight out of their backsides regarding engineering issues that they just do not know about... Maybe that is what Zoue means. His point certainly doesn't come across as an accusation to me.

Shia Luck wrote:

Exediron wrote: I responded to your post at the time, and I didn't get anything back. That makes your complaints about people not engaging your post seem a little hypocritical, but fair enough.

I certainly acknowledge that as a female and a former model you have a very valid insight into the discussion, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with your viewpoint on it. As I've made clear my issue with Grid Girls in the form they were presented doesn't have anything to do with feeling that the models were being exploited or treated unfairly - I object to the continued and insulting sexualization of sports, and the implication that such sexualization is needed to attract viewers - so while your view as a former model is interesting and no-doubt relevant to the issues some people are raising, it doesn't dispel everyone's complaints.

You did indeed respond. one of a very very few who did. However, your argument is that all use of women in PR or advertising at least, somehow equals sexualisation of the product, in spite of the fact that neither the outfits nor the models' actions are in any way sexual. That is an argument against modelling as an industry and something I had already addressed in a previous post. I shouldn't have to repeatedly explain myself, should I?

Zoue wrote:i don’t think being a female necessarily gives you greater insight into the suitability or appropriateness of grid girls. The fact that women have not all voted the same way demonstrates that. All opinions are interesting, but one’s gender doesn’t make one automatically right

Ok, how about my being an ex model? Does that not give me greater insight into what actually goes on than a man or a woman who has never been involved?

No point quoting myself. My post is only 2 above this.

If you read it, and indeed any of my posts, I do not ever claim that being female makes me automatically correct, so I'd appreciate not being accused of such with strawman arguments.

I'm not making any accusations, but certainly your post indicated you were upset that others didn't consult you, which in turn infers that you feel your own insights carried more weight. I just think that being either a model or a woman doesn't automatically mean that your opinion is more valid than anyone else's. And I know I'm probably phrasing this quite poorly, but that's not intended to be insulting. Your view would certainly be interesting, as I believe I already mentioned above, but it doesn't carry more weight, especially since the topic is largely driven by emotions anyway.

And I'm not sure how your experience of what goes on has any bearing on people's objection to the principal of eye candy. This is no reflection on you or your background. It's not personal.

Shia Luck wrote:

Exediron wrote:I responded to your post at the time, and I didn't get anything back. That makes your complaints about people not engaging your post seem a little hypocritical, but fair enough.

I certainly acknowledge that as a female and a former model you have a very valid insight into the discussion, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with your viewpoint on it. As I've made clear my issue with Grid Girls in the form they were presented doesn't have anything to do with feeling that the models were being exploited or treated unfairly - I object to the continued and insulting sexualization of sports, and the implication that such sexualization is needed to attract viewers - so while your view as a former model is interesting and no-doubt relevant to the issues some people are raising, it doesn't dispel everyone's complaints.

You did indeed respond. one of a very very few who did. However, your argument is that all use of women in PR or advertising at least, somehow equals sexualisation of the product, in spite of the fact that neither the outfits nor the models' actions are in any way sexual. That is an argument against modelling as an industry and something I had already addressed in a previous post. I shouldn't have to repeatedly explain myself, should I?

No, I don't think that all use of women in PR or advertising is sexualization. There are times when it certainly makes sense to employ a model - such as when something needs modeling. If you're selling a shirt, you need a model to wear it; if you're selling a car, you want a model to sit in it and show a person enjoying the car. The list goes on: there are many products that need or benefit from a model selling them, and why not an attractive one? I have no issue with this.

Formula One grids, however, do not need models. The models aren't there to demonstrate a product, or to do anything at all except stand there and be looked at. Their one and only purpose on the grid is to be pleasant to look at, and I very much do believe that's a meaningless and unnecessary appeal to the desire (perceived or real) of fans to look at pretty women even in a context where they aren't actually part of what's going on.

I don't see it as being the same as 'all modeling and PR' at all, and I think it's disingenuous to claim that it's the same.

It seems my use of the word accuse has caused some ripples. Please allow me to rephrase.

"If you read it, and indeed any of my posts, I do not ever claim that my being female means i am automatically correct and I would appreciate not having my views misrepresented as such in a strawman argument. "

@siao7 not sure you are comparing apples and apples there. Engineering is a huge umbrella term for many different disciplines as you said, whereas modelling is a job that comes under an umbrella of entertainment and advertising and PR. A more fair comparison would be a model and a structural engineer who builds bridges, no? I would certainly expect Mr bridge designer to know a lot more about bridges and buildings and ground subsidence and what it is like to be a bridge builder etc than I do. Just like I would likely know a lot more than he about modelling or philosophy or language or teaching. (the studies my modelling career paid for).

@Zoue, as I said, I have never claimed that being a woman makes a difference but my being a model certainly does make me more informed than the average F1 poster, on this subject alone. How many posts before this thread established that the agency is hired and the models are employed by the agency? How many before people accepted that the models do more than hold number placards and clap? How many to show how it is to be treated as a model, in motorsport or otherwise, whether it is sexual exploitation or not? The last we obviously never got to, no?

As for the eye candy argument, perhaps my being a model makes no difference in my favour. In fact, clearly I didn't mind being treated as an object at times (mobile mannequin I used to call it, lol) because I got paid a lot. Perhaps my experience gives me a bias? Or perhaps being an employee in any industry involves being treated as an object or a tool?

You still misrepresented my argument to advocate your own agenda. I repeat, I never claimed that my being female only gave my opinion more validity. I gave arguments/reasons for my opinion, I also gave reasons why I could be more informed than other posters. At no time have I tried to say that people must agree with me because I am a woman. Please stop misrepresenting me as such. I am happy to engage in discussion, that is what my post meant.

Don't forget, there are more arguments than the eye candy one being used by posters. Not everything I post necessarily relates to your personal eye candy issue with models. I would point out once again tho that the eye candy argument, when we are referring to women in national dress or looking like air crew, is one against women in the modelling industry as a whole, and would involve banning women from being any sort of model, any actress, appearing in commercials, being on TV, being in the public eye in any way shape or form and as such it is simply ridiculous without changing society as a whole.

You claim this topic is emotion led but offer no reason or evidence. I counter that claim. This topic is prejudiced led because despite establishing that the models do not wear sexy clothing, but national dress or very modest uniforms, and that holding the number or clapping are a minor part of their job, there are still people arguing that their only purpose is to be eye candy, and that is prejudice ignoring the established facts.

I am not insulted nor feel you are attacking me personally. I hope you feel the same. I am arguing against what you said, and correcting how you misrepresented my opinion and arguments, not you personally.

@Exediron. Mannequins model more clothes than models do, so no, they aren't necessary. But given I was a runway fashion model and sometimes had to model extremely sexy racy or diaphonous clothing for fashion houses I am confused how being near nude on a runway is not sexualisation, but being modestly dressed on a grid is. Fashion models are not neccessarily trying to sell the clothes they model on the runway, but putting on a show, promoting an idea of how amazing the fashion house/designer is. If they were about selling those particular outfits, you'd be able to buy massive angel wings in Victoria's Secrets, no?

Likewise, people can argue that the glamour of celebrities on the grid and fashion models everywhere are indeed selling a product, the F1 show/experience/world wide advertising reach is the product they are selling and that is not necessarily being sold to the F1 fan, but to a target audience that Liberty Media make money from. E.g. race promoters, countries who want an F1 race, companies that might advertise at F1 races and, of course, TV companies.

I wonder about how a Taylor Swift concert that has nothing to do with the F1 race, but is part of the F1 experience fits into this argument. She'll be wearing sexy clothes, quite possibly knows and cares nothing for motorsport, is nothing to do with the F1 race or championship, and yet such concerts are bringing more fans to the races and more ticket sales is what everyone wants for the viability of the F1 show that pays for the race and championship, no?

Shia Luck wrote:It seems my use of the word accuse has caused some ripples. Please allow me to rephrase.

"If you read it, and indeed any of my posts, I do not ever claim that my being female means i am automatically correct and I would appreciate not having my views misrepresented as such in a strawman argument. "

@siao7 not sure you are comparing apples and apples there. Engineering is a huge umbrella term for many different disciplines as you said, whereas modelling is a job that comes under an umbrella of entertainment and advertising and PR. A more fair comparison would be a model and a structural engineer who builds bridges, no? I would certainly expect Mr bridge designer to know a lot more about bridges and buildings and ground subsidence and what it is like to be a bridge builder etc than I do. Just like I would likely know a lot more than he about modelling or philosophy or language or teaching. (the studies my modelling career paid for).

Ok, what I mean is that this is obviously not the normal PR modelling job, if it requires all the hospitality/languages, etc. I am not sure you have done something similar, that is not just the eye candy job. I will admit that I have not modelled in my life (though my mom obviously thinks I should!) so I am not aware of the inner workings of that sector. But not knowing your background either makes it even more complicated.

I think the issue is probably appeal to authority; just because someone claims authority on something it does not make them de facto correct. People make mistakes. If I claim to know a lot about engineering, it shouldn't tell you much; I may be a horrible engineer for all you know... Especially as you have never met me nor do you know my credentials, only what I tell you behind my screen...

This is nothing personal Shia and I hope you don't get it the wrong way. I am just naturally sceptical to something like this.

If this gets rid of the cringeworthy 'corridor of girls' the drivers go through on their way to the podium it is a good thing

Siao7 wrote:

Shia Luck wrote:It seems my use of the word accuse has caused some ripples. Please allow me to rephrase.

"If you read it, and indeed any of my posts, I do not ever claim that my being female means i am automatically correct and I would appreciate not having my views misrepresented as such in a strawman argument. "

@siao7 not sure you are comparing apples and apples there. Engineering is a huge umbrella term for many different disciplines as you said, whereas modelling is a job that comes under an umbrella of entertainment and advertising and PR. A more fair comparison would be a model and a structural engineer who builds bridges, no? I would certainly expect Mr bridge designer to know a lot more about bridges and buildings and ground subsidence and what it is like to be a bridge builder etc than I do. Just like I would likely know a lot more than he about modelling or philosophy or language or teaching. (the studies my modelling career paid for).

Ok, what I mean is that this is obviously not the normal PR modelling job, if it requires all the hospitality/languages, etc. I am not sure you have done something similar, that is not just the eye candy job. I will admit that I have not modelled in my life (though my mom obviously thinks I should!) so I am not aware of the inner workings of that sector. But not knowing your background either makes it even more complicated.

I think the issue is probably appeal to authority; just because someone claims authority on something it does not make them de facto correct. People make mistakes. If I claim to know a lot about engineering, it shouldn't tell you much; I may be a horrible engineer for all you know... Especially as you have never met me nor do you know my credentials, only what I tell you behind my screen...

This is nothing personal Shia and I hope you don't get it the wrong way. I am just naturally sceptical to something like this.

I am not sure how often I should have to repeat this. I have never claimed that my being a model or a woman makes me correct. I have given reasons, made analogies and asked leading questions. none of which are done in an appeal to authority. I have also answered others' views with reasons and facts. As my post above yours might intimate, working as a runway fashion model does mean lots of PR with guests. However, if someone chooses not to believe me and instead of responding to my arguments, make the same false claim that I am saying everyone should believe me automatically, then there's not much use continuing this discussion.

I will quote my post that started this seeing as some people have not bothered to read what I actually said.

Shia Luck wrote:

Herb wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:I'm glad to see that there are more women who at least lurk on this forum than I thought.

Or people clicking the wrong choice (intentionally or not).

Great example of why women often don't want to self identify on the internet. Some man will always claim they are are males lying, tho the "women only post cos they're looking for attention" BS is more common.

I self identified as female and an ex-model on this thread. Take a look how many posters engaged on that or asked for insight into a topic they know nothing about and how many just carried on espousing their own (sometimes prejudiced) views, no?

Considering that women's views being ignored (or the models who work in the industry at least) and that it was a decision taken by men as a PR exercise, I wonder if the thread is not a microcosm of how the decision was taken in the first place.

I really can't see where i said people should automatically believe me.

Shia Luck wrote:I would point out once again tho that the eye candy argument, when we are referring to women in national dress or looking like air crew, is one against women in the modelling industry as a whole, and would involve banning women from being any sort of model, any actress, appearing in commercials, being on TV, being in the public eye in any way shape or form and as such it is simply ridiculous without changing society as a whole.

No, it is not. That's a complete exaggeration, and creates a viewpoint that nobody is arguing in favor of.

There seems to be a serious fundamental issue in this debate with your ability to actually grasp the argument being made by the opposite side. Either that, or you're not willing to engage the argument being made by the other side, and are more interested in engaging a caricature of it that's easily made to look absurd.

Your claim in the above post is that any objection to having modestly dressed women parading around the F1 grid and holding signs for the cars means that modestly dressed women cannot be used anywhere. That's not reasonable, and it completely ignores any of the context to focus on a point that nobody is actually focusing on, which is the clothing of the models.

Instead, I'm actually arguing from the position that the models don't add anything to a Formula One race, and their only purpose is to be eye candy regardless of how they're dressed. Any of sport, TV presentation, etc. that dumps a few dozen pretty girls onto it that serve no purpose would certainly fall under that umbrella - but then we don't see a news program where there are 40 pretty girls standing in a line clapping for the main anchor when he comes on stage, do we? And if we did, I hope everyone would agree that it would be pretty bizarre.

I'm not against the modeling profession. I'm not trying to argue that the grid girls are scandalously dressed. But I think that having a bunch of pretty models march around the track, serve a function that doesn't need serving - and later become decorations to glorify the drivers - is something that Formula One does not need.

That does not in any way mean that I think legitimate applications of models are a problem. Let's do a quick analogy: say that every Grand Prix instead featured a military presence from the local country and they lined the sides of the grid before a race. Would they belong? No. Would that mean that I think they're being exploited? Certainly not. Would it mean that I'm against using military personnel in any sort of display? Also no. Understanding the argument I'm actually making would make it clear that no, it does not apply to every type of modeling, and certainly not something as absurd as 'banning women from being any sort of model, any actress, appearing in commercials, being on TV, being in the public eye in any way shape or form'. It would just mean not shoehorning them in pointlessly to stand there and look pretty.

In your mentioned analogy of a fashion show, for example, the women are there to fulfill the purpose of the show. They're not a meaningless accessory. Likewise, if you attended a military parade, the servicemen would be a core part of the actual event. Neither one, however, has a place on a Formula One grid.

Shia Luck wrote:It seems my use of the word accuse has caused some ripples. Please allow me to rephrase.

"If you read it, and indeed any of my posts, I do not ever claim that my being female means i am automatically correct and I would appreciate not having my views misrepresented as such in a strawman argument. "

No-one is putting forth a strawman argument. I've already relayed that I feel your original post, in which you appeared to take issue with the fact that no-one consulted you, suggested that you felt that your personal experience should have carried more weight with others. Since this is directly relevant, it can't be a strawman.

Shia Luck wrote:@Zoue, as I said, I have never claimed that being a woman makes a difference but my being a model certainly does make me more informed than the average F1 poster, on this subject alone. How many posts before this thread established that the agency is hired and the models are employed by the agency? How many before people accepted that the models do more than hold number placards and clap? How many to show how it is to be treated as a model, in motorsport or otherwise, whether it is sexual exploitation or not? The last we obviously never got to, no?

I don't agree that being a model makes you more informed, not in any particularly relevant way. The main objections to the grid girls are largely centred around them being seen as eye candy for guys and whether that's appropriate for F1 today. It's very much a hot topic (not just in F1) around the world at the moment and F1 is riding that wave. In that context, the perspective of the models themselves are largely irrelevant.

Shia Luck wrote:As for the eye candy argument, perhaps my being a model makes no difference in my favour. In fact, clearly I didn't mind being treated as an object at times (mobile mannequin I used to call it, lol) because I got paid a lot. Perhaps my experience gives me a bias? Or perhaps being an employee in any industry involves being treated as an object or a tool?

see above.

Shia Luck wrote:You still misrepresented my argument to advocate your own agenda. I repeat, I never claimed that my being female only gave my opinion more validity. I gave arguments/reasons for my opinion, I also gave reasons why I could be more informed than other posters. At no time have I tried to say that people must agree with me because I am a woman. Please stop misrepresenting me as such. I am happy to engage in discussion, that is what my post meant.

What agenda? I'm merely disagreeing with you. I'm not sure why that should entail an agenda.

Shia Luck wrote:Don't forget, there are more arguments than the eye candy one being used by posters. Not everything I post necessarily relates to your personal eye candy issue with models. I would point out once again tho that the eye candy argument, when we are referring to women in national dress or looking like air crew, is one against women in the modelling industry as a whole, and would involve banning women from being any sort of model, any actress, appearing in commercials, being on TV, being in the public eye in any way shape or form and as such it is simply ridiculous without changing society as a whole.

There are, true, although personally I get the impression most of the others are just the supporting act to the main event. And, BTW, I never said I had a personal eye candy issue, just that the eye candy issue was the prevailing argument. I'm afraid I can't agree with your modelling analogy, but I see that's already been rebutted above.

Shia Luck wrote:You claim this topic is emotion led but offer no reason or evidence. I counter that claim. This topic is prejudiced led because despite establishing that the models do not wear sexy clothing, but national dress or very modest uniforms, and that holding the number or clapping are a minor part of their job, there are still people arguing that their only purpose is to be eye candy, and that is prejudice ignoring the established facts.

Well, the eye candy (or sexist, if you prefer) argument tends to be rooted in emotion anyway. I'm not convinced having a pretty girl on the grid is necessarily the evil some are portraying it to be and most of the calls for them to remain are in order to maintain tradition, which itself is often based on emotion.

Exediron wrote:

Shia Luck wrote:I would point out once again tho that the eye candy argument, when we are referring to women in national dress or looking like air crew, is one against women in the modelling industry as a whole, and would involve banning women from being any sort of model, any actress, appearing in commercials, being on TV, being in the public eye in any way shape or form and as such it is simply ridiculous without changing society as a whole.

No, it is not. That's a complete exaggeration, and creates a viewpoint that nobody is arguing in favor of.

There seems to be a serious fundamental issue in this debate with your ability to actually grasp the argument being made by the opposite side. Either that, or you're not willing to engage the argument being made by the other side, and are more interested in engaging a caricature of it that's easily made to look absurd.

It's been the first actually. Until your military analogy, I did not truly understand your position. The second is called a straw man argument which others have been using by claiming that I said that being female meant I was automatically correct. Which is what I have been posting against all this page.

Exidiron wrote: Instead, I'm actually arguing from the position that the models don't add anything to a Formula One race, and their only purpose is to be eye candy regardless of how they're dressed.
...
In your mentioned analogy of a fashion show, for example, the women are there to fulfill the purpose of the show. They're not a meaningless accessory. Likewise, if you attended a military parade, the servicemen would be a core part of the actual event. Neither one, however, has a place on a Formula One grid.

As I mentioned some post above I argue that they add glamour etc. Chase Carey was very quick to point out there would still be pretty girls on the grid after all, no?

However, both your and my arguments on this have logical sense and I do understand your position now. We just have different weighting systems as to the grid girls value in promoting the sport. In absence of statistics, we must agree to disaree i guess, no?

Thank you for engaging with my arguments rather than misrepresenting them.

Zoue wrote:

Shia Luck wrote:It seems my use of the word accuse has caused some ripples. Please allow me to rephrase.

"If you read it, and indeed any of my posts, I do not ever claim that my being female means i am automatically correct and I would appreciate not having my views misrepresented as such in a strawman argument. "

No-one is putting forth a strawman argument. I've already relayed that I feel your original post, in which you appeared to take issue with the fact that no-one consulted you, suggested that you felt that your personal experience should have carried more weight with others. Since this is directly relevant, it can't be a strawman.

You are claiming that because "you feel, I appeared to take issue with, I suggested... " doesn't this say more about how you interpreted my post? Having a discussion means reading charitably, trying to find the best interpretation, trying to understand, not finding or inventing a worse interpretation just so you can argue against it.

BTW, Strawman argument means that you misrepresent the opposing side's view just as you did. Exediron more or less defined it above.

Please quote me claiming that my being female meant everyone should agree with me.

Once you do that I will address the arguments you put forth.

jiminwatford wrote:If this gets rid of the cringeworthy 'corridor of girls' the drivers go through on their way to the podium it is a good thing

No disagreement there from me. That was horrible to watch. Tho no different than fashion models having to applaud the designer at a fashion show, no? (not personally aimed at you jiminwatford, I am using your completely understandable (imho) comment that has definitely been the most expressed opinion in this thread to remind others that i agree with some of the issues raised in the hope I stop getting misrepresented.)

Disclaimer: Jiminwatford does not necessarily agree with everything i say, but we have overlap in our views. That is all.

My argument has always been that this has nothing to do with women or the "sport" being sexualised, that was just the PR spin. I originally posited that Liberty had their own PR company that cut out the modelling agency and reduced costs, and that they could jump on the PR/PC bandwagon of "not being sexist" (by renaming the models that chase carey has already said will still be there). The grid kids was simply phase 2 of their PR campaign. After all, while it sounds good in principle, there are many countries that have an F1 race where they will struggle to find any up and coming junior stars to hold the numbers, no?

Dont the British and European junior formulas hold more weight than any others? Surely this opens up a wealth of good PR opportunites for Liberty to use, charities, let's say as an example, in countries that don't have a junior motorsport industry? More importantly to them, it saves themselves half a million pounds in the process, no? (assuming that £10k number was correct which seems a little low to me, and also positing 50 models hired as ambassadors each race which ìs not unreasonable, no? )

(also, it occurs to me that I might be arguing about what the models actually do (all the PR etc.) and others want to focus only onwhat is seen on Tv) ? Perhaps the eye candy argument is only relevant (to whatever degree) in the West? I certainly don't know what Liberty's agenda is, but I think speculation on their aims is more relevant to this topic than the way they presented it.

I have another possible explanation tho. I have argued the grid girls thing is a PR exercise by Liberty which wiĺ reduce costs, but perhaps Liberty are not just trying to save money, but are negotiating with a strict muslim country for a race? Grid girls would be a serious problem then, no? Time will prove that prediction right or not. Russia demanded a new format of the drivers lining up for the Russian national anthem, no? That is now the new norm, no? Let's see where this goes.

Shia Luck wrote:

Exediron wrote:There seems to be a serious fundamental issue in this debate with your ability to actually grasp the argument being made by the opposite side. Either that, or you're not willing to engage the argument being made by the other side, and are more interested in engaging a caricature of it that's easily made to look absurd.

It's been the first actually. Until your military analogy, I did not truly understand your position. The second is called a straw man argument which others have been using by claiming that I said that being female meant I was automatically correct. Which is what I have been posting against all this page.

Exidiron wrote:Instead, I'm actually arguing from the position that the models don't add anything to a Formula One race, and their only purpose is to be eye candy regardless of how they're dressed.
...
In your mentioned analogy of a fashion show, for example, the women are there to fulfill the purpose of the show. They're not a meaningless accessory. Likewise, if you attended a military parade, the servicemen would be a core part of the actual event. Neither one, however, has a place on a Formula One grid.

As I mentioned some post above I argue that they add glamour etc. Chase Carey was very quick to point out there would still be pretty girls on the grid after all, no?

However, both your and my arguments on this have logical sense and I do understand your position now. We just have different weighting systems as to the grid girls value in promoting the sport. In absence of statistics, we must agree to disaree i guess, no?

Thank you for engaging with my arguments rather than misrepresenting them.

I thought there was a chance we weren't quite understanding each other, which is why I went to the effort of explaining myself a little differently. I think both opinions are indeed valid, I was just trying to make mine come across properly, and to demonstrate that some people's arguments in favor of the ban aren't motivated by the most commonly brought up reasons.

In fact, over the course of this thread my position has shifted from 'strongly agree' with the ban to just 'slightly agree', if we had those degrees of granularity. I (like many, I expect) was generally unaware of the behind-the-scenes functions the models serve, and my opinion of their presence is changed somewhat by knowing they actually do serve a purpose to the event beyond what we see on TV or at the track. I'm closer to neutral on the whole issue now.

And BTW, I have all the same problems with grid kids I did with grid girls, only it seems a lot less likely they'll be doing anything important that we don't see! I can already feel anticipated annoyance that the cameras will spend way too much time focusing on the kids instead of the drivers and engineers...

Shia Luck wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Shia Luck wrote:It seems my use of the word accuse has caused some ripples. Please allow me to rephrase.

"If you read it, and indeed any of my posts, I do not ever claim that my being female means i am automatically correct and I would appreciate not having my views misrepresented as such in a strawman argument. "

No-one is putting forth a strawman argument. I've already relayed that I feel your original post, in which you appeared to take issue with the fact that no-one consulted you, suggested that you felt that your personal experience should have carried more weight with others. Since this is directly relevant, it can't be a strawman.

You are claiming that because "you feel, I appeared to take issue with, I suggested... " doesn't this say more about how you interpreted my post? Having a discussion means reading charitably, trying to find the best interpretation, trying to understand, not finding or inventing a worse interpretation just so you can argue against it.

BTW, Strawman argument means that you misrepresent the opposing side's view just as you did. Exediron more or less defined it above.

Please quote me claiming that my being female meant everyone should agree with me.

Once you do that I will address the arguments you put forth.

Actually, no, a strawman is intentionally misrepresenting someone's argument just so that you may present a counterpoint. Interpreting another's post through tone and content is not a strawman. To go back to the post that started this line of discussion:

I self identified as female and an ex-model on this thread. Take a look how many posters engaged on that or asked for insight into a topic they know nothing about and how many just carried on espousing their own (sometimes prejudiced) views, no?

The way that it's written it's clear you feel that as a female and ex-model you have greater insight than others who "know nothing about" the topic. That's the point I have been debating with you and that doesn't constitute a strawman on my part.

Shia Luck wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Shia Luck wrote:It seems my use of the word accuse has caused some ripples. Please allow me to rephrase.

"If you read it, and indeed any of my posts, I do not ever claim that my being female means i am automatically correct and I would appreciate not having my views misrepresented as such in a strawman argument. "

@siao7 not sure you are comparing apples and apples there. Engineering is a huge umbrella term for many different disciplines as you said, whereas modelling is a job that comes under an umbrella of entertainment and advertising and PR. A more fair comparison would be a model and a structural engineer who builds bridges, no? I would certainly expect Mr bridge designer to know a lot more about bridges and buildings and ground subsidence and what it is like to be a bridge builder etc than I do. Just like I would likely know a lot more than he about modelling or philosophy or language or teaching. (the studies my modelling career paid for).

Ok, what I mean is that this is obviously not the normal PR modelling job, if it requires all the hospitality/languages, etc. I am not sure you have done something similar, that is not just the eye candy job. I will admit that I have not modelled in my life (though my mom obviously thinks I should!) so I am not aware of the inner workings of that sector. But not knowing your background either makes it even more complicated.

I think the issue is probably appeal to authority; just because someone claims authority on something it does not make them de facto correct. People make mistakes. If I claim to know a lot about engineering, it shouldn't tell you much; I may be a horrible engineer for all you know... Especially as you have never met me nor do you know my credentials, only what I tell you behind my screen...

This is nothing personal Shia and I hope you don't get it the wrong way. I am just naturally sceptical to something like this.

I am not sure how often I should have to repeat this. I have never claimed that my being a model or a woman makes me correct. I have given reasons, made analogies and asked leading questions. none of which are done in an appeal to authority. I have also answered others' views with reasons and facts. As my post above yours might intimate, working as a runway fashion model does mean lots of PR with guests. However, if someone chooses not to believe me and instead of responding to my arguments, make the same false claim that I am saying everyone should believe me automatically, then there's not much use continuing this discussion.

I will quote my post that started this seeing as some people have not bothered to read what I actually said.

Shia Luck wrote:

Herb wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:I'm glad to see that there are more women who at least lurk on this forum than I thought.

Or people clicking the wrong choice (intentionally or not).

Great example of why women often don't want to self identify on the internet. Some man will always claim they are are males lying, tho the "women only post cos they're looking for attention" BS is more common.

I self identified as female and an ex-model on this thread. Take a look how many posters engaged on that or asked for insight into a topic they know nothing about and how many just carried on espousing their own (sometimes prejudiced) views, no?

Considering that women's views being ignored (or the models who work in the industry at least) and that it was a decision taken by men as a PR exercise, I wonder if the thread is not a microcosm of how the decision was taken in the first place.

I really can't see where i said people should automatically believe me.

It's probably confusing as you were claiming above in your post to Zoue that you have more insight in the subject. But people should not believe you necessarily. Can't you see that this kind of contradicts itself? I am probably wrong and believe me I am not trying to pick an argument with you, but this is how it came across to me!

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but in my view only those directly affected by the ban should be involved in the decision. Has anyone ever consulted the models or is their opinion, to your mind, not worth even hearing?

Those who are never going to be asked to earn money from being a model should not be able to prevent those who are from earning a few dollars, anything else is imposing your worldview...

If YOU don't like looking at models, don't look at them, you are only responsible for yourself. If I were a model, I would be pretty upset that people who think they know better than me believe they have the right to tell me what I can do...

In general, today's world is full of those who think they have the right tell others how to think or how to behave or that they know best how to spend others money for them. No-one has that right. Especially if they've been elected, down that path lies tyranny.

Battle Far wrote:Everyone is entitled to an opinion but in my view only those directly affected by the ban should be involved in the decision. Has anyone ever consulted the models or is their opinion, to your mind, not worth even hearing?

Those who are never going to be asked to earn money from being a model should not be able to prevent those who are from earning a few dollars, anything else is imposing your worldview...

If YOU don't like looking at models, don't look at them, you are only responsible for yourself. If I were a model, I would be pretty upset that people who think they know better than me believe they have the right to tell me what I can do...

In general, today's world is full of those who think they have the right tell others how to think or how to behave or that they know best how to spend others money for them. No-one has that right. Especially if they've been elected, down that path lies tyranny.

Depends. Do you think that Phillip Morris would have been consulted before the smoking ban?

Battle Far wrote:Everyone is entitled to an opinion but in my view only those directly affected by the ban should be involved in the decision. Has anyone ever consulted the models or is their opinion, to your mind, not worth even hearing?

Those who are never going to be asked to earn money from being a model should not be able to prevent those who are from earning a few dollars, anything else is imposing your worldview...

If YOU don't like looking at models, don't look at them, you are only responsible for yourself. If I were a model, I would be pretty upset that people who think they know better than me believe they have the right to tell me what I can do...

In general, today's world is full of those who think they have the right tell others how to think or how to behave or that they know best how to spend others money for them. No-one has that right. Especially if they've been elected, down that path lies tyranny.

Sorry, but I don't think that should be the case at all. The organisers have the right to determine how their product is presented to the world. The models are employed, but that doesn't give them a say on the validity of their role. To use a crude analogy, what turkey is ever going to vote for Christmas?

The grid girl issue is all about public perception. It's not about how hard they work or whether they do a good job, harsh as that may sound. It's about how their role is viewed by the world and how that impacts the sport's image

Zoue wrote:

Shia Luck wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Shia Luck wrote:It seems my use of the word accuse has caused some ripples. Please allow me to rephrase.

"If you read it, and indeed any of my posts, I do not ever claim that my being female means i am automatically correct and I would appreciate not having my views misrepresented as such in a strawman argument. "

No-one is putting forth a strawman argument...

BTW, Strawman argument means that you misrepresent the opposing side's view just as you did. Exediron more or less defined it above.

Actually, no, a strawman is intentionally misrepresenting someone's argument just so that you may present a counterpoint.

Considering you have paraphrased exactly what I said, what purpose do the words "Actually, no,... " serve in that sentence???

zoue wrote:Interpreting another's post through tone and content is not a strawman. To go back to the post that started this line of discussion:

I self identified as female and an ex-model on this thread. Take a look how many posters engaged on that or asked for insight into a topic they know nothing about and how many just carried on espousing their own (sometimes prejudiced) views, no?

How do you possibly interpret that to mean I believe people must automatically believe me solely because I am female. ???

zoue wrote:one’s gender doesn’t make one automatically right

zoue wrote:The way that it's written it's clear you feel that as a female and ex-model you have greater insight than others who "know nothing about" the topic. That's the point I have been debating with you and that doesn't constitute a strawman on my part.

But that's not what you have been arguing against. Let's just quote you.

Zoue wrote: All opinions are interesting, but one’s gender doesn’t make one automatically right

Notice the complete absence of my being a model as well as female?
Notice that you are claiming I believe I am automatically correct based solely on my femaleness?
Notice your complete absence of any quote from me even close to that position?

in a later post you argue:

Zoue wrote:. I just think that being either a model or a woman doesn't automatically mean that your opinion is more valid than anyone else's.

Notice how you are claiming that I think my opinion is more valid than anyone else's?
Notice how you once again provide no evidence to support this claim?

Classic strawman arguments, by your own definition.

I said

Shia Luck wrote: Please quote me claiming that my being female meant everyone should agree with me.

Once you do that I will address the arguments you put forth.

You can't quote me, can you? The reason you can't is because I never said it. You invented it to misrepresent my position so you could argue against it.

Shia Luck wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Shia Luck wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Shia Luck wrote:It seems my use of the word accuse has caused some ripples. Please allow me to rephrase.

"If you read it, and indeed any of my posts, I do not ever claim that my being female means i am automatically correct and I would appreciate not having my views misrepresented as such in a strawman argument. "

No-one is putting forth a strawman argument...

BTW, Strawman argument means that you misrepresent the opposing side's view just as you did. Exediron more or less defined it above.

Actually, no, a strawman is intentionally misrepresenting someone's argument just so that you may present a counterpoint.

Considering you have paraphrased exactly what I said, what purpose do the words "Actually, no,... " serve in that sentence???

zoue wrote:Interpreting another's post through tone and content is not a strawman. To go back to the post that started this line of discussion:

I self identified as female and an ex-model on this thread. Take a look how many posters engaged on that or asked for insight into a topic they know nothing about and how many just carried on espousing their own (sometimes prejudiced) views, no?

How do you possibly interpret that to mean I believe people must automatically believe me solely because I am female. ???

zoue wrote:one’s gender doesn’t make one automatically right

zoue wrote:The way that it's written it's clear you feel that as a female and ex-model you have greater insight than others who "know nothing about" the topic. That's the point I have been debating with you and that doesn't constitute a strawman on my part.

But that's not what you have been arguing against. Let's just quote you.

Zoue wrote: All opinions are interesting, but one’s gender doesn’t make one automatically right

Notice the complete absence of my being a model as well as female?
Notice that you are claiming I believe I am automatically correct based solely on my femaleness?
Notice your complete absence of any quote from me even close to that position?

in a later post you argue:

Zoue wrote:. I just think that being either a model or a woman doesn't automatically mean that your opinion is more valid than anyone else's.

Notice how you are claiming that I think my opinion is more valid than anyone else's?
Notice how you once again provide no evidence to support this claim?

Classic strawman arguments, by your own definition.

I said

Shia Luck wrote: Please quote me claiming that my being female meant everyone should agree with me.

Once you do that I will address the arguments you put forth.

You can't quote me, can you? The reason you can't is because I never said it. You invented it to misrepresent my position so you could argue against it.

You seem to be taking this a little personally here, and there's really no need.

You appear fixated on the strawman argument, but at the end of the day your post did emphasise the fact that you are female and an ex-model and this somehow gave your opinion some gravitas. It's difficult to interpret that in any other way, I'm afraid. So arguing against that cannot be called a strawman argument. It's simply disagreeing with your position.

Zoue wrote:

Shia Luck wrote:

...

zoue wrote:Interpreting another's post through tone and content is not a strawman. To go back to the post that started this line of discussion:

I self identified as female and an ex-model on this thread. Take a look how many posters engaged on that or asked for insight into a topic they know nothing about and how many just carried on espousing their own (sometimes prejudiced) views, no?

How do you possibly interpret that to mean I believe people must automatically believe me solely because I am female. ???

zoue wrote:one’s gender doesn’t make one automatically right

zoue wrote:The way that it's written it's clear you feel that as a female and ex-model you have greater insight than others who "know nothing about" the topic. That's the point I have been debating with you and that doesn't constitute a strawman on my part.

But that's not what you have been arguing against. Let's just quote you.

Zoue wrote: All opinions are interesting, but one’s gender doesn’t make one automatically right

Notice the complete absence of my being a model as well as female?
Notice that you are claiming I believe I am automatically correct based solely on my femaleness?
Notice your complete absence of any quote from me even close to that position?

in a later post you argue:

Zoue wrote:. I just think that being either a model or a woman doesn't automatically mean that your opinion is more valid than anyone else's.

Notice how you are claiming that I think my opinion is more valid than anyone else's?
Notice how you once again provide no evidence to support this claim?

Classic strawman arguments, by your own definition.

I said

Shia Luck wrote: Please quote me claiming that my being female meant everyone should agree with me.

Once you do that I will address the arguments you put forth.

You can't quote me, can you? The reason you can't is because I never said it. You invented it to misrepresent my position so you could argue against it.

You seem to be taking this a little personally here, and there's really no need.

You appear fixated on the strawman argument, but at the end of the day your post did emphasise the fact that you are female and an ex-model and this somehow gave your opinion some gravitas. It's difficult to interpret that in any other way, I'm afraid. So arguing against that cannot be called a strawman argument. It's simply disagreeing with your position.

Still haven't quoted me I see.