I'm glad the practice is abandoned. It was cringe-worthy. Especially the clapping before the podium.
Some arguments you hear people stating just don't making any sense to me:
"They are taking away paid work of people that love what they are doing!"
So? Would that be your same reasoning when F1 decides to limit aero development and several aero engineers would be cut form F1? Truth is, that "argument" is never used when we discuss the way F1 could improve racing.
Only when it comes to grid girls we suddenly feel bad for their loss of income. They'll survive and find other modelling gigs.
Using this argument actually reeks of the exact "snowflake" behaviour the pro-gridgirl people (PGG) are accusing the no grid girls people (=NGG) of: "We are here to protect them poor girls livelihood (as if they need your protection) against the big, bad outside world!"
That smells of paternalism: only PGG'ers "really" know whats good for grid girls? Ugh.
Other argument: "I believe in freedom, so therefor I would not want to prevent any of these women of doing this job. Axing grid girls is limiting their freedom to earn an honest living, so I am against axing it!"
Fact is the owner of a series doesn't have to listen to the buyers of the product: if they decide they no longer want grid girls as part of their show, they can choose to do so.
"Forcing" them to NOT stop the practice in the name of "freedom", that sounds just silly to me. Or would you claim the owners should not have the freedom to decide on their product?
What if I state I want to freedom to do summersaults on the grid and I demand my freedom to do just that is respected? Would you fight for my freedom then too?
Believing in freedom (as I do) doesn't mean only believing in your own freedom and limiting others to exercise their right to theirs. Everyone is free to set up a rivaling series with plenty of grid girls.
Grid girls were intended as eye-candy. That several of these women have more to offer is without doubt. But that doesn't take away anything of that original intent: to be eye-candy, to attract the male gaze and to please parts of the male audience by getting dressed up in a certain way.
Have you ever seen an F1 journalist interviewing grid girls? Of course not, bc no one expects them to be anything other than be pretty and smile. How on earth is that acknowledging the fullness of their personality, knowledge and ambitions?
That is what objectification is all about: creating a situation where a human is barred from expressing their humanness fully, bc the person doing the objectification only wants the other person to "be" the thing they desire them to be.
If you choose to create a situation where people are only allowed to look pretty and shut up, what's in there for you then, I wonder?
The paedophile argument is even weaker: in football kids are used to introduce teams all the time and no one in their right mind would think of accusing the organizers of paedophilia.
Will see if other arguments appear, not enough time and willingness to address them all atm.
*I remain open for debate and none of my views should be considered as absolutes. Feel free to attack them with decent arguments.