On Saturday, 3 February 2018 06:27:44 UTC+2, keithr0 wrote:
> On 2/2/2018 8:46 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 2 February 2018 12:22:04 UTC+2, keithr0 wrote:
> >> On 2/2/2018 3:59 AM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> There is no single POV around these matters.
> >>> In SA it is becoming more common to have female commentators. For some sports and situations more than others. The panel that does the lead in to F1 broadcasts is now led by a woman. We get women calling international cricket matches on the radio (led by Natalie Germanus).
> >>> Now, you'd think this would be seen as progress and creating a more level playing field, but a mate of mine's daughter (married, with kids, so not herself a nipper) will have none of it. She says women know nothing about sport, can never know nothing about it, and thus have no part telling others about it and acting like they do know.
> >>> White South Africans my age will remember that during apartheid it was always possible to get hold of a black man who would tell you that they liked being able to do their own thing in their own way on their own land and the white man was very nice to them.
> >> Not quite the same thing, black South Africans were in a situation not
> >> of their making, presumably some accepted it and chose to make the best
> >> of what they had. AFAIK, nobody forces women to be pit babes, maybe they
> >> do it for the money or the attention but they are in a situation of
> >> their own choosing.
> > My point was that there are always lots of different voices, and we err in thinking that a voice we've heard (or sought out) speaks authentically for all members of whatever group.
> My point was that some have a choice others do not, and the girls are
> among those who have that choice.
And self interest, of course. That's valid to a degree, of course. You can't expect Turkeys to vote for Christmas. But still, my point is that we shouldn't think that the voice of some professional models - who may have been fed false information - is not the only voice and that they speak for everybody else.
> >> That said, I'd like to see more women in active positions in F1. On the
> >> technical side, there is no reason that they couldn't perform as well as
> >> or better than men. As drivers though I'm not so sure, given the
> >> physical forces involved in modern F1 cars, I feel that men will usually
> >> have the edge over them.
> > Red Bull and Merc have both put female members of their engineering staff on podiums. Ruth Buscombe made the famous strategy call that got Haas a good haul of points in their first race. Shell used to have a woman looking after Ferrari's fuel and lubricants (and may still do).
> > Women do work actively in F1, and in increasing numbers.
> Increasing but off a very low base.
Well, the base was zero. That doesn't mean that a positive change isn't taking place. And it reflects other changes too - if Merc hire a woman to work in their aerodynamics team, that means that women are taking suitable courses at university, and that those courses are open to them. When I studied extraction metallurgy back in the 70s, there wasn't a single woman student in the school that taught that.
> > The driving issue... they really can't do it? Danica Patrick drove in Indy and NASCAR. You'd think she can withstand G forces. The cars have power steering these days.
> Possibly, but I see pictures of the drivers in the gym with large
> weights attached to their heads to build up the neck muscles quite apart
> from the other continuous training needed these days.
Yes, but do you think Danica Patrick or Simona de Silvestra or Pippa Mann didn't have to do gym training to race indy cars? I remember one journo, Saward I think, talking about shaking hands with Simona de Silvestro. He said you got a big surprise because she'd been doing a lot of gym work and had a really strong grip.