Stirling Moss talks crap..discuss

After hearing Striling Moss's comments it shows to me he is out of touch and thinks all women should be like in his day. Without the vote.

If anyone saw the Susie Wolff program...go sis.

Kx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's no GP4-topic for sure, but what do you think why there are no women-drivers are in F1?

If they were as good as men-drivers, there would be a lot of women, because they are much easier to promote. But as we know there are no female F1-drivers. So, there has to be a reason, why they aren't that good. And I think Sir Stirling Moss is the only one who dares to express his opinion.

EDIT:
Just one addition before someone starts crying:
Of course female driver are able to win races, even F1-races. There I have to disagree with Sir Moss. But in average, maybe they are really a bit slowlier in important scences than men are. I think, that was also what Stirling Moss wanted to express.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2013 01:36PM by klausfeldmann.

With all due respect, but this is crap. Women have proven both in F1 and especially in other race series that they can be quite successful as well. The reason why currently there is no woman in F1 is handmade! There is a big competition and women not only don't get a chance in F1, but this goes way further down into the junior series. It's hard for women to get the proper education there already. But how shall they make it into F1 then? There are still a lot more men than women going for a race career, which makes it yet again harder for women to succeed in the competition for a race seat. And along with that go the prejudices of people like Sterling Moss.
With similar chances and the same education, I'm sure women could be as successful in F1 as some men are. But the junior programs are just making this swap into equality and I'm sure it will take another 10 years for this to take effect. But then I'm convinced that one day a female driver will enter F1 and kick asses!


GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)

I think there are two main reasons why there aren't woman drivers racing in F1.

First and foremost it's the sheer ratio of numbers in that far more males are interested in driving around as fast as they can in circles, whilst proportionally females are more interested in utilising the car's sun visor mirror to apply make up. Apologies for the slightly tasteless over generalisation but when there's only a handful of woman racing drivers compared to men it's not surprising that they're aren't any in F1.

Secondary I'm afraid that society in general is ever so slightly thick.

Lastly, there are no physical nor mental reason why there couldn't be woman drivers somewhere with the capacity to win in F1. It's just numbers.

klausfeldmann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they were as good as men-drivers, there would
> be a lot of women, because they are much easier to
> promote.


Sorry but I don't think there is more space/need for girls in F1 after these two.. (I'm joking btw.. Just as info if this smiley is not enough to show it)



Kimi, so, Massa Fernando Sebastian is faster than you. Can you confirm you understood that message?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2013 02:50PM by IWE.

Maybe when we start holding women to the same standards as their male counterparts, then the cream may rise to the top. Look at the women racing in Europe who are in a position to get to F1. Alice Powell and the girl Red Bull just signed are the only ones who've shown any real promise to this point, and their CVs are of the same quality of someone who might be good sportscar drivers or maybe make it to IndyCar and do well but rarely make it to F1 without major backing. Piria, Cerruti, Jorda are all where they are because of looks/novelty. If they were males they would not be in the positions that they are.


Red Bull signing a female driver is great news, and a good sign of progress. They don't play around in that group.


Lucky Seven Motorsport ***Winner-Zandvoort***
Drivers
Ross -the Rainmeister- Cartwright ***Winner-Zandvoort***
Keeley -GPGSL's sexiest member- Grant
Tester
Randy -The getting drunk in the motorhome-meister- Winston

If Susie Wolff was a man, would she be anywhere near F1? Probably not. She's been oh-so-very average in DTM, and has shown nothing to suggest that she is F1 worthy.

I don't agree with Sir Stirling Moss on this, but the BBC's constant claims that Susie Wolff is the fastest woman in the world is bollocks.

I think Beitske Visser is a FAR more reasonable bet to be in F1 in the future.

---

GPGSL: S6 - TafuroGP Tester (14th) /// S7 - ART Tester (6th) /// S8 - Demon Driver (13th) /// S9 - Demon/Snake Driver (13th) /// S10 - Snake Driver (???) ///]
"My ambition is handicapped by laziness" - Charles Bukowski



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2013 03:20PM by Incident 2k9.

There just aren't enough girls pushed into motorsport at the karting stage as many parents wouldn't think of it.

I went karting yesterday and saw 1 young girl there. But that was it.

I was in a race of 26 and there were 2 women in it and they finished 24th and 25th (the guy in 26th had an issue with his kart). They just weren't interested, so they tootled around, dragged there by a boyfriend who told them they'd enjoy it.

That said, the Ginetta Junior's had a two girls in it a couple of years ago, Sarah Moore (who was champion 3 years back I think it was) and Louise? Richardson, who I think won a race (I might have made that up, but she ran certainly towards the front in a few races). The problem at their age is that the testosterone-fueled boys hate being beaten by girls at motorsport and almost went out of their way to barge them out of the way - so there is a social issue even when they are behind the wheel.

But I think we're getting there. We've got a couple of women in top level American motorsports and we've had women in DTM recently. We might never get a successful female driver in F1, but that's purely due to the ratio of men to women racers, as Jim said, and nothing to do with any mental or physical limitation.

I've never been a fan of Sterling Moss. I know many motorsport fans would call me for that, and I've never quite been able to put my finger on why, but I've always felt there's something 'there' that's not right - possibly his stance of supporting teammates, which I never got - you're out there to win, and fair enough you might have had to earn the right to call the shots in an era where you had clear lead drivers, but there comes a point where you're racing for yourself, not to back Fangio up, or to win with a completely hopeless British team... if he was so desperate to win in a British car, why did he ever drive for foreign teams? There was always something odd about his psyche.

His opinion on this matter doesn't help my opinion of him. Frankly it's horrifying that in 2013 anyone can utter such bollocks.

Sorry to burst the bubble here, but in general female physic, stamina and spatial sense does not allow them to become F1 drivers. Sans the speed, you have to be able to live up to many of the same requirements that you would if you wanted to become a fighter pilot. There are several armies in the world that have given women equal opportunities in the armed forces and their brains and bodies are simply not built for it. Men have a better spatial sense. Men are better able to withstand pulling massive G's. Men are better able to cultivate the strength and endurance needed to control an F1 car for 90 minutes.

If this was not true, then we would not have separate categories for male and female in other sports that require athletic ability, and results and records would be in the same range for both sexes. This is simply not the case! If you do not believe me, then I challenge you to find one sport, just ONE sport that requires significant athletic ability, where women are able to compete on an equal footing with men.

They don't exist!

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2013 07:31PM by Morbid.

[www.guardian.co.uk]

I can't believe this piece of trash made it onto the Guardian.

---

Races: 163 - Wins: 23 - Pole Positions: 24 - Fastest Laps: 22
Season 9: Constructors' Champions

Ferrari2007 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [www.guardian.co.uk]
> 013/apr/16/stirling-moss-wrong-women-motor-racing
>
> I can't believe this piece of trash made it onto
> the Guardian.

Quote

According to Wenham, the one clear disadvantage women have against men is sponsorship. "Why would a male brand choose to use a female to target their male audience?" she says. Similarly, female brands don't think female racing drivers can reach their target demographic.

Why?

Because 85% of all advertising, even for male products, are already targeted at females, because it is the females who decide how the money is spent in the household! Advertising targeted at males have a much lower success rate, because men don't like to change their habits, once they have found their brand of choice, and because they usually lose the battles over the household economy.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2013 09:45PM by Morbid.

Morbid schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry to burst the bubble here, but in general
> female physic, stamina and spatial sense does not
> allow them to become F1 drivers. Sans the speed,
> you have to be able to live up to many of the same
> requirements that you would if you wanted to
> become a fighter pilot. There are several armies
> in the world that have given women equal
> opportunities in the armed forces and their brains
> and bodies are simply not built for it. Men have a
> better spatial sense. Men are better able to
> withstand pulling massive G's. Men are better able
> to cultivate the strength and endurance needed to
> control an F1 car for 90 minutes.
>
> If this was not true, then we would not have
> separate categories for male and female in other
> sports that require athletic ability, and results
> and records would be in the same range for both
> sexes. This is simply not the case! If you do not
> believe me, then I challenge you to find one
> sport, just ONE sport that requires significant
> athletic ability, where women are able to compete
> on an equal footing with men.
>
> They don't exist!

while i sort of agree on the general physic and stamina point the spatial sense thing deserves a "citation needed" label imho.
also, just for the record:
[www.jsc.nasa.gov]
[www.jsc.nasa.gov]

---

used to be GPGSL's Nick Heidfeld

n00binio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> while i sort of agree on the general physic and
> stamina point the spatial sense thing deserves a
> "citation needed" label imho.
> also, just for the record:
> [www.jsc.nasa.gov]
>
> [www.jsc.nasa.gov]

"ehh... I can see it in all the sporting results we have, but I want a study that proves it!" :-S

Providing two exceptions does not counter the rule. In the same vein, the few successful women we have in motorsports do not counter the rule. They prove it by being exceptions! I can find more men that are born with vaginas than you can find Nasa approved women. That does not mean that men have vaginas does it now?

Regarding the spatial sense... men have far more iron in our heads than women do. That is why we are far better at finding north in controlled studies, where we are asked to orient ourselves in rooms with no windows. We tune into the Earth's magnetic field, just like migrating birds. Unfortunately, that also makes us far more likely to be struck by lightning. Call your insurance company. They will verify this statistic for you... or just Google it. Or read the books by Barbara and Allan Pease. They go into great detail about these things.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2013 12:01AM by Morbid.

I was unaware men had more iron in their heads, according to some women, I have rocks in my head.

---

[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central

Morbid schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n00binio Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > while i sort of agree on the general physic and
> > stamina point the spatial sense thing deserves
> a
> > "citation needed" label imho.
> > also, just for the record:
> >
> [www.jsc.nasa.gov]
>
> >
> >
> [www.jsc.nasa.gov]
>
>
> "ehh... I can see it in all the sporting results
> we have, but I want a study that proves it!" :-S
>

that's exactly why i said i sort of agree with you when it comes to stamina and general physic. what is left to check is in what way and to which extend these features are relevant for motorracing.

> Providing two exceptions does not counter the
> rule. In the same vein, the few successful women
> we have in motorsports do not counter the rule.
> They prove it by being exceptions! I can find more
> men that are born with vaginas than you can find
> Nasa approved women. That does not mean that men
> have vaginas does it now?

the point i want to make is that there are indeed exceptions to what could be a rule. one could even argue that male f1 drivers/jet pilots/whatever are exceptions to the male version of this rule. plus to me it seems to be almost impossible to look at the problem quantitatively due to what gav said. so imho we can't even tell what the rule actually is as we don't know the total numbers (e.g. how many women have actually tried to start a career in racing, how many failed/succeeded)

> Regarding the spatial sense... men have far more
> iron in our heads than women do. That is why we
> are far better at finding north in controlled
> studies, where we are asked to orient ourselves in
> rooms with no windows. We tune into the Earth's
> magnetic field, just like migrating birds.
> Unfortunately, that also makes us far more likely
> to be struck by lightning. Call your insurance
> company. They will verify this statistic for
> you... or just Google it. Or read the books by
> Barbara and Allan Pease. They go into great detail
> about these things.

i had a look at that:
there is one study from 1980 that claimed magnetoreception in human beings, no difference observed when comparing men to women
(R. ROBIN BAKER, SCIENCE, VOL. 210, 31 OCTOBER 1980)

LEONARD ZUSNE AND BARBARA ALLEN, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1981, 52,910
eliminated systematic errors in bakers approach and could not reproduce the results

G. W. MAX WESTBY AND KAREN J. PARTRIDGE, J. exp. Biol. 120, 325-331 (1986)
eliminated further systematic influences and could not reproduce baker

JAMES L. GOULD and K. P. ABLE, SCIENCE, VOL. 212, 29 MAY 1981
could not reproduce baker

a recent study found a protein inside the human eye that enables magnetoreception in fruit flies, no hint towards this actually working for humans plus no difference male to female as far as i understood
(Lauren E. Foley, Robert J. Gegear, & Steven M. Reppert, Nature Communications 2:356)

sorry for not formatting the references properly. i guess men are struck by lightning more often because they tend to take higher risks plus the difference in body height might be a disadvantage.

also some personal experience: recently i stood next to a 5 tesla magnet (that is a LOT more than the earth's field), i didn't feel anything unusual.

---

used to be GPGSL's Nick Heidfeld

Let's just say that I give you the advantage on defaulting on the Iron in the head theory. I can still back my claims up.

Quote

In a study of sex differences in navigation strategy and geographic knowledge, 90 men
and 104 women completed cognitive spatial tests, gave directions from local maps, and
identified places on a world map. On the spatial tests, men were better than women in
mental rotation skill, but men and women were similar in object location memory. In
giving directions, men were more abstract and Euclidian, using miles and north–south–
east–west terms, whereas women were more concrete and personal, using landmarks
and left–right terms. Older subjects of both sexes gave more abstract Euclidian direc-
tions than younger subjects did. On the world map, men identified more places than
women did. The data fit a causal model in which sex predicts world map knowledge and
the use of Euclidian directions, both directly and indirectly through a sex difference in
spatial skills. The age effect, which was independent of sex, supports a developmental
view of spatial cognition.

Quote

We found sex differences in spatial skill, navigation strategy, and geographic
knowledge. Men excelled at mental rotation, although men and women did not dif-
fer in object location memory. Men knew more than women did about world geog-
raphy. Men and women differed in navigation strategy, with men using miles and
NSEW directions and women using landmarks and left–right directions. Navigation
strategy was not related to knowledge of world geography. Relations among the
variables can be seen more easily in the path model than in the raw correlations,
because the path model provides an overall picture of relations among the variables.
Fitting correlational data to the model tells us how much of each variable can be
explained by each preceding variable, and the overall goodness of fit of the model
indicates how well the model summarizes the raw correlational findings.
The sex differences are consistent with Silverman and Eals’ (1992) evolution-
ary perspective, which holds that a prehistoric division of labor supported differing
reproductive needs of men and women. Women who could better keep track of rela-
tionships, activities, objects, locations, and landmarks near home were more suc-
cessful at acquiring resources needed to bear and raise offspring. Men who could
travel in unfamiliar territory, estimate distance, and navigate using a bird’s-eye
orientation were more successful at competing with other males, finding mates, and fa-
thering offspring. In this view, neither sex has superior spatial skills. Men and
women have different skills, suitable to handling different aspects of the environ-
ment most important to their own sex.

Having spatial skills that support your ability "to keep track of relationships, activities, objects, locations, and landmarks near home" will not earn you an F1 seat. Having spatial skills that allow you to "travel in unfamiliar territory, estimate distance, and navigate using a bird’s-eye orientation" will. Being able to express you navigation in standardized abstract units, instead of personal meaningful symbols, and knowing north, south, east and west, will also support your progress in motor sports. Excelling at mental rotation is @#$%& important when 90% of your concentration is being spent on other tasks, like keeping car balance in check and dicing with the other guys around you.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2013 12:47AM by Morbid.

Still, it's not impossible for there to be a female driver to compete competitively with the male. It's definitely unlikely though.

Morbid - voice of reason in a PC-mad world. There's a reason I still love that Dane.

---

REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS

Morbid schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's just say that I give you the advantage on
> defaulting on the Iron in the head theory. I can
> still back my claims up.
>
>
>
> In a study of sex differences in navigation
> strategy and geographic knowledge, 90 men
> and 104 women completed cognitive spatial tests,
> gave directions from local maps, and
> identified places on a world map. On the spatial
> tests, men were better than women in
> mental rotation skill, but men and women were
> similar in object location memory. In
> giving directions, men were more abstract and
> Euclidian, using miles and north–south–
> east–west terms, whereas women were more
> concrete and personal, using landmarks
> and left–right terms. Older subjects of both
> sexes gave more abstract Euclidian direc-
> tions than younger subjects did. On the world map,
> men identified more places than
> women did. The data fit a causal model in which
> sex predicts world map knowledge and
> the use of Euclidian directions, both directly and
> indirectly through a sex difference in
> spatial skills. The age effect, which was
> independent of sex, supports a developmental
> view of spatial cognition.
>
> We found sex differences in spatial skill,
> navigation strategy, and geographic
> knowledge. Men excelled at mental rotation,
> although men and women did not dif-
> fer in object location memory. Men knew more than
> women did about world geog-
> raphy. Men and women differed in navigation
> strategy, with men using miles and
> NSEW directions and women using landmarks and
> left–right directions. Navigation
> strategy was not related to knowledge of world
> geography. Relations among the
> variables can be seen more easily in the path
> model than in the raw correlations,
> because the path model provides an overall picture
> of relations among the variables.
> Fitting correlational data to the model tells us
> how much of each variable can be
> explained by each preceding variable, and the
> overall goodness of fit of the model
> indicates how well the model summarizes the raw
> correlational findings.
> The sex differences are consistent with Silverman
> and Eals’ (1992) evolution-
> ary perspective, which holds that a prehistoric
> division of labor supported differing
> reproductive needs of men and women. Women who
> could better keep track of rela-
> tionships, activities, objects, locations, and
> landmarks near home were more suc-
> cessful at acquiring resources needed to bear and
> raise offspring. Men who could
> travel in unfamiliar territory, estimate distance,
> and navigate using a bird’s-eye
> orientation were more successful at competing with
> other males, finding mates, and fa-
> thering offspring. In this view, neither sex has
> superior spatial skills. Men and
> women have different skills, suitable to handling
> different aspects of the environ-
> ment most important to their own sex.
>
> Having spatial skills that support your ability
> "to keep track of relationships, activities,
> objects, locations, and landmarks near home" will
> not earn you an F1 seat. Having spatial skills
> that allow you to "travel in unfamiliar territory,
> estimate distance, and navigate using a
> bird’s-eye orientation" will. Being able to
> express you navigation in standardized abstract
> units, instead of personal meaningful symbols, and
> knowing north, south, east and west, will also
> support your progress in motor sports. Excelling
> at mental rotation is @#$%& important when 90% of
> your concentration is being spent on other tasks,
> like keeping car balance in check and dicing with
> the other guys around you.

agreed, i have heard about that before. as long as we can agree on the fact that this is an evolutionary feat and not related to iron in our heads there's nothing to add to the point you make.

---

used to be GPGSL's Nick Heidfeld

Must...resist...urge...to make iron jokes...

---

GPGSL: S6 - TafuroGP Tester (14th) /// S7 - ART Tester (6th) /// S8 - Demon Driver (13th) /// S9 - Demon/Snake Driver (13th) /// S10 - Snake Driver (???) ///]
"My ambition is handicapped by laziness" - Charles Bukowski