There is an inescapable truth to the oft-used business expression change or die. It is true of all things, and no thriving entity can be immune.
Motorsport as a whole has ground its way into the present, willingly in some sectors, less so in others. Formula E is an excellent example of motor racing placing itself firmly in the context of the modern day, while the World Endurance Championship has proven itself to be open to adaptability — and that’s before considering its recent ban on grid girls, that most anachronistic of motorsport traditions.
Even Formula One changes, though progress may be begrudging. Just ten years ago, Formula One ringleader Bernie Ecclestone had little to say about the idea of women competing in his sport.
“Women should be all dressed in white,” he jibed, “like all other domestic appliances.”
But Ecclestone too has found change irresistible. As recently as two weeks ago he seemed to embrace wholeheartedly the participation of women in motorsport — so much so that he designed an entire formula just for the female gender.
“I thought it would be a good idea to give them a showcase,” said Ecclestone.
“We have to start somewhere so I suggested to the teams that we have a separate championship. Maybe that way we will be able to bring someone through to F1.”
In 65 years of Formula One just two women have started a race, those being Maria Teresa de Filippis in the late 1950s and Lella Lombardi in the mid-1970s. No woman has taken to the starting grid in more than 38 years.
“For some reason, women are not coming through, and not because we don’t want them,” said Ecclestone. “Of course we [want them], because they would attract a lot of attention and publicity and probably a lot of sponsors.
“It is only a thought at the moment but I think it would be super for F1 and the whole grand prix weekend.”
The turnaround since those unseemly decade-old comments is truly significant, but for all his good faith — and let’s assume for now that there’s more to this than simply marketing — is female Formula One what motorsport really needs?
The sport’s two current leading ladies — Williams’ Susie Wolff and Lotus’ Camren Jorda — are divided.
Jorda says Formula One has nothing to lose by separating the genders, pointing to the fact the vast majority of international sport is competed in separate male and female spheres.
Wolff, on the other hand, says the few women who have persisted with motorsport have successfully competed with men for their entire careers, so any separation of the genders could only be a step backwards — and, in any case, there would hardly be enough top line female drivers to fill a series.
It is this last point that is particularly salient. Regardless of whether women have a bespoke series in which to compete, motorsport is still perceived as being a man’s world, which continues to deter girls from taking up racing at a young age. The solution lies in breaking this perception.
Motorsport needs more female role models. With more women racers to look up to, a greater percentage of young girls will take up driving, some of whom will progress into the world’s elite formulae and eventually knock on the door to Formula One.
Ecclestone’s thought bubble — and he admitted a thought it is at this stage — misses this point. Even with the invention of a category solely for women, female participation is lacking that first vital link in the chain.
Motorsport needs a more proactive approach. As is the case with most industries around the world, much is being done by the governing body to dispel gender discrimination and promote equality — but in motor racing, a sport that relies on aspirant racers getting involved in karting well before their teenage years, this simply isn’t enough.
What the FIA, the commercial rights holder, and the teams need to do is take a stake in the promotion of female racers. Much in the same way that teams and categories have invested in junior development programmes to nurture young talent, the governing body should be investing in a significant, international-scale development programme for women.
It should make involvement in motorsport as easy as possible from a young age to maximise participation, and thereafter funding should be directed to the management, development, and promotion of the best of the programme’s talent.
Such a programme has the triple benefit of dramatically increasing the number of women in motorsport, decreasing the number of women who have to market their ability based on the “novelty” of being a female racing driver, and create exponentially more female role models to promote motor racing to girls.
It is often said that it will take just one immensely talented woman to break open the motorsport world for the entire gender. That may be true, but the current method cherry-picking female drivers based on sponsorship packages and marketing potential renders the search infinitely more difficult. While we rightly promote the Susie Wolffs, Simona de Silvestros, and Carmen Jordas of motorsport, how many other talented drivers never had the chance to make it so far?
Only when we cast the net wide and invest in the future of women in motorsport in a material way can we expect to return results in any sort of acceptable timeframe. Until then, a female-only formula can only be considered a shortcut to a half-result.
Rugby stu
Guest
"Since that barrier is largely cultural, I see no reason against the executive taking a decision to influence that culture" this is also known as social engineering, "lets make people what we think they should be not what they actually choose to be." I don't subscribe to this notion that you should remake people to make them "better" even if you can because what you are creating is not organic but artificial. It is patronising to women's ability that they need special treatment to be given "a hand up." I would rather them choose what they actually want to do rather than you telling them...more belittling then empowering in my opinion.
Simoc
Guest
Well it would be easier for females to get rides in Moto GP. Michael probably hasn't noticed but 99% of hoons on the road are males. Hot rods are predominantly male. Men are and always have been greater risk takers. It may be changing now but maybe the desire to be an F1 World Champion hasn't been a priority for many if any females.
nordster
Guest
Good point, women are already getting a leg up based on gender. Which on some level is fine if its one or two drivers as means of improving visibility. Anything beyond that would be a retrograde step for motorsport in general. Can we not heed the wisdom of pantene treatment shampoo ...."it wont happen overnight but it will happen"....i may be paraphrasing, u get the drift ;)
Bamboo
Guest
Suzie Wolff??? Shes won the same about of races as I have in my career - none! Pastor Maldonado has won 34 over the same 13 year period. In her 73 race DTM career she had a best of 13th. Career stats: 124 races, zero wins, zero poles, zero fastest laps, 4 podiums....and shes testing in Grand Prix sessions this year?
nordster
Guest
Well said mike, the progressives think they have all issues locked up as their sole domain. And occupy some sort of moral high ground. They are in fact authoritarian in nature...this is the only way to enforce 'equality'. There is nothing wrong with letting the situation evolve and improve organically. The barriers are not there, you are correct. The truth is that few women are interested or have gone through the same development paths as male drivers. More women should get a drive when more women demand and deserve it. Which will take another generation or two.
nordster
Guest
Im not saying to relax, im saying to give the elevation of women more time to happen. Its already happening, just not as quickly as some would like. Forcing the issue will be counter productive.
mike j
Guest
The disinterest IS innate to women. You write for a sports blog and you don't know that? Or have you just been so burned by militant pseudofeminism that you're afraid to acknowledge self-evident truth? I don't 'disregard' alternative influences to gendered behaviours at all, I just put them in perspective. If you could come up with something better than 'blah blah social barriers, blah blah patriarchy', I'd be delighted to hear it, but on balance it's clear that the disparities in sports participation are not adequately explained by institutional or cultural barriers. Are men brainwashed into hating shopping too or is it just that our interests lie elsewhere? Women aren't victims of their own free choices and we do them a disservice to suggest it. However, they are notoriously bad drivers and it's a bit hard to blame that one on the patriarchy. Peace.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
But your argument relies on some disinterest being somehow innate to women, and you disregard any other extraneous reasons in the process. You ask "what?", but don't bother to ask "why?". This is not a talking down of sportsmen any more than it is a conscription programme for young sportswomen — it's an opportunity to acknowledge social barriers, built up over years of motorsport being a defacto male sport, exist and deter those who find it interesting in their youth from pursuing into into their teenage years and beyond. There's more to opportunity than having a gender field on your karting club membership form. There is a difference between equality and equity.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
I tend to agree on the point of quotas, particularly when combating incorrect perceptions in certain fields that women are somehow less capable than men — it can do more harm than good in those cases. But then there is obviously an issue translating girls taking up karting into women competing professionally. I don't think the answer is creating women-specific series, but in this case there's surely cause for a programme to specifically break down the barriers facing women trying to compete against men in male-dominated (by way of tradition, not aptitude) sports. Since that barrier is largely cultural, I see no reason against the executive taking a decision to influence that culture.
mike j
Guest
I don't have an argument against 'gender equality', and I'm reporting you to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Straw Men. You've barely begun your reply and you're already looking for a way out. But you're right - it's hardly worth attempting to engage me if you won't or can't understand what I'm saying. There is no reason women can't drive an F1 car, yet they generally don't. The 'mandate' for this 'disparity' is their comparative lack of interest. I refer you to my shopping analogy; a travesty of gender equality that you evidently don't feel is even worth addressing. By 'equality is worthwhile in it's own right', you obviously want to force women who don't like motorsports to race in F1, or sack male F1 drivers until they number the same as the women. It seems like you don't actually want women to have their own agency, you just want to enslave them to your misguided view of equality. So after we're done with the important issues like racing, we can work on getting more women killed in the workplace, and generally driving down their life expectancy. All in the name of gender equality, Lamonato-style.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
There is a basic and simple problem with "gender quotas" and "gender specific competitions" like the one proposed. The correct term is "positive discrimination" the problem is, positive discrimination is still discrimination. I have competed for 30+ years in sports where there is no gender divide - well until you reach the elite competitions. I am happy to say that I have been beaten many times by women. The wedding tackle you hide beneath your track suit makes no difference in many sports - especially those that are equipment based - motor sport, shooting, archery to name a few. This media seeking "oh look at us, we are all about women" is patronising and frankly distasteful.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
If your argument against gender equality is "market forces", it's hardly worth attempting to engage you in any discussion. By that same token, it's you who is dodging the issue: your "market forces" say nothing of equality or equal representation. A market is occupied only with what is expedient, it has no necessary roots in fairness or opportunity. It is irrelevant in this debate. There is no reason women can't drive a Formula One car, just as there is no mandate for the significant disparity between female karting drivers and those who pursue racing into their late teens. Equality does not require market justification to make it worthwhile; it is worthwhile in its own right.
mike j
Guest
Way to meekly dodge the issue. Are clothes the 'sacred domain' of women? Better legislate to ensure there are an equal number of clothing outlets for men. In the name of 'equal representation', of course. Or maybe men just need more 'support' to realise how much we actually love shopping? There's a vast difference between equal opportunity and substantive equality. If you're claiming women don't have equal opportunity in motor sports, put a case for it. Otherwise we are safe to presume it is market forces which dictate that they don't have equal representation.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
Ha, sorry, professor! I'll work on my analogies next week. So long as the crux of the thing broke through some of the twisted writing!
Professor Rosseforp
Guest
A confused analogy in the first paragraph! Surely a thriving entity must have good immunity, or it would succumb to external disease, and cease thriving, i.e. die. I'm also not sure if all things have two choices only, namely changing or dying. As for the concept of a thriving entity being immune to a business expression -- I can't even begin to understand the idea that a non-thriving entity has immunity, but a thriving one doesn't. As for the notion of women racing drivers -- why not?
Michael Lamonato
Expert
Sorry, mate, didn't realise sport was the exclusive, "sacred" domain of men. I'll leave you to your fantasy — let us know when you're ready to join the rest of us in the modern day, maybe we can chat then.
mike j
Guest
Equal representation? What an absurd, misguided goal. Pseudofeminist entitlement even creeps into sports sites now. Is nothing sacred? I look forward to your article about gender discrimination at the Olympics and your call for a male synchronised swimming competition.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
I think it's far too early to relax in our promotion of women. Simona de Silvestro is a great example — she definitely had the talent to race in Formula One, but she didn't have enough sponsorship behind her. Sure, that's the same with a lot of drivers, but if we're searching for equal representation, we need to give women extra support to establish themselves first.
nordster
Guest
They're all pioneers....you're right though about depth, it takes generations to develop women in motorsport to a high level. And by that point, many more of them will be competitive at the top of the field....and wont need a women only series.
SM
Guest
Carmen Jorda seems to have a complete lack of self awareness. Creating a womens' championship would say that no woman is good enough, so they can have this as a token effort instead. This is of course is completely insulting to anyone who has anything above the shockingly base level of ability of someone like Jorda. How on earth would you come up with a list of a full grid of women who would be even remotely competitive anyway? I've tried, but only have five at this point. Anyone who wishes to add any names to this list is free to do so. Suzie Wolff Simona Di Silvestro Danica Patrick Katherine Legge Alice Powell