> I don't understand why it's
> necessary for some to argue against an article that's
> merely presenting facts as facts.
because facts are presented in a male-oriented way. instead of determining
how much strength is needed to race, say F1, she instead argues that some
women can be 'almost' as strong as a man. she gives a definition of
femininity that includes "weakness" as a trait and "strength" as the male
characteristic. she says motorsports "diminish(es) their femininity".
when she lists the ways that a male driver can be insulted, she says "wimp,
sissy, or girl", unintentionally indicating "girl" and "wimpy" and "sissy"
are the opposites to male traits and thus, female traits.
id use rich's reply as an argument why this article fails- its defensive
posture provokes backlash and negativism. i agree with the author on many
of the reasons and details in her article, however she presents almost all
of them as if the DEFINITION of success (and of motorsports) is the bar set
by male achievements. then, how do women fit into, and are encouraged or
discouraged by that definition. defining her facts based on this
male-yardstick strengthens the premise that women are to be measured only in
comparison to men and perpetuates the male-oriented bias in our society that
contributes to all the negative forces she is describing. the article's
title was "Women Drivers: A Sociologist's Perspective", but id suggest
"Non-Male Drivers: A Non-Male's Perspective". :)
-james
PS it is also kind of insulting that the racing pics used in the article
appear to be from computer simulated racing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ms Katie Kelly" <aceontour@yahoo.com>
To: <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: Sociology-Lady Cobra Driver
> Oh gosh, do I remember Mary Rice! I idolized her so.
> She finally rode with me an an autocross in my Miata a
> few years ago. I wanted to impress her so badly. The
> starter waved us on the course, and then she just
> started screaming at me to go, go, go! I'd never
> experienced anything like that. After the run (in
> which we thoroughly demolished the time of all Miatas
> running that day), I parked the car and we sat there,
> gasping for air. "Oh Wow," she said, "Wow, that was
> great." I was just beaming, because I think, at last,
> I got her approval. I don't know who was more into
> that run, her or me.
>
> According to legend, Mary re-built carberators in her
> bedroom when she was sixteen. So, there's a teenage
> girl who totally went against the grain.
>
> That's what this article was about, though, the
> "grain." It just exists. I don't understand why it's
> necessary for some to argue against an article that's
> merely presenting facts as facts. One statistic
> mentioned was that, at least in Britain, 40% of junior
> go-karters are girls, until the teenage years, and
> then it drops to 2%. I guess exploring why this is
> makes you some kind of fanatical feminist, but it kind
> of puts a limit on how much we can talk about this. I
> don't understand why it must be upsetting to talk
> about women in motorsports, if it's not degrading and
> insulting. I didn't see this article as being this
> way. What was it exactly that you found offensive?
>
> I see more Mary Rices. Maybe there's a smaller number
> of women participating in autox, but those who do have
> the same goals as a lot of men, which is to compete
> and do well in the open class. I can tell you, as a
> young old-timer, that having such aspirations, say
> even in the late 80s, made you look like an uppity
> wench. I remember even thinking that myself about the
> few brave women who would run open, like, "What, we're
> not good enough for you?" I wonder why they didn't
> stay there. Peer pressure, maybe? I'm sure I
> contributed to it. These are the unspoken rules of
> conduct the author was talking about, these accepted
> social norms that aren't based on reason, other than
> "that's just how it's done."
>
> By the way, Mary Rice did not run in the Open class,
> not nationally anyway, but was well known for her
> ability to typically turn in times that would have
> gotten her probably in the top three nationally, or
> victory over all locally. That NEVER happened back
> then, and was blamed, yes, on women's physical and and
> psychological limitations. They just didn't have the
> testerone. Bah!
>
> In those days, Mary was this odd freak of nature. It
> was just a given that if Mary Rice was in your class,
> she'd win by nine seconds. That wouldn't happen today.
> She'd have her hands full. NOt only that, today it's
> normal for women to compete nationally against men,
> it's normal for them to be contenders, and it's normal
> for them to strive to do well. And inequities,
> whatever they are, that still exist will slowly fade
> away. It's just happening.
>
> That was what I saw as the point of the article, that
> the change just comes. I didn't see it as representing
> any sort of feminist cause. I just thought it was an
> interesting viewpoint, one that wasn't bitching about
> reality at all, but stating it as it is. I'm surprised
> this article was perceived as such a threat. That's
> interesting, too.
>
> -Katie
>
> =====
> Katie Kelly
>
> Guilt slows your metabolism.
|