If they're good enough, why not? My problem stems from when they aren't good enough but get the position because of they're gender.
Very much agree with this. Bringing this back to F1, I'm all for female drivers, but only if they're close to being good enough. I can accept a hint of pay-driver, but they should be there on merit too. The females we've had rumoured recently have had little success in lower formulae, tend to be older than you'd expect for a new driver, and come with huge financial backing, or family clout. I'd much rather when we get our first female driver, she's at least competitive with her team-mate, not just there because of the publicity it would inevitably generate, and the money it would bring.
I agree with both of these posts, at least one of which I believe may have been incited by a fisherman. P.S. I'd like to mention, DHC, that the next female driver in F1 will not be the "first", unless you mean 'first for a long time'…
Perry is an awful choice. She may bring some of the "Loaded" mentality types to watching F1, but she has the glaring fault that she doesn't like the sport. As she herself admitted on Never Mind the Buzzcocks several years ago, she doesn't follow it and isn't interested, as "it's not real racing is it?". Not an attitude to endear yourself to the viewing public, I would have thought. Lee McKenzie would have been a far better choice; more pleasant personality, genuinely interested and more knowledgable. Charlie Cox would have been better still, but he's now stuck in the banality of MotoGP. Aside from looking half-decent, Perry will be a disaster. She must have been offered the job, as there's no way she'd have applied for it: two wheels too many for her to be interested. The BBC seem to enjoy shooting themselves in the foot, insofar as popular sport, and particularly motorsport, is concerned. To go from Murray Walker to nothing for ten years; followed by Jake Humphrey, and now a piece of fluff who doesn't give a toss appears to be a bizarre form of televisual suicide. I don't really follow this site much any more, and a post from me a a real rarity, but the selection of this woman is, frankly, a kick in the teeth to all of us. Apart from that, Happy new year.
Well, she does actually have a perfectly valid point, from a purist viewpoint, "its not real racing is it" I mean, DRS, KERs, Blown diffusers etc, etc, and dubious aerodynamics that only the likes of Newey understands.
It's an interesting point of view, Ernie. Before Jack made his eloquent post, I was not aware of what he has quoted Perry as having said long ago. But whether her old viewpoint was right or wrong, I think she will add a new dynamic; the like of which I believe McKenzie would have struggled to produce. The reason? â I think the latter projects an image which is too calculating, sometimes making her delivery stodgy and ponderous; the result being that she often fails to fire up much enthusiasm in her audience. As I said somewhere else (or perhaps earlier in this thread) I believe Jake Humphrey did a superb job. The way he did it was the result of choosing to make it his business to take a keen interest â which became very genuine â coupled with a very quick 'on the move', flexible intelligence. Very few 'front men' (or their female counterparts) have ever done it so well, in my viewâ¦- - -o0o- - - P.S. Jack: although I do not share your overall assessment of Perry, that little contribution (above) is 'quality'. You should post here more often. Please.
