Women in F1: The Stirling Moss Debate
83-year-old Formula 1 legend Stirling Moss has once again spoken with conviction and said what he really believes to a world that has no convictions and doesn’t know what to believe. And the reaction has been as predictable as sunrise.
When asked last week if he believed that a woman could win in Formula 1, Moss riled slaves of political correctness by responding, “We've got some very strong and robust ladies, but when your life is at risk, I think the strain of that in a competitive situation will tell when you're trying to win... the mental stress, I think, would be pretty difficult for a lady to deal with in a practical fashion. I just don't think they have the aptitude to win a Formula One race.”
Race fans have heaped scorn upon Moss, calling him an “idiot” and an “outdated relic.” His comments were slurred as “archaic,” and “sexist rubbish” that “has no place in today’s society.”
The volume and tenacity of sheer hate directed at Stirling Moss was beyond description.
I find that rather odd since Moss did not volunteer the comment. On the contrary, he was merely responding to a reporter’s specific query. And the readers who now criticize his opinions obviously wanted to read them or they would never have followed the link to the story at all.
So the resolution seems simple to me. If you don’t want the man’s opinion, don’t ask.
But let’s look at a broader picture. Once again, we see a tragic example of “selective tolerance” in action. Those who hold Moss’ opinion – rightly or wrongly – are shouted down, insulted and barred from public debate, while those who do not are accepted as mainstream.
Personally, I don’t give a flying rat’s rump if a man or a woman, or chimpanzee or a freaking Martian ever wins a race or not. When the fields were 100% men, I still loved racing. If the fields were 100% women, I would still be at the track every weekend. I just plain don’t care. My allegiance is to the sport, not my gender.
But truth be told, the Moss debate was never really about gender. It is not about auto racing at all. It is about The Agenda.
Anyone who questions The Agenda is branded an enemy of society. They must be re-educated by the system to accept The Agenda or face banishment from their field.
We are no longer encouraged to be individuals with our own opinions. Instead, everyone is expected to identify with a group, and those groups are expected to be in a state of constant war for supremacy disguised as equality.
As a result, female drivers have never received rightful credit for their achievements because The Agenda comes first. Is Danica Patrick ever noted as “the winner of the Japan 300?” No. Instead, she is universally known as the “first woman” to do this or that.
No one ever says that she drove a great race.
It’s really quite insulting. Women are never actually credited with excellence as race drivers. They can only be part of their collective, and their success is seen only as a springboard by which groups of selective self-interest can further The Agenda.
Perhaps we should learn to value individuals again. Remember, no matter what color or gender you might be, you are a minority. After all, there's only one of you.
So I am delighted to hear Moss share his views. At least he has the courage to stand up and speak his mind. Unlike today's highly polished, politically correct corporate clones posing as racecar drivers, Moss fears no media. The petty insults directed at him by alleged “fans” affect him not in the least. Right or wrong, at least he acts like a man.
And one day, when a woman does win in F1, let's hope she won’t be noted as “the first woman wearing a red helmet and pink fingernail polish to win on a cloudy Sunday after 4 o’clock thereby empowering underprivileged females in Santiago and Topeka.”
I hope people will simply say that she’s a truly outstanding racecar driver.
My guess is that Stirling Moss will be the first to shake her hand and admit that he is delighted to have been so wrong.
Feedback can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org
Go to our forums to discuss this article