on the cover the editor or layout person, had the sense to not make a sexist remark with the words "Hottest", and should have stuck with Drag Racing's Leading Women, at best, but online was a different and clearly moronic slip up
60 years of women drag racing... and the magazines still refer to and view them as sex objects, as clearly, referring to competitors in terms other than physical attraction only is reserved for men. Pathetic
When women can be in the magazine without the posing, the cleavage, the bare legs or skirts, and are referred to the same way as the men, then the magazines will finally be doing them a service, and not a slight.
All 3 of these are from this issue. The woman's issue. When DI has the gall to photograph men in these same stupid ridiculous poses, in a tux, see through shirt, or dance club clothes while posing with car parts, then I'll believe that these 3 examples, all from this one issue, aren't sexist, stupid, and ridiculous. Until then? I'll be over there, supporting whatever racer is hard at work to compete on the track, not used to sell an annual issue of a magazine as if it were Sports Illustrated (coincidence of title with "Illustrated" having a single annual issue using women to sell copies?)
Yes, the sexist annual issue isn't having a positive benefit to the sport, or a magazine. To include a woman for sex appeal and not talent (Go-Daddy and Danica Patrick) is similar in not making the sport better. Rather, it detracts from the competitors and the talent afield. Instead of being cool, and focusing on accomplishments and talent of the drivers, they instead went lazy sexist and negative. Competition improves the sport (Joan Cuneo for example!), and opening the door to any and all worthy (By stats, comparative and contrasting) drivers, the sport improves, and the drivers get the best to compete with. (See Toyota in Nascar, Americans in F1, etc) instead of tokenism and the inevitable fall off in fans, effort, and talent motivated to join.