That’s definitely not true. Maybe it is in the US, but seeing machines go fast or tackle complex challenges isn’t a gender-specific thing. For example, 42% of Formula 1 fans are female. Plenty of women spectating and competing at drag strips, land speed, rally, etc.
The old conservative culture of assuming things of people or pigeonholing them based on gender—like, “attract and fascinate mostly men”—is not as relevant as it used to be back in the old days, nor should it be preserved.
Well, if you look at the survey where the 42% number comes from, you’ll see that 75% of new F1 fans are female and it seems to be a trend, meaning total fandom will be mostly female very soon.
you’re just be pedantic. The issue isn’t about it being “mostly”, it’s about if its a “men’s” thing. A 42/58 isn’t that wide of a gap to say that it’s one gender’s thing. As the difference could likely just be attributed to other cultural factors and not the thing itself.
If office workers were split 42/58, you wouldn’t call it a “man’s” job, even if technically there’s more men.
That word is covering a lot of ground. Why would you let language be so ambiguous to you? What would you call 75%, and then how can you destinguish between the two if they are both “mostly”?
…which aren’t (usually) paid for with taxpayer dollars
But I’m guessing doing air shows counts towards training hours, so they’re going to be flying those planes regardless. Still feels like a massive waste when two of them crash and burn in a show though
Only if it’s young dudes playing. Conservative men also love movies where it’s mostly just young dudes (like that 300 movie where the cast is all handsome young dudes in leather panties being led by an older middle aged dude) They really seem to prefer young dudes in general I guess.
So are drag races and monster truck rallies. Big and fast machines attract and fascinate mostly men.
That’s definitely not true. Maybe it is in the US, but seeing machines go fast or tackle complex challenges isn’t a gender-specific thing. For example, 42% of Formula 1 fans are female. Plenty of women spectating and competing at drag strips, land speed, rally, etc.
The old conservative culture of assuming things of people or pigeonholing them based on gender—like, “attract and fascinate mostly men”—is not as relevant as it used to be back in the old days, nor should it be preserved.
TIL 58% isn’t “mostly.”
Well, if you look at the survey where the 42% number comes from, you’ll see that 75% of new F1 fans are female and it seems to be a trend, meaning total fandom will be mostly female very soon.
https://cdn-8.motorsport.com/static/custom/piano/2025globalf1fansurvey.pdf
you’re just be pedantic. The issue isn’t about it being “mostly”, it’s about if its a “men’s” thing. A 42/58 isn’t that wide of a gap to say that it’s one gender’s thing. As the difference could likely just be attributed to other cultural factors and not the thing itself.
If office workers were split 42/58, you wouldn’t call it a “man’s” job, even if technically there’s more men.
Nevertheless, if you want to say it’s not “mostly,” your example ought to do better than 42%!
Just over half is mostly?
Yes, anything over half is literally what “mostly” means. Doesn’t matter if it’s 99% or 51%.
That word is covering a lot of ground. Why would you let language be so ambiguous to you? What would you call 75%, and then how can you destinguish between the two if they are both “mostly”?
☝️ 🤓 reddit debatelord moment. Okbuddy.
What the fuck is your problem? Words have meanings.
If your friend group is 6 men and 4 women, do you tell people “I’m mostly friends with men”?
Yes, they often have multiple meanings depending on context.
“It’s been a big effort by the team these past three years, but we’re mostly done now.”
sighs of relief across the research grant board
“Boom! Right on time!”
That’s almost 50% more men than women
…which aren’t (usually) paid for with taxpayer dollars
But I’m guessing doing air shows counts towards training hours, so they’re going to be flying those planes regardless. Still feels like a massive waste when two of them crash and burn in a show though
I’m pretty sure it does. Flyovers at ballgames etc do so I don’t see why airshows wouldn’t.
It happens during training, too,so I don’t really see a distinction.
There should be an option of going to a simpler airshow. Planes takes off, circle the airfield and land, one after the other.
Most airshows have this, usually with historic planes and such. Similar with the air taxis they were showing off recently for the Olympics
Like, i know im a little odd, but i would for sure attend this if it was affordable
You can just go sit outside the airport and watch for free
Most airshows I’ve been aren’t put on by the military, they are usually just invited to a segment but often times they don’t even show up.
Most planes are privately owned like old planes or stunt pilots.
The military jets definitely cost money to move around so it is an extra expense
Those arent used to bomb innocent civilians… Wtf are you talking about?
also racecar/nascar, its so mind-numbing boring, but conservative seems to love any kind of sports.
Only if it’s young dudes playing. Conservative men also love movies where it’s mostly just young dudes (like that 300 movie where the cast is all handsome young dudes in leather panties being led by an older middle aged dude) They really seem to prefer young dudes in general I guess.