Book Review: Confession of a Fast Woman

Published in 1992

Cars have been an important part of socioeconomic status, as well as a necessity, in the United States since the 1920s. At some point in their lives, most people in the United States own or operate a car due to the country’s geography and infrastructure. Public transportation is not widely available in many states, particularly in rural areas.

Given this context, it is not surprising to find books about cars in the United States. However, it is somewhat surprising to find a book about fast cars written by a woman who, by her own admission, identified as a feminist and an environmentalist in 1992.

Lesley Hazleton was writing about politics for The New York Times when she began writing for Lear’s Magazine about race cars. Lear’s Magazine was founded by Francine Lear, a three times divorcee, and focused on targeting women over forty-five as its readership. It is not clear whether the magazine achieved its mission, as it closed after six years. Hazleton’s column about her experiences driving race and fast cars ran in Lear’s Magazine from 1989 to 1991. In 1992, Hazleton published her book, Confessions of a Fast Woman, to recount her experiences and provide a picture of her conflicting feelings in a reflective, and at times overly romanticized, manner. Even today, the book has a limited appeal to women as a broader audience.

Hazleton, in her forties, was writing for the targeted audience of women in their forties in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The idea was that women can enjoy driving fast cars just as much as men and can experience the same level of thrill and exhilaration. To prove her point, Hazleton went so far as to take a job in a car shop as an apprentice mechanic. She learned the detailed workings of car repair and how an engine functions.

Were women interested in cars in the same way men were interested in cars during that period in history, or was Hazleton’s column an attempt to create that interest? Or was it an attempt to present a picture of a woman as a representative of all women in an alternate narrative?

Let’s be honest: women are not as broadly interested in cars beyond their function and, perhaps, their aesthetics. If a car is expensive, it may even be more appealing to some women. In 2026, I have yet to see a single woman working as a car mechanic. Car dealerships still have very few women in sales roles; however, receptionists at these dealerships and shops are often women.

I do not believe anyone is stopping women from becoming car mechanics. I think women are generally not as interested in becoming mechanics and/or race car drivers. I doubt the situation was any different in 1992, when Confessions of a Fast Woman was published, or during Hazleton’s research from 1989 to 1991. From 1951 to the present, only five women have competed in Formula One racing.

Hazleton was a hopeless romantic in many of her works, and Confessions of a Fast Woman is no exception. She romanticized fast cars and created analogies and metaphors between driving fast cars, feeling powerful, feeling excited, and even experiencing sexual gratification. She described cars, and their impact on the male psyche, as empowering, status-elevating tools associated with masculinity. She suggested that cars and their drivers (usually male) can become psychologically merged, with the cars’ horsepower symbolizing the drivers’ own power.

She also compared these ideas to her own experiences driving fast cars as a woman, describing how, in one instance, she not only felt exhilarated but also experienced a peak emotional and physical response while driving. She equated fast cars with machismo, power, and heightened sensation, and explored how women might experience similar feelings through their own engagement with driving.

Much of her work focuses on how drivers of fast cars may self-identify with their vehicles and internalize the power of the machine as an extension of themselves.

"By dehumanizing others, we dehumanize ourselves." As Hazleton attempted to provide a more refined exploration of the relationship between humans and machines, calling it machine/I—particularly themes of power and dehumanization through identification with technology—she also drew on historical references, including Nazi Germany. In doing so, she highlighted information about one of the most well-known automakers, Porsche, that may not have been widely known by the general public: the role of the company’s founder during World War II and his involvement in supporting Nazi Germany.

“Hazleton did a great job of analyzing different genders’ approaches to cars and the impact of gender roles, femininity, and masculinity on how cars and their drivers perceive themselves, as well as on the culture of macho men. She stood firmly against the rigid gender roles of the time. She stated,”

"It is simplistic, even crude, to say that a refusal of sexual stereotyping means that I am trying to be male."  

She wanted to portray the idea that she could be just as interested in cars as the next guy. However, she contradicted herself when she told the story of older men taking turns sitting in a fast car and how she felt it was silly to do so. This suggested a lack of interest in cars compared to male interest in general. She also explained how the people around her—those in her social circle and class—were very curious about and supportive of her efforts to drive very expensive and fast cars, yet the same people were judgmental about her interest in working in a car shop as an apprentice mechanic. She explored ideas of status, cars, jobs, gender, gender roles, and the environmental impacts of cars.

Her comparison of her first car,  deux chevaux, to the fast cars, Jaguars, Porsches, Mercs, Lamborghinis, Corvettes, Alfasa and Range Rovers,  she later drove for her job, rang a drastic contrast to her feelings about what these cars represents in general. She emphasized the Frenchness of deux chevaux and what this car meant to French people.

 She continued her analysis with the risk taking by drawing similarities between driving fast cars and the bungee jumping. She believed car racing was a risk filled activity and was an abnormal behavior. 

Hazleton tried and drove these fast cars to understand the feeling behind it. She perfectly described the speed and its physical and mental impact on the driver. However, was she taken seriously by others as a speed driver? She stated in the book that some of her instructors suggested she should become a race driver. The book gave me the impression that the male instructions were being kind in the way of men. Men will encourage women when they feel a sexual tension or when woman comes across sexually forceful. Hazleton in her mid forties was an attractive, sexually confident, flirtatious, white woman. I don't believe for a second the men truly believed she should become a race driver.   

Lesley Hazleton (1945-2024)

She also compared her sexual gratification from fast fossil fuel cars to the electric cars which she perceived as the cars of the future.  She doubted her own convictions and loyalty to the cause of environmentalism and the impact of fossil fuel cars due to her obsession with speed and fast cars at the time. She thought of the speed as something demonic which had a hold of her. 

There is so much to unpack in this book. Did she fall into the trap of having the opportunity to have access to fast cars and completely forgot her own principals for a while?  She had to remember she was an environmentalist and against the fossil fuel cars.  

The book manifests a couple of very powerful points: It shows given the opportunity anybody can sway from the right path. Hazleton was an environmentalist yet she became obsessed with fast cars. She promoted these cars passionately in her columns and in this book, there is a glorification of fast cars. Her writings influence regular woman to think it is seductive, powerful and sexually gratifying to drive a fast car. The Lear's Magazine's owner, Frances Lear and Hazleton, both, believed that women's liberation depended on women's practice of male activities and being accepted in male dominated areas, jobs and cultures. This book is a testament of an era where women try to do the things men liked to free themselves from men.

Hazleton successfully covered, compared, analyzed many aspects which included, gender, social norms, power, status, technology, changes, personal conflict between what is wanted and what is needed, etc. The book is an enjoyable book. Hazleton uses a basic language and romanticizes with concepts. The book is available free of charge on Internet Archive, a free online library where the books can be checked out for fourteen days each time. 

Hazleton, L. (1992) Confession of a Fast Woman. Addison-Wesley. https://archive.org/details/confessionsoffas0000hazl/page/40/mode/2up

Schraff, A. (2001) Secrets in the Shadows. Townsend Press.  https://historicalmenwomenplaces.blogspot.com/2025/07/book-review-secrets-in-shadows.html

Poetry: The Dying Christian to His Soul

Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

 Vital spark of heavenly flame! 

Quit, oh quit this mortal frame!

Trembling, hoping, lingering, flying,

Oh the pain, the bliss of dying!

Cease, fond Nature, cease thy strife,

And let me languish into life!

 

Hark! they whisper; angels say, 

"Sister Spirit, come away!"

What is this absorbs me quite?

Steals my senses, shuts my sight,

Drowns my spirit, draws my breath?

Tell me, my Soul, can this be death?

 

The world recedes; it disappears!

Heaven opens on my eyes! my ears

With sounds seraphic ring:

Lend, lend your wings! I mount! I fly!

O Grave! where is thy victory?

O Death!  where is thy sting?

Pope, A. (1736) Essay On Man. The Dying Christian to His Soul. 

 Pope, A. (1717) Essay On Man. Ode on Solitude. https://historicalmenwomenplaces.blogspot.com/2024/01/ode-on-solitude-by-alexander-pope.html

Federal Government: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) E-Mail For Deferred Resignation Program (DRP)

After President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order on January 20, 2025, directing all federal agency heads to terminate remote work and telework arrangements, the OPM published a memorandum on January 22, 2025, outlining the steps required to bring all remote and teleworking employees back to in-person work at their offices. In the memorandum, agencies were directed to begin taking the outlined steps no later than Friday, January 24, 2025.

Many people believe that the remote work termination and return-to-office directives were merely excuses to initiate a reduction in the civilian federal workforce in a highly unconventional manner because agencies were given little to no time to bring remote and teleworking employees back before OPM sent an email to federal employees offering them the DRP. In a previous post, I covered the Return to In-Person Work in details; click on the link (https://historicalmenwomenplaces.blogspot.com/2025/02/what-is-remote-work-in-federal.html). 

On January 28, 2025, all civilian federal employees, regardless of whether they were remote workers or in-person employees, received an email from OPM offering them the option to resign or retire, or potentially face the possibility of losing their jobs.

Civilian employees across all federal agencies received an email titled “Test” on January 20, 2025, asking them to acknowledge receipt of the message sent from the address “hr@opm.gov.” This communication was unprecedented because OPM had not traditionally communicated directly with employees of other federal agencies in this manner.

OPM does not function as the centralized human resources department for the entire federal government or for individual agencies. Rather, its role is to provide government-wide leadership in human capital management by establishing policies, guidance, regulations, and standards to ensure that federal agencies operate in compliance with applicable laws, rules, and statutes. According to OPM, its mission is:

We are champions of talent for the federal government. We lead federal agencies in workforce policies, programs, and benefits in service to the American people.

Clearly, OPM does not directly hire, fire, or retire employees of other federal agencies. Instead, it provides government-wide guidance intended to ensure uniform personnel management across the federal workforce while still allowing individual agencies the flexibility to implement policies based on their specific operational needs. Therefore, the email was likely ordered to be sent by someone who did not fully understand the agency’s function, mission, vision, and responsibilities.

Under what authority did OPM send this email directly to employees of every federal agency?

In its memorandum, OPM claimed that it was authorized to send the email under Executive Order 9830 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 301, 1103, 1104, 2951, 3301, 6504, 8347, and 8461. However, these sections consist of lengthy and detailed provisions that were cited in a vague and overly broad manner, possibly intentionally to create the perception of authority.

Rather than citing numerous statutes generally, it would have been more appropriate to identify a specific provision clearly establishing OPM’s authority to function as the centralized human resources entity for all federal agencies. In many of the cited sections, it is evident that individual agencies — not OPM — retain responsibility for hiring, firing, retiring, and furloughing their own employees.

OPM is not responsible for planning, directing, or supervising the employees of each federal agency. Rather, each federal agency is responsible for planning, directing, and supervising the work of its own employees. Agencies operate under the same rules, regulations, merit-based hiring principles, employment standards, reemployment policies, and other government-wide requirements established by OPM.

In this post, I will focus specifically on OPM’s Deferred Resignation Program (DRP) email.

The DRP email start with the following introduction:

During the first week of his administration, President Trump issued a number of directives concerning the federal workforce. Among those directives, the President required that employees return to in-person work, restored accountability for employees who have policy-making authority, restored accountability for senior career executives, and reformed the federal hiring process to focus on merit. As a result of the above orders, the reform of the federal workforce will be significant. 

The first week of the Trump administration was marked by the issuance of numerous executive orders, many of which focused on federal employees. The executive orders referenced above appear to be carefully drafted in ways that could limit certain protections and rights of federal employees, potentially making it easier to terminate employment and shift functions toward privatization of portions of the government workforce.

That said, the statements in the OPM email are, in many respects, factual descriptions of the administration’s stated objectives. Accountability in government is important. However, the broader question remains: can accountability truly be achieved if the process itself intentionally creates confusion, instability, or chaos within the workforce?

Civilian federal employees serve an important role in the functioning of the U.S. government, and changes that make termination easier could have implications for institutional stability and the broader national interest. This is particularly relevant within the Department of Defense, where military personnel rotate on regular schedules and contractors primarily serve the interests of their respective organizations, making civilian employees a key source of continuity and institutional knowledge.

For this reason, many argue that a degree of job security for federal employees is important, as it allows them to remain focused on long-term mission objectives that extend beyond individual administrations.

At the same time, interpretations of recent executive orders differ. Some view them as reflecting concerns about performance, alignment, or efficiency within segments of the civilian workforce, while others see them as politically driven efforts that risk undermining morale and stability. Public opinion on these issues is divided, and reactions are often shaped not only by the substance of the policies but also by broader political views of the current administration.

The idea of offering a deferred resignation program came from Elon Musk, the richest man alive. He has not held any government positions, nor does he have experience or relevant qualifications in manpower management, government agency missions, or each agency’s unique functions and needs. He modeled this program after his “Fork in the Road” initiative used to slim down the social media platform previously known as Twitter after his purchase of it. He bought the company in October 2022, when it had approximately 7,500 employees. Musk promised employees “extremely hardcore” working conditions and pressured them to respond “Yes” to an email sent by Human Resources within twenty-four hours to commit to the new work culture, or alternatively accept resignation with three months’ pay. By April 2023, Musk had reduced the workforce by more than 80%, leaving approximately 550 full-time employees and fewer than 1,500 total employees at the social media platform, now known as X. Remaining employees reported extremely difficult working conditions. Needless to say, this is the United States, and lawsuits followed Musk’s actions during the “Fork in the Road” restructuring.

It is difficult to state this, but the Deferred Resignation Program (DRP) for federal employees mirrored Elon Musk’s “Fork in the Road” initiative at his company, X. X, formerly known as Twitter, is a social media platform; if it were to go out of business, it would not have had the same widespread impact on people’s daily lives as the federal government. In contrast, the federal government provides services to more than 300 million Americans, including some of the most vulnerable populations. As of September 2024, more than 2 million federal employees were providing these essential services.

There is a significant difference between a private company like Twitter/X—despite its high revenue and approximately 7,500 employees—and the federal government, which employs over 2 million people and carries out a broad range of public responsibilities. While merit-based hiring and reform efforts may be reasonable policy goals, the methods used in this case were viewed by some as unusual or unconventional in the context of federal government operations.

 The DRP email continued as below, 

 The reformed federal workforce will be built around four pillars:

1)

Return to Office: The substantial majority of federal employees who have been working remotely since Covid will be required to return to their physical offices five days a week. Going forward, we also expect our physical offices to undergo meaningful consolidation and divestitures, potentially resulting in physical office relocations for a number of federal workers.

As mentioned above, agencies were directed to begin the process of bringing remote employees back to the office. In the previous post, I outlined OPM data indicating that remote workers made up approximately 7% of the federal workforce—about 186,397 employees based on 2023 reporting, which was the most recent available data.

It is worth questioning whether, in data terms, 7% of a workforce can be characterized as a substantial majority. OPM’s guidance states that employees should return to their offices if they wish to keep their jobs; however, it also notes that in some cases, office space may not be available upon their return. This creates some ambiguity in the messaging.

This is the second indication in the email suggesting the possibility of a reduction in force. Some interpret the language as placing indirect pressure on employees to consider the DRP as a preferable option rather than remaining and navigating potential organizational changes.

2)

Performance culture: The federal workforce should be comprised of the best America has to offer. We will insist on excellence at every level — our performance standards will be updated to reward and promote those that exceed expectations and address in a fair and open way those who do not meet the high standards which the taxpayers of this country have a right to demand.

I doubt anyone would have issues with performance standards being updated to higher levels, as long as those standards accurately measure expectations and related outcomes. Months later, on June 17, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published another memorandum titled Performance Management for Federal Employees. In this memo, OPM claimed—without providing supporting evidence—that federal employees had been receiving inflated performance ratings. It also directed agencies to rate employees as “fully successful” rather than “exceeds expectations.” 

This is in line with Musk’s “Fork in the Road” approach of discouraging employees by reducing incentives tied to job performance and hard work in order to encourage them to leave their positions. Under this framework, regardless of how well a federal employee performs, the stated direction is that they will be rated as “Fully Successful.”

It is important to remember that higher performance standards are typically accompanied by higher pay. However, civil servants are not expected to see corresponding pay increases in the near future.

3)

More streamlined and flexible workforce: While a few agencies and even branches of the military are likely to see increases in the size of their workforce, the majority of federal agencies are likely to be downsized through restructurings, realignments, and reductions in force. These actions are likely to include the use of furloughs and the reclassification to at-will status for a substantial number of federal employees

This section, for the third time, provides additional information suggesting a potential reduction in force across federal agencies. Although the military branches are identified as agencies that may increase their manpower and workforce, their employees also received the DRP email.. 

4)

Enhanced standards of conduct: The federal workforce should be comprised of employees who are reliable, loyal, trustworthy, and who strive for excellence in their daily work. Employees will be subject to enhanced standards of suitability and conduct as we move forward. Employees who engage in unlawful behavior or other misconduct will be prioritized for appropriate investigation and discipline, including termination.

This is the fourth pillar of the future federal workforce. Enhanced standards of conduct include many sound concepts, standards, and expectations; however, they appear to be based on assumptions about deficiencies in the federal workforce at the time this email was sent. Is that a correct or fair assumption to make? I am not seeing any data to support these claims. The OPM publishes annual reports on agency and employee performance, but I have yet to see relevant data addressing this specific issue.

The email continued in a manner somewhat similar to Musk’s “Fork in the Road” email to his employees, containing considerable uncertainty about job security.

Each of the pillars outlined above will be pursued in accordance with applicable law, consistent with your agency's policies, and to the extent permitted under relevant collective-bargaining agreements. 

It is extremely important to follow the applicable laws, policies, and procedures for implementing each section of the four pillars. Although it is reassuring to hear that OPM and the current administration will follow the law, it is not clearly outlined which specific legal authorities or provisions permitted this email to be sent to all federal employees without, in some cases, the knowledge of their agency heads.

If you choose to remain in your current position, we thank you for your renewed focus on serving the American people to the best of your abilities and look forward to working together as part of an improved federal workforce. At this time, we cannot give you full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency but should your position be eliminated you will be treated with dignity and will be afforded the protections in place for such positions.

If you choose not to continue in your current role in the federal workforce, we thank you for your service to your country and you will be provided with a dignified, fair departure from the federal government utilizing a deferred resignation program. This program began effective January 28 and is now closed. If you resign under this program, you will retain all pay and benefits regardless of your daily workload and will be exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025 (or earlier if you choose to accelerate your resignation for any reason). The details of this separation plan can be found below.

Whichever path you choose, we thank you for your service to The United States of America. 

 

*********************************************************************

Upon review of the below deferred resignation letter, if you wish to resign:

1)	Select “Reply” to this email. You must reply from your government account. A reply from an account other than your .gov or .mil account will not be accepted.
2)	Type the word “Resign” into the body of this reply email. Hit “Send”.

THE DEFERRED RESIGNATION PROGRAM IS NOW CLOSED.

Deferred resignation is available to all full-time federal employees except for military personnel of the armed forces, employees of the U.S. Postal Service, those in positions related to immigration enforcement and national security, and those in any other positions specifically excluded by your employing agency.

Every federal employee was offered the option to resign and receive pay for seven to eight months without providing services. There are many questions surrounding this email and its legality, compliance with federal rules and regulations, and related issues. It was also understood that, once an employee resigns from an agency, the position billet they occupied may cease to exist. Although eliminating the position billet was one of the options referenced in the resignation response process, the administration appeared to be moving toward broader position reductions.

The process of eliminating positions is not without cost, and the classification of new positions in the future is also expensive. The DRP gave employees the option to leave their positions voluntarily, while potentially affecting the future existence of their billets. Agency heads appeared to have limited input regarding the implementation of the DRP. 

Executive Order 9830—Amending the Civil Service Rules and Providing for Federal Personnel Administration (1947, February 24). The American President Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-9830-amending-the-civil-service-rules-and-providing-for-federal-personnel

Guidance on Presidential Memorandum Return to In-Person Work.(2025, January 22) Office of Personnel Management (OPM). https://www.opm.gov/media/q0tbu2eq/guidance-on-presidential-memorandum-return-to-in-person-work.pdf

Merit Hiring Plan. (2025, May 29) OPM Memo. https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/merit-hiring-plan.pdf

Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Original Email to Employees  https://www.opm.gov/about-us/fork/original-email-to-employees/

Performance Management for Employees (2025, Jun 17) OPM Memo. https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/performance-management-for-federal-employees.pdf 

Restored Accountability for Employees Who Have Policy-Making  Authority. (2025, January 20). The White House.  https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-accountability-to-policy-influencing-positions-within-the-federal-workforce/

 Return to In-Person Work (2025, January 20). The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/return-to-in-person-work/

Victor, Ordonez, ABC news, (2022, November 16) https://abcnews.com/Business/commit-hardcore-leave-elon-musk-tells-twitter-employees/story?id=93411363