Why are shooting events still sexist?

[Sparks]

All we're arguing about now is where.

Wrong thing to argue about. It's not where it comes from, but when. The ISSF is a lot older than USAS and there's been a lot more time for procedures and practises to exist long enough so that "we've allways done it this way" becomes a refrain.

In a way, it's probably quite similar to the comments a post or two ago about how North America has 2 votes, "3 if you count Mexico". Why wouldn't you count Mexico? It probably sounds trivial to you; but to others, not so much. So when you guys come out with "oh, it's all the european's fault", well, expecting a robust rebuttal is not unreasonable.

[Nicole Hamilton]

The ISSF is a lot older than USAS and there's been a lot more time for procedures and practises to exist long enough so that "we've allways done it this way" becomes a refrain.

Really? Then why aren't we still letting women compete with men in the same events? Apparently, it was always done that way before.

[Sparks]

Really? Then why aren't we still letting women compete with men in the same events? Apparently, it was always done that way before.

I wasn't offering justification; just a possible explanation. From the first page of this thread:

Nicole Hamilton wrote:
If there's no anatomical or biological reason why men and women should perform differently in a given event, there should be just one event. And where there are physical differences between men and women that might justify separate events -- and the only shooting event that comes to mind where that might be true is biathlon

Hmmm. Well, as it was explained to me many moons ago, women have a physiological advantage in air rifle (female hip bones being more flared than male hip bones), and men have an advantage in prone rifle (no mammary glands). So for those two events, there is a case to having seperate events (and possibly for 3P as well due to the prone and standing components - though that rather falls over given that 3P was for many years a combined event).

But for pistol, wholehearted agreement here. And I've never actually understood why women's matches were shorter anyway - even in the juniors, the girls are almost always physically larger than the boys from day one, it's not until much later that the boys catch up.

[Guest]

Hi everyone, it's me again, the only female European shooter posting here who everyone is ignoring because you all know what European men are like better than me.
OK, I admit that as far as you know I could be an american transvestite living in Japan, but I'll stop giving my opinion now, as it clearly isn't what you want to hear, and settle down to some facts.

I started the thread and it was not about the NRA.

But why oh why are the events still sexist in this country?

What set me off on this rant was a peek at the USA Nationals prizes. Huh? What's this? Why are there more and bigger prizes for men than for women? And why no prizes at all for women in some events?

In the British smallbore Nationals, the only extra prizes are for women. We compete against men in the same matches, on the same details. The prizes can be won be men or women, whoever scores highest. There are then extra prizes in some matches for the highest-placed lady. There are also extra matches for ladies only. Women are, therefore, rather better off for prizes than men. So our Nationals are indeed sexist, but it's against men.
Obviously over here in chauvanistic Europe we should be taking lessons from you on how to reduce prizes available to women!

So why does this sexism still go on here in the US at the Nationals? Okay, the question is rhetorical: We do it because if a woman won in, say, free pistol here in the US, they wouldn't take her at the Olympics and surely we wouldn't want to deny a spot to the guy who could have gone -- even if he wasn't actually the best American shooter. We continue the sexism here because we wouldn't want to deny some qualified guy the chance to compete. The fact that means all qualified women get denied is, well, too bad. But then again, perhaps some people think that's okay. After all, they're just women.

Over here in Britain in chauvanistic Europe we still hold women's prone matches even though none of us can get to the Olympics. It just means that none of us ladies get to the Olympics, but we're not stopping the blokes getting there.

[Nicole Hamilton]

I wasn't offering justification; just a possible explanation.

So now you're saying it's not because that's how it was always done, it's because women have boobs and wider hips? I think you need to decide what your argument is and then stick with it.

Anyway, that argument was advanced with all the authority of "I think I heard somewhere from someone a long time ago but I'm not sure and I don't remember who or when." If you can find a citation showing that argument was actually taken seriously in any decision process related to segregating men's and women's shooting events, I'd love to see it. But if and when it's produced, my bet is that, still, all we'll have is someone's random self-serving opinion, certainly not anything backed up with any real evidence.

[Sparks]

So now you're saying it's not because that's how it was always done, it's because women have boobs and wider hips?

*sigh*
No, I'm telling you that that's what I was told. Could you do me the courtesy of arguing with what I write instead of what you read?

Anyway, that argument was advanced with all the authority of "I think I heard somewhere from someone a long time ago but I'm not sure and I don't remember who or when."

Probably because it wasn't an argument, it was me saying that I heard it from someone a long time ago but I'm not sure and I don't remember who or when.

[Nicole Hamilton]

Hi everyone, it's me again, the only female European shooter posting here who everyone is ignoring because you all know what European men are like better than me. ... In the British smallbore Nationals, the only extra prizes are for women. We compete against men in the same matches, on the same details. ... So our Nationals are indeed sexist, but it's against men.

I don't think anyone's ignoring you, but your previous comments have tended to offer a personal opinion supported only by the fact that, being female, you should know about these things. For example,

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I am a girl, in Britain, who hasn't got a clue why you americans are so keen to blame European men!

That's not a lot to work with! Your latest post does contain some interesting, new statements of fact, so I expect you won't be ignored this time. Heck, the fact I'm responding already means you aren't. :) For the future, it might also help if you created a profile and signed in with that so readers had a name or at least a handle to associate with all your posts.

But a couple things: First, you quoted my comments a couple times, which suggests perhaps you think I blame European men or consider them sexist or the reason why international events are segregated. I have not ever said that and respectfully, I reserve my opinion. (And that doesn't mean I maybe think that but just don't want to say it.)

Several posters have argued (and, personally, I think they've made the case) that the Europeans exercise a controlling interest in ISSF, which I find suggestive, in a "where there's smoke, there may be fire" sort of way, that this may be the place to look for the political explanation. But even if true (i.e., that European officials of ISSF are sexist), I am not ready to make the leap to concluding that all European men (or even all European male shooters) are sexist any more than I would want Europeans to make the leap that if George Bush says something stupid, that, as an American, I must take that position also. In any event, Europe is not one big country; there are a lot of different countries and cultures in Europe and I expect it would not be surprising if attitudes towards women varied quite a lot among them.

I do think our own USAS is taking the wrong approach by segregating the events in lock-step with ISSF and I did appreciate reading that you don't do that in Britain. It sort of puts the lie to the argument some have advanced that we have to do things the way ISSF does simply because, well, "because."

[Richard H]

All we're arguing about now is where.

Wrong thing to argue about. It's not where it comes from, but when. The ISSF is a lot older than USAS and there's been a lot more time for procedures and practises to exist long enough so that "we've allways done it this way" becomes a refrain.

In a way, it's probably quite similar to the comments a post or two ago about how North America has 2 votes, "3 if you count Mexico". Why wouldn't you count Mexico? It probably sounds trivial to you; but to others, not so much. So when you guys come out with "oh, it's all the european's fault", well, expecting a robust rebuttal is not unreasonable.

Rebut with facts not bluster. As for counting Mexico some people don't consider it North America but as part of Central America or South America, that was what was meant by that statement.

[Nicole Hamilton]

No, I'm telling you that that's what I was told. Could you do me the courtesy of arguing with what I write instead of what you read?

Okay, excuse me. You weren't offering an argument, you were offering a "possible explanation." But which possible explanation do you want to go with? Because first you said it might be because that's how it was always done. When I called that in question, you quoted the stuff about boobs and wider hips. I'm doing my best to read what you write; maybe that's not the problem. Maybe your explanations are just kind of weak.

[Richard H]

Hi everyone, it's me again, the only female European shooter posting here who everyone is ignoring because you all know what European men are like better than me.
OK, I admit that as far as you know I could be an american transvestite living in Japan, but I'll stop giving my opinion now, as it clearly isn't what you want to hear, and settle down to some facts.

I started the thread and it was not about the NRA.

But why oh why are the events still sexist in this country?

What set me off on this rant was a peek at the USA Nationals prizes. Huh? What's this? Why are there more and bigger prizes for men than for women? And why no prizes at all for women in some events?

In the British smallbore Nationals, the only extra prizes are for women. We compete against men in the same matches, on the same details. The prizes can be won be men or women, whoever scores highest. There are then extra prizes in some matches for the highest-placed lady. There are also extra matches for ladies only. Women are, therefore, rather better off for prizes than men. So our Nationals are indeed sexist, but it's against men.
Obviously over here in chauvanistic Europe we should be taking lessons from you on how to reduce prizes available to women!

So why does this sexism still go on here in the US at the Nationals? Okay, the question is rhetorical: We do it because if a woman won in, say, free pistol here in the US, they wouldn't take her at the Olympics and surely we wouldn't want to deny a spot to the guy who could have gone -- even if he wasn't actually the best American shooter. We continue the sexism here because we wouldn't want to deny some qualified guy the chance to compete. The fact that means all qualified women get denied is, well, too bad. But then again, perhaps some people think that's okay. After all, they're just women.

Over here in Britain in chauvanistic Europe we still hold women's prone matches even though none of us can get to the Olympics. It just means that none of us ladies get to the Olympics, but we're not stopping the blokes getting there.

Nobody is ignoring you but Britain isn't all of Europe. For the most part (a generalization) Western Europe is very equal and liberal towards women. Now Eastern Europe ( a generalization) back when these decisions were made were not very liberal towards women's issues. Yes I know there are North Americans that harbor the same attitudes towards women.

Now go to the ISSF web site and look at the member federations and based upon your knowledge of those countries attitudes towards women take a straw pole vote. The likelihood of women getting to shoot side by side with men isn't very likely even today.

Also remember the when the decsion was made to seperate the sexes it was in the 70's so you really can't judge the decision by todays standards.

Like I said before in all honesty whatever the reason (right or wrong) for separiting the sports, women have benefited by it. It allows more women to compete at the top level. If you take the pool of shooters women have a smaller pool to draw from this would most likely have fewer shooters shooting at the top.

[Ted Bell]

This would be a fun conversation to have with all of us sitting around some tables in a bar- it would certainly help to minimize any potential misunderstandings that arise from misinterpreting someone's tone or emphasis as frequently happens from forum and email based discussions. How about we all meet at Scott's house on Saturday for a brew and a lively discussion?

All kidding aside, this topic, and watching the current winter Olympics, got me thinking about all of the olympic sports. There really seem to be few, if any, events that are gender integrated (aside from the couple's events like pairs figure skating, which could lead to a whole separate discussion of why can't two men or two women compete as a pair?). At the moment I can't even think of any, although there must be at least a couple- does anyone know if there are any? (I mean, is it really necessary to have men's and women's curling?)

But here's a question that has not been raised yet- why is it bad to have both men's and women's shooting events? The topic of this discussion assumes that such a decision is "sexist." That's a pretty bold assumption, with no actual support. After four pages of postings, there have been allegations that the events were split because of the Margaret Murdoch/Lanny Bassham results in the '76 Olympics, but is there any evidence of that being the reason other than rampant rumor? Can anyone point to any evidence that the split was not implemented for the purpose of increasing female participation in the shooting sports, as has also been rumored? (Does anyone know how the total number of shooting competitor slots changed after the split? Did the total number of shooing slots increase, or did they just take the number of slots available in '76 and divide them in half?)

Like I asked above, given that there is nothing other than rumor claiming that the decision was made to "keep women in their place" or because men were supposedly getting offended by being beat by women, what is bad about having both men's and women's events? As has been raised several times in this discussion, it gives both genders a better chance of winning (by the simple fact that by having two categories you reduce the possible number of competitors a person could face), and more potential slots for them to compete in. At least with respect to the Turin Olympics, is there any difference based on gender in the amount of compensation a competitor gets for a medal? If a gold medal gets you a $25,000 bonus, regardless of your gender, what's wrong with allowing both a male and a female to earn a gold and get a $25,000 check? Yes, with respect to shooting, the events are different, but that doesn't mean Sport pistol is better or worse than Rapid Fire- they're just different. About the only harm I can see is a) someone wanting to shoot a discipline that is only open to the other sex, or b)you can't point to one individual and say "they are absolutely number one."

Thanks,
Ted

[Richard H]

Actually Ted if you go back to the beginning the sexist part was that there was different compensation for winning between men and women.

We have had that conversation at our club many times about a pair of male figure skaters it would be interesting, I think you should find a buddy and try to enter a competition, worst thing is they let you the best is you could sue them and get rich.

[David Levene]

Does anyone know how the total number of shooting competitor slots changed after the split? Did the total number of shooing slots increase, or did they just take the number of slots available in '76 and divide them in half?

Montreal 1976 - 7 Mixed events
Moscow 1980 - 7 Mixed events
Los Angeles 1984 - 8 Mens events, 3 Womens events
Seoul 1988 - 9 Mens events, 4 Womens events

Pre 1988 there was no maximum number of competitors apart from 2 per nation per event. The Quota Place system only started for the 1988 Games.

IMHO, whilst the split reduced the number of places theoretically available to Women, it increased the number of Women likely to compete in the Games.

[Nicole Hamilton]

IMHO, whilst the split reduced the number of places theoretically available to Women, it increased the number of Women likely to compete in the Games.

Unless you're arguing that we should take for granted, as if it were obvious to everyone, that men are usually better than women, it could more easily be said it increased the number of men likely to compete and marginalized the women. Before, if they'd had all the right stuff, women might conceivably have taken 100% of all the slots and all the medals; now, at best, they can take only 30.7% of the slots and medals.

More to the point, I find the argument (advanced by some posts) that this is better for the women because they get more chances -- setting aside that the numbers sure don't seem to support it -- just a bit offensive insofar as it seems to devalue women's accomplishments by implying that they win easier competitions. But we already know the competition isn't easier: Top women's scores, adjusted as best we can for disparities in the numbers of shots, etc., are just as good as the men's. In Olympic competition, it doesn't appear to matter how many men versus how many women shoot but aren't very good; none of them are going. Those who do go are really good and that top level of ability appears to be independent of gender.

[Ted Bell]

Unless you're arguing that we should take for granted, as if it were obvious to everyone, that men are usually better than women, it could more easily be said it increased the number of men likely to compete and marginalized the women. Before, if they'd had all the right stuff, women might conceivably have taken 100% of all the slots and all the medals; now, at best, they can take only 30.7% of the slots and medals.

Except this argument ignores the fact that, best as I can figure interpreting all of the names, in 1972 no women won a shooting medal. In 1976 only one shooting medal was won by a female. In 1980, no shooting medals were won by a female. In 1984, after the split into male/female, 9 women won medals. However, the Trap and Skeet events in 84 and 92 were mixed gender, but males won all medals in both events in both Olympics. Now, to be clear, I am not saying that women cannot outshoot men- they can, and they do, at all levels, and I would have no problem with the events being consolidated again. However, out of five Olympics of mixed shooting events, only one medal was won by a woman. So there's just no way around the fact that the split did increase the opportunity for women to medal. Putting the genders back in the same events together just might not be a good thing in the long run.

More to the point, I find the argument (advanced by some posts) that this is better for the women because they get more chances -- setting aside that the numbers sure don't seem to support it -- just a bit offensive insofar as it seems to devalue women's accomplishments by implying that they win easier competitions.

I don't recall anyone impling that either gender have easier competitions.

Thanks,
Ted

[Steve Swartz]

And to go "full circle," perhaps a comparison of top men vs. top women's scores (adjusted for number of shots; compared on a "ratio of possible" basis) would answer (with a factual basis) just how women would fare in a "non sexist system."

I think we discussed this back on page 1?

Steve Swartz

p.s. I am making absolutely no argument one way or another about how well or poorly women vs. men would shoot against each other on a level playing field. I am just suggesting that we do have data right now available to settle that particular aspect of the discussion. Obviously, even bringing up the possibility of making this comparison will not sit well with many people. Consider also that, statistically, the exceptions do not prove the rule . . . look at the rankings at the majors, make the direct comparison, and what do we see? I haven't done this- but I am quite curious about it.

[Big Bert]

You go girl, you just shoot a 40x40 (make that 80x80)

[David Levene]

And to go "full circle," perhaps a comparison of top men vs. top women's scores (adjusted for number of shots; compared on a "ratio of possible" basis) would answer (with a factual basis) just how women would fare in a "non sexist system."

In a moment of boredom I decided to look at the results from the Athens Olympics and see if any fair comparison could be made. It seemed to me that, in certain events, men were shooting exactly the womens event, plus a bit. It was therefore easy to do a comparison in those events. Other events, for example the 3P rifle, were not directly comparable as the men had to shoot additional shots in each position before moving on to the next.

I was left with 4 events, Air Pistol, Air Rifle, Trap and Skeet where direct comparisons could be made (purely using the shots fired on the day).

With mixed events using the womens course of fire the results would have been:-

Air Pistol, 7 men and 1 woman into the final, all medals won by men.
Air Rifle, 4 men and 4 women into the final, gold and silver won by men, bronze won by a woman.
Trap, all male final therefore all medals won by men.
Skeet, all male final therefore all medals won by men.

[Steve Swartz]

David:

I have found similar results using north american national championships and selection matches.

Maybe the current state of affairs raises some uncomfortable issues for our sport. Nicole is to be commended for having the guts to ask the question.

Faced with this data, we can infer that if men's and women's events were grouped together at this point in time the women would fare poorly.

(Note: Let's put aside the question of *why* (the best women would not perform as well as the best men). I will offer my shy and bashful opinion at the end of the post.)

It would appear as though the women would not see more opportunity in combined events (they would see less opportunity).

Also add that by having separate events a much greater number of women would see a much greater level of opportunity than the analogous number of men who would be denied the opportunity by being replaced by a woman.

So by having unisex competition, a large number of women would be harmed, and a small number of men would be harmed. By having sex-specific competition, a large number of women are being helped and a small number of men are being helped.

I don't see the benefit (to the competitors; men or women) in having unisex competition at this point in time. Maybe it would make running a match easier?

Personally, I see no reason why women can't perform up to the level of the men, in shooting, in much greater numbers than they currently do.

However, reducing their opportunities to compete at national and world levels is probably not the fastest way to get there.

Perhaps this harsh reality is also understood by the USAS and ISSF? Perhaps it is not male chauvenism and/or fragile european male egos after all? Perhaps it is a rational policy followed to achieve a beneficial outcome? Or, if you prefer the cynical approach, perhaps they don't want to take the heat on "Why Aren't There More Women Competing At The Big Matches?"

Steve Swartz

(p.s. I really had to think hard for a long time before asking the question [and responding to David's independent validation]. Many good people have been burnt at the stake of political correctness for trying to talk frankly about the differences between men and women on a variety of characteristics [google up Lawrence Summers for a current victim]. Please don't shoot the messenger. I think I will have to hide for a couple of months now. I honestly hope I haven't offended anyone by any of this.)

[Steve Swartz]

. . . note also that in Air Rifle it does appear that rough parity has been reached . . . I would note that in air rifle, we have a really big crowd of female shooters at the junior-collegiate level . . . plenty of opportunities there, and the women are takijng advantage and shooting as well as the men.

So we have evidence that in air rifle, the women can perform as well as the men.

But- do we want to combine events into a unisex event, and hurt men and women equally? (effectively cutting the opportunity in half for each group)

And what about those Trap/Skeet events?

Steve