TargetTalk

what we have is a separate but lesser system that gives a very few women a chance to win medals they might not otherwise but denies all the other women a chance even to compete.

In the case of Free Pistol & Rapid and Sport, it is true, ALL women (adult men in the case of sport) are denied the option of competing at the international level.

I don't understand the assertion that the "separate but lesser system" denies any female air pistol/rifle or 3P shooter the option of competing.

If we combined those events and doubled the quota slots or WC slots, but the national teams chose by top scores, then, if men shot better at the national level then they might get ALL those spots so even fewer women would have a chance to compete internationally.

so let me rephrase the above as:
"what we have is a separate but lesser system that gives a very few women a chance to compete and win medals in world cup and olympics they might not otherwise but denies ALL women a chance even to participate in certain events that are limited to men only."

more to follow

Poole

So what do we do about it?

we can analyze the data and see if there is currently a performance difference in favor of men or that overall there is no difference

we can ignore the data and believe what we want either way.

We can agree that the current system is fair and let it be

we can agree that the current system is NOT fair and start a discussion thread on what should be changed

we can find or believe that men are or are not outperforming women and start discussing why or why not

or ignore why, because it might not be politically correct

if we think men are outperforming women, we can speculate as to whether or not this is a physiologic or psychologic male/female difference that will exist until 1000 generations of evolution have passed.

We can start discussing what should be done to raise women's scores
some things are within the power of those participating in the sport, such as simply shooting togehter and watching the scores rise, or ensuring equality in training, or perhaps specializing training differently for men and women to optimize each due to their separate needs.

If we target talkers come to the conclusion that the system is unfair and ISSF and IOC should re arrange the events, how do we convince them?

we can have all kindsa fun with this topic!

Scott, I vote for this thread for the most interesting one of the month!

and it might make next month's award too

Poole

Steve Swartz wrote:You are beng given the gift of "the last word" as far as I am concerned, as this will be my last public declaration on this matter.

You've gotta love it when someone says they're giving you the last word, and here it is. Are you taking your bat and ball home with you?

While all the analysing is very informative; it does not answer one question. Why can't women compete in all pistol events at national level?
The statistiscs presented so far suggest that men would succeed in qualifiers anyway, removing the unpleasantness of a female winner being denied a team slot. If the results are biased by coaching training and experience at that discipline, it might improve the chances of letting women shoot these events internationally, even if segregated.


Tim S

Exeter, United Kingdom

OK, lets let women compete in Free and Rapid at the Nationals.

(as I recall, they already had a women's prone)

They probably are not permitted by ISSF rules to become a member of a WC team or Oly team.

But lets say a women shoots free or rapid really well and qualifies for the US National team.

Then what?

well for one thing it gives her access to the national team coach. (something I don't have much of)

But does that coach coach her in a women's event? or in the event that got her on the team?

However, I sense that there is a strong pressure to put USAS funding into things that win Oly medals. That's why they shut down running target

Would Olympic Training center accept a resident athlete who was training for a non-Oly event (i.e. a woman training for a men's only event)? for that matter, in the gender case, could they legally REFUSE?!?!?!

if Ms Free Pistol made the team in Free and converted to sport and air, is that fair to the ladies who are trying to make the team in sport and air?

If, after a few years of women's free pistol and rapid, at the US national level, is there any hope of getting gender integrated, or seperate AND equal events at the WC's & olympics?

If we americans (and brits, canadians etc) have a little energy to try new things, is it in anyones best interest to try something that the rest of the world will refuse to adopt or should we try to improve women's participation and performance in women's only events?

Poole

Nicole, I've got you an answer......

Sell everything but the AP.

Buy yourself an original smoothbore flintlock duelling pistol. Also buy an original matchlock pistol.

Learn to shoot them well. Ask me for advice.

Get onto the U.S. International Muzzle-Loading Team. International black powder competition has a few ladies-only rifle events - everything else is mixed. Including all four pistol events.

Mixed events = No problems.

Problem solved.

Mike McDaniel wrote:Buy yourself an original smoothbore flintlock duelling pistol. Also buy an original matchlock pistol.

Heh, heh. As it happens, I only just this weekend, for the first time in my life, got a chance to shoot a muzzle-loading flintlock pistol. Hell of a gun! Big flash, lots of noise, what's not to like? :)

They're a lot of fun - and a good gun is surprisingly accurate. Very satisfying to shoot.

If you get your hands on an original, we might be able to slip you into the 06 World Championships. We look like we might wind up short in the original guns.

Nicole,

I'm all for it;equality. But, during this sweeping change that I fully support, can you also bring the bar back to "equal" for jobs and college applications? Maybe even go as far as removing the Gender and Race blocks any type of job / college / loan application. I sure would like some of those bonus points I see handed out during Department tests.

This has to be the thread that will not die ! It's still a good question , without a good answer .

Chris

"why the Olympic events are sexist, e.g., different rules for men than women in AP, no center fire or free pistol events at all for women, etc."

Maybe there was just not enough interest at the time of creating womens events to include this? Is there alot of women now looking to shoot FP? It seems only logical to add it in IF there is interest.

"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?"

I think guns sales answer this one - it's where the money flow is at for the industry. At any public range, any gunshop, any machine shop, custom item builder (barrels, actions, triggers, stocks) there are few if any women involved. Women don't put enough money into the system to expect a equal return. This is a simple economics issue.

"There's no real advantage to being some big, virile, impressive specimen of manhood."

Nicole, you seem to "think" you know alot about being a man, how often have you been one? Sorta like as if you were to talk about being a ER doctor; unless you are or have been one, you're sorta guessing at all of this. On the outside looking in. I noticed most of your posts include some aspect to knowing the requirements and innerworkings of a man. Big guns, pot belly, ect.. Your arguements about shooting policy are very good, but you loose nearly all your creadibility with those statements about men, their egos, desires, and interests. At one moment you sound like a well spoken woman, then at others like a po'd little girl. Lemme suggest that you stop talking about what it means or requires to be a man, simply because you are not, nor never will be, and obviously know nothing about it. It doesn't help your arguement.

"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."

This is wrong, and I agree. Spots should go to the best shooter, and I find no reason not to let women be involved. So, obviously until there is a rule change allowing women into FP, or making a women's FP event, we will continue to have this situation. Until the right people are convinced as to the necesity of making that change - it's gonna remain as is. It's our challenge to convince them to make that change.

"It's time the US just flat-out refused to go along with this nonsense."

You're right in this, but like Rev. King found, it's gonna take alot of work and alot of pain to make this change, people are gonna have to give up alot for this. People like the shooters who belong to the gender you so freely bash may have to give up a chance to compete at their life long dream to back up your desire for equality. From the tone in your posts, my guess is that you are losing support much quicker than you are gaining it. What are you gonna put on the table for this change to happen?

"My bet is that if we did that, and if a few other Western nations followed suit, it'd take enough luster off the medals that winning them just wouldn't mean so much anymore. Pretty quickly, this sexism would end. And it's time it did."

Or.... They laugh at us and enjoy the wide berth afforded to them at the event due to our absence. Us "Westerners" are not quite as popular across the globe as you may think. That's the "take our ball and go home" approach, and that's exactly how others may see it.

So, it seems that this can realistically go in two directions;

One, make all shooting events identical for men and women. Same course of fire, same everything. Sorta like a "seperate but equal" approach.

Two, all women's events are dissolved and women are allowed to compete in all men's events, and the title of the events will no longer include gender (save biathlon - that would just be ugly).

So Nicole, which direction do you want to go in? I think the second direction will be a harder path to get support on. Personally, I don't care - i'm not good enough to factor into this equation.

Define what you what, and let's see if there is wide spread support. Change must start with a clearly defined idea; from there is can grow.

I can't think of an Olympic sport that men and woman compete equally against each other for the same medal. I can be corrected on that.
To try and set a precident and combine the genders in a minor Olympic sport, that is not media friendly [ in the eyes of the public ], is just not going to achieve anything for us within the IOC. If the shooting community did succeed in combining the genders for shooting in the Olympics, we would just have a lesser number of shooting events in it. What's the point in that?
Mmm! Maybe the IOC can be convinced to combine the genders, as just another step to rid the Games of non PC events like shooting.
We don't need to go in that direction IMHO.
Mark

xtreme wrote:I can't think of an Olympic sport that men and woman compete equally against each other for the same medal. I can be corrected on that.

Horse-riding is mixed gender for both species involved.

steve b wrote:I'm all for it;equality. But, during this sweeping change that I fully support, can you also bring the bar back to "equal" for jobs and college applications? Maybe even go as far as removing the Gender and Race blocks any type of job / college / loan application. I sure would like some of those bonus points I see handed out during Department tests.

I have no idea where you work or even what kind of work you do, Steve, but I can assure you that women are not picking up any sort of "bonus points" in the job market. Even when performing the same tasks as male coworkers, studies continue to show that women earn less and they advance more slowly.

It's clear enough that women do enjoy greater opportunity than they have in the past. In the 1950s, a smart woman who wanted a career could choose between being a nurse or a school teacher. Certainly, they have more choice today. (Side note: The lack of choices in 1950s amounted to a tax on smart women that subsidized public education; the fact that smart women have other choices today is arguably the single biggest reason for the decline in the quality of public education in the US since 1950s.)

But there's growing evidence that women's gains in the job market may be slowing and, in some cases, reversing. Part of that is due to changing demographics and, in particular, the rising influence of non-Western cultures. People tend to see what they expect to see. On the one hand, this is as it should be, because if the world weren't largely predictable and didn't behave roughly as we expected, life would be a maelstrom and we'd be unable to survive as a species. But this same mechanism that allows us to function also results in us experiencing evidence that our world-view is flawed as threatening. We accept change only when the evidence is overwhelming that we must.

A lot of our expectations of gender and social roles are controlled by early socialization. Whatever the status of women in the West, it's probably less elsewhere. Outside the West, women can traditionally be caregivers but not real players. The rising prominence of young Indian (and other, non-Western) male engineers in the US high-tech workforce probably portends erosion of women's outcomes in these higher-paid, higher-status occupations. Because getting involved in the problem amounts to choosing sides between minorities, an uncomfortable proposition at best for an employer, and because non-Western male engineers already outnumber women engineers in many high-tech companies, I personally expect this problem to get much worse, not better, and for employers to turn a largely blind eye toward it.

Here in the US, we do have Federal Title VII which mandates equal opportunity but, no matter what you may have heard, the protections are largely toothless, at least in any situation where males are politically astute enough to avoid obvious mistakes. For example, it's perfectly legal for a manager to fire a female employee because he thinks she's not very smart regardless of the truth of the matter, just so long as he's careful to avoid saying he believes that because she's a woman. A woman who believes she was unfairly discriminated against faces an uphill battle: Legal costs to pursue a case typically run $250,000 or more and the most one might typically win are attorney's fees and lost wages, which the complainant has a duty to mitigate by finding another job. The standard for punitive damages is that the employer's behavior must be "egregious," which the courts tend to interpret with questions like, "But was there actual penetration?" The bottom line is that women who believe they've been victims of discrimination are usually well-advised to simply walk away from it.

So while outcomes for women in the job market have undeniably improved over the last 50 years, they do not yet enjoy the same opportunity, their legal protections are weaker than most people imagine, and, most worrisome, there's serious reason to suspect the trend toward improvement in their outcomes may have crested.

If your outcomes in life and on the job aren't meeting your expectations, Steve, it seems unlikely to me that it's because the women around you are getting unfair bonus points. Your posts here suggest your own behavior might be something to look at. Certainly, if you're getting feedback that coworkers occasionally experience you as rude or combative, that might be something to work on.

The salary issue is not that cut and dried ....

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/28/comment ... ay/sahadi/
http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/21/comment ... ay/sahadi/

In the high tech industry I have seen more institutionalized hostility to men than any discrimination against women. I believe this is an unintended consequence of trying overly hard to NOT discriminate against women.

your comment about education is one of the most interesting theories I have ever heard on that subject.

Poole

KD1UJ ?

http://www.hamiltonlabs.com/biography.htm

is this you?

very interesting story

Poole
AA4Q

Thanks to Poole for providing the link that provides the insight. Maybe we will someday get to the point where we discover smart, interesting PEOPLE instead of wise men and smart women.

I have two daughters and two sons. Gender doesn't control how I love them nor how capable they've become. It does, however, create errant breezes that cause them to alter tac.

My, we do wax philosophical whilst we contemplate shooting sports.

CraigE

Bill Poole wrote:KD1UJ ? ... is this you? very interesting story

Yup. Thank you, you're very kind.

the fact that smart women have other choices today is arguably the single biggest reason for the decline in the quality of public education in the US since 1950s.)



beep...beeep....beep....

diminished credibility warning.............

xeye wrote:beep...beeep....beep....

diminished credibility warning.............

My comment reflects an observation I'd made independently and, if that's all it was, I'd have kept it to myself or been more clear in identifying it as only my own personal opinion.

But at my 30th Stanford reunion in October 2003, I had an opportunity to attend a "Classes without Quizzes" lecture by Prof. Sandy Dornbusch, who's every bit the expert in education that I am not and is especially well known for his field research. His lecture was mostly focused on what his longitudinal studies had shown regarding effort and ability. But several comments he made suggested he also had noticed this relationship, so in a Q&A session afterward, I asked. He confirmed that he also believes that it's beyond question that greater opportunities for women are largely responsible for the decline in quality of talent and, thus, the quality of results in public education. I have no idea if he's published on this relationship.