TargetTalk

Okay, if the idea behind segregation is to offer more opportunity to women, why not have the same number of events, with the same courses of fire, for both men and women? Right now, men get to compete in over twice as many events, including some, like free pistol, where it's complete unfathomable why anyone would think women would not be capable.

Nicole Hamilton wrote:Okay, if the idea behind segregation is to offer more opportunity to women, why not have the same number of events, with the same courses of fire, for both men and women?

That's a whole different question Nicole.

Just looking at pistol, are you suggesting that women get Free and Rapid events in the Olympics and men get Sport. It ain't gonna happen; they are trying to reduce the number of Olympic events not increase it.

To get the same number of Olympic (pistol) events perhaps you are suggesting that women get Free and men lose Rapid. Yeah, right. Take my advice, don't hold your breath waiting for that.

David Levene wrote:That's a whole different question Nicole.

What do you mean? It's one of the two questions I asked at the beginning of the thread: Why do men get to shoot a different and more numerous set of events and why don't men and women shoot together?

The answer I've been hearing is that this is a good thing for women because if men and women shot together, the men would pretty much always win. Setting aside that that I don't really buy this argument, both because of the results mentioned in AR and because I suspect it might be merely another artifact of cultural gender bias (e.g., if men and women receive differing levels of support in training, etc.), it still doesn't answer my first question: Why do men get more chances to win by virtue of having more events to enter?

Right now, men get 9 events, women get 4. Since you point out that they're trying to reduce, not increase the number of events, okay, let's give each 6. Works for me.

Nicole Hamilton wrote:Right now, men get 9 events, women get 4. Since you point out that they're trying to reduce, not increase the number of events, okay, let's give each 6. Works for me.

Now all you have to do is convince the ISSF. Your route to them is via your National Governing Body so you need to convince them first.

Nicole Hamilton wrote: Right now, men get 9 events, women get 4. Since you point out that they're trying to reduce, not increase the number of events, okay, let's give each 6. Works for me.

What a great suggestion: Title IX at the international level. Let's legislate abstract equality in the number of events in order to accomodate the possibility that sometime, in the very distant future, the number of women international target shooters participating, theoretically could grow to a level equal to the number of men. And meanwhile we can ignore the fact that international target shooters are - horror of horrors - predominantly male.

Just for an example of what a cockeyed concept this is, within the last year or two there was a major event (World Cup?) held in which so few female double trap shooters showed up that they canceled the women's double trap event.

Rather than the phony equality of same for men, same for women, what about this concept: number of men's and women's events proportionate to the numbers of male and female competitors? Works for me.

If you come, they will build it.

FredB

Rather than the phony equality of same for men, same for women, what about this concept: number of men's and women's events proportionate to the numbers of male and female competitors? Works for me.

I think this is very much the case, i recall reading that 40% of athletes are female. and 40% of events in shooting are female (5 pistol events, 2 are women, etc) so it is proportional

however, which drives which???? if they set up 60% of events as women's events would they have 60% women athletes?



Poole

Fred wrote:Let's legislate abstract equality in the number of events in order to accomodate the possibility that sometime, in the very distant future, the number of women international target shooters participating, theoretically could grow to a level equal to the number of men. And meanwhile we can ignore the fact that international target shooters are - horror of horrors - predominantly male.

I think you make my case for why the argument that segregation is good for women is so completely spurious and provide us also with the reason why shooting is still sexist.

We already know there's little difference in men's and women's scores in AR (where women's participation rates can be expected to be higher), suggesting there's likely little difference in innate ability. If there's a difference in number of Olympic medals women might win in the other shooting events, it probably is just a numbers game: If there were more women competing in those events, women would probably win more.

Obviously, I can't speak for all women and I'm not at all likely to go the Olympics except as a spectator (and only then if I win a trip from Coca-Cola.) But it seems to this woman that greater opportunity to compete on an even footing with men is more likely to encourage women's participation than will some artificial set-aside of some smaller number of events only for women.

And the biggest reason this isn't happening isn't because people really disagree about how to get more women participating, it's because, like you, they really don't care about having more women participating -- much less how to make that happen -- and figure that men are entitled to more just because they're men.

Nicole Hamilton wrote:And the biggest reason this isn't happening isn't because people really disagree about how to get more women participating, it's because, like you, they really don't care about having more women participating -- much less how to make that happen -- and figure that men are entitled to more just because they're men.

That's an extremely sexist comment Nicole.

I cannot speak for the US but here in the UK shooting is open until you get to quite a high national level. The number of female competitors is way below 50% of their male colleagues.

There are some sports that are more apealing to men and some that are more apealing to women. A greater proportion of men are drawn to sports shooting than are women.

David Levene wrote:That's an extremely sexist comment Nicole.

I see you've decided you'd still like to label me sexist but you've edited your post to delete the sentence at the end which might have provided some insight into the attitude that might explain such a remark. No matter, I still have it here in another window:

David Levene wrote:It could therefore be argued that shooting at the very top level is indeed sexist, biased in favour women.

David, get a clue: Labeling a woman as sexist because she's simply asking why neither "separate but equal" nor full integration is acceptable is just plain stupid. Only an idiot believes Olympic events are allocated based on the numbers of participants world-wide.

Nicole Hamilton wrote:

David Levene wrote:That's an extremely sexist comment Nicole.

I see you've decided you'd still like to label me sexist ....

No, it is the comment that was sexist, as it would have been if I had made it.

Nicole Hamilton wrote:Only an idiot believes Olympic events are allocated based on the numbers of participants world-wide.

Is it wrong to suggest that, within any individual sport, it should be.

Rather than arguing in this fashion, would it not be more productive to find a way of making shooting more appealing to women?

Few shooters are competetive enough to make Olympic level, so to some extent does the greater number of men's pistol events there really matter?

With a more equal split between male and female shooters a case for adding extra ladies events at National and International events would be better supported.

Tim S

Exeter, UK

I was just reviewing the posts here and there is a funny thing, the only Europeans that have had any say in this topic are from the UK (& Ireland). Like I said in an earlier post the UK has been very progressive in womens issues just like North America. Does the silience say something?

I agree with Mr. Swartz that combining the two would at least in the short term have a deterimental effect on a large number of women while only benefiting a few ( the very top).

The other day on the CBC there was a women reoprt talking about women athletes and their medal count for Canada (women won the majority of our 24 medals). She was saying that Canada supports women in sport more so than some countries, and women in other countries either don't participate or are not funded as well as male athletes. She then took offence to a comment that was made that it took 6 years on average for males to get to the top of there game to compete for medals and 4 years for women. She found this as diminishing the womens accomplishments, when really it was just a continuation of the fact that she had previously made. More males compete in more sports (simple fact) so the talent pool is great so there is more competetion, fewer women participate so there is less competetion, so of course they can rise faster to the top. My above comments make no judgement as to why this is, it most likely is the product of numerous factors such as interest, competing goals, traditional gender issues and roles, and some countries the lack of funding or opportunity, lack of promotion and a number of other issues. One thing that I noticed with junior women, as soon as they discover dating shooting sometimes takes a back seat, some eventually return but many do not. Males on the other hand fewer seem to leave but more of those that do seem to come back. When ever there is a frank discussion about gender someone is always going to scream "sexism" just as when there is a discussion about race they scream "racism", the terms are used to silence uncomfortable debate.

Just an aside I just came back from a Grand Prix and I don't have the numbers but the women seemed to excel in the finals just anecdotally they seemed to shoot a lot more tens then the men.

Tim S wrote:Few shooters are competetive enough to make Olympic level, so to some extent does the greater number of men's pistol events there really matter?

I think this is an insightful question. You're absolutely right, most men or women are never going to develop the skill necessary to take them to the Olympics, no matter what the rules, no matter what the events. They simply won't ever be that good. Consider me an example. :)

That's one of the reasons why I'm not impressed by the argument that present system is good for women because it means more medals for women. That might matter to anyone actually good enough to go to the Olympics, but most aren't that good and never will be. And no one makes that initial decision to take up a shooting sport based on the predicate odds of winning an Olympic medal, assuming you could get there.

What's more important are the opportunities (and perceptions of opportunity) that trickle down to everyone else. I started this thread by pointing out, e.g., that there's no free pistol event for women at the US Nationals. My understanding is that's an event that's open to any male who can afford to pay to get there. And there are probably college and other programs that trickle this policy down even further, probably always on the rationale that they're "merely" doing what's done in the Olympics because, after all, that's what they're funneling into.

It doesn't have to be that way and numerous posts have made the point that it isn't that way in some countries like the UK, where all the events are always integrated. I'd accept "separate but equal" but, for the same reason that was rejected in the US as a racial policy, namely, that separate is rarely equal, I think the better policy is full integration. It's time the Olympics changed but, barring that, it's definitely time it changed here in the US. I guess I'm repeating myself because this is where I started and this is where I'm still at.

Richard H wrote:One thing that I noticed with junior women, as soon as they discover dating shooting sometimes takes a back seat, some eventually return but many do not. Males on the other hand fewer seem to leave but more of those that do seem to come back.

I don't have any knowledge of that tendancy but it wouldn't be surprising. What's certainly well-documented is that there's little difference in performance on standardized math tests between boys and girls up to about age 11. But at adolescence, girls' performance drops off, in part because girls discover that being good at math comes at a price: Boys don't like girls that are good at math. The same effect has been observed in engineering and computer science and other disciplines that might be thought of as male preserves, so it would not be surprising to see this in shooting sports as well.

Nicole Hamilton wrote:

Richard H wrote:One thing that I noticed with junior women, as soon as they discover dating shooting sometimes takes a back seat, some eventually return but many do not. Males on the other hand fewer seem to leave but more of those that do seem to come back.

I don't have any knowledge of that tendancy but it wouldn't be surprising. What's certainly well-documented is that there's little difference in performance on standardized math tests between boys and girls up to about age 11. But at adolescence, girls' performance drops off, in part because girls discover that being good at math comes at a price: Boys don't like girls that are good at math. The same effect has been observed in engineering and computer science and other disciplines that might be thought of as male preserves, so it would not be surprising to see this in shooting sports as well.

Those are the things like everything else its not a total truth "boys don't like girls that are good in math" This may be an assumption that females have but there really is no basis in fact. Same as thinness, there are men that like just about every body type that exists (and even some that don't). I have no problem with women that do math or are engineers or scientists, or that shoot better than me ( actually I find it appealing). Men get painted with the brush that we are some type of monsters that come out of caves and club the dumb women over the head and take them back to our cave. When I was taking Civil Engineering there were 2 females in my class and everyone, including the instructors bent over backwards to help them. One stayed and the other one left. I suggest both sexes have problems with gender bias and I know for a fact that its not all great being a women but it is also not all great being a man. On CNN recently there was a women who posed as a man and she was very surprised by what she found especially how women treat men.

Nicole Hamilton wrote: And the biggest reason this isn't happening isn't because people really disagree about how to get more women participating, it's because, like you, they really don't care about having more women participating -- much less how to make that happen -- and figure that men are entitled to more just because they're men.

Nicole,

Would you please show me where, in my post to which you refer, there is any statement about my alleged negative attitude regarding female participation, or any statement implying entitlement "just because they're men."? I see no evidence of either, and therefore find your accusation way offbase. Since - unlike you - I do not wish to impute motivation unjustifiably, I will ask you directly, did you intend the quote above to be offensive?

FredB

Fred wrote:Would you please show me where, in my post to which you refer, there is any statement about my alleged negative attitude regarding female participation, or any statement implying entitlement "just because they're men."? I see no evidence of either ...

I should have thought your disdain for women in sports was fairly self-evident, starting with your ridicule of Title IX, which pretty obviously you disagree with, and which you describe in the next paragraph as a "cockeyed concept." You've also littered your post with numerous loaded terms, e.g., "abstract equality," "horror of horrors" (referring to the greater numbers of male shooters) and "phony equality." Finally, you've chosen to argue that men and women should be offered a number of events proportionate to the numbers of male and female competitors, knowing full-well this favors men and is an allocation strategy not used in choosing events for any other Olympic sport. That's pretty much all you had to say and every bit of it seemed to display a negative attitude.

But maybe I missed something, so you tell me: What part did you think displayed a positive attitude?

Richard H wrote:I was just reviewing the posts here and there is a funny thing, the only Europeans that have had any say in this topic are from the UK (& Ireland). Like I said in an earlier post the UK has been very progressive in womens issues just like North America. Does the silience say something?

I think it rather suggests that the only European countries with English as the native language are the UK and Ireland.

My only disdain is for individuals who misinterpret and fabricate information in order to justify personal attacks. It is possible - actually desirable - to disagree with what someone said, as David pointed out, without in any way personally attacking the person with whom you disagree. You do not seem to understand that distinction.

To specifics:
1. I did not ridicule Title IX; I ridiculed your suggestion of extending it to the international level. In fact I believe Title IX was necessary, and has done good overall at the collegiate level, with a few unfortunate unintended consequences.
2. I did not call Title IX a "cockeyed concept": that phrase clearly referred to your proposal of equal numbers of Olympic events for men and women, which, if you remember, was the topic of my post.
3. My "loaded terms" that you cite all clearly refer to the notion that everything involving men and women must be made "equal" on a one-to-one basis, regardless of the actual numbers of people participating.
4. My final proposal, as the wording clearly shows, was a parody of your proposal to equalize the number of events. Both this proposal and the "loaded terms" were humorous (I hoped) attempts to point out that there is more than one possible way of looking at "equality" and "fairness".
5. Nowhere did I state, as you alleged earlier, that male participants should be favored "just because they are men." I did suggest that the number of participants in an event was as legitimate a factor in considering event allocation, as was the simple distinction between man and woman.

NRA target shooting is fully integrated at every level (other than some special prizes only for women). USAS target shooting is fully integrated at all but the highest level, that level being preparatory to international competition, which has its own rules that we in the US cannot alter. Both NRA and USAS make significant efforts to attract female shooters, as we do at our local Bay Area matches. Unfortunately, female participation levels remain low, but I do not see how the governing bodies are responsible for that. The fact is that target shooting in the US is institutionally one of the least sexist sports available. I truly don't understand why you are so personally belligerent about this topic.

FredB

FredB wrote: USAS target shooting is fully integrated at all but the highest level, that level being preparatory to international competition, which has its own rules that we in the US cannot alter.
FredB

FredB,
I don't understand the statement. I have competed in USAS FP and AP matches. The courses of fire were only for men, and all the participants were men. If a woman were to show up and shoot, how would her score be reported? What are the lower levels you refer to?
FredM