XX and XY in USPSA

[SA Friday]

Linda,

I need to correct something for you immediately. Most of your military shooters are not reimbursed for shooting matches. They take time off, called Ordinary Leave, to come shoot. They pay their own way, match fees and all. Some put in for what's called Permissive TDY, essentially free time off, but they still pay all expenses. The Army Marksmanship Unit is probably the only military organization that sends its members Temporary Duty (TDY) for a match and pays expenses. The Army can do this because the AMU is a recruiting tool. Lee Dimiculangan can tell you how effective they are at it, too.

The Air Force has a Shooting Team, but to my understanding, these are regular AF members who get some of their expenses reimbursed. You'd have to ask Roger Sherman about that. I'm not sure about our Navy and Marine bretheren.

v/r,

Liota Wakal, TSgt, USAF

Amen to that brother!

Shawn Knight, SSgt USAF

I'm a witness Amen. Hell, some career fields actually forbid their personnel to be a part of these teams, because they take them away from their original jobs....

Sean Myhre, Special Agent, USAF

[Sam]

We could ask the Mods to move this thread to "Questions That Don't Fit Anywhere" under the title of "Why do I find women so intimidating?"

Many fun things can harm us. Motorcycling, gun racing, wild horses, gambling, and of course, relationships with the opposite sex. Reckless behavior can lead to unfortunate outcomes with all of the above.

Here's why women can appear intimidating: Women are dangerous! (And we men do like dangerous things.) They can they can deflate your ego, break your heart, make you spend all your money, make you laugh, cry, and wonder why-oh-why. They can put you down, build you up, piss you off, and then totally ignore you. Of course, there is much more on the "credit" side of the ledger.......

Respect is always the best course to follow. Life has taught me to respect, among other things, God, electricity, high pressure gas lines, wild animals, children, guns, scooters, cars, other men, old people, and other people's beliefs.

I don't pretend to understand women. (I'm not sure that it is possible for any man to understand women.) But I'll always try to respect them.

Eri_, you're a great shooter man! If you look for a sponsor very much, I'm sure you'll find one.

Interesting discussion too.

[IYAOYAS]

We could ask the Mods to move this thread to "Questions That Don't Fit Anywhere" under the title of "Why do I find women so intimidating?"

Many fun things can harm us. Motorcycling, gun racing, wild horses, gambling, and of course, relationships with the opposite sex. Reckless behavior can lead to unfortunate outcomes with all of the above.

Here's why women can appear intimidating: Women are dangerous! (And we men do like dangerous things.) They can they can deflate your ego, break your heart, make you spend all your money, make you laugh, cry, and wonder why-oh-why. They can put you down, build you up, piss you off, and then totally ignore you. Of course, there is much more on the "credit" side of the ledger.......

Respect is always the best course to follow. Life has taught me to respect, among other things, God, electricity, high pressure gas lines, wild animals, children, guns, scooters, cars, other men, old people, and other people's beliefs.

I don't pretend to understand women. (I'm not sure that it is possible for any man to understand women.) But I'll always try to respect them.

Eri_, you're a great shooter man! If you look for a sponsor very much, I'm sure you'll find one.

Interesting discussion too.

As far as the Navy goes I shot bullseye on the team in the 70's,80's and 90's always on my own dime.We received some TZZ match hardball,wad and Eley 22 if we went to the interservice or Camp Perry. As far as travel pay good luck. The time was always annual leave.

[Wakal]

I've wondered for years if the reason that there are no female GM's is that, well, why bother?

Like the old story of the two guys and the bear. The first guy says to the second guy "...I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than...you..."

If you get a spiffy "national champion" title based only on genitalia location instead of performance, why work harder than you have to? Heck, last year's Open Nationals...you had to run down to number 44 at 76% to crown the "Woman's Champion". Geez...nothing like damning with faint praise. This year's Limited Nationals...61th place out of 215, 71%, gets you a national title, a quick trip to the prize table, and sponsor interest (which couldn't happen to a nicer person, but...see previous "faint praise" comment...).

It seems a lot like a "oh, we know you all can't shoot, so when you get around to throwin' some shoes on and makin' yer way out of the kitchen we will recognize you no matter how you did against those mean old men."

Which is an attitude, for the record, I hate with a blinding passion. Just like the so-called "affirmative action" batch of lies, but I digress.

This is one of the few sports where the obvious differences between the sexes do not, or at least should not, matter. Everyone tunes their gun to their own size and shooting style; for every tall port there are one million two hundred and fifty-six thousand nine hundred and twenty-three (but who is counting?) short gumby-style ports, and we don't run twenty miles for anything

Is the gratuitious pat on the head for sub-par performance worth "maybe" attracting more female shooters?

Or, much like "affirmative action", no one wants to look behind the curtain and see where that wizardly voice is coming from.

Alex

PS and all I ever get out of the Air Farce is free time off...for which I am very grateful

AW

[boo radley]

I've wondered for years if the reason that there are no female GM's is that, well, why bother?

If you get a spiffy "national champion" title based only on genitalia location instead of performance, why work harder than you have to?

Alex

PS and all I ever get out of the Air Farce is free time off...for which I am very grateful

AW

Wow!

I think it's pretty dangerous to presume degrees of motivation and desire to achieve relative to what YOU think is or isn't important, or a sufficient achievement.

That's like saying, "Gee, if I had a secure job with benefits, like Wakal...I wouldn't do a DAMN thing more than I had to!" And maybe you DON'T do more than the minimum to remain employed, but how can I possibly speculate?

It sounds to me like what you're really opposed to, is the existence of a seperate category recognizing only women (and presumably those for military, LEO's, seniors, and juniors). Because otherwise, everything is level -- there isn't a lowered HF for classifiers submitted by women; they don't move the targets in closer for seniors, etc., and nothing exclusionary: HOA is still HOA, whether won by man, woman, child, or Martian (maybe).

So I guess my question is, what does this category bother you? I'm genuinely curious.

Man, I think it must be a terrific challenge to play this *game*, as a woman, simply from the standpoint of needing a thick skin to put up with the hassle of boorish comments (and worse), patronizing insults, etc.

I'm sure, in the near future, there will be female GM's. I also suspect if this sport were significantly more popular, with, say, NCAA scholarships, etc., maybe the GM's we have now, would be...only A-cards, or something. Who knows?

[Wakal]

is the existence of a seperate category recognizing only women (and presumably those for military, LEO's, seniors, and juniors

There is no military or LEO category

See many, many other threads for comments about "why does someone's job result in a special trophy" discusion.

THIS thread was started talking about sub-maximal results being rewarded with sponsor dollars. I commented on sub-maximal results being lauded overall.

And...WHY are there no female GM's? There are no special tees; everyone shoots heads up. There are hundreds of male GM's, so it can't be THAT hard so that NO woman can perform at that level.

Is it because there is no interest because there is no need, as in the bear parable?

I don't mind being attacked (you are not doing it with an AK or a IED, so I'm happy...nothing like a "secure" job, neh?), but lets make sure we are talking about the matter at hand and not getting personal

Alex

[SA Friday]

I don't mind being attacked (you are not doing it with an AK or a IED, so I'm happy...nothing like a "secure" job, neh?), but lets make sure we are talking about the matter at hand and not getting personal

You forgot the mortars, strella rockets, Druganovs, and RPGs and if I got your meaning, most democrats .

[reneet]

is the existence of a seperate category recognizing only women (and presumably those for military, LEO's, seniors, and juniors

And...WHY are there no female GM's? There are no special tees; everyone shoots heads up. There are hundreds of male GM's, so it can't be THAT hard so that NO woman can perform at that level.

Is it because there is no interest because there is no need, as in the bear parable?

Alex

I think that there are alot of paper Ms and GMs out there and that no woman wants a card that they're not capable of backing up consistently.

[boo radley]

is the existence of a seperate category recognizing only women (and presumably those for military, LEO's, seniors, and juniors

THIS thread was started talking about sub-maximal results being rewarded with sponsor dollars. I commented on sub-maximal results being lauded overall.

And...WHY are there no female GM's? There are no special tees; everyone shoots heads up. There are hundreds of male GM's, so it can't be THAT hard so that NO woman can perform at that level.

Is it because there is no interest because there is no need, as in the bear parable?

I don't mind being attacked (you are not doing it with an AK or a IED, so I'm happy...nothing like a "secure" job, neh?), but lets make sure we are talking about the matter at hand and not getting personal

Alex

Alex -- I apologize if my response came across as a personal comment; I can see why you would think that, and it wasn't my intention!

My only point, is I think it's wrong to presume that some people are complacent with a certain level of achievement.

I understand your "Bear" analogy, but I think that first, you never know who you'll be running alongside, especially in the future, but more importantly: if you voluntarily choose to put yourself in front of bears -- you have a *love* of running.

Steve