Why don't women shooters do better?

[JasonK]

I was looking at the World Shoot scores and something I have noticed previously struck me again. Shooting has little to do with size or strength and is more about coordination, reflexes and concentration so why do the women shooters finish so far back? Age doesn't seem to be a large factor either.

No names since I don't intend this to be personal. I also don't know any of these people and mean no slight.

Open:

High Lady came in 70.58%. High junior came in 94.86% and High Senior came in 78.71%. Even High Super Senior was close at 69.30%.

Standard:

High Lady came in 67.12%. High junior came in 81.28% and High Senior came in 89.72%. High Super Senior was at 69.81%.

Production:

High Lady came in 62.27%. High junior came in 87.41% and High Senior came in 75.58%. High Super Senior was behind at 52.54%.

[BritinUSA]

Several reasons spring to mind:

1. Women tend to have slightly slower reaction times than men, typically 5% slower. So expect an average draw time to be 5% slower than a male.

2. Reaction time for women drops rapidly if a woman is even slightly dehydrated, but for a man slight dehydration can reduce reaction time. It was stinking hot in Bali.

3. Visual acuity gets worse for women over time than it does for men, effects generally start at 40+ (same as men) but the drop off is more severe for women.

4. Men and women's brains are wired differently. Men are better able to focus on a single thing, women on the other hand are better able to multi-task. In theory this would seem to benefit men when focussing on single event such as shooting.

You can google a lot of this stuff for yourself, but it's worth pointing out two things:

1. These are generics, there are exceptions to everything.

2. Having said all the above, and to prove point (1), I seem to get my butt kicked by women every time I enter big competitions so take all the above with a big grain a salt.

[J-Ho]

Jason, What are you doing? You're going to have every woman shooter in the area gunning for you.

Oh, and didn't you get beat by a girl at the regional? Quite severely if I remember right

Back on topic

I think the shear number of male shooters also account for some of the difference. The pool of talent is much larger. Also how many women actually seek out this sport themselves vs. how many are just tagging along with hubby/boyfriend? I'm sure there are lots of opinons but since I'm married that's all I'm going to say.

[kgunz11]

A woman shooter recently won the Limited Division state title. Beat every man shooting in Limited and she ain't bad to look at either!

Edited November 3, 2008 by kgunz11

[SA Friday]

Wow, someone pass the popcorn. This is gonna be better than some of the threads ZHunter has started.

[boz1911]

I see your point Jason, but I'm with Britin. I take ass-whoopins all the time from women...

[HighVelocity]

In my personal opinion (have no science to back me up), I believe that women are typically less aggressive than men. Of course, there are always exeptions. I'm beaten by women on a regular basis.

[TM262]

I see your point Jason, but I'm with Britin. I take ass-whoopins all the time from women...

I must admit, there are a few girls (Julie, jessie and others) than kick my but too. Brian, does that mean we suck?

[Steve J]

Testosterone.

[dajarrel]

Guys,

On a subject such as this, your words are a shovel and all you can do is dig a deeper hole

And before I start diggin', I'll stop

dj

[AikiDale]

It is a good question and should not be answered from an emotional politically correct gender biased perspective.

Any young shooter looking for a dissertation theme may have just found one.

[Bigpops]

Funny topic.

My wife and I both started the shooting sport recently. Though I may have a stronger desire (ie read everything, practice, eat drink and breath this stuff) my wifes approach is "this is fun". We shot a match yesterday, her second, and I swear she is progressing quicker than me.

Why? She keeps it simple, does not have the ego (which mine is not bad) and keeps it fun.

Overall, there are more men involved but I see some darn good women shooters out there....and my wife is quickly becoming one.

[JThompson]

Don't forget the obvious... numbers. The numbers of woman who shoot are very small. Plus, women are smarter than us. I don't mean they have a higher IQ, I think they are less likely to go at it with the single mindedness some men do. Woman seem to be a lot less obsessive when it comes to things like shooting, so the pool of serious shooters is what... 1/100 of the men? So when you make a blanket statement like that the first thing comes to my mind is numbers.

As mentioned earlier, women are wired different and, I think, they are less likely to have shooting BE their life instead of a part of it. Most of the best shooters I’ve met have shooting at the core of who they are. They spend a great deal of their waking, and sleeping, for that matter, lives thinking mostly shooting. I think it less likely for woman to be that obsessive, at least about shooting. ~ducks~

The term "guy thing" comes to mind, not like you might think either... I think the pool of woman is smaller because of how they were raised. The guys were a lot more likely to be shooting growing up than woman. It wasn't all that long ago when men prevented ladies from doing little things like voting, let alone taking on firearms and the "provider" putting food on the table with firearms. Therefore, it was passed down from father to son, and less likely to go from father to daughter. The ladies were directed toward more "proper" or what was thought to be proper, avocations. That stigma is still being passed down today, although reduced. I think it has a great deal to do with why the numbers are stacked in our favor.

Why not let the ladies tell us what they think?

JT

Edited November 3, 2008 by JThompson

[MisterB]

I have three sons, and when they were younger I used to help at a youth small bore rifle league. In most cases, a novice female shooter would progress faster than a male with similar experience. I don't know if it had something to do with maturity, not having anything to "prove", or what, but almost without exception the girls were easier to instruct and progressed quicker.

[carinab]

I'll chime in...

Trust me, the ladies have had this discussion many, many times as we'd love to see one of us be High Overall...

Like most things, there are a myriad of reasons why even the top women are at around 80-85% of the top men. From the physical side, women don't have as much upper body strength. If you look at video of the women shooters, you'll still see some muzzle rise. Check out the top men, their gun doesn't move. Men may gain some advantage sprinting as well. A taller man has longer strides. The time difference between GM and M hit factor (with points being equal) is generally 1.5-2 seconds. Easily splits and transitions and the amount of time getting from point A to B can make that amount of time.

As for focus, single threading versus multi-tasking, it's true women have either families, work, etc., something that competes for their attention. From my personal experience, I can't focus only on shooting without having the other areas suffer and start to fall apart.

Edited November 3, 2008 by carinab

[Charles Bond]

We are starting to see ladies, who like men, started shooting at a very early age. Julie, Jessie and a couple of others come to mind and by virture of not starting late in life, they narrow the margin..

I would also suggest that Jason might want to add to his list the fact that ladies bear children. When this happens, unlike males, there is down time and recovery time.

[XRe]

In short, I suspect testosterone level is the answer - but I don't think there's anything about this game that wouldn't allow a woman to reach HOA. In fact, I'm quite surprised there's not a female GM running around, at this point.

There are plenty of small, short, skinny guys (read: lack of body mass, lack of height for stride length) who do great at this game. And, Carina, if you actually do watch the top GMs, you'll see plenty of muzzle rise (ever seen pics of Dave Sevigny's gun in full recoil? its pointed over the berm). Testosterone, amongst other things, allows for quicker gross motor skill growth. The ladies definitely pick up fine motor skills more quickly than we guys do - and their egos tend to stay further out of the way of their progress. They just don't have the edge in the realm of brute force - and brute force controls recoil, and propels you around the stage.

Now.... upper body strength can be built (though you don't actually need much of it). Sprint speed can be built. Grip strength can be built (this you do need). Equipment can be chosen to provide enhanced performance characteristics for that shooter (I haven't done any experimentation, personally, but what the guys shoot is likely not the best thing for the ladies, I suspect). I would have to bet that if a person set her mind to get in rockin' shape, and spend the right quality time behind the gun, the situation would be quite a bit different.

The other factor that testosterone supplies is raw aggression. This doesn't have to show up as chest beating, yelling, caveman type behavior (in fact, it shouldn't in any civilized group of folks). But that does factor in, as well... I haven't met a lady on the range, yet, who told me emphatically, sincerely, and realistically that her goal was to be a top GM - they seem to be content with just beating the other ladies. Until that changes - someone determined to break status quo - don't expect it change (personally, I'd love to see it ).

[zhunter]

. I haven't met a lady on the range, yet, who told me emphatically, sincerely, and realistically that her goal was to be a top GM - they seem to be content with just beating the other ladies. Until that changes - someone determined to break status quo - don't expect it change (personally, I'd love to see it ).

Carina and I have discussed this at length, and I tend to believe what she posted above. But, all of us have things on our minds, it is NOT a female thing.

Dave's post quoted above is ABSOLUTELY true from a psychological standpoint.

[L9X25]

I have been doing this for a while and do not see as many women that stay in the sport long-term. We have had some really great women shooters that had the aggressiveness and physical ability to compete at the same level as the top guys, but they have mostly come and gone. This probably has a lot more to do with life priorities than anything else, but we are more addicted to sports, toys and games than women are.

Locally we had Kim Stroud, that shot for many years, and she handed the guys their butts more often than not. She too left to pursue other insterests.

[Jake Di Vita]

There may be muzzle rise in the top male shooters, but as far as I've seen, recoil management is far better. More than likely a strength issue in that case.

[-JQ-]

Don't forget Dr. Ruth Westheimer (sp) was a sniper!

[ExtremeShot]

In short, I suspect testosterone level is the answer [snip]

Sounds like we have an experiment in the making....there's no pee test in USPSA/IPSC yet is there?

[kgunz11]

I've seen some girls that could smoke most every man, but you guys are talking about the Words Shoot scores right? You are comparing a woman to Eric Graufell? Why not just compare him to every other GUY! in the world. It's like comparing the worlds strongest man to a 4th grader.

Now if you want to talk about why there isn't a woman GM, there is another story. So there are 3,301,112,087 women in the world, does that mean we have the best of the pool competing? There might be a GM woman out there, she just works at the waffle house and can't come out on her day off and shoot IPSC. Outside of a physical strength contest, I've never seen a man do anything a woman can't do just as well, you just have to find the right woman.

I think Cindy McCain could be a GM in no time flat, but she ain't interested. That GM woman is out there somewhere, maybe she just isn't shooting. I actually think Jessie or Julie will make GM some day, can't believe Lisa, Athena, or Kay hasn't made it yet.

[kgunz11]

In short, I suspect testosterone level is the answer [snip]

Sounds like we have an experiment in the making....there's no pee test in USPSA/IPSC yet is there?

10.7.2 USPSA considers the abuse of alcoholic products, non-prescription and

non-essential drugs and the use of illegal or performance enhancing

drugs, irrespective of how they are taken or administered, to be an

extremely serious offense.

10.7.3 Except when used for medicinal purposes, competitors and officials at

matches must not be affected by drugs (including alcohol) of any sort

during matches. Any person, who in the opinion of the Range Master

is visibly under the influence of any of the items described herein, will

be disqualified from the match and may be required to leave the range.

10.7.4 USPSA reserves the right to prohibit any general or specific substances

and to introduce tests for the presence of these substances at any time.

[XRe]

In short, I suspect testosterone level is the answer [snip]

Sounds like we have an experiment in the making....there's no pee test in USPSA/IPSC yet is there?

Why would you need a pee test? Its well established that men have higher testosterone levels than women, and the effects of testosterone upon the body are also quite well documented... Now, of course, supplementing testosterone might change that, but it changes other... things... too....