Ladies category and sexism

[Vince Pinto]

Nik,

Obviously you haven't seen the documentary "Junior" ................. Huh? What's that?? It was only a movie ???????

OK, lemme try that one more time, with feeling:

Lady - a person who was female at birth

[xsrdx]

My point...again...there is no reason that a woman can't shoot as well as a man

What evidence do you have to support that? The truth cannot be sexist, and right now the truth is women cannot compete with men at the top levels of this sport.

Why not? Surely a number of complex factors, none of which mean that women are "inferior". Physiology is likely only one component, along with environment, background, disposition, attitude, etc. that predispose men to be able to outperform women.

Auto racing has a similar issue. Few women have the background and skills necessary to compete at the top levels of most auto racing. Drag racing can be an exception, but even there, men dominate the sport.

Physical strength is probably NOT the determining factor in that sport either, but the evidence is that men have more highly developed hand-eye coordination, spatial reasoning, and react to sensory inputs slightly faster than women.

Environment plays a role, family, conditioning, psychological factors, etc. but the bottom line is that your assertion of "no reason" isn't supported by fact.

Women and men are different, and excel in different areas. Allowing women to compete directly against each other in a separate class does not limit our sport, or degrade their accomplishment, in any way.

[Wakal]

Actually, women (on average) have better hand-eye coordination...according to a study done by our pals in Israel who were researching the issue of women in combat (and female fighter pilots in particular). They also found that women have a higher pain threshhold and a greater resistance to G-force, which is rather irrelevant to the discussion but still interesting.

And...thank you for making my main point for me (again).

Physiology is likely only one component, along with environment, background, disposition, attitude, etc. that predispose men to be able to outperform women.

The physiology component has already been (ahem) shot down, since equipment is tailored to the shooter's taste (destroying the "guns are proportionally heavier" and "women have (generally) weak upper bodies" theories) and there is no bonus or special treatment for small or weak men (the "women are smaller and weaker and thus must be treated better because they are small and weak" arguement).

My point is that by coddling women by giving them top-level recognition for substandard performance insulates them from real competition. As you said, attitude and disposition...if you don't have to really win to win, as it were, why bother?

If all you have to ever do, for example, is to win "A", then why bother competing with "M" or "GM" shooters? If top "A" gives you the international recognition, why bother ever improving over that level and playing with the masters or grandmasters? If the sport continues to reward 59th place with the same level of recognition as 1st, then why be first?

And setting up that sort of program is tactly saying that a substandard performance level is the best that can be expected from female competitors. That isn't right.

Alex

[SiG Lady]

"...insulates them from real competition." (Wakal)

...Which is why my failures (if that's the correct word) during league action are so painful--or my successes so sweet!!--because I'm out there in the storm with EVERYone, especially with this preponderance of male A-Class hotshots... beating the crap outa me... but teaching me things all the while. SiG Lady has NEVER been insulated at my local range (which is why I'm bruised and battered 'n burnt on occasion), but I'm not sure I'm supposed to be (or want to be) coddled, either.

[xsrdx]

Actually, women (on average) have better hand-eye coordination

IDF studies notwithstanding (source?) this is simply not true, especially when it comes to "seeing" and executing.

Studies have found that top level racers - men - generally require less time to "see" and interpret visual problems correctly, and are quicker at predicting and executing the proper motor/muscle response to compensate or adapt. This obviously has a direct relationship to practical shooting.

From a practical standpoint, how do you explain male domination of sports like shooting, auto racing, pool, bowling, etc. where strength is at best a secondary requirement?

Your point remains flawed.

[xsrdx]

And setting up that sort of program is tactly saying that a substandard performance level is the best that can be expected from female competitors.

If women are doing THE BEST THEY CAN - and I doubt you'll find one who says otherwise - how is this any different from classification?

Just because I win "B" class, darn sure doesn't mean I'm not motivated to win overall. Does having a "B" class, or C, or D, promote mediocrity?

Simply put, a "ladies" category encourages women to compete, and that's a good thing for our sport. If/when they start beating (top ranked) male shooters regularly, the category should be eliminated.

Your assumption that men and women are identical for the purposes of playing this game is at odds with the reality that men and women ARE NOT the same, thank goodness.

[tightloop]

If Wakal is correct about an A class woman being content to win High Lady and not striving to attain M or GM status, does that mean that the entire classification system promotes mediocrity? Would it be better if we all shot heads up, and let the better person win, and to hell with all the lesser awards.

That is what we used to do in the "olden days". Didn't bother me then, wouldn't bother me now. Be a whole lot simpler.

[xsrdx]

Didn't bother me then, wouldn't bother me now. Be a whole lot simpler.

"May the best person win".

Wouldn't change much for me, as long as I know my % vs. the top shooters, I could care less what "class" I'm in I suppose.

But I'd expect the sport would become a footnote in history pretty quickly, dwindling to the 25 people with an actual chance at winning and the other 25 who don't mind never winning anything.

Classification gives everyone the opportunity to measure themselves, and their progress, against others of roughly equal skill and/or development.

Finishing first among the mediocre may be false encouragement, but it's encouragement nonetheless.

[sfinney]

"May the best person win". 

"Finishing first among the mediocre may be false encouragement, but it's encouragement nonetheless."

RANT MODE ON:

You just made the point yourself, being first among a certain sub-set of non-winners, promotes mediocrity - how many C and B shooters do you see out there year after year, never moving up in class, and being JUST competitive enough to win a plaque or prize? The truely motivated shooters tend to move up to higher classes, even if they know they can't be as competitive at that level. The increases in competiviness of their new class should be the impetus to train, and work harder, so that maybe someday thay CAN compete in the harder class - not cruising in the class that you are comfortable with, where you know you can win.

By your logic, no one would ever want to advance in class, because they aren't assured of "winning" at the next level.

I'd rather be 15th overall - 4th A, than 30th overall and 1st B. Trying to be 1st B when you could be more, is just Bracket Racing.

Whether we're talking Lady, or Classes, its all the same, lets compete heads up for true results. If we want to award plaques as recognition for each category or Class, fine... but keep it at that. Any prize table, or cash, should go on overall placement, or we just promote stagnation of skill levels in the sport.

Using my example above, why should 1st B win a gun, when 4th A whippped his/her butt? If you are trying to award the lower class shooters with merchandise so they will be motivated to show up, try a raffle, that way it fair for everyone, not just the sandbaggers.

RANT MODE OFF:

[xsrdx]

You just made the point yourself, being first among a certain sub-set of non-winners, promotes mediocrity

Not necessarily - being first A, or second B, this week when you were third A, or fourth B, two months ago is measurable progress that you wouldn't necessarily be able to see without classification.

I understand the gripes about sandbaggers, but eliminating classification and shooting heads up isn't the right answer.

This is sounding more like a prize table discussion. If goodies are the issue, remove the incentive to SANDBAG by only awarding the goodies to the top shooters.

Otherwise, leave the classification system alone. Eliminating an effective means of measuring development in the sport is not a solution. It's no different than a golf handicap - a measure of progress.

[tightloop]

My point exactly. When you go to a match at the highest classification in any division, fully 95% of the others in that division are just taking up oxygen as far as becoming HOA is concerned. If that pleases them, fine. Not everyone wants to put forth the effort to be GM and HOA.

But assuming everyone has the same opportunity to train, practice and improve during the year, I don't see why someone who spends 5 hours a month and spends 100 bucks each month should get the same recognition, awards as someone who spends 80 hours each month and many hundreds of dollars. Who was it who said, "to the winner, go the spoils"?

For instance, when Ross Seyfried won the US Championship in '81 and

I finished 79th out of 305 it just made me want to work harder and longer so I could win next yr.

We won't discuss my trend line in subsequent yrs, but you get the intent. I felt better saying I finished 79th than telling my buds that I had snagged the National D Class Championship.

[SiG Lady]

"...why should 1st B win a gun, when 4th A whippped his/her butt?" (shooter40)

This is pretty much why I feel uncomfortable with the Lewis System of scoring.

[xsrdx]

Assuming women have the same innate ability as men with respect to this sport is misguided, and remains unproven by example. To assume equal ability, while women have yet to achieve HOA parity with men, is to imply that women haven't been trying "hard enough" - a contention likely to meet with some disagreement.

Unless and until that assumption becomes fact - i.e, when we get a female HOA at a National match - it only makes sense to have a "Ladies" category if we expect women to participate in this sport.

Women should be recognized with separate awards, prizes and recognition within this category if we expect women to continue competing, just like LEO, military, etc.

As to awarding prizes to competitors IN GENERAL, to the victor go the spoils. Certainly, awarding a top level prize for 25th place (1st B!) while 8th (4th M!) place gets nada is a disincentive to improvement.