Recently, it has come to my attention — amazement might be a better word — that there are some well known personalities within the USPSA/IPSC community who are trying to eliminate or at least discredit the High Lady title at major matches.
Look, I admit it: I happen to like girls. I have ever since the fourth grade when I saw Dana Stein in her red satin jacket roller skating past my house. Heck, I even married one of them! So yeah, I’m biased. But my weird bias aside, it still makes sense to recognize top women competitors.
There are two obvious reasons to award High Lady at matches. First, it encourages more women to participate. I know, right? Like, who wants to increase membership and participation in the shooting sports? That’s just crazy talk. While we’re at it, we should get rid of High Military, High Law Enforcement, High Senior, High Junior… I mean, if everyone should compete on an even level, why recognize those other categories? All they do is bring in more people, more revenue, and more publicity to USPSA which in turn makes it a more powerful organization representing shooters across the country. Nobody wants that!
Second — and warning, this may be NSFW! — girls are physically different than boys. I don’t want to give away any spoilers for the guys in Sedro Woolley who haven’t discovered this themselves yet, but trust me, it’s true. And apart from the differences that most often occupy men’s minds, there are some key things that actually matter when it comes to an action shooting sport like USPSA. Human females as compared to males have on average shorter arms, shorter legs, smaller hands, less body mass, and less upper body strength. How does that matter?
Notice that in the Olympics, women and men are separated for running events all the way from the 100m sprint to the 10,000m. That’s because some of those physical differences I mentioned add up to a big advantage for guys when running. And if you’ve never been to a major USPSA match, trust me, there is a lot of running. It may happen in short bursts, but a typical field course can easily have 20+ yards of movement. In a game where winners are determined by hundredths of a second, being even just a little faster is a big advantage. There’s also the simple fact that things like hand size, body mass, and upper body strength play a role in recoil control. The next time you find yourself amongst a group of USPSA Grand Masters, take a close look. I’ll bet you that most of them are taller, more muscular, and have bigger hands than the top females in the sport. That equals a competitive advantage that women cannot overcome simply by working harder.
Even if all that wasn’t reason enough, here’s the real kicker: How many major USPSA High Overall titles have been won by women? If guys don’t have a competitive advantage, you’d think there’d be at least some. But alas, no. Even though the top women competitors in the sport (a) spend just as much time practicing, (b) spend just as much time working out, (c) have just as much competition experience, and (d) get just as good gear and sponsor support, they aren’t beating the top male competitors in the sport. Seriously, you may need to get one of these.
I’m not even sure why guys would get upset about High Lady in the first place. I can only assume that certain people used to get bullied by those big mean girls in junior high…
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
(R.I.P. Adam Yauch)
Seriously? Do you need it spelled out or would you like to re-read the discussion and see if you can figure it out?
The way I read all the posts the most compelling argument is that “Lady” is a category like “Law, Junior, Senior” per USPSA rules but “Lady” is given different treatment than the other “categories” and the high lady is declared the -Women’s National Champion-; even though USPSA rules really don’t mention such a thing?? And there is no such thing as the USPSA Junior National Champion or LEO National Champion or Senior National Champion and the argument lies with why is one category treated so differently???…. If these are the facts I think the discussion should revolve around changing the rules to officially declare a Women’s National Champion, Junior National Champion, LEO National Champ, Senior, etc…..
Matt – factually that’s the crux of it.
However, the original blog post made it seem like certain people within USPSA want to completely get rid of the High Lady award. There has been no evidence presented to support that claim.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that there was someone who didn’t want there to be a high lady award. Well guess what – there are also people who don’t like it that Production gets any awards, or that anyone in C class gets an award. There are people who think USPSA evolution should have stopped back when everyone was using a single stack 1911 with a big scope on top shooting 38 Super at 175 power factor and drawing out of a leather race holster, when Open was the only division and there was no classification system. The point is there are dinosaurs wandering about, but it’s not like they’re still relevant or have anything valid to say.
Andy — I’m not sure why this continues to be such an difficulty for you. Not every conversion on Earth occurs on the internet.
Go ahead and spell it out for me, Andy.
Spell out why there the fact there are no female grandbaggers is relevant to which titles USPSA bestows on women shooters.
Todd,
You publicly posted a rant in which to took to task certain elements within USPSA. You sort of opened to door to questions like:
Who are you talking about?
What exactly did they say?
You of course can refuse to answer those questions, but those questions are pretty much inevitable when you post something like you did. It seems to me that you should have anticipated somebody asking you to clarify…. Especially when nothing was publicly said about this. I happen to know more than a few “high profile personalities” within USPSA and I don’t know anyone that outright wants to do away with the High Lady awards. I am not accusing you of making anything up, but I am saying that you opened the door to people like Andy asking you some questions and it is strange that you wouldn’t answer them. If you don’t feel comfortable “naming names” publicly you could at least PM him.
bobsineaa:
Read one post above mine where I complimented Julie et al for not grandbagging.
Julie said she was sad to report that there are no female USPSA GMs. My point was that there is no reason to be sad because any of the women I mentioned (plus a bunch of others like Carina Randolph, Lisa Munson, too many to name them all, really) COULD be GMs if they simply grandbagged. The fact that they haven’t is a testament to them.
Note that Julie didn’t lament that women don’t compete at the level of the top GMs, she simply said she was sad that no women held GM cards. Get it now?
So there you have it. I was simply responding to a point Julie made in her heart-felt comment in this discussion.
Ben, yes, Todd eludes to things and does not name names or manufacturers or whatever. If you would prefer you could simply not get any information. Would you prefer that?
Some people through the virtue of their profession have connections in a small field that gives them insights or information that others dont. Their judicious use of that information allows those without said connections to gain some insight into trends, actions and issues. Would I prefer to know everything Todd knows? Sure, but that just isnt going to happen. A person with contacts who just posts EVERYTHING on a webpage for the world doesnt have contacts for long. Then their webpage becomes boring.
As to some others on this comment stream, it is about impossible to have a rational conversation on this topic. I say this comment section should be locked.
Chem,
Once again, in case you missed it the last time I posted it: Todd can answer or not answer questions at his discretion. Todd is in no way obligated to answer to Andy or me or anyone else.
You are correct Ben, my bad.
Ben — If you don’t feel comfortable “naming names” publicly you could at least PM him.
Since this obviously wasn’t clear any of the other times, let me be concrete: I consider sending a PM to someone I’ve never met before “public.” While you may think it’s strange that I wish to keep certain confidences, that’s on you. To be brutally honest, whether you or Andy choose to believe me is irrelevant to my further enjoyment of life.
I do not want to end this discussion because I think all sides have valid things to say regarding the subject itself. However, all future meta-discussions about what wasn’t said in the original post will be deleted without comment.
Julie,
I haven’t shot much myself, but I did have a chance to attend nationals as a spectator. I asked how the squads were chosen and the RO told me it was according to ability so that the squad members would push one another. I asked why all of the women were on the same squad, and he appeared offended. The women cannot possibly all be shooting at the same ability level. If they are going to push other competitors, why aren’t they squadded with their class?
I also noticed the way some of the men were telling the women what an amazing run they had when if the same man would have had that run they would have been devastated. I am the kind of person who wants to hear it how it is, I don’t want things sugar-coated for me. The men are setting the expectation for the women that they are doing well at a much lower percentage than the men just because they are a girl. I have found this infuriating at the few local matches I have attended. It may have something to do with the reason there are no female GM’s, the women are complacent and expected to perform at a lesser level than the men…in addition to a small sample size of women.
When I was a soldier, I had the chance to go on pass if I got a certain high score on my PT test. I got the high score, but it was on the female scoring system. I was granted the pass, but did not take it because I did not feel that I deserved it after only doing better than some of the girls. This is the standard I hold myself to. I stayed on base, worked my butt off and got the high score on the men’s PT test the next month. If others want to hold themselves to the standard that beating two other women is good enough to accept an award for or say that they won the National Title after winning the ladies title, that is their perogative. I understand that you feel you need the trophy for marketing reasons, but it’s what you do with it after it is accepted that makes the difference. I accepted the PT award in front of my Drill Sgt and 4 platoons and I never sewed it on to my uniform.
Kita,
This isn’t about you or what standards you perceive to hold yourself to. This is about the sport and its continued development, especially in the women’s market.
The High Lady title may mean “beat 3 women” right now but that doesn’t mean that some day enough women will be involved in the sport that the title holds much more meaning than that. That doesn’t necessarily mean it will ever be the same as “Overall Champion”, although in MANY sports there are both Men and Women’s divisions and a Gold Medal in either is still a Gold Medal.
I can respect that you don’t want to recognize such titles and would rather hold yourself to a better standard, but that’s no reason to demean those who would use the titles for the betterment of the sport. The “marketing” that women like Julie and Jessie do when they win these titles helps bring more women into the sport, growing both our demographic and the sport as a whole. I don’t see how this is in any way a bad thing.
I don’t approve of the coddling that women receive, even though I’ve been on the wrong side of it. But the coddling is also tied to the small number of women who shoot the matches, no one wants to “scare” us a way. Recognizing the Women’s Division Champions helps drive women into the sport because it creates a broader recognition that this isn’t just a “man’s sport” anymore, which sadly is still a perception held by a lot of people.
There is a lot of misogyny in the sport and I more than agree with some of the points you make. Especially the way they squad women, that confuses me too. Eliminating the High Lady title and the attention that Women’s Division Champions like Julie and Jessie bring isn’t going to help though.
Shelley Rae,
I did not say anything about eliminating the High Lady title. I think that if it makes them happy, let them do what they want. I’m all for having more women in the sport, but the idea of getting a national trophy for beating 2 people does not appeal to people with integrity.
Kita
Kita — You’ve made a number of broad sweeping statements about complacency, attitude, and now the personal integrity of the women shooters who compete for these titles… all while admitting that you yourself have very limited experience competing in the same realm as them. If you wish to continue to look down your (spectator) nose at these women, that is absolutely your prerogative. But until you step up and beat them to show that all it took was “more effort” and “less coddling,” it’s just tough talk from someone who isn’t even willing to step into the arena herself.
Now that is a marketing strategy!
So the top lady at 2011 Limited Nationals took 49th overall.
What I’ve learned so far…
We are patronizing women and holding them down by not allowing them to compete against the men for the National title. I’m sure if they just applied themselves and tried harder they could compete against the top men (some of who are grandbaggers – not at all like the virtuous ladies who refuse to grandbag in the interest of achieving GM which they could do if only they tried harder).
14 ladies shot for the Limited title which is the same thing as 2 and is an embarrasment so they should just refuse the title on principle until they beat the men.
The only reason women get any sponsorship at all is because they bat their eye lashes and flash some leg. It has nothing at all to do with a company wanting to appeal to ladies by showing that girls do it too.
Having the women shoot together is a way of keeping them down and not at all an effort to allow the top women to shoot against their peers.
Now I understand the issue much better.
Are there any examples of sports where the women compete head-to-head against the men and show the men what for? I’d like to get involved in a non-sexist non-biased sport that treats women as equals.
Can we just agree the rules need to be changed and the way they’re written today; creates a little chaos. The USPSA rules cover darn near everything. There are division, categories, and class. “Lady” is a category along with Junior, Senior, Super Senior, Law, and Military. The other categories are not declared the “National Champion” like “Lady” if they are top in their category. There is no “Super Senior National Champion” or a “Military National Champion.” Well I think there should be so I think the rules ought to change. Com’on USPSA! Your quick to ruin L-10 by making it another race division; at least you can do is legitimize the recognition process 🙂
“Many, many men have spent a day reshooting classifiers to get that GM card. Julie, Jessie, Kippie, Athena, et al could certainly do the same, and it’s a credit to them that they haven’t.”
Just the facts ma’am….
Jessie was classified as MASTER when her % below the 85% requirement. There’s no need to re-shoot classifiers when the BOD hands you your M-card. Sounds like Kita would have given it back….I fully respect that.
Why is our sport doing this. Do the means justify the ends. Does affirmative action help or hurt the intended beneficiaries? A deep and timeless socialogical question for sure.
“The “marketing” that women like Julie and Jessie do when they win these titles helps bring more women into the sport, growing both our demographic and the sport as a whole” – what Shelley said.
If it wasn’t for Julie, I probably wouldn’t have become as active in this industry as I am today. She encouraged and inspired me to launch a blog/website (while it doesn’t get near the amount of responses as this one does) that enables me to share my experiences with the rest of the shooting sports industry. While I’ve got a long ways to go in regards to GM, even A, I’m proud to be part of such a dynamic group of women. As someone who has competed against ladies like Julie, Kippi, Maggie, etc., these ladies (and some of the men) don’t JUST care about winning, they care about teaching and promoting a sport.
Tom, Jessie earned her Mastercard in Limited. Her classification % is 87.19. See for yourself: http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-classifer-lookup-results.php?number=TY56769. Something tells me the BOD didn’t just add multiple 80-95% classifiers to her record.
Turns out I was wrong, she was classified a Master in the 2009 Area 6 match, when she only had one 85%+ score on record. Boy that’s odd. http://uspsa6.org/matches/2009a6combined.pdf
That’s because she didn’t earn it, she petitioned to be made a master and USPSA granted it.
Competition also brings out the worst…,
How are you so sure of that? Are the details of that transaction available somewhere public?
Speculation is useless without firsthand knowledge. On that note, I got an answer from Jessie herself who pointed out she got high A class at the 2008 GA State championships, beating out two male GMs in the process and coming within 90% of a third, which meets the requirements for a match bump. Freaking awesome if you ask me.
Ok, we’ve jumped the shark. This isn’t becoming the web’s premiere spot for dragging every detail of every female competitor’s accomplishments through the mud. If you want to discuss the arcane intricacies of the USPSA rulebook, start your own blog.
Comments closed.