Women in Shooting
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
tim@tcs
Well-Known Member
Precisely which is why declaring it a problem that we all must change is pretty silly and simplistic!
Without accurate statistics it’s just guesswork and a poor example of using statistics to justify expending resources on a problem that may not really be a problem!
Short of forcing people to certificate isn’t going to work and as a shooting organisation getting more people shooting should be important but use a better metric!
Perhaps a survey of clubs or other grassroots groups could help identify those who shoot casually and encourage them to get more involved? Or perhaps the fact that they don’t have to certificate means they’re more likely to shoot a few times a year than play golf or join a gym?
I think it's quite evident, in fact that is why things like the ladies stalking group on fb was created I believe from previous posts
Take this forum for a sample, majority are men, plenty of threads end up with sexist/homophobic/biggoted comments that I'm sure do nothing to encourage anyone of any other group to feel like they can participate
tim@tcs
Well-Known Member
What is?
like minds attract each other, nothing new there!
Perhaps your view of other’s interactions or perhaps you could be more tolerant of others and their sense of humour instead of taking offence?
a bit of a broad brush statement, the internet is reasonably anonymous and I know only a handful on here personally, they may be men but as we aren’t required to state our gender to register it’s a moot point.
If the language on here is too robust then may I suggest you don’t visit the rest of the internet as this place is robustly moderated!
We are better than this:
K
K
Never said I was offended and those that have met me I'm sure know I'm not easily offended but this isn't about me, this is about bringing others into the fold
It is quite evident there are more men in shooting that women and if you find that hard to believe maybe make a poll to gauge
Like it or not the younger generation are more focused on these things and are the future of something we hold in high regard. To ignore that is to alienate and in turn do a disservice to it
tim@tcs
Well-Known Member
At last I bang on long enough and it sinks in
the reality is perception and that can only be altered by exposure and experience!
The average snowflake holds no interest for me, if they want to believe what they see on TikTok then fine. Fortunately there are plenty who don’t follow the herd!
Nothing has sunk in as I'm quite happy with the data provided by basc, which I'm afraid to say is more robust than that of a single club
That's all well and good and everyone is entitled to their own opinion its no-ones job to change that for you and irl respect yours as I'm sure you do mine
Those people that see things on tiktok, those snowflakes or the townies buying up plots of the countryside are the ones that will ultimately determine what shooting in this country looks like in the future.
As an aside, I'm due to take my brother in law and his new girlfriend to the clay ground on Sunday. Her dad is a shooting man but very much shoots with the boys so she hasn't had exposure to it and wants to try it out, that to me drums home the point that (albeit a singular sample) there is a lack of exposure unless someone digs for it
I do have to ask, why are you so against it?
tim@tcs
Well-Known Member
Statistics are the answer, now what was the question?
My whole point is that you accept BASC stats knowing that you are about to rubbish them;
They will be shooting under an exemption and you have already stated that they aren’t alien to shooting having family involvement!
BASC want to spend money (not mine) to do what you are already doing for free!
Perhaps the young shots of the future supported by our organisations should come from less privileged backgrounds both rural and urban!
I can thank the ACF for getting me into shooting some forty plus years ago. Perhaps BASC could try and attract those that may enjoy shooting but don’t fancy the marching up and down bit! Perhaps it would work?
The stats we have so far are those presented regarding certificates, while it won't be the full picture it is certainly a start
Your right they aren't alien to it but have not been involved, they will hopefully enjoy, tell their friend group it was great fun and in turn get others to try. The fact remains without exposing people to it your risk losing it. I agree about other ways of entry, I got into it through air cadets and shooting an air rifle with my dad and brothers. Not everyone will go that route either, this is something that should he tackled from all directions, if that means spending some membership money to encourage a particular group then its well worth a go
Anyway that's my thoughts and appreciate you taking the time to reply over the course of this
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Nobody is "forcing people to jump through the licensing hoop". The OP seems well forgotten now. Here it is again for perspective:
Redressing the balance
BASC Ladies Shooting events were rebranded to Women in Shooting events to modernise our language and align shooting with other sports.
basc.org.uk
As regards young people, last year BASC staff and volunteers had face to face engagement reaching 45,141 young people for its Back to School programme which included wild food tasting - a key element in promoting shooting. That was up from 31,776 young people the year previous. BASC coaches, who are volunteers, introduce thousands of young people to shooting - that number goes up significantly when we attend international scout jamborees.
tim@tcs
Well-Known Member
You can do better than that! Banging on about something mentioned as a consequence of a worst case is pretty poor!
Yes BASC does lots in youth and schools and this is frankly where the help should go!
If the numbers used to form policy are flawed or incomplete then the policy is hardly an informed one.
Using such numbers to beat a drum demanding that we must welcome the word salad brigade into our world is a bit off! Gender dismorphia is a recognised mental illness and therefore we certainly shouldn’t be spending money on asking them to take part in a sport as that would possibly be breaking the law and at least endangering the very exemptions we need and use to encourage new shooters!
Be careful what you wish for!
that was me. so i joined a rifle and pistol club.
I can't believe we are ignoring the M people.
Why can't more neuro diverse people be encouraged into our wonderful sport . ? It keeps me sane .
It's segregation and a disgrace. The bloke next door is a nutter and he's only got a crossbow and a compound bow. He's always saying he'd like to kill some stuff.
Why can't more neuro diverse people be encouraged into our wonderful sport . ? It keeps me sane .
It's segregation and a disgrace. The bloke next door is a nutter and he's only got a crossbow and a compound bow. He's always saying he'd like to kill some stuff.
I would like to know where you get your evidence of women being better shooters physiologically, and being better fighter pilots and even more why you think they multitask better than men.
I remember years back reading the multitasking was a myth.
I would say were all fairly equal but of all the people I have taught to shoot, women tend to be less confident with higher calibres and struggled with the weight of the gun
Modern neuroscience. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying women are somehow "equal" to men. They're not...they're different. Just like men can recruit nearly 100% of their motor units when exercising "strength", and women can "only" recruit roughly 80-85% of their motor units. In one view (sheer strength) they are weaker than men. But if you ask a man to pull 85% of his full capability...he can only still do that for maybe 7-8 reps before his muscles fatigue and he has to rest. A women can pull 85% of her max lift for (IIRC) something like 15 reps. Much of this phenomenon is accredited to female adaptation to child birth., and the evolutionary adaptation to successfully deal with labor contractions over long periods of time.
The comparisons between the sexes are extremely contextual. I've been instructing people how to shoot for the last, oh, I don't know...20 years. Many of those years were an actual paying profession. That's where my evidence comes from, along with reading medical journals regarding physiological differences between the sexes at a neurological level. As well as seeing them, day in, and day out, on the range. With novice as well as accomplished shooters of both sexes.
Men are very good, in fact, overwhelmingly good, at physical combat. What they are not good at is multi-tasking under stress. Men tend to lock onto a target/task and beat it into submission (evolution again). Women don't have that singular focus of mind, which in a primal sense is a disadvantage. But guess what? Many of the things we do today are not primal. We are not picking up a rock, and beating someone's skull in. We are using complicated tools. These tools require processing a lot of information in a short amount of time, from a (often times) variety of sources. In those cases, women often beat their male counterparts. It's not some woke bull****. It's physiology. I'm not here to justify or support the "I am woman, hear me roar" BS. Rather, I am just saying, that in certain circumstances, with certain tools, women actually perform better, on average, than their male counterparts. Don't get me wrong, there are retards in both genders, but to make some blanket general statement that women are somehow inferior to men, is just sheer arrogance. In the case of shooting, there are a lot of things going on, in the short amount of time a shooter has to take a shot. Women tend to excel in that environment. It isn't prolifically demonstrated because....duh, there are that many female shooters. But I have seen it. Time and time and time again.
As to the fighter pilot comment....<chuckle> you better look around. There are MANY accomplished female fighter pilots, and for the very reasons I've just explained. Some of those studies I read, were BECAUSE they showed performances that were (heretofore) seen as outliers. So, the neurologists got interested, and started testing things. Now, can a woman take as many high G's? Look at their physical composition. Women carry more muscle mass in the buttocks and legs (again, largely believed to be related to evolutionary adaptations to child birth). This means they care more blood in the lower body, so struggle more with G force pushing blood from the skulls, down into their lower extremities. But when it comes to processing multiple fast moving, incoming targets, selecting the appropriate responses, appropriate weapons for engagement, and coordinating with their fellow pilots, they tend to excel well beyond their male counterparts. Sorry, but that's just documented fact. Ever notice that most AWACS/AEW aircrew are mostly women? There's a reason that happens (though, God help their husbands; I'm sure they get used to crisp, automatic commands, and obedience, as they manage an airspace full of aircraft).
As I said, everything in based on context. This isn't about one gender being better than the other. It's about knowing how to put round pegs in round holes, and square pegs in square holes. Bringing gender into it is a fool's errand. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to tell you other than, we're just not going agree on much. And this is coming from a guy who spent most of his formative years in the US Marines; the world's biggest warrior culture in existence. Even there, we have come to understand where women perform well (and often times better than males) and where they don't. Gender doesn't matter. Mission accomplishment does. Round peg, round hole. Square peg, square hole. Whatever it takes to use the least amount of resources to crush the enemy, while limiting the amount of casualties/damage we take. Gender doesn't matter when it comes to making those decisions, so long as you understand when gender DOES matter. Or is at least a likely factor to consider, when weighing what is the best peg for that hole.
Q: "What's your gender?"
A: "Nobody cares. Work harder."
Keep going - doing the right thing is often unpopular, but it doesn’t stop it being right. At least we are talking about it, so thanks for bringing the issue up. The discomfort many feel about various aspects of the debate, is theirs to deal with. I’m happy to encourage anyone and every one into our shooting sports provided they are safe.Nobody is "forcing people to jump through the licensing hoop". The OP seems well forgotten now. Here it is again for perspective:
Redressing the balance
BASC Ladies Shooting events were rebranded to Women in Shooting events to modernise our language and align shooting with other sports.
As regards young people, last year BASC staff and volunteers had face to face engagement reaching 45,141 young people for its Back to School programme which included wild food tasting - a key element in promoting shooting. That was up from 31,776 young people the year previous. BASC coaches, who are volunteers, introduce thousands of young people to shooting - that number goes up significantly when we attend international scout jamborees.
Similar threads
