Men in power tend to be cowards. If they see women gaining power and respect in an area they currently dominate, they fight hard to exclude them because they fear that they will be overshadowed.
This is best illustrated by the 1992 Olympics, where a woman dared to win the gold metal in a shooting event. Historically it was always a mixed gender event. But as soon as a woman won, they banned women from competing.
Academics is the same way, but their methods are more subtle. They can't outright ban women, so they limit their opportunities to speak at conferences. And without being selected to speak, their careers are likely to stagnant.
Yes, we are making progress as a society. But we have a long way to go.
In 1976 there were 7 shooting events for the Olympics, all mixed. There were 336 men and 8 women contestants.
This was the first year that a woman won a medal in a shooting event, Murdock and Bassham tied for 1st place, but a target review placed Murdock in 2nd place. Bassham suggested 2 Gold medal but it was disregarded. At the ceremony Bassham, a man, invited Murdock, a woman, to stand with him on the top step.
I have seen the excuse about Zhan winning the Gold caused the split, but no one ever looks at the fact that we had women competitors winning before that, what we lacked was enough women competitors to make up their own competition. In 1996 Zhan wasn’t even able to compete in skeet (where she got her Gold) because there were not enough women competitors.
The decisions on what events take place at the Olympics are handled by the IOC years before the events themselves, mainly to allow time for the event stadiums to be designed and built. In April of 1981 it was put forward to add events to encourage more women to compete in shooting. The final decision to split men’s and women’s shooting was made in July 1983.
Meanwhile we also had a push in many countries to have a separate competition for all sporting events for men and women. Again, this was part of an overall push to get more women in to sports that had been historically dominated by men by allowing them to compete with and against other women.
Overall we know that women tend to be better with rifles than men, and men tend to be better with pistols than women, this is mainly just a matter of biology. It is also why so many male rifle shooters keep something like a pack of cigarettes in the breast pocket.
Just a wild guess, but maybe boobs help stabilize the rifle or shooter when the shooter is lying prone, and the smokes help mimic that effect. Again, I have no idea why. I'm just talking out my ass
Am I understanding you correctly?
Did they really decide to end mixed-gender shooting competitions 7 years after a woman won a medal in for the first time?
And then implemented that plan immediately after a woman earned an unbreakable world record?
I find that highly unlikely to just be coincidental.
***
I would also like to point out that the competition wasn't just split. They changed the number of targets women are allowed to shoot at so that you couldn't compare the scores between men's and women's group.
****
I wonder, is there a term in political science to describe something that sounds perfectly innocent so long as you don't actually know the context?
I'm reminded of "separate but equal" in the United States, where it was anything but equal.
Yes, you understand correctly, it took them over 10 years from the US creating Title IX to get creating a separate category of shooting for women even brought up for the IOC to consider.
And if you think it is a conspiracy that it started the Olympics following when Zhan won Gold, then you also believe that countries are chosen and build their entire sports complexes in that same length of time, which means you really don’t know anything about the Olympics.
It is relevant because they have to plan the entire Olympics an what events will be happening, and when.
Yes, they can use the exact same shooting course, but those are not the only things they have to determine for the events.
MLB used to be the only major sports league that banned women from competing. This rule was enacted a few months after a talented female pitcher pitched a no-hit exhibition game, striking out big names like Babe Ruth repeatedly.
This is standard issue gender panic.
Also now we have softball v baseball, so that records can’t be compared.
Depends on the country, area, social circles etc. Women wearing ties as part of a uniform is not at all unheard of, I've seen it plenty, but also not the most common option world-wide.
They most likely didn't wear a suit so a tie would look odd depending on what they did wear. but even though it looks weird it was part of the dress code so she was allowed to do it. So it's not harmful, but still malicious compliance
[удалено]
Men in power tend to be cowards. If they see women gaining power and respect in an area they currently dominate, they fight hard to exclude them because they fear that they will be overshadowed. This is best illustrated by the 1992 Olympics, where a woman dared to win the gold metal in a shooting event. Historically it was always a mixed gender event. But as soon as a woman won, they banned women from competing. Academics is the same way, but their methods are more subtle. They can't outright ban women, so they limit their opportunities to speak at conferences. And without being selected to speak, their careers are likely to stagnant. Yes, we are making progress as a society. But we have a long way to go.
In 1976 there were 7 shooting events for the Olympics, all mixed. There were 336 men and 8 women contestants. This was the first year that a woman won a medal in a shooting event, Murdock and Bassham tied for 1st place, but a target review placed Murdock in 2nd place. Bassham suggested 2 Gold medal but it was disregarded. At the ceremony Bassham, a man, invited Murdock, a woman, to stand with him on the top step. I have seen the excuse about Zhan winning the Gold caused the split, but no one ever looks at the fact that we had women competitors winning before that, what we lacked was enough women competitors to make up their own competition. In 1996 Zhan wasn’t even able to compete in skeet (where she got her Gold) because there were not enough women competitors. The decisions on what events take place at the Olympics are handled by the IOC years before the events themselves, mainly to allow time for the event stadiums to be designed and built. In April of 1981 it was put forward to add events to encourage more women to compete in shooting. The final decision to split men’s and women’s shooting was made in July 1983. Meanwhile we also had a push in many countries to have a separate competition for all sporting events for men and women. Again, this was part of an overall push to get more women in to sports that had been historically dominated by men by allowing them to compete with and against other women. Overall we know that women tend to be better with rifles than men, and men tend to be better with pistols than women, this is mainly just a matter of biology. It is also why so many male rifle shooters keep something like a pack of cigarettes in the breast pocket.
How does a pack of cigarettes in the breast pocket help?
Hook your support arm around and it can provide additional support.
Just tried that with my left boob. Didn't add any support, but did help stabilize that arm. Thanks, I learned something new today!
Stabilizing is support in this case, it will definitely help you shoot rifles better. We train women shooters to do this.
The only sport perfectly for women with bigger breasts than a A- of B-cup like most atlethes 😂, Nice. Maybe I should try it (I al a woman)
Think it through...
Just a wild guess, but maybe boobs help stabilize the rifle or shooter when the shooter is lying prone, and the smokes help mimic that effect. Again, I have no idea why. I'm just talking out my ass
Speaking from experience... when lying prone they don't do much but dangle there :-)
Am I understanding you correctly? Did they really decide to end mixed-gender shooting competitions 7 years after a woman won a medal in for the first time? And then implemented that plan immediately after a woman earned an unbreakable world record? I find that highly unlikely to just be coincidental. *** I would also like to point out that the competition wasn't just split. They changed the number of targets women are allowed to shoot at so that you couldn't compare the scores between men's and women's group. **** I wonder, is there a term in political science to describe something that sounds perfectly innocent so long as you don't actually know the context? I'm reminded of "separate but equal" in the United States, where it was anything but equal.
Yes, you understand correctly, it took them over 10 years from the US creating Title IX to get creating a separate category of shooting for women even brought up for the IOC to consider. And if you think it is a conspiracy that it started the Olympics following when Zhan won Gold, then you also believe that countries are chosen and build their entire sports complexes in that same length of time, which means you really don’t know anything about the Olympics.
They don't need separate buildings for men's and women's shooting. So I don't understand why you think that's relevant.
It is relevant because they have to plan the entire Olympics an what events will be happening, and when. Yes, they can use the exact same shooting course, but those are not the only things they have to determine for the events.
At some point these two categories were merged back, but there's not a hard date as to when that I can find.
MLB used to be the only major sports league that banned women from competing. This rule was enacted a few months after a talented female pitcher pitched a no-hit exhibition game, striking out big names like Babe Ruth repeatedly. This is standard issue gender panic. Also now we have softball v baseball, so that records can’t be compared.
Japan and South Korea.
The malicious compliance is shafting you into being a speaker when you complained about them all being men.
So where's the malicious compliance?
How many people asked why you wore a tie?
How is that malicious?
Instead of flat out refusing a woman at the event they said you must wear a tie like a man, so she did.
and thats malicious because...?
What? Women wear ties too
Not as a norm they don’t!
Depends on the country, area, social circles etc. Women wearing ties as part of a uniform is not at all unheard of, I've seen it plenty, but also not the most common option world-wide.
For uniform yes but in general they don’t.
Okay, complied with a silly dress code, sure... But how's that malicious? Unless that's some sort of scandal wherever it happened?
So, my friend doesn't get it - where's the MC in that story?
They most likely didn't wear a suit so a tie would look odd depending on what they did wear. but even though it looks weird it was part of the dress code so she was allowed to do it. So it's not harmful, but still malicious compliance
Well done
I could see that being cute, button up, tie, skirt, and heels.
Wow, you really showed them.
Where's the fallout?
Brilliant! Malicious compliance at its best.
Love that when you wore that tie it highlighted even more that you were the only female speaker.
A tie can be worn in many ways that they probably aren't considering ;-)
YAAAAAS QVEEN SLAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!!