Alienangel

Speaking as a 'feminist'...'equal' does not = 'the same'. Now, try saying the same thing about race and see what happens....

This is a lie perpetuated by the GOP propaganda machine, see Snopes.com. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp

At least he didn't surround himself with people like George Bush and Sarah Palin...

I thought Obama got in because of the 'liberal media elite'? Have they now become an angry mob? Do you not believe in democracy now that the people have chosen someone you don't like? How awful. Beneficial change. Heaven forbid people should have hope that this country could actually become better. The United States' election of a black president has symbolic implications, but I don't think Obama's campaign has ever promised to 'heal the divisions of racial strife'. The only parallel I see between Mandela and Obama is that one is black, and one is half black. I am sure even a poor student of history would take note that Mandela was elected as a black man in a black majority country after years of institutionalized white oppression, whereas Obama is a (half) black man in a white majority country...a significant difference? Are you comparing the ANC, a party declared by the Pentagon in the late 80s to be a terrorist organization, to the Democratic Party of the United States? LOL. Ok let's sit back and wait for Obama to bring in his homies. "Black man's taking our jobs!" Please.

How about a cocktail for you and the lovely wife instead?

Ahhh. My point exactly. Although yes, it is somewhat ironic. Perhaps should our paths cross, and the conversation come up, we can talk with real faces and no false fronts, other than the usual. I didn't mean to insult you, it was meant in jest. You are certainly nothing but tenacious, surely a great quality in a competitor. All the best

Er, nope, far from it actually.

I am always interested to hear the views of those better qualified than us on this subject (as I already said). It's a topic which has been close to my heart for some time and by no means do I 'discount' his views, in fact I'll take them into consideration and I always reserve the right to change my mind. As yet I don't concur with Chris, even though I do accept he is better qualified than I am to make an assessment. I actually said; 'I know people with averages just as big as yours (and more jumps) who disagree with that view. However it's always interesting to hear a new opinion. I would also be interested to know what you think getting rid of the Female Category would actually achieve for the benefit of the sport.' He is yet to reply to that question, although it wasn't intended to be rhetorical. I do know people of equal status in the sport who do not share Chris's opinion. Since this has been on my mind for some time, I've asked around rather than pulling it out of my butt, regardless of what you want to imply, Ron. If they want to add their comments I'm sure they will. Unfortunately for my side of the fence however, most senior players don't waste their time getting embroiled in tit-for-tat arguments between a couple of dz.commers with too much time on their hands, and I have no plans to interrupt their busy schedules to garner support. Sorry if this is driving you crazy, Ron. Next time you (or anyone else) asks my views on the matter in person I'll tell you exactly what I think, but I prefer not to attach my name to a web discussion, it can bite you on the ass for all the wrong reasons, as I'm sure you know. As it stands I'm glad to have had this friendly chat with you, it has been most interesting. You are just like a little terrier with a bone, always searching for that final, elusive piece of flesh. You haven't changed my mind quite yet, but do feel free to keep on gnawing Ciao.

I agree. But maybe you are envious of the recognition...not the trinket... You were the one who started saying 'I know a little about 4way and have done a 15+ over 10 rounds' blah blah, not me... I don't share some of your opinions but I don't hold myself up as the Oracle of skydiving...Do I have to present credentials before I can disagree with you?

But on the 4way she is now point.

Tail is known as a very aggressive, physical slot and I think you're just disagreeing because that fact contradicts your position in relation to the Women's Class.

...who came to that position having been on the US Women's team and competed in the Female Category... Anyway I thought you said you were over this? We must agree to disagree, Ron. I think top level 4way involves some degree of strength - you don't. I think the women's category improves competition, creates a greater range of role models and helps to grow the sport in many ways - you don't. I think that skydiving will be taken more seriously as a sport by the rest of the world if it keeps a Female Class - like every other sport out there - you don't. That's about it, isn't it? It can't really be proven one way or another. Why does it bug you so much? Are you not in your heart of hearts a little envious, that, while you have been plugging away at this game for years now, female teams can achieve world level recognition with a relatively poxy 15, 16 or 17 average?

What do you think Eliana and Ditta would say about having a Female Category, since they both competed in it? I'm not going to put words in people's mouths since it is in general only saddos like you and me who waste such vast amounts of webspace on anal discussions like this. Ron you are a worthy adversary, but still, I don't agree with you And by the way, you said you were done with this several days ago, and yet, here we are....

Hence the value of a COMPETITION among the top female teams in the world, then?

That thread was about bigways, not world level 4 and 8way - although I would add I have changed some of my views since that post, in part due to discussions with people who have a bit more experience than I do. I reserve the right to change my mind back again if compelling evidence leads me to do so. And even if it is the lack of NUMBERS of females that is keeping the actual level of performance lower, it is still lower - we don't know why, whether it is innate and physical (i.e. muscle) or sheer numbers. Since we don't know why, and since women's teams consistently underperform, there is a very strong case for the female category, as in all other sports in the world. No I just don't agree with you, sorry about that.

I think you're clutching at straws here. You are saying that competition, meets and recognition doesn't IN GENERAL spur teams on to train more? We might as well get rid of the Nationals and the World Meet altogether then...

is not the same as saying: My view is just as valid as yours (which I said in an earlier post). Chris obviously has more insight than both of us. And equally I have discussed the rights and wrongs of the woman's category with plenty of 20+ people who don't agree with Chris, in attempt to gain more of an educated view of my own. My discussions have lead me to my current viewpoint, which I reserve to right to change, although as yet I haven't heard a convincing enough reason to do so. There are women in most of the top teams in the world - we have NEVER seen so many women 'up there'. This is something that has happened SINCE the women's category, which again leads me to believe it is good for the sport.

I'm talking about the level at which they train. Teams train harder when the stakes are higher.

I never said that, in fact I said it was interesting to hear his views. Well, I do. Just as there are probably others who agree. The rest of your post is the same old ground we've already covered I think. I don't think taking away categories could possibly good for the sport. But I would reconsider if we saw all-female teams doing 20+ scores and genuinely competing for the top World medals. It may never happen, either because of intrinsic gender differences, or because of numbers of women in the sport. Either way I think the need for a Female class is still there, just as it is in any other sport.

I'm not really getting that. Why would there be more women in inter/ advanced? Top level females would still compete in Open at their Nationals wouldn't they? And by being there would they not encourage more women to train in Inter/ Advanced with a view to getting into Open like the role models they see there? Many countries are seeing a significant increase in all-female teams, no doubt in response to the impetus that they could become a National team if they continue to train. Why is that better than more teams of any type? Why? Surely if there are fewer goals to target (such as National selection/ winning a World Meet etc) there will be fewer people and teams training so hard? Most teams train for a specific goal so why remove some of those goals? The more prestigious the goal, the harder teams train. If anything, the sport would be better if there were more categories, more leagues, more meets, more medal winners, more role models... This is a circular argument because it presupposes that an 'artificially separated class' is a bad thing, whereas I don't think it is. And I would like to turn as fast as Joey Jones, with the aggression of Mark Kirkby and the finesse of Eliana. I don't think having a Female class or not makes any difference to who people pick as role models (it obviously hasn't to you!), other than that they are more platforms for excellence and therefore more role models to consider. This is quite a significant aspect I think, and impacts directly on the number of teams out there training hard, the number of individuals pushing their limits, the overall improvement of the quality of skydiving, the number of jumps being done at DZs, the amount of coaching work for coaches, the amount of packjobs for packers, the amount of media coverage for the sport, the range of teams whose progress it's fun to track and the number of meets worth following. I think the World Meet would lose something of value without the Women's Class and that would be a shame for everyone.

I know people with averages just as big as yours (and more jumps) who disagree with that view. However it's always interesting to hear a new opinion. I would also be interested to know what you think getting rid of the Female Category would actually achieve for the benefit of the sport. AA

Come now Ron, you live for this shit ..at a 15 average. That's not what we are talking about, we are talking about the cutting edge of the sport, at a 21, 22, 23, 24. I haven't been there, nor have you, and I am sure there are those better qualified than us to get on the bandwagon. So - I guess we should agree to differ, and I am fine with that. But you have shouted long and loud about doing away with the Female Category and, while I apologise for the hijacking of this thread, I think it's about time we talked about the other side of an argument you insist on resurrecting at every opportunity. Sorry you view it in such simplistic terms (you are pro-equality and I am not, supposedly?) - it's a little more complex than that.

Amen to that. Most men don't notice or have to deal with this themselves so some of them don't believe it is an issue. I think it is.

It's not about sex or size, it's about skill and strength. A 95 pound guy would have a higher proportion of his body weight comprised of muscle than a typical female would. So would a 250 pound guy. QED he would find it easier to move himself and anyone else around the sky than a female of the exact same weight. Bar those who have worked out to such a degree that they have transcended natural gender boundaries. (This is possible but not usual.) Hence nearly every other sport in the world having Female Categories. You talk about women needing a 'special category' in skydiving as if it's demeaning, and yet you still say that skydiving falls into a 'special category' in the realm of sports. I fail to find any sense in that.

So have you jumped on a 100% female team Ron? Nope back atcha, I think it's about strength AND skill, like pretty much every other sport out there. Go figure.