Psychology of Risk & Adventure - Skiing and Women

[altagirl]

hmmm

I don't know about that. I know my nature is to be competitive and compare myself to others. But the stress that comes along with that led me to quit racing for a season because I was so hard on myself it made it no fun at all. Getting away from that attitude at least some makes me relax and have fun and when I'm relaxed I can perform twice as well.

 

[whitewater girl]

I think HasmiF may have something...

The competitive men I know, while they may get "stressed" during competition (and can turn it back on to train), are able to turn it off & walk away when they choose..women seem to tend to carry the stress (& second guessing) with them...

 

[HasmiF]

Maybe the point is more about "competitive" than men and women.

I think altagirl's point is hitting home for me. She's competitive but I'm not. I'm stupidly competitive and critical with myself but can let go and don't need to compare myself to others.

On the other hand, my experience has been like whitewatergirl and I know lots of men who turn it on and off and they seem to perform better for it. I know one woman who is fiercely competitive from among all the women I've known my whole life.

I'm raising a son who is now 3.5 and was born competitive. He needs start and finish lines on the ski hill, he competes with his friends, himself, anyone - even the dog!. Its like his whole life is a race. Maybe its just his nature. Watching him I'd have to say there's more to your nature in being competitive than the nurturing part. I don't think we could have ever taught him to want to win so fiercely. Especially at 2.5 when this first became obvious to us!

So can I throw it out there that maybe there are fewer women who have a competitive nature or gene than men, and maybe that's why fewer are at the top?

Sexism does play a big part in it too and the way women are perceived by society as a whole. I've experienced it in the tv and film industry but not as much as I expected to. It was worse in Advertising in the 1980's. I had some of the worst bosses and still found a way to meet my goals to get around the sexist stuff that went on. Why would this not be possible for women athletes as well? If they are competitive and find a way to beat the sexism thrown at them - there should be more women at the top. Why aren't there? I have no idea but look forward to reading more thoughts from everyone.

 

[MaineSkiLady]

^^ Great point raised above! The whole "nature vs. nuture" subject has been tossed around for a very long time, with the pendulum swinging back and forth. Recent (and interesting) studies putting young toddlers (under 18 months) in a room with toys have shown that the boys instinctively go the action/motion toys, and the girls go to the comfort/soft/nuturing toys. (will cite this if necessary) So now there is consensus that "something" about us is "hard-wired" based on gender. What and how much is not known.

Or....perhaps the learning process begins MUCH sooner than previously thought!

Prior conventional wisdom was that we preferred what we were taught to prefer and behaved how we were taught/expected.

More food for thought....

 

[pinto]

I think most parents who have raised both a boy and a girl will tell you that many if not most of the gender differences are hard-wired. LOL.

I am very competitive by nature, but in the past few years, I've beaten most of it out of myself. I can kind of compete with myself, but the need to win things isn't as strong.

I can tell you exactly why I did this, too (and why women probably shouldn't be wired as competitively as men): my children. And the fact that they play competitive sports. Sitting on the sideline, helpless, while your most loved things are out on the court, field, or rink competing is really quite horrible.

I really had to detach my hatred of losing ... I can totally see why awful sideline parents go nuts sometimes. (Not defending it! At all! It's awful!) But when you have a bunch of pent-up competitive energy (because that's how you were made), you have to let it out somehow. For a while, continuing to compete myself really helped, but it wasn't enough. So I just forced myself to start believing all the things about "it doesn't matter if you win or lose" "development, not victory, is the intent" and so on and so forth.

It has not been such a good thing for my tennis game, because now I really don't care so much. And by and large much of competitiveness is not as much a love of winning as it is a hatred of losing. And once you stop hating losing, you'll lose a lot more.

But I'm a lot happier on the sidelines, and I'm a mom, not a coach. The kids already have coaches; they don't need me to do it.

 

[abc]

And once you stop hating losing, you'll lose a lot more.

So true. I'm afraid I'm one of those. Once I stop worrying about losing, I lost a lot more than "neccessary". And part of the fun of playing also gone out of it. So now I stop playing "ball" games and switched completely to non-competitive sports such as cycling/kayaing/skiing. Or I should say, sports that can be enjoyed non-competitively.

I've long realized I'm rather lacking on competitiveness. Despite being in sport since 3rd grade and doing quite well without trying too hard, I never "excel" in sport to the elite level. It wasn't till much later that I realized it's that lack of competitive "fire" that I never perform "at my best". Once or twice, I got "fired up" and did pretty amazing. But I simply couldn't turn it on out of the blue. :(

This whole business of competitiveness, of course, is a different subject than risk. Even though a lot of things have BOTH in them.

 

[pinto]

This whole business of competitiveness, of course, is a different subject than risk.

Well, I'm not so sure. I think some previous posters had interesting thoughts about the relation of the two. I know for sure that I don't have nearly the level of fear and risk avoidance as most women.

For instance, at Whistler, we were skiing in the expert group with two guides. Often there would be two different ways to enter a bowl or chute or something ... the more difficult, and the less difficult. Every time I picked the more difficult except once. And at that point, it was 1 pm, I hadn't eaten lunch, and I had struggled on the Spanky's Ladder climb due to being completely out of energy.

So I said, Not this time. My competitiveness, or whatever it was, stopped there. I knew I could probably do whatever they were doing, but I also knew my reserves were gone in case something went wrong. And it wasn't worth seven extra turns, or whatever they were going to get out of it.

 

[Pequenita]

Like Pinto, I think there's a link between competitiveness and risk. Take that line about climbing Mt. Everest "because it's there" -- dude, the NJ Turnpike is there, too, but you don't see people lining up to do a thru-hike (although, arguably, the chances of surviving both are the same). The whole point of climbing Mt. Everest is to see whether one can be among a small but growing crowd of people who have and do it before others do. The NJ Turnpike, on the other hand, is passe. Also, think about first ascents/descents of mountains and rivers -- why does it matter whether you're doing the first ascent/descent unless you're keeping track? Socially, there is something to be coveted about taking a risk and being the first person to do it without dying.

My first memory of being competitive was at a gymnastics meet when I was five. FIVE. I didn't place after faulting on both of my vaults all because I risked doing a front handspring instead of a tuck through. How's that for an example of the link between risk and competitiveness?

I've totally mellowed out since age five.

 

[whitewater girl]

Like Pinto, I think there's a link between competitiveness and risk. Take that line about climbing Mt. Everest "because it's there" -- dude, the NJ Turnpike is there, too, but you don't see people lining up to do a thru-hike (although, arguably, the chances of surviving both are the same). The whole point of climbing Mt. Everest is to see whether one can be among a small but growing crowd of people who have and do it before others do. The NJ Turnpike, on the other hand, is passe. Also, think about first ascents/descents of mountains and rivers -- why does it matter whether you're doing the first ascent/descent unless you're keeping track? Socially, there is something to be coveted about taking a risk and being the first person to do it without dying.

My first memory of being competitive was at a gymnastics meet when I was five. FIVE. I didn't place after faulting on both of my vaults all because I risked doing a front handspring instead of a tuck through. How's that for an example of the link between risk and competitiveness?

I've totally mellowed out since age five.

Interesting - your argument (if I read it right) is that competitiveness is about staring-down risk...

...hmmm, I have to say that non-competitiveness is NOT the fear of risk, but more just not caring about (or often even conceiving of) it...I don't NOT climb Mt Everest because I'm afraid to, but rather because I find no personal value to it (I can respect people who have climbed it, but for myself would have to ask "what's the point")...

...I do think a person can care about a challenge & be to afraid to conquere it...I might/would still consider that person to be competitive, but at their threshold for risk-tolerance...

(btw - I don't care about being first on a river or mountain - however, if someone I care deeply for felt strongly about doing so, I would strive to do so...maybe it's all about what motivates you...)

 

[Pequenita]

Interesting - your argument (if I read it right) is that competitiveness is about staring-down risk...

I think it's one of several factors; part of being competitive is taking risks. Part of being a risk taker is rooted in competitiveness, like, what's the next challenge that I can push myself to or accomplish before everyone else. I'm sure there are other things involved in the equation, though, like boredom.

 

[abc]

Thanks, whitewater girl. You said what I find difficult to express.

Risk and competitiveness isn't the same thing. Maybe no one cares to through hike the Jersey Turnpike. But people do find thrill crossing the pike dodging semi's and buses! There's no competition there, unless you count the semi and bus driver. It's that "high" from staring down danger that makes your heart beat in high rate and feel lightheaded. Some of us love that feeling!

I'm a risk taker. I go to amusement parks and play in hydrolics in rivers. I'm not going anywhere fast in either, never mind beating anyone else down the river or the roller coaster track. :( Same with mountain biking in single track, feeling the trees wizz by and passing within inches of them. There's no "beating" the trees. They wouldn't have cared (and they always win anyway :( ). I can go on...

Those are risky activities. If I miss, I may go in for a drink, or hit a tree. And my only reward is that adrenalen high. Others take drugs. I guess that's MY drug: my kayak and my mountain bike!

Equally, competition doesn't always involve danger nor risk. Running a marathon is competition but there's no risk (unless you consider losing as "risk"). Finishing a century or double century also doesn't involve much risk, except the risk of not finishing, that is.

There are times these two are related, when taking risk was neccessary for a competitive edge. But essentially, they're two different factors when one need to judge: how much risk for how much reward. When the reward involves other compatitors, risk and competitiveness links.

 

[pinto]

I think it's one of several factors; part of being competitive is taking risks. Part of being a risk taker is rooted in competitiveness, like, what's the next challenge that I can push myself to or accomplish before everyone else. I'm sure there are other things involved in the equation, though, like boredom.

Yes, no one ever said they were the same thing. Instead, there can be a relationship, a connection. And it will not be the same for everyone, of course.

But as far as the original topic, I think there is likely to be a link between the greater levels of both competitiveness and risk acceptance that men display in comparison with women. That competitiveness doesn't even have to be something in opposition to other people; you can certainly have it within yourself, against yourself.

The thing about risk taking must be the adrenaline rush ... I believe men release a lot more adrenaline than women do when they are under stress, whether risk, competition, whatever. Women tend to release it in a more stable manner, even under stressful conditions. (I don't remember if I read that in the original post, or somewhere else, didn't go back to look.) It doesn't have to be just sports ... I've read that criminals really like the rush they get when holding up someone, too! It could be falling in love, or any other thing that creates that little high.

okay, I'm going back to sleep now.

 

[perma-grin]

I think risk and being a competive person go hand in hand. I wouldn't take the risk except, for the thrill of satisfaction you get from competing and winning. That could be by physically beating out someone else or beating out your own personal best efforts. I freely admit to being extremely competive person in sports. It is hard to taper back that competive little voice in my head that tells me its worth taking the risk. Nothing ventured nothing gained is a very true statement. The girl that is at least attempting to ski the nastyier line through the rocks and trees is going to be viewed as more aggressive skier than the girl that plays it save, and makes perfect turns on the groomers. Reguardless of who is more experienced or proffecient. The off piste girl probably is much more aggressive and competive, because she is willing to ski more terrain. She is simply willing to take more risk than the groomer girl reguardless of her proffecientcy level. She knows that she is doing something more difficult than the picture perfect groomed snow skier and so does everyone else. (So in effect I can do anything you can do better.) That's competive and she is definetly taking a greater risk. There simply are fewer women at the higher levels of any sport, and the ones that are, are very competitive and are very willing to take risk to acheive what they are trying to accomplish. Whether it be with themselves, or against someone else. This doesn't mean that they aren't supportive of each other it just means that they want to be the best and are willing to do what it takes to get there. Competive women tend to take, and make better calculated risk than none competive ones. That's why they get noticed and acknowledged more often. You don't get there by not being competitve. They take the risk because they want to be the best.

 

[CMCM]

Since I seriously took up skiing and the goal of being a good skier at a rather "late" age, I've struggled with over-cautiousness to some extent. I'm now 59, and I do NOT want a serious injury. I was pretty fearless in a lot of things in my teens and 20's and even my 30's, but things do look different now. I finally made peace with my comparative "tameness" in skiing by realizing that my joy in the sport has come from achieving a fairly advanced level of skiing all while not overdoing it (a tendency of mine). I can do steep, difficult slopes, but it's too hard, and mostly I don't want to expend the energy or incur the risk. I get my joy in skiing from doing moderate slopes, I'm not ashamed to say I quite prefer the groomers, and I don't over-do it in less than desirable snow conditions. I want to keep skiing for a long time, heck, until I'm 85 if you want an age. Therefore, I stay moderate in this sport and that's just fine with me. If I get too crazy and get injured, then I can't do all the stuff I want to do, simple as that. When you're younger you tend to think nothing will happen to you, so you're less cautious.

 

[whitewater girl]

If I get too crazy and get injured, then I can't do all the stuff I want to do, simple as that. When you're younger you tend to think nothing will happen to you, so you're less cautious.

exactly...

...besides, skill impresses me, hucking off a cliff or waterfall because you don't really believe that YOU can get hurt - no way; it's just foolishness

(and yes, hucking can be an expression of skill, not fearlessness - and if you have the desire, motivation, resources & time to develop that skill - AWESOME!...just please don't downplay the rest of our achievements & imply that we're "afraid" because we perhaps don't share those particular desires & motivation...)

also need to ask - can we define what we're talking about when we say risk? Isn't someone who takes on risk because of concerns that not doing so would be "embarasing", simply more averse to social risk than physical risk? Are they really any less risk-averse, or simply responding to a different set of priorities?

 

[whitewater girl]

btw - I think about the highest-risk adventure someone can embark upon is...motherhood...(and with the highest reward)

...I think that makes most of the women on this board risk-takers...

 

[perma-grin]

So true it definetly slowed my butt down, and forced me to think more strongly about the "what if" part of the risk factor!

 

[altagirl]

So I think there is a strong correlation in that highly competitive people take much bigger risks because their competitive nature drives them to do it. That is not to say people don't take any risk without competitive motivation. But I think it definitely amplifies your willingness to take risks. Just as any percieved reward does. If you think you will make money, gain a career, attract the opposite sex, gain recognition, or just plain feel good about yourself because you feel like you validated that you are good at something (which is pretty much the main one that does it for me) you take more risk.

 

[abc]

So, what motivates women to take the greatest risk of all, child bearing?

Competition against what?

 

[Kimmyt]

Altagirl, I think in some ways what you say is true, however I think that there are exceptions.

Today I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine- about how many of the women we know are very competitive, and yet, that competitiveness results in them not taking risks because we think that they don't want to fail. So, although they are so competitive and so strong in their respective athletic skills (strong enough that they shouldn't be afraid to fail, because they won't), they constantly doubt themselves mostly because they are so afraid to fail. And, being competitive, they can't accept the idea of failing and being considered less skillfull than others, therefore they don't even try.

It was an interesting discussion, and there is some correlation to this topic too.