deannatoby
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
And as it shot over my head it apparently nearly knocked it off.
-
Women skiers, this is the place for you -- an online community without the male-orientation you'll find in conventional ski magazines and internet ski forums. At TheSkiDiva.com, you can connect with other women to talk about skiing in a way that you can relate to, about things that you find of interest. Be sure to join our community to participate (women only, please!). Registration is fast and simple. Just be sure to add [email protected] to your address book so your registration activation emails won't be routed as spam. And please give careful consideration to your user name -- it will not be changed once your registration is confirmed.
Rant on seemingly gender bias...
- Thread starter maggie198
- Start date
And as it shot over my head it apparently nearly knocked it off.
Hehe, and now I have Primus' "Winona's Big Brown Beaver" song running through my head.
bounceswoosh
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
DH 's last name - now mine - starts with "mud", so of course "my name is mud" is sort of his theme song. @deannatoby, beaver is just another term for .. I guess the clinical term would be vulva (people misuse the term vagina a lot)
gardenmary
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Title IX decimated collegiate male sports?
Then why is there serious talk in the NCAA about paying said collegiate male athletes?
The levels of ignorance in many parts of the country (mine included) are really starting to scare me.
pinto
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Well, sort of. Because of requirements for schools to provide equal opportunity, and because many (most) schools will keep football, they end up having to cut lower-profile men's sports programs in order to ensure proportionality. Rather than adding women's teams, they are just cutting back the men's teams. It is an unfortunate result of the law, which is trying to be fair and has done a lot of great things for women's sports, for sure! But this part needs to be fixed. CU, for example, has no baseball team, and no men's tennis, lacrosse, or soccer teams, although they do have them for women.
snow addict
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
It's very interesting to read this. Must be a difference between markets in Europe and North America. I haven't seen yet here that a shop won't have the full range of lengths for a given model that they sell, women's or unisex. Availability is another matter, and a ski in a required length can be sold out, but I haven't heard of a shop trying to sell a ski that would be too short because they don't have a longer one. They check your height, ask about your level and where/what you ski, which ski you are on now and why do you want to change and will give you their recommendations. Sometimes a ski in a given length might be sold out but they would still have it for rent/demo and will order a ski for you if you decide to buy. During special demo days on a mountain typically women's skis will be all in 160-170 range and unisex in 17o-190, which is probably average for both sexes.
Regarding VJJ I don't find it offensive (tbh I had to google when we had a discussion here a few years back), I didn't pay attention to the graphics, shops here don't even carry either VJJ or TSTw, they carry unisex models in full range of lengths, so I just went for unisex JJ's and stopped thinking about it. I doubt any offense was intended either, though of course they would be people who might find it offensive, but they are hardly in Armada's market anyway.
Too often the difference between unisex and women's skis are in marketing only, so maybe unisex skis in a wider range of lengths are all that's needed? Kastle for example only make unisex skis with totally neutral names and graphics, and I think it's a good strategy. Why wasting resources on inventing names, graphics and descriptions that you think might appeal to women when they can be better spend on designing actual skis? Maybe other manufacturer's will follow suit. My beginners skis were unisex Volkl and I don't remember any particular difficulties with them. Ski itself is way more important than a little "w" added to it's name or some flowers on the top sheets. I don't really buy the CM argument and don't think it makes noticeable difference. If you are short it will be lower, if you are tall it will be higher. It will fall behind if you don't bend your knees properly otherwise there is no reason for it to be in some other place. Men are as likely to get into back seat as women and no, they don't typically have flat non-existent bums. Volkl I remember were marketing their biologic (?) system specifically for women, but many women have heel lifts in their boots which would cancel the effects of this system so why bother in the first place? Skiers height, weight, fitness and ability level are what matters IMHO and gender is less relevant.
Regarding VJJ I don't find it offensive (tbh I had to google when we had a discussion here a few years back), I didn't pay attention to the graphics, shops here don't even carry either VJJ or TSTw, they carry unisex models in full range of lengths, so I just went for unisex JJ's and stopped thinking about it. I doubt any offense was intended either, though of course they would be people who might find it offensive, but they are hardly in Armada's market anyway.
Too often the difference between unisex and women's skis are in marketing only, so maybe unisex skis in a wider range of lengths are all that's needed? Kastle for example only make unisex skis with totally neutral names and graphics, and I think it's a good strategy. Why wasting resources on inventing names, graphics and descriptions that you think might appeal to women when they can be better spend on designing actual skis? Maybe other manufacturer's will follow suit. My beginners skis were unisex Volkl and I don't remember any particular difficulties with them. Ski itself is way more important than a little "w" added to it's name or some flowers on the top sheets. I don't really buy the CM argument and don't think it makes noticeable difference. If you are short it will be lower, if you are tall it will be higher. It will fall behind if you don't bend your knees properly otherwise there is no reason for it to be in some other place. Men are as likely to get into back seat as women and no, they don't typically have flat non-existent bums. Volkl I remember were marketing their biologic (?) system specifically for women, but many women have heel lifts in their boots which would cancel the effects of this system so why bother in the first place? Skiers height, weight, fitness and ability level are what matters IMHO and gender is less relevant.
I have absolutely experienced this. Years ago - went into a shop and saw a ski I wanted. It was the only pair there and it was a powder ski in a 180, which was exactly the length I had been skiing for years. There was no price on it, so I asked. The guy said "You don't want those." I gave him a dirty look and said "how much do they cost?". He walks over to the stack of about 20 pairs of Rossi Bandit Women's skis - the little narrow carver version in about a 165 and says, you'd do much better on these. I said no thank you, I have carvers, I'm looking for a new powder ski. He told me I couldn't possibly ski those Big Stix 106, and I walked out and bought them online. And they were easy to ski.
Zero questions on what or where I ski, my ability level, what I was looking for. (or even if I was buying for myself, for that matter!) He just refused to sell me the one powder ski sitting there and told me I need the thing they are overstocked on. REALLY?
Last edited:
pinto
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Here is something: average height of women in almost all of the skiing countries in Europe is 5'6", and in the US it's 5'4". So that's 5 or 6 cm difference, usually about one ski size. I think it could be possible that US retailers are carrying more of the shorter lengths for women, and so they just don't bother with the longer ones and assume tall women can just buy men's skis. Which is true. I don't know, I just know that I like European clothing brands because they are almost always a little longer than US brands... And European cars are easier to sit in, too -- well, they used to be, now all cars are bigger and it isn't as much of a difference.
At 5'4, I had trouble finding a lot of thing of my size when I lived in the midwest. Most of the women were taller than me so what fits most of them were too big for me!
Now I'm living in the coast, where shorter women lives, I fit right in and don't have too much problem finding stuff small enough. I still don't have problem with stuff not big enough for me...
So, it does have something to do with the expected client base.
For skis, I'm just tall enough to use the shortest of the men's models. And there ARE men of my size and shape. I tend not to get too overly focus on women specific of anything sporting equipments.
There're men who just don't get women who are equal of them. I just won't give them the time of day, that's all.
Now I'm living in the coast, where shorter women lives, I fit right in and don't have too much problem finding stuff small enough. I still don't have problem with stuff not big enough for me...
So, it does have something to do with the expected client base.
For skis, I'm just tall enough to use the shortest of the men's models. And there ARE men of my size and shape. I tend not to get too overly focus on women specific of anything sporting equipments.
Dinosors like that willl die off slowly.
There're men who just don't get women who are equal of them. I just won't give them the time of day, that's all.
gardenmary
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I see your point - but when the football coach is being paid millions, and they're talking seriously about paying the athletes, I still say blaming Title IX is a cop-out. It's a matter of priorities in the budget, same as always.
pinto
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Well, I think college athletes in high-revenue sports are being completely used. I'm not totally up on the situation right now, but it is definitely worth discussing. And big-time football does bring in millions for its schools, which many of them spend on non-football athletic programs and if there is some left, it indeed goes to academic support. (This of course is only if the team is running way in the black, but with tv contracts and licensing agreements, the biggest schools are making 8 figures easy.)
I agree. Ethical or not, if the football program is actually FUNDING other sports, that's not a problem.
As for Title 9 decimated men's sport? I'm all for it! There're only limited resources, so what used to fund ONLY men's program is now being SHARED between men and women. That is only fair!
It's like saying allowing women into college robs some men of their spot. So???
(BTW, I'm told Title 9 didn't just apply to sports, it actually applies to academic programs too)
There are a lot of issues with college sports, but it looks like the top 70 college football coaches are making over a million dollars a year (many a lot more than that). If they can afford to pay that, they can afford to pay for athletic programs for other groups, including women. I don't even know where I stand on a lot of the issues with college football, I just know it looks like a lot of things need to be fixed. And funding women's sports programs are the very LEAST of the issues.
Edit: That stat was last year. Now the top 80 make over a million dollars a year, including the Air Force coach, which would be paid for with tax dollars, no? Yeesh.
Last edited:
bounceswoosh
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I swear I heard somewhere that until college, though, football is a money-sucker, not a money earner. So all those feeder high schools are effectively subsidizing the more profitable college teams. Kinda makes me puke in my mouth a little.
I do remember when I got to college, a male friend of mine was upset because men's wrestling had been cut due to Title 9. And I get why that would be upsetting if you were planning to wrestle in college.
I do remember when I got to college, a male friend of mine was upset because men's wrestling had been cut due to Title 9. And I get why that would be upsetting if you were planning to wrestle in college.
artistinsuburbia
Angel Diva
I agree. The players to make it to the NFL benefit, but those who don't, or get permanently injured? Too bad. Supposedly they got an "education", but I haven't seen much evidence that that happens at most schools. The players can't get paid, but the schools can make a mint on the programs. (And then complain that they have to provide athletic programs for women too.)
Hmmm...
I don't doubt that.
Some figures on how much money college football rakes in:
https://www.businessinsider.com/the...he-most-money-in-college-football-2013-1?op=1
Which is why I like our Canadian system....any scholarships are based on academia not sports. But that is why I know so many local kids in the american system....it pays if you've played sports ie hockey around here and are good at it.
I must be lucky, I don't think I've had a salesman tell me to use "this" ski in awhile.
I must be lucky, I don't think I've had a salesman tell me to use "this" ski in awhile.
