|
Post by schlager7 on May 21, 2004 22:27:48 GMT -6
The Southwest Section has ruled that, for the time being, future SSCC events will consist of segregated men's events and women's events, just like at natioonals and the NACs.
Some want to keep the older system of mixed events (men and women in the same competition) along with women's only events.
While their plans differ, both sides are looking for a way to build up women's fencing events. What do you think?
Mixed or segregated?
Which will lead to increasing the number of female competitors?
PS: Voting in the poll only works for registered users who have signed in.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on May 22, 2004 0:54:43 GMT -6
I'm proud to be the first to vote for Mixed and Women's events!
I shouldn't have a dog in this fight, since I'm a male, but what I am reading here surprises and offends me. I will remind everyone reading this now; Your Mother was a Woman! What I read also shows me that some of you don't know it would not apply to club tournaments, and is only aimed at Section cup events. It also shows me that we aren't working with the same vocabulary. That's not going to do great things to make this a good discussion, is it?
The next thing I'd like to say is this; There is a lot that is wrong with this line! First, the degrading comments. For a group that is supposed to be renoun for it's courtesy and for manners, this is becoming ugly! Grow up, and get real; we live in the 21st Century! This board was set up for communication and discussion. It was not set up for insults!
Now, here's a little history and government lesson which, it appears, is sorely needed here! It also applies to how your Section and Division are run. In the USA, we have a "Constitution" which is a document which sets out how our government is established and run. The next basic document is called the "Bill of Rights", which amends the Constitution. This sets out what rights people have. This is called a "social contract" where you live by the laws and are treated as set forth in the laws. Men have their rights as granted by the laws of the nation and state they live in. Women also have rights under the laws of the nation and state in which they live. Does anybody know or remember that there was a Women's Sufferage movement in this country in the early 1900s? This was to get the laws changed to allow women the right to vote. They have that right now... because it is now part of our laws due to a vote which amended the Constitution. There are also laws set by legislation, but this is because it was allowed by the Constitution. This is Basic Government 101, people! And, yes, I do know that our public schools do a sorry job of teaching this!
Your Section and Division also have similar documents. If they have a state charter as a corporation or a non-profit corporation. They must have a document called "Articles of Incorporation" and something known as "Bylaws". They do the same thing; set out how your Section/Division is run, and what "rights" the members have. There are also clubs and businesses. This is too complex for here, but with very few exceptions, they must also follow the laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or race or creed or religion. Otherwise, they can... and should... be sued to force them to comply with the law.
I won't even pretend to know the best way for women to be able to advance in fencing. But, I am all for them having any option they think is best! That's also the best for fencing, too! I'm not sure that women can fill out an event in some places, and that's not fair to them. They need to be able to enter the best competitions they can to get better, just like a man does. Maybe they (our women fencers) need to hold a convention or maybe the Section needs to let them vote on it? A lawsuit is absolutlely not the best way for this to occur! Lawsuits are divisive; and this does not advance fencing in your Section/Division for anyone. It certainly will not help if there is a court order stopping all Section events, will it?
I will also sign my name here, since anonymous postings are cowarldly! If you have an opinion, have the guts to sign your name to it. Don't be a sniper in the dark!
Kyle W. Maysel Attorney at Law (B.S. in Secondary Education, History and Political Science Double Major, former American History teacher, Juris Doctorate in Law, 20 year practicing Attorney)
I should also mention that I really no longer care or am offended by lawyer jokes.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on May 22, 2004 4:23:23 GMT -6
I'm proud to be the first to vote for segregated. I should have a dog in this fight, because I'm a fencer and gender really doesn't have a lot to do with it.
When I started fencing women were only allowed to fence foil collegiately and I argued the Great Lakes regional into allowing women to fence on men's team's until they had their own events and the teams had enough fencers to field a women's team. I did that because I believe women should be given every opportunity to fence. I'm in favor of separate events at the Section Circuit level because I think it's in their best interest to have separate section circuit events to give them a larger stake in growing the sport.
Dan Gorman College Drop out, doctor of nothing.
ps Would you mind editing out some of those returns at the end of your message Kyle?
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on May 22, 2004 11:20:34 GMT -6
Dan: I didn't put all the returns there, but they are gone now. Some sort of glitch in the board. Thank you for pointing it out. I'm glad to see that you have a different (and reasoned)opinion on the matter, but I don't see how it advances women's fencing for them to drive all the way across the Section to show up for an event where only a couple of few are there to compete. I wouldn't want to put all that effort into it if all I could do was fence a couple of bouts and then go home. You get better when you fence more and better people, of whatever sex. Allowing women to fence in mixed events means they can do just that. I say let the gals fence in whatever event and with whoever they want. Kyle Maysel
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on May 23, 2004 13:05:56 GMT -6
If you know an event is going to be small -- male, female, mixed, whatever -- you probably think twice about going to it. The smaller it is, the shorter distance you're likely going to be willing to drive.
Now, if you find yourself in this situation, you have a few options I can see. First, you can stay home. No big deal, read a book, enjoy the afternoon. The tournament next weekend may be bigger. You haven't done anything to change that. You're merely reacting.
Second, you can go to the tournament. You fence a few people and are probably going to be disappointed with the size. Do you go home and complain and probably keep others from going to the tournament next year? Do you go home and tell people it was a great time and they should go next year? The second option may lead to a larger event next year.
Third, you can encourage your teammates and friends in other clubs to go to the tournament. Have a get together after the event and sing Kume-Bi-Ya. Bond. Pressure your teammates who may not be ready for a tournament to go anyway. Take new fencers in the club under your wing and encourage them to compete. Soon, more fencers will be going to tournaments.
If we can focus on getting the women fencers to tournaments, their events will be every bit as large as the men's. There are enough of them, it's just a matter of getting them to travel. Since women can fence mixed, they don't have as much of an incentive to get other women to go to tournaments. If they only have women's events, then they have to increase the size and strength of those events to get the fencing they want.
I think this is going to lead to a rocky period. I think we need to identify things to do for the women's events to help make the transition as smooth as possible. I don't know what those things are at this time, but I would like to see a discussion started.
Finally, I have no issues fencing mixed, but I think having high level events separated will increase women's fencing and that if the goal is to prepare fencers for national level competition, the tournament format should mimic the national format and that means separate events.
Dan
ps Marty, did the article about the collegiate fencers mention any kind of study or examples, or was it just their feelings?
|
|
|
Post by Geezer on May 24, 2004 13:48:39 GMT -6
The desire for an equitable coexistence and a reasonablely empathetic understanding of the desire to participate naturally makes me think they, the Ladies, should fence both events. But, but, but,...here's the question that has to follow this line of reasoning: Equality and even handedness require that there be three events, instead of the two of our subject, Mixed, Womens only, and Mens only...? Now, I understand the scheduling nightmare this creates, but Equality is Equal. I'd fence two events if I could...mixed and gender biased, and I'll bet they'd each be a little different.
So, what do you thinK?
|
|
|
Post by captain jon on May 25, 2004 22:29:26 GMT -6
I'm too stupid to figure out how to vote...how do I vote in the poll? (I vote for the way its always been...mixed and womans)
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on May 26, 2004 1:03:56 GMT -6
There should be little bubbles next to the choices. Click on the one that corresponds to how you wish to vote. If there are no bubbles, but results listed, a vote has already been tallied for you.
Dan
ps Woohoo! I'm not alone in my vote any more!
|
|
|
Post by MTD on May 26, 2004 10:03:38 GMT -6
There should be little bubbles next to the choices. ... If there are no bubbles, but results listed, a vote has already been tallied for you. And, if you never see the "bubbles" but never did cast a vote, it means you forgot to sign in to the board. Or, maybe it means you never did register so as to be able to sign in. (That's one thing against totally anonymous posters. If you don't at least register as a semi-anonymous but consistent user of the board, you don't get to vote in polls.)
|
|
|
Post by captain jon on May 26, 2004 21:06:02 GMT -6
OK I'm signed in but see no bubbles, so I guess I must have voted...I do beer a lot of drink, some nights.
|
|
|
Post by MJ WYSOCKI on May 27, 2004 9:06:39 GMT -6
Dan, sorry I just read your question and that's why this answer was delayed (I hate it when work gets in the way of other things!!). Here is the scoop as I was told:Several calls were made to schools with women's NCAA (scholarship) programs. Coaches and female fencers were asked their opinion and the resounding, unanimous answer was that if you have segregated events the women's programs will grow stronger a lot faster for several reasons. As it stands now the stronger women often compete in just the mixed events. This causes the 'average' to weaker (beginner or talent challenged) fencer to never be pushed or experience better fencing. Essentially the bar is never raised for them. When they get to nationals or nac's suddenly they are forced into a competion at an elevated level and pace, that they never have experienced before and they get crushed both physically AND psychologically (I personally saw this happen to Joe at his first world cup). Their stong urging was to segregate the events and bring in some 'A' women fencers. The section is trying to do both. I think the cogent question is what is the SSCC for? If a large part of it is to prepare our fencers for higher level competitions, and/or to provide a section wide competition to challenge each other, improve our skills and become the best we can be, then this is the way to go according to the folks that were talked to said. On the other hand if the sscc is just a gathering of locals to singularly have a good time, not improve through competition, and folks are more recreation focused, then this might not be a good plan. The majority opinion is that the local tournaments are great for competion and fun, but the sscc is a little higher level, a different focus. Not that the sscc should not be fun, but it is not just another local tournament. It is a venue for fencers from throughout the section to gather and compete. Additionally, the comment was made that unlike say the Metro NY Area where there are many high level serious competitions (almost weekly in fact) we do not have that environment in the gulf coast. Therefore we have no other vehicle to meet with other fencers and fence at a higher level regularly as they do in NY. This is a great advantage to those darn Yankees (as a native New Yorker I'm allowed to say that). The only vehicle for our fencers to improve under tough tournament conditions are the sscc's. Third, the comment was made that the lower end female fencers are often discouraged as their events are not attended by the better women fencers. This change would eliminate that. Additionally as I have read this site, there seems to be a mindset expressed that this was done by the officers to somehow put down women or degrade them or deny them something. I can assure you the ambience at the sectional meeting was just the opposite. It was concerned with IMPROVING conditions for women over the long haul. Remember 75% of our officers are women; there was no female bashing here or plan to take away rights, just a plan to get our women fencing at a higher level, give them an opportunity to improve and succeed at the national level, and to consider not just our better women fencers but ALL women fencers including the beginners. I suggest people get involved more with the section at the time appropriate and not AFTER debates and decisions are made. I am confident that everyone wants to improve regardless of gender. Our section officers are working very hard and this decsion was not made without a lot of forethought. Also this decision was not made in a vacuum. A lot of outside consultation was made and this course of action was unanimously thought to be a step forward in getting the SWS fencers more competitive nationally. If you go to multiple sources who are successful on the national and international scene and they ALL strongly recommend this course of action, I think it was wise that the officers AND membership voted for this. The process was executed fairly, in accord with the SWS rules. Change always bothers folks. I would encourage all to think about what the sscc's are for and support our leadership.
Marty Wysocki
|
|
|
Post by MJ WYSOCKI on May 27, 2004 9:13:28 GMT -6
P.S. Dan, at this stage what good can come from polls? A poll was taken at the sws annual meeting. It is called a vote. Those there voted or had proxies voted. If you want change, that is the only pathway allowed by our rules. From my experience working as a White House staffer for George Bush (the first), I can tell you that a poll like this only reflects what the radical extremes think. That is why national polls (that folks pay huge amounts of money for) are conducted randomly to give a better picture of what the majority think and/or reveal trends. Hey dude I apologize for not reminding you to STAY SAFE over there and get back here ASAP!!! The AGGIES need you.
MJ Wysocki
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on May 27, 2004 9:45:48 GMT -6
I have to say I agree with everything Marty had to say there. The last few years the issue has come up at the sectional meeting and after some acrimonious debate was voted down. It's good to see the officers brought in some testimony to support it this time and it was approved. I really do think it will be best for the women.
Dan
ps I'd like to say thank you to all of you who've wished me luck over here. Things have been pretty smooth over here where I'm at. I've done some convoys and had far more people wave at me than flip me off. It's not much different than driving in Houston except we're allowed to keep loaded weapons pointing out the windows. Does wonders for keeping people from cutting you off, but I don't think HPD or DPS would approve.
|
|
|
Post by MJ Wysocki on May 27, 2004 14:51:31 GMT -6
Dan do you have an address where we could send a "care package" to you? What do you need over there? By the way i've seen people pont guns out of Houston car windows before ! ! !
|
|
|
Post by MTD on May 27, 2004 19:38:05 GMT -6
A lot of outside consultation was made and this course of action was unanimously thought to be a step forward in getting the SWS fencers more competitive nationally. Marty, be careful with that attribution of unanimity. It might have been unanimous among the Officers of the Southwest Section or unanimous among those people who would have been voting in the Executive Committee meeting (had it not been canceled due to unforseen difficulties). But, it was not unanimous among the Section. While everybody seems to want to enhance the women's events, there is not yet unanimity even among those who attended the meeting about what to do next in the search for such improvement. One section member, voting in person and carrying no proxies, voted in opposition, presumably from a genuine personal belief that this is the wrong path to the mutually-agreed goal. (Indeed, the person who voted in opposition is one of the female fencers for whom everyone is concerned. And, although this female fencer, in the half of the 2003-2004 SSCC tournaments where she participated, did indeed fence mixed, she was not one of the people who are considered a source of the problem by shunning the women's events. To her credit, she fenced, and fenced well, in the women's events too.)
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on May 28, 2004 0:07:14 GMT -6
Marty's claim of unaminity was related to the NCAA coaches and women's fencers contacted regarding their opinion on segregated events. It was farther qualified by being what he was told. I would say he was careful with his attribution.
I think the new policy should continue unless evidence (in the form of an outside review or study) is given that it is harmful to women's fencing, or over the course of 3-4 seasons there is no improvement in the women's events. Otherwise, the goal of the SSCC should be to prepare fencer's for the next level and provide the better fencers a more serious competitive environment. To do that, it is appropriate to segregate the events.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by MJ WYSOCKI on May 28, 2004 13:22:56 GMT -6
Indeed that is what I meant. Thanks Dan, and Matt I do appreciate your concern for accuracy. Thank you too! We need folks like you around, and I mean it! You're a good man.
Marty Dubya(Bush stole this "W" pronounciation from me!)
|
|
|
Post by jazz007 on Feb 28, 2006 18:18:59 GMT -6
So, at the risk of resurrecting a dead thread (I just found this section of the board), I see that at least in this thread, there aren't any women posting. First, I'm (for those who've missed it ) Jaimie Ailshire. I'm a U in all three weapons, a frequent traveller to tournaments not in the Austin-San Marcos area, a 9-rated referee in all three weapons, and a graduate in Linguistics from The University of Texas at Austin - December 2005. I take lessons from Paul Schimelman, and I represent the Fencing Association of South Texas in competition, after having graduated from eligibility for UTFC. I started fencing in the fall of 2004, spent four months with a pointy foily thing in hand, and switched to sabre as soon as I saw the light I still fence foil when it'll help the women's or mixed events, like I did at the Oz Parsons 2005, and made a creditable showing. I didn't know until... last August? after my third SSCC event or so, that they had ever been anything other than segregated. I've kept my ears open since then, and I've come up with the following ideas that have me supporting keeping the segregation. 1) It's not fair to the guys that women can fence twice as many events each SSCC. Not sure if any of the gentlemen care about that, but there it is. 2) I have heard it said (and I can't remember by who, which I know is unfortunate) that there are gentlemen who prefer not to fence with the ladies at the section circuit events. Reasoning was not expressed to me. 3) I was under the impression that the SSCC events are, as someone else pointed out, designed to give fencers a national style event, but with fencing at their level, to prepare for competition at that level. Everything above divisional level as far as I know is segregated - this is supposed to be good practice, not a gender bias debate. 4) Very few local and divsional competitions are fenced segregated. The Pouj and the Bobcat come to mind first, for me, followed right on by the Masters. It's not like there is a shortage of opportunities to develop Women's fencing along that route. By mirroring the national events in the SSCC events, while not forcing any other tournaments to segregate, we are developing women's fencing in BOTH ways. Look forward to discussion, even if this is an old thread Jaimie L. Ailshire BA, Linguistics The University of Texas at Austin Referee, female fencer, national bout committee trainee (woot!)
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 28, 2006 22:34:13 GMT -6
1) It's not fair to the guys that women can fence twice as many events each SSCC. Not sure if any of the gentlemen care about that, but there it is. I have heard a very few say as much, but not many seem actually concerned, in my experience. I have heard the same, but only as a 3rd-hand rumor. None of my fellow males have told me this is an issue for them, but that may just reflect on the guys I hang with. Congratulations, you've just arrived at the crux. Actually the section can not dictate the other tournaments... only the participating SSCC tournaments. In fact, the partisans of both sides seem to only have the best interests of women's fencing at heart. It is just that each believes their way is the best for female fencers at this point in time.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Mar 1, 2006 0:58:50 GMT -6
To John, I've spoken with several fencers from Europe who have been freaked out by fencing mixed events. My understanding is that over there everything is segregated at all levels.
To those wanting to bring this horse back for another beating, I'm calling PETA.
Actually, I think my thoughts on this subject are fairly well documented in this thread. Nothing's happened to change my thoughts on this.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by jazz007 on Mar 1, 2006 1:00:26 GMT -6
I figured that third one was going to be one of the big ones - I wasn't around when the SSCC was started, and I don't know what its purpose was intended to be. Clearly, if its purpose is a stepping stone/development area for the national level, the section has made the correct decision to segregate. If that's not the purpose, though, I fully see reason for further discussion. I did not mean to imply that the section could dictate to local/division tournaments, but rather to suggest that because of the fact that they cannot, women's events are under the current setup being helped to develop in BOTH ways. Reintegrating the SSCC events would result in almost all, if not all, tournaments being integrated, which does not provide an avenue for women's fencing to develop without the mixed events as a sort of crutch. Neither did I mean to suggest that anyone has anything less than the best interests of all fencing at heart, and I apologize if I did. To Dan, I wish I'd been around for the first beating, then I wouldn't have felt obliged to resurrect it! Doesn't look like I disagree with you, though. Go ahead, call People for the Eating of Tasty Animals
|
|