 Poster: A snowHead
|
Whilst lying on the sun lounger by the pool in my hotel on Isla Mujeres (!) I've been musing over certain things, one of them being women ski instructors, or more to the point why there are fewer women than men working their way through the BASI system (and I assume other qualification systems though have no direct knowledge of this).
It's something I've noticed since I started doing ISIA courses. Whereas on my L1 and L2 courses the percentage of women on them was about 20%, on my ISIA courses it's been less than half of that (one other female apart from me in fact!). Now of course this is a very small sample, but I can only think of two other women I know who are working through ISIA and beyond, whereas I know loads of guys doing it.
I'd be really interested to hear others' views on this, and what they think the reason might be. Fewer women wanting to make a career out of ski teaching maybe, and if so, why? Controversially - women maybe more prone to go where their OH's career takes them, which may not be the mountains? Or maybe the very fact many of the courses are very male dominated puts off some women? There was certainly a lot of testosterone flying around on the coaching course I did! Lack of female role models? I've never done a BASI course with a female trainer. Lack of understanding amongst trainers of the pyschological differences between men and women and the way they learn? I've known a number of trainers who have spoken about the physiological differences between men and women and how this leads to differences in the way they ski, but I don't think I've known one talk about the emotional and psychological differences, but of course there must be - simple biology.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
beanie1, maybe as simple as the social and cultural more in ski resorts is still "traditional" and women tend to be running the household and bringing up the next generation of ski instructors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
beanie1, it's 'cause at ISIA level you have to ski switch & we all know you gals are crap at reversin' 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
beanie1, a good question, which could also be asked of sailing instructors. There are some fantastic female sailing instructors, and ski instructors, but definitely a minority (in the UK scene, anyway, there are plenty of female French ski instructors round here). I'm thinking about Yachtmaster Instructor type sailing instructors, who like ski instructors do it for love rather than money and have to be prepared to sacrifice much of what other people think is important in life, to pursue their "lifestyle choice". Are men perhaps more likely than women to be single-minded about pursuing a goal for themselves, and their own satisfaction? Even if (as is certainly the case with the only sailing instructor type I know well personally) it is likely to be at the expense of relationships with others including their family?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
beanie1, you could also say the same thing of female motorcycle instructors. I considered it at one point (after redundancy number four I think), I'd certainly enjoy it but the pay cut would have meant a huge lifestyle change.
I guess like pam w says, that's a problem for a lot of women. They either need to earn a certain amount and be self-sufficient like me, or they have a partner and/or family whose needs they must consider when making career choices.
Wish I'd had a female instructor when I had my ski lessons all those years ago. Not to mention female driving and motorcycle instructors. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Maybe women just dont need hte ego massage that pushes most males to do instrucor courses 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do wonder if women are encouraged to have rewarding roles as instructors by many ski schools - often they seem to be given the task of instructing children. Now that's not a job to be despised - but if it tends to be the only one on offer, it could be a bit dispiriting. For me, the most successful ski instruction I have had has come from a woman (easiski).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
beanie1, I've just done my BASI L1 and in our group of 7, there was 2 men and 5 women. The male/female ratio in the other group was more men than women so I'd say that overall it was pretty much 50/50
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Sleipnir, but how many of those women will go on to ISIA and beyond? My point was more about women in the higher levels of instructing - more women than men seem to stop at L2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
beanie1, what I have seen is this...
a) many young women start instructing....they tend to be hired because the males selecting them in hiring programs like tits and back bottom...
b) they then discover that they have to be able to actually ski to get full cert
c)they don't want to work at it as "daddy bought me" a job as a ski instructor (this applies to many young males also but especially females)
d)there is a big blokey/club attitude rife in the senior instructors/examiners - the females that do go on to higher levels and/or the older females attempting the profession are up against this as the blokey guys are not really aware of the blokey 'be one of the guys' stuff they perpetuate
e)the women tend to be less competitive anyway and just shrug and go "stuff it" when confronted with too much testosterone fueled crap - they just have other things they are interested in BESIDES the ski instruction - less inclined to think being a full cert at all costs is worth the sacrifices they will need to make
f) due to all of the above the women that do make it have a more masculine attitude to the whole process - so the guys involved defer re women's issues to them but get a biased sample
I'll add that most of my preferred instructors have been male - because I found the female choices to be less than satisfactory in the main...
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I've not had that many female instructors - other than easiski. Sally Chapman taught one of the other groups when I did a course with her outfit. I've not found top quality male instructors to be particularly "blokey" - though some of the bog standard ESF variety can be tiresome. Nor have I had a problem with being in a group consisting mainly of men - age is more of a consideration. These days, I'd prefer to be in a group with other ancients, of whatever sex, than with much younger people simply because of their greater strength when it comes to activities such as skating uphill needing plenty of energy. Phil Smith comes across a bit "blokey" in his videos, but those who've skied with him seem to think a lot of him. Are there any female instructors in the Warren Smith lot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
pam w, I'm talking mostly from an APSI/CSIA context as those are the systems I know best... I've watched girls get a pass (at lower levels particularly) because their +1 was one of the examiners - while he did not examine them his 'buddies' did.... in fact I've seen a few times when someone(either sex) passes or fails because the in group have a preconcieved idea about that persons skiing/teaching/experience... plenty of politics involved... Just ask around about the Oz hiring clinics being a young bimbette is a definite advantage at almost all resorts here...
My personal feeling is that this politics is 'blokey' - not female networking type but an 'old boys club' type... and hence females are at a disadvantage as they dislike this type of politics and often just don't other any more...
I've seen too many good instructors of both sexes leave because they did not wish to play the politics involved... I find it a sad situation this can be allowed to go on... but it seems to perpetuate itself...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does the ratio of male to female instructors reflect the ratio of men to women in the "keen skier" community? (by keen I mean people who go skiing because they enjoy it rather than because their partners enjoy it)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I think little tiger has it fairly good but I'm not seeing anything different here than many other careers - people who are "mates with the boss" generally rise further and faster in many work environments. There are of course numerous family based reasons that women don't necessarily follow the same career path as men.
I wouldn't consider the sex of my instructor as an issue and even I'd rather take a younger woman over a younger man because of my perceived bias that a younger man might be a bit full of it or on an ego trip. Notably however there seem to be relatively few female mountain guides - is this something abut risk aversion or the time needed to progress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| Notably however there seem to be relatively few female mountain guides - is this something abut risk aversion or the time needed to progress. |
Nope !! The reason there are less females mountaineers than male is very simple, they are not physically able to participate at the levels required. This is not a sexist comment just biology. When I go to Tibet or Nepal with my mates we regularly carry sacks of over 25kg at over 6,500m and over 15kg to over 7,500m. (most) Females don't have the physical strength to do this. This is why there are many female rock climbers but not mountaineers (which you need to be to become a guide).
I would say that in the high camps (over 7,000m) I have been in over the years, the ratio is an average of around 90% male.
However, where there is no requirement to carry sacks (on smaller hills) females tend to get higher than guys - not a clue why, maybe a doctor can tell us.
As an example, I regularly take groups up Kilimanjaro (which is quite small so you don't need to carry heavy sacks)
In the picture you can see there are 5 females and 7 males at Horombo (not including me - with Hat - and the local guides)
When you see the picture at the top there are 5 each male and female, so a higher percentage of females reached the top - not including me and local guides. This is about average for this particular hill.
The last BASI course I was on was 50% male/female
Of those who passed, 80% were male
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Sun 5-07-09 11:36; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
just about every course i took it was 2 of 8, the gals that i see at ISIA and ISTD level tend to be very detemined and generally better athletes than the guys. I think one thing that gets overlooked is that to get through all the way you have to be a good athlete, not just a well trained holiday skier. I think there are just less good women athletes who are keen skiers than guys. They stick with netball, riding, gynastics, sailing etc.... and see skiing as a hobby.
My personal "coach" who i seek out for general instruction when training is a female basi trainer, i get on with her well, she is very competitive and determined but importantly for me she genuinely cares about the teaching and is delighted to see progress in my skiing.
A lot of ISTD guys are ego driven a trait i have not seen in female ISTD's. I think the women that get through all the way tend to do it because they like teaching and the blokes do it for achivement. Because teaching is a low paid poor career many fall of the ladder as it is a higher motivation for them they cant see the point of going all the way whereas the guys do it as an ego thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
This thread is a good read.
I don't really know why it is but certainly I would agree with the above comments overall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| rich.ll wrote: |
| Does the ratio of male to female instructors reflect the ratio of men to women in the "keen skier" community? (by keen I mean people who go skiing because they enjoy it rather than because their partners enjoy it) |
Now that could have something to do with it. The reason I say that, is that when I first did a course as a low level skier a couple of seasons ago, our group was all ladies except 2 chaps, 1 who was a man in his 70's and another man who was, well I suppose I could describe him as a bit wimpy or certainly that's how he came across. Anyway, the last 2 times I've done a course at a higher level, so say a few levels up from first time, or in the top group they have running at the time whatever level that might have been, I've been the only girl in the group both times. I've always observed that in the highest level groups on the courses there are either no, or maybe just one female who is confident enough or at a high enough level to be in the highest level group. It could be that there are some good technical skiers in a lower group who are females, but they can't take the pace or don't have the desire to do it, of the higher level group because it's faster, steeper etc.
There are always plenty of females in the lower level groups though and probably about the same amount of men in the medium level groups.
So maybe not as many females as men take it seriously enough to push themselves to get better and better and better or don't want to progress quickly and perhaps they are happy enough to just have a pootle around the piste and that's it whereas maybe men more so want to get better and push themselves more.
Just an observation although that may not be true to the skiing population on the whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| VolklAttivaS5 wrote: |
I've always observed that in the highest level groups on the courses there are either no, or maybe just one female who is confident enough or at a high enough level to be in the highest level group. It could be that there are some good technical skiers in a lower group who are females, but they can't take the pace or don't have the desire to do it, of the higher level group because it's faster, steeper etc.
|
Last group lesson I had I did exactly that - I actually asked to be placed in the lower group... the instructor then told me off part way through the lesson and pointed out that I should stop under-rating myself because I could have easily outskied everyone in the top group... I pointed out to him that the top group all THOUGHT they were ski gods though... while I know how much I still have to learn... he laughed and said "too true" ... we then talked about why men feel this need to stroke their egos so hard...
In my experience most women don't want to be in the top group because of the personalities involved... nothing to do with steep, fast, or technical skills... just different learning focus with lots of testosterone
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Like VolklAttivaS5, I am finding this thread interesting. As a female, and someone relatively new to skiing, I would say that I have quite a high personal motivation to improve my skiing, but not to compete. Therefore, I do not feel the need to be able to do 'EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE' on the mountain or be better than any other individual. I have had several ski instructors, only one of which was female. If I were to rate them in order of competence, it would be on the basis of their teaching (a point brought up by skimottaret, ) and the one that would not make it on to my list at all would be male!
I think a lot of females, even with an appropriate level of ability, are not as aggressively competitive on a physical level as males and therefore choose not to put themselves in this kind of situation, especially if they are able to find fulfillment and a sense of achievement in other areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
(re mountaineering) I think there have been several studies that show women tend to acclimatise better to altitude, and this can help even out the (generally) less physical strength. But with such a small sample to work from there may well be an element of self-selection.
I don't agree that it's simply physical though - I think a lot of women are put off by the social difficulties of climbing with a group of men, and it's not easy to find an all-female group - though of course there have been notable all-female successes proving that women *can* do it.
(re instructors) I think little tiger makes good points, but essentially I've never really understood why there aren't more women involved in most of the things I enjoy :/
(Edited for clarity. PS hope you're enjoying Isla Mujeres, I went years ago, lovely place! )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| little tiger wrote: |
| VolklAttivaS5 wrote: |
I've always observed that in the highest level groups on the courses there are either no, or maybe just one female who is confident enough or at a high enough level to be in the highest level group. It could be that there are some good technical skiers in a lower group who are females, but they can't take the pace or don't have the desire to do it, of the higher level group because it's faster, steeper etc.
|
Last group lesson I had I did exactly that - I actually asked to be placed in the lower group... the instructor then told me off part way through the lesson and pointed out that I should stop under-rating myself because I could have easily outskied everyone in the top group... I pointed out to him that the top group all THOUGHT they were ski gods though... while I know how much I still have to learn... he laughed and said "too true" ... we then talked about why men feel this need to stroke their egos so hard...
In my experience most women don't want to be in the top group because of the personalities involved... nothing to do with steep, fast, or technical skills... just different learning focus with lots of testosterone |
Yes I can imagine, and maybe it could be more to the perceived personalities involved rather than the actual personalities involved if you see what I mean. Some people probably change a little bit when they are talking about skiing to when you are actually skiing with them out on the mountain. I found all the chaps in my group to be lovely both on and off the slopes but I can also imagine that you can get some right knob heads in the top groups as well. Luckily I've not found any yet but that could also be due to the instructors involved as well.
Mind you, I've often heard comments that there are often stronger technical skiers (both male and female) in the group a bit lower down as was the case when I went in Dec and we were a group down from the top group that time to the top group, they said that our group was actually stronger technically than the next group up, but we might not be as agressive for example. Some people might not be technically as good, but they have got the guts/balls/whatever you want to call it to launch themselves down anything. I think more often that not males come into this category of people than females do and that's probably got a lot to do with testosterone.
Next time I go and if I end up in the top group, I shall try it and if it isn't my cup of tea then I will drop down a group, I think a lot of chaps don't like to do this as well just in case they look wussy or something whereas females don't tend to care so much about that, I certainly don't anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Iski wrote: |
Like VolklAttivaS5, I am finding this thread interesting. As a female, and someone relatively new to skiing, I would say that I have quite a high personal motivation to improve my skiing, but not to compete. Therefore, I do not feel the need to be able to do 'EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE' on the mountain or be better than any other individual. I have had several ski instructors, only one of which was female. If I were to rate them in order of competence, it would be on the basis of their teaching (a point brought up by skimottaret, ) and the one that would not make it on to my list at all would be male!
I think a lot of females, even with an appropriate level of ability, are not as aggressively competitive on a physical level as males and therefore choose not to put themselves in this kind of situation, especially if they are able to find fulfillment and a sense of achievement in other areas. |
Just thinking about what you wrote now, and I've been taught by all chaps apart from one female once, and if I had to choose one only to have teach me forever now, they would definitely be male.
I agree that females aren't generally as competitive as males are on a physical level, and see your point about if they(females) are able to find a sense of achievement in other areas, although there are some girls who like to be as good as they can be in all areas of their lives and strive to do so.
Ultimately it comes down to how passionate they are about the hobby/sport/actvity/area of their life that they take great pride in I suppose.
Some girls are happy that they can ski red or blue runs runs well they are not fussed about skiing black runs or bumps for example and they're not worried about ever getting to be able to, some girls like to be able to ski all runs on the mountain well including bumps but they don't want to go off piste. Some girls like to be able to ski wherever they want over the whole mountain on and off piste, whatever is in front of them they want to get down it.
I guess the same could be said of chaps but maybe there are more that want to be able to ski everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| firebug wrote: |
| (re mountaineering) I think there have been several studies that show women tend to acclimatise better to altitude, and this can help even out the (generally) less physical strength. But with such a small sample to work from there may well be an element of self-selection. |
Hmmmmm, not really sure about that. The acclimatising is not really the point - you either do or you don't. There's nowt you can do about it either way. Sure, you can go down and try and again, drink water, pop diamox, etc, etc. But in the end you will either acclimatise or not. The point is that females generally (not all of them) are simple not physically strong enough to cope with the burdens of high altitude climbing. Even at sea level most women - and some men - would have problems carrying 25kg sacks for up to 14 hours a day.
| firebug wrote: |
| I don't agree that it's simply physical though - I think a lot of women are put off by the social difficulties of climbing with a group of men, |
Hmmmmm (again), mountaineers don’t even try to be PC. It's the last none PC thing left to us. It stems from - you got your self up here so you get your self down. Everything else is frippery.
| firebug wrote: |
| though of course there have been notable all-female successes proving that women *can* do it. |
There have been no "notable" all-female successes (not one) in mountaineering. Sorry, again this isn't sexism is just how it is. Just coz a group of people do something doesn't make it "notable" other than to people trying to prove a point. To make something notable, to most people (who are not trying to justify something) would mean that they were the first, the highest, the quickest, the.....etc, etc. I'm not going to get into some historical argument about whether a specific group "could" have been notable. They weren't and that how mountains are - none PC. (no one remembers the 3rd person up everest, do they ?)
Oh but..... I have had many a happy p!ss up at the Yak and Yeti hotel in Kathmandu with some the of girls that do climb - they are all (every one of em) mad ha ha ha - just as you're meant to be.
In case your interested it was in 1956 (May 23rd) by Ernst Schmied and Juerg Marmet and the very next days 2 other got to the top (Reist and Von Gunten)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read the book by Tracey Edwards about her all-female crew in the Whitbread - her boat "Maiden" still holds the record for the best British entry in the race since 1977 - her crew did exceptionally well by any standards. That was in a very testosterone-charged sport. But it remains highly unusual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
easiski, I think the top group only gets called the top group and not by the instructors in particular either on that note, not necessarily because they are the best technically or the best overall but because they probably end up doing steeper bumps or more challenging terrain than the next group, or the pace is such that there is not as much time spent resting between runs (obviously still as much time as anyone needs for a breather of course) usually because the people in it are fitter. Someone could be a very good technical skier but unfit for example which would influence the group they go in.
There are definitely more males than females in the fittest group anyway although that could have something also to do with overall physical differences in strength between males and females.
If a girl is technically good and can ski at any speed they want to at will and is fit and strong too then that's great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
easiski,
Hi
Not sure about in your resort, but we get a lot of UK school groups. When they arrive at the school meeting point at the mid station the teachers that accompany them have always split the group into (their words) top middle bottom groups. Normally to speed things up we just go with this for the 1st day then have words during the evening with the group leaders.
How do you coupe with this (if you get it), ski off, ask the kids, etc, ? it's aways a problems for us as some kids just want to be with their mates even if they are not the same standard... it's holiday afterall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Wayne, Happily I've been spared the horrors of school groups ever since I've worked for myself. However, whenever I do have groups to be split (for whatever reason) I always do it myself or with the other instructors who are working with me. I would not accept a kid with their mate if the standard was wrong - I'm mean like that, but then I see my job as teaching skiing and you can't do it well with uneven groups. Also with those sort of groups you have to establish discipline very quickly and early and this can help. TBH I would not take a school teacher's word for who was better than who.
VolklAttivaS5, Not always fittest - often just strongest. Steeper, more challenging, less rest still doesn't make them better and they should be told so!! The point is that the instructors should not pander to the idea that faster, steeper etc is better. They should also be educating the skier that technically better is better - certainly in the long run. Teaching skiing is (or should be) about more than just technical stuff - it's about how to behave, what's good and what's not, mountain awareness, conditions, the local countryside..... etc................. etc.................... etc...............
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
easiski,
| Quote: |
VolklAttivaS5, Not always fittest - often just strongest. Steeper, more challenging, less rest still doesn't make them better and they should be told so!! |
No, they know that and that's why they've opted to go on a course, to be improved technically or why else would they be there, those people in the higher groups already know they can ski wherever, but they want to ski it better technically and that's why they've opted to go on a course. I certainly believe that fitness has got a lot to do with how fast or how much someone improves like with any sport really.
| Quote: |
The point is that the instructors should not pander to the idea that faster, steeper etc is better. They should also be educating the skier that technically better is better - certainly in the long run. Teaching skiing is (or should be) about more than just technical stuff - it's about how to behave, what's good and what's not, mountain awareness, conditions, the local countryside..... etc................. etc.................... etc...............
|
They are not told that steeper, faster etc is better and of course they are educated that technically is better certainly in the long run as you have said. But some people may already be a quite a high level technically and want to learn how to ski steeper terrain or what have you whatever it is they want to do. It is all geared to the client's needs and wants really with safety in mind at all times of course as well as mountain/avalanche awareness etc and then groups are matched accordingly. The instructors don't pander to anything, I am sure that Sally Chapman and her team at Inspired to Ski know what they are doing in every respect anyway. It's certainly by far the best tuition I have ever had and I know many people feel the same which is why they get people going back time and time again I guess.
Anyway, this has veered off topic a bit back to the holiday/course skier so I'll leave it to someone to comment on the differences between males and females again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| VolklAttivaS5 wrote: |
No, they know that and that's why they've opted to go on a course, to be improved technically or why else would they be there, |
to cut lift lines, to have ski companions, for the cool factor (I did the blah blah course for the 10th time this year you know and I'm in the TOP group - sounds good in the bar etc)...
I've done plenty of group lessons with folks that just do not want to learn - including one guy kept telling the instructor they were wrong because "you just looked at me at the wrong time" 
One of my instructors trained a masters race group - but I'd pre-booked him for the season the year before... when I apologised for messing up his schedule with the race group he commented that he actually found them very frustrating - not ONE of them had improved or changed their skiing in years despite training masters racing every weekend of the season... his comment was that he would far prefer to work with me - more timid but making marked progress every year... than deal with the frustration of continually offering learning opportunities that were just not wanted...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
VolklAttivaS5, Don't beat me about the head with Sally Chapman! You did not make it clear that you were talking about one particular course - your comments were general. Sally Chapman may be quite good - opinions vary. You have been referring to the stronger steeper etc group as the TOP group - I'm saying that that may be wrong and the instructors should not propogate this myth for barroom boasting! Certainly there are lots of people on courses who do not want to improve seriously - unlike our summer camp participants who really did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
easiski, 
I wasn't aware I was beating anyone around the head with anything. I just said I'm sure they know what they are doing as have got a good reputation and it's sure to match what you think should be done regarding technical is better not faster/steeper is better etc as above. I referred to the "top" group because it is split into levels there, 3-6, the same as it is as Snoworks which operate in a similar way. I can't refer to past experience of calling it Level 6 the whole time, because sometimes the highest level group there that time might not be Level 6 (have a look at the website if you want a generic break down of the levels so you can see what I mean about this if you don't know already although I'm sure you must be familiar with it). No, I didn't mention that specific company on this particular thread, but I have mentioned that I had been with them a lot in the past on here, certainly on Bend Ze Knees so I was aware that many people knew that I when I say I was on a course recently, that it was with them. Surely your views would be the same anyway regardless of who I'm talking about saying that they should be doing this, should be doing that, and not encouraging the belief of steeper is better etc even if I was speaking generally about courses on the whole because your beliefs are your beliefs and would they not alter regardless of who I'm talking about, so I can't see the problem with me not mentioning on this thread whether it was a specific course or not.
Certainly there are people that don't want to improve seriously sure, but they want to improve something or surely they wouldn't pay to go on a course. I'm very pleased to hear your summer camp went well and that they all improved seriously, you must be pleased with that result.
little tiger,
| Quote: |
to cut lift lines, to have ski companions, for the cool factor (I did the blah blah course for the 10th time this year you know and I'm in the TOP group - sounds good in the bar etc)...
the race group he commented that he actually found them very frustrating - not ONE of them had improved or changed their skiing in years despite training masters racing every weekend of the season... his comment was that he would far prefer to work with me - more timid but making marked progress every year... than deal with the frustration of continually offering learning opportunities that were just not wanted... |
Cool factor-I must admit that's not something I've considered and I haven't heard anyone else saying anything like the example you've given above although it is true to say that some folk like that probably do exist although I'm yet to hear them. Yes that is true that probably everyone goes for ski companionship in some way, meet new friends, or to ski off piste perhaps knowing they are in the safety of an instuctor and that gives them the confidence they want, but generally I'd say to improve is the main reason because otherwise there are other clubs and things where they can ski with companions with no tuition involved . For me they make really enjoyable holidays and I've improved a huge amount in a relatively short space of time in a nice atmosphere with fantastic instruction and also have met some great friends along the way so I'm very pleased with that, and that's why I have been going back as have many others I'm sure.
I must admit I've been quite lucky and haven't had anyone in any group I've been in that doesn't want to learn I'm sure that must get annoying for the other clients as well as for the instructor teaching the group.
Going back to the OP, it could be that females either have their own career already and haven't got the time to invest in taking the instructor qualifications right to the top level in order to pursue it as a career, although I guess that could be said for men too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I'm not sure about the acclimatisation thing either. I have read it in a couple of books but can find no link to a study.
By social difficulty I mean that it's often difficult to be the only woman in an all male group for a long time on end.
Leaving aside what's notable and what isn't (could go on for ever!  ) what I mean is that the world's highest and peaks have been scaled by female climbers or all-female teams, and many soloed by women. Therefore women can do it - though of course the lesser physical strength is always going to be a disadvantage for many, as you say. I agree that physical strength is a big factor. I just don't think it's the only one.
Anyway - it's not really an issue for ski instructors, I still think it's odd that more women aren't involved in this.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Mon 6-07-09 11:19; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| VolklAttivaS5 wrote: |
or to ski off piste perhaps knowing they are in the safety of an instuctor |
In North America & Australia this is no issue - we have inbound off-piste... I've been skiing off-piste since I could snow-plow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
little tiger, yeah I know that you have inbounds off piste but I've only skied in Europe so far and so the courses I've been on have been in Europe too. Some resorts in Europe e.g. St Anton have some areas which are left unpisted but are avalanche controlled though as you are probably aware, although I've not had any tuition on or off piste in St Anton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VolklAttivaS5, I can assure you there are plenty of folks do not improve when they take lessons... they still ski pretty much the same despite years of skiing... in many cases they are the prime reason for the lack of change... they just do not care - they think the instructor will wave a magic wand and make them better and that is just so far from reality....
How do I know? I've skied with some, & watched others with my instructors... there are hundreds of people go out in lessons each day just from my home resort.... if these guys are all improving so much why are there so very few decent skiers on the hill? Few can even carve arc-to-arc turns... let alone have any finesse skiing or higher level skills... I've watched instructors who just could not make the changes in their own skiing and so failed to pass even medium level exams(ISIA) repeatedly... I've seen folks who have done a "ski improvement week" and gone backwards ... and others who have done multiple ski improvement weeks and still just do not ski any differently than when they started...
I've personally watched the guy that complained the instructor watched him at the wrong time, and a girl who complained at being "bored" when she could not do the edging exercise the instructor set just for her as her edging skills were nil.... don't even ask about the others I've seen...
I've seen some less than startling instruction but also some pretty darn ordinary students... so I'm sorry but yeah plenty of people take lessons and have no REAL intention of improving no matter what the 'upfront' reason stated is for the lesson taking...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On courses (at a basic level) that I have done with the Deutscher Skilehrerverband (DSLV) there have always been several women and they have done just as well as the men. Maybe growing up on skis means that more women from Alpine countries are at an ability level to take up instructing than Brits who learn their skiing on brief holiday trips (and there might be more interest in local jobs). The women were in the minority here too, though. Some of the DSLV trainers are women, though I don't know how many (and I haven't had the pleasure to be taught by any yet).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
little tiger, I'm sure you are right about the observations you have made and I'm sure that there are people like that from time to time. I hadn't said it doesn't happen, just that I haven't had the misfortune of experiencing it in a group myself. I'm very glad about that because it seems very daft for someone to spend money on lessons if they have no intention of improving or they don't care as you have said.
| Quote: |
I must admit I've been quite lucky and haven't had anyone in any group I've been in that doesn't want to learn I'm sure that must get annoying for the other clients as well as for the instructor teaching the group.
|
Never say never though. I hope I don't get it one day because it's bound to get a bit tiresome for the others in the group as well as for the instructor I'd imagine as I've said in my quote above.
espri, hiya.
| Quote: |
Maybe growing up on skis means that more women from Alpine countries are at an ability level to take up instructing than Brits who learn their skiing on brief holiday trips (and there might be more interest in local jobs). The women were in the minority here too, though.
|
Yeah I reckon I'd agree with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| firebug wrote: |
By social difficulty I mean that it's often difficult to be the only woman in an all male group for a long time on end.
Leaving aside what's notable and what isn't (could go on for ever! ) what I mean is that many peaks have been scaled by all-female teams, and soloed by women. Therefore women can do it - though of course the lesser physical strength is always going to be a disadvantage for many, as you say. |
I think there lays the problem. I have never been on an exped that is organised as "an all male team". OK they many times end up that way but only as no females choose to go on it (and I think this is also true of the original question about female ski teachers). But the majority of "all female teams" are specifically formed as such - no guys please. Fine by me.
All the females I know that do go up big hills (7,500m+) wouldn't really give toss about mixing with males for ages. The females I go up hill with are no better or worst then the males at mountaineering - they are just members of the team – ok they tend to bit a lot fitter and stronger than most women – and men for that matter. I have noticed that teams made up of a specific demographic tend to be not as good as those open to all and this is the problems with all females groups, they introduce criteria into the mix that has nowt to do with the task at hand. To say "Therefore women can do it" is daft, so can people with red hair, one leg, 4 kids, or any other false demographics you want to set as there criteria to join a team.
All female groups are another symptom of the PC world - you know the sort of thing - people sitting in warm houses in the UK getting sweaty palmed about people like me chucking away oxygen bottles, or fretting about the "damage" we are doing to mother earth and her mountains. The fact that they have never been over 8,000m and know sod all about what its like is nether here nor there.
Of course "many peaks have been scaled by all-female teams, and soloed by women". but only small ones, nothing big ever has. My sister went up Snowdon recently on her own, not because she was a female but just because she wanted to, the fact that she is a she was academic. But in all female team it isn't and (again) there's the problem.
Mountains are not PC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
