| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1263.1 | Its a Macho Sport! | WMOIS::WEIER | Wings are just a place to hang Ailerons | Tue Nov 06 1990 14:00 | 36 |
|
I have had the same conversation with my wife regarding lack of
participation of women in this hobby. Her repsonse is that this hobby
seems to be one of the most sexist hobbies around. Before anyone goes
off the deep end, just look at any RCM magazine cover, and at some
of the advertisements that appear. The best one is the ad for Miss
Starlite? It shows a blond women in a bikini holding a model. The
caption "Check them both out!"
Flying seems to still be a very Macho orientated pursuit whether
full size or RC. Granted there are more and more women pilots flying
full scale, but there are also a lot more pilots period flying full
sized. There may also be something in the hobby that just appeals more
to men than women. There is probably something very Freudian about
strong vertical performance, and oversized engines. Another aspect
is seemingly need some kind of toy whether its flying
RC, or full size aircraft, owning an antique car, etc. Most women
don't seem to have the same type of needs.
In some ways, the comrodory of RC flying (or full size) is similar
to the type you used to see in private clubs for gentleman. I don't
mind it, but I wouldn't expect women to be banging down the doors to
join. Ultimately it will be up to the current participants in the
hobby to determine whether we will adjust to make the hobby more
attractive to women, or hold on to it as one of the last remaining
pockets of machoism.
I have encouraged my wife in the past, and will continue to do so,
in the mean time, I am not going to stop getting the enjoyment out
of the hobby I now get.
Nobody asked (oh yea, I guess Ajai did!) , just my
opinion
DW2
|
| 1263.2 | Well, it's like this | SNAX::SMITH | I FEEL THE NEED | Tue Nov 06 1990 14:28 | 17 |
| If teaching my wife to fly was even remotely close to what it took
to teach her to drive a standard, then my modeling days would surely
be over. They don't let you fly in prison.
Actually, my wife just has no interest in the hobby. At one point she
thought she did but it never evolved into anything. I should have taken
the opportunity to say "here honey, let me buy you this nice new Ms.
Beetle pattern ship with this really neat MAX 347 radio".
She came out to the field once and was bored. I think answering Ajai's
question would be akin to saying I understand women. Where as I don't
have the foggiest idea what makes a women tick, I won't attempt to
answer the question.
Steve
P.S. insert MANY smiley faces through out this note
|
| 1263.3 | | SA1794::TENEROWICZT | | Tue Nov 06 1990 14:30 | 22 |
| Dan,
You hit a hot spot for me with your comment about "changing...".
Hey, why not speak a different language when we all fly or better
yet lets all wear our pants backwards...
The hobby is the hobby is the hobby... If a women, any women
wants to take part in this activity because she want to then that
find. Frankly I don't care. If we have to change the activity so
women can play then I suggest you take up another activity. How
about tennis or golf or whatever. Add are sexist. They are so because
99% of the participants in the hobby are male. So what??
I like the KISS method Keep It Sexist Senior. Si
I know three women who fly. All three haven't the least bit
of desire to build an aircraft. They fly. If the plane is damaged
and hubby doesn't repair it they don't fly. Period.
Tom
|
| 1263.4 | Aeromodelling macho? What about others? | HPSRAD::AJAI | | Tue Nov 06 1990 15:54 | 45 |
| Dang it! I lost my reply to the nutwork Gods. Shoulda known better than to
type directly into notes. Here I go again...
Dan, I agree that RCM might be resorting to the the allure of flesh to
peddle its cover, and thence the rest of the pages attached to that cover. A
few ads, like the one you describe, is certainly sexist. However, for the
most part, I find the ads to be technical, dull, and dry. Think of it - ads
for radios, engines, wood, monokote, kits, glues, you-name-it, all Ho-hum!
I can think of other sports which ARE sexist, and in which women participate
nonetheless. Bicycling is one, and a lot of the ads use women to advantage
in their pictures. Same thing goes for exercise equipment ads. Talking of a
truly macho sport (not of sexist ads) - let's try climbing - women _DO_ take
part in it in far greater numbers than in aeromodelling!!
Re toys - I do agree that perhaps men do have a greater propensity/need for
them. However, most women friends/colleagues/relatives I know _are_
particular about the kind of car they would like to have. Any ole'
jalopy/box with 4 wheels that is capable of transporting people in relative
safety/comfort doesn't cut it!!
Also, I don't believe that aeromodellers are "clique"y, with a desire to be
snobs, hold their noses up in the air, and strut around chewing on a cigar,
looking down on others with disdain or contempt. I can't believe that any
aeromodeller is making a concerted attempt to keep out women, and certainly
not with the enthusiasm displayed by the Mason Lodge (I may be factually
wrong about the name, but I _know_ there is some such organisation(s) that
deliberately shut its doors to women for many years)!!! Most folks in the
hobby are too consumed by engaging in it to have time left to profess any
partisan attitude.
And, I'll agree that a growling Panic, climbing vertically is macho and
masculine. What about the grace and beauty of a 4m sail plane spiralling
upward in an unrelenting thermal, wouldn't that be un-masculine and/or
feminine? Don't the 1/2~1 gram indoor gliders appear really wimpy and
un-macho? I think there is something in it for everyone, if you are willing
to look!
Anyhoo, no discussion is alive without dissent, so thanks for sharing your
opinion with us, Dan. I look forward to reading more on the issue. I don't
believe we, the aeromodellers. are doing anything in particular to make the
hobby more difficult for anyone in particular. The hobby _IS_ difficult
anyways!
ajai
|
| 1263.5 | Who's this WMOIS::WEIER Dude?? | BCSE::WEIER | Patty, DTN 381-0877 | Tue Nov 06 1990 16:44 | 154 |
|
Welllllll..... Dan actually made a point of making SURE that I added my
two cents worth in here, so here goes! And if what I'm about to write
insults anyone, it is not the intent .... I'm merely trying to explain
the female perspective.
In summary, I think that the reason that you don't see women involved
in RC flying (or RC anything) is that the hobby is essentially
pointless. *NOW HOLD ON A MINUTE*!! Don't go getting all defensive.
You MUST keep in mind the way that men and women are raised, and what
is very meaningful to a man, is usually pointless to a woman, and vice
versa.
Women's 'hobbies' almost without fail, achieve some goal that will
somehow better themselves or their home. A few examples; Aerobics
for women is seen as a hobby. The reason that a lot of women enjoy
it is because of the final goal. Men go to the Gym to BE MEN and life
heavy things and if they happen to look good doing it (or after),
that's a good benefit. Another popular women's hobby is sewing and
crafts. All of these hobbies have a final goal (product) that can be
used (usually in the home), and the end product usually takes the place
of something that the woman might have otherwise bought.
Women are raised this way. Things that we do for pleasure (cooking,
sewing, shopping, exercising) ALL also make a very tangible
accomplishment. Driving and flying will get us places. Even just
fooling around can make a baby .... it was DRILLED into our heads.
"If you're going to do something, make it something worthwhile!", and
that means something that someone can pick up and say "Ohhh, how nice,
and how USEFUL too!"
Now, to try to bring that into the hobby of R/C flying .... well
there's something that goes against the moral fiber of how we were
raised. Fun and Excitement excluded, the hobby serves no tangible
purpose. You spend hours and hours to build a plane, then go fly for a
while, then crash, then rebuild. WHAT have you accomplished?? Keep in
mind that doing something for the shear FUN of doing something is not
something that women are ever taught to value much. Things that we are
supposed to enjoy are basically taking care of our families and taking
care of ourselves and our homes. If there's any time left over, then
we help out at bazaars and bake sales etc. You would expect to hear a
comment like "The bake sale was a great success!! We made $100.00".
You wouldn't expect to hear "I cooked all day long and then tossed it
out" ... because I just enjoy cooking so much! This is also why you
don't see many women in any RC sport, or in many hobbies that don't
have a positive tangible and very useful result.
NOW, PLEASE don't think that I don't value your sport, because that's
not true. I do get pleasure from seeing hubby come home all happy and
relaxed after a day out with The Boys. Even when he has his (fairly
frequent (-:) crashes, he's still more relaxed than if he didn't fly.
For me, personally, there is no sense of accomplishment. I got part
way through building a model myself, and the thought of FINISHING all
this work to crack it up was more than I could stand.
ALSO (and this is a criticism to kit-makers), I wouldn't call the Kits
(At least for the PT-E) a KIT, but more like 'Here's all the hunks of
Balsa that you'll eventually need in some fashion to make a plane out
of this thing' In other words, it's a LOT more work than one would
originally think, and the directions assume a lot more knowlege than
the average beginner would have. Find the 2 LE (that's Less than or
Equal too, right??!) pieces and position them so that the notch will
be nearer to the end of the wing (WHICH end?!), and attach the tapered
end at the CG point on the fuse, that you marked in step 2B .... And
similar directions nearly turned the PT-E to toothpicks. It's a
completely different language to break through, and there is barely
anything to help you through that. Anyone can pick up a cookbook and
mix together a cup of milk, a cup of flour and "Beat well". Not too
tough to break into. Unfortunately RC isn't quite that easy. And I
don't mean to imply that women aren't intelligent enough to learn all
the new jargon -- it's just that it's that much more effort.
Finally, as Dan pointed out, there ARE some places in which it is a
very sexist sport. The magazines are pretty bad sometimes, but there's
also the whole 'MAN' thing about it. I've gone to the field a few
times to watch and to hopefully learn more. A few things happen.
First, the guys all act different - and it's quite noticable. "Oooops,
there's a girl here. Watch your mouth and keep those jokes just quiet
enough so she can't here". Hey, I appreciate the concern, but if I
didn't want to hear it, then I shouldn't be there. Another interesting
thing is that people seem to avoid coming up to Dan. I think that they
don't want to 'interrupt' whatever might be going on w/ him and I
(which is nothing), but it sure makes me feel like a lump on a log, and
I feel like he doesn't have as much fun if the old ball and chain is
along.
I hear stories about what a great time Dan had flying, and so and so
did this, and how you all helped someone or another fix something or
pull a plane out of a tree, or pull a tree out of the plane, or
whatever, and it sounds like a lot of fun. But the times I'm there, it
seems quite different. I'd be surprised if I'm the only woman who
feels like she's "in the way" when she's out there.
Soooooooo..... I hope you aren't taking this personally. I'm just
trying to answer Ajai's question. The ultimate question, of course,
being one of "HOW can you get women interested?"
A: Get more women interested? Have a 'Women's Flying Day', in which all
the guys who want to get their significant others interested in flying,
ask them to the field. Get the planes *WAY* up in the sky (but not so
high we can't see them!!), and LET US FLY!! And let us try it
again and again. Toss the sticks at her, and help her out. It may
turn out she hates it. But, she might love it, or at least like it
enough to spark some hidden interest. And if it crashes, then let HER
fix it (with your help of course). I'm not so sure that we're really
as disinterested as you might think. But it's VERY difficult to break
into.
And .... if it turns out that some of the girls don't like flying, at
least it will have given them the chance to meet other women, and maybe
they'd be content to come to the field if they knew that there might be
another woman there they could talk to.....!
And one other thing .... you guys are missing the PERFECT opportunity
to put us women to work and let us do 'womanly' things like cook you
burgers and knit you strange hats and gloves to keep warm in winter
etc.
So, in summary, the reason that more women aren't into it;
1) It goes against female-nature to just do something for the sake of
DOING it, and having fun JUST to have fun (especially when this
requires a great deal of effort).
2) The hobby itself is much more difficult to pick up then you might
think (since you've been in it so long, it seems SO easy!), and
there doesn't seem a place where the 'answers' are laid out in
black and white (What's a Stabilizer?? OH! You mean the
tail-thing? Why not just say that ...!)
3) BECAUSE there are only men, it's that much more difficult for a
single woman to come join.
4) The end result is realized after WAY too much effort has been put
forth. If FLYING is the goal, then let the thrill of flying be
realized now, and then we'll find (or maybe not) the spark that'll
have all your fields overrun by women!
I hope I haven't offended anyone. I never meant to, and I hope you
realize, that while I personally don't participate in the sport, I do
realize the fun and excitement that you all get from it, and I think
it's pretty neat!!
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed in this note are not necessarily the views of the
Weier household (-:
Patty (who would *LOVE* to actually *FLY* one of those crazy things,
but since Dan only has 12 planes, I guess there's not really enough to
go around )-: )
|
| 1263.6 | | SNAX::SMITH | I FEEL THE NEED | Tue Nov 06 1990 16:48 | 14 |
| Let's get serious for a minute. I really don't think there's any
big secret here. RC modeling is just something that "most" women
aren't interested in. Just like "most" women aren't interested in
being mechanics. Just like "most" men don't aspire to be a nurse.
There "are" some, but not alot. There are "some" women who like
Rc flying. I think that's about all there is too it.
When Patti first came around, I thought we were going to have our
first women flyer. But, then she got carried away with trying to
convince her husband to get an instructor rather than teaching himself
to fly and look what happened. Another corrupted pilot. Maybe she
was smart after all.
Steve
|
| 1263.7 | repair is the incentive to get into building | ZENDIA::REITH | Jim Reith DTN 226-6102 - LTN2-1/F02 | Tue Nov 06 1990 17:02 | 18 |
| 154 lines? You taking lessons from Ajai?
My wife and I tried to have a common hobby. She got a radio and plane
for Xmas one year. We spent sopme time trying to build it but she
didn't see the point. I took her to the field and my precious plane was
a mere spec that she couldn't keep oriented. I'm still reminded about
that Xmas present and the plane kit sits in the basement carefully replaced in the box for another attempt at some future moment.
Not to say that this is just women. I tried to get my 13 year old son
involved this year. He tried to get a plane built but other things held
his interest (adolescent hormones ;^) I finally got him some stick time on
an old beater plane and now he's getting into it. I think that the
"having to build the plane first" part turns a lot of people off.
Repairing crash damage so you can go back out and fly next weekend seems
to work a lot better.
Thanks Patty for putting in the other side. I hear a lot of my wife's
comments in what you said and I'm glads I read all 154 lines ;^)
|
| 1263.8 | R/C is [for me] utterly de-structive | BRAT::RYDER | perpetually the bewildered beginner | Tue Nov 06 1990 17:22 | 9 |
| Patty's note is very, very good. I hadn't thought it out as Patty did,
but in retrospect, I notice that my wife's hobbies are all constructive.
I gave another young woman some stick time on my powered Gentle Lady,
and she really enjoyed it. At her request her husband agreed to build
her one, but I'll bet he'll consider it one of his spare planes. :-)
Patty failed to see the training/background/jargon issues in her own
world of cooking. What is a stiff dough? A hard ball stage? A roux?
|
| 1263.9 | A reply to Patty | ROCK::MINER | Dan Miner, DTN:225-4015, HLO2-3/D11 | Tue Nov 06 1990 19:03 | 199 |
| RE: .5 from Patty Weier
Patty,
I was *NOT* offended by your note and the following is *NOT* an
emotional flame reply to your comments. On the contrary, it is a
calm, and hopefully rational, attempt to state a different
perspective to some of your comments. Sorry for the length of this
reply - it was supposed to be short... :-)
I'd like to talk about your comment that there is no point to
building or flying a plane.
The building process is no different that when a woman (or man)
spends many hours to knit a sweater or cross-stitch a wall hanging
(my Mom's favorite hobby) or paint a painting or bake and decorate a
cake. The point of the process (or "goal" if you like) is to have a
finished product that gives one a sense of personal accomplishment.
The finished product is something that you can point to and proudly
exclaim "I did THAT myself!". It's also rewarding to have others
praise your work. "That's a beautiful [painting, cake, plane,...]."
Many people also find the process of plane building (or knitting or
painting or baking...) fun and/or relaxing in and of itself. In
other words, even if you never show the final product to anyone,
there is still some personal benefit (for some people) in building,
knitting, painting, baking,...
The flying process comes from the desire to develop and improve a
skill. (At least for *ME* this is true...) To me, it is the same
sort of desire I have to become a better skier. Once again, the
driving force is the sense of accomplishment you get when you have
improved. You can say to yourself (or others) "I'm better at this
than I was a year ago." Having others notice the improvement also
makes you "feel good inside". The goals I have for myself are to
become a better pilot and skier (among many other things) as each
year goes by.
NOW, the point that you made that *IS* still valid here is that
building and flying go against each other. When someone finishes a
painting, they don't throw it out the tenth story window to see if
it will just happen to land OK without damage. Nor does one throw a
cake across the room hoping it will land on the table correctly.
Instead, you are especially careful to NOT damage these things.
Some model airplanes *DO* fit in this category. For example the
small plastic models are *NOT* intended to ever fly, but instead to
be put on a shelf as an art object.
Scale R/C modeling is the insane part of the R/C hobby. This is
when someone spends $2,000 and 5,000 hours to build a beautiful work
of art and the throws it off a cliff (or takes off from a runway -
it's the same thing) to see if it will fly. Worse yet, if it does
fly, they fly it again and again until it finally crashes.
"Sport" R/C Modeling reduces some of the building aspect by using
planes that cost less and are (relatively) faster and easier to
build. The "ARF" (Almost Ready to Fly) planes are the ultimate in
reducing the building effort. People who buy these are not
interested in building or don't get any personal reward from this
type of accomplishment.
From the flying aspect, some people are happy just learning how to
take off and cruise around the sky. Some of them don't even care if
they learn how to LAND safely, say nothing about learning how to
perform a perfect Cuban-8 or 4-point roll.
The other extreme of type of flier is the person who is always
perfecting every moment of every flight. These type of people are
usually in competitions and are trying to be the "Best".
Personally, I consider myself to be in the middle of the "builder"
spectrum. In other words, for me, building scale airplanes is too
much effort for the reward but, I *DO* like to do a good job on the
sport planes I build. ARF planes look too clunky for me and I can't
get any satisfaction out of saying "I built this ARF myself."
As far as flying goes, I lean towards the competitor on the "flying"
spectrum. I am trying to improve my flying skill on nearly every
flight and I enjoy competitions. Likewise, when I ski, I'm always
trying to improve my form and go faster safely and under control.
My wife has absolutely ZERO patience for building or painting or
needlepoint or anything else remotely similar. (And she explicitly
says so.) As far as flying goes, she has tried it a few times and
doesn't seem too excited about it. Then again, when we go skiing,
she's usually not too interested in improving her skill. She's
content to cruise along at her won pace and is always perfectly
willing to stop for a hot chocolate (or whatever).
The summary is that I see two spectrums of types of people. The
building spectrum ranges from "no desire to build" to people who
compete in scale competitions. The flying spectrum ranges from
people who don't care if they ever learn to fly well or safely, to
people who compete in flying competitions such as pattern aerobatics
or pylon racing or soaring. Each individual is somewhere on both of
these spectrums. There can be:
ARF builder and crasher,
ARF builder and expert pilot,
Scale builder and crasher, (ie, Mr. Splatt)
Scale builder and expert pilot, (ie, Mr. Desert Rat)
or anything in-between.
The topic of the base note is "Why does it seem that women and men
*SEEM* to be at such different places on the spectrum?" I don't
have a firm answer, but think of this: Out of all of the men in the
world, there are only a VERY small percent that are interested in
building and/or flying model planes. I still don't know why there
are (practically) no women interested in the hobby.
With regards to your criticism to kit-makers, I'd like to say that
EVERYONE, man or woman, faces the same thing. At the beginning, the
instructions for that first kit seem to make no sense what-so-ever.
What is needed is someone to ask question to and help you figure out
the instructions. This is where a club becomes useful. BTW - using
your example of a cookbook that says "beat well": personally, I'd
have no idea if I was supposed to use an electric mixer, a wire
whisk, a spoon or a fork. BUT, I know that if I asked an experienced
cook I'd get the answer I needed...
As far as the advertising being sexist, I think this just comes out
of the fact that the hobby is a very large portion of men. If the
hobby had a larger portion of women, I think the sexism would
evaporate. There's no doubt that a beautiful woman attracts the
attention of a man. (I won't get into this any further as I
consider myself a very non-sexist type of person.)
>> And one other thing .... you guys are missing the PERFECT opportunity
>> to put us women to work and let us do 'womanly' things like cook your
>> burgers and knit you strange hats and gloves to keep warm in winter
Well, as some of you noters know, I did just that twice this summer.
When I hosted the QMF/DECRCM fun-flys, I talked Mary into coming to
the field and cooking. But, her interest is in talking to the
people and not really in watching the planes. Even when there's a
plane she likes (usually a large scale plane), her interest in it
fades after a few minutes. I don't know why, it just happens that way...
>> A: Get more women interested? Have a 'Women's Flying Day', in which all
>> the guys who want to get their significant others interested in flying,
>> ask them to the field. Get the planes *WAY* up in the sky (but not so
>> high we can't see them!!), and LET US FLY!! And let us try it
>> again and again. Toss the sticks at her, and help her out.
I read about this somewhere before. The club had a typical family
picnic/Fun-fly and one of the fun-fly events was titled "Divorce
R/C style" The object was to get the plane up high, hand the TX to
the wife and time how long it was before the husband grabbed the TX
back. The wife with the longest stick time won. :-)
Seriously, I think this is a GREAT idea and we should plan on this
for next summer. Just *DON'T* add the pressure of making it a
contest. Just a relaxed family gathering where the women are
encouraged to "give it a try".
>> 1) It goes against female-nature to just do something for the sake of
>> DOING it, and having fun JUST to have fun (especially when this
>> requires a great deal of effort).
Nope, I don't buy this. (My opinion.) Many women enjoy having fun
just for the sake of having fun. (Or maybe I missed your point here.)
>> 2) The hobby itself is much more difficult to pick up then you might
>> think (since you've been in it so long, it seems SO easy!), and
>> there doesn't seem a place where the 'answers' are laid out in
>> black and white (What's a Stabilizer?? OH! You mean the
>> tail-thing? Why not just say that ...!)
That's what clubs (and in your case, husbands) are for! There are
also good books on the subject that assume the reader knows nothing
about airplanes or R/C flying. (Dan W. are you reading this???)
>> 3) BECAUSE there are only men, it's that much more difficult for a
>> single woman to come join.
I certainly can't argue this one. This is a difficult situation...
The best I can come up with is to have more married women join the
R/C modeler ranks to make it easier for single women to join.
>> 4) The end result is realized after WAY too much effort has been put
>> forth. If FLYING is the goal, then let the thrill of flying be
>> realized now, and then we'll find (or maybe not) the spark that'll
>> have all your fields overrun by women!
If you're interested more in flying than building, get an ARF, have
Dan help you put it together, and have him help you learn to fly.
As I stated earlier, you *CAN* learn to fly without having to learn
how to build.
_____
| \
| \ Silent POWER!
_ ___________ _________ | Happy Landings!
| \ | | | | |
|--------|- SANYO + ]-| ASTRO |--| - Dan Miner
|_/ |___________| |_________| |
| / | " The Earth needs more OZONE,
| / not Castor Oil!! "
|_____/
|
| 1263.10 | women are often good students; wives rarely so | BRAT::RYDER | perpetually the bewildered beginner | Wed Nov 07 1990 07:04 | 18 |
| >> ... and have him help you learn to fly.
I don't want to start a splinter topic here (I'd have to give myself
Hell for it.), but I suggest that a husband should never try to teach
his wife how to fly --- even with her own plane. Likewise fathers and
teen age sons. Both participants are apt to carry too much emotional
baggage onto the field for the student-teacher relationship to succeed.
re how to get more women participating in R/C
We could, if we wished, allow women to join our clubs at no charge. That
would reduce their up-front expense to only the AMA fee and, for some, the
equipment investment. It would clearly be seen as a positive move to
welcome them into our activity, and it would cost us nil. But it would
force a club to address a question, "Why do they want women to participate?"
Alton
|
| 1263.11 | Shame on you Al, it's breaking up ;^) | ZENDIA::REITH | Jim Reith DTN 226-6102 - LTN2-1/F02 | Wed Nov 07 1990 07:41 | 17 |
| I'm not sure I buy the line about not teaching a family member to fly.
I think that the only thing that is keeping my son going (through a
period of engine problems in the middle of this summer) was the fact
that we could do it at home also. If I had turned him over to one of
the club instructors, there would have been the coordination issue. Dad
goes to the field and son tags along is a lot easier.
I'm not sure where the emotional baggage comes in. I think the desire to
please and the working together aspect of it is helpful. My son seemed
too shy and nervious to really pay full attention for those short
periods when the instructor was available to him. Besides, when we're
out driving to the high school football game or somewhere, we have
something to talk about and small "gems" of info at different times seem
to stick with him longer.
Just a personal observation (there is so much handholding needed off the
field too)
|
| 1263.12 | MY MATE SOUGHT HER OWN LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT.... | UPWARD::CASEYA | THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8) 551-5572 | Wed Nov 07 1990 10:03 | 51 |
| Patty and Dan (Miner) hit the nail on the head, in my humble opinion.
Women, in general, have little to no interest in going out in the
middle of the puckerbrush somewhere and looking up in the sky, trying
to bend a stubborn, inanimate object to their will while understanding
almost nothing of what it takes to cause the model behave. They are
disconnected from this obstinate entity and very rapidly lose interest
in conquering it...(as Patty said) "What's the point?"
My wife, Kathi, went through the same scenario already touched on, one
that is quite common. She wanted badly (and sincerely) to become a
part of this passion/compulsion that obviously enraptured the man in
her life...and _me_ too ;b^). Only kidding, folks. Like someone (was
it Steve) said, our first or second Christmas, Kathi got a Sure-filght
J-3 Cub, an O.S. .19 engine and a Pro-Line Challenger 4-channel radio.
She was determined to build it _all_ by herself and learn to fly it.
She had big goals, saying things like, "I want to be the first woman to
fly in a 1/8 AF Fly-In, then a contest, then a Masters Qualifier, then
the Masters........."
And then, suddenly, the fire went out! The J-3 Cub and engine still
reside in my attic, she flat quit buddy boxing with me on my old
Ugly-Stik and the Sweet Stik I built as her advanced trainer became one
of my backup ships. Wha' hoppen' ????? I think all the things Patty
pointed out suddenly came to bear and she just dropped it like a hot
rock.
BUT...., Kathi _had_ discovered a side to modeling that she enjoyed;
the PEOPLE! She never tired (and doesn't to this day) of meeting and
enjoying the company of the _many_ friends we have in the hobby. Oddly
enough, she enjoys the the camaraderie of the men more than the women;
"The women just sit around and gossip," she says. She wants to be an
active, vital part of the activities and works her buns off for every
event the group throws, working concessions, registering pilots,
selling banquet and raffle tickets, you name it...she gets involved
with the SOCIAL aspects of the recreation and leaves the actual pursuit
of it to me.
Kathi's been treasurer of three clubs I've been president of, including
the 1/8 Air Force, and has ALWAYS been more than supportive of my
pursuit of the hobby. I find I'm envied by more than just a few of my
peers whose wives not only _don't_ support them, but feel threatened
by and are jealous and resentful of the activity that takes so much of
their mates' time. I count myself extremely fortunate to have Kathi's
support and, failing actually involving her with the flying herself,
will more than settle for what I've got!
__
| | / |\
\|/ |______|__(o/--/ | \
| | 00 <| ~~~ ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
|_|_| (O>o |\)____/___|\_____|_/ Adios amigos, Al
| \__(O_\_ | |___/ o (The Desert Rat)
|
| 1263.13 | Gee....Mine too | SNAX::SMITH | I FEEL THE NEED | Wed Nov 07 1990 10:11 | 14 |
|
Re. -1
>My mate sought her own level of involvement
Al,
So did mine........"YOUR GOING FLYING AGAIN".........."ANOTHER
PLANE".........."THERE'S DUST FROM THAT STUPID SANDING ALL OVER THE
PLACE".........."YOU CAN'T FLY?????? GREAT, NOW YOUR GOING TO BE
GROUCHY ALL WEEKEND"........"I SUPPOSE YOU HAVE A MEETING
TONGIHT"........"ARE YOU SURE YOUR REALLY GOING TO MEETINGS".
8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^)
|
| 1263.14 | Introduce early... | BTOVT::VTLAKE::WHITE_R | | Wed Nov 07 1990 12:18 | 9 |
| Try introducing them to modeling earlier in life. In our club we have
1 woman pilot (club president's wife) and 3 female learning pilots.
Females (ages 10 - 16) are children of long time hobbyist club members
whose families enjoy the sport together. One young
lady is even building her own Eagle 50 for next year. All were
introduced to the hobby at an early age and allowed to progress at
their own rate. Of course the biggest factor is that the club welcomed
their ARF hand me downs with no sneers or sly remarks from the advanced
modelers.
|
| 1263.15 | ANOTHER long one! | BCSE::WEIER | Patty, DTN 381-0877 | Wed Nov 07 1990 13:10 | 69 |
| To comment on some of the replies ....
Okay, well you got me on the cooking jargon (What is a Roux, anyway?)!
I guess most of these terms have become so ingrained, that I forget
that others aren't familiar with them. Good point - and probably the
same thing that ALL beginners face (in anything).
I think that part of my point was lost when I was trying to explain
that to some women, there's the question "What's the Point?". What I
was trying to get across was that for the most part, women's hobbies
typically have a DUAL purpose. One is definitely to relax and enjoy
the hobby, but the other is to end up with someone that becomes
something that is used (probably daily) in their normal lives, and
would've been there whether they made it or bought it. The hobby
becomes a substitute for a purchase. Clear as mud?
And the fading interest (I think) comes from a SINCERE interest at
first, and then (probably subconsciously) we look at the planes and say
to ourselves "Yeah, it looks great, but NOW what are you going to do
with it?" (when you're done flying). Nothing? Then why bother?
REALLY REALLY REALLY ...... it's been ingrained since we were yung'uns.
I think the Fun-fly sounds like a *GREAT* idea, and I bet there's quite
a few women out there who would show up for lots of different reasons.
Aside from maybe wanting to fly,
o To check out and make sure you guys really ARE at a field and these
guys DO really exist (-:
o To see where it is you spend all this time
o To get to meet the other women and share stories (or maybe you DON'T
want us to get together (-:)
o To put some faces with some names .... we hear stories about all you
guys, but there isn't always a face to go with the name!
o For the heck of it!
As far as 'No Charge' goes .... I don't know if that's really
necessary. I think that first you have to get them interested enough
to even find out what would have to happen to join. I can't see that a
lot of women would be worried about the money ..... especially after
all the money their guy has been spending on this ! (-: The AMA thing
would be a drag for the fun-fly though. If we needed AMA membership
just for that day, you probably wouldn't find too many women bothering
with it (unless the guys handled it beforehand). I can see that ....
"And for your Birthday, I got you a year's Membership in the AMA!!
Isn't that wonderful? (-: (-: (-: "
....and while I'd like to fly one of Dan's planes, I *KNOW* that if he
tried to TEACH me how to fly he'd get me so angry and frustrated that
I'd probably intentionally dive-bomb it into the river .... I guess
this is one that each couple or dad/child needs to call for themselves.
RE: Introduce Early ... this just proves my point all the more. Those
girls were raised believing that it IS okay and it IS fun to do
something 'pointless', and aren't burdened with the fact that there is
no other purpose (or needs to be!) other than to have a great time and
take some pride (or humble-ness) in oneself. I think over the years,
as kids are being raised differently, you'll see more women joining
the sport, less ads that say "Check 'em BOTH out!", names like the
THRUSTMASTER motor changing (hmmmmm ..... no double-meaning there, is
there?), and possibly -- YES, MAYBE EVEN .... the picture on the cover
of RCM will have the GUY who actually built the model - or possibly the
girl holding the model will be the owner! The anticipation of things
to come!
In the meantime, some guys will have to fly 'alone' while their S.O. is
out raiding the malls (What stereotype?) (-:
...but if you need someone to flip the burgers and arrange the
fun-flies etc., we're out here!!
|
| 1263.16 | | SNAX::SMITH | I FEEL THE NEED | Wed Nov 07 1990 13:58 | 36 |
| RE. -1
>But if you need someone to flip the burgers and arrange the fun-fly's
were out here.
I can see it now.........
Overheard by a fly on the wall at the RC Wives Fun-Fly Organizaton
Committee...........Ok girls.....girls.....GIRLS.... we have a fun-fly
to organize here let's pay attention. Now the first thing we have to
do is........SUSAN, please turn off Day's of our Lives and pay
atttention. Ok ok what can we have for the first event....anyone have
any ideas????? Yes Gail????? Uh huh...well, I don't really think
best looking shorts is what we have in mind here. No, I think it has
to have something to do with flying. Yes....yes I know shorts have
fly's but were talking about planes here. Ok, anyone else. Yes Wendy.
Prettiest plane????? Uh huh, maybe. Now were at least using the planes
here. Can we take that any further........yes Susan.......best color
coordinated plane and shorts......well I'll tell ya what, why don't
you turn the TV back on and we'll get back to ya.
Ok......I know I'm going to get killed for this one, so......have at
it.
|
| 1263.17 | Available for catering | ELMAGO::TTOMBAUGH | 20/20 Vision&walkin'round blind | Wed Nov 07 1990 14:16 | 6 |
| re .15
A roux is a thick gravy. Sort of like what you get when you mix
micro-balloons and epoxy. Sometimes edible.
Terry
|
| 1263.18 | Children Hold the Answer... | SELL3::MARRONE | | Wed Nov 07 1990 14:24 | 47 |
| After reading all of the replies already posted in this topic, and
thinking about what Patty said about how girls are raised to appreciate
things that have enduring value, I got this mental image of two of my
grandchildren. The girl, Giovanna, has always had this caring,
nurturing kind of attitude towards everything in her life. She has
never really been taught to be this way any more than my son's other
three children, but she has a natural ability to absorb what Patty is
saying....namely, a way of approaching life whereby her goals will
always be to find the enduring qualities about things and then pursue
them. She's 7. The boy, Benjamin, is her antithsesis (sp?). He is
into instant gratification, big time. Without any prompting from his
parents or others, he has developed what we could call an extremely
macho approach to life. He was the first male child in the family,
coming along after two sisters. There were no cars, trucks, planes, or
other male-oriented toys in the house, yet he quickly found the "need"
for these things, and gravitates towards all forms of model cars,
trucks, planes, boats, almost to the exclusion of everything else.
Ben is 3.
So what's the point? I guess my observation, backed solidly by my wife
and our son, is that there REALLY is a difference between the sexes.
Now please don't interpret this as a sexist comment. It is meant only
to be an observation that we have seen two children in our family adopt
two very different approaches to life, apparently by themselves, and
that this orientation has followed stereotypical trends. The curious
thing is that neither one of them knows about the stereotypes they're
emulating. Could it be there's something inborn that causes this? And
could it be that Patty's comment about girls being brought up to do
things that have enduring value serves to reinforce this difference
between the sexes in such a way that sometimes it causes them to have
an aversion to the other sex's interests? Could model planes be one of
the ultimate "boy" things, and that's why girls find it hard to accept?
If I haven't been entirely clear with this, it's because I've been
interrupted by three phone calls while writing it. My whole point is
that the question of "why aren't there more women in RC planes?" I
believe to be deeply seated in both our cultural heritage on the one
hand (Patty's observation) and our sexual differences on the other hand
(Giovanna vs. Ben). To try to change this quickly, by whatever means,
won't work. It will take many years to happen, just as our changing
male-female role models have been changing slowly over many decades.
Just give it time. Who knows, maybe Giavanna will love RC planes when
she grows up, and Ben will be a great cook. Grandpa sure hopes so.
-Joe
|
| 1263.19 | Short reply. Oooops! | HPSRAD::AJAI | | Wed Nov 07 1990 14:58 | 175 |
| Geeze, it's front page news on the Boston Globe today -
"Third world denizen terrorises Greater Boston Household"
"Weier family members last seen circling dining table in tight formation"
I am getting tired of the media not telling the whole story ever. Nowhere
did they mention that all I was guilty of was askin' a dum' ques-chun. Now
we got flak flying everywhere. All I got left to do, is to sell arms to all
the RC noters' families, and then I'll surely be all set to receive
America's Enterpreneur of the Year award that even Ken Olsen would be
envious of!!
:-) :-)
Interesting replies, and that has reminded me of some more points, that may
or may not be directly relevant...
* If people spoke English around here, Patty, that Tail something you refer
to would have been called "Tail Plane". Unfortunately, there is a price to
be paid with speaking American, in which they call it "StabiliZer". The
first name is based on APPEARANCE, while the second is based on FUNCTION,
(which is not as obvious). :-)
* Cooking vs Aeromodelling
I happen to do a lot of cooking simply because I am a vegetarian (i.e. no
meat/fish/poultry), and have been a vegetarian all my life, just like over
50% of Indians have been for 1000s of years. I eat vegetarian food for the
same reason that people eat Turkey and cranberry sauce for Thanksgiving. ( I
also don't eat non-vegetarian food for the same reason that people here
might not consider drinking warm seal blood - eskimos do - or eating
horse/dog meat!)
Unfortunately, only _verry_ limited kinds of prepared vegetarian foods are
available over the counter here in the US, or for that matter, outside of
India. If I had to eat what is considered veggie fare locally, I too would
get bored quick, and say "How _can_ you"!
I digress, but state all this merely to point out the "why" of my desire to
learn to cook. Now, coming to how I find it relates to aeromodelling - and I
have mentioned some of this before while rambling...
With cooking, the better the job you do of what you prepare, the more people
relish the fare, and the faster it disappears from the table. In a sense,
your creation gets "destroyed" if you do a good job, and in fact, every
cook's dream is precisely just that happen! If your dishes are untouched (I
am not talking of unfamiliar food here), you have failed in your goal to be
a good cook.
With aeromodelling, you take a lot of time and trouble over building the
model plane, but you hope that it lives for ever, and never gets destroyed
despite hours and hours of flying!! In other words, the goals are *EXACTLY*
the opposite!!
IN the course of learning to be a good cook, you do come up with concoctions
that NO ONE, cook included, wants to touch. In the course of learning to be
a good model aviator/aviatrix, you likewise build horrible looking planes
and break planes - more so without a guru to instruct.
Of course, it takes 10~1000 times longer to build a plane, when compared to
cooking the most complicated dish. It also takes just an instant to destroy
an aeromodel, when compared to a few minutes to gobble yummy food, and that
can be a _verry_ humbling experience.
However, if you compare a good modeller (stopped breaking planes on a
routine basis, and can build well/quick) with a good cook (can cook a great
meal w/o messing up), I think the total time a modeller has spent on their
creations (first few destroyed in short order, rest had long lives) will be
less than the time a good cook has spent on countless meals that are long
gone!
I am playing the averaging game here, of course. I can readily see that the
entire cooking process from start to finish has a much smaller cycle time
than with model planes, and therefore perhaps, less intimidating to try.
I have yet to learn to cook as fast as my mom does. The basic essential for
speed up being that I learn to make 3/4/n dishes at the same time, instead
of one-at-a-time. She can cook faster and for more people in less time, so I
still got a ways to go. I am sure this is true with any rookie cook.
* People eat thrice a day, and are therefore much more familiar with
material needed for cooking. Following a recipe becomes that much more
easier.
Building a plane, even from a kit, you come across a lot of jargon, and yes,
you might be expected to know things that aren't spelled out. Part of the
difficulty comes because as adults, we can purchase a complex kit w/o
knowing the ins and outs. Also, an RC plane has a *lot* of parts that have
to go together for things to work right. I am not referring to the # of
pieces of wood merely. I mean the radio, servos, engine, tank, etc.., and
radio only for gliders.
This means you need THAT MUCH more skill/experience to ensure that the
million things that can go wrong are kept in control. You don't go baking a
7-layer, 3-tier wedding cake, icing and all, for your first attempt at
cooking!
This is where I would expect the hubbies/dads to bail out the beginner,
should the person wish to build in the first place. Assisting/teaching
flying is always there...
I for one, did not have the benefit of having a guru for all the 20 yrs in
the hobby. I started with chuck (hand launch) gliders, then tow-line, Free
flight, Control Line, and finally RC. Things got more complicated (in terms
of building as well as flying) at each stage, and the skills were developed
to match the task at hand, measure for measure. Some times, I had to grope
along and figure things out for myself by making mistakes. The process was
slow, often painful though thorough, but I would not advocate all of it for
everyone necessarily.
My first RC plane in India was a modified delta wing FF model. I spent 1000
hours (3 months @10+hours /day) building it. Someone else (who had more
non-RC experience than I did) flew it. It crashed after 5 minutes due to a
bad [used] radio. I spent another 500 hours fixing it. It doesn't look
anywhere as nice as my models of today, leave along gorgeous scale ships,
for the time I invested! For 1500 hours of building, I had 0, repeat ZERO
seconds of flying to show for it! I think people should be thrilled to have
the "privilage" of crashing their own plane! I didn't :-(
My second RC plane, the T60, was built in 300 hours, and last me 5 hours of
flying time. Again went down because of a radio hit nearly a mile out.
Compared to the return on investment flying-wise on my first plane, I was
thrilled! The only problem was that it took me a helicoper and 70+ days
before I could walk up to the crash site.
My third and current RC plane, the First Step (I should'a bought that one
first :-) ) was built in 65 Hours, and Charlie Watt gave me the wing all
built up. I had one crash that I could walk up to (!), after nearly the same
number of hours flying it, which took 10 hours to repair. Boy, was I happy
to have been able to crash my plane _myself_, _and_ be able to walk to the
crash site in just a minute!!!!! While I have flown it for nearly 70 hours
this year, the air-frame has 77 hours on it all told. The wounds have
healed. I have emerged a war veteran. The feeling of having triumphed over
the beast after nearly 2 decades of watching an RC plane fly for the first
time, is overwhelming, and something that no one can take away from me.
Again, I say all this not to seek sympathy - everyone has their own war
stories to tell. I merely wish to point out that with the proper guidance,
the process can be relatively painless, and vice versa!!! How I wish someone
at home could have made all the hassels invisible and taught me to fly!!
* Teachers.
Not everyone who knows a subject is competent to *teach* it to someone else.
Teaching takes different skills, but while the aeromodeller at home might be
experienced though not the most ideal teacher, it is still better than
having to grope in the dark unassisted.
* Men and foul language
Don't know why, but for the most part, any where, any place, men talk
"clean" in the presence of women. "Training" perhaps?
* Gramps Joe's observation
Seems like you are saying(observing) that boys will be boys, and girls will
be girls. Hmmm. Kinda like it is encoded in the genes 'r' sum'p'in', huh?
Wonder where the boys/girls get their ideas about what activities to choose,
given a set of n different things to do... The plot thickens, furrows
deepen, waters get murky, and enquiring minds want to know, WHY OH! WHY! :-(
* Everest
Women have climbed Everest. Climbing has to be the most pointless sport
there could be (though I enjoy hiking/scrambling to the top of
hills/mountains), and often life threatening. Aeromodelling should be much
easier!
* Dan Weier brought to face charges.
Yo Dan, RC court is issuing a summons, so you can face charges and your
trial begin. Choose your defence attorney well :-)
ajai
|
| 1263.20 | We are products of our past | NYJMIS::BOBA | Bob Aldea @PCO | Wed Nov 07 1990 15:16 | 19 |
| >>> ... an observation that we have seen two children in our family adopt
>>> two very different approaches to life, apparently by themselves, and
>>> that this orientation has followed stereotypical trends.
I can't imagine a child that isn't influenced by their environment.
Whether its the images on TV or the expressions on their parents faces,
they learn attitudes that have been handed down for centuries.
Even in these modern times, many women are much more comfortable
assuming the tradional roles and attitudes. Many women get involved
and are successful in traditionally male activities, but they are a
minority. Meanwhile these activities continue be considered male
activities because our parents, teachers and friends said so.
Even as we are individuals with our own behavioral styles, we are
affected by the old traditional values. Just as very few men collect
dolls, very few women build models. People who would think nothing of
a boy playing with a toy gun would frown at seeing a girls playing the
same game. Its a matter of social approval and acceptance.
|
| 1263.21 | I think Ajai should buy the next disk for Wewand ;^) | ZENDIA::REITH | Jim Reith DTN 226-6102 - LTN2-1/F02 | Wed Nov 07 1990 15:17 | 1 |
|
|
| 1263.22 | Three thoughts? | WMOIS::WEIER | Wings are just a place to hang Ailerons | Wed Nov 07 1990 15:56 | 29 |
|
1. I have often contended that men and women are from different
planets. The REAL reason that women don't do RC flying is that
it doesn't exist on the planet they are from :) :)
2. Second possibiity? Women don't have the" RC" gene. This is
similar to the "folding clothes" gene that my wife insists is
missing in men. :) :)
3. Although in principle I would love to assist my wife in learning
aeromodeling, in practice it is doomed to failure. Although I
think I could be successful in teaching my sons. I think it can
be difficult at times for either spouse to admit that the other
may be more knowledgable in something than they are, and
so the learner is not willing to admit they need assistance.
(This may vary in degree from one marraige to the next.)
I have aso been a full scale flight instructor, and from that
experience background I would reccomend my wife to another
competent instructor if she wanted to learn rather than
attempting it myself. I agree with Al Ryder that there is too
much that gets in the way between spouses. So Ajai, I will
contend that the distinction is how close you are to a person,
not the distinction of flying vs instruction skills in this case.
Dan, who may need a place to
stay
|
| 1263.23 | WILD WOMEN OF THE WEST..... :B^) | UPWARD::CASEYA | THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8) 551-5572 | Wed Nov 07 1990 16:18 | 28 |
| Re: .16, Steve,
I LOVED it!! BTW, in evidence of life imitating art, the scenario you
described did occur last April when my wife and Judy Crandall (wife of
aviation artist, Jerry Crandall) _DID_ conjure up an award category for
the Top Gun meet.
Actually, they'd talked about doing this before but this seemed the
perfect opportunity to follow through. So, they went to Frank Tiano
for approval (which he enthusiastically gave), got a trophy made and it
was awarded at the banquet Saturday night along with such awards as
Best Mechanical Achievement, Pilot's Choice, Best paint and markings,
etc. Kathi and Judy's award was called "Top Buns" and the winner was
selected by a panel of women. The first (annual?) winner was Brian
O'Meara, though I can't imagine why. Every time Roz (on Night Court)
calls judge Harry Stone "skinny butt," I can't help but think of Brian!
:B^)
In any event, it was a great selection cuz' Brian was sufficiently
embarrassed and turned the appropriate shade of red as he received his
trophy. According to his wife, Jody, that's one of very few trophies
Brian's won and he should be thrilled to get it!
__
| | / |\
\|/ |______|__(o/--/ | \
| | 00 <| ~~~ ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
|_|_| (O>o |\)____/___|\_____|_/ Adios amigos, Al
| \__(O_\_ | |___/ o (The Desert Rat)
|
| 1263.24 | I'll just {OOOPS!} Step on a plane (-: | BCSE::WEIER | Patty, DTN 381-0877 | Wed Nov 07 1990 16:28 | 5 |
| Gee, I'd say that Steve Smith should be looking for a place to stay
tonight ....!!! Especially after the remarks his wife made about that
note (-;
Don't worry about Dan - there's always the sofa bed - or the Shed! (-;
|
| 1263.25 | No offense, but... | LEDS::COHEN | There's *ALWAYS* free Cheese in a Mousetrap! | Wed Nov 07 1990 17:04 | 34 |
|
Wow! What a bunch of rationalized B.S.! You Guys/Gals drive me crazy!
People just have differing interests. Their interests are, in a large
part, a result of the experiences they had as children. It doesn't
matter if they're male or female. I think implying any other
relationship between sex and interests is insulting.
Just becuase women have traditionally filled the roles of homemaker, men
the roles of breadwinner, doesn't mean they're built for those roles.
People model their behavior based on what they experience from their role
models as children. Boys often model themselves after their fathers,
girls after their mothers. The old traditional models are, by and
large, self perpetuating. But it doesn't mean that these people are
built for the roles, just that they learned them, and have no desire to
change.
I can tell you, though, that I know plenty of women who don't follow the
traditional patterns of behavior. They sooner tell me to get lost (and
not too nicely, either) than accept the stereotyped role, and "flip
burgers" at the fun fly!
Look at Jean Yeager. I know only two people with an interest in flying
nonstop around the world. One's male, the other's female. 50-50
split, sex has nothing to do with their interests. Jean wasn't on the
plane to bake cakes or fold laundry. She was as interested as Rutan in
making the flight.
You should stop looking for reasons why women don't have an interest in
RC. After all, you don't care why the majority of men in this world
don't have an interest in RC, and the reasons are the same.
It's because they just aren't interested. End of story.
|
| 1263.26 | My 2 cents: the biological perspective | HPSPWR::WALTER | | Wed Nov 07 1990 17:16 | 83 |
| [The following is a little out of synch with the conversation and has points
already brought up in previous notes. I wrote it last night but couldn't enter
it until this evening.]
First, I would like to thank Ajai for opening Pandora's Box, for eating of the
Forbidden Apple, for letting the cat out of the bag. He asked out loud the
question I've been mulling over for decades, relating not just to RC, but other
male dominated activities, like race car driving, engineering, and grouping
around the TV watching the Superbowl while eating chili and making obnoxious
noises.
Second, I would like to thank Patty Weier for writing the most thought
provoking, honest and entertaining note that I have read in eons. That note had
me and a friend rolling on the floor with laughter. Patty could easily be a
feature columnist in any newspaper; I think she could give Dave Barry and Erma
Bombeck a run for their money.
************
Warning: The following is a long winded, philosophical, soapbox discussion,
and I wouldn't blame you in the least for hitting the NEXT REPLY key right now.
************
I have always been fascinated by such questions as Ajai has asked. Why ARE
there so few women involved in the hobby? Why are women and men, by and large,
predisposed to different types of activities? Is it cultural (women cook, men
fix cars)? Is it genetic? Is it limited to Americans, or true all over the
world?
Well, regarding the RC question, we need not rely on conjecture, we finally
have a point-of-view from One Of Them. One brave soul has stepped forward and
attempted to verbalize her feelings about the hobby (did a right good job,
too). Women in general don't fly model airplanes because it's a pointless
activity! Well, by Gaw, she's right, it IS a pointless activity! Hmmmm... but
wait a minute, skiing is a pointless activity too. Matter of fact, it's worse
than pointless, it's darned expensive. But that doesn't seem to stop hundreds
of thousands of women from hitting the slopes each winter. My mother loves to
collect old glassware. It's all over the house. With the exception of an
occasional candlestick pressed into service during a festive dinner, I can
discern no useful purpose for collecting the stuff, and yet she derives great
joy from the pasttime. I bring up this stuff not to refute Patty's argument,
but to suggest that one answer leads to many more questions.
Ultimately, the question leads to a more universal question, "do women THINK
differently than men, and if so, why?" When I was 17 and finally got my
drivers license, I was in hog heaven. This sensation of driving a car was an
absolutely stupendous feeling! I couldn't wait to get into my brother's car to
learn the next art, driving a stick shift. Meanwhile, most of my women friends
were real happy to get their licenses too, but it was the prospect of new
mobility and independence that seemed to be the attraction; they didn't seem to
take any enjoyment from the act of driving itself. (Of course, mobility and
independence were big on my list also). What is it about... I dunno, FIDDLING
with things, that seems to attract men more than women?
My fascination with the human brain/mind has led me to collect several books on
the subject. This evening I combed through one of them (The Universe Within,
by Morton Hunt) to find a passage that had caught my attention when I first
read it:
"...social conditioning does not account for all of the differences between
male and female thinking observed in the past. A number of recent studies by
neurophysiologists and others have found that there is at least a modicum of
structural difference between the male brain and the female brain. ... This
might well account for two sex differences in mental function that have no
apparent social cause: from infancy on, males have greater visual-spatial
ability while females have greater verbal ability. And these differences might
explain the greater tendency of males, even as infants, TO BE ATTRACTED TO
OBJECTS THEY CAN MANIPULATE [emphasis mine]-actually or mentally- and of
females to respond to social stimuli such as facial expressions and tones of
voice." Aha, there are actual physical differences in the brains of women and
men! (Not too hard to believe, considering that men's and women's bodies seem
to be designed by two competing chemical companies).
The author goes on to point out that the differences are quite small: "The
important thing is that this is only an average difference, and a minor one at
that. By far the largest part of the male population and of the female
population overlap in logical thinking ability." Perhaps the RC hobby explores
the lunatic fringe of activities that pander to the built-in male
predisposition to fiddle with things.
Then again, maybe women just don't LIKE to build and fly model airplanes...
Dave
|
| 1263.27 | Hats off to Patty... | CSC32::CSENCSITS | | Thu Nov 08 1990 00:13 | 7 |
|
Patty gets my vote. T'was very interesting and extremely funny.
The thing that tickles me pink is that my 7 year old daughter can't
wait until she gets to fly. She wants me to build a Senior Kadett just
for her. Next summer she get to fly if she still wants.
John
|
| 1263.28 | Who really knows? | BTOVT::SOUTIERE | | Thu Nov 08 1990 08:51 | 15 |
| Is there a difference between male vs. female attitudes....Who's to say!
I have 3 daughters ages 17,13 and 10. My two oldest girls could really
care less about modeling. Flying would be okay. But my youngest is
interested in building and flying. She likes to clean fish! She even
likes doing spirals in an ultralight!
So who's to say what goes on in the minds of men and women. I agree
that its just a matter of being interested in one thing vs. another.
I enjoy it because I get a kick out of seeing the results of my labor...
from sticks to a real functioning plane. I also enjoy having control
over an object in the air. Oh well....as my wife says, "kids must
play!"
Ken
|
| 1263.29 | | ZENDIA::REITH | Jim Reith DTN 226-6102 - LTN2-1/F02 | Thu Nov 08 1990 09:28 | 2 |
| It's just an extension of the cable remote! Who clicks through the
channels at your house?
|
| 1263.30 | Another thought... | SELL3::MARRONE | | Thu Nov 08 1990 12:39 | 25 |
| Re: a few back
True, about all we can really say is that people just have different
interests. But that doesn't answer our basic question of how come the
interest in areomodeling (and other pursuits like audio, woodworking,
racing,etc.) are so skewed towards the male population. If all else
was equal, then I would expect an equal number of males and females in
areomodeling. Since that's clearly not the case, there must be some
difference between us that accounts for this.
Maybe the idea that our brains are slightly different is part of it.
Actually I think its more than that. We are probably dealing with a
very complex interaction between the genes we were born with and the
environment we grow up in coupled with the unique combination of
values, skills, and experiences each of us has.
What it may boil down to is that men somehow preserve the child in them
to a greater extent than women, and hence need to hold onto all their
toys, for whatever reason.
Ajai, now that you got us started I think we're going to have a hard
time getting out of this rat hole. But since we're having so much fun,
who cares? Yeah, I agree...better buy another disk!
-Joe
|
| 1263.31 | My not quite so biological $.02 worth | SAHQ::SOWER | | Fri Nov 09 1990 11:28 | 58 |
|
RE .22, .26, .30, etc
Just for a few minutes, for the sake of argument only, suppose we let go
of some of these strictly biological, 'scientific' explanations (which in
reality involve no small amount of mental gymnastics and leaps of faith).
Suppose we abandon, for a moment, the notion that genes have 'intelligence'
of their own. This 'intelligence' is strongly implied when, as often hap-
pens, we equate 'what' happens (observation) with 'why' and 'how' things
happen (pure conjecture, and often very shakey at that). Is there the
possibility, however remote, that there are some simple, straightforward
answers to some of these behavioral questions?
Suppose all the 'roles' and 'predispositions' and the like that have
been discussed here (and the hundreds that haven't) are merely residual
memories from past lives. Suppose 'gender roles' are faint memories of
survival tools we have acquired down thru the eons and which we retain
WAY down deep. What if we were to look upon the body (genes and all) as
a sort of magnificent computer. Now we all know that a computer is inert
and useless unless and until a 'program' [read spirit, soul, etc, whatever
nomenclature you are most comfortable (least uncomfortable?) with] is
'installed'/'present and operating'.
Given that wild premise, gender specific pursuits like:
bass fishing needle point
deer hunting knitting
RC modeling playing dolls
drag racing coffee-klach
etc . . . etc . . .
sort of all fall into place.
Additionally, all manner of things logically follow (not at all relevant to
this conference). Things like the amount of time one can expect to elapse
as we try to alter the 'collective unconsious' as Jung called it. What are
now considered 'sexist' instincts/predispositions (and therefore socially
unacceptable if not intrinsically evil) might, in this context, be more
reasonably viewed as old habits and dealt with differently. One might take
the notion that the habits that assured survival for centuries and eons are
not easily discarded in a generation or two, but will have to evolve out of
the collective psyche (sp?), giving way to tools more relevant to current
situations. One might even conclude that such evolution ought to be looked
upon as more of a process that an event, but that the process can, and should
be, influenced by the motivation of the players.
One might (heaven forbid!!) even entertain the notion that these 'instincts'
are legitimate realities and not just the exploitive tool kit of a bunch of
chauvinistic knuckle draggers.
A no more speculative or preposterous a premise than many others I have heard,
and one that leads to some intriguing lines of thought (probibaly best pursued
on a dull rainyweekend).
Jim
|
| 1263.32 | Nature vs: Nurture, a rather old question. | DIENTE::OSWALD | Randy Oswald | Mon Nov 12 1990 14:55 | 50 |
| Ajai,
I hope you're happy. I think you should be ashamed of yourself. :-)
Actually, this seems to have degenerated into the old Nature vs: Nurture
controversy that has been argued by behaviorists for quite a long time. There
was an excellent program on PBS (Saturday? evening) on this exact problem, that
is "are behavioral characteristics a product of upbringing/environment or
genetics?" Many of you may remember that this question was the basis of the
movie "Trading Places".
Recent studies on identical twins separated at birth indicate that in fact
genetics have more to do with our behavior than does environment. This then may
explain why men tend to be more technologically oriented and women more people
oriented. Its in our genes. I also personally believe that our environment
reinforces the traits. Now none of this is to say that these tendencies are
absolute, just that they are statistical tendencies that, in this case, happen
to be divided along sexual lines.
What does this mean in terms of RC? Well, first and formost it means that I'm
not bloody likely going to find the love-of-my-life at the flying field.
Beyond that I don't think we'll ever see large numbers of ladies involved
in the hobby. As Patti has said, for most ladies there just isn't any point.
I think the reason may be a trifle more deeply rooted than upbringing, and
for this reason I don't think there is too much we can do about it. We can
however insure that we don't drive off those women who might be interested.
We can do this by helping to reduce/eliminate those blatently sexist aspects of
the hobby that undeniably exist. We can try to help by bridging the knowledge
gap that is perpetuated by most societies. We do this by making it acceptable
for girls/women to be interested in technology and fostering any interest they
show in it. Lastly we can acknowledge that women view the world in different
ways than men and we can try and understand this. Patti's looking at a
horizontal stabalizer and seeing a "tail" is absolutely correct. Lets
acknowledge this! We men must explain everything and this, I think, is why we
are jargon fanatics. Horizontal stabilizer leaves no doubt as to the function
of the entity in question, but gives a novice absolutely no useful information
of what the damn thing looks like! "Tail thingy" on the other hand is
instantly recognizable by anyone whos seen an airplane. Now I ask you - Who's
got it right?
Lastly, lets also recognize that this is a two way street. There are some
(many?) men interested in various of the "womanly" arts and face exactly the
same problems. If you (men) have ever run into this keep it in mind the next
time a lady wants to know about our toys.
My .00002 cents worth.
Randy
|
| 1263.33 | Women and RC | KAY::FISHER | Stop and smell the balsa. | Fri Dec 07 1990 14:42 | 98 |
| The recent entries into the Radio Repair note just woke me up.
Seems that several modelers are admitting that there first radios
were Heath Kits.
Well as it turns out my first radio was also a Heath Kit - about 18
years ago. At that time my wife and I purchased two Heath kits radios
and two Associated 1/8" scale cars and Veco .19 engines. His and Hers
RC car kits as it were. Hers was a red Porsche race car and mine
was a black Dodge Charger Daytona (that's the one with the big wing
in the back).
Well we worked on them together on the kitchen table for many evenings
and weekends and both turned out fine. She had no problems with the radio
or car and the only help I remember giving was maybe a 1 hour lesson on
soldering.
When we finally took a few trips to the giant parking lot in the
Pembroke Mall in Virginia Beach we found out who was the best driver.
Nether one of us could get the hang of the orientation problem of
reversing direction and we hit every light pole and curb in site.
I have to admit I hit them harder and more often. After several repair
try again cycles we both lost interest and they collected dust for a
few years. The local RC club did not do cars and there were no wheel
radios at the time. But we did have linear servos!
My radio was a 5 channel and hers was a 3 channel. Even back then I
was interested in planes - but she wasn't. We never used more than
two channels of either radio however.
Sooooooo - in summary - women should stay in the Kitchen where they belong.
This RC stuff is a MAN's hobby. Something for only a man's kinda man,
a macho kinda man, a manly man.
Real (RC) men don't have:
dual rates
dihedral
frequency flags
transmitter neck straps
electric fuel pumps
a building season
nitro
synthetic oil
electric planes
electronic mixing
more than 4 channels
less than 4 channels
verandahs
toilets
mufflers
soft mounts
range tests
chicken sticks
electric starters
plastic covering
yellow wings
foam wings
fail safe
AMA insurance
repairs
ARFs
Expanded Scale Voltmeters
CA glue
Bye --+--
Kay R. Fisher |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
|
| 1263.34 | I hate cross stitch | RANGER::WIMMER | | Tue Feb 19 1991 18:34 | 20 |
| I can't believe not a single woman who has built a plane has responded
to this note string........welll, here I am guys. I built an RC car 3
years ago, have raced often, and am presently building a new RC truck
for racing. I'm also building (oh, no.....) and airplane. No, not an
ARF, a from scratch kit (Midwest Aerostar 40). Planning on joining the
Cape Ann RC Club soon and learning to fly from one of their
instructors. Are you telling me there will be no other women on the
field unless they are cooking hamburgers.....I'm appalled!! I'm also a
very good cook, by the way.....no problem switching gears.
As for women not liking toys.....perhaps a gross overgeneralization. I
have LOTS of toys. Yes, I do knit, but on a high tech, computerized
knitting machine with disk drive and pattern programming device. Also
a PC freak, have an awsome stereo system, lots of photography
equipment, video equipment, play darts,and pool. I don't think I'm all
that weird........
See you on the flying field.....
Diane
|