Do shootresses really learn faster than shooters?

[ny32182]

If women were naturally better, this would be borne out in competition.

 

[9mmepiphany]

the OP doesn't say women are naturally better, it asked it they were usually faster than new shooters at learning to shoot.

 

[CapnMac]

In all the times I have given females gun instruction, they have gotten better. Whether a first-time tyro, or a novice. If you see something an suggest an improvement, it's taken to heart and converted to memory.

The only times I have run into problems were when disinterest, or physiology got on the way of teaching. (Just hard to teach how to get that elbow in contract with the ribcage with certain builds--especially when I don't have the first clue how to "fix it".) Cross-dominance id also hard to cope with, too.

Other issue is to remember that you are setting an example, one which will be closely examined and compared to others at the range.

 

[lookshigh123]

that's might be true.

 

[Boberama]

You grammar-gestapo are all wrong.

By the way: women who shoot are called shooters. Women who practice law are called lawyers. What's with all the esses added to words?!?

Wait a minute. Did Mas actually use the word "shootresses"?????????

It isn't that uncommon a word, is it?
It is from the same age as the word hostess and saves the use of two words female and shooters when one will suffice

"shootress" is an uncommon word in any era after 1880.

Right. And I'm sorry, there is no such word as "lawyeress". Women really don't need the suffix. It's not in use in print or in conversation.

First off, women who shoot are not called shooters. Women who practice law are not called lawyers.

Secondly, Ayoob did not use the word shootress in his book.

Thirdly, it is an uncommon word, and does save the use of two words.

Fourthly, yes, again, it is uncommon.

But fifthly, there is such a word as lawyeress. Women do need the suffix. I never heard much about the death of Prince Diana.

From The Elements of English Grammar (1894):

Occupations once reserved to men are now thrown open to women. If we wish to mark the female sex of the persons following these occupations, we must either use compounds and say lady-doctor, lady-lawyer, or manufacture inflected forms and say doctress, lawyeress.

 

[Boberama]

From The history of the famous preacher, Friar Gerund de Campazas: otherwise Gerund Zotes (1758):

Whilst he was a writer to the Notary at St. Milan, he had observed in various processes such expressions as these, Mary Gavilan, the fourth witness, being examined, &c. Ann Palomo, the eighth witness, &c. this hurt him infinitely; for, said he within himself, if a man is a witness, a women must necessarily be a witnessess since otherwise, the sexes are confounded, [...] Neither could he suffer that the author of "The Life and Miracles of St. Catherine" should say, Catherine, the subject of our history; seeming to him that Catherine and subject were false concord, since it amounted to the same as to say, Catherine, the man of our history, it being a plain case that men only ought to be called subjects, and women subjectesses. But if he met in a book with such an expression as, She was not a common woman, but a genius and an elegant writer, he totally lost his patience, and said to his scholars, all furious and flaming with wrath, "Intolerable! What is there more to be done, but to take off our beards and breeches and put them upon women! Why should it not be said, She was not a common woman, but a geniusess and an elegant writrix?"

 

[KarenTOC]

If we wish to mark the female sex of the persons following these occupations,

We no longer "wish to mark the female sex." Therefore, a woman who is a lawyer is no longer called a lawyeress.

From The history of the famous preacher, Friar Gerund de Campazas: otherwise Gerund Zotes (1758):

I admit to being old, but my grammar books were somewhat more modern.

 

[buck460XVR]

I thought this thread was about whether females learn to shoot faster than males.

....not about grammar.

....not about feminism.

IMHO.....Those things really have no pertinence here and only distract from the OP.

 

[shockwave]

Thirdly, it is an uncommon word, and does save the use of two words.

The word "shootress" is purely a nonce coinage. This is a troublesome concept to speakers with a rigid mindset, but it should be stressed that every English user is free to play with words and use them in any way desired.

There are no rules and no limits whatsoever to the skilled speaker. A very great many authors and philosophers have made this case repeatedly, to the extent that it is no longer questioned.

Only the very dim, the uneducated (and sometimes the children of elementary school teachers), will protest that you can't put a preposition at the end of a sentence, and similar such Miss Thistlebottomisms (pace Ted Bernstein). So where does this leave "shootress"? Well, it's the kind of thing that Searle or Austin would describe as being "unhappy" or "unfortunate." It's within the realm of the possible, but not in the sphere of idiomatic usage.

On a trip to visit the National Archives, I had occasion to read in person this letter from Annie Oakley to President McKinley, in which she offers the services of herself and "fifty lady sharpshooters."

This indicates that, even in traditional speech at the most-formal register, at a time when suffixes like "-tress" and "-trix" were routinely ubiquitous, something along the lines of "female shooter" was the standard, and today "woman shooter" or "female shooter" is still the idiom.

 

[Manco]

If women were naturally better, this would be borne out in competition.

To be fair, there would have to be equal interest in shooting between women and men, and I don't think that there currently is. Certainly if women did better in competition despite having less interest overall, then that would speak volumes, but just because men still dominate does not mean that men are naturally better overall, either. In short, at present we can't tell for sure from high-level competition, but from what I've seen, I think that women would at least be doing better than they're doing now if they, as a group, had more interest in shooting in general.

the OP doesn't say women are naturally better, it asked it they were usually faster than new shooters at learning to shoot.

True, but many posts in this thread seem to say that women are naturally better shooters in addition to being faster learners. While I think it's true that on the average women tend to be more receptive to training in this field as novices, this has a lot more to do with cultural than biological differences, in my opinion. Some men expect to be naturally good at shooting, which usually isn't the case, and at least better than women, which as we've found isn't necessarily true either (based on what I've seen, I'll simply assume that men and women have more or less equal potential until it's proven otherwise), and these are the ones who are more difficult to instruct. In the end it always comes down to the individual, though, regardless of gender.

As for all the statements being made here about how women are inherently smarter and more talented than men, maybe I'm taking all of this too seriously, but is that what fathers and mothers are telling their sons these days? "You're just a boy--don't worry your pretty little head over it." I know that all of you wouldn't tell your daughters that they're inferior because they're female, and you certainly should not. But what good is all the progress that has been made and is still, out of necessity and because it is right, being made in enabling women to realize their potential if men are unnecessarily and unfairly denigrated in the process? I guess our newborn sons have had it good for thousands of years, and now it's time for them to "pay the piper" and bear the awful burden of sexual discrimination.

 

[Boberama]

Our watchword evermore shall be "The -ess forever!"

We no longer "wish to mark the female sex."

Oh yeah? What about this:
'A rigid application of the Guardian style guide caused us to say of Carlo Ponti in his obituary, page 34, January 11, that in his early career he was "already a man with a good eye for pretty actors …" This was one of those occasions when the word "actresses" might have been used.'


This isn't relevant to my original post. Anyways, seems my question has been answered. Thanks all!

 

[9mmepiphany]

Well since the OP feels his question was answered, I guess we're done here