"Are Boy Points Real?" chronicle article

[AMWookey]

One does not preclude the other.

I can honestly say from one eventer to another, your response to this all is disappointing. The blatant misogyny and sexism in the article is pretty irrefutable, whatever your personal thoughts may be. You can argue all you want that there isn’t enough data, but you can’t argue the language and statements utilized in the article.

I think the starting line analogy is so good for this. And men in riding at the junior level get to start from a better place purely because they look different from the rest. And bc of attitudes like the judge in the article. They even stated that it’s fine if they are not stylish, and more workman like for goodness sakes.

[2bayboys]

Judge A: “Boys are better, sorry.”

Trainer O: “I have to treat girls differently than boys, because crying.”

@RAyers: “There’s no empirical evidence showing that sex actually conveys an advantage in this sport.”

[libgrrl]

I never had an issue with being a “horse girl.” Maybe where I came from it didn’t have the same “meaning” as it may have had elsewhere – I don’t know. My perception was that my peers recognized that horses were “my thing.” Of course, I was living in California.

In my era, a boy in breeches would certainly have been regarded as a bit of an oddity. Particularly if they were cis-het (although that wasn’t a term then.)

I fully recognize (and own) the fact that this is just anecdotal evidence from a particular part of the country.

[wanderlust]

@AMWookey

It took my husband 5 mins being in the horse world to realize he got boy points.

He got more access to coaches, more mentoring, more notice in classes. Everyone knew him, everyone wanted to help him out.

Am I the only one who has noticed in all the many many articles over the years about the equitation classes/riders that there’s always some uber-talented working student who doesn’t have the means to compete at that level? The one where the trainer gives them a leg up and they work so hard and ride 34 horses a day and go to school online in the evenings and are so polite and helpful?

It’s literally always a dude. Every time.

This year’s example: https://www.chronofhorse.com/article/day-in-the-life-with-equitation-rider-and-working-student-luke-jensen

[coffeehag]

My dude, I am begging you to get an iota of reading comprehension and a loose understanding of sociology

Every single one of your posts have been “wElL mY eXpErIeNcE” and no has argued with you. No one has argued with YOUR posts that are anecdotal based on observation and not experience or data, yet you have an issue with every woman thus far who far who has said that there’s a greater systemic issue.

The concept that sex plays a significant role in the success in this sport fails to account for all of the other factors that are more likely to play in the overall access to and judges scores in equitation. The fact people call it “big eq” says it right there. It is a money driven concept and not sex. Until there is clear epidemiological evidence that shows sex has an effect of judges scores, e.g. direct comparison of score versus sex accounting for all other variables such as trainer, barn, horse, judge,… this is a specious argument.

You are so surrounded in your own echo chamber you can’t be bothered to see the bigger picture, and whether you intend it or not, you comments here have been drenched in a boatload of misogyny that you may find in your interest to unpack.

Some articles that might be helpful:
Harvard Business Review How Bias Against Women Persists in Female-Dominated Workplaces
A new UN report has found almost 90% of men and women hold some sort of bias against females
The Anthropomorphic Application of Gender Stereotypes to Horses
Exposure to Women’s Sports: Changing Attitudes Toward Female Athletes
Why Aren’t More Women On the Podium?
Why has a woman never won Olympic gold in showjumping or eventing? H&H investigates…

[hillary_again]

@RAyers, I thought the article was dumb. Serious topic, but the article was not seriously written.
Thanks to the instructors, trainers, and coaches contributing here. There are a lot of observations that could be used to make English riding more popular.
Wish we’d focus more on making riding a fun sport, and get away from showing as the goal, and riding being a way to get to shows.

[gertie06]

Quick question: were any of the more successful boys from this year’s finals NOT from by the small circle of “It” programs? (Heritage Farm, North Run Farm, etc)

[FitToBeTied]

Another guy here and I don’t ride Hunters or equitation because I really don’t like the subjective nature of the whole thing. I looked up past winners of the Medal Mclay equitation and since 1990, only six boys have won. So in 31 years, that’s only 20%. So if the “boys Points” is such a big deal, shouldn’t that percentage be higher? In the 30 years before 1990, ten boys won, so 33%. That would seem to indicate that if “boys points” are a thing it is waning.

I can’t speak for other guys but I do believe there is a lot about self selection and its not always based upon winning. I found hunter shows to be interminable the way they were/are run. I saw no point in standing around for hours just to ride for three minutes. I don’t think a lot of boys are going to be tolerant of that.

Second, I don’t think most boys are tolerant of the subjective nature of the hunters/equitation. We tend to be more about fastest/most/furthest/etc. they we are about style points. Of the teenage boys that I know (admittedly not that many) they all train with eventing trainers. Before someone jumps in about “what about dressage” in eventing. Dressage is only one phase, it’s scored against a known standard and you get to see the score on individual parts. So subjective, sometimes frustrating but not nearly to the level of hunters/equitation.

So the boys you end up with in hunters/equitation are the ones that are probably pretty good at it and dedicated to it which is not a comment on the girls in the sport. But even with that I don’t see boys winning much even at the lower levels.

So how big a deal is “boys points” really in a sport that is dominated by women in every phase (e.g., number of riders, trainers, etc.)?

[Trekkie]

" I looked up past winners of the Medal Mclay equitation and since 1990, only six boys have won. So in 31 years, that’s only 20%. So if the “boys Points” is such a big deal, shouldn’t that percentage be higher? In the 30 years before 1990, ten boys won, so 33%."

So, I feel like this statement illustrates what everyone is saying on this thread. If the entire sport of hunters and equitation is massively dominated by women and girls, then why are 1:3 or 1:5 winners of the big eq boys/men? That ratio is certainly not representative of the numbers in the sport, which may actually be closer to 1:100 or 1:200 boys/men to girls/women.

[2bayboys]

@FitToBeTied

Another guy here and I don’t ride Hunters or equitation because I really don’t like the subjective nature of the whole thing. I looked up past winners of the Medal Mclay equitation and since 1990, only six boys have won. So in 31 years, that’s only 20%. So if the “boys Points” is such a big deal, shouldn’t that percentage be higher? In the 30 years before 1990, ten boys won, so 33%. That would seem to indicate that if “boys points” are a thing it is waning.

I can’t speak for other guys but I do believe there is a lot about self selection and its not always based upon winning. I found hunter shows to be interminable the way they were/are run. I saw no point in standing around for hours just to ride for three minutes. I don’t think a lot of boys are going to be tolerant of that.

Second, I don’t think most boys are tolerant of the subjective nature of the hunters/equitation. We tend to be more about fastest/most/furthest/etc. they we are about style points. Of the teenage boys that I know (admittedly not that many) they all train with eventing trainers. Before someone jumps in about “what about dressage” in eventing. Dressage is only one phase, it’s scored against a known standard and you get to see the score on individual parts. So subjective, sometimes frustrating but not nearly to the level of hunters/equitation.

So the boys you end up with in hunters/equitation are the ones that are probably pretty good at it and dedicated to it which is not a comment on the girls in the sport. But even with that I don’t see boys winning much even at the lower levels.

So how big a deal is “boys points” really in a sport that is dominated by women in every phase (e.g., number of riders, trainers, etc.)?

So. If boys in equitation make up 10% of the riders, but win 20% of the time, that doesn’t make you go ??

Now I’m guessing here at 10%, but I suspect it’s actually less than that.

[Impractical_Horsewoman]

I actually think this is the crux of the issue (for me). It’s not that women from tremendously privileged backgrounds haven’t won, but rather there have been quite a few very prominent boys from less horsey or at least less affluent backgrounds who have been in the top ten, or relatively competitive, and go on to pro careers. And the question arises, if they’d been girls, would they have gotten the same opportunities and institutional support, all things being equal.

For both genders, the fact it’s so hard to (apparently) even get the judge to pay attention and not take a mental coffee break if you’re not from 5 barns makes it even more important that you get picked up and mentored by one of those barns, so if there is subjective bias in favor of “we need to have more boys winning in our sport” (as the article certainly suggests) then sexism becomes an issue.

[kirbydog]

easy. example. take a big hunter class. horses come in and just flop around, nice and polite, but uninspired. then one a little prettier or a lot, a little better mover or a great mover, an over achieving great jumper comes in. You are being judged from the moment you walk in. If that horse trots across the ring, and just strokes across the ground, your ears will perk up. if it has a big slow jump instead of just cantering across it, you will take notice. that is what i mean by different

[blue_heron]

But you’re saying that the difference here was that the rider was a boy. Not that the horse was a better mover, etc.

[kirbydog]

no. i said NOTHING about the gender of the rider. I was asked where someone would be rewarded in a hunter class for “something different” . I gave an example of something different. This whole part of the conversation goes back to people wondering why a judge may sit up and take notice.

Look, all I’m saying is that even though one particular judge says she gives “boy points”, after 40+ years of showing sometimes 20 weeks a year, with men, women, girls and boys, never once did one of them earn a ribbon they didn’t deserve due to their gender in the hunters or equitation. In fact, in that division, I have frequently seen the battle of the tall blonde girls winning over the shorter curvy girls. With an occasional boy thrown into the mix. And in the hunter ring, unless the rider is detracting from the horse, it makes 0 difference.
Are there judges who will pin a boy over a girl just because? Yah, apparently. Is it common? In the roughly 4000 days I have spent a horse shows, not including my pre-pro days, I haven’t seen much of it. But, what do I know?

[blue_heron]

@kirbydog

In fact, in that division, I have frequently seen the battle of the tall blonde girls winning over the shorter curvy girls. With an occasional boy thrown into the mix. And in the hunter ring, unless the rider is detracting from the horse, it makes 0 difference.

You can’t be serious. I think the Plaid Horse article from this year’s McClay finals would dispute this (albiet in the worst way possible).

[vxf111]

We had a black president so racism is over. Obviously I’m being sarcastic. But this is the same attitude.

[gertie06]

I would highly encourage everyone to read Malcolm Gladwell‘s book, Blink. It’s so good.

Let me pare it down: Even if someone honestly thinks they are not biased, they still are. I’m biased, you are biased, everyone is biased. It’s part of being human. Don’t believe me? Take the Harvard implicit bias test online.

In our society, being male (especially a tall male) is linked to athleticism and success.

So yes, boy points are real. The question is whether judges recognize this, and/or care to do anything about it.

[Texarkana]

@blue_heron

But you’re saying that the difference here was that the rider was a boy. Not that the horse was a better mover, etc.

I am not @kirbydog, but I’m saying that a tall and thin boy presents a better first impression per our subjective standards. It doesn’t have anything to do with his gender, but rather this ideal we have created that the perfect hunter rider is tall, lean, and athletic with an androgynous body type.

That body type preference is somewhat founded in reality, as someone with those proportions generally has an easier time riding and learning to use their aids. But we all know there is more to riding than body type, so you cannot automatically assume the person with the best physical dimensions is the best rider.

[kirbydog]

Clearly, you know more about the subject than I.
RE: The Plaid Horse article. If you are referring to the one that is posted upthread, all it shows is who has won over the last 80 or so years. In the more recent years, you will see a trend towards long legged thin girls. (and btw, it’s Maclay)
I have been doing this for ever. I know what I see.

[kirbydog]

the rider is not being judged in hunters. the horse and the round are. the rider is not being judged in hunters. the horse and the round are. one more time for clarity. the rider is not being judged in hunters. the horse and the round are.
if it were true that the tall long legged boy/man was going to be the winner in a hunter class due to his body type, i would never ever have won anything.