Archive for February, 2010

Explaining the Canadian Olympic Medal Count Gender Bias

Friday, February 26th, 2010

Yes, I’m a woman, so you may consider me to be biased on this topic, but I think the facts are here to support me.  In the past few days there’s been a lot of discussion about both “Own the Podium” and the significant imbalance between medals won at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics by Canadian female vs. male athletes. 

I know the Olympics aren’t over yet, and there are still a few medals to be won, but the stats are trending overwhelmingly in favour of the Canadian women.  As of this morning, Canada has won 17 medals, 13 of which have been won by women, 3 by men, and one by the pairs ice dancing.  That’s over 75% of our medal count from the women.  To put this in perspective, of the 206 Canadian athletes at the 2010 Winter Games, 91 are women (44%).  If you look at our record gold medal count as of today, 5 of the 8 (63%) are thanks to our female athletes – 75% if you factor in the pairs ice dancing! So, the Canadian women are out-performing the Canadian men in absolute and relative terms!  

(This is a trend that is continuing from the 2006 Turin Olympics, when 16 of the 24 medals we won (67%) came from the women, at a time when their proportional representation was lower than at these Olympics.)  

So what’s going on here?  Is there an explanation for this apparent “gender bias” when it comes to our medal count? Do we have better female athletes than male athletes?  Are the women simply better prepared than the men?  Are the women handling the pressure better than the men?  Or as one female athlete wondered, was there simply less pressure on the women to perform and deliver medals?  Or is it something else?  Luck?

I can’t say I have the answer to this, nor do I think anyone else does, but it sure begs some interesting questions.  IF our female athletes are better than our male athletes, why is this?  IF it’s that women – or our female athletes in particular – are better prepared than the men, why is this?  What is to be learned from the women and how they’ve trained/prepared?  IF it’s that our female athletes are handling the pressure better than the men, why is this?  And, what can we learn from it?  Finally, IF it’s that there was less pressure placed on our female athletes – or perhaps expectations to perform and deliver medals – why was that?  And, was it right?  If it was something else, what was it? 

The “Own the Podium” debate is a whole other topic, but it sort of begs the question…IF it is deemed to have been a failure, then was it either only a failure as relates to the Canadian male athletes, or simply less of a failure when it came to the Canadian female athletes.  Maybe “Own the Podium” was in fact a success?!?  But how do you measure success?  Was it simply the overall medal count, which will certainly not put is in #1 position “owning the podium”?  Was it bettering our gold medal count (which we have) – and putting us in #1 position (which we now share with the U.S. and Germany)?  Maybe it WAS a success?  And, did we have the right expectations?   

Regardless, I think we need to see what we can learn from all of this, to make us better in the future, to live up to our expectations – or to re-set our expectations so they are more realistic.  After all, it is all about expectations. 

I will say that the pride we saw in these Olympics was a breath of fresh air for us Canadians who are typically so understated.  Maybe we went too far, but maybe not.  Oh and the Canadian women have come a long way…baby!  (And, yes I can say this because I’m a woman…cliché and all!)

What do you think about all this?

The protective instinct – in all of us

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

There were two events this past week that inspired the topic for this blog posting – the protective instinct – another more reflective topic for a change. 

The first was seeing the acclaimed movie The Blind Side, in which Sandra Bullock’s character is perceptive enough to pick up on Big Mike’s one positive “score” in his school records – i.e. protective instinct.  I think the typical viewer probably wouldn’t have really picked up on the significance of this, but mom Sandra Bullock sure did – especially when it came to playing football, and in particular the key position he played.  I thought it was brilliant how she drew on that insight to “coach” Big Mike to effectively play his position by drawing on his protective instinct.  It was his protective instinct that made him excel in his position on the football team.  That in itself was pretty powerful, but then I had a second encounter with this protective instinct just a few days later, this time with an animal. 

I was helping a fellow pedestrian who had fallen on her walk to work.  She was a perfect stranger to me, but I ended up with her in her home as we waited for an ambulance to arrive.  We were alone in the home – except for her pet dog.  At first everything was fine – at least it appeared to be on the surface, but that protective instinct was looming below the surface…this time with man’s best friend, her pet dog. 

In hindsight I suspect the dog’s protective instinct started to come to the surface as more strangers came into the house.  The arrival of the first ambulance attendant seemed to be fine, but add the second one and then that’s when things started to escalate.  She had clearly been through this before and immediately asked to have the dog put away.  I thought it was a bit odd, but then I understood.  They didn’t want a protective dog to go nuts on them and attack them.  They were strangers.  They wore uniforms.  They were in the owner’s house.  And she – the owner – was clearly upset, in pain, and being vocal about it.  As far as the dog was concerned, we/they were the problem, and were causing her owner harm.  The dog was coming to the rescue, with her protective instinct kicking in. 

While the owner had assured the ambulance attendants the dog was harmless, they knew better, explaining what was probably going through the dog’s mind, and how the dog may react.  Boy was she wrong, and they were bang-on.  None of the three of us could get the dog out of the room, and instead the dog started to get very agitated, circling her owner and barking at us.  At that point I was dismissed to leave the attendants to do their thing – the second attendant had a dog biscuit to lure the dog away, and seemed to be in control.  Needless to say, I was surprised when minutes later, as I was outside putting my iPod ear buds back into my ears before carrying onto work, I looked up and saw the two ambulance attendants rushing out of the house – without the woman who was injured – slamming the door behind them.  The dog had charged them, and they couldn’t get near the woman to help her for fear of being attacked – and if they were animal lovers, for fear of further traumatizing the dog. 

On one level I couldn’t believe what had just happened, but then again it started to make sense when I thought about that protective instinct – in humans and animals.  It’s no wonder they call a dog “man’s best friend”! 

As I walked to work, I thought about this a little bit more and realized that I’d also witnessed my own protective instinct at play in helping this woman.  I guess this protective instinct is pretty powerful because this was a total stranger – not a friend, or a child, or a family member.  I guess I also learned something about myself in all of this…it is said that you never stop learning!  It’s also nice to stop and reflect on some of the “deeper” things in life from time to time.  This week it was my time! 

Have you seen the power of the protective instinct at play?

Snickers Believes in the Olympics – Bold Re-naming Move

Friday, February 12th, 2010

As a Canadian, I thought I was fitting to blog about something “Olympic” today, with it being the opening day of the Vancouver Olympics. 

Yes, there’s been a lot of hype and excitement building up to the big day – whether it is about the athletes, the venue, the weather, and the sponsors.  They’re all intriguing, but I have to say that what really intrigued me was a bold branding move on the part of Snickers Bar.  It’s been very low profile from what I can tell, but this is how I learned about the temporary re-naming of the Snickers Bar (in Canada anyways) to the “Believe” bar.  

Last week as I was waiting in line at my grocery store, the display by the cash register caught my eye – of course it was the candy display. I noticed that several of the items were on sale, and with it being the weekend, I figured it was the right time to treat my husband and myself to our favourite chocolate bars – Mars Bar for me and Snickers Bar for him.  As luck would have it, the Mars Bar was one of those sale items, but I had to search a little bit more to find the Snickers Bar – because although the look and feel of the packaging was very similar to what I’ve been used to it wasn’t quite the same – and the name seemed to be different – so I was unsure.  What I was seeing on the packaging was “Believe” instead of Snickers.  That prompted me to pick it up and take a closer look, at which time I confirmed that it was in fact a Snickers Bar, but re-named Believe, with a small Snickers logo above the Believe logo to show the connection back to the “real” brand.  I looked some more and saw the Canadian Olympic Hockey Team logo to the right of the “new” Believe name, and to the left the “Fuel for the Gold” tagline.  Ah-ha…it was a Snickers Bar, but re-branded to support the Olympics, and specifically the Canadian Olympic Hockey Team – “Snicker Believes in me”.  I thought this was a very bold move on their part. 

After I got home I did a bit of digging around online and confirmed that this was special edition packaging for the Olympics, and would also be included in the athlete’s swag bags. I guess I was a bit surprised that it wasn’t being promoted more – at least from what I’d been seeing and hearing.  One of the interesting things I discovered in the process was that this wasn’t the first time the company had done this.  In 2006 the Mars Bar was re-named “Believe” in the U.K. to support England’s team in the World Cup that year, and then reverted back to the Mars Bar name.  So I guess there’s experience and precedence for this – and presumably success – which gave them the confidence to try the same move with another of their flagship candy bars – using the same “Believe” name – but on another continent.  

I guess we’ll have to wait to see how successful this move was for the Snickers Bar….but clearly they “Believe” and have chosen to make a bold statement with it.  Good for them!