Are men better trainers or are there more male trainers taking their work public ?
.
I feel it's not just horsemanship, it extends into every industry. It seems to me males tend to be more competitive and therefore more enclined to advertising their success then females. Maybe that's what Bud and Miriam where talking about with the passive leadership (just started reading it btw). I think it's all a question of perception.
.
One could argue that success with horses is measured in their athletic performance, someone else might mesure it in how close they are with their handler. Success is relative towhat the person doing the assessment considers as top priority.
.
I mean the topic is endless.
.
Were did you read this article ? it'd be interesting to see the type of source

Wow, that really is a big issue! I would also like to see the article if you could post a link Dionne that would be good.
:
I could write a dissertation in response to this :-) (but I won't I promise!). But I will 'throw in' a couple of points to join in....
:
"If horses are looking for clear, strong, consequent leaders , why are women still confusing the issue with emotion? ( you only have to look a a Clinton Anderson video to see women NOT being leaders, and having to be ' re-wired' by Clinton to be able to deal with their horses)" - this sentence alone is a huge subject... (1) Aggression IS an emotion - Clinton Anderson is very aggressive towards horses - he justifies it when he is working with "aggressive" horses. Violence requires emotion to drive behaviour. Horse use emotion but only in the "here and now" - humans use it in a much more complex (and often irrational) way. 2. Good leaders DO use emotion - how can you be a good leader without using the emotions of sensitivity and compassion (amongst many others) as well as the more analytical skills, ? 3. There are more men at the top of most professions because of a complex socially (not genetically) constructed society based on tradition, patriarchy, outdated beliefs and notions of artificially constructed male/female roles. While society is changing, there is a long way to go. We (I mean society not aiming 'we' at the forum - I mean everyone) must be careful not to base our beliefs and behaviours from a false foundation/assumption An example of this would be an "accepted truth" that "all women are maternal, men are not" then subsequent values and beliefs spring up from there that perpetuate the ongoing design of society. However, the "truth" must be questioned. It is not a fact that "all women are maternal and men are not" so if you change the platform, everything else has to change too.
:
ok, I'll stop there, I'm seriously risking too much thinking out loud and going into delivering a lecture hahaha
:
A fascinating and very complex subject....

Hi all,
Generalisation is dangerous,... but
-I recently read "Made for each other" by Meg Daley Olmert, about human-animal communication, where she scientifically describes what happens when two living beings bond. The hormone Oxytocine is very much involved in any relationship, like mother and newborn baby etc. Women tend to make this hormone more easily and in higher doses than men in general do. I highly recommend reading this book!
-Now if ever I've seen a man being emotional in relationship to horses, it's Monty Roberts!!! Tears well up in his eyes whenever he's made the difference to a horse...
-Whoever is willing to open his/her heart and mind to learning the language Equus can become a good horseperson.
-Being a trainer is another thing than being a good horseman, method is one thing, being able to pick up where the other stands is something good teachers do.
OK, I'll leave it to that, nice thread!
Miriam

Interesting points Vicci and Miriam, I forgot to write a couple of things..

1- in a herd environment a mother to a new born foal will teach that foal how to get along in the herd correct ?, she nurtures the foal by for example rubbing the foals neck, in my eyes, that is using what we humans would see as emotion .
When that foal matures it will probably take its orders from the herd leader, that can be both a mare or a stallion, hope I'm explaining good enough here, the herd leader often stands alone , the others in the herd don't want to get too close , because it's the leader of the pack, therefore our fictional young horse will take cues from a herd leader from a distance, and the others - following hiarachy. From what I can see , when I have , as an example just seen Shilo join a new herd, the dominant horse will tell the young new horse what to do , this is not achieved by ' petting' the new or young horse,, this is often done by pushing and shoving, biting and fighting ( in nature ) = aggressive behavior.

Miriam, you wrote quite correctly that Monty uses his emotions when training horses, yes he does, but I can see on his videos that Montys cues to the horse are precise, clear etc.. And any bad behavior is responded to sharply and immediately.
When Monty tells a horse he has done well. The horse gets a stroke on the neck or between the eyes, with a " good boy" .
Go to any riding school and see the girls and women over suffocating the horse with kisses and cuddles, I think that is what I'm trying to get at, but it's really difficult to describe and explain.
Men don't smother , where a lot ( not all ) women do.

Vicci- I agree about Clinton Anderson, I think I wrote too that his methods are to aggressive for me, but it was just an example of what I mean- the women ( and some men) have to be re programmed to react to the horse the way the horse wants, quick , concise etc.
Of course we all ( hopefully) have an emotional bond with our horses, buts that's not what I meant, I'm so dum at this explaining business!!!!!!!

Re the article. I'll have to go back maybe 6 months in my PC in the history, hope it's still there, it was something I pondered about . It was very interesting, because I found at the beginning with Shilo that of course I could pet him and feel he is the best thing ever, but the more concise, and matter of fact I am with Shilo the better the training results, but that doesn't mean I'm aggressive, quite the opposite, just more to the point , bolder (?) maybe, not accepting 'half measures ' ......aaaaargh it's difficult to explain . :-)

Here is the article :- please read til through before exploding.....
The author is Rick Gore.
I agree with what he writes and this is what I was trying to explain. ( wonder why I never was an author!!!!)

Why Men are More Successful with Horses

Holy cow, I bet I got more jumps to judgment on this title than a horse with a cactus under his saddle. Easy ladies, hear my out and you might even agree with what I have to say.

Let me start with what a few of you are thinking. Where does this guy get off thinking some sexist thing like men are better with horses? Some time we all tend to jump to conclusions, even with our horses. A horse may accidentally step on us and we take it as a personal attack or insult. A horse may not feel good and be lethargic and we call them lazy, disrespectful or blame them for not paying attention. Horses teach up patience and if we forget that, they teach us a lesson.

Now back to men and women with horses. Men and women are different, that should be no surprise and most would agree on this point. Ying and Yang in all things, I discuss this on my site. Men tend to be more stringent, tougher and less forgiving. Women tend to be more flexible, not so ego driven tough and more forgiving. Men tend to be disciplinarians and enforcers, while women tend to be more willing to give additional chances and not as quick to discipline. Men tend to be stronger than women are and are more willing to use their muscles, where women tend to find other ways to get results other than brute force. Both have situations when their specific traits are useful and better for the specific task or circumstance. I know these are not absolutes, but generally, these tend to hold true.

Horses like direction, they like consistency, they like knowing the rules and having the rules clearly defined. Horses respect dominant leaders and in fact, if they are not dominated they will see it as weakness, take advantage of you, treat you like a lower horse and try to move upwards in the pecking order. Horses are tougher than humans and live differently than humans. Horses give out strict and consistent discipline to other horses. Horses are enforcers when it comes to their hierarchy, social structure and pecking order. Horses do not allow transgressions without enforcement and a response. A horse will NOT say, “Oh, that’s ok, I know you did not mean to do that, I will let it go since I know it was an accident.” Horses pay attention and expect other horses to pay attention. If you do not pay attention and impose or invade on a higher horse and miss a signal to back off and you do not show the proper respect, you will be kicked or bitten. If a horse kicks you, it is not personal it is just the rules. You will NOT be kicked softly to give you a chance, you will NOT be kicked lightly, you will NOT be pushed away kindly with a hoof… you will be kicked hard and fast because those are rules. If you take a horse lesson personal, you miss the lesson.

You can read about herd behavior and hierarchy on my Horsemanship page of my site:

If you look at horses and their way of life, they are closer related to the way men are rather than the way women are. Since men tend to get aggressive, strict or forceful quicker than many women, a horse responds better and see that as clearer. Most men tend to be more specific and less flexible, some may say stubborn or macho, so they are quicker to correct than a lot of women. Whereas women are more likely to give a second, third or a fourth chance before giving out discipline, women tend to have more patience than men do and are less likely to resort to physical or aggressive discipline. This is good for teaching horses certain things, but can be counter-productive for day-to-day handling of a horse. I say it all the time, when working with men I have to say ease up and do not be so aggressive and with working with women I have to say get tougher and be more aggressive.

Women have been a big part in getting “Natural Horsemanship” to take off. Natural Horsemanship is kinder, gentler and better for the horse. It also takes more time, more patience and a better understanding of the horse. This is why women tend to be better with Natural Horsemanship techniques and men are more resistant to accepting it. Women traits help them succeed better in Natural Horsemanship verse the old way of force, fear and intimidation. However, with that said, force, fear and intimidation works with horses and normally works faster. I am not promoting meanness or encouraging it, but the fact is it works. Aggression tends to work faster, takes less time and gets results. I always hear if Natural Horsemanship is so much better, why would anyone use the old ways? It is really simple, the old ways work, they worked for many years, they work faster and they get results, not necessarily better results but results. Easy now, I absolutely still think the old ways are not as good as Natural Horsemanship. The old ways may get results, but it destroys the spirit of the horse, it tears down trust, it is much harder and tougher on the horse and you do not get as good of a horse as you can with Natural Horsemanship. I say it all the time, the slow way is the fast way with horses. Natural Horsemanship is slower than the old ways.

So why would anyone use the old ways? Time and lack of knowledge are the two main reasons. The old ways are faster and you do not need to know as much or understand the horse. If you beat a horse or intimidate a horse enough, you can get it to do just about anything and never worry about understanding a horse or worry about working with the horse. If you just want fast results, so you can use the horse for work faster, the old way is better. Which is why I have a problem with trainers who claim to be Natural Horseman and then use the old ways to get fast results in less time and unless the client is there during the training, they will not find out until it is too late. The old ways work better for men since they can use force, strength and aggression. These ways are not as easy for a woman to use, so they tend to do better with Natural Horsemanship.

Unfortunately, if you can get aggressive, you really do not have to know as much about a horse, to get results. The problem is, if you do not know much about a horse and cannot get aggressive, then you will not be very successful with horses. If you are NOT going to be able to depend on aggressiveness, strength and the old ways, you really have to know much more about a horse and have a much better understanding of the horse, in order to get results. Natural Horsemanship is just being nice and never correcting a horse. This is a big misconception in the horse world.

The statistics say about 80% of all horse owners are women. I hear and see the same thing all too often. Women who mean well, who try hard, who want to be successful, who love horses and give great care to their horses, but they are not successful. They struggle, get frustrated, hire trainer after trainer, sell and buy horses and just do not seem to be successful with their horse. Then they justify or rationalize their failure by blaming the horse, the breed, the trainer, the equipment and everything but they never look in the mirror. To me, when people fail with a horse, it comes down to them not willing to get aggressive, not willing to be dominant, and not having the inability to get tough and be consistent. This lack of willingness is either fear or inability. When people fail, they give carrots, they try to talk to the horse, they continue to try to give the horse chances, they accept less than what they want, get frustrated and think they are being kind and loving to their horse. In fact, this behavior confuses horses, the horse sees this as inconsistency and it creates a lack of respect from the horse.

So why do I think men tend to be more successful with horses, because they don’t have to be as smart (I know all you women will love this point), men are willing to use aggression and force quicker and they are more dominant and more likely to discipline. That works with a horse, not because it is better, but because it works and horses understand it. It works since it is the way of the herd communicates and it is the same way horses treat each other. If you have ever seen a mare correct her foal, it is not pretty, it is aggressive, hard and overdone in my book, but it is their way. A mare will bite a foal so hard in the back that it will drive it to the ground almost smashing it to the ground buckling the foal’s legs. The foal will immediately get up and run back to mom and stay right next to her showing extremely submissive behavior. Not a lot of words or begging in a herd, no offering of carrots, maybe a couple of warnings and then it is “action” time.

I guess the moral to this is, if you do not want to use force, fear, intimidation or aggression, you better be willing to learn 10 times as much about the horse and horse behavior and have a much better understanding of the horse. You have to be willing to study and educate yourself, so the need for the old ways are not needed. You need to know that sometime you will have to get tough, dominate a horse and make them see you as a strong leader. It you are never willing to discipline and you believe that all horse problems can be corrected with a carrot, love, threats, words and other non-herd things, then I believe your odds of succeeding with horse will be low.

The horse is never wrong; they want and need direction. They need consistency so they know what is expected and know what the right answer is and know who the smartest and strongest leader is. You help a horse by being consistent, knowledgeable, fair and making sure there is only one right answer for the release and by making that right answer easy for the horse to find.

I hope everyone got something out of this article. Maybe now you have a little better understanding of how a horse thinks and how a horse sees their world. Happy Trails,

Rick
For more information about horses, visit my site: www.thinklikeahorse.org/

Hi Dionne,
I did read it all and I think I need a moment to gather my thoughts...
We recently wrote about the passive leader, that one is not represented here.
The word aggression is something I would never use, because it's always for the aggressor, never for the victim. There are no bounderies to aggression, it's a high adrenaline-reaction, which is just what we and our horses don't need. Horses are reactive, of course they have their hierarchy, that needs to be defended.
I fully agree with Rick's aversion against overcuddling any living being, my children used to say I was a very strict mother and sort of resented that. Now that they are adults they tell me, I was always fair, loving and a safe haven to them. The principle of PICNIC is something that is very dear to me. Am I a masculin woman, non of the sorts! I love and respect my environment and the living beings in it.
Having to study and learn the language Equus to be successful with horses can never be negative in my eyes. This means I respect the living being I'm communicating with, try to see the world through his eyes. Tradition is most of all about "not changing", let's be grateful for people like Monty, who show us how much we can grow, when we let tradition go.
Male or female is not important, the willingness to meet the needs of the horse is important!
Miriam

HI Dionne and all ----- WELL STATED ABOVE MIRIAM- - GREAT THOUGHTS VICCI..
.
.
When the name Rick Gore was mentioned as the author of the article, the topic made perfect sense. I Know the man and of his one-sided approach with horses. He seems to talk about many aspects about his experience with horses, most of which has little credence with the true understanding of the horse and how the horse fits in with its human companions. I am not into bashing anyone, but this man seems to have a very low opinion of women in general and also of ANY person that might ask a question of how to do a certain something with an unfamiliar horse. I have read his blog. ENOUGH ABOUT MR GORE; THIS FORUM HAS TOO MANY BRIGHT STARS AND THOUGHTS to allow negativity to creep in.
To the topic:
.
.I believe that women are much more in tune with their inner feelings than most men. I think that women are taught from the time that they are little girls to express themselves differently than men; and they can communicate what they are FEELING at a young age. This seems to develop itself into a confident approach to living life while bringing about a nurturing manner and organizational skills with almost everything they do. But, most of all, the feeling of confidence is what gets the horse`s attention. HOW DOES THIS FACTOR INTO HORSEMANSHIP?
.
.Because of the confidence with communicating on a GUT LEVEL that so many girls learned growing up, they can use that confidence as they learn to communicate with horses. It opens up frequency to unspoken intention. I feel that this type of communication is closer to how horses inter-communicate with each other. CONFIDENCE, demonstrated by the person attempting to lead a horse ,is a HUGE positive when working with any horse.
It demonstrates leadership and just what the horse is basically looking for. SOFT LEADERSHIP = CONFIDENT APPROACH +++++
.
.Men, on the other hand do not bring that same confidence, as a rule. to the table when attempting to work with a horse initially. What they do bring, so much of the time, is a false sense of confidence that morphs over into anger when the horse does not react in the intended manner. This is born when a group of young boys get together and a leader emerges, usually the biggest and strongest [not necessarily the smartest]. This also the birthplace for coercion in most men. Men, essentially, do not have experience of communicating on a gut level with their peer group, let alone a horse. We simply do not have same skills in our preparation for adulthood.
.
.Society has other ideas and you all have discussed these ideas previously above. Those ideas of a woman in charge of a group of men and directing them will change over time. Men are very reluctant to change. WHY, because they think they are IN-, CHARGE EVERYTHING, so why change. The smart women just let the man THINK that he is in-charge and then subtly shift the playing field in their direction. MUCH LIKE TRAINING A HORSE ----YOU LADIES ARE GOOD.
.
.You all have my vote

Bud

Bud, your wife is a lucky woman.
-
Miriam, I , like you, am more a masculine female, ( not physically) and what you wrote about being mum to your children sounds exactly like me.
-
I do agree with what Rick Gore writes, especially the very last paragraph in his article.
-
I don't agree that all little girls are brought up to express themselves more freely, and able to express what they are feeling from a young age- my childhood could not have been more the opposite.
I have a PH.D. From the school of hard knocks, if you have read what I wrote in the ' introductions' thread you will understand why, and so I think that ones upbringing has a lot to do with the way we are as adults, and in this case , the way we treat our animals.
maybe Mr Gore has some issues from his past that shine through now that he is an adult.
-

I don't think Rick Gore is a negative person- I don't know him personally , but from what I have seen of him on YouTube , I think he is just a guy being honest about his feelings, wether it be about women or horses.
He loves his horses, that's plain to see, he treats them well so in my book, he's alright with me ( maybe I'm glad I'm not married to him !!)

Great to hear what others think about this topic.

-

Thank you, Bud!
.
I started writing a response to this yesterday but had to quit and erase because I realised I was getting on my soap box in a long rant.
Starting over today. :)
.
Bud wrote "I think that women are taught from the time that they are little girls to express themselves differently than men;...."
Bud, you covered exactly what I tried to get at in my erased post. I believe men and women have pretty much the same genetic set-up for empathy and emotion, but social and cultural structures, as well as the amount of testosterone, shapes the way we develop these traits.
.
However, having read through Mr.Gore's article several times now, I see less of a sexist way of looking at women as inferior, and no mention of maternal or genetic disposals except what Dionne wrote in her first post.
Not to play the devil's advocate here, but to somewhat of my surprise I think he has a point with what he writes.
.
I do think he over-generalizes about women when he writes as if all of the presumed 80% female horse-owners were unable to be good leaders to horses.
And when he writes: "They struggle, get frustrated, hire trainer after trainer, sell and buy horses and just do not seem to be successful with their horse. Then they justify or rationalize their failure by blaming the horse, the breed, the trainer, the equipment and everything but they never look in the mirror." I think that is true for a *lot* of horse owners of both sexes, but since the majority of them are women, it will show up more often on the "female side". Show me the percentage in each group instead!
.
That said, I can't help but seeing the point in this part: "The problem is, if you do not know much about a horse and cannot get aggressive, then you will not be very successful with horses. If you are NOT going to be able to depend on aggressiveness, strength and the old ways, you really have to know much more about a horse and have a much better understanding of the horse, in order to get results."
He really do speak up for Natural Horsemanship here.
.
As a submissive kind of person and the owner of a horse that behaves too often like an explosive child, with whom I need to prove myself as the leader every other day (it seems),I can see the truth in these words whether I like it or not.
.
I think Mr.Gore is actually trying to get to the point that if horses seek clear direction and confident leaders, and if you don't know how they work, and you won't be aggressive towards them, then you could get into trouble. And he isn't altogether wrong either.
He doesn't say that you should "beat your horse into obedience", or that anyone is right in doing so. He does say that you can't cuddle them there either and women are more prone to trying that way than men are, because men find aggression and strength being the fast solution that works, which is a questionable way, but it does "work" - at least in one sense of the word.
.
OK, getting off my soap box now before I erase everything and start over. ;) .
.
Summing up my thoughts:
Men and women have different approaches to deal with problems.
Men *are* more likely to use aggressive behaviour.
We will *all* fail and get into trouble with "difficult" horses when we don't have enough knowledge of how they work. Women may seek out Natural Horsemanship methods sooner than men and take to them faster, because we do have less muscles to go with the "old ways" and so they seek out better ways.
But I do believe we have the same abilities to succeed when they are done right - and the same ability to fail when we choose to pick only the parts of it that suits us. I.e those who prefer the correcting parts and overdo them, and those who only practice the "cuddle" parts and never school their horses.
I didn't put any male/female label on the two, but you will know what you associated which with, and that alone tells you how you think of men and women. ;)
.
I caught this on a TV-show: "Labels are for cans of tuna, not for people!" (Or horses!)