Vienna's Spanish Riding School has been around for over 400 years and is a perpetual fun thing to do for tourists - both the official shows and the rehearsals as well.

But the ring is one place that uppity women have yet to invade and all the riders have been men (according to a BBC report)

But now for the first time two women riders have successfully passed the demanding entrance exam and after FIVE more years training will then, if they still pass muster, will become riders in the main show.

Chalk up another barrier against women that is falling.

(Riding School officials deny they discriminated in the past.)

I believe the above poster makes some editorial comments.

No need for Riding School Officials to deny discrimination.

The President of the Board of the Spanish Riding School is a lady.

The General Director is a lady -some may know the name Elisabeth Gurtler - of the Sacher Hotel fame.


With about 15 total riders including the Chief Rider and also assistants in the Riding School positions are very limited. Many make this a life long career until retirement.

There have been female applicants in the past but none ever were able to match the very demanding requirements. Not my description - but that given by School Press Representative - also a lady.

The training lasts 4 years after a months trial period. The same period for all.

I often walk by the Riding school very early in the morning -as the stalls are across the street from the training and performing area. You easily see the riders , grooms and horses already at " work " not so glamorous and long before the later morning exercises seen by the public- not an easy job as some could imagine.

UH - The NYTimes writer was making editorial comments and was quoting the Riding School official. I'll report back with exactly who the article quoted - as for me i am just relaying what the article (very short) said. I do not know enough to make any judgments - though if no women in 460 years or whatever and now two then it smacks of discrimination (now my editorial comment)

Before you start making such comments learn a little about the Riding School and its history.

General Director Elisabeth Gürtler said she registered opposition over the decision among riders and the directors board. Female president of the board, Sissy Max-Theurer, said: "I am not happy about this decision."

I guess you better get up to speed on folks like the director who lament the coming of female riders.

http://www.austriantimes.at/index.php?id=8477

So first you say BBC report - then New York Times - now an austrian english language on-line info site- What comes next?

I repeat - learn a little bit about what you report - but this seems your usual style-

Discrimation - well how did these women Gurtler and Max - Theuer find their positions ?

<General Director Elisabeth Gürtler said she registered opposition over the decision among riders and the directors board. Female president of the board, Sissy Max-Theurer, said: "I am not happy about this decision.">

If this does not smack of discrimination even now tell me why?

riders, directors of the board and female board President all oppose letting women into this male domaine

Why is that not discrimination and no doubt was the reason women never participated in the past IMO

nuff said - i did not mean to touch a raw nerve but... so what

I rarely get involved in these kinds of discussions, however, in this situation I feel I must. The fact that the President and the General Director are women (they may or may not be "ladies", who knows?) has nothing to do with the fact that there have been no women riders in 460 years. I believe we have a prima facia case of gender discrimination.

Unfortunately you do not know the history of this and other institutions in Austria- nor have you probably ridden a horse in such acts as those performed by the white horses.



This not a big story or anyway controversial here in Austria.

Facts?

If as stated above, everyone , all decision makers ,riders, General Director, Board Memers , Board President all opposed female admission - I must ask the obvious question -How did this admission happen?

Perhaps the horse vote ?



It is just like me ,I do not pretend to examine other countries where I lack facts or proper information - such as an outsider looking at the USA - no woman - lady -President or Vice President in its history- No Black or person of color as President or Vice President. Discrimination ? But of course this is just 230 + years I think.

Sorry, but nobody here disagreed with the notion that there has been systemic discrimination against women and blacks in the USA throughout its history. I'm not sure what that has to do with it, nor do I care one whit whether this is Austria, or the USA or Mozambique.

There's that word "uppity" again. I still don;t get it. Not used in this part of the country - or at least by anyone I know.

Can someone please explain to me what they mean by it?

'uppity' to me is like someone trying to do something they are not supposed to, by societal convention, do - like dare become riders at the Spanish Riding School, where even female directors registered their opposition.

I believe poster still does not get it - takes things out of context - translation etc.
If everyone was supposedly opposed to this event - as he quotes or asserts or repeats - how then did the woman - ladies - attain the position ?

Still no answer ?

You attempt to reach a concludion you know nothing about.

Ok you win - there has never been any barrier thrown up to women joining the School

why now two qualify when thru the years none did is thus a mystery

none for over 400 years and suddenly two - quite a coincidence

either standards are getting lower or females are getting better at riding or whatever the qualification are

Q - why were some of the female directors and other riders opposed to two females coming in?

Was it that they did not think the gals were qualified and got in threw lower standards - affirmative action?

Please, just why some some on the board, including females, and some riders unhappy?

a serious question.

I believe the above poster makes some editorial comments.>

yes he did and you have given nothing to say why those editorial comments were not right on - that outright discrimination against women was the reason there have been no women allowed

i asked you to explain:

why did two prominent females in the directorship, quite a few riders and other members of the directors board oppose the two new gals getting in?

Perhaps there is another explanation besides the obvious sexism

No i know little about the structure, history as you point out but in this case you need not to see raw sexism at work.

And yes this is a great break through for women IMO

but i will await your answer - maybe there is some other reason some directors and riders opposed the women?????

In some ways, it's better not to be TOO familiar with the countries on which you're posting on a board like this one. I know I shouldn't post on Austria, a country where I've spent a greater part of my life than I'd have loved to, and I normally don't. But I simply cannot refrain from commenting on molker's remarks, and on this discussion in general. Here, the difference between Austria and a developped Western democracy becomes more than obvious, and in fact, more than endurable.

The problem with molker's way of arguing is not an individual problem. Rather, it's typical of right-wing Austrians in general, and at least 75 percent of Austrians are right-wing, including a great part of Austria's so-called Social Democrats. "I believe the above poster makes some editorial comments": indeed , molker, and that's what democracy is all about. The silly pretension that objectivity be possible (which is so very typical of Austrian debates, public and private) is nothing else than total incapability to deal with democratic diversity.
"poster still does not get it - takes things out of context": taking things out of context, that's Austria's most beloved discussion stopper. Nazi sayings, racism, antisemitism, you name it: whenever you're criticizing anybody in Austria for faults like those, s/he will inevitably accuse you of taking things out of context. Which damned context? Gender discrimination is gender discrimination in whichever context; Austria's historical context for that matter (apropos "before you start making comments learn history&quot is clerical, monarchic and fascist rule and according social organization; the fact that the long-term consequences of those historical periods are steadily losing grip on Austria's society (as the Spanish Riding School case is proving, among others) may be awkward to an Austrian rightist, but what does this context contribute to falsify PalenQ's (obvious) point of view?
"the President of the Board, the General Director, and the press representative are ladies", and thus, discrimination of women is beyond imagination: huh? People used to Western democratic standards might want to argue that it's always been part of gender discrimination that a (now decreasing) part of women, too, has been sharing the discriminating view of their own gender, like Mrs. Max-Theurer; but what's more easily to understand: Mrs. Gürtler has been nominated just a few months ago, and ever before, the Riding School has been directed by men. Your argument, molker, would (perhaps) be worth thinking about if the majority of directors of the Riding School in 460 years would have been female, and yet no female rider so far. But as it is, it's an obvious fact that just the recent appointment of Mrs. Gürtler has led to the acceptance of female riders (the real revolution, thus, being the appointment of a female director, and not so much of the first female riders, this to slightly correct BBC & NYT).
Lastly, "no woman and no black president or vice president in the history of the United States" (add: so why do you dare talking about discrimination in Austria?). This is the most typically Austrian part of molker's argumentation: 1. discrimination (racism, antisemitism, nazism...) is inexistent in Austria, 2. Stalin was a criminal as well, Americans have murdered the native population and discriminated blacks, so why do you blame Austria? Really, they don't even realize the contradiction between 1 and 2... molker: how many female presidents or prime ministers in Austrian history? (zero) And how many of Turkish or Serb descent, i.e. Austria's blacks, so to speak? (zero again, of course) Who told you that PalenQ is from the US? And if so, who told you that s/he is not black him/herself? Or else, who told you that white Americans consequently deny racial and gender discrimination in their country like Austrians are used to?
It's precisely the kind of arguing that molker is demonstrating here that made life in Austria maddening for me...