If you're willing to think about it, that's a huge step forward, and a lot more than other people that have brought this same thing up.
The reason that so many people, myself included, have "flamed" you is that your original post is not just asking for thoughts or quality arguments, but states your negative opinion as well.
What does it say about your relationship to competition skiing and women's skiing in particular if you immediately compare the tricks of a winning run to your own abilities?
I'd put the theory forward that, like most people in the sport, there's a part of you (small or large) that will always want to be at the pro level. There's nothing wrong with this desire, as the industry has constructed the image of pros to be the highest attainable level of success in our particular sport. Our projection of the professional lifestyle holds fame, free product, getting paid to ski and travel with our friends, and a high ability level as judged by our peers. However different the reality might be, there's quite an allure to all that. And I'm not exempting myself from that either, because what I mentioned, in my ignorance of its actuality, sounds pretty awesome. Whether or not it's ultimately beneficial to buy into that industry projection is up for debate, but it certainly sells product.
The problem comes with your comparison. You see a woman attaining the status associated with incredible success, indeed the things you desire, but it doesn't match up with what you consider the necessary steps to get there (huge bag of the hardest tricks dripping with afterbang or something). I'd speculate that jealousy crops up because the ideal goal, ie that of being professional and getting all the perks we assume come with it, is viewed as closer or easier to attain if you're a female rider.
Remember too that you're applying skiing rules, practices, norms, and standards all developed by men to women. What would the ski industry as we now know it look like if it had been entirely developed with women in the positions of men?
It's my bias (look at my screen name), but the same thing happened with literature. For a long time, it was a man's domain, and women were either pushed to the sidelines or forced to write in the same way as men if they were to be given any shred of credibility. Sounds a lot like the comp scene now. And in the twentieth century, especially the latter half, women took the literary world by storm. In the process, they uncovered tons of female writers who had been marginalized, changed the canon (the group of books considered the best body of work) completely, added a whole other perspective to writing and study of writing in terms of continuing work that had already begun (Derrida to Cixous, for example) and spawning new areas of study like feminist and gender analysis. They also opened the door for other marginalized groups (postcolonial and queer theory) to happen.
Want a glimpse of what happens when women rule the nest? Look at Queen's Cup. It's basically a two day shred together that gets girls motivated, shredding with their skiing idols, hooks them up with gear, and lets them learn in a positive, supportive environment. The evidence is there that much of the skiing population wants this--we call it summer camp. People pay a grand and a half to attend or moan on NS about how they can't afford it.
I'm convinced that by expecting them to conform to the norms and structures of the skiing world developed around men, we've held women back. We do ourselves a great disservice in the process and miss out on a lot of what they've got to offer.
