View Single Post
Old April 7, 2013, 10:44 PM   #13
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
The easy, the popular, the sales-oriented answer is simple. Women everywhere probably love a women-only class....
Which, in and of itself, is a good reason to offer women-only classes. Our goal is to educate and train. If a woman would enroll in a class with only other women, but not in a co-ed class, making a women-only class furthers that goal. Refusing to do so frustrates that goal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
...The standards must be the same for all....
Yes, they need to be. But there is really no reason why a competent instructor should be assumed to modify standards in a women-only class compared with a co-ed or male-only class. The applicable standards should be, and can be, independent of the gender, racial and age (within a reasonable range) mix of the class.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
...And I think that women's classes promote that stereotype, and do not change it. In doing so, they become ethically repugnant...
The point of offering classes is to educate and train people. We've seen a number of posters describe why some women may well learn better in a women-only class.

It's not a matter of stereotypes or ethics. It's a matter of providing the most accessible quality training. If for some women that is most likely to be found in a class limited to only women, such classes are worthwhile.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05414 seconds with 7 queries