The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old April 8, 2013, 03:58 PM   #26
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
I was an apprentice in 1979. I was in the first class of apprentices with King County Carpenters that admitted women, and was classmates with the first three women in Local 131.

Some of these same claims were made then. Now, of course, they all attend the same classes, and there is no distinction.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998
Jammer Six is offline  
Old April 8, 2013, 04:13 PM   #27
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,891
Jammer, when you say "establishing a set of ethics," I'm not sure what you mean by that -- can you say more about that, and maybe give some examples of the sort of thing you have in mind?

As to the different needs of women, Kathy's mentioned a few, such as the ways women differ physically from men, and how that affects things like what are comfortable ways for them to carry; the difference in men's and women's initial mindsets, such that men are likely to need to learn to be less aggressive, while women may need to be taught to be more so. (IMO, the latter, by itself, is a reason for offering classes just for women.)

The fact that many men do posture (and sometimes behave inappropriately in other ways) has also been mentioned as something that keeps women from wanting to join coed classes. It's annoying, it's a huge distraction, and it's not our job to educate them, or put up with them. When we're paying good money to learn skills that may be needed for our survival, we have a right to be able to focus all our attention on what's being taught.

And here's another thing that hasn't really been touched on: the threats women face are, statistically, very different from what's likely to happen to men. Specifically, women are much more likely to be victimized by men they know: current or former intimate partners, or men they've met socially (think "date rape" here). At a certain point, ethical self-defense training for women must address that.

If you haven't read the thread I referenced in first discussion, Wo/Men, Handguns and Self-Defense, you might want to do that -- it brings up all sorts of ways that self-defense is a very different proposition for women.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old April 8, 2013, 05:44 PM   #28
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,950
Jammer,

Criminals actually do choose victims based on sex. All victims are not alike, nor are all criminals the same. But all criminals choose victims most suited to the types of crimes they intend to commit.

That's important, because defensive handgun training isn't just about hitting the target. It's also about teaching students how to stay out of trouble. That means teaching basic awareness including some knowledge of criminal behavior.

Violence is primarily a male problem. Men are overwhelmingly both perpetrators and victims of violent crimes. Women are rarely chosen as crime victims, relatively speaking. But when a woman does become a victim of a violent crime, she's much more likely to be facing someone she "knows" (which does not mean ex-boyfriend or ex-husband, though those categories are included; it is just as likely or more likely to mean the creepy friend-of-a-friend, the pushy guy at the coffee shop, the stalker, or the unbalanced neighbor). This factor makes a huge difference on the mindset side. It needs to be taught very clearly, because there are some important decisions each person must make on their own personal journey into armed self-defense.

It also makes a huge and important difference on the awareness side of the equation.

In addition, a woman faces size and strength disparities more frequently than a man will. She is more likely to face asocial violence than social violence. She's also better enculturated to deal with social threats than non-social ones. Men are slightly more likely to face social violence, including simple threat displays. Dealing with these differences goes straight to the heart of the mindset factor. (Book recommendation: Meditations on Violence by Rory Miller.)

None of the above has anything to do with female squeamishness or male rudeness or any other social factor of classroom management. It's simply a recognition that male and female student face different threats and thus may need to learn different strategies for avoiding those threats. A narrowly-tailored curriculum makes it possible to meet student these specific needs very efficiently. In the past, we've generally ignored the specific needs of female students, calling the class "co-ed" but tailoring its contents for the types of violence men were most likely to face. That's one of the many reasons women have shied away from high end classes: because those classes were not designed with women's specific needs in mind.

As far as I can tell, this type of information is even more needed at the intermediate to advanced levels than it is at the beginning levels. You never outgrow the need to learn information, skills sets, and strategies designed to work best in your own circumstances.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old April 8, 2013, 08:26 PM   #29
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
Well, with the best of intentions, I would disagree with that.

I've taught four, ten, twelve and sixteen hour defensive handgun courses.

In all four, I have consistently run out of time, and I could probably run out of time if I had two weeks with my students.

As a result of that, I end up picking and choosing what to teach, and the majority of time is spent on the draw. The next big time sink is low-light, and then probably moving while shooting.

So most of the time (teaching for a given range means teaching what that range tells you to teach, and for you, personally, pax, it sounds to me like that has influenced your beliefs. Didn't you learn what you know from Marty Hayes?) it comes down to a mandated curriculum that runs up against a time barrier.

Here in northern Puget Sound, the most heavily mandated range, by far, is Kenmore, with a straight-up NRA curriculum, with all the bad things that entails, and then probably Wade's. Two different curriculums, NRA vs. Cooper-Gunsite style, but mandated, in both cases. The least mandated is probably Champion Arms, in Kent, but in that case the lack of a mandate may not be a good thing. The SPD range is probably my favorite, if it's not raining.

So in practice, what that has usually meant, here in northern Puget Sound, is that the class consists of what to do once the fight has started, and how to live through it.

And that is the same, for male and female.

I agree that there aren't very many men capable of teaching women how to avoid conflict. I'm certainly not one of them, and would look askance at most non-professional men who claimed they were.

Vanya, I'm still working (read thinking over how to phrase) on my response to your questions. They appear to indicate that you, at least, have glimpsed what I'm driving at.

I have received one or more PMs and/or emails on this matter. (jammersix@gmail.com, if you prefer to go off-board.)

I do not have permission to quote them here, but this subject has struck a chord among female shooters, and I suggest those of you who emailed me or PM'd me take a public stance. The industry clearly is not willing to change easily, but the industry also clearly listens to what the customers will and will not buy.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998

Last edited by Jammer Six; April 8, 2013 at 08:41 PM.
Jammer Six is offline  
Old April 8, 2013, 08:41 PM   #30
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,581
I'm still baffled on how in the world having a womens' only class is ethically repugnant. I think it's being wwaaayyy overanalized to the extent it's a non-issue.

We have Scouts. For boys only and girls only group wise. Is it ethically repugnant we have Girl Scouts with only girls allowed?

The bottom line I see is the fact women have signed up and attended womens' only class by their own accord for various reasons. They receive training the way they deem best for them. False empowerment and repugnant ethics? I see nothing of the sort. The end result is a well armed, well trained woman. The end result does not discriminate. The end result will garner respect and cultural acceptance across the board.
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old April 9, 2013, 06:08 AM   #31
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,161
What about the lessons that men could learn from women, and vice versa, in a well-run (no posturing allowed) coed shooting class?

There's certainly something to be lost if women are avoiding training because they fear posturing, or if they do attend but don't ask important questions for fear of ridicule. However, something is lost in unisex classes, too, precisely because the sexes are different... hearing different perspectives is lost.

Those perspectives may not matter if your goal is, like Jammer's, to teach students how to put rounds on target more effectively. A gun is a gun, accuracy is accuracy. While there are strength/carry-style differences on average, they are not categorical differences. More women than men carry a gun in a purse, but some don't (and some men utilize man-purse carry). Some women are stronger than some men, etc.

However, an approach like Pax's, with a class that is substantially about holistic self-defense and violence-avoidance philosophy, seems like it would benefit from different perspectives in a coed environment.

As a result, I wonder if the two views should be swapped. Jammer's courses, which do not seek to address differences between the sexes at all, shouldn't be impacted by alternating men-only and women-only sessions. Pax's courses, which are less narrow in scope, could potentially benefit more from mixed-gender classes, assuming the men weren't jackasses and the women felt like it was a respectful gender-neutral environment.

Perhaps reality is intruding, and while Jammer may wish that we all heeded the better angels of our nature all the time, Pax and other instructors realize that that's not going to happen for a while yet, and do the best they can, which in this case seems to be women-only classes.
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)
tyme is offline  
Old April 9, 2013, 08:11 AM   #32
ETCss Phil McCrackin
Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2004
Location: Kingsland, GA
Posts: 40
I think we are getting mixed up talking about ideal situations here.
Fundamentally speaking, would it be “ideal” to offer only classes covering shooting techniques, applicable to all, equal in most if not all respects? Sure it would. I don’t think anyone would disagree that the fundamentals of self-defense; mindset, awareness, and sound application of the basics of marksmanship combined with reality based vice square range scenarios, are not only vitally important but transcend differences in sex, background, etc.
However, it is important to remember that quite simply the “ideal” does not generally exist. For example, considering the obvious physical differences between most men and women, a course of instruction must naturally differ from student to student, if only on the most basic technical level. It’s not that this can’t be overcome by an adroit instructor, it can of course, and often is. But there’s more to it than that.

Basic instructional technique for example speaks about the impediments to a student’s ability to learn, or put more simply, what motivates a student to learn. Dozens of subtle things, even among very similar students, such as: background, types of learner, beliefs, etc.. force the instructor to tailor every facet of instruction so that all the students get something out of it. These subtle differences can sometimes drag the progress of a class to a snail’s pace, and this is in a class that’s basically the same such as a group of young male military members from the same unit.
In a class where the student spectrum varies much more widely, these differences become less subtle, drastically effecting the course of instruction, sometimes critically so for certain students. A student first and foremost must be receptive to learning, and there are women that feel uncomfortable (at least until a level of proficiency is obtained) around male students, teachers, either or both. To force this standard as the only option means that at worst, some women will never seek training or will get less from the training, or at best, they will attend and genuinely try but overcoming their preconceptions will unfairly take up the instructors time and/or attention.

Quite simply put, equality (outside of true equality such as the inherent rights of self defense, liberty, etc..) is a myth. The comments above about FORCED segregation vice OPTIONAL segregation are absolutely correct. To optimize the training, it behooves the instructor to attempt to address some of the impediments to learning before training even starts. If a student can choose a female, senior, military, police, etc. only environment because that’s what they’re most comfortable with then this makes the likelihood of actually LEARNING the course of instruction even greater. That there COULD be some benefit from a different course of instruction (more "high-speed", co-ed, male vs female instructors, etc..) is irrelevant if the student never really overcomes the initial impediments to learning.
__________________
"A ship is always referred to as she because it costs so much to keep one in paint and powder."
-ADM Chester Nimitz

ETC(SS) Phil McCrackin
ETCss Phil McCrackin is offline  
Old April 9, 2013, 10:16 PM   #33
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,714
My wife and I went out to dinner tonight and had a good discussion on the subject. She's an NRA certified instructor in shotgun and has had considerable experience teaching wingshooting/trapshooting to novices, as well as helping coach experienced competitors.

She also supports offering women an option of women-only classes. She would be concerned if such classes were the only available choice, but strongly believes that it's desirable for women to have the choice.
__________________
"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  
Old April 10, 2013, 10:42 AM   #34
MimiCT
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2013
Posts: 1
Different feelings for individuals

Personally, I'm not going to let any women's issues come between me and my practice.

Being new to shooting, I prefer an all-women's class and was very happy to find one in my area of CT. I joined a specific gun club just because they had a women's group. I want to meet female friends so I can feel comfortable and have somebody to practice with since my husband won't go as often as I do.

That being said, if I were experienced I probably wouldn't care either way.
MimiCT is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 10:50 AM   #35
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,714
Mimi,

Welcome to TFL and welcome to the shooting community.

Thanks for offering your perspective as a woman new to shooting.
__________________
"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  
Old April 10, 2013, 10:42 PM   #36
btmj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 766
I suspect that Jammer-Six's class is all about gun fighting, and Kathy's class is about something else entirely. The gun fighting class may not gain much by being female-only. But Kathy's class probably deals with philosophy, mindset, and the gamut of all kinds of issues involved in carrying a gun and being prepared to use it. Thus, Kathy's class stands to benefit a great deal by being a woman-focused class.

Another point which is unrelated: In my experience, the differences among men (or among women) are greater than the differences between the typical man and the typical woman. Teaching a class for women requires making assumptions that women are different than men (apart from obvious physical differences)... and on average, woman are different than men, but the differences from one woman to another may be greater than the male-female differences.

Macho behavior, or bragging/posturing will annoy a certain type of man just as much as it will many women. And I know several women who avoid social activity that is "woman-centric" because the typical woman just drives them nuts.

I think it might be just as valid (or more valid) to separate training classes based on personality type. Introverts on Mondays and Wednesdays, Extroverts on Tuesdays and Thursdays... Or perhaps segregate the training based on age groups... After all, the "millennials" tend to drive the gen-x'ers nuts, and the baby-boomers are quite insufferable (just kidding - its humor ). But the point is that 20-somethings will have a different learning style than 60-somethings... These differences might be more important than gender. I am not offering this as a practical suggestion, but hypothetically it might be better than male-female segregation.

Despite what I have written, I think a woman-only firearms training class has many benefits, and clearly this is what many women want.

Jim
btmj is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 05:14 PM   #37
Ben Dover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 11, 2013
Location: High up in the Rocky Moun
Posts: 195
My wife, and teenage daughter both chose to attend "women only" handgun classes. A 12 hour basic class, and a 16 hour advanced class.

Both were well pleased with the training, And both demostrated vastly improved marksmanship skills, and defensive "attitude" upon completion.

I must admit that, in the beginning, I was somewhat opposed. Nevertheless, I left the final decision to them. I am now convinced that they made the proper decision.

The female instructors and fellow students worked together well. There were no "hormone soaked" males in the class to make the ladies unconfortable. The ladies were not in any fear of ridicule for asking simple questions.

Some, like my wife, were highly experienced long time shooters. Others, like my daughter were "semi skilled amateurs" and still others were not quite sure which end of the gun the bullet came out of.

Both of my ladies would recommend the course to any other female.

The two instructors were both law enforcement officers. Perhaps that was an advantage and helpful in teaching, but I doubt that would be necessary to be a successful instructor.

I now have far greater confidence in their ability to use a firearm to protect themserlves, as well as their klnowledge of the applicable legalities involved
__________________
The soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as the prisoner's chains. Dwight Eisenhower
Ben Dover is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 06:24 PM   #38
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
Sorry this response took so long.

I've read the responses here, there are some interesting points.

Different curriculums are quite interesting-- and revealing. The NRA curriculum for Intro To Handguns, for instance, contains a block of instruction on “Why People Own Guns”. At Kenmore, there was even a guy who only taught that block-- the instructor would bring him in, and he'd talk until the instructor shut him up. Guy was into it, but only that part of it. I once watched him talk for more than an hour. Mildly interesting, but I don't think it was necessary, and it explains why the NRA's Intro class is sixteen hours long. At Wade's, on the other hand, the Intro class was three hours, start to finish, and included shooting. Between the two extremes, I don't think people who have never seen a handgun before need lectures on things that don't apply. To quote an instructor from Wade's, “the four safety rules, grip, stance, sight picture, trigger squeeze, follow through. Demonstrate the Ruger. After that, why are you still talking?”

To put it mildly, things other than shooting are being taught under the banner of handgun classes.

Comparing the two extremes, the contrasts are fascinating and illuminating. The NRA course included as much indoctrination, political and NRA-centric, as the course designers felt they could get away with, while Wade's was about time, headcount and money. The mere fact that one course included three safety rules and the other four is indicative. One minimized limited shooting and maximized other information, the other maximized limited shooting and minimized anything else except safety.

So.

Vanya, to answer your request, when I talk about teaching ethically, or a set of ethics, what I'm really saying is simply that as instructors, we need to teach ethically. We need to give sufficient information without going beyond our mandate to teach. We don't have any business telling students who to vote for or which car to drive-- we can probably agree on that. As the information gets closer to what we are teaching, we will probably start to disagree over whether or not it belongs in our classes.

Furthermore, the information we are giving needs to be as accurate and correct as we can make it. We can recommend holsters and methods that are safe, easy to practice with and work, or we can recommend Skeeter & Booger's Excellent Holster & iPad Cover, and our students won't know the difference. There are good reasons you need to be on Forrest Service land or a private range before you can practice drawing from a shoulder holster.

I see limited points in self defense classes. But I would put such points beyond what we teach. I teach defensive handgun, not defensive walking or tactical talking. My classes start at the instant the fight starts. I find that I don't have time to teach anything beyond that, and I find that whatever additional time I am granted, I can use to improve teaching that limited subject.

I categorically reject “what sells” or “what customers want” as a basis for ethics. If that were true, we'd still have “For Colored” signs.

I would teach that avoidance and de-escallation are key skills, but I wouldn't presume to teach another adult how to do either. I don't know, and I don't believe anyone here does. What you know won't work in other ways of life among other groups of people. I am certain that what you know about these subjects wouldn't work for me. This thread is proof of that.

So unless you're going to teach separate Defensive Handgun classes for different races, doctors, on-reservation, teachers, bus drivers and plumbers, there is not an ehical reason to teach women separately.

Because in my opinion, your mandate extends to the mechanics of Winning The Fight.

My lessons in humility, what I know and what I don't know came in the form of what one instructor called a “Specific Threat” class. We met a young lady at the range who was staying at the Seattle Battered Women's shelter. She was introduced to us as Jane. The left side of Ms. Doe's face was smashed and purple. She said “he said he'd kill me if I left. I left anyway. I need a gun.” I don't think either of us said one word to her about conflict avoidance. That story doesn't demonstrate any of my points or prove anything-- it's just the point I remember realizing that what we teach can be life and death, and that we need to teach it ethically, and as well as we can.

There is a probably a place for a Women's Conflict Avoidance seminar.

But defensive handgun is about stopping an assailant (or assailants) using a handgun. We are not philosophers, we are not raising these people as our children.

Humility, duty, respect for others and common sense demand that we shut up and teach.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998
Jammer Six is offline  
Old April 12, 2013, 08:12 PM   #39
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
...when I talk about teaching ethically, or a set of ethics, what I'm really saying is simply that as instructors, we need to teach ethically. We need to give sufficient information without going beyond our mandate to teach. We don't have any business telling students who to vote for or which car to drive-- we can probably agree on that. As the information gets closer to what we are teaching, we will probably start to disagree over whether or not it belongs in our classes....
  1. Okay, teaching ethically involves teaching material appropriate to the subject and consistent with what we said we would be teaching in the promotional materials folks relied on to decide to sign up for our classes.

  2. It also imposes a duty on us to assure that what we teach is accurate and fairly presented.

  3. But there might still be quite a bit of disagreement over exactly what scope of information should be included in a particular level class. And in some sense, there's no right answer.

    Consider two well established and highly regarded first level defensive handgun classes: Gunsite 250 and Massad Ayoob's MAG-40. Each provides a different range of information. The differences in the syllabuses for each reflects certain differences in the philosophies and values of the respective originators. Yet each is a worthwhile class and offers a valuable range of information.

    But if you'd propose that one is more "ethical" than the other, I'd categorically reject that contention.

  4. But in any event, the ethics of teaching, when considered in the terms I've described, doesn't preclude offering women-only classes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
...To put it mildly, things other than shooting are being taught under the banner of handgun classes...
But things other beyond merely shooting should be taught in a handgun class, especially one intended to begin to prepare a student to effectively defend him/herself or someone else. Such things can include, based on the syllabus for the NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home class: mindset; levels of alertness and situation assessment; psychological and physiological effects and after effects of a high stress event; legal issues of self defense; and some elementary tactics.

Of course, a lot depends on what the class is intended for and the amount of time available. A basic skills class covering a few hours is one thing, and first level defensive handgun class lasting several days would be another.

And in this regard I see ethics material in two ways:
  1. Has the instructor properly described the class so the student can reasonable understand what he or she can expect to learn.

  2. Has the instructor properly constructed the syllabus, and allotted sufficient time, to reasonably achieve the stated goals and reasonable expectations of the students.
But none of that would be an ethical bar to offering a women-only class.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
...I see limited points in self defense classes. But I would put such points beyond what we teach. I teach defensive handgun, not defensive walking or tactical talking. My classes start at the instant the fight starts...
Rather beyond what you teach. Others might teach other things.

As long as what you teach is accurate, valid and useful, and fairly described to those who sign up for your class, and what others might teach is accurate, valid and useful, and fairly described to those who would sign up for those other classes, I see no ethical issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
...I categorically reject “what sells” or “what customers want” as a basis for ethics...
No, the marketplace doesn't determine ethics. But if our goal is providing education and training, and since we can only help educate and train those people who sign up for our classes, ignoring the marketplace undermines achieving our goal. Our classes need to be acceptable to our market, or we will have no one to teach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
...So unless you're going to teach separate Defensive Handgun classes for different races, doctors, on-reservation, teachers, bus drivers and plumbers, there is not an ehical reason to teach women separately...
Nor is there an ethical reason to not offer a women-only class. And there appear to be pedagogical reasons to do so.
__________________
"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  
Old April 12, 2013, 11:02 PM   #40
btmj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 766
Jammer, I understand what you are saying, and in many ways I agree.

If I want to get training on how to use all the different types of fire extinguishers, I don't want the instructor to waste a lot of time talking about the dangers of over-loaded outlets, improperly stored chemicals, and smoking in bed... I want to know the mechanics of fighting a fire with each of the different types.

If I take a class on making pastries, I don't want to be lectured on the health risks of butter. I want to know how to make pastries.

If I and my wife take a handgun class, it will be to improve our skills and to make our practice sessions more value-added. I would want a class focused on drawing from concealment, acquiring the sight picture, how to quickly identify cover and concealment, how (and if) to shoot while moving, shooting from awkward positions, etc.

As long as the class we sign up for is clear on what will be covered, I can make an informed decision. A class focused on recognizing and difusing/avoiding conflicts/threats is not an un-ethical class. It is just a different kind of class, and one I would not want to take.

In other words, I don't think the instructor's class curriculum is a matter of ethics. It is just a matter of options.

Jim
btmj is offline  
Old May 14, 2013, 06:15 PM   #41
STW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2002
Location: Montana
Posts: 147
My wife once took a all women defensive handgun course. It drove her nuts. She had previously taken the same class in a mixed group and had hoped that the single sex setting would allow for addressing some of the differences between boys and girls. For example, she found that wider hips required slight adjustments to how and where she wore her holster. Her superstructure also prevented her from running one drill in quite the same fashion as I did. None of this was learned in the women's class or addressed in any way. Instead it devolved into constantly catering to a few "helpless" types while those wanting to run and gun had to wait. She realized that she preferred a mixed class where she was pushed to perform. She learned more and improved faster. Note, the male instructors were the same in both classes.
__________________
"What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter." - Terry Pratchett
STW is offline  
Old May 15, 2013, 04:11 PM   #42
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
Lower standards would be an ethical reason against women's classes.

If the standards aren't different, there's no reason to have a separate class.

They are students, not women.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998
Jammer Six is offline  
Old May 15, 2013, 05:18 PM   #43
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,456
It depends, a shooting class I might agree, a self-defense class is different.

Women face different situations then men at times and require different training scenarios.

I mean, when is the last time you worried about a purse snatch.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old May 15, 2013, 07:04 PM   #44
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,442
Also, something that was stressed to me by both the NRA, the Boy Scouts, and the Army is that men and women learn in different ways.

Also, as previously discussed, their is the comfort issue of an all women class.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Big Sister: "You should be sponsored by Allen"
Me: "If you can't shoot good, at least look good walking to the firing line."
Big Sister: "Can you not afford a Pelican? Then buy an Allen gun bag."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old May 15, 2013, 07:34 PM   #45
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
Lower standards would be an ethical reason against women's classes.

If the standards aren't different, there's no reason to have a separate class....
I see you're still beating that drum.

In any case, throughout this thread I think there has been pretty general agreement that disparate standards would be inappropriate. But there has also been broad agreement in this thread that, for a variety of practical and pedagogical reasons, there is a place for woman only classes.

So while you might not see a reason for woman only classes, many of us do. And it sure looks like you haven't convinced those of us who do.

So it you don't want to conduct woman only classes, don't. Others will do as they choose.
__________________
"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  
Old May 15, 2013, 08:48 PM   #46
Sleuth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 445
I think many of you are missing some important points.
For four years, my wife has been teaching a ladies only basic handgun class. There are two factors to this:
1.Women learn differently than men. I don't have the references handy, but it has been proven through academic research.
2. Women have been socialized differently. When boys got a toy gun, girls got a doll. As they grow, boys are expected to be independent, take charge types. Women are (still) expected to be dependent - the man protects, the women nurture. Look at most any TV show or movie.

An integral part of her program is telling the women to do what they have been taught to NEVER do - make a scene! Guys will rise to a challenge, raising voices. Women try to divert a challenge.

I was the lead Firearms Instructor at my agencies western academy. I always insisted on having a female instructor on board for every basic class. Some women needed to see a female who could do as well as teach. And we never separated our classes by gender. There was one standard - pass or fail based on ability, not gender.
When lives are at stake, we need winners, without regard to gender, any other qualifier.
__________________
Sleuth
Sleuth is offline  
Old May 15, 2013, 09:23 PM   #47
garryc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2005
Posts: 2,314
Quote:
That means teaching basic awareness including some knowledge of criminal behavior.
I don't mean to pick apart your statement PAX but I've been a C/O for 20 years. I try to explain to people what a criminal does, how he thinks and what he is capable of.

They think I'm crazy, nobody can actually be like what I describe. It is so far outside their paradigm they can't comprehend it.
garryc is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 12:48 AM   #48
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
Frank, this thread has done nothing but make us all certain that we are right.

The process amazed me.

I still agree that a woman's approach to avoiding violence is different from a man's, and I don't believe that there are men out there qualified to teach women how to avoid violence, although I'm equally certain that there are many who will do so.

Once the shooting starts, which is what I teach, there is no difference between men and women.

That's the point of the firearm-- it empowers any skilled shooter to stop an attack.

Treating any group of shooters differently without a legitimate, ethical reason simply reinforces any stereotypes already in place, and in this case encourages women to think of themselves as needing different instruction.

That's exactly the opposite of ethical firearms instruction-- women need to be taught to win the fight, without regard to their sex, size, strength or anything else.

If we believed what has been posted here, we wouldn't have female cops, for exactly the "reasons" everyone has been chanting.

Thank god for real progress.

Best of luck to you all, I'm certain I have failed to convince any of you of anything, but it pleases me that the light has been turned on this topic, because stereotypes matter. It also pleases me to have all of our positions so clearly on the record.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998

Last edited by Jammer Six; May 16, 2013 at 01:15 AM.
Jammer Six is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 07:20 AM   #49
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,456
Quote:
I don't believe that there are men out there qualified to teach women how to avoid violence, although I'm equally certain that there are many who will do so.
So you're saying a LE officer who spends 20 years dealing with crime, including crimes against women, that LE knows nothing about teaching women about crimes against women and how to protect from them.

I have no idea where you're coming from.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 09:59 AM   #50
deepcreek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2013
Location: Colorado
Posts: 320
I think many women are more comfortable in a women only setting and they are likely to buy women's only classes which is why their is women's only classes.

I have helped teach hand to hand classes that had women in them, women retain info better then men and remember more detail much of time. Most of the new women would lack enough aggressiveness(a lot men also). Women would get into all women groups and it would be a pat, touch, lets discuss this and that, which does no one a favor in self defense.

My strategy was to escalate their aggressiveness in a mild progressive manor until they feel comfortable beating someone to the ground
deepcreek is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15020 seconds with 9 queries