The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 16, 2013, 11:16 AM   #51
Sleuth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 445
I would add that most men THINK they already know how to shoot. After all, they play all those 'first person shooter' games, and watch all those "Act of Valor" movies.

They come to class with lots of mis-information. Women generally come to class having never held, let alone shot, a handgun.

They also ask questions men never would ask - why is a revolver called a revolver? Why isn't there a safety on a revolver ? Etc. etc. They admit they would be intimidated to ask those questions in a class with men.

Conversely, there are women who have as much, or more knowledge than many men about guns and conflict resolution. These were, in my experience, the ones who sought positions in Law Enforcement. (My wife was a State Trooper and a Fed.)

So, why not let the women self-select who they want as their instructor? After a basic class with a woman, they may have the self-confidence to take a class with a male.
__________________
Sleuth
Sleuth is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 11:50 AM   #52
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleuth
...So, why not let the women self-select who they want as their instructor?...
And whether she would prefer a class with men and women or a class with only women. The point is to offer a choice.

As I wrote way back in post 13:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
...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...
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
...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  
Old May 16, 2013, 03:04 PM   #53
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
Then why don't you offer a class for gay folks, Frank?

After all, our goal is to teach, and if they wouldn't participate in a class with straight people..., etc., etc.

Why don't you offer different classes for for different races?

Because they're all students.

They all have different needs, but those needs fall to individuals, not groups.

Promoting stereotypes is simply wrong, regardless of what the market says. Teaching, implying and above all setting the example that women need separate instruction without genuine need promotes a rather ugly stereotype.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998

Last edited by Jammer Six; May 16, 2013 at 03:10 PM.
Jammer Six is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 04:10 PM   #54
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,194
Why are you talking about "ethics" and promoting stereotypes when talking about classes. Thats like saying everyone should buy Hondas, because anything else is promoting stereotypes. Er...no.

This is just an additional choice, like "advanced handgun techniques" vs. "advanced hadngun techniques in a home environment." They are equally valuable to those who take them, just offer a different flavor and choice. There's no ethical issue here unless your intent in teaching the class is to be creeping (as the daughter says) on the the female participants.

EDIT: I'd offer a class for "gay folks" if there was a market for it. I don't see an issue in that either.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 04:26 PM   #55
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
Promoting stereotypes is simply wrong, regardless of what the market says. Teaching, implying and above all setting the example that women need separate instruction without genuine need promotes a rather ugly stereotype.
Jammer, you're making a straw man argument here. I don't see anything in what Frank has written that supports any of the above. No one but you has said that all women should have to accept a single model of instruction.

It's hardly stereotyping to say that individuals differ in what they prefer, how they learn best, the experiences they've had, or the risks they may face; these are the main reasons why some of us think it's important to offer women-only classes.

When you get right down to it, freedom is self-determination: the ability of individuals to make choices about their lives and to act on those choices. This implies that by increasing the choices available to people, one is increasing their freedom.

How is it unethical to offer people a range of choices when the result is to increase their freedom?

Ethical teaching involves teaching what students expect to learn in the best way we know how. One piece of this is to know where students, as individuals and as a group, are starting from, and tailoring instruction to fit that. This has nothing to do with coddling them, dumbing down the level of instruction, or lowering standards.

You seem to be assuming that a women-only class must entail all of these, and will therefore be inferior to a mixed one. You may want to consider what that belief says about your underlying opinion of women themselves.
__________________
"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 May 16, 2013, 05:52 PM   #56
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
Vanya, different is not the same.

Everyone wants to think of themselves (and be thought of) as different-- but the weapon doesn't care. And they aren't.

If you are teaching something beyond shooting, then I agree with what's been said about women being different, and having different needs.

I would also say that a class that only teaches shooting is more ethical when viewed from the viewpoint of instructing-- you can use precious minutes (and they are precious) to deliver a lecture on bra "holsters" or you can run one more type of drill, and teach your students one more thing about hitting the target and winning the fight. Personally, I can start teaching the instant we're all present, and teach as fast as the students can keep up for as long a time as is available and never teach anything except another drill, another method or another way to hit the target and win the fight. Then we can turn the lights out and do it all over again in the dark. Or with one hand. Or with a jammed weapon.

I do not see how a class that delivers less in the name of... well... what is it in the name of? Political correctness? Understanding?

I think not. I think it's in the name of "women can't shoot as well as men without different instruction."

I understand that there are thousands of different instructors, each with their own idea about what is important and what isn't. That's why I brought up the guy at Kenmore who only lectured on Why People Own Guns-- to demonstrate that it can get out of hand so fast and so completely that it can easily become an ethics question.

If women are held to the same standards in separate classes that men are, then the classes do nothing academically other than serving to reinforce the idea that those women need (or desire) a separate class. Frank has gone so far as to imply that there are women who will come to class if it's separate and won't come to class if it's mixed. He's reiterated those statements, in case anyone missed them the first time. In spite of his statements laying out the basis of the stereotype, there are those who still insist it's not a stereotype.

I guess I need to add an additional complaint to my list against women's classes: methinks thou doth protest too much.

If the standards in women's classes were the same, I don't believe you would need to defend them, let alone italicize them. I am, therefore, starting to believe that the standards must be lower.

Finally, I recognize from the posts here that I have stepped on toes and gored sacred cows, and for that, I'm sorry.

Even if none of us agree (and I doubt very seriously that we ever will) this discussion is valuable for two simple reasons. People who clearly have never considered this issue before have now thought about it, and others have read it. Those facts have value in their own right, and I'm pleased to have been a part of it.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998
Jammer Six is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 06:24 PM   #57
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
. . . .I would also say that a class that only teaches shooting is more ethical when viewed from the viewpoint of instructing-- you can use precious minutes (and they are precious) to deliver a lecture on bra "holsters" or you can run one more type of drill, and teach your students one more thing about hitting the target and winning the fight. Personally, I can start teaching the instant we're all present, and teach as fast as the students can keep up for as long a time as is available and never teach anything except another drill, another method or another way to hit the target and win the fight. Then we can turn the lights out and do it all over again in the dark. Or with one hand. Or with a jammed weapon. . . . .
I would say that a class that only teaches shooting is more ethical than other types of instruction if, and only if, that is the kind of class for which the students have paid. If they have paid for a class on "General Introduction to Concealed Carry," then spending a few of those precious minutes on various types of holsters, including bra holsters, is entirely appropriate. If students have paid for a general introduction class, the instructor who refused to teach anything except shooting is the unethical one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
. . . . If women are held to the same standards in separate classes that men are, then the classes do nothing academically other than serving to reinforce the idea that those women need (or desire) a separate class. Frank has gone so far as to imply that there are women who will come to class if it's separate and won't come to class if it's mixed. He's reiterated those statements, in case anyone missed them the first time. In spite of his statements laying out the basis of the stereotype, there are those who still insist it's not a stereotype. . . . .
I'll go beyond implication. I'll state for the record that I believe that there are women out there who would rather have NO training than have to sit through a day with a bunch of sweaty, smelly, blowhard men who are 40 pounds overweight and claim to be high-speed, low-drag "operators." I can't say that I blame them, either. I'm not real thrilled with the prospect of spending a day with those kinds of turkeys, either. There is absolutely nothing unethical about offering a class exclusive to women.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 06:27 PM   #58
Sleuth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 445
Jammer, I think you are using "ethics" in place of "Political Correctness".

My dictionary defines ethics as standards of right or wrong, a pattern of behavior and morality.

So, is it morally right or wrong to teach females separately from men? Objectively it is not wrong, as long as the training opportunity is the same.

Is it PC to teach them separately?
No, if you believe that men & women learn alike, have the exact same motor skills, upper body strength, and come to class with the same level of background knowledge. PC demands that everyone be treated alike, even when there are physical differences. PC wants equal outcomes, rather than equal opportunities.

You seem to resist the concept that in a free society, women (and men) should be allowed to choose what type of class and instructor they should attend.

Now, if we were to compel women to attend a separate class than men, that would be wrong. Or if the course content differed in a material way, that too is objectively wrong. But how many men would want to learn about the use of the bra holster? How many women want to know about the "Weeping Eye" holster ?

Ultimately, we should be a meritocracy, where people are judged solely on their merit, not by their gender, or any other irrelevant factor. When I needed help, I wanted a competent officer to back me, without regard to their gender, height, weight, etc. etc.

PC kills, putting guns into the hands of the incompetent. Teach to a valid standard, with a valid objective minimum achievement level. Provide assistance to those who need it, but never ""adjust"" the standard to insure enough of the "right numbers" of the "right people" qualify.
__________________
Sleuth
Sleuth is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 06:27 PM   #59
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,803
Jammer, you seem to have missed my point entirely.

You're still responding as if those who disagree with you were saying that women must be segregated, which isn't remotely the case. It is you who are saying that they must be taught in the way you regard as politically correct. Others are arguing in favor of offering choices, and allowing the customer to pick the one that she prefers.

I'll repeat the question I asked you, and I'll even add some italics and whatnot:

How is it unethical to offer people a range of choices when the result is to increase their freedom?

If you don't believe that women are entitled to decide what best fits their needs, then you're either belittling them in a pretty big way, or you're putting an abstract principle ahead of their right to self-determination.
__________________
"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 May 16, 2013, 06:40 PM   #60
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
Vanya, my answer is "when one of those choices is unethical."

A hypothetical example would be offering a segregated restaurant in a city of un-segregated restaurants.

The fact that the others exist as choices do not make the segregated restaurant ethically acceptable.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998
Jammer Six is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 06:50 PM   #61
Nittespanker
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2013
Posts: 70
Segregation is common and if its done by a minority it's also very accepted.

Example: black entertainment television
Nittespanker is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 07:28 PM   #62
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,803
You're still not answering my question: what makes it unethical?

I'd add another one: what makes you uniquely qualified to decide that it is unethical? Part of being free, adult people is having the right, and the responsibility, to decide ethical matters for ourselves.

A quick Google search will show you that women-only classes are commonplace: fitness classes of all kinds, instruction in riding motorcycles, bicycle repair, martial arts, outdoor skills -- even in software development and judging beer...

What's the common denominator among all of these? They all involve activities that have traditionally been the domain of men. Does that tell you anything about the difficulties women face in learning any skill that's seen as "masculine?"
__________________
"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)

Last edited by Vanya; May 16, 2013 at 07:57 PM. Reason: not enough words.
Vanya is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 07:39 PM   #63
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
A hypothetical example would be offering a segregated restaurant in a city of un-segregated restaurants.
An all-girl school would actually be a much better analogy and, as Vanya notes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanya
A quick Google search will show you that women-only classes are commonplace: fitness classes of all kinds, instruction in riding motorcycles, bicycle repair, martial arts, outdoor skills -- even in software development and judging beer...

What's the common denominator among all of these? They all involve activities that have traditionally been the domain of men. Does that tell you anything about the difficulties women face in learning any skill that's seen as "masculine?"
Jammer Six, are all of those forms of instruction, and all all-girl schools unethical?
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 08:31 PM   #64
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
Vanya, I answered exactly the question you asked.

Did you mean to ask something else?

The google search answer is simple: that's called the fallacy of numbers.

To your last question, yes, it tells me we need instructors with higher skills. But I think we already knew that, for shooting.

Spats, if all girl schools are fine, why were West Point, Yale, Harvard and on and on forced to admit women? Is segregated education fine for women but not for men?
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998

Last edited by Jammer Six; May 16, 2013 at 08:37 PM.
Jammer Six is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 09:03 PM   #65
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
Vanya, I answered exactly the question you asked?
Actually, no, you didn't. I asked:
Quote:
How is it unethical to offer people a range of choices when the result is to increase their freedom?
You wrote:
Quote:
Vanya, my answer is "when one of those choices is unethical."
This amounts to "It's unethical because it's unethical," which, forgive me for putting it this way, is a bit silly.

It's also not the first time you've done this in this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanya View Post
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?
You replied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six View Post
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.
Sorry, but these are inadequate (and deeply uninteresting) answers to the question of why something is or isn't ethical.

If you want to claim that an action is unethical, you need to show, for one thing, that people are harmed by it; merely asserting that it "perpetuates stereotypes," or whatever, doesn't stand on its own unless you can show, first, that it in fact does this, and second, that the effects of such are harmful.

If an action harms no one, it's ethically neutral. If the good it does outweighs the harm, it's at least possible to argue that the action was ethical. For example, killing someone is presumed to be unethical -- except in certain very narrow circumstances, such as when a person does so as a last resort against a lethal threat.

So let me rephrase the question: what specific harm is done by women-only classes, and why does that outweigh the benefits that I and others have pointed out that they offer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
The google search answer is simple: that's called the fallacy of numbers.
Nope. My point wasn't "Look, there are lots of them!" It was that there is an obvious common element, which I asked you to consider.
__________________
"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)

Last edited by Vanya; May 16, 2013 at 09:55 PM.
Vanya is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 09:23 PM   #66
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
Ah, there we go.

The specific harm is, as I've stated before, that it promotes the stereotype that women are not capable of learning to shoot in a class that includes men, as well as the stereotype that women are not as good at learning shooting because, to use your categorization, shooting is "masculine".

Vanya, have you noticed that we're not getting anywhere?

Do we agree that the segregated restaurant is unethical, regardless of other choices in the same city?

(This is not a trick question-- I'm looking for a straight up yes or no.)

If so, how does that restaurant do in your specific harm test? I submit that it does no specific harm, other than furthering the stereotype. And that is not only a lot of harm, but it is sufficient to rule the restaurant unethical.


Quote:
Nope. My point wasn't "Look, there are lots of them!" It was that there is an obvious common element, which I asked you to consider.
I see. Yes, I misinterpreted it.

And yes, we can go back and redefine, for this discussion, "ethical" and "unethical", or we can jump ahead and agree on a few things-- which I tried to do with the restaurant. Yes, I can see how that comes out as "it's unethical because it's unethical", so perhaps we need to define "ethical", if only for this discussion.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998

Last edited by Jammer Six; May 16, 2013 at 09:33 PM.
Jammer Six is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 09:34 PM   #67
Mr. James
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 1,521
Vanya, brilliant.

Jammer, forgive me, but you come across like, well, a social engineer. It seems (well, no, now you've made it explicit) the very concept of separate-sex classes is inherently evil, like Jim Crow. You're going to change the culture, make it better, until co-ed classes are the norm. Why? Why do you care? This is not an ethics question at all.

There's nothing unethical in realizing that simply jumbling the sexes together hurly-burly is not necessarily constructive, quite especially in this field. And the racial comparison is woefully misplaced.

Unethical is teaching your students to different standards, with the obvious exception of recognizing the different aptitudes, experience and interests of your students (as our music teacher explained). Unethical is using one class primarily as a vehicle for recruiting for your next class.

Keep your standards. Good on you. And keep separate classes. There is nothing mercenary in giving your clients what they want.

Really, relax, friend. Men and women are quite different, and their needs and experience (hell, their physiology and neurology) are different.

Embrace diversity!
__________________
"...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat
Mr. James is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 09:51 PM   #68
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
. . . .The specific harm is, as I've stated before, that it promotes the stereotype that women are not capable of learning to shoot in a class that includes men, as well as the stereotype that women are not as good at learning shooting because, to use your categorization, shooting is "masculine".
Jammer Six, I'll admit that I haven't read each and every post in this thread, but you seem to be wholly alone in your belief that segregated classes promote any such stereotype, that women are incapable of learning to shoot in a class that includes men. Everyone else seems to be of the opinion that women may prefer to learn in a separate environment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
. . . . Spats, if all girl schools are fine, why were West Point, Yale, Harvard and on and on forced to admit women? Is segregated education fine for women but not for men?
Nice shot at the Socratic Method, but it doesn't answer the question. However, you're making an apples-to-oranges comparison. We've been discussing the offering of voluntarily segregated classes, whereas the institutions you mentioned were examples of forced exclusion. Or are you claiming that men are somehow harmed by women being offered single-sex classes? Because I don't recall you raising that issue before.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 09:53 PM   #69
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
The specific harm is, as I've stated before, that it promotes the stereotype that women are not capable of learning to shoot in a class that includes men, as well as the stereotype that women are not as good at learning shooting because, to use your categorization, shooting is "masculine".
Ah, but it does neither of these, according to the first-hand observations of many experienced teachers who have posted here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraigwy View Post
I've taught both, men and women over the years, by far ladies are more responsive and make better students. They don't have the pre-conceptions or egos that men have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfmedic View Post
Given clear instruction women are no different then men and they are certainly no less capable.

what I do see are the guys being idiots around women all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pax View Post
A lot of times, women don't even realize they have those questions until you get them into a group of like minded others -- and then all at once, all these amazing, thoughtful and thought provoking questions and ideas start flying all over the room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madcap Magician View Post
As other instructors have noted, if I can get them away from their husbands, many novice female shooters will outshoot their 'experienced' spouses because they actually listen and don't start from the mistaken belief that they know everything already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pax View Post
If there's an ethical aspect to women only classes, there it is: we can work hard to get people the training they need in a format they want, or we can ignore what they want and they will never get the training they need... hm.
I've quoted, above, some firsthand observations of how women benefit, which also tend to refute your statements about stereotyping. I specifically asked you to provide an answer that didn't rely on an unsupported assertion about stereotypes, but that showed particular ways that women-only classes do more harm than good, by providing examples and using them to support some sort of analysis.
__________________
"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)

Last edited by Vanya; May 16, 2013 at 10:06 PM. Reason: grammer. ;)
Vanya is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 01:18 AM   #70
myusername
Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2013
Posts: 99
All I know is I've been shooting for nearly 50 years and my GF can out shoot me!

If we are together and something ever happens I'm going to take cover and let her deal with it, unless there's more than 10, then I'll toss her a fresh mag.
myusername is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 01:42 AM   #71
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
Vanya, now I'm afraid you haven't answered my questions.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998
Jammer Six is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 06:36 AM   #72
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
Promoting stereotypes is simply wrong, regardless of what the market says. Teaching, implying and above all setting the example that women need separate instruction without genuine need promotes a rather ugly stereotype.

Jammer, you're making a straw man argument here. I don't see anything in what Frank has written that supports any of the above. No one but you has said that all women should have to accept a single model of instruction.

It's hardly stereotyping to say that individuals differ in what they prefer, how they learn best, the experiences they've had, or the risks they may face; these are the main reasons why some of us think it's important to offer women-only classes.

When you get right down to it, freedom is self-determination: the ability of individuals to make choices about their lives and to act on those choices. This implies that by increasing the choices available to people, one is increasing their freedom.

How is it unethical to offer people a range of choices when the result is to increase their freedom?
Indeed if we follow this to its logical conclusion, there should only be one shooting course offered. It would be unethical to offer all the dvds I have on different shooting topics...
zincwarrior is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 06:45 AM   #73
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
All I know is I've been shooting for nearly 50 years and my GF can out shoot me!

If we are together and something ever happens I'm going to take cover and let her deal with it, unless there's more than 10, then I'll toss her a fresh mag.
How do you think I feel. Both my wife and daughter can shoot better than I can. My nearly blind ancient wiener dog could probably shoot better than I can...
zincwarrior is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 11:01 AM   #74
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
Vanya, now I'm afraid you haven't answered my questions.
If you're referring to this:
Quote:
Do we agree that the segregated restaurant is unethical, regardless of other choices in the same city?
It's a red herring, and I'm not interested in chasing it. Segregated restaurants are a result of bigotry, not a cause of stereotyping, and are therefore irrelevant to the claim you're making.

You're claiming that women-only classes promote negative stereotypes of women, but you haven't supported this claim in any way whatsoever, even though others have given examples that tend to refute it. You also haven't shown why the harm from this stereotyping, if it exists, outweighs the demonstrated benefits to the women who take them.

Since you are unwilling or unable to offer any support for your argument, it seems that it can be reduced to this: you are personally offended by women-only classes. So what?
__________________
"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 May 17, 2013, 11:25 AM   #75
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
Vanya, now I understand your point of view. Thank you.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998
Jammer Six 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 05:10 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 0.15388 seconds with 9 queries