The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 25, 2013, 01:29 PM   #101
ThatBeardedGuy
Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2013
Posts: 86
Quote:
This thread has convinced me that the stereotypes against women are far more widespread and ingrained far deeper than I ever imagined.
This is a highly pretentious view to take when you're essentially telling women that they should train with men or not at all.

The fact remains that you tailor your training methodology to the people who want to take your class.

As to your original point four pages ago:

Quote:
But once a shot is fired or the fight begins, the responses, skills and actions are dead even. They are the same, and must be taught to the same standard, just as are the skills necessary to bring a sloop home safely.
Yes, the techniques and mechanics ARE the same, but you're forgetting one key fact: Every single person that takes one of your classes will likely have to face that danger alone without immediate support. The gender mix of the class will have zero-bearing on that fact.

We're not talking about changing the training. If your argument was that women should receive the same level of training as men in the application of deadly force, then we all agree with you. But you seem to be implying that an all-women training course leads to a less-than-standard outcome for the trainees.

That's not the case, unless you make it so as an instructor. The reality is that many women are comfortable without the eyes of barely-qualified men on them while they learn the basics of squeezing a trigger, and you do them a disservice but refusing to train them.
__________________
TXARNG: 2007 - Present

"We're gonna turn left!!" - NASCAR, in a nutshell.
ThatBeardedGuy is offline  
Old May 25, 2013, 01:41 PM   #102
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatBeardedGuy
That's not the case, unless you make it so as an instructor.
And there lies the foundation of how the subject is either a non-existent issue or a very real one, indeed.

After keeping tabs on this thread I certainly feel, IMO, Vanya slammed it home on this day at 0946 Central Time...
__________________
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 May 25, 2013, 06:46 PM   #103
Rifleman 173
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 588
Sometimes, to make the student comfortable, an instructor might have a mixed class of people, a males only class or a females only class. There is nothing wrong with trying to accommodate new shooters. It is considered another part of the classroom atmosphere. Having the right atmosphere is helpful to a good learning experience. NRA manuals suggest that having such classes are an option that a good instructor needs to consider because in some cases it helps in the better exchange of information between the students.
Rifleman 173 is offline  
Old May 25, 2013, 07:50 PM   #104
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
Quote:
But you seem to be implying that an all-women training course leads to a less-than-standard outcome for the trainees.
I didn't mean to imply it. I meant to state it.

If the standards are not different, there is no reason to separate men from women.

Teaching the things this thread has mentioned is time spent that could have been spent teaching Defensive Handgun.

There is more than one prong to that result-- the standards are lower in the Defensive Handgun class, and you have a Defensive Handgun instructor trying to teach something other than Defensive Handgun.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998
Jammer Six is offline  
Old May 25, 2013, 07:59 PM   #105
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
Many of the same "reasons" presented here were used by the U.S. Army in World War II, and as late as 1952. They are still being used to prevent women from being assigned to "combat" units, in spite of the fact that that distinction has less significance than ever before.

I've separated this post to wonder, aloud, if perhaps we're not talking about two separate things.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998
Jammer Six is offline  
Old May 25, 2013, 08:33 PM   #106
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
...If the standards are not different, there is no reason to separate men from women...
That's of course flat wrong. Why has been explained in this thread multiple times in multiple ways. You might not accept or understand those explanations, but so what?
__________________
"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 26, 2013, 02:09 PM   #107
Bluestarlizzard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 254
I'm going back to a point Pax made about forcing sociatal change and letting society change on it's own.

As it stands, right now, the majority of female shooters are coming into the subculture as adults with a primary intrest in SD.
Many have been encoraged or introduced to the sport by a man (husband, BF or close friend).
Others came in due to a *specific* threat, either a recent threat that scsred them or a current ongoing threat (stalker, ex with fists)

There are signifganetly less of us who were just raised in it.
In the future there may be a change in that dynamic. I hope there will be more like me, who've been trained at an early age and grew up with a solid background in SD. Which would makes "woman only" classes much less nessasry or needed. Why? Because shooting is shooting and technique is technique. After the basics the physical diffrences between male and female shooters arn't that much more off then between male and male (or female and female) shooters can be physically diffrent. The subculture would have evolved as well. Men wouldn't assume that a female on the range *didn't* know what she was doing.

But the current dynamic doesn't hold for that. Woman with a specific threat most likely do benifit from a woman only class. They need more more mindset training and traing geared towards that specific threat.
Woman who coming into the subculture without a threat also are likley to want a woman only class. They want a introduction into shooting without what I call the "boys club" mentality getting in the way.

IMHO, you will not ethically be able to stop providing womans only classes until you remove the "boys club" attitude from the subculture, and even then, the ladies might just want to have "girls club" sometimes.
Bluestarlizzard is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 03:07 PM   #108
Lost Sheep
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2009
Location: Anchorage Alaska
Posts: 3,057
Yes, we ARE talking about separate things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
I've separated this post to wonder, aloud, if perhaps we're not talking about two separate things.
Yes, we ARE talking about separate things.

People behave differently in single-gender environments than they do in mixed-gender environments. That is a fact on the ground. (Sometimes, elephant in the room.) The interpersonal and group dynamics change.

In elevators, on teams, in classrooms - not everywhere, perhaps, but almost. If you don't see the phenomenon, you just haven't been paying attention. (For men, it is easy to ignore.)

As a man, I have not been privy to many female-only groups, but have overheard some conversations over the years and had female friends tell me of these things directly and by relating their stories. The differences in male behavior in male-only vs mixed groups is less pronounced than female-only vs mixed groups, but it is there, too.

Facts on the ground are ignored to the detriment of all.

Respectfully,

Lost Sheep

Last edited by Lost Sheep; May 26, 2013 at 03:10 PM. Reason: add boldface
Lost Sheep is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 03:33 PM   #109
Bluestarlizzard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 254
I would hesitate to say that's a reason for gender specific classes.
Yes, behavior changes according to the gender dynamic of the group, but those changes don't inherently make one better then the other for teaching shooting.

Example: As a kid I played soccer. I played one season on a girls only team. The one and only time I ever played on an all girls team it was a revelation.
I hated it. I loathed the constent and overwelming female interaction. I spent the rest of my teenage years playing on coed rec teams. The behavioral gender diffrences evened out and allowed for a more pleasent experiance.

Some people relate better in single gender envirnments, some people relate better in coed environments. The oppertunity for the induvidial to choose which environment meets their needs best would probably be the optimal goal.

Specifically, for shooting, I think woman are more likely to be more comfortable in female only classes for multiple reasons and I don't see why that should change the end results in terms of how well they learn the material nessesary.
Secondly, there are things that are gender specific in self defence training that do need to be covered for that gender, that may or may not be relevent in a basic shooting class.
Bluestarlizzard is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 03:39 PM   #110
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,983
Quote:
But you seem to be implying that an all-women training course leads to a less-than-standard outcome for the trainees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JammerSix
I didn't mean to imply it. I meant to state it.
That is, quite possibly, the most sexist thing I have ever heard.

The mere fact that the class is full of women and is taught by a woman does NOT result in lower standards. Saying that it does is to say that only the presence of men can create high standards. Masculine bovine excrement!!

pax

The best schools are well-rounded. Our Art embraces an extensive repertoire of psycho-motor skills, verbal skills, and disengagement skills, along with a sound philosophical overlay, all of which must to carefully integrated. Some of the material is dry, but it is still important and must be included. ~ John Farnam

An addition from Glenn - one should hear Vicki Farnam's excellent presentation on issues related to training women and the attitudes of some men. Well, worth it.
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat

Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; May 27, 2013 at 11:42 AM.
pax is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 09:49 PM   #111
Sleuth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 445
PAX is right!
Firing a qualifying score on a course of fire is an objective standard. If the shooter does that, does it matter if the class was all male, all female, 50/50,80/20, or any other mix?

You have clearly placed your social values ahead of the desired outcome:
Each student is capable of meeting the objective standard.

At our (non-stress) academy, our desired outcome was EVERYONE GRADUATES. I spent many a night and weekend with those having trouble, and in 9 years only had 2 failures. Over 5,000 succeeded, or a 0.0004 failure rate on the range.

Such a bias has no place in such a life or death training program. Either the student can, or cannot, meet the objective standard. How they get from "here" to "there" is irrelevant.
__________________
Sleuth
Sleuth is offline  
Old May 27, 2013, 12:42 AM   #112
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
That depends on what you accept as a desired outcome.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998
Jammer Six is offline  
Old May 27, 2013, 01:26 AM   #113
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
This one's really run its course. We've had a very intelligent discussion, with good points made by qualified folks who can truly speak from a position of experience. However, we're carping back and forth, and this is as good a place to close as any.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo 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 10:14 PM.


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 0.09841 seconds with 7 queries