Wo/Men, Handguns and Self-Defense

[zombieslayer]

She's Catholic, and was abused by her family growing up, so she has deep underlying issues with having any control over what happens to her and around her. Pacifism is like a disease...Shes getting therapy now, but it's hard to un-learn bad habits that you were forcibly raised into. My daughter WILL NEVER have this kind of mentality. When my friend is ready to own a gun, I am ready to get her one, or at least help. But until shes ready, all I can do is reason with her. My mom escaped an attempted ambush, and now takes personal protection and situational awareness REALLY seriously. Some people are fighters, some just cower in the face of danger. I love quotes from the movie "network"- "Im a human being, GD it, my life has value"

[WarMare]

Pax:

Thanks. If I may be so bold, the lack in you is not love for your children or ability to care for them, it is incomplete acculturation as a woman (biological) to feminity (cultural acceptance of ETA female worth-less-ness --- i.e., literally, not unworthy ---compared to men). Bitches and mares (and stallions and dogs who are allowed to) love their children very much and the females will fight for their lives just like the males will ETA even if they are not mothers. Amongst chimpanzees, fully 2/3s of weapons manufacture and usage is by females, who hunt for themselves as much as their children. After all, if they die, not only do their children stand a higher rate of mortality, but they die too.

We put motherhood on a pedastal to erase, I think, the blood and pain and courage and strength, including physical, it requires to bear children. We want to erase this aweful knowledge. While I do not hold with constantly stripping to bare scars, I do not think sanitization helps women, or their children, or their mates.

Lord Moran wrote that courage is like a bank account, and that in the main, while victory can be a tonic and a paying in, time is against the soldier ETA: BECAUSE IT IS A PAYING OUT. That knoweldge is central to US Army and Marine Corps replacement policies. I think it is also true for women because the fear of sexual assault, and the underlying fear, not only of the absolute violation of physical integrity that it is for men too, but also of suffering and death due to pregnancy, however that is resolved, is so central to us.

Erin

[Phoebe]

Pax wrote:

I hate this meme on a personal level, and utterly reject it for myself. MY life would be worth defending even if I never had children. My life was worth defending on the day I was born, it was worth defending on the day before I wed, it was worth defending the day before my first child was born, and it continues to be worth defending even as my children grow up and leave the home, not needing me as the primary caregiver anymore. My life is worth defending!

And so is yours.

So that meme, "it's for the children..." just simply does not resonate with me. I seem to be missing whatever-it-is that's hardwired into a lot of women, to refuse to claim her own worth & value unless and until it is tied to childbearing in some way.

I don't think of it as a meme.

But I don't know how to directly address this. So let me indirectly address it.

I don't think I really had any self-preservation instinct until recently.

It had nothing to do with self-value or self-worth.

I don't even have kids. I'm not a mom. But if someone would have asked me if I'd die fighting to save a child, I'd have answered, "yes."

So, why would I fight for a child, but not myself?

It has nothing to do with whose life is more valuable. It has nothing to do with self-esteem.

The best I can explain is that my self preservation instinct was broken.

I have no explanation of why.But if attacked, I'd go helpless instead of going into self-preservation.

I have to imagine that my experience is not unique, though I have no clue if it's common.

But i8f someone had said to me, "would you fight to defend a child?"

My answer would have been, "of course!"

And if I had then been asked, "why would you not fight for yourself then?"

My head would have exploded and I'd envision a positive outcome.

I don't think I'm explaining too well because I don't have a lot of words to wrap around it and I'm not sure I have much internal understanding of it.

This has shifted for me.

So meme or no meme, it just would have resonated for me and maybe made a difference earlier.

[Phoebe]

A further thought....

Some of it is probably learned helplessness.

Until recently, if someone attacked me, there was virtually no point in fighting back. There wasn't squat I could do.

I was attacked by another girl in 8th grade and I remember my attempts to fight back as utterly futile. There was no point.

And that was another female.

Enter in a male? What on earth could I possibly do??

Of course now, I'm learning that helpless question, can actually have many answers.

But previously, I had no vision of any effective means of fighting back.

I now know, with every fiber in my being, if someone tried to hurt me, I'd hurt them back until they stopped or until I died trying.

[pax]

3KBs, I have a reading recommendation for you. It's very important; I'm a little worried about some of the stuff you're saying & (sigh) don't have time to really delve into it deeply right now. But for your own safety, please read this and follow the links:

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com...e_violence.htm

Anyone else who thinks a "ladylike slap" is or should be a good idea should also read the link.

pax

[Evan Thomas]

Eh, Pax, thanks for posting that link. There's so much good information on that site. I decided not to get into the whole escalation-of-violence thing in my post, but... yeah, it's a big issue.

[sakeneko]

That is a *very* good link for people who are new to self defense or anybody who thinks that escalating to ineffective physical violence is a good tactic. Once upon a time, *maybe* any man in the area would rush to the aid of a woman who slapped a man for getting fresh; cultural context can definitely affect what constitutes a good strategy. (As other URLs on that same web site indicate.)

But despite my Texas upbringing (and to some extent because of it) I would not expect that reaction from any man I did not know well personally. There's too much chance that any men hanging around the attacker would turn out to be buddies of his, or to hold the opinion that any woman alone in public without the local cultural equivalent of a burqa is asking for that sort of attention. <wry grin> Most men are decent (as are most women), but there are enough of the others that safety requires not counting on any specific man you don't know.

I have my doubts that this was *ever* not true in fact. Good old days are usually better in memory than they were in reality.

[Phoebe]

Wish I could add something critical that I think the article is missing.

So many women attempt to say no in a way that is soft, quiet, and easy for others to ignore.

A strong, "NO! STOP!", followed by leaving, would likely avert an awful lot of problems. It's a far better solution than rage or acquiescing, let alone a slap which is more likely to escalate violence.

The politics of date rape probably allow it to occur more often. (Don't get me started on that topic!!!)

ETA: typed too fast. Went back to follow some links and I see the author's of this site may be the first things I've read that express my own views and what I've tried to say for years.

Great site!

[m&p45acp10+1]

Rape Agression Defense classes are available in many cities. There was one in the local area here not too long ago that was conducted by the local LEO's and some professionals. It is usualy a free class. My girlfriend took the class. The officer teaching the class was a woman. My girfriend told me of the awnser that the officer gave to the question of "do you recomend a gun?" The officer's resposne was "awnser this question to yourself. Would I shoot a person trying to rape me, or harm me, or my loved ones? Understand that this will probably kill, or badly injure the attacker." "If you can awnser yes to that honestly, I would recomend getting training and a gun?"
On another note there is a serial rapist running loose on theese parts of the state. He is preying on elderly women that live alone in the rural areas at a distance from the road. One woman belives she ran him off from her property. She had a gun and he decided to leave. All cases it was a home invasion. DNA has linked 4 cases in 3 counties in the area so far.
I truly believe that woman having a gun and being willing to use it if necessary prevented her from becoming victim #5.
I have taught many women, my first quetion is always, "what are you willing in your mind to do to defend yourself? Would you kill to protect yourself?"
If they say I do not want to hurt someone. I usualy let them know that no amount of training I or anyone else will help her much if she is not willing to do whatever it takes to make an attack stop.

[iam3KBs]

The disagreement seems to be that you don't want to recognize how life is for many women,

Or, perhaps, it is that some others here don't want to recognize that people have not only the right but the obligation to, as part of growing up and becoming an adult, evaluate what they have been taught and accept or reject it.

For free people there is no "how life is". What they don't like they can reject and no one has the power to force them into any role they do not personally choose to embrace.

Women in the west, especially in the USA, are some of the freest people in the history of humankind. With the exception of those who have been abused in such a way as to have their spirits broken, there are no barriers of any kind to prevent a western woman from doing whatever she chooses to do.

The worst that can legally be done to a western woman who chooses to live differently than she has been taught is that some others might refuse to speak to her or perhaps speak meanly to her. And that's no problem for a rational person who knows that she can easily seek out new and like-minded associates.

[iam3KBs]

How did you cope with the fact that even if he loved you, even if he made no sexual demands upon you, your husband or male lover was likely to kill you?

I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense.

Some few men are brute barbarians, but the vast majority are most definitely nothing of the sort.

Any argument that depends on the assumption that vast majority of men are just itching to brutalize women is null and void to me because experience, observation, and the study of history shows the opposite to be true.

The vast majority of men are more likely to overprotect women than to endanger them. Its biological hardwiring for the survival of the species that men are expendable while women and children are to be protected.

There are brute barbarians, beast on two legs, from whom women require protection, but the vast majority of men are far more likely to aid the woman against her assailant than to join him in violating her.

Really, it makes no sense to claim on the one hand that women become too passive in order not to upset men by making them feel useless because their role of protector is usurped then to claim on the other hand that association with a man is mere murder in waiting.

[iam3KBs]

It's counterproductive to suggest that a woman should respond to an assault by a man with a "ladylike slap," trusting that other men will rush to their defense.*

You are misreading what I said.

The ladylike slap is not a response to an actual assault. Its a response to a situation where a man is not accepting a woman's boundaries and is acting offensively but short of actual assault.

Male-female interactions are not absolutely black and white between acceptable and criminal. There is a grey area where offensive words and actions fall short of actual crime.

The slap served the purpose of reinforcing the "No!" in a way that could not possibly be interpreted as anything else. Additionally, it served the purpose of calling public attention to the incident and of publicly shaming the offender.

To take the incident of my friend, how could it have been justified to call the cops on a man who merely missed or misinterpreted the signals indicating that what had begun as a friendly and flirtatious bit of tickling and teasing had become unwelcome? Jailing a man for incorrectly interpreting courtship signals is just as extreme as using deadly force on a library pincher.

That slap was, and could again be, a very effective defense. It is better to stop trouble before it develops than to allow it to reach the level of criminality before doing anything about it.

And if one is willing to call the police for aid why would the aid and assistance of any random gentlemen who might be at hand be spurned?

[iam3KBs]

3KBs, I have a reading recommendation for you. ...

I repeat, you are misreading what I said.

The slap is not and was not for a situation already out of hand but for one in that grey area where the man's actions are offensive without being criminal.

A man in the stage where backing up the verbal "NO!" with a physical emphasis would cause him to escalate his attack rather than break off and apologize is already in the process of committing assault.

I would suggest that such situations arise because the firm, unequivocal, unmistakable, cannot-be-interpreted-as-"maybe"-or-"convince me" NO! -- delivered with or without physical emphasis -- was left until too late in the game.

[iam3KBs]

I have the carry permit because of the few men who ARE brute barbarians. And I think of the vast majority of men -- who are not beasts on two legs -- as my allies, not my enemies.

Wholesale demonization of half the human race does not strike me as a useful means of protecting anyone from the true fiends among us.

[Phoebe]

deleted

[WarMare]

I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense.

No, iam3KBS, you are wrong on a point of fact. Feeling no need to repeat what I wrote up-thread about high rates of maternal mortality, I content myself to stating the obvious. These rates indicated a near-permanent and lethal female vulnerability to men that men in no way share, and is in no way offset by another male vulnerability to women.

Maternal mortality is not a monocausal explanation of male-female relations. Culture matters hugely. Individuality matters hugely. I am inclined to discount the role of testosterone almost entirely, despite the obvious and real difference it does play in characteristic male vs. female patterns of aggression in species or situations with dimorphic patterns. Physically healthy human males of the same culture can and do vary hugely in their attitudes towards women, sexuality and violence. Antony Beevor, who is one of the few military historians to pay serious attention to rape, is very instructive here: in Berlin , he tells the story of, if my memory serves, a Soviet tank lieutenant who had lined his platoon up to rape a German woman. Coming upon the crime, his divisional commander shot him on the spot. (I have the Soviet Army on my brain these days.)

Furthermore, as a writer whose past work has focussed on military matters, I have found that men with high decorations for valor strongly tend to be unusually kind and gentle in their interpersonal dealings, a finding I've verified by asking veterans who have trained other soldiers.

In other words, maternal mortality is key terrain. It does make male violence, even lethal violence, against women look normal and natural, if not right. It does make man look like so natural-born a killer that he even kills his mate in childbirth---and then has to somehow live with that aweful knowledge, and somehow redeem himself if he can.

This is a far cry from implying that I think, as you did when you wrote,

Some few men are brute barbarians, but the vast majority are most definitely nothing of the sort.

Any argument that depends on the assumption that vast majority of men are just itching to brutalize women is null and void...

Wholesale demonization of half the human race does not strike me as a useful means of protecting anyone...

ETA: If I thought that most men were brute barbarians and if I wished to engage in wholesale demonization of half, or even the entire species, I would do so unmistakably. I intensely resent any attempt to mischaracterize my writing to that end.

Erin Solaro

[PH/CIB]

I knew a Woman once she was in her thirties at the time, who had a Bachelors Degree in Agronomy and worked for an international company in the Midwest as a laboratory manager. She started a business with her live in boyfriend and the man turned into an alcoholic and drank away all the profits and one night came home and beat her severely.

The next morning she told her boyfriend that if he ever beat her up again, he should never go to sleep because he would never wake up again. I have no doubt that she meant it and so did he for he never beat her up again.

My Wife is a gentle loving soul who is extremely frightened of firearms and refuses to shoot with me or be trained in self defense. However like most Women she does not go looking for trouble is a great negotiator and uses subtle ways to accomplish her missions. Those are strongpoints not weaknesses. Most Women and a lot of Men go through life without ever having a violent ecounter except for seeing it on the 5 O Clock news and like Soldiers in Combat think to themselves that will just happen to the other guy and never will happen to me. I have carried a firearm since coming home from Viet Nam in 1969 about 40 years now and in those 40 years only once came close to shooting someone, so statistically people think it is a remote chance of happening to them.

Also I believe a lot of Women and Men in a violent encounter do not believe the criminal will actually kill them and no matter how badly they are beaten or raped or battered it is still not worth killing someone as they will survive the encounter. This may or not be the case and is a roll of the dice, the only way to make sure you survive is to stop or kill your attacker. I also believe that a lot of Women and Men believe that if they fight back that will only enrage their attacker to the point that they will kill them where they would not have otherwise. This again may or may not be the case and the only sure way to survive is to stop or kill your attacker.

You have to use all your skills to stay out of trouble and try to back away or get away or negotiate when trouble confronts you, but you also have to recognize the point at which deadly force is the only way left for you to survive. This is not an easy thing to do, as in combat you sometimes only have a split second to make a decision, shoot to fast and you have killed a friendly in combat, shoot to slow and you are dead. That is why combat and split second self defense situations are so error prone and that is why training and mindset are imperative.

Women and Men will happily buy home and car insurance you simply write a check throw the policy in a drawer or your glove box and forget about it. Self defense requires like soldiering to never be without a firearm in reach whether sleeping or eating or going to the bathroom or anything and carrying a gun all day long and into the night is a burden even with a comfortable holster. You also have to practice , practice, practice to be safe and proficient with a firearm. Also it is a heavy responsibility, where before you could argue with anyone over anything, now even if being thought a coward by friends or family or strangers you must always back down when ever possible.

Many Women and Men trust Law Enforcement and the Military and the Government to take care of them not realizing survival and self defense is an individual responsiblity.

So yes I wish ever law abiding non felon and non mentally incompetent adult whether female or male carried a firearm for protection if they wanted to, but I realize it is just not going to happen unless our Country and the World becomes and even more dangerous place than it already is and none of us wants that to happen.

[raimius]

High rates of maternal death mean not only that life is at the cost of life, they make it normal and natural for men to kill women and one principle means was sexual intercourse. It is not only for racist and property reasons that rape was considered a capital crime in many societies, and it is also why rape was so commonly the fate of conquered women, who because they generally did not bear arms were immunized from the sword. (In this case, add to maternal deaths, deaths from complicated abortion.) There are not a lot of ways to cope with that and retain your sanity, not as a man, and even less as a woman. How did you cope with the fact that even if he loved you, even if he made no sexual demands upon you, your husband or male lover was likely to kill you?

This is A hard, painful thing to write. To face it as a man must be profoundly shameful.

I disagree. While it is widely accepted that men would go into depression if their wife died in childbirth, I have heard very few cases of the men blaming themselves for the equivalent of murder. I can see being bothered by being part of the causal chain, but I don't see viewing one's self as THE causal element. The illness/complication was the cause of death, not the intercourse.

Maybe it is because I view death during/because of pregnancy as a medical issue, that I have never once considered the woman's death to be the man's fault (assuming standard situations, rather than cases of knowingly infecting the woman or violent rape, etc)

[pax]

raimius,

Of course. Denial is one of the strongest of all human coping mechanisms. But it isn't universal by any means.

After all, if she hadn't been pregnant she wouldn't have died. And who got her pregnant?

Personal experience: my youngest child very nearly killed me with a placenta previa that also abrupted, about two weeks before due date; we live more than 30 minutes from a hospital. I woke up in a puddle of blood, literally feeling it gush out of my body, and passed out before the ambulance arrived. After a rush to the hospital and a not-fully-anesthetized c-section -- a procedure I heartily do not recommend to anyone -- the baby survived and so (obviously) did I. The doctor told me afterward that he considered it a miracle that we'd both survived, as the abruption was nearly complete by the time he got in there.

My husband apologized for months.

I thought he was being ridiculous as it absolutely wasn't his fault or anyone's -- just one of those things that happens sometimes. And the baby and I both lived. I hate to think the kind of shape he'd have been in if one or both of us hadn't...

Anyway, it's a whole lot easier to think dispassionately about such situations when you've never lived through one yourself. ("By trying, we can easily learn to endure adversity. Another man's, I mean." -- Mark Twain )

pax

[raimius]

Well, obviously some people tend to implicate themselves as part of the cause. We can "what if" all day, about nearly anything. I was trying to say most people don't view the connection as strongly as the part I quoted seemed to imply.

As you said, "I thought he was being ridiculous as it absolutely wasn't his fault or anyone's..." I'd agree with that. Medical accidents are just that, accidents. There is no blame to be placed. (Although some will inevitably try, to varrying extents.)

[pax]

Again, it's always easiest to "be logical" about someone else's feelings.



Far astray from the topic ...

... or is it?

pax

[sakeneko]

It's always easiest to "be logical" about someone else's feelings.

.sigfile material. :-)