Instructor Ethics 201: Women's Classes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spats ~

Good point. I've long thought there should be men-only classes available too. Of course, many classes end up being composed solely of male students, but that's not the same thing as setting up the class itself to allow students to choose the environment where they will best learn. On the class-content and pedagogy side, men generally do benefit from classes tailored for their specific needs, but right now almost every class out there is optimized for male students anyway (gear selection and mindset lectures are the two areas where this optimization shows most clearly).

In any case, from my perspective there's an advantage to offering classes geared for specific demographics: senior citizens & retired people; teachers and others who work in educational settings; retail sales workers; young parents... A narrower mix of student demographics helps the instructor more tightly focus on the students' shared, specific needs and then to cover those needs in greater detail. IMO, both wide-mix and narrow-mix classes have a place.

pax
 
It might be useful to define what kinds of ethics we're dealing with in this thread.

Jammer, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're talking about a very broad ethical stance: that people should be treated equally, and that on the scale of society as a whole, it's unethical not to do that.

But I think Kathy is more concerned with professional ethics, which should follow from one's general beliefs, but which deal specifically with one's responsibilities as member of a much smaller society.

I think it's important not to conflate the two.

But even on the level of ethics writ large, it's worth analyzing what counts as equal treatment. I'd argue that for most purposes, a concept of fairness is actually more useful than rigid ideas about equality.

Here's an example: as a society, we're committed to the principle that people should be treated equally under the law. Among other things, the right to a fair trial is central to that. The legal system has historically conducted its business in English, but what constitutes equal treatment within that system for someone who doesn't speak English well? Do we want to say that equal, or fair, treatment consists of assuming that everyone should speak English, and carrying on regardless of whether a defendant understands what's being said? I don't think many people would be comfortable with that notion of "justice."

The rational alternative is to provide a translator. On the surface, that might look like "special treatment," but on another level, it's treating the individual in a way that's intended to make sure his (or her) right to a fair trial is protected.

We also see nothing unethical in treating people with disabilities differently from others, to the extent that's necessary to ensure that they have equal access to things able-bodied people take for granted, from entry to buildings to education. All of this is about recognizing individual needs, in order to ensure that people are treated fairly.

It's also a matter of fairness to recognize that women have different needs from men when it comes to self-defense. It's fine to want to change society, but in the meantime, women deserve access to training that actually works for them -- and they get to decide what that is.
 
Perhaps put another way, we might say that the goals and standards of education in this or any other field should stay the same, but the means of reaching those goals may differ. If the motive of a teacher is to put people into environments in which their learning ability is maximized, their ethics are above reproach; if the motive is to limit learning, lower standards, or patronize a student or group of students, decidedly not.

I spent 15 years as a volunteer in public schools, 9 at the high school level, teaching music. To fail to recognize that different people learn differently, at different rates, and may have different goals, is to fail as a teacher; to adapt to the needs of students is to excel. I had students who had the goal and innate ability to become soloists, but I had others whose abilities and/or motivation limited them to being chorus members. Some may say that my teaching abilities limited those whose goal was to become a soloist but fell short, and although they may be right, the fact that my effort was unflagging makes it a matter of my ability rather than my ethics. I did not claim to be the perfect music teacher who could make any child a star; I did not claim to have credentials that I lacked; I claimed to be an accomplished amateur musician and I offered to teach what I know and help the students progress.

Since there is a recognizable trend towards differences between the sexes, both physical traits and learned sociological and behavioral traits, it would seem reasonable to commend a teacher who addresses those differences as one who maximizes the learning potential of his or her students. Individualizing methods and goals, although out of fashion in some circles, is good teaching.
 
Last edited:
Vanya, that's closer-- I'm also interested in establishing a set of ethics under which separate classes simply aren't necessary.

In your last sentence, I'd like to identify exactly, point-by-point, what those different needs are.
 
I like the fact that a lot of the staff are involved in this discussion, mainly because many of them are professional trainers and have experience in training. My hat is off to them, and I respect the fact that they are participating in this thread which, under normal circumstances, could be like bothering a hornets' nest.

As far as training women separately, I am of two opinions. Yes, women have their own needs and interests when being introduced to something largely perceived as a "men's sport". They will need to be coaxed and reassured initially, and encouraged and praised as they progress, but that is not unusual in any training environment. Men, on the other hand, are often muy macho and full of bravado, and will not listen to basic instructions until they get hurt or embarassed. I saw this training Marines on the firing line, I have seen it teaching martial arts, and I would expect the same in basic defensive firearms training. In this respect, women are better students, and I would agree that they could have their own classes (notice I did not say "should").

Once past the initial introductory training period, women need to be handled differently because of their different approach to threats and violence in general. Women are seldom the assailants, they are often the victims. This fact alone makes their training needs much different from men's needs. And this is not an instance of the man staring down a bad guy or a woman in an evening gown staring at the bad guy (for some reason, I found that example rather offensive, although I understand the concept being expressed). This is more of a case of a woman dressed in blue jeans walking down a street being approached by a bad guy who smiles at her and then knocks her cold, as compared to a man in blue jeans walking down the street being approached by a bad guy who sneers and postures before knocking him cold. Both instances are similar here, but due to a woman being perceived as a sexual victim as well as a robbery victim, the actions of the bad guys are different, as are the actions of friendly passers-by. So no, I don't feel that a woman will not be equal until there are female centers in the NBA (NBA or any professional athletes are anything but equal to the standard citizen), this is about training people with different societal perceptions and attitudes to defend themselves. If women want a separate class, let them have the separate class. You do that for LEOs, don't you? And they are just citizens, regardless of how they view themselves. You teach to the students' area of needs, not to the students' gender or social position. I have seen "1911-only" classes and "Glock-only" classes, what is wrong with women-only classes? Don't judge them, you are just the instructor. If you are good at it, you may become a teacher.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.:)
 
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
 
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.:D

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
 
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.
 
Jammer Six said:
...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....
Click to expand...

  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.

Jammer Six said:
...To put it mildly, things other than shooting are being taught under the banner of handgun classes...
Click to expand...
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.

Jammer Six said:
...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...
Click to expand...
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.

Jammer Six said:
...I categorically reject “what sells” or “what customers want” as a basis for ethics...
Click to expand...
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.

Jammer Six said:
...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...
Click to expand...
Nor is there an ethical reason to not offer a women-only class. And there appear to be pedagogical reasons to do so.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top