My wife once took a all women defensive handgun course. It drove her nuts. She had previously taken the same class in a mixed group and had hoped that the single sex setting would allow for addressing some of the differences between boys and girls. For example, she found that wider hips required slight adjustments to how and where she wore her holster. Her superstructure also prevented her from running one drill in quite the same fashion as I did. None of this was learned in the women's class or addressed in any way. Instead it devolved into constantly catering to a few "helpless" types while those wanting to run and gun had to wait. She realized that she preferred a mixed class where she was pushed to perform. She learned more and improved faster. Note, the male instructors were the same in both classes.
Instructor Ethics 201: Women's Classes
- Thread starter Jammer Six
- Start date
- Status
Jammer Six
New member
Lower standards would be an ethical reason against women's classes.
If the standards aren't different, there's no reason to have a separate class.
They are students, not women.
If the standards aren't different, there's no reason to have a separate class.
They are students, not women.
SPEMack618
New member
Also, something that was stressed to me by both the NRA, the Boy Scouts, and the Army is that men and women learn in different ways.
Also, as previously discussed, their is the comfort issue of an all women class.
Also, as previously discussed, their is the comfort issue of an all women class.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
I see you're still beating that drum.Jammer Six said:
In any case, throughout this thread I think there has been pretty general agreement that disparate standards would be inappropriate. But there has also been broad agreement in this thread that, for a variety of practical and pedagogical reasons, there is a place for woman only classes.
So while you might not see a reason for woman only classes, many of us do. And it sure looks like you haven't convinced those of us who do.
So it you don't want to conduct woman only classes, don't. Others will do as they choose.
I think many of you are missing some important points.
For four years, my wife has been teaching a ladies only basic handgun class. There are two factors to this:
1.Women learn differently than men. I don't have the references handy, but it has been proven through academic research.
2. Women have been socialized differently. When boys got a toy gun, girls got a doll. As they grow, boys are expected to be independent, take charge types. Women are (still) expected to be dependent - the man protects, the women nurture. Look at most any TV show or movie.
An integral part of her program is telling the women to do what they have been taught to NEVER do - make a scene! Guys will rise to a challenge, raising voices. Women try to divert a challenge.
I was the lead Firearms Instructor at my agencies western academy. I always insisted on having a female instructor on board for every basic class. Some women needed to see a female who could do as well as teach. And we never separated our classes by gender. There was one standard - pass or fail based on ability, not gender.
When lives are at stake, we need winners, without regard to gender, any other qualifier.
For four years, my wife has been teaching a ladies only basic handgun class. There are two factors to this:
1.Women learn differently than men. I don't have the references handy, but it has been proven through academic research.
2. Women have been socialized differently. When boys got a toy gun, girls got a doll. As they grow, boys are expected to be independent, take charge types. Women are (still) expected to be dependent - the man protects, the women nurture. Look at most any TV show or movie.
An integral part of her program is telling the women to do what they have been taught to NEVER do - make a scene! Guys will rise to a challenge, raising voices. Women try to divert a challenge.
I was the lead Firearms Instructor at my agencies western academy. I always insisted on having a female instructor on board for every basic class. Some women needed to see a female who could do as well as teach. And we never separated our classes by gender. There was one standard - pass or fail based on ability, not gender.
When lives are at stake, we need winners, without regard to gender, any other qualifier.
I don't mean to pick apart your statement PAX but I've been a C/O for 20 years. I try to explain to people what a criminal does, how he thinks and what he is capable of.
They think I'm crazy, nobody can actually be like what I describe. It is so far outside their paradigm they can't comprehend it.
Jammer Six
New member
Frank, this thread has done nothing but make us all certain that we are right.
The process amazed me.
I still agree that a woman's approach to avoiding violence is different from a man's, and I don't believe that there are men out there qualified to teach women how to avoid violence, although I'm equally certain that there are many who will do so.
Once the shooting starts, which is what I teach, there is no difference between men and women.
That's the point of the firearm-- it empowers any skilled shooter to stop an attack.
Treating any group of shooters differently without a legitimate, ethical reason simply reinforces any stereotypes already in place, and in this case encourages women to think of themselves as needing different instruction.
That's exactly the opposite of ethical firearms instruction-- women need to be taught to win the fight, without regard to their sex, size, strength or anything else.
If we believed what has been posted here, we wouldn't have female cops, for exactly the "reasons" everyone has been chanting.
Thank god for real progress.
Best of luck to you all, I'm certain I have failed to convince any of you of anything, but it pleases me that the light has been turned on this topic, because stereotypes matter. It also pleases me to have all of our positions so clearly on the record.
The process amazed me.
I still agree that a woman's approach to avoiding violence is different from a man's, and I don't believe that there are men out there qualified to teach women how to avoid violence, although I'm equally certain that there are many who will do so.
Once the shooting starts, which is what I teach, there is no difference between men and women.
That's the point of the firearm-- it empowers any skilled shooter to stop an attack.
Treating any group of shooters differently without a legitimate, ethical reason simply reinforces any stereotypes already in place, and in this case encourages women to think of themselves as needing different instruction.
That's exactly the opposite of ethical firearms instruction-- women need to be taught to win the fight, without regard to their sex, size, strength or anything else.
If we believed what has been posted here, we wouldn't have female cops, for exactly the "reasons" everyone has been chanting.
Thank god for real progress.
Best of luck to you all, I'm certain I have failed to convince any of you of anything, but it pleases me that the light has been turned on this topic, because stereotypes matter. It also pleases me to have all of our positions so clearly on the record.
Last edited:
I think many women are more comfortable in a women only setting and they are likely to buy women's only classes which is why their is women's only classes.
I have helped teach hand to hand classes that had women in them, women retain info better then men and remember more detail much of time. Most of the new women would lack enough aggressiveness(a lot men also). Women would get into all women groups and it would be a pat, touch, lets discuss this and that, which does no one a favor in self defense.
My strategy was to escalate their aggressiveness in a mild progressive manor until they feel comfortable beating someone to the ground
I have helped teach hand to hand classes that had women in them, women retain info better then men and remember more detail much of time. Most of the new women would lack enough aggressiveness(a lot men also). Women would get into all women groups and it would be a pat, touch, lets discuss this and that, which does no one a favor in self defense.
My strategy was to escalate their aggressiveness in a mild progressive manor until they feel comfortable beating someone to the ground
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.
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.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
And whether she would prefer a class with men and women or a class with only women. The point is to offer a choice.Sleuth said:
As I wrote way back in post 13:
Frank Ettin said:
and
Frank Ettin said:
Jammer Six
New member
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.
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.
Last edited:
zincwarrior
New member
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.
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.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
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.Jammer Six said:
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.
Jammer Six
New member
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.
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.
Spats McGee
Administrator
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.Jammer Six said:
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.Jammer Six said:
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.
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.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
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.
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.
Jammer Six
New member
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.
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.
- Status