Instructor Ethics 201: Women's Classes

[Nittespanker]

Segregation is common and if its done by a minority it's also very accepted.

Example: black entertainment television

 

[Evan Thomas]

You're still not answering my question: what makes it unethical?

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

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

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

 

[Spats McGee]

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

An all-girl school would actually be a much better analogy and, as Vanya notes:

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

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

Jammer Six, are all of those forms of instruction, and all all-girl schools unethical?

 

[Jammer Six]

Vanya, I answered exactly the question you asked.

Did you mean to ask something else?

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

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

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

 

[Evan Thomas]

Vanya, I answered exactly the question you asked?

Actually, no, you didn't. I asked:

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

You wrote:

Vanya, my answer is "when one of those choices is unethical."

This amounts to "It's unethical because it's unethical," which, forgive me for putting it this way, is a bit silly.

It's also not the first time you've done this in this thread:

Jammer, when you say "establishing a set of ethics," I'm not sure what you mean by that -- can you say more about that, and maybe give some examples of the sort of thing you have in mind?

You replied:

Vanya, to answer your request, when I talk about teaching ethically, or a set of ethics, what I'm really saying is simply that as instructors, we need to teach ethically.

Sorry, but these are inadequate (and deeply uninteresting) answers to the question of why something is or isn't ethical.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jammer Six]

Ah, there we go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see. Yes, I misinterpreted it.

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

 

[Mr. James]

Vanya, brilliant.

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

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

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

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

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

Embrace diversity!

 

[Spats McGee]

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

Jammer Six, I'll admit that I haven't read each and every post in this thread, but you seem to be wholly alone in your belief that segregated classes promote any such stereotype, that women are incapable of learning to shoot in a class that includes men. Everyone else seems to be of the opinion that women may prefer to learn in a separate environment.

. . . . Spats, if all girl schools are fine, why were West Point, Yale, Harvard and on and on forced to admit women? Is segregated education fine for women but not for men?

Nice shot at the Socratic Method, but it doesn't answer the question. However, you're making an apples-to-oranges comparison. We've been discussing the offering of voluntarily segregated classes, whereas the institutions you mentioned were examples of forced exclusion. Or are you claiming that men are somehow harmed by women being offered single-sex classes? Because I don't recall you raising that issue before.

 

[Evan Thomas]

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

Ah, but it does neither of these, according to the first-hand observations of many experienced teachers who have posted here:

I've taught both, men and women over the years, by far ladies are more responsive and make better students. They don't have the pre-conceptions or egos that men have.

Given clear instruction women are no different then men and they are certainly no less capable.

what I do see are the guys being idiots around women all the time.

A lot of times, women don't even realize they have those questions until you get them into a group of like minded others -- and then all at once, all these amazing, thoughtful and thought provoking questions and ideas start flying all over the room.

As other instructors have noted, if I can get them away from their husbands, many novice female shooters will outshoot their 'experienced' spouses because they actually listen and don't start from the mistaken belief that they know everything already.

If there's an ethical aspect to women only classes, there it is: we can work hard to get people the training they need in a format they want, or we can ignore what they want and they will never get the training they need... hm.

I've quoted, above, some firsthand observations of how women benefit, which also tend to refute your statements about stereotyping. I specifically asked you to provide an answer that didn't rely on an unsupported assertion about stereotypes, but that showed particular ways that women-only classes do more harm than good, by providing examples and using them to support some sort of analysis.

 

[myusername]

All I know is I've been shooting for nearly 50 years and my GF can out shoot me!

If we are together and something ever happens I'm going to take cover and let her deal with it, unless there's more than 10, then I'll toss her a fresh mag.

 

[Jammer Six]

Vanya, now I'm afraid you haven't answered my questions.

 

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer Six
Promoting stereotypes is simply wrong, regardless of what the market says. Teaching, implying and above all setting the example that women need separate instruction without genuine need promotes a rather ugly stereotype.

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

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

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

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

Indeed if we follow this to its logical conclusion, there should only be one shooting course offered. It would be unethical to offer all the dvds I have on different shooting topics...

 

[zincwarrior]

All I know is I've been shooting for nearly 50 years and my GF can out shoot me!

If we are together and something ever happens I'm going to take cover and let her deal with it, unless there's more than 10, then I'll toss her a fresh mag.

How do you think I feel. Both my wife and daughter can shoot better than I can. My nearly blind ancient wiener dog could probably shoot better than I can...

 

[Evan Thomas]

Vanya, now I'm afraid you haven't answered my questions.

If you're referring to this:

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

It's a red herring, and I'm not interested in chasing it. Segregated restaurants are a result of bigotry, not a cause of stereotyping, and are therefore irrelevant to the claim you're making.

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

Since you are unwilling or unable to offer any support for your argument, it seems that it can be reduced to this: you are personally offended by women-only classes. So what?

 

[Jammer Six]

Vanya, now I understand your point of view. Thank you.

 

[Buzzcook]

Ethics in education is result driven. What is the best outcome for the student.

Most women's only classes are introductory classes. Those that seek further instruction usually go on to coed intermediary classes.

There are enough instructors here to make an empirical study. Compare women who have gone through segregated classes to those who have gone through mixed sex classes.

What measurable standards would you use? What subjective observations?

If women, who attend segregated classes, do better in subsequent classes than their peers who took coed classes, then woman's only classes are ethical.

 

[ThatBeardedGuy]

I'm probably a little late to this discussion, and certainly less qualified than many of the shooters in here, but my two cents on teaching a women's only course is as follows:

I've taught the last three or four girls I've dated how to shoot, including my wife who, being from Canada and not really a gun person, had no bad habits to break and took the training in stride.

Now, what always seems to happen is that men gravitate towards women on the range. For the most part, it's subconscious, but I've had men literally try to hijack a one-on-one session with a female I was training, not because of anything they thought I was teaching was wrong, but simply because every guy with a pulse feels at least a tiny desire to impress the women in his immediate vicinity with his knowledge and experience. It's probably one of those urges that goes back to when we invented fire.

Women aren't dumb when it comes to this, and they see through it. When you're learning to shoot, you don't need the sort of distractions that come with anyone but the trainer observing you shoot.

Nothing would irritate me more if I was a woman learning to shoot than some random guy approaching me with unwanted advice simply because of my gender.

Now, military does it integrated, but there's a lot more formality in a military course of fire and the lane safeties are NCOs who are responsible for correcting the deficiencies of multiple shooters within their section of the course.

I'm not judging all guys who shoot in mixed company, but there seems to be a tendency for unsolicited (and sometimes incorrect) advice on the range where women are concerned.

Having an all-women's course where you don't have to deal with that is a wonderful idea. If you're running an integrated course, make sure all your students are there to learn, and make sure they know you're the instructor and that they are not responsible for making on-the-spot corrections for your female students.

Otherwise they'd be teaching the course, not taking it.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Welcome to TFL, Bearded One!

Those are very good points, and it's nice to have them come from a "regular guy."

Several of our women members have complained about this behavior at one time or another, and you're right -- it's not OK, whether a woman is taking a class, learning from a friend, or just getting in some practice on her own.

 

[ThatBeardedGuy]

Thanks for the welcome! I'm definitely not a shooting instructor, nor would I call myself one, but I can make guns go bang, and usually they hit the target. Or someone else's target. Doesn't matter. They hit a target.

I kid, but I appreciate that willingness to hear a regular guy's perspective on it.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

McCaughey - Real Knockouts: The Physical Feminism of Women's Self-Defense.

1998 book, and the author made the point about the creeps coming over at the range.