Nittespanker
Moderator
Segregation is common and if its done by a minority it's also very accepted.
Example: black entertainment television
Example: black entertainment television
An all-girl school would actually be a much better analogy and, as Vanya notes:Jammer Six said:A hypothetical example would be offering a segregated restaurant in a city of un-segregated restaurants.
Jammer Six, are all of those forms of instruction, and all all-girl schools unethical?Vanya said: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?"
Actually, no, you didn't. I asked:Jammer Six said:Vanya, I answered exactly the question you asked?
You wrote:How is it unethical to offer people a range of choices when the result is to increase their freedom?
This amounts to "It's unethical because it's unethical," which, forgive me for putting it this way, is a bit silly.Vanya, my answer is "when one of those choices is unethical."
You replied: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?
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.
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 said:The google search answer is simple: that's called the fallacy of numbers.
I see. Yes, I misinterpreted it.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, 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.Jammer Six said:. . . .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".
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.Jammer Six said:. . . . 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?
Ah, but it does neither of these, according to the first-hand observations of many experienced teachers who have posted here:Jammer Six said: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".
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.
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.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.
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?
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.
If you're referring to this:Jammer Six said:Vanya, now I'm afraid you haven't answered my questions.
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.Do we agree that the segregated restaurant is unethical, regardless of other choices in the same city?