Instructor Ethics 201: Women's Classes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Men bothering women is not unique to the gun range or a shooting instruction class, it goes on everywhere there is mixed company.

Women do see through it and most women find it annoying.
 
I"m a little confused, check - a lot confused, about the suggestion that teaching women separate from men is "unethical". I don't see an ethics conflict in the least.

Guns, guitars, auto mechanics, needle point, I would not teach any subject the same if I had all men, all women, all teenagers, all Japanese speaking people, all gang bangers.

The primary job of any teacher in any subject is NOT to present a bunch of required material that students can regurgitate later. It's to figure out what makes each student "tick" and tailor the pedagogy to that set of parameters.

Teaching a group of 11 year olds how to change a flat tire would be totally different than teaching a group of 30 year olds. Likewise, teaching gun safety or marksmanship to a group of 25 year old women would be totally different than teaching a group of 25 year old men. There's no "ethics" question there, in any of the examples, including guns.

I suggest that the only time "unethical" comes to the surface is when you DO NOT account for the differences, backgounds, learning styles of women vs men, kids vs adults, teens vs people from mars etc.


Sgt Lumpy
 
In college the material is presented for you to learn and the age and sex of the students vary greatly. It's all taught the same way and its up to the student to learn it. Shooting a gun in self defense is not that complicated. I've seen women out shoot plenty of men. Your not trying to qualify them for seal team 6 for Christs sake.
 
Men bothering women is not unique to the gun range or a shooting instruction class, it goes on everywhere there is mixed company.
Click to expand...

That's certainly true, but I'm limited the scope of this discussion to firearms training, particularly beginner's firearms training, where a lot of women are taking somewhat furtive steps into a world that's dominated by men more than most.

Once you start hitting intermediate and advanced levels of training with firearms, going coed is less of a problem because the women attending the course have a solid, professionally-taught grasp of fundamentals.

The point really is to limit the introduction of half-baked advice to women shooters by (usually) well-meaning men, but really, this cuts the same way with a lot of new male shooters as well.

I think some women might find this viewpoint sexist, but I echo the belief above that you select the most effective training methodology for the group you're training. I wouldn't use the same methodology in a beginner's class (assuming I ever choose to become a firearms instructor) as I would in an Army Primary Marksmanship Instruction module, because I can assume soldiers at least know which end the bullets come out of.

Well, usually, anyway.
 
And, all the soldiers will be using the same firearms. I had the same situation at our academy, where everyone learned on the issue pistol. The down side is one size does NOT fit all.
 
And, all the soldiers will be using the same firearms. I had the same situation at our academy, where everyone learned on the issue pistol. The down side is one size does NOT fit all.
Click to expand...

Very true. Standardized firearms help in some ways and hurt in others. The M16A2 is a lot of rifle with a long stock, and some of my female shooters have had problems getting a good stock-weld, especially with the weird interplay between the Kevlar helmet and the hair.

Which is why I insist that soldiers kit up at home or in their barrack's rooms and make sure their equipment is set well.

Next to that, teaching civilian classes where you can really milk "shooter's preference" for all it's worth is helpful. Females can use rifles and kit more suited to them ergonomically.

But getting back to methodology, women beginning in the science of shooting may need a slightly different approach. It's not that they make inferior shooters. Indeed, my wife can run my 1911 as well as I can and can even out-group me on a good day. I chalk this up to her ability not only to listen but APPLY the fundamentals she's learned.

I leave the exact nuts and bolts of that methodology to more qualified instructors, because I'm a good example of the Army letting just ANYONE with stripes run a PMI class. :D
 
Part of the "women learn differently" is that when they come to the first class, they don't think they already know how to shoot. Thus they accept instruction readily, not trying to unlearn what dad, or their next door neighbor, or a police officer(who can barely qualify him/herself), or all three, has told them.

The downside to civilian classes is that many of the women have been 'gifted' completely unsuitable guns. To wit:
12 Gauge 36" barreled shotgun
.25 Raven pistol
.22 micro revolver
1920's Spanish made .32/380 semi autos
and the winner is:
a 5'0", 90 pound, 65 year old woman who had never fired any gun, with a Taurus Judge.

This leads to my usual comment:
"His heart was in the right place, but ....... and gun stores take trade-ins."
 
Part of the "women learn differently" is that when they come to the first class, they don't think they already know how to shoot. Thus they accept instruction readily, not trying to unlearn what dad, or their next door neighbor, or a police officer(who can barely qualify him/herself), or all three, has told them.
Click to expand...

Oh God yeah. In Basic Training, the best shooters tend to be the ones who've never seen a weapon before in their lives. They just shut up and absorb the training.

When I taught my wife, I spent all the time teaching, instead of asking, "Where the heck did you learn that?"

As to your list of firearms... that's just... I don't even know. There's certainly something to be said for teaching equipment selection. With today's technology in bullet design, most people would be well-served with a regular 9mm Para.
 
Folks the focus is teaching private citizens. The way things are done in the military might not necessarily be the best model.
 
Folks the focus is teaching private citizens. The way things are done in the military might not necessarily be the best model.
Click to expand...

That's more or less the point I'm trying to make when I said this:

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.
Click to expand...

It's a formalized session where shooters don't really lean over and try to correct each other on-the-spot.

I'm not trying to push the military model. I don't even think it would be possible to make such a model work with regular people.
 
I went on to say that the military model assumes a more or less common level of proficiency with one specific weapon and for one specific type of range.

You can't make that assumption with private citizens.

Indeed, I'm for different training methodologies for different groups of people.
 
I'm a bit confused here. Is the original poster teaching a class on the mechanics of shooting a firearm or is he teaching a class on the use of firearms for self defense? If the former I can see his point. The basics of firing a weapon are the same regardless of gender. If it is the later I could see the benefit gender specific classes.
 
I teach most levels of handgun, from intro (or basic, the terms depend on who's paying me) through self defense. Both NRA or Cooper-style, although there are things I won't tolerate anymore in both curriculums.

There are things on the high end that I don't teach. No long guns, no transition, no infantry squad techniques, no law enforcement.

This thread has convinced me that the stereotypes against women are far more widespread and ingrained far deeper than I ever imagined.

In my naiveté, I thought it was a surface problem, more a problem of appearance than actual belief.
 
SgtLumpy said:
I suggest that the only time "unethical" comes to the surface is when you DO NOT account for the differences, backgounds, learning styles of women vs men, kids vs adults, teens vs people from mars etc.
Click to expand...
Jammer Six said:
How do you account for the differences?
Click to expand...
One accounts for the differences by
  • Acknowledging that they exist.
  • Determining what they are.
  • Learning how they affect students' needs with respect to learning the material at hand.
  • Tailoring the instruction to address the needs of each student.
This process, by itself, doesn't dictate separate classes, but it suggests that where the differences are great enough, it's worth doing the experiment and finding out if they are worthwhile. The criteria for "worthwhile" differ depending on the population, but should always be empirical: what works to produce the best outcomes for as many students as possible. If you think what you're teaching is important, the latter -- making the material accessible to the maximum number of people -- weighs very heavily in ethical terms.

If the subject is a matter of survival, and a particular group of people is discouraged from learning it because of arbitrary limits on the ways it's taught, those limits are severely unethical.

Adults have the right to chose what works best for them. The fact that many women prefer women-only classes means one of two things:
  1. Either they find them more suited to their needs.
  2. Or they don't know what's best for them and are unqualified to decide.
The latter view is offensively patronizing.
Jammer Six said:
This thread has convinced me that the stereotypes against women are far more widespread and ingrained far deeper than I ever imagined.
Click to expand...
As far as I can see, you're pretty much the only person in this thread who is perpetuating stereotypes against women, the chief of which is #2, above.
 
Last edited:
Knowing professional scholars of sexism in the psychological community and professional trainers concerned with women's issues in the firearms world - I say - Here, Here to Vanya's analyses.
 
Vanya said:
One accounts for the differences by

Acknowledging that they exist.
Determining what they are.
Learning how they affect students' needs with respect to learning the material at hand.
Tailoring the instruction to address the needs of each student.

This process, by itself, doesn't dictate separate classes, but it suggests that where the differences are great enough, it's worth doing the experiment and finding out if they are worthwhile.
Click to expand...
Very perceptive and very true.

Vanya said:
Adults have the right to chose what works best for them. The fact that many women prefer women-only classes means one of two things:

1. Either they find them more suited to their needs.
2. Or they don't know what's best for them and are unqualified to decide.
Click to expand...
I wonder if there is a third?

Studies of elementary-school age through high school girls in mixed-gender classes show that class participation drops during those years. No such dropoff occurs in girls-only classes. This suggests that the presence of boys suppresses girls' participation.

Feel free to speculate if the reason is that boys tend to be more assertive/spontaneous/competitive during those developmental years or girls tend to be more retiring/cooperative during that time in their lives. I think we have ample evidence that those developmental differences are real, whether they are fueled by hormones or imposed by society, the trajectory of the gender-based personality development endures for many women over the rest of their lives.

I speculate that many women may prefer female-only classes because male presence/participation still has a suppressive effect on them and their female classmates.

Clearly, students who produce questions and lines of thought do lead instructors into areas of the curriculum (while still not away from the syllabus) that may not match the needs or interests of students who do not speak up in class as much. And that is not gender-based. Older students might prefer elders-only classes as much as female students might prefer female-only classes.

I wonder if there is a fourth?

Some women simply don't want to associate with men. Prejudices cut both ways.

Just wondering.

Lost Sheep
 
Lost Sheep, I think you're right on all counts. In the interest of keeping things simple, I didn't, in my last post, want to get into details of why women-only classes meet the needs of so many, but the reasons you mention would be right up there on my list.

It's well worth reminding everyone of those things. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top