Girlfriend/wife with warped views on self-defense?

[obiwan1]

I had a GF who tolerated my guns (she knew that they were, and are, a non negotiable part of who I am). One night she had the s*** scared out of her and asked me to come over (we didn't live together) with one of my guns. She tolerated them better after that. She became an ex GF about 2 yrs later (her decision- she preferred wimps). My now wife of 20+ yrs (different girl) had no probs with guns or any other hobbies of mine from day one. She participated (and still does) in my activities. SHE's a keeper! She has a Chief's Special and license. Bottom line - stick to your principles. Your ideas are as important as hers so don't wimp out.

You can "indoctrinate" her slowly. Point out news stories about break ins and ask how she'd react. At the mall ask what she'd to if a replay of the SaltLake Mall shootings happened. Join the NRA and get "first freedom" magazine and have her read the "armed citizen" section. Discuss the murdered Doctor's family mentioned in one of the above posts. It's time to re program her mind. If something makes her afraid ask her why and turn it against her (very delicately, of course). Ask her about the pizza/911 test. (If she called 911 and Domino's at the same time, which would arrive first). DON'T DO THIS, just use it as a discussion point.


Remember: When seconds count, Police are only minutes away! (I say this with great respect to the profession - I carry a Federal badge! Police can't be everywhere all the time. Any crook that's not an idiot will wait until the cops are as far away as possible before striking. Sometimes the response time will be fast, sometime not. Would you bet your life on average statistics?)

 

[Eyesac]

Correia,
I wasn't trying to say moderators are mean, I just meant it's was getting off topic (and you guys usually try to steer it back on topic or close it)...

I paint with a razor blade

I think you're saying that there's no similarities between anyone, so you have to treat each as an individual, I see that as the broadest of brushes. I don’t see anything wrong with categorizing a male as a male and female as female until they prove to be an exception. I don’t think anyone suggested throwing women out of SD classes because they’re not fit to defend themselves.

You find me some actual PhDs that tell me half the population is wired to be irrational, illogical, emotional, and unable to effectively defend themselves...

I don't think you would find one (because that's just silly). I also don't think you could find one that won't acknowledge the difference between boys and girls (and how that might relate to aptitude).

THR doesn't exist to drive wedges between different groups

I agree, I think embracing the differences helps folks understand people more than pretending boys and girls aren't different.

 

[jefnvk]

Had both types of girls (why do you need a gun/you got your gun with you, right?). Know both types of guys, too.

My opinion? Most people simply think that nothing bad can happen to them, cause they aren't bad people/in a bad place. I mention that I carry around Houghton(smaller, rural conservatve college town), people think I am paranoid. I mention I carry around Saginaw (bigger, not so nice city), people all the sudden think it is much more appropriate. Why? they view themselves in a safe place, while another city isn't so safe, so it is OK.

Is that a good view to have? No. What you are doing, is putting faith in statistics. Problem is, statistics don't hold for specific instances. Sure, there is a lot more crime in Saginaw than Houghton. That does not mean that I am more likely to be a victim of a crime in Saginaw than Houghton.

People just need to realize that you can't rely on statistics to tell you how safe you are. Each instance of crime, does not follow the statistics. It makes the statistics. Therefore, you just can't rely on it, in considering safety.

Well, I can only say God bless the FEMALE Governor of Michigan...a Democrat even, who signed "shall issue MCPL" into law! Oh yeah, and SHE grew up in Canada.

Ya, as far as gun/SD stuff, she isn't half bad. Gotta throw in that she spent quite a few years in Cali as well.

 

[NeoSpud]

I also don't think you could find one that won't acknowledge the difference between boys and girls (and how that might relate to aptitude).

Aptitude?

Please don't tell me you're talking about the perceived math/science aptitude difference, which has been repeatedly shown to be purely sociocultural, not genetic (not to mention COMPLETELY irrelevant towards concealed carry or gun control). I'll even give you a source to evidence my claims, something you have yet to do (anecdotal != scientific): http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/sexsci/

Yes, there are differences between boys and girls. None of them are relevant here. If you believe otherwise (and I'm always open to revise my position), give supporting evidence.

 

[bdjansen]

Thought I'd post an update for you guys. I'd love to respond to everyone's post individually but it would take me all day. I'll try to capture what I can though.

First off I'd like to thank everyone for their replies, even if it was just some male/female viewpoint bickering I read them all day yesterday and thought about it a bunch. We had a long discussion about the whole thing again last night. While you can't change how someone feels easily, you can at least educate them on your viewpoint right? That works both ways of course, giving her a chance to explain her viewpoint after we both had time to think about it.

Long story short: I'm not worried one bit. She:

1) Has no problem with me owning or using firearms in SD
2) Has no problem with me carrying a firearm
3) Has no problem with me continuing to own/carry/use firearms if/when we have kids
4) Now understands my viewpoint.

The whole thing basically revolves around my perception of "safety" and hers. She thinks she's safe enough as-is, that the chance of something happening to her/us is extremely low. She is right of course, but where we differ is our viewpoint on preparing for this low-chance encounter (home invasion or similar incident). She thinks the risk is low enough that it's not worth worrying about, and I think it's worth preparing for. *shrug* I can see her stance of course. Sure, you could probably wear a insulated full metal bodysuit to protect against lightning strikes but is it really worth it? You have to draw that line somewhere and she just draws it sooner than I do. I think all of us on this board are very safety conscious and to some it would be considered in the realm of paranoia. Frankly there are many on this board who take it many steps further than I do. Bug out bags, supplies for months, generators, etc.. I don't think there's anything wrong with that but *I* don't go that far because I don't think it's worth worrying about it. There are people reading this right now thinking that I'm unprepared because I don't keep any sort of food stockpiles. See what I'm saying? It's all about perspective. I'm sure if something were ever to happen, like someone breaking in, her perspective would change REALLY quickly.

Believe me, we aren't going to break up and from our discussion - this isn't going to be any sort of problem. She puts up with - and even supports - my various hobbies which include modifying cars (and racing them), computers, home theatre, etc etc.. This will be no different. We have been very close for 9 years and have been dating for over 2 of them and I'm sure we'll be married in a year or two.

Thank you for all of your thoughts, opinions, and humorous banter. I apologize for starting a male/female war but I think my statements were pretty innocuous. I never tried to imply that one gender is better than the other, simply that we tend to think differently. I don't think you can argue with that - but I'm sure people will

Dope

You seem like you guys have a good relationship. I'm sorry for all the people who told you to break up with her. Those people make me mad.

She may be worried about her future kids as well. If it is something you think about then she is definitely thinking about it. Guns do pose a risk to kids and she may be thinking that and be afraid to bring it up.

Maybe it would help if you were to assume that it was a concern for her and to show her in depth how you are going to keep your weapons secure and that you too are very concerned about the safety of your future children.

If you don't want to discuss the possibility of children at this point in your relationship you could talk about keeping the guns safe from relatives or friends children. She'll get the idea.

 

[Eyesac]

Please don't tell me you're talking about the perceived math/science aptitude difference

Oh dear, I think you're confused!

Nope, I won't tell you that I'm talking about "perceived math/science aptitude difference" because I'm not talking about that. Silly.

 

[strat81]

She thinks the risk is low enough that it's not worth worrying about, and I think it's worth preparing for. *shrug* I can see her stance of course. Sure, you could probably wear a insulated full metal bodysuit to protect against lightning strikes but is it really worth it?

My wife has/had (kinda hard to tell where she's at now) the same mentality. And like you said, it's true: the chances of being involved in a HD/SD situation are minuscule. I'd say that 99% of THR members, outside of the military/LE, have never fired a gun in defense of their lives.

That being said, I likened CCW and a nightstand gun to insurance. Most people never need it, but it's good to have just in case. I then offered to remove the spare tire from her car since she has never had a flat tire. I also said I'd get rid of the smoke alarms and fire extinguishers in the house since I don't know anyone personally who has had their house burn down or was ever in a fire.

"That would be crazy if you did that! We might need them!", she said.

 

[buzzard80]

I'm glad you talked it over and got everything worked out. If I were you I would get a pistol and start CC'ing as soon as possible, basically to consummate the agreement.

Although my wife was never an anti, she started out hesitant about firearms and would get visibly shaken whenever I would handle firearms in front of her. Over time I have demonstrated how to safely handle the gun and why it's not dangerous when handled responsibly. I also let her know I would not tolerate anyone hurting her or our kids (VERY different from how her parents were) and was prepared to intervene to any extent required, and I expected the same of her if it is our kids. I have been carrying for about 2 years, but it didn't take a month for her to get over the irrational fear of firearms. She's even surprised if she hugs me and doesn't feel my gun on my hip. She is now ready to start shooting, and agrees she would not hesitate to protect herself with a firearm, and is even starting with the emergency food supply and all the other "paranoid" stuff as well. With a few more years of "training" I hope she'll get her CCW. So if she's being honest with you and you're willing to be patient, there is potential she will do more than just understand your viewpoint.

 

[RKBABob]

I'm lucky...

My wife INSISTS that we WILL have firearms in the house... INSISTS that we should take pistol courses together... and INSISTS that I get a Concealed Carry Permit.

However, I must keep any pistols locked up so our 4 cats don't play with them! (They really would, I believe).

Her face really lit up when I told her that a permit from any county in PA is valid in Philadelphia.... Of course, we were lost, on foot and at night in Philadelphia when I told her!

 

[Snapping Twig]

#1....NO WARNING SHOT!

I can not express how foolish that is. If and when you shoot, shoot for effect, do not ever give a warning shot.

No then...I've gotten that off my chest, I feel better.

My own mother is very anti, so much so that when I used a gun to defend my family, she and my sister (also an anti) told me I shouldn't have had the gun. Trust me when I tell you we would not be alive today if I didn't have and use that gun. Worry not, I didn't have to pull the trigger, the goblins got the message and moved on.

I explained this to my mom and sister, and yet they still said I shouldn't have had the gun. Circular, illogical and downright mean, but that's them. Gun bad.

I told my mom later when I found out she was filling my daughter's head with liberal pap to cease and desist such action or she'd never physically see her granddaughter again - and I meant it. She got the point. She had her chance, now it was my turn to raise my child.

You may not remember the Zodiac killer, but one day he said he'd kill someone in our neighborhood - Daly City near a church. I went to my mom's house with a rifle and sat in her living room all night, she didn't complain then... Hmmmm, only complained when I protected my own family...

So, my point is that liberals and liberalism is to be dismissed out of hand. It all comes to nothing when the SHTF since it's no more than an argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Theoretical at best, dangerous at worst.

Work with your family, let them know that there's room for everyone on this planet and do what you need to do.

 

[JShirley]

ShooterMcGavin

Are we trying to be PC here?

Obviously not...or we wouldn’t be advocating carrying/using a firearm for defense.

Women are not comfortable with the idea of fighting or defending one's life with deadly force

Sweepingly generalize much?

Eyesac

then lumping all humans (M/F) together as "individuals" in regards to self defense? That's not a broad brush? Men and women are different.

There is no universal mentality for a sex (any more than there is for a geographic origin, or fricking hair color). That seems painfully obvious to me, but I guess not so much for some.

Sighting one example and stating that he is wrong is again painting with a broad brush based on your wife.

Again, making the obvious point- with an example- that the generalization, like almost all generalizations, is not invariably true.

To try to "urge" a woman towards SD is going to be different than "urging" a man, women have different SD needs than men, etc, etc... Like I said, I agree with you that all persons must be delt with on an idividual basis (or else we could just send out flyers to every home in the US and everyone would think the same way we did), but he was just pointing out that it might be tough to get some women to be SD minded, when most men even from childhood dream of being able to defend themselves.

Eh...what? You could just agree that every person is an individual, and that would be true. No, he wasn’t just making the point that some women aren’t SD minded, he was making a broad and unfair generalization. I’ve met highly emotional men and coldly logical women. I know women who are serious threats even unarmed, and I know men I could beat like a drum, on a bad day, with one hand tied behind my back and standing on a banana peel.

Now, I am in a relationship with a young lady who was very uncomfortable around firearms when we first began dating. Her mother was profoundly anti-gun.

Over time, with calm discussion and seeing safe gun habits, my SO became comfortable with my firearms, and sometimes carries a handgun, especially if she's out at night.

Her mother, while I was deployed to Afghanistan, admitted that the firearm Jordy had with her hadn't magically made bad things happen to her or gotten her locked up while legally carrying.

She further admitted that she felt better about Jordy walking the dogs at night, knowing Jordy was armed.

One person at a time.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

This Gender Thing

Rather than do a point-by-point deconstruction of anyone's specific post, I'd like to examine the fundamental assumptions.

Let us first stipulate that men and women are different in various obvious and measurable ways.

Let us also stipulate that, throughout history, big and strong has always held sway over small and weak. This includes protection roles as well as pillage and burn roles.

Further, from the viewpoint of families, there are some duties men can't do, and some duties they have (historically) done better by virtue of size and strength.

These factors have led to divisions of labor that tend to have women doing one set of things and men doing another set of things.

These divisions have, over time, become part of the culture. They have become "the way things are." And, because of the (obvious) differences, it has become an "everybody knows" piece of data that "women are [this way] and men are [that way]," to the point where people build whole careers on these "facts."

Some of the guys here (like Correia) have up close and personal experience with the actual realities of people's abilities to learn and perform. Their experiences violate the stereotypes and break a variety of "rules" that "everybody knows" and go against the grain of various "expert" opinions (or "facts" if you will) on the subject.

In my own case, I have found the stereotypes to be of only limited value. I have found that a grasp of a culture's commonly accepted ideas will tell you what kind of initial expectations you will encounter, but are NOT a predictor of actual, individual performance.

It's easy to extrapolate a body of "facts" from the obvious observation of the differences, coupled with the cultural roles and assumptions, but such extrapolation is flawed. It assumes that what is convenient is what is necessary. It assumes that what is practiced is immutable. It assumes that normative is actual limitation.

I invite you to step back from the cultural assumptions and observe actual performance and actual individual outcomes.

You will probably find (as I have) that cultural bias and "upbringing" will play a large part in the default attitudes and behaviors, but that, given the opportunity to step outside the boundaries of cultural expectations, the individual will perform very differently from what culture would lead you to anticipate.

Men and women are different. Thank God for that!

Men and women are also individuals with individual capabilities that can far exceed those limitations "imposed" by society.

Here on The High Road we already exert quite a lot of effort to break through stereotyping and common perceptions with regard to guns and their uses. We deal daily with all manner of misconceptions within a general topic on which almost all of us agree. We pretty much all agree that a gun is a good idea . . . but my gun is better than yours . . . and it's dangerous to carry at school . . . and it's okay to interfere with everyone's ability to buy guns so we can impede a criminal's gun buying power . . . and there should be NO gun laws beyond the second amendment . . .

And those don't begin to address issues of race and gender. We have members here who sincerely believe that race is a differentiating factor in ability. Likewise we have members who sincerely believe that gender is a limiting factor.

Little by little we address these misconceptions.

Do yourself a favor: before you write another post that has as part of its fabric the idea that shooting abilities, self-defense capabilities, or wisdom regarding guns and other machinery are a function of gender or limited by it, be aware that increasingly this is going to be an indicator of limited and short-sighted thinking. The kind of thinking we're accustomed to seeing from bigots of all stripes.

Don't allow a feature of the culture to cloud your perception and thinking and thus limit either your own choices or those of someone about whom you care.

Yeah, men and women are different in many ways.

However, Sam Colt gave us the means to overcome one of the major disparities.

And that's one of the reasons we're even here.

Equality.

Make it happen.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

Ok, I took a deep breath, and I'm ready to respond to some of the comments here. This may take a couple posts...

I'm gonna pick on one thread in particular.

I knew somebody would have a problem with my comments that men and women are different; it's not PC. I said it and I stand by my comments. Would someone like to offer up evidence that, on average, men are identical to women? Certainly we are not going to sift through every single person on the planet. The thread is about someone's girlfriend. The OP stated, as one of his questions: "Is this a natural viewpoint for your average woman?". He also asked other questions about women, on average.

Not as many, since THR is like 99% male and we insist on running off as many female members as possible by telling them that they're inherantly not as good as we are. Oh, we don't do it on purpose, but let's keep reading.

Is that the reason why there are not more women on THR? You are saying that the reason is NOT because it is (generally) men who prefer this type of thing?
You are also implying that I am running off the women, or some women...

Quote:
I disagree, but not entirely. It is both. I believe men are much more prepared, mentally, to confront an attack.

That is a matter of societal conditioning rather than anything based on chromosones or estrogen.

Again, it is both.
Societal conditioning can influence a woman to become very well prepared, mentally and physically, for self defense. Likewise, it can lead a man to a life of complacency and fear. I think we agree on that point, so I will move on.

Men have more testosterone than women (can we agree on that?). I don't have the time right now to find links supporting my statement (I can do it later), but I have read that testosterone enables a man for "combat" physically AND MENTALLY, more than a woman. There are always cases that break this trend, and you can certainly find a scenario to argue any of my points if you look hard.

Quote:
That DOES NOT mean that a woman who sees her child being threatened will not fight to the death.

Negative. It has nothing to do with sex. Nor does it have anything to do with wanting to protect a 3rd person. The idea of the "Momma Bear" is great and all, but I teach more single women than I do moms. Once again, these are the people that have made the decision to carry a gun.

I don't know what your argument is here. I said that a woman protecting her young would have an overwhelming urge to fight off an attacker. I NEVER said that without that urge a woman would not defend herself.

 

[Kim]

Alot of people are like my MOM. We kids call her the ostrich. She can not stand to hear bad news or think bad things will happpen.. She will literally leave the room and get away from just talking about such things at times. It is Denial as a survival instinct. Some people just can not face evil cause they would have to let their mind know it exists. For some reason others like me have a no problem from almost birth knowing evil exists and instead of hiding we acknowledge the problem and plan on how to react and deal with reality. There is a show on MSMBC (on Fridays and week-ends) that shows alot of crime stories. There is one where they show a break in at a home. I believe there are 3 girls and 2 or three guys inside the home. It takes less than 5 minutes for all of them to be shot dead by the intruders. It makes me ill and mad to watch it. Those innocent people had no chance and they just look like they were in slow motion shock. One girl just walks into another room and the guy follows her and you hear the gunshot and everyone else is just suspended in disbelief. It is horrible to watch. I NEVER want to be in that situtation unarmed. I may still die but I will at least have some chance of fighting for my life and maybe winning.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

Quote:
It means that she does not think about it like a man, nor does she prepare for it in advance quite like a man.

Wrong again. You haven't met my wife.

You're playing with broad stereotypes. We're talking about individuals.

Of course I haven't met your wife, and she might be viscious against an attacker. I am truly glad to hear that. Of course, everyone is an individual. However, I was still trying to respond to the OP and he asked about the natural viewpoint of the AVERAGE woman. I suspect that your wife is not average, as far as self defense is concerned.

If you are refuting my point, then you are in fact stating that: a [average] woman does think about SD like a man, and she does prepare for it in advance like a [average] man. Is that what you are saying? Then why is THR (or any other gun website) made up of 99% men!?!?

Quote:
Women are not comfortable with the idea of fighting or defending one's life with deadly force (and I can't totally say that I blame them either).

Another false stereotype. Some of the most serious students I've ever seen have been female. Zero hesitation, only a moment of calculation, and then they drop the hammer.

And I've taught men who choke, and freeze, and then start to cry...

We're talking about individuals. You can't use a brush so incredibly broad that it paints half the world. It just don't work.

You are then stating the opposite, which is: Women ARE comfortable with the idea of fighting and defending one's life with deadly force.

You said "Some..."!?!? Of course I can cite you examples of extraordinary women who are fighters too, and they are extraordinary.

Quote:
The action of self-defense is a very serious topic.

Which is exactly why I'm going through you post and ripping it apart, line by line.

Perhaps you are under the false assumption that, when I used the word "women", what I meant was "every woman on the planet". That would be incorrect.

It is nothing personal...
Quote:
Yes, I am going to remain single for a long, long time.

Yes, yes you probably are.

Should I find delight in the fact that you agree with me here, and you are enjoying my difficulty meeting a like-minded girl? That does not sound like "It is nothing personal".

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

...this is a serious topic, that needs to be addressed with reality, instead of old stereotypes. Frankly, this post has as many assumptions and wishful thoughts as the OP's girlfriend.

Ok, and now I am addressing your points, explaining why I ascert that these are not merely stereotypes without any evidence to back them.

Quote:
Couple that with a woman who has no experience with guns, outside of movies and media,

We have men on this board, who own guns, carry guns, and still think a .45 has more "knock down power". I have much better luck teaching reality to female students then men because they, on average, haven't been as imersed in action fantasy BS movies.

My point had nothing to do with ONLY women. It was concerning any person , male or female, who got their information from movies and media. Notice how I said "couple that". That means, in addition to not having as much testosterone (which can predispose someone to becoming quickly aggressive), the movies and media can make a male's or female's impression of guns worse.

Quote:
and you have someone who SEEMS like she does not want to defend herself. However, put her in a position of having a child who depends on her for safety and the viewpoint changes, to varying degrees.

Once again, wishful thinking and stereotypes. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

Maybe it was wishful thinking on my part... that a mother would seek SD readiness for the safety of her child. IMO, if that gets her into it, then it's great.

Stereotypes?!?! Only if you consider the act of a parent protecting their child as a "stereotype". Can you explain?

I've had even shorter conversations with women. "You can carry a gun, legally?" "Yes." "Cool. How do I do that?"

Great. I don't doubt it.

None of your stereotypes above applied AT ALL. Ironically, just like the other 2+ billion females on Earth, she was an individual.

Yeah, all people are individuals. Does this mean that one person cannot learn anything about someone else, based on their sex, before they have met each other??

Quote:
I like to get a feel for where they stand on self-defense and guns, before I even remotely suggest that I might be someone who owns a gun.

If you're still talking about dating, I would also suggest seeing where they stand on religion, morality, personal finance, politics, humor, family, ethics, and any other thing that is important to you.

You are making the false assumption that I do not also talk about some of those things. You would be incorrect. Here, the topic is guns/SD, so that is what I was referencing.

Quote:
The fear of guns from women is shocking, as well as their concept of what is a suitable defense against an attacker.

Broad brush again. It has nothing at all to do with sex, and when we insist that it does, and that we're somehow superior because of our chromosones, we're lieing to ourselves. And then when we perpetuate these myths and stereotypes, we manage to offend and run off most of the women who post here, then we pat ourselves on the back with our self-fulfilling prophecy because hey, if women liked guns, why aren't more of them on THR?

I don't know about you guys, but I don't think I would hang out in a group where most of the people insisted that I was somehow inferior, and that my wiring in my brain is just wrong, but hey, you're okay, because you're different than all of the people just like you. You're one of the good ones.

...Do you honestly want to construct your arguments with the starting point that 50% of the population is too feeble to be on our side?

"we're somehow superior because of our chromosones"?!?! Are you serious??? I NEVER said that or implied that.

"myths and stereotypes"? Again, what are you talking about? I discussed why the average woman does not have the same tendency towards SD as the average man. We are talking about the SD mindset, as it relates to biology. However, you are claiming that, even though THR is made up of 99% men, women (on average, of course) have the same draw towards this type of preparedness.

I believe Eyesac can tell where I'm coming from.

You find me some actual PhDs that tell me half the population is wired to be irrational, illogical, emotional, and unable to effectively defend themselves...

The post I ripped apart assumes that half of the population is the same. And then focuses on how they're inherantly irrational, feeble, and not wired to defend themselves unless they have babies...

I NEVER said any of the things you just said! I never even said that "half of the population is the same". I think that it is quite wrong that you are trying to put those words in my mouth.

OK, I'm finished with that.

 

[NeoSpud]

Oh dear, I think you're confused!

Well, when confronted with a vague reply that requires making assumptions (two actually), confusion is inevitable. I made two assumptions based on these two questions: 1. Do you have any idea what "aptitude" means in a scientific (psychological) context? 2. What aptitudes could you possibly mean?

I had to assume, from the lack of information in your post to suggest otherwise, that you were using "aptitude" in it's more colloquial sense, so therefore I assumed you meant the "popular" sex differences stereotypes (including but not limited to the math-science stereotype).

Nope, I won't tell you that I'm talking about "perceived math/science aptitude difference" because I'm not talking about that. Silly.

Looks like you're not talking about anything, really.

Still waiting for a scientific example of a sex difference in aptitudes relevant to firearms.

 

[JShirley]

I knew somebody would have a problem with my comments that men and women are different; it's not PC

Well, yeah, they're different! Otherwise, we'd all just be asexual. The problem is a pervasive attitude that one sex is superior to the other. There is no "average" male attitude towards defense, any more than there is an "average" female attitude. Your "average" will depend on geographical location, age, social environment, urban or rural locale, etc, etc.

It's wrong and foolish to overgeneralize about the attitudes of a group in which membership is only an accident of birth (as opposed to, say, a chosen political group).

A statement such as "the average male assailant will be physically stronger than the average female" is nothing more than statistics. Saying things like "women aren't prepared to defend themselves", OTOH, is just silly.

 

[NeoSpud]

Well, yeah, they're different! Otherwise, we'd all just be asexual. The problem is a pervasive attitude that one sex is superior to the other. There is no "average" male attitude towards defense, any more than there is an "average" female attitude. Your "average" will depend on geographical location, age, social environment, urban or rural locale, etc, etc.

It's wrong and foolish to overgeneralize about the attitudes of a group in which membership is only an accident of birth (as opposed to, say, a chosen political group).

A statement such as "the average male assailant will be physically stronger than the average female" is nothing more than statistics. Saying things like "women aren't prepared to defend themselves", OTOH, is just silly.

+1000

You win.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

Quote:
Women are not comfortable with the idea of fighting or defending one's life with deadly force

Sweepingly generalize much?

You failed to capture my entire quote. Here, let me help you:

Women are not comfortable with the idea of fighting or defending one's life with deadly force (and I can't totally say that I blame them either).

Notice how I said that 'I can't blame them'? I could have said the same statement about any group of people (men, women, black, white, etc.). *edit: Maybe that is a sweeping generalization too?

The reason I stated it was to continue with my next point...

The action of self-defense is a very serious topic. We are talking about the taking of another's life, in order to save our's or another's life/lives.

What is my sentiment here? This whole topic (that of SD) is one on which it is very difficult to change someone's opinion.

Maybe I'll get to your other comment later.

 

[Headless]

My woman is perfectly comfortable with the idea of fighting to defend her life (or mine) with deadly force. All of my buddies happen to have women that think identically. Your statement is a mass generalization, and it's incorrect. Maybe if you said 'some women' instead of 'women' you'd not be 'misunderstood' like this. But then, saying 'some' kind of invalidates the point since you can say the same thing about 'some men' or 'some' anything else.

 

[Baba Louie]

My ex wife... excellent shot. Took a while. Don't get her riled up (and I mean that).

Our daughter. Excellent shot. Took to it naturally. The Army toughened her up. Don't get her riled up. (and I mean that, too)

My latest female friend. 10 years martial arts. (Aikido, Systema) Sticks, swords, firearms (I covet her little HK). She smiles at people when we walk down the street together knowing I have her back covered. I do NOT get her riled up.

I cannot accept any stereotyping based on gender (I know... closed mind at work). Education, with proper presentation of opportunity to learn and become proficient is not gender related. When done with a lot of forethought and fun thrown in, a neophyte can later decide whether or not they could or should use lethal force at hand, but they at least know they can, will or have master(ed) the tool (or one tool at least). This could be part of the problem or part of the solution.

Unilateral Point Blank In Your Face "this here's our killing device" presentation or attitude, for some reason, doesn't sit well with some people's kids. Can you imagine?

Make it fun. Crawl. Baby steps. Learn to run. Let them decide if they want to race. If you don't train them, you can't blame them. Even then, Concientious Objectors have a valid philosophy from their point of view. Respect it. Or not.

 

[XavierBreath]

One story last month:

On August 22, 2007, at approximately 6:00 AM, as Nathaniel Evans left his St. Charles Parish home for work, he was accosted by two armed men. Evans was ordered back into his home by the gunmen, who brandished a 38 revolver, a 9 mm and a 40 mm handgun. Inside the home was Irene Bailey and a five year old child.

Once inside the home, Evans and Irene Bailey were forced to the floor at gunpoint, as the home invaders continually demanded "Where is it?". Irene Bailey was forced into the bedroom with her five year old child. At some point, for some reason, Evans was shot by the gunmen in the torso, lacerating his liver. That is when Irene Bailey responded like a cornered cat. She somehow managed to get to a 40 caliber handgun, and she shot both criminals. She shredded one criminal's torso with five rounds, and shot the other criminal in the torso once. Jason Jammal Todd was pronounced dead at the scene at 6:20 a.m. by the coroner. The second criminal, Chris Avila, was lucky. Although injured, he ran like a bunny rabbit, and was found hemorrhaging in a nearby grassy field around 8 a.m. by police.

Jason Todd got personalized toe jewelery at the local morgue.
Chris Avila will be booked with attempted murder and aggravated burglary.
Nathanial Evans is listed in in guarded condition at St. Charles Hospital.
The five year old was not injured.
Irene Bailey will not be charged for righteous self defense.

This is only one factual account. There are more. One could say that Irene Bailey was protecting her child. I am pretty sure she was. One could say Irene Bailey was protecting herself. again, I am sure she was. One could say Irene Bailey was protecting Nathanial Evans. Likely so.

No matter what you think her motivations were, it's difficult to say that she did not respond effectively.

 

[theleveloftime]

Rubbish

Whenever I heard a woman speaking rubbish I would cross her off the list of mating material. So if you hear stuff like this from any female you are not already married too quietly remove yourself and get away from her as fast as you can. Because the next thing she will do to enforce her will on you is to accuse you of domestic violence. This is what is what liberal women are tought to do. Run for your life or give up being a man. Here ends the lesson, good luck sports fans.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

theleveloftime

You know, I find myself dismayed that a man of your experience, integrity, and honor would dash off so crude a summary.

From your study of wisdom and its several truths, you will know that what you wrote is far too shallow an analysis.

Yes, there are systemic problems that permit egregious abuses, but none of this is really the topic at hand.

May I suggest that you re-think what you wrote, re-read the salient points from the OP and, recalling the actual intent of the thread, perhaps submit a contribution more worthy of your actual understanding and core values.

I know you have it in you.