Wo/Men, Handguns and Self-Defense

[pax]

But that sense of physical vulnerability has walked with me for my entire life. So much so that, in some ways, I barely noticed it existed. It wasn't possible to see the world any differently.

Yes, me too. When I first began carrying a firearm, I was astonished at how freeing it was. It was as if I'd been carrying around a weight on my shoulders that I didn't realize was there, until it was suddenly gone.

But it's Not Just Guns!!!

I don't know much, but I can't help but wonder if women who do learn to use guns, are overly confident. I hope they get other skills to supplement. I don't think guns are enough and I fear that too many will take them as sufficient.

Software is more important than hardware and always will be.

On this aspect, I've been incredibly spoiled and that has probably colored a lot of my perspective. When I first began learning to shoot, I got involved with an excellent firearms training facility almost immediately, so I was never tempted to believe it was just about having the gun. So even if my own native common sense wouldn't have saved me from such a notion, I was also indoctrinated early to reject the gun-as-magic-talisman concept.

Also, I noticed that as I became more adept with the gun, I also naturally became much, much more aware of what the gun couldn't do. For me, the progression was:

1) "I need a firearm."
2) "I need to learn how to use a firearm."
3) "I need some other tools too."

Firearms are great tools and great equalizers. But they are only tools, and they won't always be available. Further, they are tools that fit only a very narrow band of potential circumstances.

What I've heard are variations on, "I wish I could have done something." It's important to stress that, in the past, they could not have. They did not fail; they simply lacked the tools do do stop an attack at the time. The important fact is that they're alive today to make preparations to keep it from happening again.

That was then, and this is now. The past and present are two very different things.

This is brilliantly put. Been sitting here re-reading it, and the more I read it, the more beautifully it is worded. Thanks for posting it.

As for the woman whose husband was dragging her along ... *shudder.* I've seen something like that too. It's very, very hurtful. Painful to watch, impossible to fix, harmful to her and shameful to the rest of us in the firearms community.

pax

 

[serf 'rett]

I want to add a different note. As a part time counselor, I’m often surprised at the number of sexual abused people who actually do feel that in some way they had some responsibility for what happened to them. I’ve seen the white hot anger response sometimes overlaying the hidden self accusations and feelings of guilt. Both anger and guilt (whether real or imagined) can destroy a person’s life.

What I hear during counseling sexual abused people makes me weep, especially when I consider some of the abusers could have and should have been stopped.

 

[Gaxicus]

A thread done right.

A volatile subject demands a lot more from the staff and members and I am in awe at how well this thread has turned out so far. I am still re-reading sections of this thread and it gets better as I go.

Pax, Glen, others not only navigated a minefield of potential threadbusters expertly but provided some of the best writing and content I have ever seen in a forum.

If this keeps up you should make it sticky. It addresses a nagging debate superbly with facts, careful opinion, and a good flow of conversation. I’m not smooching any behinds here; I’ve butted heads with many of the contributors here. They know I have no qualms with taking a contrary position. I think it’s just as important to notice success when you see it and this certainly fits the bill.

Anyone thinking to post here should be just as careful to maintain the quality as the people who have contributed so far.

<golf clap>

 

[Phoebe]

But....I think it's only volatile because it mentions politically sensitive issues that have been entirely ignored after the OP, and because the OP is coming from a left-wing pov not typically found on gun boards.

One of the things I've always greatly appreciated about this board is that the moderators are careful to allow room for all voices here, so long as it is gun related.

The particular issue that has been danced around is that anti-gun females and other disempowered groups of people, may in fact be looking at gun control as a way to level a playing field. (Disempower strong bad guys, and we will all be safer.)

What's been posited is precisely the opposite: guns don't require physical strength. A physically weaker person with a firearm vs a stronger person with a firearm, are more likely to be playing on a level field.

Though I've seen the level playing field argument many times over, this thread articulates it differently (and more strongly), because it considers the underlying motive for wanting gun control in a light I haven't seen before.

It may be the most persuasive fodder for helping anti's to see the other side of the gun control movement.

I can see, from a very personal pov, people with guns are scary.
Physically bigger and stronger people are scary.
I can see how very tempting it is to go from there to, "take guns away and the threat from those people will be more neutralized."

WarMare is addressing that in a way that is likely to speak to the disempowered antis on the left.

Fascinating.

 

[pax]

You know..... based on our experience it is very hard to find a handgun for someone with very small hands. We must have checked 20-30.

Has this been a problem for any other ladies?

Yep. It's an ongoing concern for many small-statured women, if my email box is anything to judge by. And it's a very appropriate question for this thread because the gun manufacturers have just barely started to realize that women are a part of the gun-buying public. Hooray! Unfortunately, for the most part, those manufacturers have not yet realized or embraced the discovery that the average woman's body often differs from the average man's body in several important ways -- hand size being one of them. Instead, too many of them believe they can appeal to the female public simply by slapping a bit of pink paint on an existing (poorly-sized for small hands) product. I guess they figure little girls never really outgrow their infatuation with Barbie-doll pink.

Guns for small hands are available, though. Look especially at Kahr firearms, or at nearly any firearm marketed for explicitly for concealed carry. If she decides to go with a 1911 (a good choice for an experienced shooter with small hands), put a short trigger and slim grips on it and she'll be good to go.

In long guns, it's also an issue. Although short stocks are readily available for the most part, the manufacturers insist on referring to them as "youth" models. Years ago, I remember one firearms instructor of my acquaintance coming in from a day on the shotgun range. Sitting down with a sigh, the instructor noted that one of the female students had asked a very confused question in reference to the "youth stock" on her shotgun: "After I've learned to shoot this, will I be able to move up to a gun made for adults?" The instructor addressed the student's concern, of course, but I was left to wonder at the mild insult of the name. And the other naming option -- "bantam" lengths and weights -- isn't much better. Now she's a chicken?

In either case, the barriers to female gun ownership are not solely and entirely cultural. They are also often practical in nature: how can a smaller woman find a gun that fits her hands or fits her body? Where will she find an instructor familiar with adaptations suitable for those with small frames? So even when a woman has made the decision to journey into armed self-defense, she may find unexpected barriers blocking her roadway.

ETA: I'm not sure how much is felt recoil and how much is, I'm pretty, I'm as woman, if I can do this, what does this mean for me as an attractive woman? I don't mean this as an attack, I mean this as, feminine attractiveness and weakness are significantly conflated and a lot of women who refuse weakness as central to their womanhood have to deal with this issue.

Yes. That.

One of the (many) reasons a lot of instructors split up bonded pairs during range time is simply because of this. I'm thinking of one particular couple that I've known for years, off and on, in a vague sort of way as they've cycled through classes I've been in or helped with. Both of them good people, both of them serious about learning to protect themselves. But I've long had the sense that she is afraid to become truly competent on her own, or at least more competent than he; in some sense, she needs him to be the expert and that means she cannot quite commit to reaching her own full potential. So she stays one step behind him, one notch less capable, one pinch less competent. As long as he continues to advance, so does she. When he stalls, so does she. And whenever there's a chance she might outshoot him or outshine him in some other way, she has an attack of airheadedness that would put Gracie Allen to shame. I suspect that for her, being an attractive woman means always and ever remaining less capable than the man she loves.

Perhaps slightly different from what you meant, that's what sprung to my mind when I read your words.

There's another student that comes to mind, this one from several years back. A beautiful older woman with perfectly manicured long fingernails. I mean long fingernails. The kind of fingernails that meant she did not, could not, wear clothing that required her to manipulate buttons. Looooooong fingernails. As you might imagine, competent (or simply safe) firearms manipulation was a severe and difficult challenge for her. Even getting her finger into and then back out of the trigger guard required her full attention and several moments of careful work. Feminine attractiveness to her meant that she was too helpless even to button a blouse ... or to safely use a firearm.

I've lost track of the number of women who've appeared in class wearing inappropriate, useless footwear. Even knowing they're going to spend a day slogging around on an outdoor range, they show up in high heels. Or flip-flops. Or cutesy little clogs that fall off their feet the second they try to take a step back. Another manifestation of the same thing: useful, practical footwear is "ugly" and unfeminine. Only decorative but non-functional shoes are cute!

I've been more focussed on why are we, who call ourselves feminists (however defined---mine is, equal human and civic worth, equal worth and abilities and rights and responsibilities as human beings and citizens) so reluctant to encourage women to defend their lives by force of arms when they know they are in danger?

Quick comment here before responding further, just so you know where I'm coming from. I do not self-identify as a feminist, because that designate simply has too much non-useful baggage attached to it. If the word were not already in use for something else entirely, I might, perhaps, self-identify as a "human-ist" -- that is, someone who believes that all human beings everywhere have the same innate worth and should be treated as such. And I specifically reject the notion that in order to right the wrongs of the past, we must commit new wrongs in the present. Both men and women deserve equal protection and equal respect in the eyes of the law, in the court of public opinion, in the marketplace, and in the grand conversation of ideas that constantly flows between all thinking people.

Back to the discussion at hand.

I've lost count of the number of times I've heard or read some variant of, "It's MY JOB to protect my family, my wife, my children..." from good and worthy men who absolutely wish their wives were armed and also able to protect themselves too. I'm not sure that these guys realize the mixed message they are sending their wives. Is it also her job to protect you, guys? If not, why not? More to the point, if it's actually your job to protect her, how can it be her job to protect herself? Someone has to take primary responsibility for her safety. If you claim that primary responsibility for yourself, you deny it to her. If you claim that her safety is your responsibility, you deny her either the means or the desire to grow into her own adult responsibility.

Traditionally, I think, many women rejected the notion of arming themselves because they still clung to the romantic notion that a strong man would come along to rescue them, a knight in shining armour on a white horse to sweep them off their feet and take care of them happily-ever-ever. This dovetails nicely with a man's heartfelt desire to be seen as the hero, as the rescuer, as the brave-hearted savior. The traditional view is that all women really desire to be loved, cherished, admired, and protected by a strong man. The romantic ideal of the strong man with his adoring wife really underpins much of our western civilized culture even among portions of the population that have specifically and deliberately rejected traditional roles.

This reiteration of traditional roles seems a far cry from feminist rejection of armed self-defense for women, but I think it may be related. Feminists have (rightly) rejected the notion that it is a man's job to protect "his" woman, but they have somehow failed to embrace the corollary that it is therefore her job to protect herself and the people around her. This might go back to the historical feminist preference for redefining female roles rather than simply appropriating male ones. But it is somewhat ironic to note that, by rejecting the notion that women should arm themselves and take responsibility for their own safety, feminists themselves have become the new guardians of the old social order.

Even more ironic and mordantly amusing, one specific reason so many feminists react so strongly against females being armed is because armed females violate traditional gender roles. The "masculine" way to settle a disagreement is through violence, we're told, while women "naturally" use more peaceful means of reaching the same goals. How, exactly, is this view any different from the one held by the stereotypical and possibly-apocryphal good old boy who proclaims, "It takes a real man to handle a forty-five"?

pax

 

[WarMare]

Odds and Ends

One of the things I wanted, when crafting the initial post, was to make clear there weren't alot of artificial constraints on where this could go in terms of definitions. In other words, I didn't want people to think, this would apply if only...

Phoebe, I made a mistake when I wrote

it will be against someone with whom we are at least on good social terms

: that should have been, will probably be, obviously. While purely stranger assaults (and assaults by men who are known but not close to their victims) on women are a minority, they are not insignificant , and I suspect that those who prey upon unknown women aren't exactly sweetness and light around the women they know. In other words, I think that if by bearing arms, women were able to only reduce the incidence of stranger attacks in their lives, doing so might well reduce the incidence of intimate violence in other women's lives. And I do not think for one second that no woman subject to intimate violence would ever use arms to defend herself. I know women who have.

I've also been thinking a lot about the larger issues that both you and Pax articulated in terms of strength and vulnerability.

I'm a very strong woman. At 66.5 inches, I am about in the 80th percentile of women---and the 13th or so of men, height being the best proxy for strength there is. I stack up well in terms of strength against men my height and weight and general body build---of which there are very few. Men in the 80th percentile are about 72 inches and of course, I'm just not that big and just can't generate that much force. I'm very aware of how different the world looks to me than it must to smaller women who are not as strong. So in addition to the other issues dealt with here, I was pondering why women are so reluctant to embrace an object that levels the playing field.

Until Pax wrote what she did about women thinking that disarming men legally would make them safer, I simply never considered that it sprung from wishful thinking about controlling physical risk. Crimes against women involving guns get a lot of press. There are some very ugly crimes that involve no more than the man's hands that don't get nearly as much press. (My understanding, based on a non-journaled article I read some time back---I can try to dig it out if anyone's interested---is that certain types of battering are extremely predictive of later murders and attempted murders. One of them is choking.)

I have never thought gun control was helpful to women per se. Indeed, I think shall-issue, concealed carry, castle doctrine (with no immunity for perpetrators who are living with the victim: i.e., a man's home may be his castle, but it may not have or be a torture chamber for the other residents; it is their castle too) and stand-your-ground laws are tremendously important for women. They do not appreciably raise our risk from men who are not otherwise inclined to hurt us. They do not appreciably raise the risk of men from men or women who are not otherwise inclined to hurt them. Their lack makes women almost defenseless against men who are inclined to seriously harm us. Most women are capable of far greater strength than they believe. However, the disparity in height cannot be trained away. Lack of these laws also makes us second-guess the legal consequences for defending ourselves, whether in the classic sense or in the very rare nonconfrontational killing or counterattack in the more-or-less immediate aftermath of an attack. As near as I can tell, if female violence against men, even when it is as severe as is common in male-on-female violence, tends to be pooh-poohed, women who defend themselves competently face more significant social sanction than men in the exact same circumstances.

I've long been aware of how ambivalent mainstream feminist thinking has been about women's self-defense. I've had some thoughts on why; now I have more.

I thank those who participated for doing so seriously; I was particularly moved by Tom Servo's thoughts.

Phoebe, I don't know that this book will ever be published: it's a compilation of essays I wrote while working on The Doves, a love, war and politics thriller set during the Chechen War. (There were times when I needed a break from my intense Russians.) I want to work them into a cohesive form and make them available somehow. Commercial publishing---from newspapers to serious literature and general nonfiction---is very much committing suicide right now, and to a significant extent, it is taking the country with it. Editing is a skill all its own. I would not want to try to edit someone else until I've done a bit more writing. But I will remember that.

Erin Solaro

 

[WarMare]

Perhaps slightly different from what you meant, that's what sprung to my mind when I read your words.

Pax: Yeah, that was part of it and so were the nails and the heels.

Whatever form it takes, it's something I'm sensitive to as someone who likes to play pretty hard with kettle bells. I wish I knew how to deal with it better than I do. I clean up alright, but no one would ever mistake me for feminine, and I've always thought trying to look like the magazines said I should was an exercise in futility likely to lead to a head infested with demons. (One reason I love the Spanish couturier Cristobal Balenciaga's work so much---besides the fact that he was simply a master---was that he designed for women with women's bodies, and he was very famous for hiring "ugly" models. Nicholas Ghesquerie, who heads the house now, does neither, and his clothes are ugly and inelegant. He ought to be ashamed of himself.) But it's clearly an issue for a lot of women and I work to understand it. Being physically strong and competent and brave for oneself and one's values (i.e., not a protective mother) are at such odds with how we concieve of femininity and how women are supposed to act and be.

ETA:

Even more ironic and mordantly amusing, one specific reason so many feminists react so strongly against females being armed is because armed females violate traditional gender roles. The "masculine" way to settle a disagreement is through violence, we're told, while women "naturally" use more peaceful means of reaching the same goals. How, exactly, is this view any different from the one held by the stereotypical and possibly-apocryphal good old boy who proclaims, "It takes a real man to handle a forty-five"?

That. Drives me nuts. The more so because I do not find women particularly nice or peaceful. Often unwilling to engage in open, honest aggression, and sometiems even cowardly, yes, very often.

When I wrote what I did on women who self-identify as feminists, and in a certain sense, I obviously do, I wasn't referring to say, you or anyone else. I was more referring to how hot and sensitive the subject of self-defense is amongst women who do self-identify as feminists. Sorry for that confusion. I really don't think The Firing Line is a hotbed of feminist theory

 

[BillCA]

Erin,

Glad to see you back and using TFL as a resource for your articles. I would think and hope all of us are flattered that you're soliciting our opinions.

Interesting conversation so far.

The Gay/Lesbian community
Fifteen years ago I had a lady roommate who also happened to be a lesbian. You'd see a petite 5'3" attractive 28 year old woman with a penchant for dressing like a tomboy (almost never a dress or skirt). Yet still very feminine. I took her out shooting and she enjoyed it. She even considered buying one of her own if she could save the money.

I found it interesting that many of her gay/lesbian friends had certain hard-core attitudes. In fact, several lesbians said exactly the same thing when the subject of shooting sports or self-defense firearms came up. That men owning guns was to compensate for a small sexual organ and in women it was merely penis envy. I found it was their way of rejecting "male" oriented items of "power" as they referred to them. But I could not see how a tool like a revolver was different than the cordless power chisel used by a lesbian sculpture artist. Gay men rejected guns as "tools of violence" and "symbols of God-like power". Yet, in listening to conversations many of these same persons were heavily involved in a particular "kinky" lifestyle that emulates violence or dominates another person. Go figure. (Further discussion in this realm should be privatized to avoid complications).

I've also found that many "straight" women think that taking control of their lives and their own defense means they will not be perceived as "feminine" or "female". Terms like "redneck" or "sexless female" were applied.

Women & Awareness
How women actually think (from the male perspective at least) is hard to fathom. Women want their independence, equal pay and the respect from men for what they are capable of. However, they then turn right around and expect to be "protected" because all their lives someone - mother, father, brother, older sister - has been trying to protect them. Perhaps it is "inherited" because most mothers can't impart lessons never learned and fathers believe they or the young men in her life will pick up the job.

I have experienced this with a girlfriend who, despite her intelligence, refused to pay attention to her surroundings. It finally dawned on her one day at the bank. As we walked towards the bank, a sedan stopped in front and three men wearing beanies and carrying rifles paused near the door to pull down their ski masks. I grabbed her arm and said "Time to leave." She was confused. "We're evacuating the area." I said, figuring "evacuate" would give her a clue. Nope. She started arguing and struggling to go to the bank. I finally told her it was being held up. "How do you know that? We're still outside." Yes, she'd seen the men get out, but was "looking a SALE sign" at the store beyond the men and didn't even notice the rifles!

In terms of awareness, I think too many women operate in "condition white". This is where they are preoccupied with their own thoughts and actions and pay little attention to others around them. And who can blame them sometimes? Trying to be aware when the 2 year old is screaming in the near-ultrasonic in his car seat is not always possible. But too many let it become a daily habit.

Why? Again, because they were raised with someone else around them to "protect" them. It takes time to shed this life-long feeling and realize her protection is up to her now.

Some women think if they are capable of defending themselves they will be less attractive to a male. The old idea that men are the protectors of the family has roots in history and genetics. Men, quite simply, are expendable. The old phrase "women and children first!" reflects the racial preservation mechanism. The women are to be saved because they produce and rear the children. The children are the continuation of the race & bloodline. Save the men? What for? They're replaceable and life continues. Thus some women think that if they can protect and defend themselves they are "taking away" one of a man's principle reasons for existence. For feeling "manly".

In fact, it's quite the opposite. Most men would love the idea of a woman who can and will defend herself -- and the children. Even in a childless relationship, it eases the burden of worry if she is late coming home. Or has to travel alone. Knowing that if he's traveling that she can defend hearth & home gives him reassurance. And he, in turn, will more than likely treat her as an equal.

Spouses and lovers as aggressors
The sad part is that too often women are the victims of those who are supposed to be closest to them. Jealous lovers (either/same gender) lose control and inflict insults, torments and injuries. It's common in a domestic violence case where a woman calls police for protection and when they provide it, she turns against police for being "brutal" to the same person who brutalized her.

The complexities of personal relationships and the inter-dependencies of one person on another are beyond the scope of the conversation. There are many reasons people elect to stay with someone abusive.

One problem is, I think, that women recognize when a relationship is/will become abusive. They fear having weapons around that might be used against them. Let's face it, if you have or had deep feelings for someone for quite some time, the idea of having to shoot or kill them to save your own life is difficult to grasp. I think most people would initially think "What's wrong with them?" and later "what's wrong with me?" And fear of reprisals, stalking and more violence breeds fear of doing anything that will upset the person.

If women want an equal share, they have to take an equal share of their responsibility for protecting themselves. A woman who says "I'd rather be raped than kill someone" has (most likely) never been raped nor come to terms with just how brutal some people can be. Nor can she expect others to view her as "equal", for if she won't protect herself, what will she do for her partner or children? In these circumstances, hope is not a strategy.

 

[Gaxicus]

Stepping in it?

I clean up alright, but no one would ever mistake me for feminine

I was raised about as old-school as you can get. Great and grandparents were farmers during depression, roles were fairly established....or were they?

I recall a story my grandfather told me when I was a kid that changed my thinking from that day forward.

Its the depression, my sweet grandmother (and I mean saintly here, practically worshipped by my family) got up to milk the cows while my grandfather was working in the cellar.

5 foot 2 and wearing 5 layers of clothes she went off with the buckets up the lane to the barn in a light but cold snow.

My grandfather (who told me the story) says he was rearranging some carrots or something when he heard two blasts. He, at first, though his wife might be chasing off rodents or coyotes with the shotgun they kept in the barn. Then he heard a blue streak of swearing first by my grandmother and then by male voices. He grabbed an axe and raced to the barn.

He saw 3 men running across the field, two of them limping badly and my sweet grandmother clutching a pitch fork yelling curses, ones he wouldn’t repeat (I asked). When he got to her she hugged him, started crying, and told him to get her to the house. She had been hurt.

They got into the bathroom and started peeling off all the layers, shot started falling on the floor. One of the three had found the shotgun in the barn and when he saw my grandmother approach, he shot her twice. Bad bruises and some tweezer work but she was OK.

Instead of running or dropping to the ground (like I probably would) she ran at him, grabbed a pitch fork leaning against the entrance of the barn, and messed him up bad. When his friend tried to stop her she put all four splines into his gut, the other just ran. She must have been very angry because she chased him. The other two ran away as she did.

Ya, its a cool story from my family history but more than that, I never viewed my grandmother as masculine. Quite the contrary. She was the sweetest woman on the planet, 5 foot 2 and stocky, quite pretty, and very well educated and mannered.

This story helped define femininity to me. I have never met PAX but after many conversations on this forum, I say she is quite feminine. The kind of person you see spoiling kids affection but as indomitable and ruthless as a cornered cat when she needs to be.

I don’t think any man that has had a relationship with a woman for any extended period of time looks at them as weak and frilly. We are the guys that make them angry the most. We see it...and we don’t want any.

On the other hand....

As a man, when you see Jessica Alba in a bathing suit or even a business suit, your first thought is WOW, and the rest is rarely printable. Then your brain kicks in and you realize you're a caveman. Its embarrassing for us men when that happens but it happens anyway. That stuff is as annoying to us as it is to women.

Women have every bit as annoying lapses. Its just as easy for a woman to criticize a man for his wondering eye as it is for a man to roll his eyes when we see a woman trying to make up her mind. Men and women are different. Not stupid. What the hell is wrong with different?

“Feminine” means woman to me, not babe, not Barbie, but woman, the whole thing. “Feminist” means something else entirely; more akin to black panthers and white supremacists. Whether it’s right or not is debatable but that’s pretty much how I see it.

Gun manufacturers, gun writers, and experts of all kinds are fooling themselves with their own self importance and cowardice.

I regret, and so does my wife, that American culture has stopped celebrating femininity and masculinity and has, instead, chosen to look upon it as weakness or barbarism.

Go dress shopping with your wife for big shin-dig, give her three hours to get ready, and when she comes out she absolutely glows. She loves it. She will tell you.

Go tool shopping with your husband and watch him get dirty in the garage. We love being men.

I guess where this ties into firearms is that from firearm selection to training methods, let women be women and men be men. It doesn’t have to make sense to the other.

Car manufacturers are way ahead of the game on this. Gun manufacturers, trainers, husbands, wives, and forum posters should quit trying to make one androgynous un-offended blur out of gun owners. We are different and it’s OK.

I am so sick of people spouting off stats and rules with the intent of establishing THE way. Regardless of the facts, laws, and credentials of some of the people on this board, it is you that has to find your own way to being a responsible, competent, and happy firearm owner.

Sure there are laws, but there are also juries. Know the laws, know the stats, but buy the gun you want, train the way you choose, and let everyone else do the same. It’s the American way. Be yourself. Expect that others respect that.

 

[Evan Thomas]

...<snip> The kind of fingernails that meant she did not, could not, wear clothing that required her to manipulate buttons. Looooooong fingernails. As you might imagine, competent (or simply safe) firearms manipulation was a severe and difficult challenge for her. Even getting her finger into and then back out of the trigger guard required her full attention and several moments of careful work. Feminine attractiveness to her meant that she was too helpless even to button a blouse ... or to safely use a firearm.

I've lost track of the number of women who've appeared in class wearing inappropriate, useless footwear. <snip> Another manifestation of the same thing: useful, practical footwear is "ugly" and unfeminine. Only decorative but non-functional shoes are cute!

The point about fingernails and shoes is an important one. But -- I would never say they're "non-functional." They do have a function, which is to render women helpless. A woman with those long fingernails is severely handicapped in what she can do with her hands; a woman who wears those shoes can't run, can't maneuver, and if she wears them regularly, she'll literally be crippled by the time she's 40 or 50. (I remember, as a teenager, looking at my mother's twisted feet, and realizing that I never wanted mine to look like that. And the shoes my mother wore weren't that extreme by today's standards.)

A "feminine" woman is a helpless woman. She needs a man to light her cigarette, open the door for her, hold her arm when she walks down the street, change the lightbulb... and, of course, she needs a man to protect her from other men.

When you add in the amount of time and money a "feminine" woman has to spend maintaining the fingernails and a complicated hairsyle, buying makeup and putting it on, buying half a dozen different "outfits" every year where a man can get by with a couple of suits, it's no wonder women are "handicapped" in their economic lives, as well. But that's another subject -- or perhaps not, given that a woman's disposable income will have an immediate effect on her ability to afford a gun or two and pay for the kind of training she needs to use it -- or other weapons -- effectively.

None of this is random. This is a culture which is deeply ambivalent about the idea that women have a right to control their own lives, even their own bodies. And control of the body is very much what's at issue here: at a very basic level, we're talking about deciding who has permission to touch us, how, and when. (Many men, even fairly well-intentioned ones, simply don't get that it isn't OK to put a hand on a woman they've just met. Laying a hand on the arm of a stranger is a gesture of power and dominance, not one of "friendliness.")

I guess where this ties into firearms is that from firearm selection to training methods, let women be men and men be men.

Great Freudian slip there, Gaxicus.

 

[Gaxicus]

Freudian slip

Great Freudian slip there, Gaxicus.

Is my skirt showing? Sorry........ Just kidding. I fixed it. Thanks.

Perfect place for it eh?

 

[pax]

In fact, it's quite the opposite. Most men would love the idea of a woman who can and will defend herself -- and the children.

I wish that were always true. From my perspective, a lot of guys who say they want their wives, girlfriends, female friends able & willing to protect themselves, aren't quite so enthusiastic when the women really become self-aware and self-protective.

Oh, that sounds awfully negative and cynical. Sorry. An example from my own life: fairly early in my shooting experience, I took a firearms class with a family friend. He and I had been shooting together many times, in company with a group of us that would go out into the woods to shoot targets together. Keep in mind I'm an old married lady, so there's no romantic involvement here. Just an old friend we'd known for years. Anyway, we ended up in this class together and really had a ball. Stood next to each other on the line all weekend, visited between drills, learned a bunch. Toward the end of the class, the instructor had all of us shoot a police-style qualification on a scored target. When the scores were tallied up, my target had a few more points on it than his did. I didn't say anything about it or think anything of it, but he went kind of quiet. And from that day to this, our old friend has never gone shooting with me again.

Just coincidence. Or maybe just his problem. But I've seen the same reaction from other guys on the range too, not in relation to me but in relation to the women they come with. It's okay for a guy to brag that his wife or girlfriend is a better shot than he is, as long as he knows in his heart of hearts that she still "needs" him to fill her magazines or rack the slide or clear a jam or in some other way is still dependent on him. But as soon as she becomes really competent, some guys do get threatened -- and some of them to a remarkable degree. I'm remembering one particular fill-in-the-blank who stomped to the back of the range and began throwing around the plastic chairs when his wife outshot him during a shotgun qual.

Nor is that the only thing, just the physical skills. Some guys are threatened by the emotional shifts necessary for a woman to defend herself. Right now on another board, I've been watching and participating in a thread discussing an article written by a woman that obviously threatened some of the men. The female writer's stated awareness of her surroundings and of the potential threat posed by unknown men kicked off a firestorm of negative reaction on that board. These are all guys who would tell you that they strongly support women being armed & interested in self-defense, but they still react very negatively to the discovery that for a woman, being aware of her surroundings includes being aware of the potential for violence from unfamiliar men.

Another example, this one from a long time back on another board: http://www.thehighroad.us/showpost.php?p=3151656&postcount=15 -- "...if ever confronting a possible threat while in the company of a lady, do you stand beside her, or in front of her??? I can't imagine even the most PC man 'suggesting' that she help fight the ensuing struggle."

So it's okay for her to learn to shoot, but expecting her to participate in protecting herself when there's a man around to do it for her? That's just beyond comprehension.

What I'm getting at is that there are still an awful lot of cultural barriers on a woman's journey to armed self-defense, and that some of these barriers come from guys who would adamantly tell you they support a woman's right to make that choice for herself -- and, as Erin pointed out in her OP, some of these barriers come from other women who would tell you they strongly support a woman's right to be independent, strong, and capable of running her own life.

Obviously, of course, we aren't talking about "all men" or "all women" or even "all feminists." But people are complex, and not always aware of their own mixed messages or tangled motivations.

pax

 

[Parapliers]

Circumstances

It is one of my jobs to protect my wife. That is why she was encouraged to learn to shoot and fight. The difficult part was to convince her to quit provoking violence. She would fearlessly confront anyone before she learned the discipline of self defense. She had to experience first hand how murderous people have become in this age of political correctness.
Big strong male bullies agree with their counterparts, the petty tyrants who inhabit all spheres, that they would rather prey on the defenseless.
The woman who chose to have nails so long that she sacrificed manual dexterity is an extreme example but she has every right to be that way. Apparently, she was able to receive some instruction. Some would be uncomfortable at the range wearing anything less than a bomb disposal suit. I ride a bicycle without a helmet but I like to have glasses and ear plugs at the range.

The stars up above are running on love and they're blinking at you
The Sun can burn you but not as bad as people do - Don Van Vliet

 

[sakeneko]

Obviously, of course, we aren't talking about "all men" or "all women" or even "all feminists." But people are complex, and not always aware of their own mixed messages or tangled motivations.

+10. I'm rather poor at seeing my own tangled motivations without doing a lot of not-always-fun work to sort them out. That's a common problem, and it causes all sorts of trouble.

The one guy in my life that most exemplifies the Type-A, macho, traditional male, however, is not even remotely threatened by women who outperform him, even in a field where he (correctly) views himself as an expert -- shooting. I've known Mike since college. Back then I still had my vision in as good of shape as it ever was (correctable to 20/20) and often outshot him at the range with a .22 rifle. (My small muscle coordination is quite good, better than his.) I also once hit a long-range rifle target he was shooting at with his Colt .357. One of his teenage daughters now outshoots him regularly. Of course, he taught her to shoot, so he still takes some credit for her shooting. ;-)

From what I've seen in my life, you just never really know how somebody will react til you try it. For a lot of women, me among them, that makes us a bit cautious especially around men we care about. While I don't like it when a guy can't handle me beating him at some competitive thing, I also have my weaknesses and don't like to rub someone's nose in theirs.

I wonder how many women are hesitant to *really* get good at self defense because they don't want to hurt a man they care about?

 

[Evan Thomas]

I wonder how many women are hesitant to *really* get good at self defense because they don't want to hurt a man they care about?

Many, I suspect, and it doesn't have to be a man they care about.

Girls are taught at an early age that it's sort of impolite to do certain things better than boys. In primary schools, girls and boys test about equally in math and science, but by high school, girls typically don't do as well. Not because they've become dumber or the boys have gotten smarter, but because around puberty, they start getting messages that boys won't like them if they get better grades. ("No one wants to go out with a 'brain'...")

 

[Parapliers]

I wonder how many women are hesitant to *really* get good at self defense because they don't want to hurt a man they care about?

I suspect, none. There are infinite rationalizations for why someone does something or not. One needn't create an alternate universe to justify their aptitude. No righteous person wants to hurt anyone.
It's been said that an armed society is a polite society. Some think that's true because they are afraid of each other. As far as it is true, it is out of respect not fear. Mutual respect is what makes the armed society possible. Where fear reigns, disarmament prevails.

 

[WarMare]

Our socialization as men and women, and how it is appropriate for us to behave, is not some kind of rationalization. It's real. Real for men and real for women, regardless of our orientation. ETA: people who violate it, particularly transsexuals, are at extraordinary risk of violence.

It's why we look down on male designers as men--even though they have more creditability than female designers--and the military uses women in more combat roles than they will ever publicly admit, while refusing to admit women fully to the profession of arms. It's why quite a few of us get bent out of shape about men wearing pink and lavender (I once worked for a very dignified older gentleman, heterosexual, whose favorite color was shades of lavender, which he wore with wry bemusement). It's why women will grow nails so long they interfere with their everyday life (Kathy, my hat is off to you for working with that woman; I'd have been terrified to be anywhere around her) and wear shoes that will, as Vanya pointed out, cripple us. It's why women often torment ourselves about our weight and every other aspect of our physical appearance. It's why women will prefer broken bones--even crippling or fatal fractures--to lifting weights. It's why we do not take crimes against women anywhere near as seriously as we take crimes against men and why we do not take intimate violence, largely committed by men against women, as seriously as public violence, which is largely committed by men against men. Never mind that intimate violence is the growth culture for conventional violent crime, and to a far greater extent than I ever thought until now: cite here, see section 1.8.2. And its why women who do fight back face standards of doubt and evidence that men do not often face, because they are fighting back against a domestic abuser.

And not all of this pressure comes from men. Yes, some of it does. But a lot of it doesn't. And some of that comes from women who self-identify as feminists--ETA: meaning they say they support women's integrity and freedom.

And as I've been working through this thread and back channel correspondence, it's that that becomes more and more the focus of what I plan to write. Why do we do this to each other? I get why some men batter and abuse women, and I get the biological root of that, which is that historical maternal mortality rates made it impossible for either men or women to value women as human beings and citizens. What I have struggled with is, why do we women, especially those of us who, whether we self-identify as feminist or not, say we support other women leading strong, active lives, make it so hard for others to do so?

I'm going into draft, now.

Again, many thanks to all for their serious participation and allowing me to learn from your experiences while organizing my own thoughts. I'll be contacting some of you with permission to quote you.

Thank you,
Erin Solaro

 

[Parapliers]

Too Much For My Mirror

< snip> - Sorry, trying to keep us on track.

I don't believe guns are the answer to your conundrum.

 

[Phoebe]

I had all kinds of stuff to say, then I got to Vanya's post and everything else is flying out the window.

ACK!

I WEAR HIGH HEELS!!!

I WEAR LONG NAILS!!!

I'm not crippled. I'm not helpless, though I confess I don't really think I should have to do things like change light bulbs, let alone defend myself. Sadly, I'm not really a princess and sometimes I even have to kill spiders.

I do think men should be the protectors and I prefer more traditional gender roles in addition to preferring more traditionally feminine clothing and other gender "markers", makeup, heels, hair, etc.

I also identify as a feminist. I've seen glass ceilings, I've seen a time when job listings noted appropriate gender for applicants, and I've seen a world where women in abusive relationships couldn't get a divorce because it was a sin. Yes, the term may have baggage, and no, I might not be old enough to have fought for the rights women have gained....but I'm old enough to remember a different world.

I have more to say, but I had to shout a little bit first.

p.s. my nails are not dragon-lady length, but yes, I usually have a perfect manicure and pedicure.

p.s.s. My Krav Maga self defense class, has street-clothes week coming up, and I will be wearing my heels and have a change of sandals. My wardrobe should not interfere with my ability to defend myself.

 

[Phoebe]

Significant Others
I took my BF shooting. He has experience with long guns, but had never fired a hand gun before.

I am a better shot and know more than he does...at this time.

I'm also studying a very nasty form of self-defense called Krav Maga. I've been trying to get the BF to come with me, but he hasn't so far.

We frequently joke that it's me that would defend us if we found ourselves in a bad situation. But joking aside, I'm better trained and probably really am more capable of defending us at this point in time.

His nickname for me is, "Princess Ram Tough", which suits me.

But yes, I still look at him as the protector and I want to feel that the male in my life is the protector even if I'm the one packing.

Intimate Violence


It might not be headline making news, unless someone dies....but it is taken VERY seriously in my city and my impression is that my city isn't alone on that.

If police here, go out on a DV call, someone WILL be arrested. And it is seriously prosecuted.

I can't envision any mechanism by which DV isn't handled very seriously.

Hesitation About Self-Defense

Self-defense capabilities do not fit my "image" of myself. As I've already noted, I do prefer traditional gender roles, even though I'm educated, childless, single, and make a decent living on my own.

I perceive self-defense abilities as male-gendered and I'm not drawn towards stereotypically male activities. If anything, I tend to move away from such things.

Before self defense became an obvious necessity, I was already picking up some male gendered things like driving a pickup truck, because I have horses. I also need to move 50lb feed bags around on a regular basis, in addition to things like mucking stalls. None of that really fit my princess image either. (Poor me, lol!)

I also had a deep fear of guns. They signified violence. They seem manly. They are noisy. They were unpredictable. They can hurt you. And I have lots of associations to guns and rednecks, uncultured, uncivilized people.

"Thinking, intellectual people don't use guns."

"Women don't use guns."

We use our brains to avoid conflict and use negotiation or discussion to resolve problems, not violence.

This little part of my universe came crashing down hard, when I was confronted with an unknown home intruder (home invasion?? that always sounds so dramatic), not once but 3x, while home alone.

Since my college days (awhile ago), I've never been an anti, as I believe in our constitution and the rights and privileges it gives us.

But guns were for 'other people.'

I cannot even find words to express how life-altering this journey has been for me.

But I didn't want my life altered!!!!

Yet, I've had to accept that in order for me to feel safe in my world, I could not continue with the attitude that it was up to strong males to protect me.

And here I am.