The idea that women need, want, prefer, require—pick your verb of choice—other women to teach them the way of the gun isn’t new. There’s an entire facet of the firearms industry dedicated to this viewpoint,and you can always find someone to insist women are somehow special and require females to teach them. Is that true, or is the belief that women need other women to teach them about guns a myth? I’m going to tell you what I think and you can take it, leave it, or dump your feelings in the comment section.
How many women own guns, anyway?
It might seem like an odd place to start but stop and consider how many women own firearms. Yes, more women run guns than did years ago—we all loved that pandemic spike—but the cold truth is there aren’t as many women that own guns as there are men. Now, I’m not saying that has much to do with the female instructor thing, but it can’t be discounted. Is there a market for women-only gun stuff? Absolutely, there’s no denying it. But that doesn’t mean it should be anyone’s focal point.
Do women train with guns?
Sure, some women dedicate time to training with firearms. But I’ve watched classes full of men only and have never seen one packed with just women, not without going to a class marketed solely for females. A few weeks ago I did attend an (awesome) class with quite a few women in it, but it was the exception rather than the rule—and most of us in there had medical backgrounds, which tied into the course focus (Tactical Anatomy Summit). That’s the exception, though. It doesn’t happen often.
If we’re talking serious training focus and more advanced classes, we’re talking far fewer women being involved. You can go be mad about that, but it’s true. We could get into why that is, but that’s not the point here. The reality is not nearly as many women spend time on serious training as men do, and it’s just the way things are.
Do women need other women teaching them?
No. See how easy that is? The answer is no. The vast majority of the time there’s no good reason to have women-only classes. Imagine the uproar if classes were marketed as being only for men—wow, would all the ladies have a fit. I understand the concept of creating a comfortable environment—I refuse to call it a “safe space”—but it’s not generally necessary. And before you get into your arguments about why I’m wrong, let me gunsplain a few things.
The most common argument for women-only classes being lead by female instructors ties into domestic violence and abuse in general. Women who’ve been abused are going to be afraid to be taught by or shoot alongside men—that’s what a lot of people claim. Now, is it true that some women might feel more comfortable with other women around them when they’ve survived abuse, whether physical, emotional, or verbal? Sure. Does that mean they must have a female instructor? No.
All instructors are different, and gender doesn’t really matter. Not every man I’ve taken a class from has been my idea of a good instructor, and not every woman is automatically awesome just because she’s a female. Teaching styles vary, and finding instructors whose styles meld well with your learning style is a great plan. That said, you can’t always find reviews and sources in advance to find out, and you might have to suck it up and just get through class with someone you don’t love leading it. I have news for you, that is not the end of the world. Furthermore, if you let the gender or teaching style of an instructor influence you to the point you refuse to learn a single thing in class, that’s on you (unless we’re talking unsafe idiots, in which case you should walk out anyway).
Maybe it’s not about gender. Maybe it’s about different personalities and teaching styles. What a concept!
Should women only shoot with other women?
This is another easy one, because the answer to whether women “should” shoot alongside other women is no. Can they? Sure, whatever floats their boats. Has the practice encouraged some women to get into shooting who otherwise wouldn’t? Probably. But has it also encouraged the peddling of some ridiculous and potentially unsafe practices? Also, yes. It’s hard to say whether the pros outweigh the cons on this one, but I tend to fall on the side of believing women-only groups do more harm than good. There have been more dangerous ideas and habits waved around as the gospel in those shooting chapters than I’ve seen in “normal” classes that don’t restrict attendance by gender.
What about sexual harassment?
First of all, both genders can harass, well, both genders. There are two great ways to handle sexual harassment in classes, regardless of whether it’s a man or woman teaching. The person being subjected to the mistreatment needs to speak up rather than remaining silent—silence is a serious problem in harassment and abuse cases. But also, we need to get way better about policing our community. There have been several cases of blatant sexual harassment being perpetuated by both male and female instructors that have resulted in thirty seconds of “oh no” followed by the most impressive cases of memory loss ever. If an instructor is harassing students, they shouldn’t be instructing, and our memories shouldn’t be so poor that we let it go. Get them out. End of story.
Side note, if you’re thinking women never harass anyone, you’re just being purposefully naïve.
But the sisterhood is important!
The sisterhood is a lie, guys, and I have countless stellar examples of its many failures. Here’s a favorite. About a decade ago, I met a couple ladies who would go on to become—let’s say somewhat influential, but not hugely—in the “rah rah women only” gun sphere. During the course of conversation, the issue of dangerous shooting habits being perpetuated by a particular woman came up. I made the apparent mistake of stating that it was unsafe and shouldn’t be ignored. It took seconds for them to shut me down. What really stuck is what one woman said, which was—and I can’t direct quote a decade later, but this is close—“You should never, ever question another woman in the industry. We stick together no matter what. Never let anyone hear you question another woman.” Sounds ludicrous, right? But it happened, and versions of that have continued to happen over the years. There’s this pervasive idea that we mustn’t question or second-guess women, because, sisterhood. I call BS on that. It doesn’t matter if you’re male, female, or orange with pink polka dots and purple eyebrows—we don’t gloss over issues that could get people hurt (or that are flat-out stupid).
In fact, about a week ago, a big gun group geared toward women only posted an image of improper revolver use. When they got called out on it, they first tried deleting dissenting comments (polite comments). Then they took the entire post down and attempted to use the appeal of the sisterhood to get others to remove their screenshots and remarks about the rather large error. The “oh we didn’t know” excuse was used to dismiss it—and guess what, lots of men supported that, too. There’s no excuse for a national organization to not know what they’re doing or posting, and there’s no reason for bad information to be spread. In fact, you could argue they’re even more responsible than others for what they share because so many people—women, in this case—will automatically trust it due to the source.
If you’re a woman and want to shoot with other women, go for it. But don’t try to insist that it’s how it should be or that the sisterhood of the gun is the gold standard—it’s not. And definitely don’t try to stop anyone from questioning you or calling you on crap based on your gender. That’s both laughable and concerning.
Why not just shoot and enjoy it? And if you can’t do that, maybe there should be men-only national gun groups being formed. Fair is fair.
The one big thing point I can see in favor of female instructors for women in a class environment (over 1 on 1 or 1 for small group of knowns) is the much fewer hoops needed for physical stance correction.
I simply disagree with this. The correction of shooting stance doesn’t require violations of private bits.
I generally agree with you, Suzi. But a few times a year we (the public range where I work) get complaints from women that a male RSO and/or instructor inappropriately touched them when a review of the video shows no such thing. In many cases the touching was on the hands and arms and was made to keep them from pointing their gun at other guests or the RSO. an when I’m instructing a female student I generally, but not always, ask their permission to touch them while making corrections.
Oh yeah, best wishes to you and Roy during the Holidays !
This is generally how things work for all demographics except for white, straight men. Birds of a feather…
Many years ago, before it was fashionable to advertise being gae*, I went to an Elton John concert (pre-Obama era). I had never seen so many flamboyantly gae* people before. I didn’t care then about private lives, orientations, preferences, etc. and I still don’t, but it was so obvious, that it was worth noting. Now, do you think that many gae* people just happened to like Elton John’s music, or do you think they were there to support the “sisterhood”? You know the answer.
*avoiding moderation
I can’t hold anything against female instructors.
There was a day when I could,
if you know what I mean.
For some females can e the difference between taking a class or not so sure works as an option for a not insignificant number. Doesn’t seem to matter at intermediate and above skill levels but only have so many feedback points.
Great article, thank you!