@Maine CWP Training.....keep up the good work.
Oh, don't read things into my statement.
Maybe you could point out where I decried their offer of instruction? I fully realize women often enjoy instruction by females and participation in classes with their peers. I didn't say "THESE WOMEN'S CLASSES SHOULD BE STOPPED!"...
It just seems that, if you look at a selection of classes you'll usually see something like:
Monday: Advanced Pistol
Tuesday: Low light shooting
Wednesday: 1911 Armorer
Thursday: AR-15 operator's course
Friday: Concealed Carry
Saturday: Women's NOOB class for inexperienced shooters.
Why do the classes for women always contain hidden references for noobs and those unfamiliar with firearms? Why is the assumption that, if it's a class geared towards women, it should be for those who are unfamiliar with firearms?
I'm not saying that there isn't a demand for introductory classes by women. I'm not saying those introductory classes should be ended. Heck, put up signs offering women's "First Shots" classes all you want. This is fine. However, I'm just pointing out that, if women feel more comfortable in classes with their peers, why aren't there more advanced, or tactical, or low light instructional events specifically for women? I don't know. I can't speak for them, as I am not a woman.
However, what I can do is have the empathy to put myself in their shoes and wonder, "Gee. IF I were a woman, and posessed the skills I have as a man, why are all the classes for my demographic geared towards NOOBS and inexperienced shooters when I have just as much, or more, experience with firearms as the instructors giving the class?"
I dunno. I guess my concern can be summarized by asking: If women are so interested in participating in courses with their peers, how come there are never any advanced level courses "for women"? How come they're always NOOB classes?