One of the most difficult things for many women to deal with is hurting someone. Even in a life-threatening fight, many women will flat out refuse to gouge a guy in the eye, knee him in the groin, punch him in the throat or kick his leg hard enough to try to bend it in a direction not intended by nature.

Either they've always had a man who would take care of them, or think one always will. The ultimate victim, on her knees crying and begging.

A similar thread took place here at ETS, where a woman said if she had a gun, she wouldn't use it to defend herself, but would empty it as quickly as possible (NOT at the attacker) so he wouldn't be able to use it against her. So, he beats her to death instead of shoots her. This would be an improvement??? I didn't get it then, don't get it now, and never will.

If a woman wants to survive in a SHTF situation (pregnant or not), she'd better develop a little more in the way of survival instincts. Daddy, Brother Hubby or Handsome Stranger just may not be around to fight off all the bad guys. Life under these conditions is not a romance novel.

A pregnant woman on her own... with a baby coming breech. Now there's a thrill I'll pass on to someone else.

Sue

Yeah, I didn't get that either. I mean, I might not be able actually to get a bullet into a person -- hand/eye coordination (for motions bigger than, say, playing the piano or using a keyboard) was never my strong suit. But I'm sure as heck going to try to hurt an assailant before he/she hurts me!

And being 4'11" -- and one of 3 siblings whose births spanned only 33 months -- I'm definitely used to the idea of fighting dirty regardless of gender.

Hi Chisel,

As far as physical stature, endurance, determination and the ability to survive, there shouldn't be any major issues regarding gender; there are plenty of female soldiers and law enforcement officers out there that prove the point that gender isn't a major factor.

Some critics claim that 'street survival' requires extreme physical strength and ability that sets males in a better position than females with an equal level of ability. I strongly disagree. During my tenure as a law enforcement officer, brains usually won over brawn, so the whole physical strength issue isn't as big a deal as it seems. The muscle guys usually tended to start more fights than anything else and since career criminals spend long hours in a ruthless environment pumping iron and fighting, chances are the REAL baddies are going to be badder than us; our edge is to be better prepared. The key is to be prepared, if you are ready for trouble you will most likely avoid it before your other skills are needed.

When I was a soldier a few years back, we were given classes on the structure of Russian infantry units and women were included in infantry units, often as snipers at the squad level since they are apparently very adaptable to precision marksmanship, more so than male counterparts. If the Russian army is happy with women in the infantry then the point is easily made that the female role during adversity is the same as male.

Regarding Lewis & Clark, I think the classic roles of women would have been a major factor when dealing with societies adhering to strong gender roles. It would still be a challenge since many males don't view lone females as a viable threat, something that could serve as an advantage in cases where a would be attacker is able to be caught off guard.

As far as lethal force is concerned, would you feel better studying martial arts or non-firearm methods? Learning to use knives is a really effective close fighting technique that scares the beejeebers out of people, and it doesn't require tremendous strength.

The choice for joining a group or going solo is a tough one for anyone. If you feel the need to join, it would be best to forge those ties prior to an incident since you don't really know people until you are under extreme stress together - then it can be a great benefit or a miserable dependency. Maybe a lifelong friend with fewer skills would be better onboard than a stranger with hidden motives or other issues?

Thanks everyone for great contributions

While surfing, I saw this:
http://www.aussurvivalist.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=12

It is good to see a few threads that address women needs in bad cirxumstances.

Zardoz

I think that survival in a disaster is a bit different than serving in the army or police. When your serving duty you PLAN not to be pregnant for example, or plan when to become pregnant. In a disaster you dont choose the timing or circumstances. And that is why preparing for that possibility is very important as you said. And that is what this thread is all about.

Even some non-biological scenarios (scenarios not involving pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding) are more probable for a woman than for a man, like having her small kid to care for after a disaster. A man can be stuck in such a situation, but there is a bigger chance for a woman to be in such situation, so what can she do to be prepare for that possibility ?

I think that forming a group ( translated to civil non-survivlist language: a woman social club ) that addresses this part - among its objectives - is a step in the right direction. So, I woulds say that a girl or woman whose family ( husband - prents ..etc. ) think of forming a preparedness/neighborhood group should include "women stuff" in the agenda and assume the worst womanly scenario in their plans.

As far as I've always learned....in a true life and death struggle......the SEALs have said it best.....

If you aren't cheating.....then you aren't trying!

There is no such thing as a fair fight when it come to life and death. To borrow from a book I like.....Fiar means all of my [guys] go home in one piece and F*%* everyone else.

Now on the back side of this discussion....Years ago I had the privilage of playing paint ball with a number of people. One person had invited thier mother along. She was a demur quite type who wouldn't and hadn't 'hurt' things. She tried no to kill the spider or fly.....that sort of thing. Let me just say that by the end of that first game......she was a different person. And I don't mean just for the game. Her outlook in life changed. By the end of game 4, she had no qualms about using force if the situation called for it. It seemed to be a sobering experience for her.

Hi Chisel,

You make some great points, I think the fact that you are taking your future and the future of your family in mind is a great thing. Seems like you have also thought it out quite well. There was a magazine in the early 80's called 'Survive'; the early issues were very family oriented and until it was bought out by Peterson Publications (1983 or so) it was top notch. After Peterson's bought it, it became the single-guy-macho-survival-with-weapons publication then went under. Sometimes back issues can be found on EBay. Another good one is the older (late 70s - late 80's) Mother Earth News, very family oriented and many articles written by self sufficient, single moms. It is an outstanding publication and many of the articles are available online for free.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/

Anyways, it is really super to hear your perspective and good luck with your plans!!!

Zardoz,
I hope my comments will contribute to your survival (thinking),
though they may anger you, in the short term.

That women work in a police force and in the army, does not
provide much evidence that they are effective in those industries.
Standards were lowered so women could qualify.
We live in a PC world, where the deficiencies of women will
be overlooked, so a lot of evidence of female deficiencies,
never surfaces.

On the job, criminals know that a women cop is backed up
by men. OTOH, I do agree that some young macho male cops
should use their brains more, and muscles less, like many
female cops naturally do.

There are instances of women who have the physical and
mental ability to survive solo; this is not good evidence that
many women have this ability, or even that they could acquire
this ability.
A case where any solo woman gains a differential advantage:
the male(s) underestimate the woman. It would be a bad idea
for a woman to count on this, however. Also, accomplished
and skilled women might be underestimating these bad guys.

My belief.
Small groups are the best protection for both sexes.
For a small group survival, during hostilities, women are key.
Why?
For close fighting,
the bad guys will be focusing on men, killing the men, or out
maneuvering the men.
With the focus off the women, the women can attack the
bad guys from angles of advantage.
For longer range fighting,
the women will not have any better angles of attack,
(usually), but with women shooting, firepower would
be doubled; a rude surprise for the attackers.

Natural male aggression is needed for survival but
it can get you into trouble, especially if the enemy exploits
you and your game. Many battles have been lost on the
"undisciplined" aggression of a small group. Watch the video
(or read the book) We Were Soldiers with Mel Gibson; a
small sub-group chased NVA/VC and got cut off, rendering
artillery and bombing support almost useless. Then, very
bad things happened.

With women in a group, men are less likely to
pursue bad guys and get ambushed or into other trouble.
The men (even bachelors) will naturally stay closer to the
group; but additionally women will discuss with the men
that there is a great danger when pursuing an enemy.

While I understand what you are trying to say, I think that you have overlooked one obvious thing. There aren't many people at all who have the physical and the mental ability to survive solo. It's not just women. While I've heard all of these arguments for women being "the weaker sex" due to genetics or even evolution, I must say, I have to disagree with that argument. I have met many women with the mindset and the physical prowess to survive. In fact, for every man I've met, there is at least one woman. This may be attributable to the area I live in but I do know alot of them that could do it under pressure.

Case in point, the stranded motorist who hiked for help and ended up dead. The woman survived while the man did not. Obviously he made the wrong choice and she made the right one. The ablitiy to maintain mental focus is every bit as important as being able to fell a tree by gnawing on it. You're obviously aware of this since you mentioned the mental aspect of it.

I'm told (I really don't know but it did sound good at the time.) that guard dogs are kept in male female pairs. The male attacks from the front, and the female, having better sense than to go head to head wth a man armed with a pipe, sneaks up from behind while the male is busy showing off for the nice burglar. Like I said I don't know how true this is but it does make sense to me. I was married for 8 very, very long years and my ex loved to ambush me.

Men have a need to prove something that women do not. Women therefore can put their energies into thinking of a solution. While this is not always the case, I have seen men rush headlong into a firestorm while the woman turns on the hose more than once. As far as lowering the standards to allow women to get into the military, that may be true, but that is a fault found with the military and not with the women. The military could easily find women that could pass the tests but they choose to lower the standards so that any whiney little child can get in. When I was in boot camp, I watched girls grab guys by the arm and almost force them to run. Maybe they were joggers beforehand I don't know. I didn't see a single guy help a girl out. This is because the guys were helping the guys out. The girls were helping both. Oh and by the way, there were more physically fit girls in there than there were guys. We all noticed that!

In essence what I'm trying to say is, that statistically you can say that men are stronger than women, but on an individual level, there are as many women who could make it as men. Oh and I'm not talking about those stick figures on TV runways, I don't think they are men or women. They look more like aliens to me.

I have a "emergency story" from when my wife and I lived in earthquake country.
Dispite the fact she was a native Californian, while I was a transplant, in every nighttime earthquake, she would jump up and run for the kids rooms while I would lie in bed waiting for the shaking to stop.
I told her the generic advice was to wait for the shaking to stop because falling and breaking a leg would be of no use in the event of the Big One. I never was able to break her of the Super Mom response.
Was she right? Was I right? Who knows, but in the event of an emergency we had completely opposite responses.
After sucessfully raising two children to adulthood through every emergency common, my experience says having multiple responses that can be executed rapidly may be preferable to hashing out the best slower response.
Women and men can be great teammates, even in solo arrangements.

I agree with your post 110% capsu. The problem I have noticed with alot of people is they base their assumptions of a person on the group as a whole. In other words, they look at the stereotype of women and come to the conclusion that women can't do something. Here's my problem with that... Stereotypes are only supposed to represent the group as a whole, not the individual. I know just as many unprepared men as women. The stereotype that women aren't as prepared to survive as much as men is pretty much bunk. It doesn't take into account the fact that most men aren't prepared for it either. When you consider both sides of the issue, you will find that they are equally unprepared. Death doesn't select based on age, gender, race, religion, or anything else, so neither do I. I don't discount anyone at all until they prove that they are capable of killing me with stupidity.