Female Survival

Posted by: Chisel

Female Survival - 12/20/06 09:47 AM

For short term and immediate action, a disaster is a disaster and everyone behaves almost the same, or they should. Evryone tries to bug out or tries to protect themselves and their families as much as they can.

However, once disaster is history and the dust settles and it looks like a loooooong time before it comes back to normal. It is long-term survival. And the question comes to mind. You are a solo surviving man , or a solo surving woman. Is there a difference ?

We know that SHE has to add feminine stuff in her supllies . And also she has to watch for rapists or any man who has been in the wild for too long. But other than that are there anything that should be planned for a woman in survival situation ?

Another question comes to mind in long-term survival situation. Do you think that a single survivng woman who meets a group and finds them to be 'apparently good people'. Should she try to join them ? Is the answer different for this gender or that ( e.g. a female needs to join a group more than a solo male does ) ???

I really dont know the answer. I only have 'feelings' that a male may have the attitude to go it alone, but a woman will more likely be inclined to go 'social'.

What do you think ? What would be differenty in the case of a solo surving woman than a solo survivng man.

Posted by: redflare

Re: A solo woman - long term - 12/20/06 09:59 AM

Well ... Humans are social animals and social animals tend to congregate in groups to seek "safety in numbers". Of course all situations are different and one has to be careful who he/she associates with, but my gut feeling is that its probably safer in a group.
Posted by: Angel

Re: A solo woman - long term - 12/20/06 02:45 PM

Survival shouldn't be gender specific. After all where would Lewis and Clark have been if it had not been for a woman? You either are a survivor or not. It depends on the individual and the survival education that person has. I can't speak for all women but I know I can survive long term solo if I need to. I have met several men that I've had serious doubts about. A woman can be just as prepared as a man and should be.
Posted by: 91gdub

Re: A solo woman - long term - 12/20/06 07:26 PM

Well I think that other than the gender specific things that you mentioned: "We know that SHE has to add feminine stuff in her supllies . And also she has to watch for rapists" survival issues would be the same.
I agree with Redflare in the theory of safety in numbers up to a point. Choosing who to survive with has to be a serious task and one not taken lightly.
Posted by: Malpaso

Re: A solo woman - long term - 12/20/06 08:23 PM

Quote:
And also she has to watch for rapists

Have you ever read Unintended Consequences?
Posted by: JCWohlschlag

Re: A solo woman - long term - 12/20/06 10:51 PM

Personally, I would tend to think that both genders are safer in a group. Specifically for women, it would be very unlikely that you would find a group containing all rapists and no-gooders. If there was one person in the group who tried anything, it's very likely that the rest in the group would intervene and the offender would be cast out.
Posted by: Chisel

Female Survival - 12/21/06 03:23 AM

Sorry , I think I havent made myself clear enough.

Survival depends on intellegence, know-how, training, and a few tools you should be carrying on you . This rule is not gender specific. However, there are differences between genders, and it is part of being prepared to account for those differences and pay some attention to those gender-specific problems. That is what this thread is all about.

We are not here to say that men are smarter than women. Rather we are saying that some factors affect women prepredness in particular and they have to be thought about in advance. For example:

- Everyone - I think - agrees that women in general carry a bit smaller loads than men. That means lesser supplies, and then that minus space reserved for feminine stuff. It can mean lesser food and other essentails. So, what can she do to compnsate that ? Should she add a cache for example ?

- She has to face a few days every month where she needs to pay more attention to hygene so that a few days of discomfort do not turn into real health issues.

- She could be pregnant when SHTF, which means lesser movement ability, lesseer load carrying ability, and facing birth sometime in less-than-ideal circumstances.

These are real issues that should be prepared for.
That is what I meant with this thread. Also, I meant for everyone to think of all other possibilities (in addition to the three above) and what solutions to plan for NOW, before a disaster takes place.
Posted by: Chisel

Female Survival - 12/21/06 03:35 AM

I request the administrator to edit the title and change it to ( Female Survival) . Thanx

Lets say for example that a woman is pregnant . She is trained for survival and has spent times in the hills alone. Many people in meassage boards say that after SHTF they are going to the hills and will not go to government camps/shelters ..etc. So, will a pregnant woman go to the hills for example ? Or will she go to the govenment shelter ?

I think such question has to be thought about now, not when a disaster hits.

Oh, BTW, I have read soemthing interesting a few years back. When Australia was planning to host the Olympics somebody in the media suggested - about 9 or 10 months before the event - that Australians should plan for pregnancies very carefully to avoid a possible childbirth during that messy situation.

That means : Do not 'do it' now. Nine months later you'll be stuck in a car trying to reach a hospital and the roads are jammed because of the Olympics.

I love it !!! Prepredness at its best.
That was very smart IMO.
I wouldnt have thought about it .
Posted by: Eugene

Re: Female Survival - 12/21/06 04:53 PM

There is a big difference between female survival and pregnant female survival. I pregnant female needs a higher calorie intake for one so there si the need for even more food, then the difficulties in mobilty due to the extra weight, balance, etc.
It might not be wise for a pregnant female to head to the hills unless there was awell stocked place there already waiting.
Posted by: Craig_phx

Re: A solo woman - long term - 12/21/06 08:25 PM

Great book!

Don't mess with a man with a .44 magnum handgun and 20mm rifle. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: Susan

Re: A solo woman - long term - 12/24/06 02:51 AM

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
Posted by: BachFan

Re: A solo woman - long term - 12/24/06 02:16 PM

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.
Posted by: Zardoz

Re: A solo woman - long term - 12/25/06 06:31 AM

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?
Posted by: Chisel

Re: A solo woman - long term - 12/25/06 09:37 AM

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.
Posted by: CJK

Re: A solo woman - long term and fighting back - 12/25/06 06:03 PM

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.
Posted by: Zardoz

Re: A solo woman - long term - 12/25/06 08:03 PM

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!!!
Posted by: Hike4Fun

Re: A solo woman - long term - 01/29/07 12:10 AM

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.
Posted by: Boacrow

Re: A solo woman - long term - 01/30/07 12:52 AM

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.
Posted by: capsu78

Re: A solo woman - long term - 01/30/07 03:46 AM

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.
Posted by: Boacrow

Re: A solo woman - long term - 01/30/07 05:53 AM

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.
Posted by: Hike4Fun

Re: A solo woman - long term - 01/30/07 06:40 AM

Boacrow,

You wrote:

"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."

I did not overlook it; and yes, it was obvious to me,
when I posted. I implied as much, when I wrote:

"Small groups are the best protection for both sexes."

It seems like you are trying to misunderstand.

The motorist has been covered on so many threads;
it is one instance, that I will not re-hash.

In a survival situation, an exceptional women would be
a bonus; one who could take on navigational duties, while
in the front passenger seat, might be a life saver.

Others,

Beware of the biased-sample problem, examples follow:

"At the track meet, I saw 20 women faster than you..."
"I know 10 Karate women who could kick your ass..."
"When I was in the army..."

There can also be a biased reporter problem: he sees what
he wants to see; remembers what he wants; ignores other
evidence.




Posted by: Boacrow

Re: A solo woman - long term - 01/30/07 12:11 PM

I wasn't trying to misunderstand. I did overlook that one statement and for that I appologize. My statement was merely made to say that in the population as a whole, I don't think there's a big difference between male and female preparedness. I think that the vast majority of both sexes is ill prepared and I think statistically it's a very minute difference.

I know alot of people who think they can survive, both men and women, but I know very few who could actually do it. The hunters I know, while indeed predominately men, wouldn't fare any better than most of the women I know. Their idea of survival is wearing camoflage clothing and sitting in a tree stand waiting on that 14 point buck to walk by. There are indeed differences in the way men and women view survival, but in the end, if the information is faulty, then the outcome is the same. Dead is dead regardless of how they got that way.
Posted by: Angel

Re: A solo woman - long term - 01/30/07 01:37 PM

Hike4Fun,

You wrote:
"In a survival situation, an exceptional women would be
a bonus; one who could take on navigational duties, while
in the front passenger seat, might be a life saver."

I find it interesting that you think a womans place is in the passenger seat and that you think only an exceptional woman can read a map or navigate. It might surprise you to know that there are women out there that can survive solo. I can do just fine solo and I know a lot of other women that are just as capable. I also know alot of men that would not be able to survive. Survival isn't gender specific just like driving isn't gender specific. Assuming that you are superior to anyone just gives them the element of surprise and the advantage.
Posted by: Hike4Fun

Re: A solo woman - long term - 01/30/07 03:22 PM

Angel,
You wrote:
"I find it interesting that you think a woman's place is in the passenger seat and that you think only an exceptional woman can read a map or navigate."

I do not think that. I was responding with respect to a TYPICAL
stranded motorist family: male driving and female in the front
passenger seat. An exceptional woman is more likely to work
on navigational skills, and more likely to actually navigate,
when/while/if she is in the passenger seat.
You are building a Straw, dare I say, Man argument.

Yes, I assume some women do have good skills, and
some men do not. This does not address the Average
skill-level of each sex. It also does not address how
Varied those the skill-levels are.

“Assuming that you are superior ... gives them the element of
surprise and the advantage.”
I alluded to this in an earlier post:
“A case where any solo woman gains a differential advantage:
the male(s) underestimate the woman.”

"I can do just fine solo...". That sounds good to me.

Your post is a good example of the biased-sample and
the biased-reporter problem.

"..I know a lot of other women.."
"...I also know alot of men..."
"...you think only an exceptional woman can read a map..."
Posted by: Frozen

Re: A solo woman - long term - 01/31/07 04:09 PM

While you point out the fallacy in taking isolated cases to make a general point (anecdotal evidence), the fallacy that you are falling to is to assume that most members of a group will have the typical characteristics of that group (the ecological fallacy). Both will get you into trouble.

There's just too much overlap between characteristics and behavior of men an women for these distinctions to be useful.


Posted by: Hike4Fun

Re: A solo woman - long term - 01/31/07 07:04 PM

Frozen,

You wrote:
"While you point out the fallacy in taking isolated cases to make a general point (anecdotal evidence)"

No, I did not refer to "isolated cases" or "anecdotal evidence".
I mentioned "biased sample". There is a big difference.

You wrote:
"the fallacy that you are falling to is to assume that most members of a group will have the typical characteristics of that group"

I do not assume that, in general. That is why I wrote :

"This does not address the Average
skill-level of each sex. It also does not address how
Varied those the skill-levels are."
By "Varied" I was referring to variance or dispersion
from the Average.

Example:
If you sample 50 men for height,and take the average,
it could be that none of them is average. However,
many will be close to average, if the Variance is small.
It really depends on the Variance.

It would be wrong to assume that the Variance is always
small or that it is always large.

You conclude with a vary broad statement and
offer no support:

"There's just too much overlap between characteristics and behavior of men an women for these distinctions to be useful."

It sounds like a PC prayer.
Did you really mean it?




Posted by: Frozen

Re: A solo woman - long term - 01/31/07 08:48 PM

Citing anecdotal evidence is a subset of biased sampling. Selecting isolated cases is an example of biased sampling. All are problems in reasoning with statistics.

"There's just too much overlap between characteristics and behavior of men an women for these distinctions to be useful."

I find the truth of the statement to be self-evident. I certainly believe it and live by it.

Posted by: Hike4Fun

Re: A solo woman - long term - 02/01/07 01:21 AM

Biased samples can be part of a planned procedure and are generally more amenable to numeric adjustment, to remove bias.
OTOH, anecdotal evidence can include, and more often does,
events that are more isolated, and hard to adjust, and are
hard to fit in study.

In any case we use all kinds of evidence, we just need to try
to piece it together the best we can.
I actually am more concerned with a biased reporter than
I am with a biased sample. It is very difficult for me to adjust
for the POV of the reporter.

You seem very convinced of your position, an your
position is self evident, I will waste no more time with you.

Posted by: AROTC

Re: A solo woman - long term - 02/01/07 03:23 AM

Or you could quit debating about sampling systems, generalities and specificalities and just assume that all people are incompetent until proven otherwise. Chose who you'll work or travel with on a case by case basis. Sounds pretty harsh doesn't it?

I tend to find that men and women, children and old people, geniuses and morons all tend to have places where they are strong and where they are weak. In the military, in school and in my personal life, I've found most people are brilliant in some respects and thicker then a whale omelet in other ways. That's the problem with sexism, racism, and all those other -ism. They paste a wide variable population with arbitary and subjective narrow categories. Once people do that suddenly they're able to say "oh, I know you, you're a..." people meet before they meet.
Posted by: raydarkhorse

Re: A solo woman - long term - 02/02/07 09:19 PM

I agree but you have to take into account the mind set of a lot of men. when the see a woman alone they see a weaker person and some of the more animal like ones will rape and kill just for the fun of it.
Posted by: Chisel

Re: A solo woman - long term - 02/07/07 08:38 AM

OMG, my thread has become a battle field <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
he he he he

Guys and gals the issue here is "how to overcome womanly problems in a survival situation".

The word "women" in this thread has nothing to do with women being less or weaker than men. I only used it becasue they are the ones who can be pregnant , breastfeeding, or giving birth. If anyone finds men with these qualifications we'll include them in the discussion as well.

Sometime somewhere in this world, a woman will be looking at this forum trying to find a solution for (what if) when it happens. Can we help a bit >> pleasse.

OK ??? Back to subject ( I hope).

Does anyone here knows some pregnant ladies or women giving birth among those escaping Katrina ? Can anyone report problems or solutions in that case ?

Anyone saw any such cases in shelters with less-than-adequate facilities ? Any thoughts or ideas gained from such experiences ?

(I am trying to leave the "solo" thing behind us)
Posted by: KG2V

Re: A solo woman - long term - 02/07/07 12:53 PM

I've only browsed the thread, but I'll add this

SOLO ANYONE - in a long term situation, is at a huge disadvantage. This is one of those situation is to find a like minded group (or even one other person) and team up - the initial approch will be VERY risky, and there are risks dealing with other people, but there are huge advantages to banding together
Posted by: Lily

Re: A solo woman (Practical Suggestions) - 02/07/07 07:39 PM

One comment on the gender-wars debate: Train for the skills you have aptitude. If you're strong, train for brute force. If you're dexterious, then train for skills that use precision. Gender has no bearing on the individual level. There are diminuative men and there are hulking women. And personally I definitely think that one should avoid being solo if at all safely possible. A lone wolf is a dead wolf, especially over the long-term.

That being said, here are some women-specific and not-often-thought-of-by-men suggestions:

For monthly cycling:
--------------------
Get a Divacup/Keeper/etc.. its one small item made out of medical-grade silicon, that with some soap (which you should have in your kit anyway) is more sanitary than other method. Nothing wrong with a small amount of back-up products, but to lay in a long term supply is costly and wastes space.

Potential for Pregnancy:
------------------------
First of all, in an emergency situation, you definitely want to avoid being pregnant until you are in a safe circumstance. You should have some kind of birth control method, and preferably more than one -- condoms, pills, etc. Both are light-weight, pack well, and can be multi-use/barter items.

If you know or have good reason to think you are pregnant, especially in the first trimester, you should know how to SAFELY prepare an herbal 'menstral regulator'. The big emphasis is on it being safe. There are many herbs that can be used to end an early pregnancy, that have been used for hundreds of years, some of them are relatively dangerous, some will virtually sterilize you, others will make you more fertile later, and all of them will make you at least a little sick for a few days if not worse. But, in a dangerous situation you may need to make harsh choices. Or, you may need to counsel someone who's already made the choice so they do not hurt themselves in the attempt. All that being said, if you have access to a modern medical abortion, this is the safest route for the mother. I am not going to even debate the morality of all this, just putting it out there as suggested necessary knowledge.

So, beyond that, you are pregnant, or have any other gynocological problems and no access to normal health care - then I would suggest you get the book 'Where Women Have No Doctor: A Health Guide for Women' by Ronnie Lovich. Its available through amazon.com. This is also a situation where you really should be focusing on finding other people. Alone and pregnant is just asking for trouble.

Susan mentioned the social conditioning that women in general have against doing violence, even when it's necessary. I whole-heartedly agree. Sometimes it is very necessary. Get over it. Take a self-defense class, or martial arts, etc, where you get to practice judicious use of controlled violence. It's always best to avoid a conflict, but don't lay down and expect to be rescued if its unavoidable. Brute force means a lot less than thought, speed, accuracy and the ability to dodge/get away. Most community education programs or women's shelters have self-defense classes of some kind, often for free.

One last thing, everyone should know some herbal basics. You should know how to treat small skin wounds against infection, treat a cold/flu and maintain your nutrition -- all from the plants local to your area. The stereotypical camophlaged hunter, even with all the meat they can eat, is still going to get really sick in a couple months if they don't know how to find a source of vitamin C. You may not have access to orange juice, or neosporin, or nyquil, etc..

Okay, that's my thought-dump for now. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: Susan

Re: A solo woman - long term - 02/07/07 08:18 PM

I don't know what happened during/after Katrina, but I was told by several people that in (I think) 1964, a massive snowstorm hit the Eugene/Springfield, OR area (probably a much wider area, but this was my info source). This is a mild-winter area, and if they have snowplows, I've never seen them.

I was told that when the snow finally settled at an average depth of four feet (not counting drifts), the whole area was paralyzed. Many women who were anywhere near to giving birth must have worried themselves in to going into labor.

The whole area became dependent on those people who had 4WD vehicles and, to a lesser extend, CBs. I don't know if there was some central info receiving/disseminating or not, but I heard that when a woman went into labor and needed to get to the hospital, they sent out the nearest person (we'll say 'guy') with a 4WD who had volunteered his services, he would pick her up and transport her to the hosptial.

I am assuming that this same system was used for injuries, etc.

Ah, Mother Nature's idea of a big joke!

Sue
Posted by: Chisel

Re: A solo woman - long term - 03/06/07 09:40 AM

Here is a few links that a woman could find useful in a survival situation.

http://www.alpharubicon.com/med/womengottago.htm

http://www.alpharubicon.com/med/homebirthingchief.htm

http://www.alpharubicon.com/med/pregchildpalehorse.htm

http://www.alpharubicon.com/kids/prepforbabies.htm

Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: A solo woman - long term - 03/06/07 04:15 PM

As far as one thing goes, there is always the classic book on the subject...
Posted by: handyman

Re: A solo woman (Practical Suggestions) - 03/16/07 09:21 AM

I think , all things being considered , a SOLO woman will have a harder time than a SOLO man .
Let's say a badguy or a group of bg's are looking for a victim . They see a lone man with a backpack full of supplies in one direction and a solo woman with a backpack full of supplies in the opposite direction . Which one do YOU think they will go after ?
Posted by: RobertRogers

Re: A solo woman - long term - 08/04/07 12:09 AM

I know men, especially because I am one. And there is one thing I know from talking with lots of other men and observing the news over the years - you never know what someone is thinking. I don't care if the man is a boy scout leader, a church elder, your bank president, or whoever - a woman has to be VERY careful in such a situation.

And this is precisely the reason a woman needs to be in a safe group of people and not try to go it alone. A woman alone is inviting an attack. If the wrong man or group of men know your whereabouts you could be in grave danger.
Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: A solo woman - long term - 08/04/07 01:42 AM

Having seen Deliverance long ago, it stands to reason that a solo male has to watch his back too...
Posted by: frostbite

Re: A solo woman - long term - 08/04/07 05:38 AM

Chisel
As a woman, I feel I would go solo more than join a group even if they appeared 'apparently good'. If they meant me personal harm they would of course act inviting at first and groups are not necessarily safe if they panic or fight(ie over limited water/food,stress of circumstances). I would take extreme precautions as to low profile, alertness, etc while on my own. Not that I wouldn't offer assistance to others, I would just be very careful.

I frequently carry my keys through my fingers like a weapon and carry pepperspray in regular spray and also have a pepperspray that looks like an ordinary ink pen. A ring, like you would wear on your finger, that sprays is also available and I would like to get one eventually. These can easily be carried on my person most of the time even in plain sight. To trust only in strength/size is foolish because you may be injured or outnumbered.

I would like to take self defense classes with and without weapons because weapons can't always be carried in all places and the more I can do with just my mind and body only, the better.

Women have reusable alternatives and so can carry less if they choose. Someone in this thread already mentioned that (Lily) and I think more women should be aware of this.

I agree with No (Wo)Man is an Island and Safety in Numbers, but caution and alertness and self reliance is something I try for in my personal life. Sorry to ramble but this kind of subject always gets me going. If I have offend/got to far off topic just let me know.
Posted by: Susan

Re: A solo woman - long term - 08/05/07 01:13 AM

The danger of new groups that could turn out to be dangerous is a very good reason to make good friends that you can depend on in a crunch, BEFORE you need them.

Don't isolate yourself, thinking that you don't need anyone. In a SHTF situation, you could end up 'dead' wrong. What a time to discover that!

Sue
Posted by: frostbite

Re: A solo woman - long term - 08/05/07 03:47 AM

People I already know are a different story! I was responding to the part of the question if As A Woman I would be more likely to join a group I did not know for social/safety/survival reasons(my wording). Like I said, nobody's an island.
Posted by: Jezcruzen

Re: A solo woman - long term - 08/08/07 05:42 PM

Even though some "back and forth" is now going on, I would like to comment on the origional question and maybe also on several other points.

I think that both the "average" woman OR man would gravitate to a group rather than continue alone. Why? Because the average person regardless of gendor has not prepared themselves or possess the physical and mental toughness to endure hardship over the long-term.

Is a woman of value in a situation involving long-term survival? Of course. She might just be the brains of the outfit that keeps everyone else safe....or not. I suspect that most people over estimate their abilities, anyway. After all, how many times have you read some armchair commando post about how they would just "live off the land". Yeah, right!

A small organized group could eek out an existance for awhile. But, it would take making the right decisions of a large, well-organized group to survive long-term and prosper, IMHO.

Regardless of what skills a woman may have and how well she is able to "get along", there is (and always will be) this one very important thing about a female, and that is SEX. A woman alone or even an unattached woman in a group will always be prey of sorts to interested males. Sorry gals, but in a SHTF sceanrio as described where rule of law is absent, you could find yourself being the evenings entertainment...for a lot of evenings! I mean to be blunt. I hope not to offend anyone, but what I've told you is simple truth. Do your preparations now with a group you are familiar with and trust.
Posted by: frostbite

Re: A solo woman - long term - 08/09/07 03:28 AM

In an ideal situation you would be with people you know, but a disaster is no such thing. A woman could easily find herself on her own and should be prepared for the possibility both mentally and as physically as possible as well as carrying something(s) to protect herself with because more than one male could be involved.

Speaking for myself there is absolutely no need to be blunt, I don't kid myself that there is no danger to women or that somehow I can always avoid it, rather I am well aware of the danger and try to prepare as best I can.

Honestly I think most women are aware of the danger and don't need it pointed out, but they could use info/tools that would help them be prepared.
Posted by: garland

Re: Female Survival - 08/09/07 03:36 PM

Just a quick anecdote: anyone who thinks a woman cannot defend herself in a unarmed contest/fight has obviously never been a newbie at judo.

Incidentally, for any women seeking personal defense techniques I would highly recommend a grappling art such as Judo, Wrestling or Brazilian ju-jitsu. They are designed for people to overcome superior strength and I've read more than my share of news stories about 70+year old grandmothers subduing young vandals for 20 minutes using judo wink

Of course, I also recommend learning things which can provide assymetrical advantage to you such as weapons training. Always a plus to know how to use a knife or gun. But yeah. Bottom line is women are stronger than you think guys, especially if they've been doing judo for 6 months and it's your first day.

Posted by: frostbite

Re: Female Survival - 08/10/07 06:59 AM

never heard of Brazilian ju-jitsu. What is it?
Posted by: JohnnyUpton

Re: Female Survival - 08/10/07 04:33 PM

Go you youtube and search for Gracie for a sample. The early UFC's were a springboard for BJJ/GJJ entrance into the US and is a pretty good example of the effectiveness of someone that’s trained their whole life in the sport Vs other disciplines.
Posted by: garland

Re: Female Survival - 08/10/07 04:33 PM

An effective form of submission grappling, designed for smaller opponents to overcome larger or more powerful ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Ju-Jitsu

Posted by: JohnnyUpton

Re: Female Survival - 08/10/07 06:34 PM

Originally Posted By: garland
Just a quick anecdote: anyone who thinks a woman cannot defend herself in a unarmed contest/fight has obviously never been a newbie at judo.

Incidentally, for any women seeking personal defense techniques I would highly recommend a grappling art such as Judo, Wrestling or Brazilian ju-jitsu. They are designed for people to overcome superior strength and I've read more than my share of news stories about 70+year old grandmothers subduing young vandals for 20 minutes using judo wink

Of course, I also recommend learning things which can provide assymetrical advantage to you such as weapons training. Always a plus to know how to use a knife or gun. But yeah. Bottom line is women are stronger than you think guys, especially if they've been doing judo for 6 months and it's your first day.




I’d be very careful in stating that 6 months of any kind of martial arts training is any type of advantage above 6 months of training sparing for that sport.
Posted by: garland

Re: Female Survival - 08/13/07 05:19 PM

I am.

Moreover, I was citing from personal experience within judo. Many other judoka can and have also cited similar experience to me on other boards. This was not an arbitrary statement.

Considering that I'd already been taking martial arts for 10 years prior to this, I'd say that it was no small task and yet I was handed my posterior by both a girl and also a 15 year old boy of comparable weight to me.

Are you familiar with Judo at all? Are you familiar with the terms "randori" or "ne waza"? Are you aware of how they are trained and how they are trained EVERY CLASS? Sorry if I seem defensive but I thought it was pretty clear I was making a comical anecdote. Hopefully taht's been made clear here. Sorry to derail the thread.

Posted by: JohnnyUpton

Re: Female Survival - 08/13/07 09:41 PM

Not to start a pissing match but any type of representation that 6 months of training will turn you into a steely eyed, butt kicker is a mistake. It offers a false sense of security and isn’t much different than car camping for a weekend and then deciding you’re ready to go Jeremiah Johnson, because afterall its just camping. A few will make it but the majority will fail due in no small part to overconfidence.



Newaza is ground work, and I agree that it’s an integral part of self defense, whether it be Wrestling, Judo, Bjj or Sambo. In the instance of getting your posterior handed to you, were you able to use your MA training? Did you have any previous ground experience?



All my $0.02
Posted by: garland

Re: Female Survival - 08/14/07 06:07 PM

To avoid this further derailing the thread, taking the rest to PM.