It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Female Survivalists.

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:03 AM
reply to post by Sonya610

Great post.

Specially the Alone in the Wild thing...
Just what I have been referring to all along. One must know one's environment, specially the fauna, it can save or it can kill you. Also hate the idea of him relying on a rifle. I'm not anti-gun, on the contrary I own a small arsenal, but you can never rely on guns to keep you alive and fed. What happens when the ammo runs out? You can't just go into a shop and buy some more, so you will probably starve to death, or eat something that will kill you, out of desperation. I personally prefer the survival skills of building traps, either to catch small mammals or to catch fish...

Glad this post got back on track. I personally am a male and was offended by some of the posts from my genre...

Please ignore the ignorant cavemen that seem to lurk around here and let's get to the real, and fun, task of learning from each other (male and female).

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:15 AM
reply to post by xsheep

I will be in the UK in August, more precisely in Carlisle, at least near it, don't know about the exact days ...

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:42 AM
reply to post by ~MaSoN~

Great point on the energy consumption / protein needs. Always a good idea to know the insects and larvae, eaten a lot of those, in your environment because they are a great source of proteins and, contrary to popular belief, most of them taste grate. As for the worms they also taste great, as long as you clean them properly.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:18 AM

Thanks for the praise and encouragement. Its not just me on here too have given me good advice. I still have "Mosbys Book of Herbs and Natural Suppliments" and keep it in my Bag/BOB which goes back and forth to work with me daily.

Folks wonder why I carry such a large bag daily. I dont bother explaining it to most of them. I just tell them I'm an olde bag man.

Some time tomorrow I will be going through my checklist.

I managed to charge my new Marine battery while doing some Reloading out in the garage. I am also charging the battery in my larger generator as it has electric start. That one would be a bear to pull start.

Agree with you about Sun Tzu and his "do the unexpected" but only when subtilty and civility dont work.
I too am pretty docile ..until a certain threshold is crossed.
As Dark Elf stated....Peace is a wonderful commodity and after which to be eagerly sought.

NorthWolfe CND,

Many of us here in the states reload our own ammunition..which was one of the things I was doing out in my garage while charging up my spare batteries. With the exception of .22 caliber rimfire I reload for most of my various calibers.
However...your concept of building traps has merit and can be under certain circumstances more effecient on certain too.

I am not much of a hunter here. Prefer to close to the sea. I would much rather fish than hunt.

I built a trap here some years catch certain wildlife on my propertys which were causing a problem. I caught them and took them out into the country and let them go. A simple box with a trip stick working a sliding slide closed at the entrance of the trap. Saw it in a hardware store and decided I could do the same only make it bigger/scale it up for my local wildlife.

Thanks to all for thier posts,

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:37 AM

Originally posted by NorthWolfe CND
Specially the Alone in the Wild thing...

Well if you want to read the story, here is the link to it in Outside magazine (if it seems to long skip to the last couple of pages). BTW some people believe plant poisoning had nothing to do with his death, he just simply starved to death. He was eating squirrels and grouse and such.

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 05:34 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 04:35 PM

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by angryamerican
Um are you serious? Are you for real? That is the most sexiest thing I have ever read. Talk about a stereo type. please step out of the cave and into the modern world.

To the OP I sorry for even posting in your thread. it seems I as a male opened a door for other males to come in and spread BS. I am sorry.

Yes, it may be "the most sexist thing I have ever read", but it also has the unfortunate fact of being true. "Equality" of the sexes ONLY develops in societies that are mostly free from outside threats. 10,000 years of human history shows that.

Wishing, hoping, and saying women are equal in a survival situation doesn't make it so. Name ONE society that rose above grass huts when it was run by women. Can you name even ONE?

When TSHTF, "equal" women in America are going to find out that the "equality" goes right out the window. And boy are they ever going to be in for a shock when it happens.

Sure, and IF that happens to be the scenario in sit x, it WILL be because of people who think like you do. NOT because of true capabilities.

You ought to do some research on women in history before you start making "blanket" statements about what women are capable of and what women have done.

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 06:34 PM
reply to post by Sonya610

Thanks for the link, haven't had time to star reading it but will try to do so...

Why did, of all States, choose such a difficult task like Alaska??

I managed to download the documentary "Alone in the wild" and will probably try to see it today...

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 06:56 PM

Originally posted by orangetom1999
NorthWolfe CND,

Many of us here in the states reload our own ammunition..which was one of the things I was doing out in my garage while charging up my spare batteries. With the exception of .22 caliber rimfire I reload for most of my various calibers.

Sorry, orangetom, hadn't seen your reply...

I am also a gun nut, and collector. I have guns from every era since the intension of gun powdered weapons, so I also have to reload my own ammo, and in the case of much of my collection, I even have to make molds and make my own ammo from scratch. I was referring to the eventuality of having to be on the move...

Your critters wouldn't happen to be raccoons, would they?

I'm Canadian and live in Long Island, NY...right now I just happen to be in Lisbon, Portugal. I started shooting, with a BB gun, when I was six. I am not a hunter, just with a camera, and have never shot at any animals, nor would I unless my life was on the for two legged creatures, can't say the same...
I am a member of various shooting clubs and that's where I try out my guns...

I'm currently looking all over Europe for a Marklin Sniper Rifle, from WW 2, seems they only built 170, wouldn't happen to have one would you?

Keep does critters from entering your chimneys...

Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic – Review This Link.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Jbird]

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:16 PM

Originally posted by NorthWolfe CNDWhy did, of all States, choose such a difficult task like Alaska??

Kid wasn't all that lucid in some respects apparently. If you haven't noticed, this thread is pretty much dead. It died a nice pc ontopic death and was buried appropriately. : )

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:38 PM
Hey, I'm not a girl, and I'm not in the UK, I just wanted to say that it's about time that we get to hear from female "survivalists" ( I used the quotes because sometimes survivalists are considered nuts...or wankers in the UK I guess)

Good on you for being who you are (all you gals that posted) and breaking the stereotype of the girly-girl in the sit-x/horror flicks that can't do anything and just whine and cry all the time! Where are you gals at when I'm single??

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:51 PM
For those women out there who want to learn more about survival, one of the best places to start is by getting the United States Army Survival guide, and reading it cover to cover. It has basic information about how to get water in the desert with a piece of plastic and a cup, how to make a snare, how to survive a mob, how to survive in the water long term, and many other situations we would hope we never have to face. Most people think that if they have a gun, that is the end to their having to deal with any situation, which may not be the case. There are social dynamics to be concerned with.
If I would've been in the coliseum during the New Orleans Katrina disaster, I can tell you I would've set up a safe perimeter with a small force of people I had enlisted. One corner would've been safe. (There are leadership skills which do not come naturally, many of these have to be learned, and the reason to convince others to want to follow you takes a special knack for reading people.)

The other thing is, are you talking about wilderness survival or Armageddon type survival? Wilderness would be far easier! Josh Bernstein is CEO of a wilderness school called BOSS in Colorado. That would be a good start for somebody from the UK. The next level would be for you to be able to do pack trips, load up horses, make engines and small generators from windmills, all skills necessary in hard times. If you can gather weapons skills along the way, then that would also be a good start as well.

It requires constant learning, perseverance and practice. One of my favorite quotes below...

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Arbydol
If I was on an airplane, and it went down, would I be willing to step on the head of the mother with a toddler in front of me to get to the exit first?

This is the type of person that would not last long in Situation X. Trust me, if you are only out for yourself, you will be shot dead in a heart beat. So good luck with that.

Situation X will REQUIRE the bonds of humans. Selfless acts of support and goodwill. Selfishness will be a sin as these types of people are not contributors but are takers.

And takers never prosper. Givers prosper.

Now If I was on that same plane and here is a mother and toddler possibly on the floor and some !@#$@hat thinking he deserves more to live then they do and if I was in a place to step between I would surely lay my body down to protect those that could not protect themselves or grab you by the throat and body slam you out of the way so you could not hurt them....

That is a survivalist.

A selfish coward is the person that would step on the head of a mother down and trying to protect her baby.

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 01:25 AM
reply to post by robertfenix got emotional there. : ) Not being defensive, just being offended in a righteous sort of way. Good for you! : )

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 08:06 AM
no one here said anything about whether that female survivalist had a child? i mean what are the priorities of survivalists anyway. I pretty much think females are capable of doing male survivalist stuff, because it doesn't require that much muscle it just needs abilities of endurance/will-power and not to break easily. the problem is if u look at the news, survivalists in general ironically aren't really good at surviving because they are narrow-minded, which is why the best means of survival is to band together with a large group that is led by a strong compassionate leader who orders each person a special task. the whole one man army or one woman army thing is futile.

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 10:00 AM
Dune, that is correct, to survive means long term, anyone with basic skills can survive a week or a month but if you have to survive on your own for many months you will need people. That can do things in concert with each other, if you are alone you have to mend your clothes gather firewood, tend to water stores, hunt food, clean the food, cook the food, build shelters, watch for predators, scout ahead, mark trails, haul found useable goods to camp, sleep. You will find yourself out of time on most days to really sustain yourself, constantly chasing after things that need to be done.

This is how a tribe operates, someone prepares the food, in exchange for food being brought to them, someone hunts the food, in exchange for someone cleaning and cooking it. Someone makes and mends the clothes in exchange for someone protecting them. Someone gathers items that are useable such as water or wood or material items in exchange for the builder to make something from those items. The "soldier" protects the craftsman in exchange for the weapons the craftsman makes. In a tribe there is not a direct debit credit per individual but the concept is a fluid concert of individual contributions and withdrawals from the community "assets". Everyone must have a specific chore to make the tribe work efficiently. Children can be used for scouts to go watch the perimeter for anything unusual. They can also chop down larger firewood into more manageable section to be used, or clean off twigs and needles etc.

As another poster said a Survivalist is a generalist, having the will and fortitude to stick it out and find a solution even if there seems to be none. Indians lived off this very land for many generations without, A/C, without electricity without plumbing, without computers, mostly without guns, without hospitals etc. So in the event things really turn south, if the environment is safe ie not pumped full of radiation. And we are only facing the industrialized collapse of society then there should be no reason we could not sustain at least a portion of the population. "what would an Indian do" should be your moto.

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 10:15 AM

Originally posted by DuneKnight
no one here said anything about whether that female survivalist had a child? i mean what are the priorities of survivalists anyway. I pretty much think females are capable of doing male survivalist stuff, because it doesn't require that much muscle it just needs abilities of endurance/will-power and not to break easily. the problem is if u look at the news, survivalists in general ironically aren't really good at surviving because they are narrow-minded, which is why the best means of survival is to band together with a large group that is led by a strong compassionate leader who orders each person a special task. the whole one man army or one woman army thing is futile.

You clearly haven't read the thread through.

No one has mentioned "one man or one woman army".

This thread is to merely talk about women learning skills, in a group of people, that doesn't entirely consist of males.

Everyone else, thanks for your post, there's a lot to keep me going.

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 10:25 AM
Not being a woman I can't entire relate but can empathize..
My better half says she would just curl up in a ball but I don't think she would before all other things humans both men and women have built in instincts
and survival is one of the basic instincts.. Having taught many many self defense classes i can say that given proper tools and training woman can be a more fierce opponent than a man they have very natural body mechanics and a better center of gravity (think hips guys) and tend to use them both more readily than men do naturally...

At any rate if you were on here and a SHTF situation occurs and you run across me you will more likely than not run across my wife and will be in decidedly better company than just me..

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:36 PM

Originally posted by angryamerican
...Now don't you feel silly. Na most likely not because Most prejudice people refuse to open there eyes and grow beyond the hate. Just next time please base your prejudice on fact before putting it on ATS.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by angryamerican]

Thank you for proving my point! Look at what the scythians used for homes in that time period.

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Sonya610
...If they think you want and prefer them alone, if they think they can have you to themselves they will often protect you from the sexual advances other males. Men don't like to share their partners if they can avoid it. Its biological. This provides the woman the chance to separate from the group and just deal with one male instead of a gang.

*sigh*. Your feminism has affected you in ways that you do not even realize, and it's sad in a way. You truly think that males are all one and the same. There are inherent differences in good men, and bad men. You need to learn this, before it gets you killed in a sit-x environment.

..."if they think they can have you"? Honey, in a sit-x situation, unless you've got the firepower, IT WON'T BE UP TO YOU *IF* THEY HAVE YOU OR NOT.

Men don't like to share their partners. No, honey. GOOD MEN don't like to share their partners. To a bad man, you are just something that is owned, like a car or a motorcycle. Motorcycle gangs are notorious for this. A woman rates WAY below their motorcycles. They often will not give a crap about someone screwing their "old ladies", but they sure as heck will kill you if you touch their chopper. The only thing that "buddying up" with the biggest, meanest guy will ensure, is that he does you first. And by "first", I mean just that. There will be a big, long line of them behind him, usually based on status of the group. If you think otherwise, you've never been around (or talked to someone who has been around) truly anti-social men. This is where the phrase "pulling a train" comes from, because the guys in line look like a long train behind the first guy.

Your strategy would be successful in a group of guys where MOST of the men are good, and a few are bad. It would be entirely unsuccessful in any other make up. This is even compounded by the fact that younger men are AWARE of women using their sexuality as a means of control over men. They even have a phrase for it: "Bros before Hos".

You REALLY think your "sistahs" are gonna give a crap if you get raped in Sit-x? Know what they are going to say? "Better her than me!".

The reason the "cave man" mentality is still around, is because it served a vital survival function, allowing those with "cave man mentalities" to thrive and prosper while other groups with "equality" did not.

Look at how easy women are conned and scammed by men who are natural charmers today. Do you think it will be any easier to spot "charmers" in a sit-x? Look at the all "serial killers" that people like to point out. Ted Bundy was a very charming man. ALL TRUE SOCIOPATHS LEARN TO TELL WOMEN WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR TO GET WHAT THEY WANT FROM THEM (be it sex, or money, or protection.)

Am I saying that women should not prepare? Absolutely not. Learn survival skills, learn how to operate fire arms, learn all that you can. BUT DON'T LET YOUR FEMINIST THINKING GET IN THE WAY OF THE TRUTH. Any group that has a female doctor would be stupid to relegate her to the kitchen. But how many groups will have females that can contribute ANYTHING outside "domestic duties" that will aid in the survival of the group? This is WITH women having 50+ years to pretty much do as they have wanted. How much less when Sit-x has been in it's 10th year?

In sit-x, if you give a guy too much lip, he's liable to slap you across the face. What are you going to do, call the cops? Let's face it, many many women today will say and do things that, if they had a penis between their legs, would have gotten them knocked out. This "protection" disappears in Sit-x. The cops aren't going to protect you from a man who decides to treat you equal (i.e., he will get physical with you just as quick as he would get physical with a man who gave him ...stuff.)

There is a saying: "God made men. Samuel Colt made them all equal". Yes, a woman with a firearm is a dangerous opponent. Do you think a woman with a knife, club, bat, or sword is going to be considered as dangerous as a man with the same weapon?

The women on here don't even SEE, let alone understand, the laughable dichotomy they espouse here. Let me see if I get this right.... You are too scared to go into the "woods" with a group of survivalist men, when the CHECKS, CONTROLS, AND PUNISHMENTS OF MODERN CIVILIZATION ARE IN PLACE; WHEN MEN ARE STILL HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND PUNISHED BY OTHER MEN; WHEN MOST MEN'S BEHAVIOR IS STILL BEING RESTRAINED BY INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL CONTROLS, yet you are going to be a "survivalist", an amazonian she-ra when men are no longer held accountable to anyone but themselves? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

If you are smart and have prepared, or are very lucky, you will end up in a group of men willing to fight, kill, and die to protect you. If you are unlucky (even if you are smart), you will end up in a group of men whom you will service (both in and out of bed), willingly or no.

As a man who has the psychological mindset to fight, defend, and even kill for those under my protection, whom do you think I am going to fight and defend: Those women who claim "grrl power!" and "equality", or those who behave in what a manner that has always been defined as "feminine"? I know who my biological nature screams out to protect, and it ain't the "women can do anything a man can do" crowd.

There is a HUGE liability in today's woman that goes unacknowledged. A liability that was not possessed in such large quantities by the women of yore. That liability is the fact that today's women let their emotions control them, rather than them controlling their emotions. Granted, women have always been the more emotional of the sexes. In it's proper place, this emotional nature was GOOD for society, and exherted a pacifying influence on the male populace.

Given that the women today, who ACTUALLY HAVE A CHOICE, choose to mate with bad men (and this is now born out by scientific studies, not just anectdotal evidence), how much more in sit x? Here, I am speaking as a group, not any individual woman. How many times do you think a group of survivalists will allow women to choose their own mates, if they continually choose men who are detrimental to the group? How long do you think they will be allowed "equality" if their choices (taken as a whole) harm that group?
Look to past history for the answer to that question. "Equality" in today's meaning won't last long. "Equality" today to women (again, as a group) means "I get to do the same things as men, but I shouldn't have to suffer the same consequences as men". In a sit-x situation, women are going to find that they don't want true equality any more.

How many times do you think a young woman is going to be allowed to bring a young man into the group, only to have him steal food, ammo, or medicines, and be gone in the morning? That will happen once, maybe twice, before men say "You know what? You don't have the necessary judgment to know who is or isn't a good man. Therefore, you have no choice in the matter."

Women, understand this... a TRUE sit-x, not just a temporary situation such as in New Orleans, is going to result in the clock being turned back 500 years on "women's rights". Women who champion "equal rights" and "grrl power" are going to find themselves ostracized, and outright exiled from groups. To do any other thing is to risk the group itself. History shows this to be true. Nature shows this to be true. ALL THE ARGUING AND MENTAL MASTURBATION IN THE WORLD IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THIS FACT.

You can either find a way to turn this to your advantage, as women are wont to do, or you can perish. There won't be any third options. Men are going to go back to being how men were a hundred, a thousand, years ago, BECAUSE IT WORKED. Disagree all you want, but God-forbid a true sit-x happens, you'll find out, and remember my words.

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in