reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
Truth is in a SHTF scenario like a superasteroid then it really doesn't matter the gender. In another SHTF scenario, which is far more likely, that
of civil unrest or political upheaval, I certainly wouldn't want to be a woman without the company of a competent man.
I'm sure there are women out there that are capable of defending themselves with firearms as well as having the requisite skills to survive a
wilderness-type scenario, but IMHO the closest analog we can find in the political upheaval type of scenario is in the former USSR's westerly
The first major battle lines to be drawn in the general population during an empirical collapse, a free-for-all, if you will, seem to always break
along ethnic lines. By the time this happens the worst is over, and that is the period in which there truly is an every-man-for-himself situation.
That's the scary period. When it turns into race war that means that at least some level of coalescence has taken place.
So let me opine on that first period.... In a heavily industrialized society the first period of total anarchy is moderated by the civil
infrastructure already in place. There may be hardened headquarters of police or military that a new or former group will use as a base to secure
larger and larger zones around it. In a pre- or deindustrialized society the total anarchy will last longer by the same reasoning.
So what disadvantages are there for women in total anarchy?
1.) First and foremost are the responsibilities for others, namely children. Men have these as well but I'm sure the argument doesn't need to be
proven that women on average have more children to care for. Care of a child in SHTF adds an order of magnitude of difficulty in survival.
2.) Health. Women have more chronic health problems, including both physical and mental health problems. These would add as well to difficulties in
3.) Strength. Survival in SHTF isn't primarily about marksmanship, it's about survival. Forcing open locked doors for example. Another example
off the top of my head would be entrenchment.
4.) Brains. Sure, women are smart. The argument has been made that women are as smart as men, but this is total BS because "smart" isn't a
definable measure. There isn't a scientific quantifier for "smart." Intelligence is a quantifiable measurement, however, and although there are
many different theories on how IQ relates to overall intelligence there isn't a scientific consensus against intelligence measurements correlating to
specific abilities. Sorry ladies. You might be as "smart" as men but you definitely are not as "intelligent," and severe discrepancies exist in
SHTF weighted skills like spatial reasoning and problem solving. A larger vocabulary will not help you build booby traps.
5.) Value. Here is the final area IMO that women have a disadvantage in when compared to men. Women are more highly valued as servants because of
the practicality and ease of enslavement. Servitude would include a litany of tasks from the most mundane to the banal...I'm purposely not going to
describe the most common servitude women are forced into but it's pretty evident. Because of the difficulty to physically restrain a man, in a SHTF
scenario men are likely to be killed outright. Children are more likely as well, but not women... for reasons I've already alluded to.
This might be a long winded reply, but I think it's important for me to state my piece on this. In likely SHTF scenarios women will ally themselves
with a man whether they choose to or not.
More important than this diatribe on sex issues and survival I think is survival in general. It's important to have a multifaceted individual plan,
and a backup plan, and a backup to the backup plan for different scenarios. In order to REALLY be able to survive you have to think militarily, that
is to say the concept of full-spectrum dominance in modern military theory.
Take food and water for example. Everyone should be able to agree that they need a food supply in the case of an emergency. But what about an
emergency where there are armed groups of 10-50 thugs going from house to house in your neighborhood robbing anything of value and killing everyone.
In this instance, your food supply will not help you because A.) You can't defend it, and B.) You can't take it with you. You would have already
have to have had an alternate supply pre-staged off-site that you can obtain.
You can extrapolate this further and further down the rabbit-hole of societal disintegration so that you have different levels of survival that you
-Level 1 would be a shelter-in-place and defend situation.
-Level 2 would be a limited escape with return, as in the case with most civil unrest. A grab-and-go kit would suffice, but IMO a pre-staged offsite
longer-term survival kit would be necessary. You can't physically carry enough food, water, and shelter for 90 days. Once thugs determine that
there is nothing of value in your house and nobody to kill or capture they would move on, while you would be riding it out in the woods with your
waterproofed, preburied trunk full of additional supplies, like ammunition, food, tools, etc.
-Level 3 is a total escape. This is when it's so bad that it's obvious that there will be no return. You will have to make your home elsewhere.
My suggestion is a 24'-38' fiberglass sailboat if you live near the coast (you can always "commandeer" one) or my suggestion for inland folks is
to escape to wilderness first. Bear in mind that during a North American Union Martial Law Security Grid type of thing you may have to escape the
Individual plans can be tailored by myself for a small fee......LOL. Good luck if you're a single woman....