Several Google Alerts hit my mailbox every day, and one of the things I've noticed are the high numbers of "Self Defense" classes mentioned. I didn't pay much attention to them at first, but there were so many it got me thinking, so I've been checking them out. And what have I seen?
First, the classes are almost all targeted at women. That's not a bad thing. Women should be able to protect themselves to the best of their ability.
Second, the classes are often described as "empowering" women so they don't have to be passive victims. (That's not a bad thing, either. However, empowering doesn't mean they walk with impunity down a dark alley in the wrong part of town at 3 a.m., but that they are more alert and aware of their environment and the predators around them. (No, I'm not talking about feral dogs or grizzly bears, Sparky.)
Third, I have yet to see a curricula that included the most effective method of self defense and force equalization any woman might use, firearms and their proper use as a tool for self defense.
Fourth, many of the classes are offered by organizations that would often agree with the statement, no one needs a firearm for protection because that's why we have police. Of course, that begs the question of the necessity of a self defense course, doesn't it? If the police are suppose to take care of us, why would you need to teach women to be aware of their surroundings and how to fight like wildcats to disable a male attacker? And why leave out the most effective way to enable a 110 lb. woman to protect herself from a predator weighing 225 lbs who is carrying a weapon?
See a great example of why all women should at least consider a concealed carry firearm over on The LawDog Files where you'll find an after-action report of young lady who didn't do to badly at all.