I notice something lacking in the citizenship quality of many of the women I know. They do not operate with the certainty and confidence that I find more common in men.
I attribute this to the fact that women do not have the first human right. They are not able to operate in the world with the certainty that they are entitled to the full benefits of self-defense. Many if not most women assume that men are stronger and able to subdue the woman in a violent situation. Most men assume they have the ability and the willingness to use deadly response if necessary.
Since any confrontation with violence requires the judgment about intent, means, opportunity and evaluation of the situation.... the right to self defense requires a constant evaluation of the world around us. Intent means we evaluate the mental state of the potentially violent opponent we encounter. Means requires evaluation of the opponent's tools or weapons and the level of lethality. Opportunity deals with our ability to escape, manipulate or find alternative defense. And lastly evaluation relates to the way an outsider would see our confrontation. Would they believe that we had made the three previous decisions in a fairly rational manner. If so, we can use deadly force.
If any member of our society, someone who has reached the age of citizenship is not capable or willing to use deadly force for self survival or protection of their family, then I question their level of citizenship. It is not full citizenship.
This has led me to suspect that women who accept their full level of citizenship have either developed the physical ability to ward off violence or they carry an appropriate weapon.
I know very few women who meet either of these two criteria: the self protection physical ability or the appropriate weapon. The weapon does not need to be a pistol, it can be a box cutter.