Modern women are supposed to be as violent and aggressive as men (see, for example, the popularity of Buffy, Xena, Wonder Woman, or Trinity) but are supposed to look like dewy-lipped glamour models, dressed alluringly (in either a short skirt, leather bikini, a red-white-and-blue swimsuit with high heeled boots, or skintight black leather respectively). The New Femininity portrays women with Barbie-doll looks and G.I. Joe action figure fighting skills.
By coincidence, I was reading this article over at Big Hollywood: Robert Avrech describes an encounter he has with Tuesday Weld blonde in a gunstore. She is against guns and violence, but her ex boyfriend is a stalker, and the police cannot protect her.
Here is the paradox: The modern attitude toward guns is that they are scary and dangerous and no one should use them. The modern attitude toward the fairer sex is that it is a bigotry akin to racism to suggest that women tend to be smaller and weaker than men physically, and that, psychologically, men are far more likely to be violent toward women than women toward men .To suggest that men should protect their womenfolk from other men is "sexist" (whatever that newspeak nonword is supposed to mean). And at the same time, it is modern dogma that all difference of power between men and women in society is due to rape or the threat of rape, and that all members of the phallusocracy are rapists, or whatnot. And at the same time, the modern attitude is against hanging rapists, or sending them to the electric chair. (By modern here, I mean 'Leftist')
Now, if I am not mistaken, each one of these dogmas is a direct or indirect contradiction of the next.
A woman who claimed equality with men, and armed herself, and served a term in the military, would be acting in a self-consistent fashion. A woman who claimed to be old-fashioned, and wanted her brothers or her husband to protect her in time of combat, who was afraid of guns and relied on the men around her to avenge insults against her, again, would be acting in a self-consistent fashion. But a women who, in the name of equality, thought it was condescending for men to protect her, but who also thought protecting herself with a firearm was too violent, scary or immoral to countenance, she is merely setting herself up to be an easy victim.
I should mention that this pattern -- leftism removes both the ability of women to protect themselves, and the willingness of men to protect them -- appears more than once in recent history. (If it is not designed to render large swaths of the population helpless and without any spirit of rebellion, it at least has that outcome.)
The whole sexual revolution promised the fairer sex that as a matter of equality, of equal stature with men, they should act like harlots, have sex out of marriage, approve of pornography, and kill any of their own children in the womb whose life might prove inconvenient to them. This strips away the normal protections society evolved to shield women from male sexual predation, or even unwanted attentions, it put women in situations where it was easier to rape them -- getting a college girl into your dorm room, where there is no witness to say whether she actually said 'no' or not is much easier these days. You would be scorned as a prude, or as something more sinister, for even suggesting that nubile young women should be chaperoned, or dormitories have curfews, or colleges not be co-ed.
In the name of freedom and free speech, we are drenched with pornography, hammered with it, and no message of chastity is ever uttered anywhere a young man's ear might lightly brush against it. At the same time, young ladies are told that true freedom, true liberation, not to mention being cool, consist of dressing like a streetwalker and having several lovers at once. I can point to a number of music videos carrying that message. So men are much more willing and able to exploit, abuse, and abandon women than ever before in history, and women, paradoxically, are meant to regard their newfound defenselessness as a type of freedom. Ushering back in old standards of reserve and chastity under the color of laws against sexual "harassment" in the workplace make, for obvious reasons, a poor substitute.
Female equality has somehow been redefined from giving women the vote and the right to own property, to urging women to be as licentious and sexually-aggressive as men, without pointing out that the cost-benefit ratio should something go wrong (such as a pregnancy) simply cannot be made the same between men and women. Don Juan as a deadbeat dad can walk away from the mothers of his bastard children with relatively little emotional scarring. A single mother cannot walk away from the child in her womb. She can commit the crime of Medea, and murder the babe, perhaps, but that carries scars of its own which Don Juan need not bear.
It is merely sad and ironic that, in an age when sex is commonplace and robbed of all romantic content, that carrying out the sexual reproductive act so that it is a success, and you actually father a child, is to be regarded as something going wrong rather than something going right. A selfish philosophy distorts the judgment, because it is schizophrenic to seek the pleasant side-effects of an act without willing the results.
Let me quote, by way of support, this anecdote from Theodore Dalrymple, the British prison doctor whose insight into the human condition grows more acute by seeing the very lowest of that condition.
Last week, a 17-year-old girl was admitted to my ward with such acute alcohol poisoning that she could scarcely breathe by her own unaided efforts, alcohol being a respiratory depressant. When finally she woke, 12 hours later, she told me that she had been a heavy drinker since the age of 12.
She had abjured alcohol for four months before her admission, she told me, but had just returned to the bottle because of a crisis. Her boyfriend, aged 16, had just been sentenced to three years' detention for a series of burglaries and assaults. He was what she called her "third long-term relationship"—the first two having lasted four and six weeks, respectively. But after four months of life with the young burglar, the prospect of separation from him was painful enough to drive her back to drink.
It happened that I also knew her mother, a chronic alcoholic with a taste for violent boyfriends, the latest of whom had been stabbed in the heart a few weeks before in a pub brawl. The surgeons in my hospital saved his life; and to celebrate his recovery and discharge, he had gone straight to the pub. From there, he went home, drunk, and beat up my patient's mother.
My patient was intelligent but badly educated, as only products of the British educational system can be after 11 years of compulsory school attendance. She thought the Second World War took place in the 1970s and could give me not a single correct historical date.
I asked her whether she thought a young and violent burglar would have proved much of a companion. She admitted that he wouldn't, but said that he was the type she liked; besides which—in slight contradiction—all boys were the same.
I warned her as graphically as I could that she was already well down the slippery slope leading to poverty and misery—that, as I knew from the experience of untold patients, she would soon have a succession of possessive, exploitative, and violent boyfriends, unless she changed her life. I told her that in the past few days, I had seen two women patients who had had their heads rammed down the lavatory, one who had had her head smashed through a window and her throat cut on the shards of glass, one who had had her arm, jaw, and skull broken, and one who had been suspended by her ankles from a tenth-floor window to the tune of, "Die, you bitch!"
"I can look after myself," said my 17-year-old.
"But men are stronger than women," I said. "When it comes to violence, they are at an advantage."
"That's a sexist thing to say," she replied.
A girl who had absorbed nothing at school had nevertheless absorbed the shibboleths of political correctness in general and of feminism in particular.
"But it's a plain, straightforward, and inescapable fact," I said.
"It's sexist," she reiterated firmly.
She had abjured alcohol for four months before her admission, she told me, but had just returned to the bottle because of a crisis. Her boyfriend, aged 16, had just been sentenced to three years' detention for a series of burglaries and assaults. He was what she called her "third long-term relationship"—the first two having lasted four and six weeks, respectively. But after four months of life with the young burglar, the prospect of separation from him was painful enough to drive her back to drink.
It happened that I also knew her mother, a chronic alcoholic with a taste for violent boyfriends, the latest of whom had been stabbed in the heart a few weeks before in a pub brawl. The surgeons in my hospital saved his life; and to celebrate his recovery and discharge, he had gone straight to the pub. From there, he went home, drunk, and beat up my patient's mother.
My patient was intelligent but badly educated, as only products of the British educational system can be after 11 years of compulsory school attendance. She thought the Second World War took place in the 1970s and could give me not a single correct historical date.
I asked her whether she thought a young and violent burglar would have proved much of a companion. She admitted that he wouldn't, but said that he was the type she liked; besides which—in slight contradiction—all boys were the same.
I warned her as graphically as I could that she was already well down the slippery slope leading to poverty and misery—that, as I knew from the experience of untold patients, she would soon have a succession of possessive, exploitative, and violent boyfriends, unless she changed her life. I told her that in the past few days, I had seen two women patients who had had their heads rammed down the lavatory, one who had had her head smashed through a window and her throat cut on the shards of glass, one who had had her arm, jaw, and skull broken, and one who had been suspended by her ankles from a tenth-floor window to the tune of, "Die, you bitch!"
"I can look after myself," said my 17-year-old.
"But men are stronger than women," I said. "When it comes to violence, they are at an advantage."
"That's a sexist thing to say," she replied.
A girl who had absorbed nothing at school had nevertheless absorbed the shibboleths of political correctness in general and of feminism in particular.
"But it's a plain, straightforward, and inescapable fact," I said.
"It's sexist," she reiterated firmly.
Mr. Avrech in the article mentioned above, suggests that the ladies might want to peruse a website like Cornered Cat (http://www.corneredcat.com/) to get some commonsense advice about guns and self-defense. As a public service, if any of you ladies are better educated than the seventeen-year-old in Theodore Dalrymple’s article, I pass this link along to any female readers who are interested in real equality with men: and by equality, I mean, possessing The Equalizer.
I confess I am the mere opposite of a feminist. I think men and women are different, and viva la difference. One difference between men and women is that men seek mates by pursuing them, and women seek mates by alluring them. This means that, even if we were, or could be taught to be, the same, men and women should differentiate and exaggerate masculine and feminine characteristics, for purposes of cold Darwinian calculation, even if not for fun. (As a minor example, when women dress distinctively from men, the dress itself becomes a feminine symbol, a poetic symbol, whereas if both sexes dress uniformly, the only way to allure a mate is for a woman to show her cleavage, or some other crass way to emphasize the sexual difference. It seems a paradox, but by being less feminine, the women is placed in a false position of having to be more crudely sexual to work the same allure.) Another difference, which is as much psychological as physical, is that men are more violent and more prone to violence. A related difference is that men can rape women and women cannot rape men. This means women should be armed, and drilled in the use of arms.
There is a scene in ORLANDO FURIOSO when the maiden Isabella is kidnapped by the pagan knight Rodomonte. Before he can impose on her virtue by his violent affections, she tricks him into killing her, that she might die a virgin rather than live ravished and deflowered. There is also a scene where King Cymosco of Freisland has "a weapon strange" upon which he in most unknightly fashion relies upon to win his battles, a hollow engine packed with gunpowder, whose shot is likened to a thunderbolt. In disgust Orlando throws the devilish engine into the sea, lest it corrupt the chivalry of Christendom. Myself, as a more modern poet, had I penned the epic, I would have given the engine to Isabella, so she could have blasted Rodomonte into sulphury hell and lived happily ever after, and using the pagan knight's skull as an ashtry. (Of course, I would have also had her ended up married to Ragnar Danneskjold from ATLAS SHRUGGED, Captain Hedrock from THE WEAPON-MAKERS OF ISHER, or maybe Colonel Baslim from CITIZEN OF THE GALAXY, so no doubt my taste in these matters is not to be trusted.)
April 7 2009, 16:29:49 UTC 3 years ago
April 7 2009, 18:30:59 UTC 3 years ago
http://www.benelliusa.com/shotguns/bene
Black synthetic should due nicely, unless you're planning on hunting. Still, if you can't buy a handgun, a Nova Pump should take care of all your defense needs.
I say this even though I am a Remington owner. Be advised, the Remington 870 is not all it's cracked up to be. I've encountered issues with it that both Mossberg and Benelli users do not report having.
3 years ago
3 years ago
April 7 2009, 18:37:18 UTC 3 years ago
Dear, helpless Melanie.
Lucky she was such a good shot.
April 7 2009, 18:37:49 UTC 3 years ago
I'm going to start with the claim that "men can rape women and women cannot rape men" because it's the only thing in your article that is objectively untrue, rather than a subjective difference of opinion.
First off, I'm going to start with something that I think you will accept as a fact and as a kind of rape, even if you dispute my second and third assertions: a woman anally raping an incapacitated man with objects. There have been such cases on record.
Physiological response to rape, in both men and women, is not voluntary. Women who are being raped can have their bodies produce lubrication, can even orgasm, and that doesn't mean that they wanted to be raped. The male erectile response is likewise not exactly voluntary. I mean come on, fellows. How many times have I heard about embarrassing erections in the locker room, or so on? Physical stimulation can cause these things to happen against the person's will. And if drugs/alcohol are in the mix, it gets even more murky. Female slips drug into male's drink and seduces him, knowing that he'd never consent while sober? That's rape. If the genders were reversed, you'd absolutely say it was rape, wouldn't you? So if a man in that situation gets an erection, even orgasms, that means nothing.
Thirdly, rape that is done through blackmail or positions of power or authority or age, such as teachers sleeping with students. Even now, when it comes out in the news that a 25-year-old teacher is sleeping with a 12-year-old student, if the teacher's a man and the student's a girl, we're all shocked and horrified, but if the genders are reversed, some people guffaw and you hear people say "I wish that teacher taught at my school." Why? Because a 12 year old boy should feel lucky to have sex at all, because all boys want it all the time? That he should consider having sex with an adult charged with his safety and education to be a blessing, not something manipulative and sick? It's slowly changing, thankfully, but it still remains.
Rape isn't just holding someone down and penetrating him or her, in which case, yes, men have a clear advantage. There are other ways to sexually assault someone or force them to have sex. Physical force is not the only kind of force. "Have sex with me or I'll tell about your (or your family member's) crime X," for example, a favorite of literature. Is the person having sex that they don't want to have (and the other person knows this), or that they wouldn't have if the other person hadn't drugged them? Then it's rape.
I'm not disputing that the vast majority of rapes are committed by men (99% in the US, according to the Bureau of Justice, although I have no doubt that female on male rape is underreported because of shame, and why wouldn't it be, when the few cases that make the news are inevitably treated as punchlines?), against women and against other men, but the claim that "women cannot rape men" was false and I could not let it stand. Because every time the claim is made, and left unchallenged, it contributes to a culture that laughs when a man tries to report being raped by a woman, because "that's impossible," or "he should be happy, because every man is always happy to have sex with any woman at all times."
I'll respond to the rest of the post separately.
April 7 2009, 20:02:45 UTC 3 years ago
Meanwhile, back in reality
You are straining so hard to find an equivalent crime to rape that a woman can perpetrate on a man, you do not realize that you have wandered into the realm of nonsense. A woman sticking a cucumber up a man's anus, or a teacher blackmailing a student into intercourse is not rape properly so called."Physical force is not the only kind of force." Maybe so, but the difference between the sexes is that a man can force himself on a woman by force, by the kind of force we normally mean when one says "force" and a woman cannot force a man, not the kind of force we normally mean when one says "force."
You are in the weak position of attempting to defend a politically-correct bit of unreason, which says that men and women are identical and interchangeable. When reality shows one example where that is clearly not the case, all you can do is warp and abuse the words we use to describe reality, words like "force" and "rape" so that your description of reality matches your unreason, even thought real reality does not match.
Women cannot rape men. Perhaps women can do some act which, by a verbal algebra (using x's and y's instead of known values with actual definitions) you can consider the equivalent of rape. If you like, we can call this "quasi-rape" or "rapelike". To call it rape is false.
It is a separate question as to whether a woman sodomizing a man with a coke bottle merits the same punishment as a man who rapes a woman. It would be an injustice to hang a woman as a rapist for a mere sexual battery.
In the eyes of the law, rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will. (see Blackstone, p 210). The elements are penetration, force and resistance, nonconsent, and a culpable state of mind (mens rea). Without penetration, it is merely a battery (though modern statues allow for 'sexual molestation' as a separate offense).
Carnal knowledge of a woman through falsehood, without force, was in common law the crime of seduction. Most states have removed seduction as a crime from their books, and merely left women to fend for themselves.
(Several states now punish all cases of intercourse without consent and treat force merely as a factor that aggravates the severity of the offense. But this remains a minority view, accepted in less than a dozen states.)
Thus, there must be both force and a lack of consent. Except in three special situations, nonconsent alone is not sufficient. The three cases in which intercourse traditionally has been equated with forcible rape, even in the absence of physical compulsion, are those in which the woman was unconscious, was mentally incompetent, or gave her consent under certain false pretenses.
You give no examples where a man's vagina is penetrated by the woman's penis. This is because men do not have vaginas, and women do not have penises. I am explaining this to you in case it was not clear.
You refer to examples where there is nonconsent, such as blackmail, but not force.
In any case, since a male victim of what you call rape cannot get pregnant, the full extent of the consequences of the act are less than a woman might have to deal with in like circumstances. I hope you will agree with that point, at least.
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
April 7 2009, 18:51:52 UTC 3 years ago
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Puck
I dunno if I entirely agree, although if you get a revolver you will have a weapon that will absolutely never, ever let you down or fail to feed, etc. But both Glock and Sig make weapons that are so reliable, even under the most unimaginable conditions (look up "Sig torture test" some time) that I don't think a new buyer would go wrong getting a fine piece from either of those two companies.
April 7 2009, 20:19:25 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
April 7 2009, 20:21:22 UTC 3 years ago
Good article
Thank you! That Puckett article had a lot of practical advice, written up clearly.April 7 2009, 19:14:17 UTC 3 years ago
One thing I have found: growing my hair out long and wearing long skirts has resulted in greater politeness from men. More doors are opened for me, and fewer crude jokes told in my presence. Not that every woman has to do either of those things, but it's what worked for me.
April 7 2009, 19:47:43 UTC 3 years ago
April 7 2009, 20:08:12 UTC 3 years ago
Hearsay
I do not speak from experience, but I have heard that pepperspray does not much good against a determined attacker, and is subject to vagaries like the wind. My college roommate once tried to pepperspray a savage dog that was attacking him: he regards the stuff as worse than useless, and suggests it does nothing but give one a false sense of security.3 years ago
April 7 2009, 20:27:38 UTC 3 years ago
pepper spray
The only problem with this is that you have to have the pepper spray in an easy to reach spot at all times. Although I do carry a pepper spray on occasion. More practically cellphones have been a better safeguard, at least that's what I've found.One major problem is that employers often don't admit the real risk that women have of being assaulted on the job. (Often because they don't want to appear sexist.) They even make it difficult for women to defend themselves by banning pepper spray, etc.
The university I attend has it's Education students (over 90% of them are young women) take buses alone to inner-city schools. (Kidnappings and shootings are a common occurrence in this neighborhood.There have been students who have been stabbed or assaulted when they unknowingly get in the way. I'm not exaggerating, I could link to dozens of reports, except I would rather not giveaway the university I attend.) The buses and schools have a no pepper spray policy, how thoughtful of them.
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
April 8 2009, 01:18:09 UTC 3 years ago
About one in ten of the guys wasn't much effected, and they had five guys on staff who ran the chamber and could stand in there all day without any more of a reaction than spicy food would offer. No mask at all. No coughing.
I, oh lucky me, thought I was going to die-- and one girl got so physically ill that they took her to medical. If it works, it's really, really, REALLY not fun.
It's something some folks have resistance to, and that a resistance can be built up against-- again, from military experience, my husband was on the security team for his ship. They got sprayed each year with military grade pepper spray-- they had a couple of folks who were also immune to this stuff, which is more dangerous than the civilian version.
I know some states have restrictions on pepper spray, as well.
(Yes, nitpickers, I'm using poor terminology-- I'm writing to be understood, not to be precise, and I can't remember the exact name of the "pepper spray gas" and "military grade pepper spray" anyways.)
It is a good solution if, for whatever reason, a gun isn't an option. It's just a good idea to know that it can fail, and that it's best as a "hit them and run like hell for help" solution.
Shoot, I've got a bleedin' sword in the bedroom because I still haven't gotten my handgun permit.
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
April 9 2009, 18:06:05 UTC 3 years ago
Pepper spray
John is right, and I can speak from experience. In the Marine Corp, we were forced to go into a nut once a year that was filled with CS gas, which is much stronger than Pepper spray, and prove we could function reasonably before we were allowed to leave. I was ordered to sing the Marine Corp Hymn before I could leave. During boot camp, the DI made me sing the entire Marine Corp Hymn before I was allowed to leave.Pepper spray is not that great of a protection. It might work is some cases, but one's behavior under its influence is quite controllable with a little discipline.
April 7 2009, 23:24:49 UTC 3 years ago
It might be a new and revolutionary idea, Mr. Wright, but nowadays there are some men who don't feel compelled to run pursuing women during their "mating" rituals, as well as women who don't find particulary interesting the kind of men who feel attracted by colorfull and tropical bird-like displays of feminity.
You seem to assume that emphasizing sexual difference is how the whole thing works. The woman has to be very femenine and woman-like and the man very manly. If not by social customs like dressing or behaviour, then it has to be done by explicitly showing the genitalia, isn't it? Well, surprising as it might seem, some people don't really care much about that, and they look instead for some other qualities less related with the shape and function of the sexual organs.
So, yes, some men actually don't care if a woman doesn't look femenine as long as she is, lets say smart, strong or honest. There is plenty of room for romanticism apart from showing femenity and masculinity, Mr. Wright, and that doesn't imply that women -or men- have to be "more crudely sexual".
April 7 2009, 23:44:03 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
April 8 2009, 08:37:56 UTC 3 years ago
Personally, I think that any man who says "looks don't matter" is lying. It does matter, even if only to a limited extent. If a woman looks like a guy, chances are, she's not going to get anywhere with a guy. A man who ends up with a rather masculine-looking woman has probably spent enough time with her to notice the sexual differences between them anyway, but if you mean that such a guy would be attracted to Ms. Butch right away (I have no idea how one can "see" honesty or intelligence...and men are very visual), then I think you're making a false assertion here.
Of course, a separate case can be made for men who prefer he masculine anyway, if you know what I mean, but that would be outside the purview of this discussion.
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
1 year ago
April 8 2009, 20:20:03 UTC 3 years ago
If manners and dress do not distinguish then there will logically need to be notice taken of crude physical attributes in order to make that first critical pruning of possiblities. Granted many of us would be hard pressed to hide our sex from anyone with eyes and ears regardless of our chosen clothing.
BTW it is quite a leap of logic to assume that "show her cleavage, or some other crass way to emphasize the sexual difference" means "explicitly showing the genitalia". Although the latter would certainly help to explain the increasing expectation of sexual activity in any 'romantic' relationship.
3 years ago
3 years ago
April 7 2009, 23:43:27 UTC 3 years ago
when women dress distinctively from men, the dress itself becomes a feminine symbol, a poetic symbol, whereas if both sexes dress uniformly, the only way to allure a mate is for a woman to show her cleavage, or some other crass way to emphasize the sexual difference.
Not that I have a real problem with women dressing however, but I certainly acknowledge the point and the implications it has for all social consequences henceforth.
April 11 2009, 15:56:28 UTC 3 years ago
April 8 2009, 22:08:49 UTC 3 years ago
clothing codes
I desire another feature common to many cultures where women have a very distinctive dress, clothing codes which distinguish the girl who isn't yet ready for courting from the young lady who is.This is particuarly true when I consider the sexual conventions of the age (or lack thereof) are such as to make a fair degree of maturity necessary to successfully navigate.
As a young teen I would have loved to have a non-verbal way that the densest male would have understood to state that my newly developed attributes were NOT to be considered an attempt to be alluring. Instead I had to deal with crass comments on my attributes and clumsily turning down clumsy advances from classmates.
(I thank my parents from the bottom of my heart for saying I wasn't allowed to date yet- it made life so much easier).
April 9 2009, 23:17:57 UTC 3 years ago
Re: clothing codes
In the old days the way a woman wore her hair told whether she was old enough to court or not.April 9 2009, 02:21:37 UTC 3 years ago
November 22 2010, 22:39:59 UTC 1 year ago
Sad, Very, Very Sad
You are obviously an intelligent and well-educated person. Your occasional descent into mindless screed is so disappointing. It is painfully obvious that your prejudices have prevented you from actually learning a single fact about the history of women's self defense. I have, professionally and academically. You are wrong. It really is that simple.For your edification here is the relevant history in a nutshell...
The first widely known women's self defense programs were firearms training, most notably by the famous Annie Oakley. She was an outspoken activist for women's and workers' rights and staunch foe of things like the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Women's self defense programs have followed a cycle. In times when women step out of traditional roles, notably the World Wars, the 1960s and the 1980s, self defense training becomes more socially acceptable, more practical and more comfortable with force including deadly force. These are also the times of when women's rights and economic independence in general progress.
After each of these periods there has been a return to "ladylike" self defense with a de-emphasis on causing injury and an emphasis on grab releases, begging, pleading and reasoning. It goes with the back-to-the-kitchen, "traditional" roles in other spheres. When feminism by whatever name is strong you get Pye Bateman's "Fear Into Anger". During periods of retrenchment you get the execrable Fred Storaska and "How to Say No to a Rapist and Survive."
Even famous authorities like Fairbairn fall into this pattern. What he taught to women during WWII was brutal and effective. After the War his "Ladies" self defense material returned to impractical strength-based grab releases.
The WSD movement has had a nearly schizophrenic attitude towards the word feminism. Its tenets are classic First, Second and (mostly) Third Wave feminist theory right down the line. Since many, although by no means the majority of participants are politically conservative they have been trained to react with fear and hostility to the word feminism. So it gets soft-pedaled and denied.
The relation between women's self defense and firearms is interesting. Women who are involved in self defense as students or instructors are more likely than women of similar backgrounds and political orientation to have a positive attitude towards firearms and their role in self defense. To the best of my knowledge that applies across the spectrum. The obvious conclusion is the correct one. A person who is already interested in self defense will be more likely to be friendly to the idea of using effective tools.
Why are many people on what passes for the Left hostile to firearms while so many on the Right treat them as religious Totems of Power? That one's dead simple. It's a matter of branding.
From the 1960s on firearms became a designated wedge-issue. All Liberals were supposed to be on one side. All Conservatives were supposed to be on the other. It was part of Nixon's Southern Strategy and got tied into Christian Dominionist and Reconstructionist politics. On the other side it became a rural/urban and racial issue.
By the 1990s and the oughts it had solidified. The NRA, GOA and nutty groups like the JPFO (I can say that as a long-time member) swam deeply in racist waters, opposed pro-gun Democrats and became conduits for Republican causes in general, not simply firearms rights. Programs like Refuse to be a Victim became little more than commercials for guns with little or no attention to the limitations of firearms or the other more important phases of self protection. They exhibit a very mild attitude out of line with women's self defense students in general and even tamer than the programs designed for their generally male audience.
To sum it up, you're wrong. Not only are you wrong, you committed the unconscionable sins of assuming your conclusions, ignoring the facts, demonizing anyone who isn't just like you and letting your hatred blind you to reality.
More disappointing than disgusting, but a tad nauseating nonetheless.
November 22 2010, 23:00:23 UTC 1 year ago
Re: Sad, Very, Very Sad
I also have to note that every major wave of improvement in women's self defense, armed and unarmed, has been led by feminists. The World Wars, the 60s, the 80s, the late 90s/early 00s have all followed the pattern. Not once, NOT ONCE, has it been led by self-described conservatives.In fact, police, the Church and conservative political movements have always denigrated effective women's self protection up until the last twenty years except in the one politically useful area of gun ownership. The change is strongly correlated with the entry of larger numbers of women into the police and military.