Found
this older (mid-1990s) study linking gun control and other left-lib hobby horses to antipathy for masculinity and traditional male gender roles. A snippet:
The relationship between the sexes has been changing since the development of oral contraceptives in the early 1960s. The biological division of labor has become less important, social roles have become more fluid. Increasing urbanization, the decline of primary industries and the rise of service industries, have devalued the male roles of hunter, provider, protector and replaced them with more equalitarian expectations. In a sense, women constitute a status group on the rise, who would like, finally, to see their concerns recognized in law and society.
Gusfield wrote:
"Since governmental actions symbolize the position of groups in the status structure, seemingly ceremonial or ritual acts of government are often of great importance to many social groups. Issues which seem foolish or impractical items are often important for what they symbolize about the style or culture which is being recognized or derogated... Since drinking had been largely a male activity, the concern of the woman for Temperance was itself an act of controlling the relation between the sexes."
Guns are largely a male activity. Is concern for "gun control" an act of controlling the relation between the sexes? Violence against women has become an increasing concern in Canadian society. Guns symbolize violence, so gun control is, for many, a response to these concerns. In the 1993 survey a lack of experience with guns, a desire to restrict pornography, and a favorable attitude toward homosexuals were associated with pro gun control attitudes. Additional questions asked in 1994 showed that other factors were also important, and the original relationships were specified. Lack of experience with guns and being pro-homosexual turned out to be only important for men. So few women in the sample have any personal experience with guns that it is not a major determinant of their attitudes overall (this was also true in 1993). Once women could express directly their desire for men to be more sensitive, less "macho," it became clear that being "pro homosexual" had simply been a proxy variable for women expressing this desire.
Both men and women think gun control will greatly reduce violence against women, but for very different reasons. Women see it as part of a set of desired roles for men in their relationship with women: men should protect women, but not be "macho" about it. Men think it because they overestimate the role of handguns in murder, want to be sensitive to womens' concerns by prohibiting sexually explicit depictions of nude people, and come from urban homes that do not contain guns.
Both men and women who would not defend themselves with a gun are in favor of gun control, but for somewhat different reasons. They both reject the death penalty for first degree murder, but for men this part of a set of "politically correct" responses which includes giving women a combat role in the army and opposition to talks on politically incorrect topics. These men may also reject self defense with a gun because there are no guns in their homes, and they may not have any idea of how to use a gun. For women rejection of the death penalty is more of a pro-life choice: they are opposed to easy abortions, think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children, and are non-drinking vegetarians. Perhaps they would not defend themselves with a gun because of a fear of killing the aggressor. Women who want to restrict the sale of sexually explicit materials are pro gun control. This is associated with a desire to prohibit all sexually explicit depictions of nude people, and a desire for men to be more sensitive, less "macho."
Overall, the men who favor gun control are those who reject traditional male roles and behavior. They are opposed to hunting, are pro homosexual, do not have any experience with or knowledge of guns and tend to have "politically correct" attitudes. Overall, the women who support gun control do so in the context of controlling male violence and sexuality. While this study has not explained all of the motivations for gun control (there is considerable unexplained variance in the regression equations) it does support the contention that gun control is, symbolically, male control.[emphasis mine]
Fascinating. Up until now, I had thought of the Second Amendment civil-rights fight as a part of the enduring struggle for liberty against the powers of tyranny. This article presents a different perspective: that gun control is merely another facet of social control of more masculine men by women, white knights, and effete men. Thus, on top of other types of social controls of men, for example, chalimony, sexual harassment law, rape law, and a men-to-women transfer payments regime, we can see that gun control is but one more way for yin to tame yang, for Eve to dominate Adam, for her own personal benefit.
10 comments:
I have noticed this. The majority of women that I meet are for gun control.
Of course, the majority of women that I meet are also left-wing.
For women rejection of the death penalty is more of a pro-life choice: they are opposed to easy abortions, think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children, and are non-drinking vegetarians.
I reject this. I'd like to see his data for believing that women who are against the Death Penalty are against easy abortions.
This whole "white knight" idea. I get that its about wanting to "rescue" women, but I didn't think that fell under the gun control umbrella. When I picture a white knight, I think Bruce Willis protecting his family in the Die Hard series. Maybe its because I read a lot of period novels that don't gloss over the knight/warrior role by making them victorian Lancelots. My white knights are dirty, bloody, and willing to kill to protect the ones he loves.
"I'd like to see his data for believing that women who are against the Death Penalty are against easy abortions."
I concur. My experience has been the opposite...leftists that oppose the death penalty for convicted criminals usually have no truck with the death penalty for unwanted/inconvenient babies.
"White Knight[s]...I didn't think that fell under the gun control umbrella. "
Not trying to make the authors' case for him, but I see this as more of a "travels together" connection vice a "white knight==gun control" connection. That is, the worldview that white knights for those poor victimized women is the same one that gives rise to gun control. It's more of a sibling relationship, in that gun control and white-knighting are "children" of a larger weltanschauung, as opposed to a linear one where white knighting leads to gun control.
I'll white knight (in a sense) for my wife and my children and my family...but women who are unfamiliar to me get no special treatment in my book.
"majority of women that I meet are also left-wing."
By definition, I'd say. Women, as a group, are more comfortable with government and less comfortable with liberty. As a group. Thus, by definition, they are more left wing.
Liberty is frightening, it doesn't feel safe or secure. It's not going to win a lot of support from the sex that tends to value security and safety over liberty.
"gun control is merely another facet of social control of more masculine men by women, white knights, and effete men"
prohibition, drug war, sex war, "war on women" -- theyre all a single phenomenon -- all increasingly totalitarian methods used by females collectively to subjugate and oppress males, while pretending moral and ethical superiority (now, open supremacy)
. . . using the "law" and the "state" both of which are merely instrumements of Big Sister
over the past half-century, the terrorism inflicted upon males has skyrocketed, and become a vast income-stream for amerikan gynocratic kulture in countless ways and structures
guns are the "last straw" in the ability of the single (i.e., isoated from power) male to protect himself and his sons from the social and legal terrorism of Woman, her State, and her compliant "churches"
not that it'll matter for the u.s. -- she is already under judgment, her reward is coming, and it wont be a new SUV, a closetfull of fabulous shoes, or the next iteration of VAWA
By definition, I'd say. Women, as a group, are more comfortable with government and less comfortable with liberty. As a group. Thus, by definition, they are more left wing.
They have a definitive lack of trust in the men around them. Whether justified or not, even for myself I have found trusting my parents and trusting my husband to go against every grain of my being - and I HAVE a loving, caring, balanced, well-reasoned family.
So they are more likely to believe that voting for government officials somehow gives them control over the men they put in charge over themselves. If you don't do as I like, I'll vote you out. So they give more control to the government believing they are controlling the government.
Yeah - it is by design that we are untrusting of men by default but that we desire security. One is human frailty and the other evolutionary.
This is where I am deeply disturbed by the idea of "Christian" feminists. As a Christian, it is no longer about trusting humans (fathers, husbands, government), but about trusting GOD. And if you trust God to not lead you to destruction and you trust he loves you, then obey his commands and he will honor your faithfulness. So honor your father and mother - because you trust GOD. Submit to your husband - because you trust GOD. Sacrifice your control over your life because you trust GOD.
Silly women. Luckily some are still amenable to reason. I successfully pointed out to my youngest daughter that she had no chance if a man my size decided to attack her, but that pistol her grandfather left her would more than even the scales.
Yeah, that article has the abortion/death penalty thing wrong. I'm pro-life and pro-death penalty, myself. Don't kill the innocent, kill the guilty!
@ Christina,
Great comment as always
"So they give more control to the government believing they are controlling the government."
Thus far they've (largely) been correct. When this will turn, I do not know, but that will be a time when I'll happily say "tole ya so".
"As a Christian, it is no longer about trusting humans (fathers, husbands, government), but about trusting GOD. "
And that feels risky...therefore far easier and comforting to trust and depend on your own ways and that of the world.
@ ray,
"guns are the "last straw" in the ability of the single (i.e., isoated from power) male to protect himself and his sons from the social and legal terrorism of Woman, her State,"
Can't add anything to this, Ray.
The choice for us as a society is whether or not we'll choose to bring non-Alpha/Beta men (i.e., Vox's Deltas and Gammas) into the fold, or continue this trend toward disenfranchisement, alienation, and exclusion.
From the get-go, feminism has been about subverting the very institution that brought the overwhelmingly vast majority of men--deltas--into the fold. It did so by protecting the means by which those deltas were invested...their property, their connection to their children, and the sanctity of their commitment to a woman.
This is why I am not a conservative. There is little in American culture these days worth conserving. Furthermore, the Conservative is always on cultural defense, a weaker position given that the Conservative always surrenders the initiative.
@ tweel,
"Luckily some are still amenable to reason."
And readily observable facts that counteract the propaganda.
Anecdote in point: Can't tell you how many of my female college student peers, after having taken a self-defense class (probably were not taught to pee/vomit on their assailant back then), thought they then could tangle toe-to-toe with a man.
In a physical altercation, mass, size, strength, and reach matter. A lot. Not many women could subdue hand-to-hand the average man intent on hurting them or having their way with them.
Post a Comment