The Anti Gun Male


PDA






fjolnirsson
June 29, 2005, 03:48 AM
I just found a link to this on another site. Good Read. Interesting viewpoint, I thought. One I'd never really considered in depth before.

Jewish World Review (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp)
Jewish World Review March 8, 2002 / 24 Adar, 5762

Julia Gorin

The anti-gun male

http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- LET'S be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable--so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.

A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.

He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.

Of course, sexual and psychological insecurities don't account for ALL men against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are pure, who perhaps do care so much as to tirelessly look for policy solutions to teenage void and aggressiveness, and to parent and teacher negligence. But for a potentially large underlying contributor, psycho-sexual inadequacy has gone unexplored and unacknowledged. It's one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it's another to impose the same handicap onto others.

People are suspicious of what they do not know-and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do, or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don't sit cross-legged. That they're able to handle a firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear.

Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of crowds.

The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some assertiveness and a certain self-reliance. But if our man kept a gun in the house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of him, he wouldn't be able to later say, "He had a knife--there was nothing I could do!" Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn't be the option it otherwise is.

No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let's face it: He's a lover, not a fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife.

Of course, it wouldn't be completely honest not to admit that owning a firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That's the tradeoff with a gun: The right to defend one's life and way of life isn't without peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to do is risk his life-if even to save it. For he is guided by a dread fear for his life, and has more confidence in almost anyone else's ability to protect him than his own, preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the sporadically competent hands of authorities (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase).

In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's containment.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Anti Gun Male" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
71Commander
June 29, 2005, 05:57 AM
Wow! So Arnold was right. There are girly men.

Joejojoba111
June 29, 2005, 06:22 AM
To be pedantic, in this case, they saying Freud was right.

RavenVT100
June 29, 2005, 08:56 AM
Whether or not it's objectively true, this whole piece reminds me of that guy whose actress girlfriend who was shot and robbed in cold blood in NYC last year. He said he cared less about apprehending the perpetrator than "addressing a society where a kid can get a gun."

Boats
June 29, 2005, 09:52 AM
The anti-gun male? You mean like this stud?

http://www.paraethos.com/images/allen.jpg

El Tejon
June 29, 2005, 10:09 AM
That's part of rank and file anti-gun culture especially in the large urban areas that the anti-civil rights movement derives its power, but the motivation of the leadership is pure socialism.

cuchulainn
June 29, 2005, 10:10 AM
It's mildly funny although derived from similar essays that have been around for years. In the end though, it's little but an ad hominem hit piece, proving nothing.

But I'll enjoy it for its humor.

Then again, it occured to me that it's satire, and the author is laughing at us. Why? Her opening statement about her disliking guns doesn't jibe with the rhetoric in the rest of the essay. I don't know enough about this author's views to say for sure.

RavenVT100
June 29, 2005, 10:39 AM
That's part of rank and file anti-gun culture especially in the large urban areas that the anti-civil rights movement derives its power, but the motivation of the leadership is pure socialism.

That's a very good point, El Tejon.

mec
June 29, 2005, 11:02 AM
whenever I want to read something sensible, I go over to JWR and read Ms.Gorin's columns.

Henry Bowman
June 29, 2005, 11:12 AM
The essay, whether intended as satire or not, identifies a single symptom, not a root cause. I would describe the goal of what El T identified as "socialism" more broadly -- dependence or interdependence.

Urbanites depend on each other to survive. Turn the fauset, safe clean water comes out. Flush the toilet, crap goes away. Dump trash down the chute, it goes away. Walk one block to market, there is fresh food. From where? to where? no one knows -- or wants to know.

They are proficient at exactly one thing -- that which allows them to earn a living -- and are incapable of anything else. They like it that way. The problem is that they want everyone to live that way, this better way, where all work together and rely on each other.

They feel threatened by those in "flyover country" who are far less interdependent and who depend on others only as a choice. Those people must be controlled, for their own good. After all, we wouldn't have all this red state ignorance, bigotry, and theology if they were inseparably bound together as the urbanites are.

4v50 Gary
June 29, 2005, 11:14 AM
So, is that what the metro-sexual is?

longeyes
June 29, 2005, 11:29 AM
That's part of rank and file anti-gun culture especially in the large urban areas that the anti-civil rights movement derives its power, but the motivation of the leadership is pure socialism.

And the motivation behind pure socialism is...?

Control? Order? Safety? Endless harmony? Mommy?

El Tejon
June 29, 2005, 11:35 AM
Evil.

Mad Man
June 29, 2005, 12:03 PM
They feel threatened by those in "flyover country" who are far less interdependent and who depend on others only as a choice.


Yeah, because we mine the steel ourselves for the automobiles we build with our own hands. And we drill and refine our own oil to fuel said autos.

And we mine the coal out of our own back yards, to power the generators attached to our houses (which we built ourselves, of course).

And our computers are powered by the stationary bikes in front of our keyboards, while the carrier pigeons we trained deliver our messages to the nearest urban Internet Service Provider.

We grow and raise our own food, instead of going to the grocery store like those stupid urbanite socialists. And we don't need shopping malls (http://reason.com/hod/cartoon.pb071902-1.shtml).

Yep -- we only depend on others when we choose to.

1911 guy
June 29, 2005, 12:15 PM
I don't know the author's view or real intent, but he/she makes a good point, one that I have had presented to me at work. Several guys have made the comment, usually after describing a moment on the freeway, "Man, I'm glad I didn't have a gun." I'm glad they didn't have a gun, too. The problem comes when they project their innadequacies and foibles onto everyone else.

GhostRider66
June 29, 2005, 12:40 PM
Then again, it occured to me that it's satire, and the author is laughing at us. Why? Her opening statement about her disliking guns doesn't jibe with the rhetoric in the rest of the essay. I don't know enough about this author's views to say for sure.

I didn't quite pick up a disliking of guns. She did say that she feared them. Understandable? Possibly. I know quite a few people who fear them although it's strictly based on lack of familiarity. When talking to them, I find that they are actaully very pro gun and actually have the same fear of a lot of unfamiliar items (power tools, etc.). I've taken some out to the range and watched the fear subside as well.

XLMiguel
June 29, 2005, 12:42 PM
That's among the stupidest things I've read in a while. Dumbich blames human stupidiy, negligence, and/or criminality in handling an inanimate object and then suggests that we give up a proven means of self-defense to accommodate namby-pamby-wishy-washy-spineless-gutless-wimp/dweebs that won't make an effort to defend themselves. :barf:

When one frustrates Natural Selection, the whole herd will become mediocre. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Andrew Rothman
June 29, 2005, 12:43 PM
Deja Vu all over again...

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=33958

...and again...

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=129915

:D

Andrew Rothman
June 29, 2005, 12:45 PM
That's among the stupidest things I've read in a while. Dumbich blames human stupidiy, negligence, and/or criminality in handling an inanimate object and then suggests that we give up a proven means of self-defense to accommodate namby-pamby-wishy-washy-spineless-gutless-wimp/dweebs that won't make an effort to defend themselves.

Um, are we reading the same essay?

fletcher
June 29, 2005, 01:20 PM
He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something."

People like that drive me crazy. When debating other college students about guns, you can hardly go back and forth twice before someone pulls out the phallic references. At that point, it just degrades into spouting idiocy. :banghead:

Third_Rail
June 29, 2005, 02:04 PM
Henry Bowman, what you just described sounds like where we're headed - it also sounds like John Christopher's book called "The Guardians". Good short read, that one.

fjolnirsson
June 29, 2005, 02:07 PM
Dumbich blames human stupidiy, negligence, and/or criminality in handling an inanimate object and then suggests that we give up a proven means of self-defense to accommodate namby-pamby-wishy-washy-spineless-gutless-wimp/dweebs that won't make an effort to defend themselves.

Are we reading the same article? I didn't notice that part in there....

Bacon
June 29, 2005, 04:33 PM
Anybody that would compare a dangerous weapon to a sex organ has some very real problems.

Zundfolge
June 29, 2005, 05:07 PM
People like that drive me crazy. When debating other college students about guns, you can hardly go back and forth twice before someone pulls out the phallic references. At that point, it just degrades into spouting idiocy.
And thats the point ... they can "win" the argument without ever having to argue the issue and risk losing.

Standing Wolf
June 29, 2005, 05:27 PM
In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's containment.

Subjugation is what socialism is all about, as is sharing the misery, as is complete dependence upon the state, as is helplessness. It and communism are the only -isms I'm aware of that make a veritable relgion of slavery.

peacefuljeffrey
June 29, 2005, 05:37 PM
I really liked the essay. When I have more time, I'll come back and read some more of the criticisms that are in this thread, but overall I think she made very excellent points, and what she says has MUCH truth in it.


For he is guided by a dread fear for his life, and has more confidence in almost anyone else's ability to protect him than his own, preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the sporadically competent hands of authorities (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase).


Yes, the old, "Get yourself an alarm; Get yourself a dog; Protecting you is what the Police are there for; The criminal is just misunderstood, so talk with him about why he's robbing you..." Always good for a chuckle. :rolleyes:


-Jeffrey

JohnBT
June 29, 2005, 05:44 PM
"They are proficient at exactly one thing -- that which allows them to earn a living -- and are incapable of anything else."

Let's not get carried away painting with that w i d e brush.

John

XLMiguel
June 29, 2005, 10:06 PM
OK, I made a great leap in logic in a single bound -
He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.
1. Negligence & Stupidity - leaving a gun where a dumb kid could get at it
2. Stupidity - 12 y.o. playing with loaded gun
3. Criminality - Columbine & Santee

Blaming the instrumentality for bad stuff rather than the bad behavior that caused it because they don't have the gumption to deal with the bad behavior is just wrong - self-esteem is earned thru accomplishment, not making excuses.

In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's containment.

That's the spineless part - he's helpless, but rather than doing someting to improve his situation, he wants to make everyone else helpless, too. Sick, very sick. I chose not to dignify the psychobabble part about overcompensating for whatever.

Though I'm not real sure where the author is really coming from, I still think it's a pretty stupid piece on a rather sorry subject.

peacefuljeffrey
June 30, 2005, 10:07 AM
Mike,

We are definitely looking at the same article yet seeing two very different things. I think you are mistaken in your conclusion, particularly about the author's intent; and at what, specifically, she is poking satire at.

I think the article is well done and is not about a stupid subject. She is trying to explicate the inner workings and motivations of the mind of a male anti-gunner. She does a good job of it, in my view.

I think that what she's talking about in that first part you quoted is that which we've all observed: anti-gunners revel in the mayhem that criminals cause with guns, because it gives them "reason" to hate guns and want them banned. Every further gun crime or mass murder involving guns gives them more of what they view as justification for banning guns. The more tragedies, the "better" their case is made. So the male anti-gunner, who really despises guns because he hasn't the courage to avail himself of them, nor to defend his own life, capitalizes on gun-tragedy as his cover-excuse for why he wants them banned. It's a deception. It's not the real reason he wants them banned -- his own inadequacy is the real reason -- but it's the one he puts forth when he writes to the newspaper, or argues with a pro-gunner.

He will never admit that it's his own fear and pathetically dependent nature that spurs his desire to eliminate guns.

The irony, of course, is that anti-gunners would need to be gun owners, to have guns of their own, in order to effect the confiscation of the last of the guns of the pro-gun gun owners.

-Jeffrey

XLMiguel
June 30, 2005, 11:14 AM
P-Jeff-
I think we're in violent agreement. It is the basic hypocracy of such people that I find so repulsive - they don't like guns, but the first thing they do when they're in trouble is call someone witha gun to come protect them, they expect someone else to do their fighting for them. They are truly parasites.

I guess the subtlety is lost on me, as I allowed as how I couldn't quite see where the author was coming from. I do see your point as satire, so I'll withdraw the 'stupid' comment, though I still maintain that 'the anti-gun male' is a pretty sorry subject that deserves the ridicule.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Anti Gun Male" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!