1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Anti Gun Male

Discussion in 'Legal' started by fjolnirsson, Jun 29, 2005.

  1. fjolnirsson

    fjolnirsson Well-Known Member

    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
    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.
  2. 71Commander

    71Commander Well-Known Member

    Wow! So Arnold was right. There are girly men.
  3. Joejojoba111

    Joejojoba111 Well-Known Member

    To be pedantic, in this case, they saying Freud was right.
  4. RavenVT100

    RavenVT100 Well-Known Member

    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."
  5. Boats

    Boats member

    The anti-gun male? You mean like this stud?

  6. El Tejon

    El Tejon Well-Known Member

    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.
  7. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. RavenVT100

    RavenVT100 Well-Known Member

    That's a very good point, El Tejon.
  9. mec

    mec Well-Known Member

    whenever I want to read something sensible, I go over to JWR and read Ms.Gorin's columns.
  10. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    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.
  11. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member


    So, is that what the metro-sexual is?
  12. longeyes

    longeyes member

    And the motivation behind pure socialism is...?

    Control? Order? Safety? Endless harmony? Mommy?
  13. El Tejon

    El Tejon Well-Known Member

  14. Mad Man

    Mad Man Well-Known Member

    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.

    Yep -- we only depend on others when we choose to.
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2005
  15. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Well-Known Member

    Don't know author's view

    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.
  16. GhostRider66

    GhostRider66 Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. XLMiguel

    XLMiguel Well-Known Member

    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:
  18. Andrew Rothman

    Andrew Rothman Well-Known Member

  19. Andrew Rothman

    Andrew Rothman Well-Known Member

    Um, are we reading the same essay?
  20. fletcher

    fletcher Well-Known Member

    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:

Share This Page