Is This What Passes for Feminism These Days?

Heidi Yewman courtesy

By Jessi J.

While surfing the internet at work this morning, my husband ran across a blog with a post so… um. ..interesting that he emailed me the link and accompanied it with a note: “Be sure to read this in an open field, so that when your head explodes it won’t make a mess in the house.” I was intrigued. As soon as I had the baby down for a nap, I sat down to read the post, Heidi Yewman’s ‘My Month With a Gun’, which you can find here. I then spent the first half of the baby’s nap writing a retort response, which you can’t find at the address at the link, as, to the surprise of no one, it did not pass the blog’s mediation standards . . .

However, if you’re interested, here it is:

Allow me to be clear and frank, so as to avoid confusion. The author is not a “good guy with a gun” nor will she ever be, until such time as she begins to take her new found responsibility as a gun owner seriously instead of using it as a social experiment in order to further her own political views.

Owning, and worse, carrying a gun about which you have no knowledge is one of the absolute least responsible things an individual can do. Furthermore, all of this about “shaking hands” and “surges of adrenaline” make the author sound like an over dramatic teenager- so perhaps she is just an irresponsible individual and I’ve previously overestimated her… but I digress.

And, for the information of the author and whoever may find her melodrama intriguing, the reason that the handgun purchase was so fast was because she already held her concealed carry permit. That background check and fingerprinting process ran her information through the system of her state’s Bureau of Investigations. Once you have passed the BI check and are “in the system” that same check can be performed much more quickly and easily by simply running your permit number for future firearm purchases. In addition, the author failed to mention the waiting period between the application and background check and the actual awarding of the concealed carry permit. It must have slipped her mind.

How do I know these things? Because I am a legal concealed carry permit holder. I underwent the same application process, though fees in my state are much more steep. Furthermore, several years ago, before obtaining my permit, I purchased a pistol for my husband as a gift (no worries, he’s not a felon, either.) Purchasing that gun took me several hours. As a permit holder, I appreciate the expedited process for obtaining new firearms, as I have now proven that I am responsible with the ones that I own.

Now, I do hate to burst the bubble of the legions of adoring fans of this blogger, but come on. Even the leftest of leftist individuals can see the hilarity of this post. We all get the point. She’s proving how easily firearms can be legally obtained by individuals who have absolutely no business obtaining them.

I’d like to invite you all to look at the facts of the matter. Real facts. How many of the murderers in shooting deaths this century obtained their firearms legally? Careful. I don’t mean “How many of the guns were obtained legally?” I mean “How many of the SHOOTERS, THEMSELVES legally obtained the guns?” If you can even find this information on the internet, I’ll be impressed.

Again, I digress. Supporting this woman’s warped idea of a social experiment is almost as ridiculous as her decision to perform it. Go home. Hug your kid. Remember that this woman actually believed a reputable gun dealer might have sold her a loaded gun. (Omigod, if ONLY firearms came with free ammo! Have you priced 9mm rounds lately?!)

So, the moderator didn’t care for my opinion, again, to no great surprise. However, it did get me thinking — what the hell are we thinking?! Is this really what passes for research these days? Worse, as I read through a few of the comments that were published, I realized that this piece was apparently part of a series that was set to run in The New York Times – a well-known, long running, and once-respected publication. And THIS is what it sells?

The talk of “shaky hands” and “surging adrenaline,” as if the gun is going to magically jump off her hip, load itself (as I’d bet you dollars to donuts this woman is carrying it openly and unloaded,) and fire into a crowd of children is nauseating. I credit women like this one for the prevalent misconception that all women are frivolous and dramatic little creatures who live for buying pretty little things that they don’t need. I cannot understand this mindset. And again, how utterly irresponsible of her as someone with no gun knowledge, no gun experience, and no interest in actually using a gun for self-defense to go and purchase and carry a gun “just to see what it’s like.”

I apologize for rambling and jumping from subject to subject, but honestly, the number of issues that I take with this woman, her ridiculous idea of an experiment, and the number of vapid fans proclaiming their support and talking about how they’d “never have the nerve to do something like that” is so vast that I’m having difficulty narrowing my thoughts. I suppose I’ll start from the beginning.

As I attempted to share in my response to the original post, the idea that this woman is “a good guy with a gun” is about as far from the truth as it can be. Carrying a gun (loaded or unloaded) openly and without any intention of putting it to use in a self-defense situation is just plain ignorant. A gun that a person is willing to carry but not to use is a liability, not a weapon. This is even more true if the gun is being carried openly.

People can sense discomfort in others. If she is actually half as obviously uncomfortable carrying her pistol as she says she is, she’s just painted a giant red bull’s eye on her back. Uncomfortable carrying will make her and anyone else in her situation stand out to those meaning to do her harm, whether physically or otherwise.

A person with a gun he or she is unwilling to use is, in my opinion, at least as big a danger to themselves and those around them as any armed individual can be. What happens if, God forbid, she is actually threatened? Can you imagine the delight in the perpetrator’s eyes when she pulls out the Glock of which she is so afraid, then pulls her ammo (assuming she bought some- remember, she thought it might have been sold to her already loaded) out of her pocket, Barney Fife- style, and starts loading it, while her hands are shaking and her adrenaline is pumping?

Furthermore, the fear with which she speaks of this gun is preposterous. It’s as ludicrous as if I wrote of a fear of purchasing kitchen knives out of concern that one might fall out of the closed drawer and kill me or a member of my family. WHAT?

In closing, please allow me to rant briefly about what women like this one and those who support her are doing for the social perception of American women. It isn’t good. Magazines tailored to women focus on fashion and diets and the next shiny thing we just have to have. News outlets are mesmerized by the name of Kim Kardashian’s baby. And here we have a woman trying (albeit misguidedly) to actually stand up for something she believes in and this is what we get? A weak and weepy woman shaking like a leaf out of fear of an experiment (albeit a stupid one) that she voluntarily undertook? Really?

This is not feminism. This is not a woman standing for what she believes. This is a woman in fear for fear’s sake. Rosie the Riveter is shamed and disappointed. We can do better. I know we can.