America’s gun problem has everything to do with America’s masculinity problem. That’s the headline of an article at qz.com by Elizabeth Winkler [above], contributor to such famously conservative publications as The Economist, The New Republic and The Los Angeles Review of Books. To make her case against men among men doing manly things (with guns), Ms. Winkler rounds up some of unusual suspects. Experts like University of Minnesota graduate student Alankaar Sharma, whose “teaching and research have focused on diversity and anti-oppressive social work, masculinities from a pro-feminist standpoint” . . .
As Alankaar Sharma, a social worker and researcher, tells Quartz, “Possessing a gun is considered by many men, if not most, as a straightforward way of subscribing to dominant masculinity.” In his view, the patriarchal system, which privileges a certain set of masculine behaviors, values, and practices, provides men with “a clear and justifiable reason to own guns.” It cements their identity as masculine men.
So men who owns guns are buying into and propagating a patriarchal system – which discriminates against women and “privileges” men (obvs.). Winkler backs up Sharma’s misandrist assessment by recapping a May 2015 op-ed for The Los Angeles Times by sociologist Jennifer Carlson.
“As men doubt their ability to provide,” she argues, “their desire to protect becomes all the more important. They see carrying a gun as a masculine duty and the gun itself as a vehicle for a hardened kind of care-work.” Some envision scenarios where they intervene with their guns to save women and children.
Which, as we all know, never happens – as evidenced by TTAG’s Defensive Gun Use of the Day posts. It’s time for another “expert” to not mention that guns are phallic symbols. At least not in so many words.
Next up: Northern Iowa University sociology professor Harry Brod, famous in academic circles as the former male Interim Director of the New Women’s and Gender Studies Department at Kenyon College. Professor Brod is not exactly broad-minded when it comes to men’s opinions of women.
As Harry Brod, a sociologist and a founding figure in the field of men’s studies, explains to Quartz, “We’re talking about masculinity in a period of rising feminism and changing gender roles.” Women are leaning in. Hillary Clinton might be our next president. The patriarchy is far from finished, but men on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum especially are feeling threatened.
“Idealizing a physical masculinity can help negate this feeling. Gun marketers know this and so they appeal to male self-image to sell their weapons. In ads that ran in 2012, for instance, Bushmaster Firearms promised that if you buy their semi-automatic weapons, you can “consider your man card reissued.” . . .
This might also explain why gun sales spike less after a shooting than after calls for stricter control: For men who look to guns to validate their sense of masculinity, the prospect of restrictions imposed by an external authority is disempowering and emasculating.
As Freud might have said, sometimes an AR is just an AR. Just gonna leave that here . . .
I reckon the idea that gun control leaves men feeling emasculated can be attributed to the fact that . . . gun control emasculates men. Disarming men makes them dependent on the state (i.e., the police) for their safety and the safety of their families, friends and loved ones. Call me a misogynist (you wouldn’t be the first), but isn’t the ability to protect oneself and one’s “pack” a perfectly natural and entirely desirable aspect of masculinity?
Ah, but black is white. A “real” man is ready, willing and able to surrender his safety and the safety of his loved ones to state control. Never mind the practicalities and spiritual satisfaction of hunting with a gun, or the simple joys of firearms proficiency, that’s the problem! Men aren’t accepting their subjugation to a society that provides equal rights for women. Until they do, we won’t solve the [strangely unspecified] “gun problem.”
Brod insists that we need to think about America’s gun problem as a distinctly gendered problem: “If you don’t understand that connection,” he tells Quartz, “you’re not going to solve the problem.” This, he points out, was the huge gap in Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore’s 2002 documentary about gun violence in America. Some remedies might lie in addressing boys’ underachievement in school and improving opportunities in the workforce. But helping men dissociate their identities from guns also requires a shift in cultural attitudes. Above all, Brod says, “there needs to be a rethinking of what masculinity means.”
And what, pray tell, is this “new masculinity” that will pave the way to solving America’s “gun problem”? Wait. I don’t want to know. I can almost hear Winkler’s response: “typical.” Yes. Yes it is.
NOTE: Any comments about Ms. Winkler’s appearance – positive or negative – will be deleted.
I don’t carry a gun because it makes me feel more like a man, I carry a gun to protect myself and my loved ones from the crazies
These people really don’t understand men at all.
These people don’t understand self defense and the failures of the State they worship at all. Is TTAG’s resident female contributor carrying a gun so she can be more patriarchal or masculine? No, she’s carrying it to be best able to defend herself and her children. This is being self reliant since the State can’t act fast enough to prevent the vast majority of crime. Self reliance, self defense, the realities of crime, these might as well be an alien language to the ivory towered and bubble surrounded professors and propagrandist reporters.
“This is being self reliant since the State can’t act fast enough…”
Has absolutely nothing to do with how fast (or appropriately) the state might or might not act. Self defense is the natural, default response of all living creatures to threats. It is also the responsibility of each person to defend themselves and their legitimate dependents. Those who know they are incapable of defending themselves, for any reason, have an obligation to arrange for someone else to take that role… or they can just sit back and enjoy being a helpless victim.
And that goes for women just as much as for men.
People like Winkler, Sharma, and Brod are perfect example of the paucity of critical thought among progressives. My experience with people like this is that they struggle with making the kind of abstract comparisons that are essential to understanding and actually using social theory. As a result, when they attempt to speak with authority, what comes out is twaddle.
Back in the day, bozos like this would have been laughed out of graduate seminars taught by real professors. No more. Those days are gone and what we’re left with is . . . this. If A Really Bad Thing ever happens to either of these worthies, the people they’ll look to for help are the very kinds of men they now show such contempt for. They sure as hell won’t call another liberal to save them.
They don’t understand free people of whatever gender.
Best comment. Freedom and self reliance are not gender or ethnic based.
I can’t wait to get my Masters Degree in New Women’s and Gender Studies!
This is what you get when you “study men” without ever meeting any.
Shes a bloody stupid cunt now aint she
Well, I guess that comment has nothing to do with her appearance….
Go google “freebleeding” and you might want to retract your comment.
Feminism and neo-progressivism (what passes for “liberal” today) are mental illnesses that should preclude one from public office, and those who suffer from these mental illnesses should be treated like the village idiots they actually are.
Sigh. I hate to burst your bubble. But in the end, being a protector, a warrior, a citizen soldier,on the battle field, at war, IS a man thing, a “masculine” thing.
Because in the end, you can’t beat the end result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Men can’t bear children, women can’t be effective soldiers.. Not where it really matters. Because while women can be pilots, and tank drivers, and truck drivers and even defenders of the home. That is not where battles are decided. Battles are decided where ground is held. You need soldiers, boots on the ground to defend and hold territory. And most women just don’t have the physical size or strength to meet minimum standards.
I shouldn’t have to make the point. But this is how far down the rabbit hole of political correcthood we’ve fallen. As proof? There are no coed professional sports teams, anywhere. Because women can’t compete as pro athletes against the same pro athletes as men.
The team owners and the fans, won’t risk losing in their particular sports by being politically correct by having co-ed teams, because they would lose, and there is alot of money riding on who wins and loses.
Why would we risk our very civilization, our freedom as a people, because we don’t want to accept the same reality when it comes to what gender, in the end, makes the best and most effective soldier?
But this is simply another example of the level of perversion of what has been basic truths accepted for most of recorded history. Another example of why our civilization is facing collapse, and even possible extinction.
Feminists always blame men for anything. This magical “patriarchy” that doesn’t exist drives every opinion they have. They are also the most sexist people on the face of the Earth. They tell men not to be men and tell women how they need to act. It is truly despicable.
“They tell men not to be men and tell women…
To kill their unborn babies and act more like men.
Why must everything always fall back to anti abortion for you? I get that you’re passionate about it, but damn dude, this has nothing to do with that.
I wonder if she would be OK if men started talking about how women can be better by just doing what we think is right for us? I mean, she thinks it’s OK to do that with men, think for them and tell them what’s wrong with them because she KNOWS how all men act and think… so it must be OK for men to do that back to women now. We’ll tell them how what they’re doing is wrong and how what they should be doing would help us. Awesome, get me a beer, Liz.
That’s become my response when women tell me how men should behave, only a bit more abrasive.
Woman: “Men should do XYZ!” This is usually prefaced with “Men don’t listen.”
Me: “OK, I’ll do that… if you go make me a sammich and put on some exciting undergarments.”
Woman: “How dare you!”
Me: “Well, you were handing out free advice on how I could make you happier, so I’m offering you advice how you can reciprocate. You didn’t expect me to do all the work, did you? You women are constantly complaining that we white males do everything and don’t allow you to participate and contribute, so I’m giving you an opportunity to participate and contribute. And still, you’re complaining!”
You sir are brilliant !
There’s something ‘wrong’ with boys (if you know what I mean). If we could just repair that defect, everything else would fall into place.
There’s something ‘wrong’ with girls (if you know what I mean). If we could just repair those defects, everything else would fall into place.
There is something wrong with boys nowadays: very few of them seem to be growing up to be men, instead of spineless, pussywhipped eunuchs that the feminists want so that they have worker bees to provide for their bloated lazy asses.
Yup. Spend 18 years spoiling them as children, never teaching them discipline or letting them suffer the consequences of their own bad choices, giving them trophies for showing up, and then push them out into a world that doesn’t give a f$&k that you’re mommy’s precious snowflake. Oh, and then act shocked when they can’t keep a job, don’t finish anything they start, and finally act surprised when they lash out at a society that won’t recognize their innate greatness. Aside from being batcrap crazy, what every mass shooter seems to have in common is that monstrous sense of aggreived entitlement. My father taught me early on that your value as a person is defined by what you do for others, and what tou think the world owes you doesn’t even rate.
I wonder what these people would say to armed women. Are they compensating for something? Do they just need to feel like better providers? Oh right: they don’t exist. Just like defensive gun uses.
They’re pretty sure armed women are a myth. You know, like defensive gun uses or law-abiding gun owners.
Armed women, like my wife, the stay at home mother of my four beautiful daughters, must be a myth. And the idea that I can’t “provide”, when I’m the single bread winner in my family, is the reason I own guns. It’s not to protect the 5 females under my roof. It’s not to help teach my daughters how to truly protect themselves. And it’s not for enjoyment. I need to reexamine my ideas of masculinity? Perhaps I should look to Jenner for tips?
Yeah, I read this stuff and go WTF? Don’t I exist? It’s pretty sexist of them to deny my existence.
BY THE FARAGO FIRE EXTINGUISHER
This fails to explain why so many women want to be armed in public.
I suppose, however, the problem lies with those 100 to 150 pound woman who doubt their ability to use their fists to fend off a muscular 250 pound male rapist … at least according to feminists who see no difference between men and women.
And yet feminists claim that we are nuts …
To be fair, the article mentions women shooters. In one case parenthetically,.
The mentions are dismissive. They point out that women are only one third as likely to be gun owners, and then move on. No mention of the fact that women are the fastest growing demographic in the shooting sports. As usual, the facts are cherry picked to support the preferred narrative.
Just getting the American male further down the beta trail.
That’s what I got out of this too.
Beta males beta-ing.
The first thing that came to mind was that NY times beta male article.
27 Ways to Be a Modern Man – The New York Times
It’s ok to be a little spoon – it’s ok to be defenseless – its ok to cry (all the time)
Hey there’s nothing wrong with being the little spoon. At least my arm doesn’t go numb from sleeping in an awkward position to accommodate the woman and her comfort.
Wonder why no one’s made a pillow with a tunnel for your arm so that doesn’t happen. After all, might be nice if someone breaks in to be able to double wield wheel guns rather than just single blaster.
The only times I’ve seen a man tie a firearm to his masculinity it has always been one of those backwards hat, tank-top, sweatpants wearing lead-paint chip eating imbeciles who get puppy-milled rottweilers to look “hard” in the ghetto.
If I were to assume the author and her grad student source were capable of discriminating thought I could conclude what her and people like her actually mean when they say “masculinity” is ghetto-tardation thuggery.
So just as with their attack on firearms ownership based on the criminal acts of a very particular subset of the population they base this attack on the behavior of a very particular subset of the population.
It always comes back to poor people, dumb people and minorities with these gun grabbers.
They must figure that anyone who isnt hanging out with them at a Friday afternoon open-mic poetry reading must be poor and dumb therefore anyone they don’t personally is poor and dumb and anyone poor and dumb just can’t be trusted to live free.
Carrying a gun isn’t a man thing, it’s as self-defense thing. The problem is that women, for waaaay too long have been told (unfortunately by a lot of men) it’s a “man thing”. My current basic pistol classes are running 50% women or more, up from 0-5% a decade ago.
Women are deciding to be self-sufficient, realizing that they don’t have to depend on a man to protect them.
It’s a wonderful thing.
Too bad “enlightened” women are now telling women that it’s a “man thing”, spewing the very same venom that I’m sure they would have derided a decade ago coming from a man. 🙁
What about all of the women who carry guns? Do they have PE and want to be manly?
The woman in the photo has written a polemic to reinforce her fears and beliefs.
FLAME IGNITED BY OLD MASCULINITY
THE FIRE STILL BURNS INSIDE US ALL
“A “real” man is ready, willing and able to surrender his safety and the safety of his loved ones to state control.”
You’ve defined totalitarianism.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love
One of my favorite Heinlein quotes seems appropriate here. And notice that says Human Being, not man or woman. Knowing how to use a firearm and/or how to defend oneself isn’t or at least shouldn’t be a masculine/feminine thing. It should be a Human thing.
A student said to his master “You teach me fighting but you talk about tranquility and peace” How do you reconcile the two? The Master replied “it’s better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war”
Peace in ancient Greek means “to bind together.” As in a being bound in harmony together by a mutual relationship.
Being a man or women of peace is not being absent of preparation for war or strife, but being present in relationships with others.
Man, that is BEAUTIFUL.
I’ve often seen a bit of a contradiction in real people of “peace” that exude strength (like, just for one example, Gandhi) and those that claim to be “peaceful” that seem to associate that with weakness and complete acquiescence to any perception of external force.
I love this. It squares up a disconnect…another example of robbed language by the Progressives/Enlightened. And, as a Christian, I see added dimensions in the role of peace in Christ’s ministry. Wow.
Peace to you.
The idea of of wishing peace on someone absolutely has bearing in religious context.
I see it as wishing friendship, much like the open hand gesture of giving or a handshake, on someone.
You are not wishing them a lack of war (like the modern concept), but wishing a mutual friendship upon them.
There’s not enough makeup in the world to cover up crazy
Too many seminars and symposiums. Not enough testosterone and adrenalin.
So many non existent problems to be solved, where do we find the time?
Useless people with useless degrees saying useless things. Yawn. No point in addressing the strawman they’ve setup. It has no basis in reality.
‘This might also explain why gun sales spike less after a shooting than after calls for stricter control:’
The reason for this is simple, calls for stricter gun control come within 30 seconds after every shooting. How can gun sales spike as much in 30 seconds as they do in the weeks that follow? Clear sign these people don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.
The superiority and elitism spews from this article. And, I dislike it when people trot out the word “ignorant” in response to people they disagree with; however, I feel that it is warranted here. These people do not understand a thing about gun ownership and they have not made an effort to. They continue to wallow in their preconceived notions, recoiling from critical thought. I do not understand why these people need “safe spaces” when they have a perfectly enclosed and hermetically sealed off minds, into which no opposing logic can penetrate.
A source who is a grad student? Really? Doesn’t even have the advanced degree? I seen piss poor research done by department chairs let alone grad students. Hell when I was adjunct faculty (12 years at Penn State) we had a new chair of the department come in and share her doctoral dissertation. To say the least it was lacking. Shortly after she asked to have copies of all my curricula. I refused to provide her with it and so Penn State and I parted our ways. (I taught Sociology and Criminology to undergrads)
Glad to see the use of misandrist. I thought I was the only one who knew about it. But that is what these women are, using their words like verbal strap-ons, to screw those icky-bad man-things and minimize them in order to justify their man hating agendas.
The real cause of the violence is a lack of education and parenting. If you are ignorant, then you can’t get a job, then you turn to crime. For some growing up in dysfunctional households, their goal is to be a criminal, which says so much about how society has excused parents from parenting. Oops, now I’ve made enemies of the femma-Nazi’s who don’t want to hear the truth. Oh well, such is life.
This is just another “gun owners’ dicks are small” opinion piece. A way more interesting article would investigate the motivations of the growing number of women who are buying guns, getting training, carrying concealed, etc. and how those motivations match or differ from men’s.
Soooo, my when I met my wife she already had her CC license. She is petite, demure, soft spoken, intelligent, sexy, feminine. The last thing I would have used to describe her when I met her and got to know her would be – masculine. Pro- feminists really need to be more comfortable with their own feminine status than project onto what makes males, males.
Men shouldn’t rely upon guns to protect women… they should rely upon cops like the 300lb. Chicago cop who tried to stomp a 110lb. barmaid to death because she wouldn’t serve him any more alcohol when he was already blind drunk.
What problem? America doesn’t have a gun problem. You have a problem with guns. America has a “criminals with lack of morals” problem. America also has a “I’m afraid of guns” problem for some individuals.
So women should pack more and men should pack less? They should pack equal amounts? I agree. Lets do it.
Masculinity doesn’t mean murdering people with guns. There needs to be an acceptance of what masculinity means – not you guys redefining history, words, and their meanings.
Here’s a wild thought, maybe if we stopped attacking men’s masculinity by elevating women to a position above men, we won’t feel so immasculated.
I know this is not a popular opinion, but women’s rights these days are all about taking rights from men. Yes, back in the day it was a terrible thing that women were treated like second class citizens. But sometime around the 70’s , the women’s rights movement took a radical turn away from getting equal rights to elevating women above men. We now live in a society where women in their 20’s and 30’s make more then men in the same age group, and yet they still quote 30 year old statistics abut women making 80 cents to every doller that men make. Do they really expect us to believe that noting has changed in 30 years?
What a crock of sh*t!
I supposed I’m oppressive for not wanting my wife to sleep with other men, too.
If you don’t like my guns or masculinity that’s your problem, not mine.
Well, it is generally these same fembots that claim all marriage is rape. So, you asking your wife to uphold her vows in your marriage is beyond oppressive.
So-called feminists who are anti-gun are hypocrites. They want their right to an abortion to be protected because it’s their right to control their bodies and their heath, but my right to own a gun to protect my life when the cops aren’t conveniently close by means I’m trying to assert my masculinity in a negative way.
I’m sure the women who were raped in DC a few years and sued the police department for failing to intervene would have hated someone with a gun intervening when the police failed repeatedly too.
Further, why aren’t all these feminists redefine masculinity and join up in the new military and go into a combat arms MOS? I know, they don’t want to back up all their garbage rhetoric.
Since Ms. Winkler is generalizing, it must be okay, so here goes:
Once upon a time, “Mad Men” could pass for a documentary on American life; then we had a Revolution by Women, and lots of stuff changed.
Women wanted to be able to slough off that 200# of excess flab (us) whenever they felt like it and get half our shit, without that messy issue of conduct as a factor.
They got what they wanted. They demanded professions to equalize, and they got it.
One of the things on the demand list was that us guys stop smoking, chewing, hunting, fishing, shooting our guns, drinking beer, passing gas and laughing, or pretty much anything fun, and get in touch with our inner child.
They were on a roll with equal pay and no-fault divorce, and with media articles like this one they pretty much made it clear that was what they wanted from us. Behavior modification. Carrot and stick. They took the carrots away until we got our minds right, which led to a decade of Metrosexual guys. We wanted carrots.
Then guess what happened, in the Careful What You Wish For Dept.? After a few years of Kinder, Gentler, Sensitive Men, those same women hated it.
They just didn’t like it. We bored them. They discovered that they were squicked out by a guy crying at a wedding. There was something jarring about a guy in his boxers driving a crochet needle. The women really, truly, didn’t like the change, so the carrots went back in the vegetable bin. The sun came out, Men breathed a sigh of relief, went back to their piggish behavior, the carrots returned, and all was good in the Kingdom.
Now, thanks to that petri dish of nutty behavior we call the Liberal Arts College and the recent protests spreading from university to university like the flu, the notion that sexual stereotypes (but wait, only ONE of the two stereotypes…) are the root of, well, the current hot-button emotional issue of the day.
To Ms. Winkler, I say, “WhatEVER. Get a life.”
Women aren’t attracted to the “new masculinity” these people are describing.
It’s not going to work.
That’s all part of the Amazonian plan.
More folks educated beyond their level of intelligence……
Indeed. Which is why I was amused by the claim from this site in a previous post that stated 75% of the readers of TTAG are college educated as if it guarantees anything positive.
College serves many well but it also churns out a lot that are no smarter or less ignorant than when they went in. Clearly quite a few are worse off intellectually when they are done. But hey they have that piece of paper on the wall so I know they are allegedly smarter than me.
I am pretty happy with my self education that let me comfortably retire in my 40s and never had me considering a student loan. It has made it easier for me to continue to try to learn every chance I get as well and all without the leftist bias of the teaching in places of “higher learning” which has been the norm for some time now.
The female role historically and biologically, is to bear and nurture offspring. If as a female you are too ugly, stupid or crazy to be viewed as breeding stock, then you become a feminist.
When a female cant fulfill her end of the natures grand bargain, she is essentially left to compete against males for her survival. Of course in this she will lose every time.
This is why they always want to “lower the bar” on masculinity.
How about you raise the bar on femininity. In other words, shut up and mother up.
If a post-op trans male buys a gun they are now a man again?? I’m terribly confused….
There is a lot of truth to her position, although it’s not the truth she wants to hear.
It is IMO the belief that sociology and social engineering can trump millions of years of biology. This is the cornerstone belief of the social Utopians. If we feminize society (mostly through planned overcrowding) all the nasty male traits like independence of action and “violence” will go away.
Of course, they won’t. They will manifest themselves in bad ways, like they are doing now. Terrorism, spree shootings, rapes, muggings, knock-out game, other predatory behaviors, and also IMO, the obsession in the media with extreme sports that result in death of the participants (e.g. helicopter snow skiing in areas posted with avalanche warnings.)
I think about the recent spree shooters, whether Umpqua, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and the twerp who shot Gabbie Giffords. These guys all seem to fit the description “pus*y-man” to a T.
Now the social engineers just say let’s do more social engineering — take away guns, in England knives, and whatever else. But when you coop up millions of years of biology, it will tend to pop out in unintended and probably bad ways (like the guy said in Jurassic Park — Life has a way).
It will also weaken society when it comes to innovation, military prowess, and economic competitiveness, which are simply the modern manifestations of the male, yes male, biological imperative to hunt, gather, provide for the tribe, and occasionally to fight each other for hunting or grazing space.
Putin gets this, whether the urbane American left gets it or not, and he has been exploiting it against the wimpy Obama. The Muslim extremists get it; it is after all so written in the Quran; and they fully exploited it on 9/11 and in San Bernardino. These characters have a much longer time line and a deeper understanding of history than we do, and will exploit these weaknesses every chance they get.
And part of that exploitation, which Elizabeth Winkler clearly does not comprehend, is that if they could, they would abuse her as they did Lara Logan, in full accordance with their own value systems. (RF, i hope you see that this is not about her appearance — rather about the negative consequences, even to her, of her flawed belief system.)
People who learn this gender studies and femenist garbage are literally dumber for having learned it.
They have literally spent their entire time unlearning the natural world, where men and women are actually different, and learning the new feminist un-facts.
In grad school, I had a “colleague” that was uber-lefty Progressive: a male who argued the feminist position very strongly.
One day, I shook his world up a little bit and told him there was a biologically induced gender role that cannot be ignored. He got a bit upset, and went off about how women can do any job men can do (I conceded “perhaps”) and they can do those jobs just as well (I also conceded “perhaps” to this one).
When “provide and protect” was mentioned, he argued that it was “wrong” for men to presume that they had to protect women, especially if a particular woman does not WANT a man’s protection.
Fair enough, I said, but…”Can men bear children?”
I told him that in an ‘every day’ setting, perhaps women CAN do everything a man can do, and just as well. I’m not arguing that one way or another because it is, actually irrelevant.
What is relevant is that biology has built into women a specific vulnerability: she cannot carry a child for nine months AND provide for herself (the entire time) and protect herself from predators (of any stripe).
The role of man as protector is to serve not only that woman’s survival, but the survival of the species. In order for humankind to continue, women must have babies. The odds of both the woman’s and baby’s survival increase dramatically with a third party protector…usually and most effectively, a man that is DEDICATED to protecting her/them.
Add to the period of actual pregnancy the period of nursing, and a women is pretty vulnerable for at least one year for each child born.
Women have a biological role to bear children, and men have a biological role not only to help that process along directly, but also to “provide and protect” for the mother+child when the female happens to be in a state when she can’t do so for herself.
My point was met with silence, but a “strong glare” was sent my way. I guess that taught me.
You are speaking about genetic behavior which is the strongest behavior an organism displays.
Because, at least at one time, the organism’s very survival hinged on that behavior.
Feminist want to deny and object against men’s role as the natural protector. And, reality they are not denying the woman’s need to be protected (like your pregnancy scenario), but demeaning it; only they wish move the protector role from the males to the state.
Ban testicles! For the children!
Hey Bobby, why don’t you stick with your art collection, your expensive cigars, and your $17,000 Wilson Combat Whatever-the-hell-it-is .45ACP “carry gun”, and leave the normal people the hell alone. Keep deleting comments, you arrogant, motherfucking New England bred asshole.
Can’t imagine what such a calm, stable, and ration-sounding person as yourself could ever say to warrant being deleted.
His website, his rules.
My comments got deleted too, it happens.
Dude. You are making us look bad – which is likely why he deleted your comment.
The message of modern feminism: why raise women up when you can tear men down?
Why empower women to be responsible for themselves and provide for their own safety and security when you can tear away men’s ability to be responsible for themselves? Women are not expected to be more, men are expected to be less. This is the equality feminists want, to change who is under the boot instead of getting rid of the boot altogether.
Because it’s always easier to wreck things than make things. Too bad they don’t realize the energy expended in wrecking things in the long run will cost them more than the initial outlay to build their fellow women up.
And for the life of me, I cannot figure out why the cattiness continues in this enlightened age. Guys will have it out, even scrap with each other, and it’s over. Women are constantly looking for the knives from their own, even if they’ve struck an otherwise decisive (metaphorically-speaking) blow.
That’s the way of ALL Marxist “change.” The Marxist claim is for equality, but it is NEVER by lifting up. It’s always by tearing down to the lowest common denominator.
It does not matter if you are talking about sex equality, financial equality or whatever…they always attack the “top” to bring it down to the “bottom” in the name of “equality.”
Quotes used for top and bottom because it is really more about their perception of top and bottom than any true, rational metric.
Mrs Winkler, my wife scoffs at your oversimplification of a complex issue.
And she would like to offer to take you to the range for some quality ‘girl time.’
How about they let us men define ourselves as we see fit? See, we’re gonna anyway – ’cause that’s just what actual men do.
She’s a candy ass female. I’m embarrassed for her. Bet she does not even carry Mace!
In addition to a concealed handgun, also carry a small can of Mace with me. Polling places and court houses, carry a cane with me. I was not raised to be a girly girl, I was raised to be able to take care of myself and it takes nothing away from being feminine.
Seems like she may have just focused her studies on metro men…the modern man…beta boys.
I bring a gun to a gun fight….period.
And i don’t carry for any other reason than ……i dont want to be a victim.
Protect my family? Hell yes! I will….why would anyone choose not to?
Honestly….i don’t care what someone else decides to do for themselves…..protect yourself or not.
Not my problem.
And anyone that decides to carry is better for me if anything big happens, grandma,young girl, men, even a nerdy kid.
All available good folks pulling the trigger on bad guys if needed is alright by me.
I dont live in utopia….i live in a real world.
Hmmm… my wife carries to protect herself, protect me, and protect our growing-in-her-belly baby… So does that make her a “emasculated man” with “macho issues”?
This tripe is in and of itself sexist.
“Some envision scenarios where they intervene with their guns to save women and children.”
Because men’s lives aren’t worth saving, I guess…
It would seem to me that much/all of today’s actual gun violence has been aided and abetted by the left’s incessant attempts to redefine masculinity. Too many men have abdicated their responsibilities as fathers, and too many young men have grown up without a father figure – the role of whom is, in part, to teach young men to control their emotions, to discipline themselves in denial of gratification, and to respect others (especially, women).
I agree with much of what Ms. Winkler says but she ignores natural human evolution and the reality of history both past and present. We live in a very violent world and it has always been that way and it will not change anytime soon. If you observe the behavior of little boys v/s little girls their behavior is not all learned, some of it is part of the evolution of the violent, vicious, Male “Naked Ape” survival behavior. As Desmond Morris wrote about in his 1960’s classic book on human behavior “The Naked Ape” a true classic on the human evolution of both male and female naked apes and how little different we are from the animal world in general. The most aggressive, the most ruthless, the most cunning, and the most intelligent take advantage of the weak and or defenseless and they acquire the most beautiful women, the most money, the most power and often father the most children all according to Natures diabolical rules of natural selection.
So Ms Winkler ignores reality and longs for the perfect world of kindly, thoughtful, non-violent men with effeminate characteristics which by the way often attract more women than violent males do, at least in modern times. In ancient times the society was more in tune to the natural and evil violence of Mother Nature with women swooning over super star Gladiators as cheering crowds lusted after the blood and gore of the Coliseum. Fights that did not result death, human or animal were a great disappointment to both men and women in the cheering mob of the Coliseum.
Certain times of the year “Coliseum Super Bowls” were put on with the mass killings of thousands of animals and hundreds of human beings. It was the most anticipated show of the year with more people than there were free tickets available. At least their shows were free while ours are pay your way only. One priest was convinced to accompany his fellow priests over his protests that the killings were inhumane and morally wrong. He sat there at first covering his eyes to all the blood, gore and cheering crowds lusting for ever more. Eventually he opened his eyes and became so addicted to the games he never missed one of them, again showing the depravity of the human race in general. Maybe its the animals who are much more civilized than humans as when they kill most of the time its for food or to hone their skills for killing to get food.
So in conclusion you can defend yourself if such a terrible moment ever comes in your life and Ms Winkler’s noble intentions for a peaceful non-violent world are only a fantasy that will never even come close to being realized until something better evolves on the planet than the “Naked Ape”.
By ‘masculinity’ she really means ‘black urban criminal masculinity’.
Gun control is an inherently racist policy.
Also what is up with those eyebrows? Lady, get control of those.
I’m tall, but I’m not a particularly strong guy, so unless it’s against a 12-year-old, I’d for sure get my @ss handed to me in a fist fight. One big fight with a friend in junior high that ended in a draw. That’s my fighting experience. My knees are garbage as well, so I wouldn’t be able to run away, either. At least not very far. So, sorry lady, but I’ll carry a firearm for self defense, thanks. I’d rather gun someone down than run half a block then have to lie down and take an @ss whupping.
Sigh. This is what happens when you let women do things besides cook, clean, and give birth. They get all opinionated and stop serving sandwiches and beer.
I never understood the the obsession with conflating masculinity with firearms. I have life insurance not because I’m planning on a heart attack/stroke/alien invasion happening, but rather to prepare for the worst as best I can. I own firearms for the exact same reason. Like every boy who had a good father I derive my ideas of masculinity from what I observed him doing which was work hard, don’t complain, do whatever you need to for your family, and that every man who likes to eat should be able to cook. It’s pretty damn simple really.
This can’t be real?!? Women don’t have JOBS! So if I carry a bigger firearm…
Ms. Winkler: Other than the man-like qualities I see in your photo, what qualifies you to make this distinction?
Harry Brod: No, Mr. Brod, there is no President to be named Hillary.
So, I’ll admit to not reading any of the original article, because I don’t want to give them the clicks. But I don’t see anywhere in the quoted material any of her ideas about male law enforcement officers or military men.
I’m sure she wants these particular “rough men” (wait – can’t use a gender-specific term, too non-PC) to be skilled with guns so the gender-neutral-yet-penis-possessing citizens have someone to “protect” them. How do we get these magical protectors without accidentally having a penis-bearing citizen with similar protective tendencies wandering dangerously around in public? Should we have special isolated breeding camps? And what about women who find these protective types attractive? Should they be confined to the breeding camps so as to not inflict their warped ideas of what traits are attractive in a penis bearing citizen on the rest of the populace?
Sigh… I don’t carry a gun or shoot at the range because my “maleness” depends on it. AS others have said, a gun is a tool for defending the lives of me and my loved ones. I don’t drive an SUV for “compensation” or to impress anyone with my manliness. I need a vehicle that can transport tools and cargo, and a pick-up is more than I need. I don’t own a 12 inch miter saw to compensate, I need it to cut 45 degree angles on 8 inch lumber!
To people like her, everything I do which she does not understand (due to ignorance or an unwillingness to investigate) is an affront to her lifestyle, purposeless, and somehow a deep rooted character defect in me. She translates her defects & ignorance as problems with men. The problem is her.
To be truthful, carrying a weapon is a pain in the ass or the more accurately a pain in the side. But when society in general is falling down around your ears, carrying protection is a no-brainer. The only idiots letting their masculinity get in the way are the gang-bangers, muggers and jihadis.
So excuse me if I am having a hard time understanding why this is a problem in my pants.
Let’s go Devil’s Advocate and pretend gunpowder was never invented/discovered. Would we be having this same discussion about rocks on long poles or bow and arrows?
No substitute for Penis Envy…
So, the last 4 handguns I sold this week were to women this week who wanted to protect their children. Doe this mean they want to be more masculine?
I’m thinking this person spends a lot of her time teaching her little girlfriends about “masculinity”, if you get my drift. Otherwise, what would she know about it?
What gun problem? This country doesn’t have one.
I think they mean “the problem we enlightened thinkers have with people having guns”. But then, they’ll never use that headline because it throws into relief how arrogant and shallow this crap is.
Masculinity as I see it is how men typically want to provide and protect our family. Masculinity has nothing to do with owning or not owning a gun. The gun is simply a tool for these things but will never use it to define masculinity. Some U.S. It to provide for their families ( I.e. Hunting) others use it for protection (i.e. Carrying their gun) and many people use it for both of those things. Saying that owning a gun defines your masculinity is as idiotic as saying that if you only shoot larger caliber guns than that means you have a small penis. It’s just not logical to think that way.
Damn auto correct meant to say “use” not “U.S.”
Simple solutions don’t require highly educated opinions. The lefts fear of guns is partially due to the simplicity of purpose and the American public regaining self-reliance.
If we want to go all psychological, liberals project their fears onto guns precisely b/c it manifests the shrinking audience depending on the Left/progressive ideas.
But really, I just can’t stand other women telling me I’m too manly. Only one woman’s opinion matters to me, and I married her 10 years ago.
I just came here to say that, given the “over-educated” component of these over-educated fools, you would think that they would know that “gender” is a grammatical term, not a biological one. It has to do with words, not living beings. Just another reason to afford zero credibility to hopelessly liberal goo-goos, which is the choir that people like Ms. Winkler are preaching to.
No I need to BOTH provide AND protect. Period.
OK, how many of the FLAME DELETEDs were the result of readers noticing that Adam and Elizabeth Winkler share the same surname?
I basically alleged that they were the same person.
Apparently not allowed here.
There are two problems with her assessment.
The first problem is that, they completely ignore the fact that women make up the largest growing segment of Firearms owners in the country! The numbers of women obtaining firearms, and seeking professional training, has more than tripled since the turn of the century. More and more women are shopping for Firearms and Firearms accessories. So how this plays into male masculinity is beyond my comprehension, and apparently their comprehension also.
The second problem is, she is probably just like most socialites who have never actually seen a real firearm in person. 100% of her Firearms knowledge comes from televisions and movies, where admittedly the characters in these movies support her claims in most cases. However, there are not many true Firearms owners that believe they magically turn into Liam Neilson or John Rambo when they pick up a gun! I’m not saying that people like that don’t exist, and therefore tarnish the image of all good and decent firearm owners, but they are a major minority in our community. The more than 300 million firearms spread out through our country killed nobody today, yesterday, or tomorrow. 99.999 percent of Firearms owners are legal owners. They use Firearms as a tool, not a symbol. The remaining .0001 percent are either illegal gun owners, gang bangers and murderers or terrorist, or the knuckleheads who learned everything from TV and never bothered to learn any real firearms safety or training. It’s a crying shame the media gives that little tiny percentage, 100% of their attention!
A gun does make me feel more like a man. More of a responsible adult (male), who takes the physical safety of myself and my loved ones seriously.
Jewish fathers today sure are failing to teach their daughters what is important in life.
I’m sure she will marry a nice stock broker.
Does she know more women carry now than ever before and im pretty sure they dont want in anyway to be masculine
I just saw a BS piece about the Will Smith concussion movie. Apparently large men who bash each other in the head get hurt… This and the “war” on masculinity,micro-agressions,”safe-spaces”,anti-bully crap, sanctions from pop-tart “guns” and just the general idea that testosterone is icky are part and parcel of the left CONTROL agenda. Oh yeah this gal and the weenie white boy from Colorado need to double date…
Yeah… we need more of “Pajama Boy.” 😉 The new definition of “masculinity” in pussified America.
All I have to say to this 3rd wave BS is, “citation needed”. Idiocy like this is why I did not continue in Psychology past my BS. I had to deal with too many people who lacked reason and logic, yet were supposedly performing scientific research. The only stuff that I really enjoyed was the new fMRI research that was happening. It was observable, repeatable, and less likely to be corrupted by ideology.
Protecting those you love isn’t a masculine thing at all. It’s a human thing. Throughout history, men and women have picked up arms to do just that when they really needed to. Now yes, the traditional social dynamics in human society usually have the men doing the task, but there’s been countless instances of women throughout history who have successfully defended themselves and their loved ones from aggression, with force of arms.
Do more men than women have guns in this country? Of course. Duh. Until recently it was the man of the household who was out earning the most money, and having the most control of the finances. So, he bought the guns. Women have only really been buying guns in noticeable quantities over the past two decades or so, so they have to catch up. Hence they are the fastest-growing demographic in the firearms-buying population. Seemingly all the major manufacturers (except for H&K because we suck and they hate us) are rolling out ad campaigns targeted towards women.
As usual, the MSM and their cloud of satellite bloggers is living in a bubble.
This broad reminds me of a quote from DC Cab, of all things: “Why are women so uptight? They have half the cash and all the pussey”.
Any comments about Ms. Winkler’s appearance – positive or negative – will be deleted.
I can see why.
It always amuses me how these “experts” always attribute the desire for the possession of weapons as being due to “society changing” and how basically a bunch of scared (white) men are purchasing them because they feel “threatened” by this change. It’s the same thinking as Obama with the bitter Americans who cling to their guns and religion. Particularly amusing is the type of change that the men are threatened by, i.e. the rise of women for example. Men buy guns because they are frightened little boys who can’t stand that the patriarchy is collapsing with women on the rise…REALLY!?
Men buy guns because of their desire to protect themselves and their families and because guns are fun. Plain and simple. With regards to the fun aspect (and practicality as well), Winkler might as well be claiming that the desire for pickup trucks, SUVs, and sports cars is also tied to the collapse of the patriarchy.
BTW, has anyone clicked the article? The picture at the top, talk about a total violation of gun safety!
“NOTE: Any comments about Ms. Winkler’s appearance – positive or negative – will be deleted.”
Then why put her photo there, front and center, hmm?
They have certainly redefined qualified research and journalism.
Funny, my wife doesn’t have guns to define her masculinity.
You can redefine masculinity all you want lady, but doing so won’t change human nature or the inherent difference between men and women. Real men are providers and protectors, that is our role in life, that’s bred into us. I’m ok with that role, as is my wife and every other woman I know. If you feel the need to redefine anything, please feel free to go ‘redefine’ yourself.
Sheep will always hate the sheep dog.
Liberal progressives always try to find a hidden reason, beyond the obvious, to explain why people disagree with them. They cannot accept that anyone rational would disagree with their agenda. Ms. Winkler posits that rising gun purchases are explained by a lack of male education and male jobs. Putting aside the obviously offensive stereotyping (I think some of us gun-owning males may be educated, and have jobs), if Ms. Winkler were correct, then one would expect rising gun ownership in other rough economic times, e.g., the Great Depression, the 1970s, etc. She presents no evidence of such a trend. The obvious fact is that Americans (male and female, presumably rich and poor) are buying guns because (1) we live in troubled times replete with terrorism, mass shootings, violent protests, police excesses, violent storms, etc. and (2) for a variety of reasons and to varying degrees, rational folks don’t trust the government. (Which begs the question, what rational student of American history, let alone global history, would trust any government?) Americans, by and large, are a rational and pragmatic people. In unsafe times, when there appears to be no guarantee that the ability to purchase a firearm will remain uninfringed, what rational personal would not buy a firearm?
I only carry so when I get stopped and frisked they’ll have a way to say, “Is that a pistol in your pocket?”. The problems of a very very tiny penis. Especially small.
The author of this article doesn’t know jack. I am a female gun owner. I choose to do so to not be a victim again.
This is more of the same disease where we take the exception and put it in place of the rule instead of just acknowledging that there are exceptions to the rule.
Masculinity is fine. It can be abused just like anything else. That doesn’t mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I couldn’t sit through the article. Your post was good, Robert, but some people named Elizabeth Winker just can’t fecken talk sense. The hilarious thing is that Feminists hate and despise feminized men and men who try to adopt something like that “new masculinity” they advocate. Welcome to Feminism, where a woman will wear hardly anything to express her sexuality, complain about harassment when flirted with, say she wants men to redefine masculinity and not be so rough and patriarchal and not degrade women by doing things like watching porn, only for her to then go home to a tattooed bodybuilder who wears biker leathers and has rough, choking, rape fantasy sex with him wherein he calls her a whore, slaps her, and slams her against a wall. Feminism!