salon.com‘s got their proverbial knickers in a twist (yes, I said it) about Iowa congressman Steve King’s “appalling” back-in-the-day sexist remark. “Back when King was in the Iowa state Senate, where he served from 1996 to 2002, he attempted to shut down a fellow female member of the Judiciary Committee during a debate over closing the gun show loophole, whereby gun sellers don’t have to conduct background checks for purchases at gun shows. King told state Sen. Johnie Hammond, ‘You women don’t understand — guns are for men what jewelry is for women.'” King recently reaffirmed the statement. Which is . . . true? I guess. Women wear concealed jewelry, right? Depending on the state, some men wear their gun in plain view. Of course, women don’t use their jewelry to stop a lethal threat. And men don’t wear derringers around their neck. Oh wait. Some do. Women too. And both wear gun-themed jewelry. Damn. I’m confused. Was King’s remark sexist?
I’ve said the same thing to my fiance many many times. I maintain my stance that (basically) any firearm has more value than yet another shiny rock.
Ban open wearing of jewelry! What, you think you are going to a party or something? Bet you’d like that, probably just itching to hit the clubs. Why does anyone need to just shove it in everyone else’s face like that? I have the right to feel ok not wearing jewelry.
Only to PC liberal feminist.
“Only to a progressive feminist.”
Fixed.
But yeah – seriously, only hyper sensitive people looking to be offended by things would be offended.
The comment is a little ol’ timey and silly, but not sexist.
King has a set of balls on him.
He speaks the truth that the progressive/socialist/Marxist crowd can’t stand to hear.
The lefties don’t know what to do with him. We know he is a real man, because he could care less what they think. He is true to his convictions and his constituents.
He’s a man after my own heart.
Nope, Good ole Steve speaks his mind. Everyday. And I’m proud to have him as my Congressman.
He has certainly shot off his mouth worse than this.
I wish. Libtard suc trial lawyer Bruce Braley (not going to be Senator) has been squatting in the 1st Dist seat here in NE Iowa.
Steve King is a Great American.
Amen. I sleep better at night knowing we have people like him on the job.
All remarks made by men are sexist. Especially white men! It just comes with being the perpetual aggressor of professional victims.
Yep.
For the professionally offended, everything about white males is offensive, including their mere existence.
Of course, the professionally offended seem to delight in using the inventions of said pale males to make their job of being offended easier… starting with things like printing presses, radio, television, computers, the Internet, etc.
If the professionally offended wanted to actually prove how much they hate white men, then they should forego buying or using anything that a white man has invented.
Don’t know how well that would work. They may try to get off on a technicality by holding up an iPhone and saying, “See? It says ‘Made in China’!” And of course any shiny toys made in Japan and Korea. Then again, you could use that to invert the entire argument by saying, “So people who aren’t white are just as capable at making technical marvels as white people?” Either they agree and then tell them that since everybody is equal they get no special privileges. Or they disagree and you get to call them a racist. It’s liking asking a man if he still beats his wife.
Sure, I’ll let them use their iPhones.
Just as soon as they invent an iPhone that works without transistors or integrated circuits.
Especially when the remark begins “You women … ” The statement is totally sexist regardless of it’s truth.
Something about mountains and molehills comes to mind.
Personally I don’t think guy’s guns compare to women’s jewelry. Flashy cars maybe. Just my opinion.
It is exactly the same I believe because both tend to be highly customized and sometimes flashy. On the other hand if I buy a women a piece of jewelry that costs as much as my EDC 1911 and BUG 45. She is probably staying with me until death do us part just like my .45s. Nothing is wrong with a woman investing money in jewelry like how men do in firearms then happy trails.
That remark isn’t a particularly strong example of sexism, let alone the “appalling” sexism asserted by the Salon headline writer.
But no matter — the point of the article is to make Salon’s readers feel morally superior and feed their need to express indignant outrage.
Cue the Salon comments section: penis-extension insults leveled at gun owners (not sexist, of course; these are white men we’re hating on) in 3…..2…..1…..
I have always said, and it has long since been proven beyond doubt of course, that self-anointed “Progressive” liberals are the least tolerant, the least accepting, the least restrained, the least refined, the least disciplined, the least articulate, the least stable, the least consistent, the least intelligent, the least intellectual, the least experienced, the least educated, the least knowledgeable, the least capable, and most certainly the least wise of all.
…making them exceptionally bad risks for responsibility, such as careers in politics or gun ownership.
Men collect guns like women collect jewelry?
I mean, yeah, the remark is kinda sexist but it’s not a bad analogy to explain to someone who doesn’t understand why people like guns.
Agreed… By definition, it’s sexist. It was also a pretty solid analogy.
That said, you won’t see a lot of guys wetting their pants and whimpering because they were stereotyped.
Where is the discrimination or prejudice? Using your definition it is equally as sexist against men as it would be to women…because its an analogous statement.
Exactly. It’s PC speak that gives perfectly useful concepts a negative connotation, like racial profiling. Or is Sesame Street racist?
“One of these things is not like the others…”
You know what’s worse than feigned indignance over something a silly as an observation? Actual indignance…
Since You clearly are unfamiliar with the term, I’ll provide you with the primary definition compliments of dictionary.com:
sexism: attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
No discrimination or prejudice necessary, just an observation of stereotype. And yes, smart guy, his statement cut both ways. But had you actually read what I’d posited rather than getting your OFWG panties in a bunch you’d have realized I pointed out that the Congressman’s statement cut both ways.
Thanks for playing.
Get out of here with your facts and logic! This is no place for that!
The only people who believe there is no difference betw men & women (and by extension, the types of things they value & enjoy like jewels for women and guns for men) are Leftist/Progressive Feminists and their beta male white knights.
Everyone else sees that its just a common sense reality that (as a generalization) men & women like and enjoy different things. And have no problem with that.
Thank you, Mina.
My wife is of the “gentler sex,” she isn’t as quick to violence but is just as capable of it as I am (and woe betide the poor f*cker that gives her reason to draw, my guess is she’d be more comfortable with ending a life than I would be.) That said, she’s “meaner” than I am. Her preferred method of conflict resolution is to make the opposition as emotionally uncomfortable as she is able in order to achieve her end goal. Her approach is less direct, less physical, and ultimately more difficult for me as a male to wrap my head around and counter. I would say this is not terribly uncommon with women and is NOT a bad thing, it plays to women’s strengths.
By definition the opinion you expressed and the statement I made are sexist, something the perpetual victims claim is discriminatory. Reasonable people realize that sexism can simply be an observation of differences between sexes. Sexism CAN be discriminatory, but it isn’t by definition. Mr. King’s statement re: guns/jewelery is an observation of the different methods/objects of preferred stimuli between sexes. It isn’t positive, negative, or absolute (my wife, mother, and mother-in-law, for example, would likely all prefer a new firearm to a new bangle. *shrug*)
He was just putting things into persepctive.
I’m not exactly sure how an analogy can be interpreted as being discriminatory or prejudiced towards women?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism
Some folks just wake up with a mission to be offended and outraged today. They need to calm down, or they’re gonna stroke out over something irrelevant, or succumb to road rage.
Can’t we all put our differences aside and say together,
“We’re NOT gonna protest!”
*everybody starts chanting “we’re not gonna protest” with raised fists
“Gutter is a tool!”
W00T! PCU! I loved that movie! Unfortunately, it applies too well here.
It seems this is a statement from someone who has no guns, and knows little about them, and has been rarely been exposed to them. I have observed that people in that situation give the firearm a mythical quality- Treating them as objects of power instead of tools. Basically a “Hammer of Thor” that grants you abilities. Same thing happens to people only exposed to them in movies and video games. To them, it’s the item, not the user, that has the power. We are occasionally guilty of that also, when we use “Guns save lives” instead of “Armed People save lives.” It’s pretty common.
King just perpetrated the stereotype that women like jewelry! Unforgivable! Yeah, it’s completely sexist, all right. That’s why guns have always been marketed heavily (and successfully) towards men/boys, and jewelry heavily (and successfully) towards women/girls. It’s a conspiracy, alright.
I dunno.
The company I work for makes jewelry that is heavily marketed towards men.
Seems no more sexist and offensive than our VP’s “little lady you can’t handle an AR-15, just get a shotgun and fire a couple of blasts off the balcony….” statement. Only difference is one is a minor gaffe, the other is to be career ending and indicating that anyone that ever voted for the guy is to be derided for the rest of his life as misogynist….
Why do you suppose one gets different treatment from the other?
King’s constituents are Iowa Farmers in rural western Iowa. You know, the guys who actually did build everything they have, the hard way, the right way. He’s one of them, he has their backs and they know it.
Even after redistricting in 2012, he held on to his seat with a comfortable margin. The wife of the former Iowa Governor (now US Ag Secretary Vilsack) challenged him in the newly drawn district in the 2012 election. It didn’t go well for her.
Even though Iowa generally winds up painted blue on the electoral maps on election day, the great majority of the progressive/socialist/marxists are in the larger cities, not King’s district.
You want sexist, I’ll give you double sexist — all Salon writers are pussies. Except for the women.
I’m glad I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read that….
Shrieking harridans, mumbling cat ladies and castrati would be a more accurate assessment.
Any statement that makes any claim (however slight) that there is any sort of distinction between men and women is considered sexist these days. Nobody gives a sh*t about the truth anymore. After all, something can’t possibly be true if it hurts someone’s feelings, right?
It’s just an analogy, and an accurate one, but here’s how he needs to improve it. Leave out this part: “you women don’t understand”, because I’m a woman, and I do understand–I like guns AND jewelry. The rest of his statement is fine, that guns to men (and some women) are like jewelry (shoes, handbags, whatever) to women.
Sexist? No. Stereotyped? Sure.
My wife doesn’t meet the normal stereotype of a woman–she doesn’t care much for: jewelry, flowers, shoes, shopping in general, chocolate. Valentine’s/birthday/anniversary/Christmas is a bear for *me* (shopping for her). Sadly, she’s also not interested in firearms, either. 🙁
I’ll be proudly casting another vote to keep Steve King in the House of Representatives for another 2 years here in about a month.
I’ll second that Gov!!
Not that he’s in any danger of losing the seat in the first place. You gotta love a place like NW Iowa.
I’d love to vote for him, but I am in District 3.
I was in Latham’s district before the last redistricting. He’s OK, but King is awesome.
It’s not a particularly compelling point, regardless of whether it’s sexist or even true.
Of course it’s sexist. Saying that certain objects are for one sex or the other is undeniably sexist. And it further alienates half the population. Why would you even want to keep women from having an interest in guns? This helps nobody but the antis.
My wife likes Coach and Versace, I like S&W and Springfield Amory. I see nothing wrong with that.
Yep, we’ll just dredge up decade plus off the cuff comments
because we need to show how out of touch and dangerous
the POTG and consevatives in general are. This has
absolutely nothing to do with sinking poll numbers a month
before Nov. and we need to hurt the opposition in any way
possible. Seriously. No connection at all.
Yes, liken guns to mere decorations. That will help people understand why the right to have them and carry them is so important, and sometimes life-saving.
Smooth move, Steve.
its posts like this and the comments that follow, that really illustrate how ignorant a great deal of this blogs readers are. of course its a sexist comment, just as sexist as liberals throwing the “guns compensate for something” remark around. grow up, wise up, and everyone can take gun owners a little more seriously.
Never did understand why people get so wound up about this sort of thing. I don’t care the least what someone else thinks of my preferences or my sex. And that goes double for politicians of any stripe.
My only “jewelry” is a stainless steel .357 magnum, worn openly with great pride for many years. That’s become my “Sunday go to meeting” gun because my every day carry is now an XD 9mm. Not so pretty, but more practical. My boys gave me a nice 9mm Carbine for Mother’s day and I get a real kick out of it. I’m a certified firearms and self defense instructor, and handle guns every day. Love it… though that isn’t my whole life by any means.
Not your typical woman, of course, but who the hell cares?
Jewelry, by and large, is useless. I compare guns to shoes. They can be purely functional. They can be a fashion statement. They can be sexy.
…and the owners lie to their significant others when asked how much they spent on them.
Well … Let me say, first, that as a woman I would never ‘protest’ publicly, whine, moan or anything. I would just shake my head. But as a gun lover it worries me if he has the same relationship to guns a woman might have to jewelry. A gun is not something to be carried lightly. I do understand the gawking at gun shows, if it’s just the gun shows, but if he buys something, I sure hope he has a different sense of responsibility than what a woman might feel after buying a piece of bling.