In response to "Between Feminism and Gun Control, Women are Screwed."

A friend of mine stumbled across a blog post titled, "Between Feminism and Gun Control, Women are Screwed." The post is written by Jude Eden. You can find it here. I encourage you to read it before continuing with my own thoughts on the matter, as this post is in direct response to Eden's rant. I have directly responded to Eden; however, it is to be determined whether or not she will approve my public comment.

First and foremost, I would like to state that my problem with her post has nothing whatsoever to do with her position on gun control. From my understanding, the only thing she is publicly admitting on that particular issue is that she supports the right to own a gun; which is something we can agree on.

My problem with her rant centers around her claim that feminism is to blame for misogynistic violence. To blame feminism for men's aggression is scapegoating the issue and making an excuse for violence that should not be tolerated. Not only is this argument an excuse; it functions as a perpetrator. To argue that male violence is the result of women asserting equality is a formulation that perpetuates the same kind of violence Eden seems to be trying to set herself up against. 

To put this more simply: Eden argues that because women claim to be equal to men and because women claim to need not be protected by men, men are now reacting violently towards them and it is their own fault. In Eden's perspective, the only way to combat this difficult situation, is to either relinquish equality or buy a gun. Not only is this a false dilemma, it also puts the blame and responsibility on the victim rather than on the person committing the crime or the society that conditions such violence. This argument also assumes that men are by nature violent. It assumes that when given access to beings of equal status, men will act aggressively. This argument assumes that an ideology that places "women as the weaker sex" actually functions to protect women from such violence. It states: Now that women are viewed as equal they are fair game to these gruesome creatures. This argument ignores the blatant fact that women have been violated by men long before the word "feminism" was ever coined; it ignores same sex violence; it establishes men as natural predators; and it encourages faulty correlation between protection and submission. 

Given this, my questions for her are as follows: 

1.       1. What exactly is “the worst behavior of promiscuous men” that feminism has encouraged women to embody?  And, what are the “physical and emotional consequences” that have resulted from such behavior? How does this bit of information apply to your argument? Why do you bring it up? Here it seems to me that you are making a value-judgement on the sexual practices of particular individuals.  This in correlation with your argument about violence could be taken as quite suggestive. 

2.       2. When you define Chivalry as “a standard that held women up in order to protect them,” you are making two claims. If it was in fact “a standard that held women up” what about that statement leads you to believe it was necessarily done “in order to protect them”? And, how did it accomplish that? In what ways? What exactly do women need to be protected From? 

3.      3.  Your claim that men have been “emasculated,” which means “to deprive of strength or vigor; weaken” contradicts your further claim that men are in fact “by nature” stronger than women. Which is it? What definition of masculinity do you uphold? If men can be "emasculated", surely, that claim alone shows how masculinity itself is a socially constructed ideology-- one full of value judgement; one that can shift. What does it mean to be masculine? Are violence and aggression necessary aspects of masculinity? 

4.      4. You claim that contemporary film that depicts female characters as “fighting machines (with guns), often rescuing their male counterparts” is mere “fiction.” I wonder if you believe that film that depicts “chivalrous men protecting vulnerable women” is in fact a reflection of reality or women’s lived experience? 

5.       5.Your argument that “If women could do the same things men can, there wouldn't be separate standards for them” is not exactly bullet proof. Historically, separate standards for different people have never been based on ability (by nature); separate but equal standards are more often than not a reflection of cultural belief, not physical or natural ability. Separate standards for women in education were often based on the assumption that women by nature were less rational than their male counterpart; something, we now understand to be a cultural phenomenon, not a biological fact. So often in our culture “biology and science” have been cited for legalized discrimination. So, if feminists or minorities “ignore scientific reality” or are hesitant to jump on the biological/scientific bandwagon; you might be mindful of their hesitation.

6.       6.You claim that “Guns are the real equalizer between the sexes” and that women need to arm themselves for protection; however, you then cite an example of a female cop (with a gun) being overpowered by a criminal (without a gun). In this example, the gun did nothing to equalize the situation. In this particular case, a gun did not solve the problem; in fact, it made it worse, as you pointed out, because three other cops were shot. This may have not been the best example to cite in order to prove your argument.

7.     7.  One thing feminism does do that you have not done is make a distinction between sex and gender. When you speak about “women being the weaker sex,” what is a woman? Who are you talking about? Are you talking about chromosomal sex? XX vs. XY? Or are you actually trying to universalize the term “Woman”?

8.       8. Feminism works to highlight the gender inequalities built into the system. It works to combat violence against women. It does not perpetuate violence against women as your argument seems to suggest. A contemporary feminist analysis of this situation would work to highlight and combat the deeper social structures that produce violence towards women in the first place. Insisting that women should work harder to protect themselves and prevent against this violence (get a gun) is similar to arguments used in misogynistic discussions of rape. To suggest that women should “dress properly,” “act properly,” “don’t go out late at night alone,” “stay in well lit areas”… all put the responsibility of rape prevention on the victims. What about the responsibility of the perpetrators? Society? Drawing attention to what victims should be doing about a situation takes away from the conversation we should be having—what should we all be doing about violence against women in the first place? What in our culture is stimulating this? Why should women have to protect themselves from men at all? These are the questions/discussions we should be having. 

9.      9. No one is taking away guns. No one is trying to take away guns. The gun laws that are being proposed are regulating guns—not preventing the ownership of guns. These laws are to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from gaining access to guns. Women are not being banned from owning guns. Your argument seems to suggest that this may be the case. I’m curious as to where you got this information? 

These are things I think all of us should be thinking about. The country is up in arms about the right to bear arms; everyone has someone to blame. We should be careful where we point the finger. We should be mindful of what we are perpetuating; even if we have the best of intentions.