Found this older (mid-1990s) study linking gun control and other left-lib hobby horses to antipathy for masculinity and traditional male gender roles. A snippet:
The relationship between the sexes has been changing since the development of oral contraceptives in the early 1960s. The biological division of labor has become less important, social roles have become more fluid. Increasing urbanization, the decline of primary industries and the rise of service industries, have devalued the male roles of hunter, provider, protector and replaced them with more equalitarian expectations. In a sense, women constitute a status group on the rise, who would like, finally, to see their concerns recognized in law and society.
Gusfield wrote:
“Since governmental actions symbolize the position of groups in the status structure, seemingly ceremonial or ritual acts of government are often of great importance to many social groups. Issues which seem foolish or impractical items are often important for what they symbolize about the style or culture which is being recognized or derogated… Since drinking had been largely a male activity, the concern of the woman for Temperance was itself an act of controlling the relation between the sexes.”
Guns are largely a male activity. Is concern for “gun control” an act of controlling the relation between the sexes? Violence against women has become an increasing concern in Canadian society. Guns symbolize violence, so gun control is, for many, a response to these concerns. In the 1993 survey a lack of experience with guns, a desire to restrict pornography, and a favorable attitude toward homosexuals were associated with pro gun control attitudes. Additional questions asked in 1994 showed that other factors were also important, and the original relationships were specified. Lack of experience with guns and being pro-homosexual turned out to be only important for men. So few women in the sample have any personal experience with guns that it is not a major determinant of their attitudes overall (this was also true in 1993). Once women could express directly their desire for men to be more sensitive, less “macho,” it became clear that being “pro homosexual” had simply been a proxy variable for women expressing this desire.
Both men and women think gun control will greatly reduce violence against women, but for very different reasons. Women see it as part of a set of desired roles for men in their relationship with women: men should protect women, but not be “macho” about it. Men think it because they overestimate the role of handguns in murder, want to be sensitive to womens’ concerns by prohibiting sexually explicit depictions of nude people, and come from urban homes that do not contain guns.
Both men and women who would not defend themselves with a gun are in favor of gun control, but for somewhat different reasons. They both reject the death penalty for first degree murder, but for men this part of a set of “politically correct” responses which includes giving women a combat role in the army and opposition to talks on politically incorrect topics. These men may also reject self defense with a gun because there are no guns in their homes, and they may not have any idea of how to use a gun. For women rejection of the death penalty is more of a pro-life choice: they are opposed to easy abortions, think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children, and are non-drinking vegetarians. Perhaps they would not defend themselves with a gun because of a fear of killing the aggressor. Women who want to restrict the sale of sexually explicit materials are pro gun control. This is associated with a desire to prohibit all sexually explicit depictions of nude people, and a desire for men to be more sensitive, less “macho.”
Overall, the men who favor gun control are those who reject traditional male roles and behavior. They are opposed to hunting, are pro homosexual, do not have any experience with or knowledge of guns and tend to have “politically correct” attitudes. Overall, the women who support gun control do so in the context of controlling male violence and sexuality. While this study has not explained all of the motivations for gun control (there is considerable unexplained variance in the regression equations) it does support the contention that gun control is, symbolically, male control.[emphasis mine]
Fascinating. Up until now, I had thought of the Second Amendment civil-rights fight as a part of the enduring struggle for liberty against the powers of tyranny. This article presents a different perspective: that gun control is merely another facet of social control of more masculine men by women, white knights, and effete men. Thus, on top of other types of social controls of men, for example, chalimony, sexual harassment law, rape law, and a men-to-women transfer payments regime, we can see that gun control is but one more way for yin to tame yang, for Eve to dominate Adam, for her own personal benefit.
About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at the blog The Elusive Wapiti.
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
This, and on the other hand there are those who seek to “empower” women by giving women (only women, not men) guns over the pond in asia, via easier licensing of guns to women to kill rapists. Of course, this is all too simplistic especially with the push to make laws for marital rape . So that women can simply pull the trigger on any man, and claim he attempted to rape her, or that she “feared” he intended to rape her. Any women with a grudge against a man , especially known men in domestic settings, since now we all just know that most rapists are men who know the victim, makes it all the more easier and believable that what is actually cold blooded murder be seen as self-defence.
Witchhunts never went away, they just acquired different names. Same game, different name.
Given the staggering proportion of male to female inmates, it seems that more than just gun control might be a form of male control.
Females are almost never charged, never mind convicted, for any of the crimes they routinely commit in their family court wars: kidnapping, theft, perjury, fraud, false accusations, etc., are simply ignored.
Another example: traditional male habits, such as smoking and drinking, are taxed into oblivion, while female habits (cosmetics anyone?) are not.
Historically; tyranny and feminization of society go hand in hand.
I think we all should chip in and make T-shirts that say “Where were you when masculinity was murdered?”
Watch the documentary “A Soviet Story” and you will see what happens when citizens can’t fight back. Should be on Youtube. These libs are just useful idiots to the elite power structure.
I have observed and proposed this exact sentiment on my blog twice.
http://ar10308.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/women-disarming-america/
http://ar10308.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/women-disarming-america-2-0/
The political support for gun control overwhelming comes from stupid, emotional women who have no reconciliation with reality. I’m willing to bet more a single moms or are married to weak, pathetic men.
@BC Dad Good point! I’m now going to start calling for taxes on cosmetics and perfumes, as appropriate. It’s time for women to start paying their fair share.
I agree that gun control is man control and that there is no constitutional form of gun control given the twenty-seven words that form the second amendment, despite not owning arms myself.
If libtards want to abridge or deny the right to bear arms, they should try getting two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states to approve an amendment repealing the second amendment. This would be their third failed overreaching amendment after the ERA and the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment.
The ERA failed because feminists did not want to give back any of their privileges, such as exemption from selective service registration.
Unfortunately for the fifteen states that did not ratify the ERA, feminists have not had to give back every single right, privilege and privilege that has morphed into a special right for women except for the right to vote. Having to give back all the ill-gotten gains since at least 03/22/1972 is only fair, because they lost their own amendment.
Had feminists proposed an amendment that only prevented one right from being abridged or denied on account of sex, that amendment might be in the constitution.
The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment failed because it would have given DC four new rights: voting representatives (at another state’s expense), voting senators, a vote should no candidate win a majority in the Electoral College, and the opportunity to ratify future constitutional amendments.
Had the proposed amendment only given Washington, D. C. one new right, that amendment might also be in the constitution.
As for the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, the losers in this amendment have been far more gracious in defeat than feminists have been in the defeat of theirs. If Washington, D. C. residents were not gracious in defeat, they would have turned the entirety of the nation’s capital into something little better than a Third World war zone.
To sum up this post, if libtards go for the whole enchilada in gun control, they should fail to get the second amendment repealed but will probably not be gracious in defeat, just like feminists.
Aren’t those two descriptions of the same thing? What is the source of “tyranny”?
This is the best post I have seen in the manosphere in a very long time. It goes back to dealing with the core issues, instead of continuing the gossip-fest that most manosphere blogs seem to devolve into – “Oh, did you hear what so-and-so said/did?”
There is a shadow player in this dramatic duet between Eve and Adam – the manginae and White Knights. Eve’s ability to manipulate other men into forcing Adam to give her her way is the key factor in this drama – “Adam won’t do or give me what I want… beat him up for me.” Women must rely on other men to disarm their Adams or keep them from enjoying any pursuits other than serving women and the futile quest to curry their favor. The most extreme examples of this I currently see are a sock puppet who hangs out on The Thinking Housewife, with the initial JP, and the current VP of the US.
So, thus 2 more characters enter the drama – Abel (the “able” man), and Cain, the jealous man.
Tyranny arises from the desire for absolute control, which comes from a sense of helplessness. Competence and helplessness are direct opposites, and there is a huge difference between control and mastery.
The jealous incompetent must either enslave the Able man, or kill him.
The first gun-control laws in the colonies which eventually became the United States were prohibitions against slaves possessing guns. It is far easier to kill an unarmed man, so if he values his life he might submit to slavery.
Unfortunately, I think the mob of the incompetent has reached critical political mass, and the disarmament of the few remaining free and competent men is just a few years in the future.
Killer comment by gunslinger j
Police couldn’t stop the riots in the wake of the Rodney King trial verdict in Los Angeles. I know. I was there. I was at home in the Los Angeles area when those riots broke out just a few miles away. And I was armed. Like everyone within a radius of fifty miles of those riots, I was concerned when I realized that the Los Angeles police Department could not, or would not, control the carnage and vandalism.
The fear ran so quickly and so deeply throughout the Los Angeles basin that even my liberal friends were frightened. My phone rang day and night. As TV news choppers hacked through smoke-darkened skies over L.A., I got a phone calls from firmly anti-gun friend in clear conflict.
“Umm Chuck, you have quite a few… ah guns, don’t you?”
“Yes, I do.”
“Shotguns and… like that?”
“Indeed.”
“Could you lend me one for a day or so? I tried to buy one but they have this 15 waiting day period…” (p.73)
””””””””
http://www.vdare.com/articles/schwarzenegger-vs-heston-gun-control-as-an-attack-on-america-s-founding-ethnicity
by charleton heston
dam
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/women-are-more-emotional-than-men-because-of-biology/#comment-415711
Except that plenty of women are gun owners, and that many of them own a gun (or two) for self-defense reasons (not referring to the women raised around guns).
Gun control is people control; not just men.
“Up until now, I had thought of the Second Amendment civil-rights fight as a part of the enduring struggle for liberty against the powers of tyranny.” How is this not masculine? The government is elevating women because they know the women won’t do this.
Giving women easier access to guns than men is really scary shit though. Like the government wants to create a caste of above-the law vigilantes to keep the men downtrodden and terrified to spine up.
zed
There is a shadow player in this dramatic duet between Eve and Adam – the manginae and White Knights. Eve’s ability to manipulate other men into forcing Adam to give her her way is the key factor in this drama – “Adam won’t do or give me what I want… beat him up for me.” Women must rely on other men to disarm their Adams or keep them from enjoying any pursuits other than serving women and the futile quest to curry their favor.
A variation of this is the age-old desire of women, “Let’s You And Him Fight”. Except that, of course, in the old says the woman would wind up submitting to the winner. In the modern variation, her Adam is put into a lose-lose situation by VAWA: he can fight the cops, and sooner or later he’ll lose, or he can submit to the cops, thereby cementing his beta-status in the household – he becomes more of a pet, than a partner.
For some years I’ve been saying that women want two things from men: sperm, and resources, and the two do not have to come from the same man. Perhaps I should amend that: sperm, resources and security, and the three need not come from the same man. In fact, women would prefer that they don’t.
Tying to the Waco thread, it is worth pointing out that the bogus “gun control” charges were the BATF’s justufication for the initial raid. After the raid, in which BATF agents seem to have killed each other, another reason was needed, and it was found in Vernon Howell’s cult behaviors. He probably was having sex with not just other men’s wives in the cult, but there were rumors involving teenaged girls as well. So the specter of child sexual abuse was added to the mix, despite the fact that the Texas child protective services had been unable to find any evidence. However, facts are useless things when compared to a full up lynch mob. The irony of the final FBI assault is obvious: it was “for the children”, but it guaranteed the death of those children.
Gun control is indeed man control. And we already have the radfem’s word for what they want to do to 90% of the men in the world, starting with the US. One of the reasons that they can’t do that, yet, is the fact that there aren’t enough White Knights for the job, and manginas are best in rear area services, not actually rounding people up. For example, Joe Biden would be happy to serve as kapo, loading the rest of us into boxcars, but likely not so much leading a strike team into some Southeastern town.
Do I exaggerate? Every mass killing – democide — in the 20th century was preceded by a “gun hunt”. The Turks disarmed the Armenians, the Soviets disarmed the kulaks first and everyone not a Party member later, the Nazi’s disarmed anyone not in their party, Mao’s forces disarmed the Chinese, the Khmer Rouge disarmed everyone not in their party…
Man control leads to something worse…
A couple of anecdotes around this topic. Many years ago I was qualified as a small arms instructor in the British Army. I’ve recently decided to get a carry permit and buy a semi-automatic pistol. I’m not a gun nut but this is my response to the recent gun control hysteria.
So I live in a very blue, “may issue” state. “May issue” means you have to jump through a few hoops and get your police chief to approve the permit. One of the hoops is getting two letters of recommendation from people that know you. So I ask a man who I’ve known for 25 years, a business school buddy, a man who I’ve been very open with in the past and who I consider to be a close friend. He asks me what the letter should say. I respond, “nothing elaborate, just how long you’ve known me and that you believe I can safely handle firearms.” His response, “can you?” Huh? We talk a little more and it becomes clear he’s not going to write the letter. Our friendship just ran aground on his liberal anti-gun dogma, of which I was previously unaware.
Second story. While taking the required firearms safety class, the instructor makes a throwaway comment that implies that women are always approved for unrestricted permits, even in the most anti-gun towns in the state. Now I have no statistics to back this up but that was what was said. Women get an unrestricted permit while men may or may not.
NO surprise to me; as I have been getting this since I was very young.
Growing up in a very liberal town, with the second highest amount of homosexuals per capita, with an an extremely large amount of liberal professors on a large set of university campuses; and I was active in the JROTC programs, and very conservative.
Growing up with a single mom and all the other rejections of their value sets I committed to and the liberals here were always shaking their heads in disbelief in my general direction.
In many ways, I agree with them. I have no idea how I came from the place I did; especially believing in God and more social conservative values like I did (still do) must have thrown them all for a loop.
I met an English teacher from my high school who actually admitted to trying to indoctrinate us; and was surprised I had so flatly rejected her point of view. She said they failed to “educate me correctly.”
I’m glad, and now realize how strong I was; hard to believe when you are surrounded by so many future drug addicts and single moms being raised by dogmatic lesbian feminists to hate you claiming there is something wrong with you.
Eventually, their time will come. Unfortunately for me; I have never grown in an environment, not even the military, where I was not trounced by weak minded liberal types who resembled something more like sheep in their inner character on most things. Also, I was far too brash for other conservative types.
I have just come to accept my “black sheep” status everywhere I go; and still treat people as kindly as I can. Being a natural black sheep is preferable to being a sheople any day in my book.
Statements like this headline are more about the United States’s history of gun culture than anything about men’s rights.
Gun Control is control of Whites. See the targets the Department of Homeland Security is training with: http://www.amren.com/news/2013/02/dhs-supplier-provides-shooting-targets-of-american-gun-owners/
They expect trouble from White Women with guns. Sometimes sex transcends race. But sometimes race transcends sex.
Nothing in the USA makes any sense until you look for the racial angle.
Gun control is *black* control. Just look at the murder stats to work out who’s doing all the shooting.
Of course you’d only want the government to have guns if you’re a woman, because the government is the NEW HUSBAND – – and common men who have guns want to marginalize him.
Most women are afraid of guns, they’re not sure how exactly they work, how bullets fire from them. And despite efforts to make guns lighter using polymers and alloys, they’re still too heavy and cumbersome in the female hand…Hollywood depictions notwithstanding.
Yes, is man control,Jessica Valenti uploaded this pictures to her Facebook after the Sandy Hook shooting
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/184561_10151201735353160_1807446044_n.jpg
Women have a tendency to avoid open and direct confrontation plus they eventually submit to the winner. Manginas function pretty much the same way (“excuse me for living”).
“Gun control is *black* control.”
Used to be, but not anymore. Gun control, by definition, only affects law-abiding citizens, which the far too numerous black criminals aren’t. Gun control makes whites more vulnerable to predation in order to keep them (whites) in line, which is in accord to our government’s appetite for anarcho-tyranny.
Others have said as much. I suspect you are correct.
“Gun control makes whites more vulnerable to predation in order to keep them (whites) in line, which is in accord to our government’s appetite for anarcho-tyranny.”
Look no further than Eric Holder if you’re looking for the current “racial angle”. I don’t see why anyone who supports Obama and gun control isn’t pissed at him for giving guns to Mexican drug cartels and then getting away without even so much as a slap on the wrist. Who do you honestly think kills more people, white nutcases who go on spree killings every once in a while,or drug cartels for whom murder is a function of their business model?
Of course,most of us know the issue is not the issue here. Gun-controllers don’t want to make anyone safer, they worship murderous dictators who kill their own people, they just want us disarmed so there’s no chance they might get a little of what they plan on dishing out.
{ 1 trackback }