Sunday, July 18, 2010

Feminists, Victim Advocates, and Victims

I've had a rant fulminating in the back of my mind for a while now, and some things that happened yesterday finally brought it to a head.

I was at a grassroots activism conference sponsored by the Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association. I was one of only three women in attendance, and the only one who did not come along with a husband. I was the only woman there who had never been anti-gun.

As Alan Gottlieb was describing the value of letting the public know about the true diversity of gun owners, one man raised his hand and said that since (in his opinion) most gun owners are white male rednecks, why shouldn't grassroots groups focus on that demographic? According to this man, "experts" agree that women don't really want to protect themselves, they want "John Wayne" to come to their rescue.

At that statement, everyone in the room who knew anything at all about me looked in my direction.

Yes, the eye roll was everything they expected.

When I told my Significant Other* about that statement, he scoffed that anyone who would say such a thing had to be a man who wanted women helpless so he could be the big, strong protector and ride to their rescue.

I agree with his assessment. There are nonetheless many vocal self-proclaimed "feminists" who are truly focused on keeping women disempowered. This article, linked by Joe Huffman, is a perfect example.

Gun control laws are absolutely a feminist issue, but for the exact opposite reason simpering cowards like the author above believe. Gun control laws do absolutely nothing but make the most effective means of self defense difficult or impossible to utilize by innocent people. They do not nor have they ever made any reduction in criminal use of firearms, or any other crime. Just look at Washington DC, Chicago, and (formerly) Great Britain for example after example.

Whenever somebody tries to tell me what to do or how to live my life, I immediately look to their motivations. What do these people stand to gain if I comply with their direction? What do they stand to lose if I don't?

In the article linked above, the recurring theme is "women are victims who must be protected." The sources of this "wisdom" are uniformly women-advocacy and victim-advocacy groups. In other words, organizations who would not exist if not for women and victims incapable of acting on their own behalf.

Nobody can control everything that happens to them in life, but everybody is 100% in control of what they do about it. I was a victim, and I was set up by my family of origin to be a victim. If you give off a "victim vibe," you will attract victimizers. And by playing it their way, abdicating my responsibility to keep myself safe to external authority, I ended up raped when that external authority refused to act on my well-founded fears.

Let me remind you again, this happened in Chicago.

I could have chosen to wallow in self-pity and helplessness after that. Many do, and there's a whole advocacy industry built around them. Many of these organizations, including NOW, claim to be "feminist" while actually promoting the idea that effective personal safety is too icky, patriarchal, or dangerous for women. Their constant mantra is that women must be protected. Seems to me the only ones who need to be protected are those who cannot or will not protect themselves.

Too many women's and victims' groups don't want women and victims to be empowered at all. They really want them to continue to see themselves as helpless. Truly empowered women, and victims who have become survivors, wouldn't need them any more.

Without a steady supply of helpless women and victims, their donations and grants disappear. Their cushy jobs being professional whiners disappear. They lose all their power. They have no reason to exist.

Any effort to disempower anyone comes from those who want that power for themselves.

Women are, for the most part, smaller than men and not as strong. That's simple biology, not politics. My gun, along with my training and the will to use both, puts me on equal ground with any attacker of any size. Gun control as pushed by the "advocates" would deprive me of that, forcing me to rely on the strength of others for personal safety. I know first-hand how that works out.

I don't need any advocates to look out for me. I can look out for myself.

* He's a real HOTR Man, and I love him for it.

8 comments:

Marja said...

Hear hear!

Seriously.

JD said...

Great read! Well said!

Wraith said...

This post should be required reading in every American school. Here's to you and your HotR man--glad you have someone who deserves you!

Scott McCray said...

Well said. Linked.

Midwest Chick said...

It's an offshoot of the making everyone into victims. 'Self-defense' courses are mainly useless and often degenerate into 'lie back and think of England' classes. Victim groups are not designed to empower but are designed to maintain that sense of victimhood.

My man is also a HoTR man and he's helped and advocated my learning how to actually defend myself and to level the playing field since I'm not as strong as even a man my size.

Beautifully written post!

Steve Bodio said...

Great post-- will link too.

Joe Merchant24 said...

You had better self-control than I did. It took a large effort to "debate" captain macho and not just throw things at him.

Patrick said...

You win my QotD, but I just can't figure out which part I'm quoting....