Mid-20th century Feminism has taught us that women don’t need men, that we can do anything men can do from business to close combat, that taking on the worst behavior of promiscuous men is desirable, and that we can avoid the physical and emotional consequences that result. Chivalry is long since dead: Feminism declared it the relic of an oppressive patriarchal society rather than what it was: a standard that held women up in order to protect them. And they have convinced themselves that any differences between the sexes exist because they have been artificially imposed by men. Meanwhile men have been emasculated and fathers relegated to mere sperm donors.
Has anyone noticed all the heroines in our films and television shows in recent years? No longer are chivalrous men protecting vulnerable women. From Alias to La Femme Nikita to any female-centric film you can name, the women are portrayed as fighting machines (with guns), often rescuing their male counterparts. You know these films. Michelle Rodriguez plays the same exact cardboard badass in so many of them. They take down fighting man after fighting man. But this is all fiction – take it from a female black belt and Iraq War veteran. And don’t get me started on that twig LeeLee Sobieski on NYC22 playing a veteran who can take down street thugs. The reality is that even Rhonda Rousey isn’t put in the ring with male fighters.
If women could do the same things men can, there wouldn’t be separate standards for them in police work, firefighting, and the military, or as is true in some cases, lower standards for both sexes that women can pass. Most women can’t wield the fire hose, carry a 200-lb man off the battlefield, or take down a male criminal. The last example was proved just recently when a female cop was overpowered by a criminal who had been taken into custody. He stole her gun and three cops were shot.
Yes, some women are stronger than some men, but they are never stronger than strong men, and a woman without a weapon is no match for a man who wants to do her harm, even if she knows how to fight. I earned that black belt, I became a Marine, I went to the combat zone. But I also got cancer, and what happens when you can no longer physically fight? What if you don’t want to fight? How many women or moms, married or not, have time to train to become proficient fighters to be ready for that one random time the criminal comes at them in the parking lot? You need to be able to own a weapon for self-defense if you choose. You need to be able to nullify the threat before it comes down to hand-to-hand combat.
No matter how much the Feminists rail, and no matter how many times Hollywood portrays heroic fighting women, women are the weaker sex. This doesn’t mean lesser, it just means physically weaker and that’s a fact no amount of affirmative action or double standards can change. Leave it to hypocritical liberals and feminists to ignore scientific reality in favor of the brave new world they want to force into existence. You would think that girl-power philosophy would extend to empowering women to protect ourselves with any weapon available, especially after teaching us for so long that we don’t need men. But no, the hypocrisy is ubiquitous. Women don’t need men and they don’t need weapons either. Feminism thus fails women.
Existing and new gun control laws coupled with Feminist ideals just means that we all have to become fighters, whether we want to or not. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle until a strong man decides to take advantage of her and/or her children. For 50 years now we’ve been taught that government will fill that void, but of course, the police usually come only come after a crime has been committed. And now the cop might be some chick who made it on a double standard who gets overpowered by the criminal in your home. Without a strong man to provide for and protect her, she not only must be a bread-winner, she must be a black belt – unless she can arm herself for protection. Guns are the real equalizer between the sexes.
Political Animal Blog 
Jude! Bravo! I can’t disagree with anything in this. This mindset that all women are equal to all men have, I believe, caused much hurt and harm. I belive it has contributed to the violence we now see of women on women and to men turning to men for their “partners,” and to the epidemic of divorce we see today.
LikeLike
Good evening. Might I begin by applauding you for your service to your country through the Marine Corp, and congratulate you on overcoming cancer. I came across your article recently, and having read it I had a few thoughts to contribute, if you don’t mind. I figure that this is a very sensitive issue during a very tense time, and the more discourse we have going on, the better fit we all are to approach the topic. I was also hoping to get some clarity on the points you are arguing.
I was concerned with the definition of feminism in this article because, as you said, it’s not a modern notion. Feminism doesn’t say that we can ignore the physiological differences between the sexes as a way to approach an idea of equality, but rather that we should accept that “different” does not give permission to be viewed as inferior or worthy of oppression. This completely coincides with the distinction you created between the notion of being weaker vs being lesser. I understand that you wish to protect current gun rights (which I respect fully), but the way you have addressed the plights of women in this article inadvertently perpetuates the same system you feel argue women need to be protected from.
Unless I’m reading it wrong, it seems to me that your arguments stems on the idea that there are bad strong men in this world looking to do women harm, and as such we need to arm those women in order so that they may better protect themselves. This argument however relies heavily on there being a low probability that these men carry guns. I’m not arguing for either side here, but rather trying to put myself in your perspective as best I can. Using the example of the lady officer who was overpowered undermines your argument entirely by suggesting that a strong man would win against a woman even if she has a gun, in which case he too now has a gun; her gun. If it is for this reason that I have difficulty following what you are arguing when you said that “guns are the real equalizer between the sexes”.
Believe me, I do not want to infringe upon one’s right to bear arms, and neither do feminists. I fear that feminists have been wrongly placed in opposition. A modern feminist approach to the problem of women’s safety would be more like the following: Rather than making women more of a threat in this world in order to protect them, why not reconfigure the social system that encourages the men and women who commit these acts in the first place. If more Strong men are encouraged to use their strength for good, or more accurately, to not view their physical blessings as a gift rather than as an entitlement, would you even need to arm more people? If that is the case, why would we not turn our political energy in that direction? Why not treat the disease, rather than the symptoms?
Again, thank you for your service. I hope you don’t view my reply as antagonism or disrespect as that is not the intention. Like you, I am a concerned citizen. Witnessing the division in this nation based on this issue is disheartening. Witnessing the division grow deeper due to lack of dialogue is heartbreaking. That is what urged me to reply to you today.
LikeLike
Dear Nii,
Thank you for your readership and taking the time to comment. To clarify, Feminism does say we should ignore physiological differences, and for that matter psychological differences. If there are fewer women in math and sciences, it must, according to Feminism, be because women aren’t being given a chance to succeed therein, not because they in general don’t prefer those fields. If women don’t want to work in construction or utilities, it is not because women don’t prefer those lines of work in general, but because there is some artificially imposed barrier to their doing so. The example of the female cop was to illustrate the double-standards in fields such as law enforcement wherein women can’t meet the standards, so a double standard is created so that they can succeed artificially. This results in situations like the one in which she found herself. Had she been held to the standard that men used to have to achieve, she may not have been in that situation in the first place.
In terms of what you said about bad strong men, yes, you are reading it wrong. When gun control is imposed, women and their children, who are already some of the most vulnerable in society, become even more so. Whether or not an attacker has a gun or other weapon is irrelevant. I am not suggesting anyone arm themselves who doesn’t wish to do so.
Many Feminists are also Liberal, the two are often inextricably linked, and they do absolutely want gun control. Feinstein is the leading hypocrite on the issue today. Human nature does not change, and “reconfiguring the societal system” can only be achieved through tyranny, as Socialism and Communism attempt to do while still failing to change human nature. You will not change the fact that there are bad people out there, with or without weapons. You have to outnumber the bad with the good.
LikeLike
Jude, thank you for your service and a great post! I’m a medically retired former Sheriff’s deputy(female) and I busted my butt to achieve my career. An injury and illness ended that. I learned much about both men and women during my career and it’s true that there’s no getting around differences in physiology and psychology. The thing that feminists forget is one, that there is room for both sexes and two, there are awesome men out there that would give their lives to protect women and children simply because it was the right thing to do. Too often, feminists forget that there are really evil women out there that destroy people’s lives. Men should be individual men and women should be individual women, this idea of being forced into an old box or a new one that’s not any better is old. Competence to do the job should be the measure.
LikeLike
I’d also add that I am vehemently against disarming law abiding citizens, having sufficient means to defend against an aggressor or aggressors is a basic human and civil right.
LikeLike
Thank you, Juli for your support and for your service as well! I would like to add and clarify that I am not suggesting women shouldn’t be in law enforcement or the military – there is certainly plenty of work for women with a will to fight. Here again we can utilize our talents, but we put more people at risk in situations like the combat zone and other high-risk environments.
LikeLike
🙂 Agreed, Jude. I don’t think women belong in some areas, especially if they are trying to push a political “feminist” agenda. I was more referring to some of the old school hide-bound sorts that think women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the home, regardless of a woman’s interests or capabilities. Yes, they still exist! 🙂 Both that position and the one that women should be able to take any position a man does without regard to important standards are wrong. The determining factor should be uncompromising standards of performance, no fudging! 🙂 More concern about actual performance, regardless of gender would do our country a world of good! Too much catering to the lowest common denominator is killing this country.
BTW, my son served in the Marines about the same time you did, completing a tour in Iraq. Needless to say, I’ve got a soft spot for Marines!
Bless you and keep up the great work!
LikeLike
Jude. I agree wholeheartedly! I am a 47 year old woman who is physically fit lifting weights and biking, walking, gardening etc regularly. However…. I am the smallest person in my house and the only woman, even my youngest son at 15 yrs old could overpower me physically. I am also an avid shooter and encourage women to shoot. I’m hoping to get my instructors course soon. After growing up the only girl with three brothers and now married with three grown (nearly grown) sons, I have no doubt in my mind that a woman cannot bring down a man….. without her gun, her dog (my beloved Rottie Diesel) , knife, bat, etc. It just isn’t possible.
I agree that men have been emasculated. Some of our sons’ friends are just ‘soft’ . ICK ! Give me a man’s man. (btw, I have one….. for over 25 years now 🙂 )
Feminism is ridiculous! It has contributed to the downfall of the family. A woman can be strong without competeing with men.
LikeLike
I have a few comments:
1. I have trouble with your assertion of differing standards between men and women in police and fire work. The standards are the same… My brother is a firefighter, and when he went through training many men and women washed out, and they failed according to the same standards. There CANNOT be separate standards in firefighting, since every individual who goes into a burning building must be able to do the same kinds of things. A woman MUST be able to lift the same 200 lbs that a man can lift, otherwise she would be unable to save her friend who has gone into the flames with her.
In addition to this, You site a case in which a female police officer was overpowered by a man. My father was a police officer for almost 25 years. He graduated 2nd in has class for physical fitness and ability. The man was, and is, strong. In the early nineties, when my father was at the height of his physical fitness, he was overpowered by a larger stronger man. This man was, in fact, strong enough to throw around not only my father, but also my dads partner who was a 225 pound Jiu Jitsu instructor along with two other male police officers. The man eventually got a hold of my father’s gun and then was shot by the other officers. There will ALWAYS be a bigger stronger person out there, but I don’t see this as the problem.
If you will excuse my boldness, I believe the problem is not in the sex of the person in question, but in the gendering of an individual. Women, generally, use their bodies in different ways than men, but this is a product of socialization, not nature. Women are taught to use their bodies like women, and men like men. While we might generalize and say that women are, on the whole, smaller than men–an assertion I, as a small man, have trouble with–and that smaller women might not be capable of the same things as larger man are capable of, we CANNOT say that a man and a woman of similar size would not be capable of the same thing by virtue of their sexes. We use the expression “Throw like a girl” to signify a soft throw, and we assume the weak throw is due to the gender of the person throwing. This is not the case. If you watch a woman who is taught to use her body like a woman, her mechanics of throwing will be very different than a man who uses his body like a man. A woman who breaks convention in the way she uses her body will deliver a much harder throw by using the correct mechanics. Her gender does not determine how hard her throw might be, instead it is the mechanics of her throw. Gender is the product of learned behaviors. Sex is physical anatomy. So, does it matter if a person is male or female? No. Does the status of a person of a man or a woman determine what a person is capable of? If we aare talking about gender, possibly (but only in as much as gender is a learned behavior), but if we are talking about sex, no. If women learn to use their bodies in a way that allows them to do the work of the police officer or the firefighter as well as their male counterparts (and this is the job of training in police and fire academies world wide) then how are we justified in saying that they are not, by virtue of their sex/gender, capable of doing this kind of work as well as a man?
LikeLike
You seem to find a problem with the combination of what you describe as two feminist positions: women’s liberation and stricter gun control. By liberation, (I mean equal treatment and opportunity.) You do not explicitly say if you are against one or both of these individually, or only in combination which you say results in hypocrisy.
If only in combination, then why are you concerned with female police officers? No gun laws are going to take THEIR guns. Gun laws do not apply to police officers so your feared combination cannot exist where they are concerned.
If individually, both? or which one? Are you against women’s equal opportunity in the work place? Are you against gun restrictions which yet permit semi-automatic weapons to anyone without a mental illness or criminal record? Just what are you against?
LikeLike
Jason, actually gun laws can and do affect law enforcement officers. There was a push for a while to require officers to disarm before coming into or serving at courthouses. In addition to that, there are some that are trying to limit officers to only having handguns and possibly shotguns for duty, removing carbines from service. New York was in such a rush to pass gun bans that they forgot to exempt law enforcement.
LikeLike
If we consider the NY example an oversight and mistake, and I admit to and beg forgiveness for my shortcomings in knowing all gun laws, can we move on to addressing my concerns and questions about the content of your article? I do not see how the sex of the officer, armed or not, matters in a courthouse. But that must remain a very minor quibble until you address my earlier questions regarding your lack of precision in your stance against… something I know not what. Please clarify.
LikeLike
Dear Jason,
Women’s liberation and Feminism are two different things. I describe Feminist ideology and Liberal ideology (not two Feminist positions as you incorrectly assert), specifically the former’s emasculation of men in society as well as holding a double standard in high-risk fields, and the latter’s push for gun control. I never said anything about being against women’s liberation or equal treatment and opportunity. I am all for those, and women were well on their way to equality in the work place before the Feminism I refer to – that of the mid-20th century (as distinct from the original Feminism of the early 1900s which abhorred abortion, didn’t believe women should be promiscuous like promiscuous men, and didn’t believe that men needed to be denigrated in order to promote women’s equality) – ever got its grip on society. The point in bringing up the female police officer was an illustration of the effects of double standards in high-risk fields which have been promoted by Feminists in order to produce artificially “equal” results. With these double standards we have unqualified people being put in high-risk jobs, contributing to the weakening of society and law abiding citizens against criminals. I tie in the Feminist ideology that espouses that women don’t need men as leaving women, even more vulnerable. Being convinced that they are equal to men, being shown this ideology in film and television, they find themselves in a rude awakening when faced with the reality of defending oneself against an attacker.
LikeLike
Spot on, Jude. aren’t men and women meant to be partners and complement each other, instead of trying to be each other? Why mess with nature? Let us just be what we are best at. That way we will create a better world.
LikeLike
Do you mind if I quote a few of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your blog? My website is in the very same area of interest as yours and my visitors would certainly benefit from a lot of the information you provide here. Please let me know if this alright with you. Thanks!
LikeLike
Sure, go ahead.
All the best,
Jude
LikeLike