The great Shemane Nugent.....nuff said
Posted on 11/13/2005 3:44:04 PM PST by SJackson
Three female Michigan State University professors studied the magazine "Traditional Bowhunter," and concluded that hunting is a form of sexual violence with animals substituted for women. They describe hunting as, "erotic heterosexual predation, sadomasochism, restraint for aggressive sexual energy, and allied with the abuse of women." I think I need to take up bowhunting.
The article entitled, "Animals, Women and Weapons: Blurred Sexual Boundaries in the Discourse of Sport Hunting" was published by the Society & Animals Forum. The genesis of the article was the 2003 video "Hunting for Bambi," which reached national attention that year when many news-outlets reported a group in Nevada was selling "hunts" which men paid thousands of dollars to shoot naked women with paintball guns. The producers of the DVD later admitted the hunters and women involved were actors. Like in high-budget porn, the star is only an "actor" and really cannot fix the cable.
Concluding that men turn bows and firearms into phallic symbols, the researchers point to terms and jargon found in the magazine in order to reaffirm their belief of displaced sexual drive. "Climax," "big'uns," and "homely cow" are but a few of the many terms with which they took issue. Two things, first, using terms out of context allows anyone to make them sexual. Second, we are talking about hunting, not sex.
The study fails to see the subject matter as merely hunting. The outrageous links between sexual violence and hunting would cause sensible readers to scoff, but remember, the authors are members of MSU faculty, which makes this paper all the more scary.
Apparently, the woman-is-an-animal argument is only valid until the kill. "When alive and being chased in a sport of hunting, animals are given human characteristics...but when dead and displayed as a trophy, anthropomorphism is no longer necessary...and the animal is simply dead." Why anthropomorphism would be necessary in the first place is not explored. Furthermore, why is it not necessary in the second place?
Indeed, their argument is that men are violent creeps who beat up on poor, cuddly animals because there are no women running around the woods. "Violence against animals and women is linked by a theory of 'overlapping but absent referents' that institutionalizes patriarchal values...animals often are the absent referents in actions and phrases that actually are about women-and women often are the absent referents for animals." Therefore, when men are hunting they do so because there are no women present, conversely, when men are with women they are doing so because there are no animals present.
Absent from this study is where the millions of female hunters fit For that is the only logical conclusion of the animal-is-a-woman and woman-is-an-animal thesis. Not far removed from their illation would be to say women obtain sexual gratification from hunting but actually wish they were sexually abusing women, or maybe themselves.
What would an academic study be these days without a conclusion that points to racism? The study encapsulated that hunting is "cultural messages that validate and exacerbate white male dominance and power." The argument of racial oppression and hunting goes out the window because one can only shoot one Black Duck a day as apposed to five of another species.
When read in its entirety, the syllogistic argument takes on the seriousness of a Mad TV skit.
Maybe it is "Traditional Bowhunter" that is laying the groundwork for world takeover. Once again, the paper's authors come through and leave the reader not disappointed. They warn that, "[T]he underlying messages of the sexualizing of women, animals, and weapons in Traditional Bowhunter cannot be dismissed simply as a hoax. They are resilient popular culture images that celebrate and glorify weapons, killing, and violence, laying the groundwork for the perpetuation of attitudes of domination, power, and control
Noooo! That's not how it's supposed to end here, Pardek. You're supposed to have just one more snappy come-back to prove the unmistakable fusion between 1) the male's lust for dominance, power, and control over the female, and 2) his metaphorical use of anthropomorphized and sexualized language which represents his ambivalence toward his sexual frustrations.
I can wait. It'll come to you, I'm sure. ;)
Pardek, I can't wait any longer... gotta run. I'm hungry so I'm headed off to the kitchen to see what I can sexualize.
ROTFLMAO - BTW, you might owe me a new keyboard if this one doesn't dry out!
Yep, says it all right there: THEY AIN'T GITTIN' ANY!!!!
And if they keep writing moronic crap like this, future prospects don't look promising....
The problem with most college professors is that they have been educated beyond their intelligence....
I think we should be "dominating and controlling" liberal professors instead.
ROTFLMAO again....It will be a miracle if I get through this thread with my keyboard intact. Guess I'll have to refrain from drinking anything while reading this thread....LOL
The motel called, Ms. Kalof . . . they want their bedspread back . . .
Oh just go back to Bede!
Not my perspective...just paying out what the women are saying.
Good point. That was obviously BS. If the thing died at 150 yards with a .22, then someone else probably shot it who was closer!
Maybe it keeled over from a heart attack.
The authors sound horny to me.
Thanks for finding the article. I was interested in reading it. What a pile of crap.
That is not a scholarly or peer reviewed article. I always check out the references first. The most scholarly reference is Webster's dictionary. They reference advertisements in magazines!
Most colleges and universities would not allow their name to be associated with an article like that. It makes MSU look bad.
This is not science. To study a few cases and then leap to grandiose conclusions has the apprearance of science, but uses that appearance to mask someone's obvious prejudice. This is like proving that Ted Kennedy has shopped at Macy's, then concluding that Ted Kennedy wears pink panties because they're sold at Macy's. Not that this is necessarily false, but it's also not the proof it pretends to be.
As for the other poster who claimed to have killed a songbird at 150 yards with a .22: You hit a sub-MOA target at 150 yards, and you're not happy?!?
Yes it was a long shot for a .22. The bird flew up for a distance with its mate flying by its side, then made an arc into the ground. I did not find the bullet hole so it's possible it died on impact. It was a beautiful healthy bird, free in the wild, and in hindsight a shame I used it to prove I could kill it. What I wasn't expecting was its mate flying by its side till death do them part.
I have another friend, same age, who right now is camped in a tent with her hubby and friends hunting for deer....
you would be surprised how many women hunt...
Y'all got this in town, spoutin' all kinda crap,
An' y'all got this in the woods...
I'm goin' huntin', bye!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.