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
I will have to show that to my son
I wonder if his grandmother would rather have him shoot paint balls at girls or go out and kill little helpless deer
Think next time MSU asks for a donation, I'll only give if they kick those bozos out of the university.
LOL! (After checking to make sure Mrs Heatseeker isn't looking)
"The Alphabet Versus the Goddess" may have some of the answers you seek.
IIRC, this is the source of some notion to the effect of - women need iron because they menstruate, iron is found in meat, therefore women need meat. Men need sex, women need meat, therefore men hunt to give women meat, man gets sex, woman gets iron, everybody happy.
Great book for the bathroom magazine rack (I'll let you judge its best use...)
Some ideas are so silly that only a University educated Masters degree holding "intellectual"can believe them and this is one of those "ideas"
"I think I need to take up bowhunting... Absent from this study is where the millions of female hunters fit."
Bullseye.
Charlie is hurt, embarrassed and scared but mostly he is mad. He makes his way home and, after a few days recuperating, he takes his 30-30 and heads out again. Same thing happens, as he gets close to the bear it charges and takes his 30-30 and once again, rapes him.
Now Charlie is steaming mad, no bear is going to humiliate him like this so he gets a .300 win mag and, after a few days to heal up, heads back out. This time he can fire from a distance and stands no chance of having the hunt end up the way it has twice before. Charlie hunts all day but can't find the bear. Finally as it is getting dark, he regretfully heads home. As he comes up a rise the bear surprises him and takes the gun away a third time. As the bear prepares to humiliate Charlie once again, the bear says,
"It's not really about the hunting, is it Charlie?"
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.