American Indians shout be OUTRAGED at this charicterization of their culture....
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've met two female instructors at school, one who loves turkey hunting, the other an NRA self-defense instructor. These two are so down to earth, alert, and aware, that they are just a joy to be around. It would be a safe bet that the only men they don't like are useless, irresponsible bums.
American Indians shout be OUTRAGED at this charicterization of their culture....
Is that a trick question?
Michigan taxpayers, federal taxpayers and student's parents.
Animal People Magazine editor Clifton Melton (something like that) and I had a conversation about this several years ago.
He claims to be an ex-bigtime journalist, and told me his research PROVES hunting turns people into killers. I explained back to him the fact I know lots of hunters, and never knew one single one that had ever killed a person.
He told me, basically, I must not be a journalist, then hung the phone up on me.
I don't endorse his views, he is an AR activist. But check out his web site, he caught my attention when he started attacking the HSUS, PETA and other AR organizations, because they don't do anything for animals, just raise lots of money.
Once a year he publishes a breakdown of all the AR organizations, and how they spend their money. He has put a spotlight on these organizations.
So that's where the phrase "Beaver Hunt" came from....
So if I follow this logic from a pro evolution point of view I am forced to assume that cavemen were trying to F--- when they went hunting. How do we reconcile that with the hunter gatherer drive which is a part of the evolutionary process.
The scientific conclusion to this conundrum is quite clear, of course.
Female hunters, in our quest for destroying the male species, enjoy the act of deer hunting primarily for the erotic pleasure it gives us in stalking, maiming, and ultimately, killing the reprehensible and egocentric Male.
And what better method is there to accomplish this noble goal -- the total annihilation of the evil male species from the planet -- than to utilize the male's own dastardly weapon, his beloved phallic-symbol rifle?
My own faux-phallic symbol weapon-of-choice for this sadistic yearly ritual of stalking "The Trophy Buck" is, of course, my 12-gauge shotgun loaded with massive chunks of lead. Why do you think we call it "Buckshot?"
For that matter, why do you think my favorite gun is called a "Savage?"
< /extreme sarcasm >
Fishing is basically hunting critters who live in the water. Since millions of women love to fish, I guess they are just substituting their love for killing men by killing fish. What great logic is exhibited by the professors. (/sarcasm)
No, but I bet they drive Subarus or Volvos and buy flannel shirts.
Please see my analysis at 68. (A numerical symbol, by the way, that is one less than "69," another one of those evil symbols and representations of sexualized imagery that should be totally extinguished from the planet. :)
A long time ago I killed a bird with a .22 at 150 yards then saw it's mate fly off. I feel so bad about that to this day I can no longer can stomach hunting defenseless animals.
Possibly robotic prey could be invented to test our battlefield skills. It would prepare our future soldiers for fighting robots in the next big war.
PING
I'm just amazed the authors of this study didn't see it themselves.
Am I missing some stereotype here about flannel shirts? I wear them all the time, in fact, I have one on right now.
You also strap-on that other phallic symbol - the gitter.
I'm watching my six.
Oops! I think I may have hit on the core of this theory ...
Hunting is so different from hairdressing!
A "gitter." What's a "gitter?" Is that similar to a garter? Because dictionary.com doesn't tell me what a "gitter" is, and I'm scared to put the words "gitter" and "strap-on" into Google at the same time. lol!
Her CV makes interesting reading.
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.