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
Whoa son, are you fixing to get a butt whompin.
And you are also, unlike me - wise.
"Gitter" - as in six-shooter, axe, etc... Fun stuff.
the sad part of this silly comedy is that the airhead girls who wrote it are being treated to sumptuous sinecure positions for life, at taxpayer expense, in an economically depressed state which can ill-afford such pointless luxuries.</p>
Sigmund Freud on crack.
Okay, I can empathize with you, I really can, even though I love to go deer hunting, beginning when I was very young.
When I was a teenager, I shot a 7-point buck who had a younger spike buck hanging out with him. Since spike bucks weren't legal in Texas that year, I had to sit in my stand and watch this younger buck sniff at and nudge his very-dead "Daddy" for almost an hour as he tried to make him get up and continue on their journey. By the time this melodrama was over and the younger buck finally gave up and went home, I was crying like a baby.
I didn't go hunting for a couple of years after that. Couldn't do it. But it finally waned and I went hunting again, bound and determined that it would never happen again.
Well, sure enough, I'm out hunting again and two deer walk out down the way.
I did what you should have done with those birds: I shot both of the damn things.
My guess is there's more S&M sex among the bored liberal Michigan State University professors than there is among hunters.
Ah. I get it now. You male sexist animal, you! You mean to say "gitter" as in "git 'er!" And "six-shooter" as in "shoot-'er!"
Where do you think the words "hunter," "stalker," and "killer" came from? A man, that's who!
< /sarcasm >
(Okay, I'm even scaring myself now.)
The guys I dated who were threatening in any way NEVER hunted a thing other than a woman for a target.
This guy is looking for his own manhood, IMO.
The term originated when men, in the 19th century, decided it was more fun to hangout with friends at the pub after work than go home and massage their respective wive's feet.
All right! Hunting is now a legitimate "alternate lifestyle"!
After going into the woods with my fully automatic M-16, ACME flamethrower, a bag of anti-personnel mines and a razor sharp machete, I fantasize of going home and throwing the "wife" onto the couch and sodomizing her with a Bowie knife handle.
These pinhead "intellectuals" aren't just stupid and ignorant: they're dangerous because they somehow wrangled a degree or two that, in the minds of the MSM, make whatever vomit they spew appear to have legitimacy.
"Three female Michigan State University professors"...I stopped right there.
This is the garbage that masquerades as science in universities.
This is the feminist studies manure that is being taught to the young minds full of mush.
The term originated when men, in the 19th century, decided it was more fun to hangout with friends at the pub after work than go home and massage their respective wive's feet.
Nice try, but no, that's not what it means. Any woman could tell you what that word really means.
Extensive scientific research in the field of behavioral sciences has shown that the word "manslaughter" is the male species' clever way of disguising the phrase "man's laughter."
"Man's laughter" is what some wives receive after they sweetly and ever-so-politely ask their spouses to pick up after themselves so they can manage a 5-minute break after slaving in the kitchen to cook their man's hot meal.
(Not my spouse, of course, who's [almost] perfect in every way. :-)
These are the looney feminists who define ALL heterosexual sex as "violence on women."
LOL - I got nuttin'! You win!
BS.
This ideology creates more aggression towards woman than hunting does... all I have to say is...ANALYSE THIS!!!
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.