-
2024-12-07 20:02:01## Yeah, so... nah. People keep trying to explain to me, that women will be better-off, if they become more dangerous. While I can see the inevitableness of women living in remote rural areas learning to shoot with a rifle, and similar, I'm generally against arming women with killing machines. This is not because I'm averse to the idea of using violence to solve problems (albeit after exhausting better options), or because I don't like guns, or am unfamiliar with them. It's also not because I don't know I would look totally, mind-numbingly hot holding something long and spearlike, while dressed in camo and wearing a T-Shirt that appears to have shrunk in the wash.  It's a more fundamental set of problems, that irks me. ## Bazooka Barbie American gun manufacturers saturated the public and private male market so thoroughly, that they eventually turned to marketing firearms to women. Men are scary and bad. There is Stranger Danger. We can't just make the neighborhood less dangerous because erm... reasons. Stay safe with a cute gun.  It has gone along with the predictable hypersexualization of the conservative feminine ideal. Since guns are considered aggressive, women with guns are perceived as more sexually available. Guns (and tanks, bombs, bows, etc.) make women "equal", "independent", "feisty", "hot", "freaky", "calculating", "empowered", etc.  Sorta slutty, basically. This Gun Girl is not like the helpless, hapless, harmless homemaker ideal, of yesteryear. A woman who was dependent, chaste, gentle, wise... and in need of protection. A woman who saw the men around her as people she could rely on for providing her with a safe environment. That woman is _au revoir_. Now, sistas are doing it for themselves. 💪🏻 The New Martial Missy needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle... but make it country. Yeah, it's marketing, but it sure has set the tone, and millions of men have been trained to prefer women who market themselves in this manner. Hard, mean, lean women. That will not remain without wider societal consequences. You know, I liked that homemaker. I miss her. She's literally me.  ## Those arms are for cuddling babies, not holding rocket launchers. Now, that we've all become accustomed to imagery of women holding firearms, it wasn't much of a leap to condition us all to the sight of women in frontline police, guard, or military positions.  Instead of war being a terrible, highly-lethal, territorial fight amongst men, it's now cute, hip, trendy and fun. It's a big party, and women are finally allowed to join in.  Now, women have finally jettisoned the terrible burden of being society's life-bearers and caretakers, and we're just more potential enemy combatants. We know it's okay to punch women, shoot women, etc. since we've been watching it happen on screens, for decades. Women are now often assumed to be fighters, not lovers. Cavalry, not mothers. ## Girls on top Not only does this undermine any female role -- and put female civilians under a cloud of suspicion -- it also reduces mens' claim to be paramount in governance. Why should a man be the Commander in Chief, if women are on the battlefield? In fact, why should men be in charge of anything, anywhere? Look at them. There they are. Hiding at home. Cowering in their kitchens, wringing their hands and fretting, while courageous, dangerous women protect _them_ from dangers foreign and domestic. Women are the better men, really. Is this really where we want to go? ## The final bitterness But one thing I find most disturbing is something more personal. The ubiquitous nature of firearms in American homes has made domestic violence increasingly deadly. Adding more guns, for the female residents, often serves to make such violence even more deadly for women. It turns out, that women are usually reluctant to shoot people they know; even more than men. Women without this inhibition are prone to sharing their home with men missing the same trait. And, now, they have more guns.