It’s a few days old, but I just came across this piece in the WaPo talking about why it is anti-hunting advocates put targets on attractive female hunters.
The article notes that celebrities and anti-hunting advocates don’t attack or issue threats against male hunters at nearly the same rate as they target women or frequently even with the vitriol that they reserve for women.
Ultimately, it comes down to sexism in their movement. Women and guns, oh my! The article quotes a Vanderbilt professor, Kelly Oliver, who said:
“We expect men to be hunters, but we’re surprised when girls are hunting … Whatever we think about hunting the ‘Big Five’ in Africa, it’s clear that we still have issues with women and girls carrying guns and using them.â€
Ah, gotta love sexism on the part of the animal rights activists that forces women into a box of pre-selected labels and hobbies just because of their sexual organs. Oh, wait, isn’t that what they often accuse us of doing?
The article does cite another professor who claims it isn’t sexism that motivates these attacks, but they are rooted in other judgements against the women hunters – their race, their socioeconomic status, and even their nationality. However, the second professor doesn’t appear to answer the challenge of why these attacks target female hunters when men share the same types of photos without nearly the level of antagonism. That’s still gender bias at work, even if the people issuing Twitter threats may also have an issue with a hunter’s race or class.
Or maybe it isn’t gender directly, but merely being the unexpected. For example, I noticed a Facebook meme yesterday about big game hunting in Africa, and included a “trophy photo.” The photo stood out because 1) the hunters were an entire young-ish family, and 2) there was green vegetation appearing to hang out of the dead elephant’s mouth, enabling the anti’s to claim that the elephant was standing still and eating when it was shot.
Both points made took the photo out of the norm, so that’s why it gained steam, I believe. The same is true for cute teenaged girls who pose for photos with their prey. Folks don’t expect to see it, so it triggers a stronger response for some of them.
Snopes article on the elephant photo is here: http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/elephant.asp
This is why I won’t let my kids anywhere near Facebook (or its replacement) when the time comes. No good can come from it.
Back in the 90s, they said the Internet was built for porn. Today – and unfortunately henceforth – I think it is built for hate.
I’m not sure that running and hiding is the best answer, either. Granted, exercising extreme caution in how you share your photos and what you choose to upload is certainly key. But I’m not sure that keeping pro-gun/hunting people out of the public eye is the best way to show it’s a perfectly normal pastime.
I think it’s also a bit different with the ladies mentioned because they all have to be very public as they’ve all had some form of public entertainment role where hunting was relevant. The difference is that there are more men doing the same jobs and posting the same kind of photos who aren’t attacked so viciously.
My impression, and I must admit that this has no proper study or examination behind it, is that the reason anti-hunters attack women is the same reason that anti-fur activists don’t throw paint on the Hells Angels. Even though we know better, they seem to think that female hunters are a weaker target, somehow safer to engage. This may be an extension of their general beliefs of women, but I can’t comment on that.
I do like how well the attacked female hunters stand up to the nitwits and their violent threats. Kendall Jones took the negative attention and used it to launch a rapidly growing youtube hunting channel.
“Don’t childproof your house, gunproof your child.” Is what we tell people. Kids are great safecrackers and will get into your gunsafe so teach your children about guns and not to mess with them irresponsibly and without proper supervision.
Same goes for the internet. Don’t childproof your internet, internetproof your child. Teach them the hazards and pitfalls and how to avoid them.
At least, that is what I’d do.
When people act outside gender expectations, they are frequently attacked.
For example, women who use guns in self defense, are viewed more negatively than men by potential jurors.
It’s a sad fact.
I have several friends who, unfortunately, are on the opposite side where guns and hunting are concerned. One of the more reasoned ones pointed out that the reason why Ms Francis was objectified is because of the way that she posed alongside the dead giraffe. I responded that she was trying to be “cute,” for certain values of cute, by comparing their respective heights, and that there was nothing suggestive about her pose or stance. I think that at least some of the antis’ indignation is that she obviously had fun and is proud of what she did, and we can’t have that in our neopuritan society for the wrong reasons.
It’s really Neo-Puritanical when you get down to it. Kind of like, “You can have sex, just don’t you enjoy it!”
I can’t seem to find it again, but I saw an editorial cartoon today done by some nitwit that depicted Ms Francis taking a bite out of the carcass of the giraffe, as blood ran down her shirt.