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
Cavewoman: "Og get off your Neanderthal rear-end and go engage in some 'erotic heterosexual predation and sadomasochism'. The village is starving"
Looks Like it.
Not an original thought there either.
Look at the pages of references.
Cut and paste psychobabble.
Love the screen name, BTW :)
In other news, being a university professor has been linked with lack of sexual confidence, general spinelessness, and conducting worthless "studies" that consist of flipping through a couple of magazines.
I suppose when you have a PhD, reading a magazine is considered "studying". Sounds like a lot of unresolved anger to me... maybe if they spent some more time outside and not in the office, they'd feel better.
:)
That was my first thought, too! (Although, I no longer hunt.) My second thought was what I first learned as a DNR employee years ago. Life in the wild ain't no Bambi movie.
Ah! This is a joke. Pedophile progay and pro-bestiality PETA psychologists judge on sexual violence and "sex-hunting".
These people would confuse a gang rape from love anyways, indicating their own disturbing conflicts of interests in "human affairs" in which they claim a stake most inherently.
What I find disturbing is thekind of authority these "psychologists" exercise through animals...now that is patent sexual like exploitation of animals and their peddling and solliciting for bonding in sexual like exploitation and violences.
Someone keep these animals from the animals.
Their line of thinking is so screwy it's hard to come up with an analogy, but here goes...
Law Enforcement and sex are also related because there are newsgroup pictures where people are handcuffed, some bachelor parties feature a stripper dressed as a policewoman, and it's called "copping a feel." Coincidence?
And I wonder what conclusions they would come to about women like me who enjoy hunting.....LOL
Haven't you ever heard of the concept "Lesbian?"
Poor carpet munchers... they just needed some far-fetched reason to engage in male-bashing.
In the end, they just look kookier than usual.
How is it "heterosexual predation" if I wait out in the cold all day hoping to get a big buck?
But these women are nutso, framing their findings in ignorance and prejudice.
Oh, well. Our tax dollars at work. I wonder how many might get nauseous and have vapors if one wonders why more women don't go into the hard sciences, like physics and chemistry, eh?
It's not a hoax, I posted the abstract of the article in post 16.
I'm not a hunter but I'd take it up in a second if the quarry is postmodernist professors.
Even Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." It was just about the only wise thing he ever said, too.
Say...MSU as in Manimal Sex University?
Ascribing feminine characteristics to weapons was a common advertising strategy in the magazines’ content. In one advertisement, a beautiful young woman (photographed in profile to accentuate her large breasts, small waist and tight low-riding jeans) smiled at the camera holding a bow in one hand and the thumb of the other hand provocatively hooked in the pocket of her jeans. The advertisement announced a clear connection between the woman and the weapon: “Irresistible Craftsmanship… the responsiveness of this model is unparalleled.” (Martin Archery, 2003, p. 35).
Um, it's called "advertising" and that particular instance is called "transference".
It's got to be. People in the real world don't think this way. Buy, hey, just our tax money being used to fund these ...cough!... "studies".
Sounds to me like they are projecting their own proclivities.
heh heh! I was thinking of something simpler like Moronic Screwball University. Just cutting to the chase.
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.