Maybe more guns are needed on
campuses to keep radical 'feminists' away
By David Codrea, October 17th 2014
JPFO writer contributor, © 2014.
Anita Sarkeesian
“Feminist” Anita Sarkeesian will not be speaking at Utah State University any time soon, because it’s not a “gun-free zone,” the Associated Press reports. State law allows concealed carry permit holders to possess the means of defense, and that does not sit well with the so-called “media critic and blogger,” who elected to self-abort her planned address in protest.
Anita’s apparently one of those people who buy into what monopoly of violence fetishists are selling, that there are no safer places to be than those where defenselessness of human beings is mandated. That her “wisdom” has been lost on monsters actually doing mass shootings is no matter. And if he were still alive, she’d be happy to know Eric Harris would agree with her.
Eric Harris
“A school is no place for a gun,” the Columbine killer wrote, communicating his concurrence in an academic treatise of his own. But unlike Anita, Eric got a chance to test his hypothesis out in the real world, where he learned a school is no place to confront armed defenders after an unfulfilling exchange of gunfire with a school resource officer caused him to flee.
I bring Harris up because it was allegedly due to the threat of another campus shooting that Anita brought up the subject of guns. Someone supposedly sent an email threatening to kill feminists with guns and pipe bombs if she spoke. Investigators quickly deemed the threat not credible, making fair the question if there ever really was one, or just something to make it look like there was.
Speculation that the “threat” may have been manufactured is ongoing at this writing, with no real way to resolve, at least not for people without the power of subpoena. It may well turn out that some wacked out misogynist who needs to be exposed and punished did something stupid and evil, but then again, there’s no proof the hater was even a male. It’s not like people with axes to grind haven’t made stuff up to make women appear victims and men appear violent, sexist brutes.
No argument, Anita knows how to be a victim, at least of harassment. Still, after criticizing the portrayal of women in video games, and bearing in mind a general “feminist” bullying of gamers, furious pushback should have been anticipated (and probably was). Anyone who weighs in on hot button issues in an arena where anonymity of your enemies is the norm has to expect brutal attacks. You should see some of the stuff we gun rights advocates have been subjected to, along with truly sexist insults and worse.
The fact is, video games are “entertainment,” some of which unarguably push all bounds of propriety. We have the right not to play the ones that offend us. And yes, of course we have the right to criticize those, but the problem with that is, for government control freaks, just objecting and withholding patronage is never enough.
If people believe their pet group isn’t fairly represented, they’re free to do what all game developers do, and finance/create one they approve of, and then see if there’s any market for it. But the problem with that is, for humorless “feminists,” it’s difficult to conceive of them coming up with a game anyone would want to play, something that’s, you know, fun. As opposed to drive-spikes-into-your-skull-to-make-it-stop boring...
For starters, the virtual violence that dominates the field would be verboten, and guns would need to be replaced with ... uh, no, we don’t want to go there.
It’s this anti-gun bigotry Anita displays that so illustrates her ignorance-based fear and loathing. Her objection to being among vetted concealed carry permit holders on the USU campus shows her to be oblivious to the fact that she’s among them every time she strays into the heartland. That she’s evidently OK, though, with armed agents of the state, ignores that, as a whole, she’s probably safer among the people she abhors.
That’s part of a general abhorrence prevalent among radical “feminists,” that of being against the very concept of self-defense. That’s part of the same attitude that says if a woman has a gun, her attacker will take it away and use it against her, like it’s impossible for any to be qualified, accomplished and skilled.
The little dears just can’t handle them?
You’ll note throughout, I have used the term “feminist” in quotation marks, the same way I do with the word “progressive.” That’s because true feminists, without the quotation marks, support the right of women as individuals to make their own informed decision on keeping and bearing arms. Rather than fearing it, we applaud the empowerment of the women we cherish.
What kind of woman-hater would demand taking that choice from them?
David Codrea is a field editor at GUNS Magazine, penning their monthly "Rights Watch" column. He provides regular reporting and commentary at Gun Rights Examiner and blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance. David Codrea's Archive page.
