Jessica Valenti Blasts A Magnum 44-Sized Hole Into Her Hypocritical Core Of Feminism
[guest post by Dana]
A post by blogger Brandon Morse directed my attention to ardent Second Amendment supporter, Dana Loesch, who released a powerful video this week warning rapists, domestic abusers and violent criminal thugs that women are now arming themselves in greater numbers than ever before:
The further empowerment of today’s woman, isn’t that a good thing? What feminist wouldn’t support that, right? Well, the funny thing with feminists, as with the left in general, is that when you pit two hot-button social causes against each other, the Social Justice Warrior is required to defer to whichever cause is at the top of the pecking order. Consider how the left vigorously stands up for gay rights in America, but they are apparently unable to vigorously condemn Islamic countries where the state religion demands that gays be thrown off buildings to their deaths.
Given this, and given we’re talking about guns, it’s not surprising to see noted self-proclaimed feminist Jessica Valenti take Loesch to task for her efforts to empower women:
While her comment is not surprising, is certainly is depressing when one considers that Valenti would rather women not take full advantage of their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves. So, who does that then leave in the position of power when a woman finds herself in a situation fraught with rage and physical violence directed against her? Bizarrely, in Valenti’s world, women are apparently better off remaining victims.
So, why doesn’t Valenti take women’s safety more seriously? Why does she dismiss women arming themselves as a safe and reasonable method of self-defense? Because, as a leftist, she is compelled to. Remember, when two causes are pitted against each other, the SJW must choose that at the top of the leftist pecking order of importance. And every good leftist knows that by default, guns are always bad and lay at the root of every evil in our modern culture. Even if they can provide women with a solid line of defense from men who rape. Thus when Valenti offers an explanation for her criticism of Loesch’s message, it comes as no surprise:
Domestic violence victims are much, much more likely to be killed if there is a gun in the house – no matter who it belongs to
(No statistics were provided by Valenti to back up this claim. However, these statistics provided by Morse make it clear that “guns and self-protection go hand in hand isn’t just common sense, it’s documentable fact.” )
and:
Given the way rape victims are blamed for even coming forward, do we really think culture would be fine and dandy with them SHOOTING DUDES
(Let’s be clear: it is not rape victims that are blamed – it’s rape hoaxers who are justifiably held accountable) . Further, a “dude” does not a vicious rapist make. How conveniently disingenuous to lump the vicious rapist in with all other dudes who love, honor and respect women.
Anyway, Loesch neatly pushed back at Valenti’s assertion:
Perhaps Valenti would rather American women defend themselves against sexual assault by wearing neon-color bracelets warning any would-be rapist: “Don’t touch me.” Perhaps this infantilization of women is more her speed.
Valenti once lectured us that, “Naming what is happening to women – that we are being oppressed, held back, and yes, victimized – is not weakness. It takes strength to tell uncomfortable truths.” It certainly does, Jessica. And I’m strong enough to tell you this uncomfortable truth: When women like you work to convince other women not to protect themselves against sexual assault in any legal way possible, it is YOU who is do the victimizing.
–Dana
Heh. Feminists victimizing women.
Dana (995455) — 7/16/2016 @ 4:15 pm“Magnum 44 Wad Cutter Sized Hole” sounded clumsy…
Dana (995455) — 7/16/2016 @ 4:18 pmTo some women, all men are rapists.
The simpler point to make is that guns, and handguns in particular, equalize the advantages bigger and stronger people might otherwise have, and this ALWAYS operates in favor of women. I remember somewhere seeing a football lineman pontificating about how “no one needs a gun” and thinking “except maybe Nicole Brown Simpson.”
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/16/2016 @ 4:30 pmKevin M,
its mind-boggling ironic that given the chance to actually be one more-equal footing with men, some women would rather not. That it is feminists who don’t want any part of it makes the irony all the more delicious.
Dana (995455) — 7/16/2016 @ 4:35 pmMagnum Farce
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/16/2016 @ 4:45 pmSorry in advance b/c this is gonna annoy some folks, besides even my usual stalkers, but although self-defense against crime and personal attack is a perfectly good reason to learn, own, and train in firearms, and hunting is pretty cool too (plus advisable!), those things, necessary as they are, still aren’t the actual reason for the Second Amendment. The right of the People to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed, is articulated and then defended with something like a ninety-foot titanium radioactive fence guarded by nuclear alligators with plutonium fangs, is so that the People are always ready and able to resist or even overthrow the damn government if that becomes necessary. In other words, no sword-hunts, like they used to have to disarm the people in days of ancient despotism. The “security” of a free state, as the Article asserts, does not mean “security” in the modern sense of some guy with a badge, a windbreaker and a taser who sits at a desk in the lobby. It means “to secure” a free state, as in, to safeguard it, to remain a free people.
“A republic, madame… if you can keep it.” — Benjamin Franklin, printer.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/16/2016 @ 4:51 pmLittle doubr women like Valenti only listen to NBC and MSNBC for the dog whistle directives of proper conduct.
Maybe if Valenti thought of women arming themselves and shooting an attacker as firearm abortion of a defective non-viable embryo at 1,560 weeks, it would make sense to them.
Tonight NBC national news is reporting that French authorities are interviewing people in an attempt to understand the motivation that would have caused a man to drive a large truck into a crowd and kill 80 or so people.
Really?
The left is just dangerously stupid!
Pts (ce7fc3) — 7/16/2016 @ 4:54 pmthe point of the 2nd Amendment, as written, is that one cannot raise a militia unless the population is self-armed with military comparable weapons, whatever they might be at a given point in time.
the raising of a militia is secondary to the absolute right of individuals to act in their own self-defense. after all, SCOTUS has repeatedly held that a citizen has no individual right to protection from the government, but only society as a whole.
as for women and firearms, my better 2/3rds owns more firearms than i do, and is, generally, a better shot, despite, or possibly because of, my 20+ years in uniform: better training and fewer bad habits to break.
redc1c4 (1996f3) — 7/16/2016 @ 5:13 pmI’m confused. A feminist is allegedly strong, capable and intelligent. But Valenti exhibits none of these qualities. She prefers weak, unable and clueless. Which is it, Jessica? Do you prefer being an independent woman,proud and able to defend yourself or do you wish to be a victim depending on the kindness of your rapist/abuser/attacker?
Bill H (971e5f) — 7/16/2016 @ 5:14 pmmake that “…self-armed with and competent in the basic use of…”
that makes raising a “well regulated” ie: well trained militia much easier. if you already know how to use and maintain your weapons, all the militia has to train on is tactics, maneuvers, etc…
redc1c4 (1996f3) — 7/16/2016 @ 5:17 pmAnd just to be sure, mom carried a snub-nose, nickel plated hammerless .38 pretty much to the day she died.
Bill H (971e5f) — 7/16/2016 @ 5:17 pmRefuse To Be A Victim non-firearms training for everyone
redc1c4 (1996f3) — 7/16/2016 @ 5:19 pmWomen On Target firearms training by women, for women.
(there will likely be some men assisting on the ranges, but the primary trainers are all women, and the class is for women only. that keeps the Neanderthals out of the picture.
redc1c4 (1996f3) — 7/16/2016 @ 5:22 pmgrandma was a left hand shot
mg (31009b) — 7/16/2016 @ 5:25 pmher 410 sits in the case
my mom preferred a 22 pump
gophers had no chance
my wife and daughters carry
to protect their way of life
jhmfc times they have changed
“after all, SCOTUS has repeatedly held that a citizen has no individual right to protection from the government”
Well fair enough, (it’s a rational safeguard against autarchy —> anarchy, as it were), but that gets us into sticky waters of debate where names like Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau start to get thrown around. And even Aquinas, for heaven’s sakes.
But at the end of the day, if SCOTUS starts to rule things which are clearly ridiculous and despotic, (like, oh, say, a Hillary Court might do) then the right of the People to do something about SCOTUS, and if the People happen to be armed, well……. do, as they say, the math.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/16/2016 @ 5:28 pm“the raising of a militia is secondary to the absolute right of individuals”
All true rights are absolute rights. That’s why they’re called “rights”. They aren’t graciously granted by the favor or dispensation of anyone or anything, except the Almighty. They are a priori, but leftists always feel this strange compulsion to regulate things like sunrise.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/16/2016 @ 5:33 pmDon’t you love it when Canadian neo-Nazis infiltrate blog threads to preach armed insurrection and civil war in the United States? Then claim that they are the ones who are being stalked? Go suck some back bacon, Christoph!
magyardad izzyelk (dbc370) — 7/16/2016 @ 5:34 pmarmed insurrection is what founded this country.
“When in the course of human events…”
redc1c4 (1996f3) — 7/16/2016 @ 5:36 pmthe point of the 2nd Amendment, as written, is that one cannot raise a militia unless the population is self-armed with military comparable weapons, whatever they might be at a given point in time.
Only half true.
The point of the Second Amendment was that the general public must have the arms they need to be the army themselves. The real target, so to speak, was the idea of standing armies, which would be a means of government to suppress opposition. In Great Britain, the army was often used to put down public disorder, and also to put down assembled opponents, in the 18th century, and into the 19th century. (Look up “Peterloo” for the last major example of this). With a properly armed citizenry, the people themselves would be able to defend themselves against foreign invasion and provide what we now leave to the police (the modern concept of police was at best in embryo form in that era), leaving no excuse for a standing army. And it more or less worked until the Civil War.
If this does not seem obvious, check the version in the Virginia Bill of Rights, which lays it out clearly, and is the obvious source of the wording in the Federal version.
What that implies about how the Founders would have viewed our modern apparatus of police and military is a question for another day.
kishnevi (871225) — 7/16/2016 @ 5:50 pmThat’s like saying that manure is what founded your dinner salad. But you, red, a U.S, citizen a long-time, good faith commenter here have a right to say it. Canadian troll Christoph does not. He’s just dirtying up Patterico’s blog.
nk (dbc370) — 7/16/2016 @ 5:52 pm“Don’t you love it when Canadian neo-Nazis infiltrate blog threads to preach armed insurrection and civil war in the United States?”
Yeah, I find that sort of thing highly entertaining. When do you reckon it’ll happen around here?
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/16/2016 @ 5:53 pm@kishnevi #19 — thoughtful intelligent insights. Not sure I am totally symmetrical with your line of thought, but it’s coherent and worthy of reflection and respect.
Not like some other cranks and obsessives frequently seen in these parts.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/16/2016 @ 5:59 pmThat it is feminists who don’t want any part of it makes the irony all the more delicious.
“Think of it as evolution in action.”
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/16/2016 @ 7:53 pm#6
The reason for the 2nd Amendment is that it is the natural right of all people to have the means to defend themselves. That may be from a killer, a gang of killers, a rapacious state, or a foreign invasion. That it also gives them the means to feed themselves is a plus.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/16/2016 @ 7:56 pmA feminist is allegedly strong, capable and intelligent.
No no no no! That’s a man’s idea of a feminist. Sarah Palin or some such.
A womyn’s feminist is dependent on a loving community where no one ever utters a harsh word and everyone is nurturing and supportive. Probably can’t have any men around, but fish/bicycle and all that. They can mail checks.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/16/2016 @ 8:01 pmWhat that implies about how the Founders would have viewed our modern apparatus of police and military is a question for another day.
I can just see the dialog now:
Obama: Slavery!
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/16/2016 @ 8:03 pmJefferson: Hydrogen bomb!
It sounds Victorian to me. “Ladies should behave like ladies and gentlemen should behave like gentlemen. Should a gentleman turn out to be a cad, it is hardly the lady’s fault now, is it? And guns … my dear, merely the sight of one makes me swoon.”
nk (dbc370) — 7/16/2016 @ 8:29 pmand it’s something quite peculiar something shimmering and white
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/16/2016 @ 9:04 pmStupid B***es, they all work the same way.
Haven’t the dumb broads learned their lesson yet?
Steve57 (193d96) — 7/16/2016 @ 10:34 pmIf our Founders had any doubt they wanted to preserve us the right to have guns, they would have left it to the States to decide. They choose otherwise.
Rodney King's Spirit (c2f82f) — 7/16/2016 @ 10:37 pmhunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/16/2016 @ 4:51 pm
It went with the philosophy that there should not be a standing army, and a related provisiopn (in the original constitution) is that there should not be a military apprpriation that lasts more than two years.
Alexander Hamilton om Federalist number 29 argued that a militia was really not sufficient to defend the country.
Nowadays other kinds of protections guard against coups. An armed populace armed only with common weapons is useless to resist a dictatorship, although it can make it pay a price, which may matter if the regime cares about that.
The Kurds in 1991 had arms – but they needed the U.S. Air Force. There are plenty of arms in Syria, but Aleppo is in danger of falling. You need surface to air misisles if you want to defend people against the government and nobody is proposing that they be widely avaialable – becauuse they can be used by terrorists, too.
If that’s the goal, you need different protections. Splitting of the military into different organizations is a preventative, though, and the experience of a working constuitution.
Sammy Finkelman (372aad) — 7/17/2016 @ 4:05 am“An armed populace armed only with common weapons is useless to resist a dictatorship”
Well, since we’ve effectively been living under a dictatorship for quite some time now, apparently your point is very well illustrated.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/17/2016 @ 5:51 amCanada is not a dictatorship, Christoph. Or don’t you live there, anymore? Did you move to Zimbabwe or some such place?
nk (dbc370) — 7/17/2016 @ 6:16 amI’m confused. Isn’t Christoph the snarky, charming working-class ice merchant who romances the princess in “Frozen”?
btw, I’ve always been sort of curious: what does George Soros’s signature look like? You must see it constantly on your paychecks.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/17/2016 @ 6:36 amYou are more than merely “confused”, Christoph. Get help.
nk (dbc370) — 7/17/2016 @ 6:56 amDon’t evade the question, goofball. Answer it like an honest man (well, as if that were possible.)
What, exactly, does the signature of George Soros look like, when he signs your paycheck?
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/17/2016 @ 7:28 amDon’t evade the question, porkbelly. Are you or are you not Christoph?
nk (dbc370) — 7/17/2016 @ 7:45 amnk, a chortle is called for. The one person Christoph chose to flatter on this thread is me, ha-Yehudi.
kishnevi (0cb353) — 7/17/2016 @ 9:06 amParty people goin’ places on the D train!
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/17/2016 @ 11:02 amThe ongoing NRA ad campaign has been SUPERB.
Jay (79d782) — 7/17/2016 @ 12:57 pmNk and I have virulently clashed on multiple issues, but for some buffoon Moby (such as hunson abedeer) tries to play off George Soros as the Conservative “Race” card only proves how buffoonish a Moby he is.
John Hitchcock (baee1a) — 7/17/2016 @ 3:30 pmThanks, guys. I work here is done.
nk (dbc370) — 7/17/2016 @ 5:15 pmThis is the same broad who peddles beet juice.
DCSCA (a343d5) — 7/17/2016 @ 7:34 pm