[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.” )
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.