Fantasy vs Reality: Women Are Protecting Themselves With Guns, and Feminists Are Calling It "Absurd"

Feminism is chock full of bubbles within which feminist ideology lives comfortably. It calls masculinity – the very thing that has kept the proverbial and literal wolves in the hills – fragile while demanding safe spaces, and lashing out whenever someone does something innocuous that they find offensive.

To the feminists, they are a community of perpetual victims who at all times should be listened to and believed without question. This only applies to feminists, however. Any woman who disagrees is to be shunned, ridiculed, and rejected post haste.

But oddly enough, this group of victims seems to find the idea of lessening their victimhood problematic. Whenever something comes along to help them combat being preyed upon, or assaulted, they become indignant, and reject it outright.

A good example would be the reaction by feminists to the nail polish that a woman could wear that would change color if it came in contact with drugs like GHB and Rohypnol, a.k.a. date rape drugs. Instead of celebrating a new way to prevent sexual assault and rape, they said it put responsibility on the woman for her own safety, and that we should just teach men not to rape. Instead of being happy about having a clever new tool to combat sexual predators, they were insulted, and called it “victim blaming.”

But one surefire way for women to protect themselves has been around for ages. It’s called the “gun,” and it works by killing a woman’s attacker before he can harm her. Years of tests have proven it a very effective crime deterrent, especially for women.

It’s what prompted Dana Loesch, host of the Blaze and NRA superstar to create a video that puts rapists, sexual predators, and domestic abusers on notice.

“Your life expectancy just got shorter.”

Firearms put the power of a woman’s safety into her own hands, which in terms of protection, are the best hands they can be in. A woman who carries is far less likely to suffer assault, because the man who does the assaulting will have to weigh their life against the act.

Gun Owners of America dug up some very interesting facts.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape “experts” considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department’s annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes, “Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion.” (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that “resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape”; this is accomplished “without creating any significant additional risk of other injury.”

That guns and self-protection go hand in hand isn’t just common sense, it’s documentable fact.

So it’s odd when leading feminist voice, Jessica Valenti, responded to Dana’s message with this:

For a group so concerned with women being raped, it sure does shun a lot of methods that prevent it. In fact, their best idea brought to the table is “vomiting and urinating” on yourself. Have fun with that, ladies.

Thing is, this isn’t surprising coming from an ideology that wishes to take zero responsibility for itself. Preventing rape isn’t really the end goal for feminism. Safety isn’t really a primary concern.

If rape disappeared off the planet tomorrow, it would be the worst day 3rd wave feminism will have ever seen. Of course they believe guns protecting women to be a ridiculous idea. There’s no avenue for victimhood for an armed woman, and victimhood is the primary goal of feminism. 

It’s the socio-political control that victimhood gives feminists that they wish to maintain. Without it, they have no platform. It’s why they resist the idea of color changing nail polish, firearms, and self accountability.

What women like Dana Loesch, and women like Bearings Arms’ Jenn Jacques are trying to do is actually make women safer by promoting a realistic, tried and true method of self-defense. What Valenti is trying to do is maintain a narrative by endangering women by casting shade on anything that doesn’t put the full responsibility of every misfortune women suffer on an entire sex.

It’s a perfect contrast of reality and fantasy. What women need to decide is which world they want to live in.