Chivalry versus condescension

I’ve mentioned before that the gunnies around here are some of the most courteous, friendly and welcoming people I’ve come across.

Some of it stems from the sheer difficulty of becoming a gunnie in this neck of the woods.  Anyone who wants to climb that mountain of regulatory hoops (how’s that for a mixed metaphor?!) is welcomed as a comrade-in-arms.  (Jay G’s written about this before — about how the burdensome laws make 2A folks band together, that when you find someone who shoots, you’ve likely got some things in common — but I couldn’t find the post.  Jay? UPDATE — this is the one I meant.  Thanks Jay!)

On the other hand, some folks feel it’s their duty to introduce new people, especially women, into the joys of shooting.  LawDog, for example, has written about the proper (and less-than-stellar) way to break in a newbie and feels that the future of the shooting depends on women.  And I wouldn’t exactly classify Texas as gun-hostile!

I’ve come across multiple essays explaining

- things to avoid unless you want your wife to hate guns

- chastising gun shop workers who ignore women or assume they can only handle .22

- warning against misogyny, even the well-meant kind, in the gunnie community

And the one time I’ve walked into a gun shop, the owner chatted me up in a friendly way then commented how nice it was to see a woman walk into the store.

In other words, I’ve found that the shooters around here are overwhelmingly chivalrous, not patronizing.

Which is more than I can say for the range officer who told Shoothouse Barbie she would have to wear ear protection “because guns are loud.”

Pissant.

Overcoming instinctual dislike

I’m of the opinion that women can be meaner, nastier, cruder, harsher and more evil to other women than male misogynists could ever hope to emulate.  It’s no surprise to me, therefore, that some women dislike Palin because she’s beautiful and successful and holds a traditionally male-dominated political viewpoint.  Credit to Julia O’Malley for recognizing the feeling for what it is:

Sure, some of us don’t like Palin’s politics, but we should pay attention to what else is going on. I laughed a little when I watched Letterman’s jokes. It wasn’t because they were funny. It was because they were mean. And somehow watching someone be mean to America’s Hottest Governor felt good. And, that wasn’t feminist at all.

The fact is, even with the pumps and the winking, she didn’t deserve it. Maybe Palin is an opportunist, maybe she’s a drama queen, maybe she’s using a feminist argument to make political hay, but in this case her underlying point is right on. Letterman was gross and out of line, no matter which daughter he was talking about. Making Letterman apologize was a win for her and for women everywhere.

There are plenty of reasons to disagree with Palin, and there might even been some reasons to dislike her.

But hotness shouldn’t be one of them.

It took some thinking on her part to overcome her first reaction, which was pretty much “She wore sexy heels and played up her hotness, so she deserved it.”  And I think it’s great that she did.

But honestly, the whole “she played off her hotness to gain points politically, so she deserves to be lampooned as a sex bunny” thing is ridiculous.  As I recall, Palin wasn’t the one parading around in her swimsuit for paparazzi so that reporters could gush about her glistening . . . er . . . pecs. 

(h/t Hot Air headlines)

Manly Cities, ahoy!

Courtesy of Ace comes this Combo study (take it with many grains of salt, ’cause a handful of those will kill your sodium content for the day):

Top 10 Manly Cities:

1. Nashville, Tenn.
    2. Charlotte, N.C.
    3. Oklahoma City, Okla.
    4. Cincinnati, Ohio
    5. Denver, Colo.
    6. St. Louis, Mo.
    7. Columbus, Ohio
    8. Kansas City, Mo.
    9. Indianapolis, Ind.
    10. Toledo, Ohio

Bottom 10 Manly Cities:

40. Seattle, Wash.
    41. Sacramento, Calif.
    42. Miami, Fla.
    43. San Diego, Calif.
    44. Oakland, Calif.
    45. Washington, District of Columbia
    46. Chicago, Ill.
    47. Portland, Ore.
    48. San Francisco, Calif.
    49. Los Angeles, Calif.
    50. New York, N.Y.

Of course, the study itself is sort of a fallacy; everyone knows that REALLY manly men don’t live in cities.  They live on their own land and build cannons and stuff.  Right, Doubletrouble? 

(Oh, and they date Mrs. Doubletrouble.  That was one kickass lady.)

Quote of the Day

Gina: Social historians concede that civilization arose and prospered from men accomplishing things to impress — and thus to bed — women. And it turns out that women can be impressed and beddedby all varieties of complicated things, such as the writing of great poetry, the designing of timelessly beautiful buildings, the discovery of penicillin. Imagine what civilization would be like if it had to arise from women impressing men.

Gene: I’m trying.

Gina: I’ll help you out. The single great accomplishment of civilization to date — probably developed during the Middle Ages — would be the boob job.

And guns, Gina.  Lots and lots of guns. 

(h/t Hot Air Headlines)

Looking Glass News 2-13-09

The recession is hard on a lot of families and demographics, but as usual women are being unfairly and disproportionately affected:

The proportion of men who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen women, who are heavily represented in areas like education and health care [snip].   Men tend to be employed in industries like manufacturing and construction.

“Given how stark and concentrated the job losses are among women, and that men represented a high proportion of the labor force in the beginning of this recession, men are now bearing the burden — or the opportunity, one could say — of being breadwinners,” says Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Center for American Progress.

Riiiiight. 

In case you can’t tell (or didn’t click the link), I flipped “men” and “women” in that article excerpt (and snipped one mention of women inhabiting less business-cyclical sectors).  If 82 percent of the job losses had affected WOMEN, I’m sure they would have done a dispassionate analysis of the types of job the men were left holding, as well as mentioning that it might be an opportunity for men to attain or maintain their role as breadwinners.

In other news, gravity is now optional.

*Note: It wasn’t a bad article.  I think it made some good points and highlighted some of the options that women tend to take more often than men do — namely, taking lower-risk lower-reward jobs in exchange for having more free time and more stability.  There’s nothing wrong with that.  But if you think that a similarly dispassionate article would have been written if the recession job toll flipped the other way — 82% women laid off to only 18% men — then you are out of your freaking mind.

(h/t from another Corner article)