It has been my position for some time now that gun control isn't just about control but in fact about keeping certain populations subservient. I've told other women this before. Anyone who doesn't want you to have a gun wants you to be an easier victim.
What is in this for men (not all men, obviously) is painfully obvious. Women who are not empowered to defend themselves are easier to control. Easier to rape. Easier to abuse. Easier to dominate.
But what never made sense to me was women--self-described feminists, for the most part--who also don't want women to have guns.
How can it be feminist and pro-woman to want women to be easier victims? How can it be pro-woman to want that topless protester chick to not only be still not asking for it (which she isn't; don't get me wrong there) but to be able to say I DON'T FUCKING THINK SO in the most forceful way possible?
So for the longest time, I was confused. I even tried drinking vast amounts so as to lower my cognitive functions to the level where it would seem like a good idea. No dice.
But I finally figured it out this morning as I was loading groceries into the truck, so apparently an acute lack of sleep (weekend Houston trip) is what I needed.
Here it is (and I suspect it will elicit a collective No shit, Sherlock from my male readers):
Left-leaning feminists benefit from keeping women as a permanent victim class. I am still not entirely certain why this is--God knows there's plenty of misogyny still ingrained in our society without manufacturing bullshit that harms women. I haven't a clue what the end game is. Using the government to resurrect some sort of woman-centric society that probably never was? Continually feeling superior to those of us who dirty our hands?
You know, thinking on it, I think it is more likely to be the latter.
There is an undercurrent of elitism with most of the Progressives I know. From the business-owner bragging about how much Obamacare saved her on her health insurance who doesn't care that it creates a burden for people who aren't magically going to be able to afford the requirement for insurance (especially not once their employer cuts their hours because of the law) to the people doing the "food stamp challenge" to I guess show solidarity right on up to Barbara fucking Ehrenreich and her assumption in Nickel and Dimed that her whiteness earned her a waitressing job, I have seen Oh, you poor thing, you can't take care of yourself so let me appoint someone to take care of you implied so often I could puke.
Much as Progressives love having a permanent poverty class to feel magnanimous toward, it seems that they get a nice little injection of smug every time some poor black woman is shot by the drug dealer next door. That sort of thing never happens around here is a very common thought (I've blogged about the efforts some women go through to avoid criminals and feel safe before). A woman gets beaten to death by her ex-husband? Oh, poor dear. But my husband would never do anything like that.
I really think that must be it. Why else concentrate on laws that so increase the cost of gun ownership?