chosen?

random random random, keep on reading random...

Okay, this one I'm picking because as much as I hate to agree with a Conservative, extremists on both sides need to be chastised (article cherrypicked from "Federalists").

Here Mike S. Adams takes some "feminist scholars" to task for their study linking hunting and abuse of women. Now, I'm no hunter, and have no desire to be. It's unnecessary when there's a Kroger down the road, at least as far as I'm concerned. All my hunting kicks are supplied by junk and antique stores and flea markets. But some folks (and not just men) need the woods and a weapon of some sort, and considering that a mere 200 years ago this was a necessity for almost everyone, and had been for millions of years, I cant get bent out of shape about that. At least as long as they eat it.

Here's one bit of silliness from the study

"…hunters (like batterers and rapists) are widely considered not responsible for their actions, and hunted animals and abused women participate in (and thus agree to) their exploitation…"

and here's Mike's reaction:

I guess I’ve never had a deer tell me it was okay to pull the trigger. If they ever do start to talk, whether offering or refusing consent, I promise to sell all of my firearms immediately.

See, conservatives can be funny.

Okay, that's all I'm going to say in favor of Adams, especially since he offers no link to the study (a common trick when misrepresenting somebody). But I tracked it down, here.

Now for my turn, or rather, why I think this study is silly. Not for Adams' reason (feminists are silly, and so is their scholarship). I thinks it's a silly study because it takes hunters to task for using sexual imagery when discussing hunting.
Why is this silly? We human beings use sexual imagery when talking about everything. For that matter, we use hunting imagery when talking about everything. Men and women both. It's a little something called allusion (or something like that). Certainly it makes conversation a lot more interesting. Imagine discussing going to the store in purely economic terminology. I think not.
No doubt, there are Hunters who also prey on women. I also have no doubt that there are Accountants who prey on women. There are also women who prey on men, and describe their actions in hunting terms, just as men do. What's that movie from the 50's with Marilyn Monroe and Lauren Bacall as husband-hunting single girls. Sinister? Well, maybe.

I'm sure there is some useful information in this study, a bit at least. But lets face it, it's mostly more publish-or-perish collegiate garbage, telling us something we already knew in inflated terms to make it seem more important than it really is. Read it, shake your head, and get on with your life.