catsittingstill

Over at Feministe, they are saying that guns are not a feminist issue, in response to Megan McArdle saying on her blog that they are.

(McArdle redux: easy availibility of guns is good for women because you can fire a gun (and thus fight off a male attacker) without being strong.)

(Feministing redux: when you get right down to it, it doesn't *matter* that you can fire a gun without being strong; women in practice are more likely to be killed by guns than to defend themseves with one.)

What do I think? First I think there's a tendency to revere, or revile, guns as guns--for a lot of people they're not just tools; they're symbols and the symbol gets in the way of evaluating the tool.

So I'm going to try to think about a tool to throw lumps of metal very fast. Theoretically I could indeed use such a tool to fight off a bigger, stronger attacker, just as I could use a crowbar or a chisel or a plugged-in circle saw. However:

1) Such tools tend to interest men more than women, in my experience (whether because of their symbolism, or because most tools to work metal get more use by men I don't know). Easy availability of such a tool is more likely, I think, to promote its possession by men than women--just like easy availability of a circle saw is more likely to promote its possession by men than by women. (Note that of course I agree that women use tools and of course I support a woman's right to use any tool that a man may use. Just in case anyone was getting confused.)

1a) Such tools don't interest me, given the responsibility of making sure no bystander is hurt by them (I don't carry around plugged in circle saws everywhere I go either, for pretty much the same reason--in any given day I won't have a use for one, and subjecting myself and others to that hazard unnecessarily is stupid). Like a seatbelt, this tool only works for self defense if you have it when you need it--I wouldn't tend to have it, and I suspect I am not alone or even in the minority among women in this.

2) You'd be amazed how many tools I am not strong enough to use without a mechanical assist. Some among these have been examples of metal-throwing tools I was not strong enough to cock on demand. I am by no means convinced that these tools are the promised equalizers that will make it possible for smaller weaker less aggressive people to fight off bigger stronger more aggressive people.

3) my life experience has been that where these metal throwing tools are highly valued and frequently possessed, women tend to be treated less equally. Sometimes *markedly* less equally. Make of it what you will.

4) the crucial element in all this is the willingness to seriously hurt or kill somebody. My limited experience suggests to me that I'm not good at this (I'm fine with it in self-defense, in theory, but in practice I would hesitate). I think that a lot of people aren't good at this--and furthermore I think women are in general less likely to be good at it than men. The metal throwing tool does no good without the willingess. The willingness takes actual training and/or experience.

So, no, I don't think guns are the solution for women getting equality or even for women fighting off attackers. Some women will choose to carry them and that's fine with me. But feminist issue? Unless someone is trying to ban only women from owning guns, no, it's not. Feministe wins.