“As men doubt their ability to provide, their desire to protect becomes all the more important. They see carrying a gun as a masculine duty and the gun itself as a vehicle for a hardened kind of care-work — caring for others by shielding them from danger, with the threat of lethal force.” – Jennifer Carlson in Why men feel the need to carry guns [via latimes.com]
I can 10,000% agree the desire to protect became immeasurably stronger once I became a father. His life is more important to me than my own or anyone else’s. The rest of what she wrote is so much bollocks.
if anything it removes false bravado. Sure if it’s just me I can tell myself stories about how manly and tough I am, and if worse comes to worse I can take care of myself.
Add a kid and your self assessment becomes a whole lot more humble [read accurate] and you realize that you need any advantage you can get should the unthinkable happen. It’s one thing to take a risk for yourself- it’s another when you have a wife and child.
And then there are all the women and childless fathers to explain. *crickets*
What’s there to explain? I’m sure that most people, non-father men included, who carry a weapon do so chiefly for their own protection.
Agreed. Before I had a wife and kids, I didn’t carry a firearm. If something happened to me, I was secure in my future. Now, I have others who depend on me, and I am responsible for providing for them, not only financially, but by my presence in their lives as husband and father. I carry a firearm not because I am incapable of fulfilling that responsibility, but because I am able to fulfill that responsibility, and do so. The firearm is merely there to help ensure that I can continue doing so.
As for the QOTD itself: it’s merely another take on the “ammosexual”/phallic-projection ad hominem the other side so loves.
Before I had a wife and kids, I had a whole lot more money to buy and carry guns.
Yeah, that part, I didn’t think through very well beforehand. Lesson learned, the hard way. 🙂
Only a leftist feminazi would see men or guns this way. Why does she feel the need to psychoanalyze the feeling a father has to protect his children. It common sense, just like momma’s .380. This woman works for the LA Slimes and probably went to Berkley in the 60’s and knows that men think with their peckers. We are all cave men to her.
What a poor blanket assumption. I am the breadwinner, and have been armed since I was young and independent.
Being armed is not some sort of compensation for any lack in other areas. Why do libs always want to quantify it as such? I guess they just cannot understand the concept of personal responsibility or the shot comings for the nanny state.
Also standing in stark opposition to her assertion is that many (most?) of us “armed men” also promote the idea of being armed to our friends and loved ones, regardless of gender. My wife can take care of herself with her own gun.
Shortcomings of the nanny state. New phone, new auto correct.
If a man dares to suggest what a woman might be thinking, I believe the term of derision is “mansplaining.”
So, if a woman wants to tell me what men are thinking, what do I call that?
Feminism?
My wife…
Marriage.
Actually, she’s an Asst. Professor of Sociology at the University of Toronto. She wrote the article for the L.A. Times, but probably just to generate some buzz for her just published book on this subject. You’re right, though, she did receive her Master’s and Ph.D from UC Berkley, but in the 2000s, not the 1960s. She double majored in Sociology and Mathematics at Dartmouth.
Pure feminazi, though, as her entire worldview is a tired retread of race, class, and gender grievance group politics. That’s based on her own published work in such fair and balanced periodicals as “Feminist Criminology”, “Feminist Theory”, and “Violence Against Women”, not me.
Finger off the trigger!
Will nobody ever learn?
+1 My thoughts exactly. I felt like shouting “you’re doing it wrong!”
I want to protect that kid from his ignoramus father who is putting them both at risk of permanent hearing loss.
Yes, men have an irresistible and compelling urge to protect their wives and children from violent human and animal attackers. I would argue that woman have an almost equally irresistible and compelling urge to protect their children (and to a lesser extent their husbands). This is self-evident … at least to most of us.
And yes, a firearm is perhaps the most effective tool available that a father/husband could use to stop a violent attack on his child/wife … thus many fathers and husbands will naturally want to have a firearm handy to stop an attack. Again, this is self-evident to most of us.
What is appalling are gun grabbers who shirk their sacred duty to protect their spouse and children and from violent attackers. I have no idea how such people can live with themselves.
I agree. There are days when I wonder if Shannon’s hubby John just says “F**k it” and decides he doesn’t care anymore about her.
Like when he meets someone younger, better looking, less attitude, less mouthy…
He’s played that card before, it makes him more likely to do it again…
*snicker*
I hope he got a god pre-nup.
Every study that I’ve seen shows that gun ownership is positively related to income — people who are better off own more guns, because they’re expensive. But that fact was probably ignored because it doesn’t fit the left’s bigoted narrative that gun owners are all a bunch of ignorant, unemployed, racist rednecks.
True. Factor in as well that the fastest growing group of gun owners is women, and the fastest growing group of concealed carry license holders (in Texas, anyway) is men in their 50s, then this writer’s thesis reveals gaping holes.
How can women, who earn the majority of college degrees today, feel widespread dissatisfaction with their economic prospects for being undereducated and feel that their masculinity is challenged?
How can middle aged men, the highest income earning group, at the height of their career earnings, typically with no minor children at home, also feel so dire that they need to pack heat and play out Walter Mitty fantasies?
This lady started with her conclusion, then wove a nasty, insulting narrative to support it. No wonder she’s publishing this as an article and a book, instead of as a scholarly, peer-reviewed paper. Even the editors at the “British Journal of Criminology” , where she’s been published in the past, likely wouldn’t accept this drek as legitimate research.
How about men who don’t doubt their ability to provide anything but safety–without a gun—to themselves or their families? And why do women “feel the need”, too?
“Why does she feel the need to psychoanalyze the feeling a father has to protect his children?”
Because she’s a “feminist”. Her ideology dictates that men are mostly irrelevant to society. We are needed for procreation, but if feminists could harvest men’s semen like we harvest a cow’s milk, they’d do it. Her hostility towards men just oozes out of the first sentence. Here is her likely more honest rewrite: “As these men realize how inadequate they are in earning income, they compensate for their small penises with gun under the laughable guise of protecting their family.”
Good point James. Now I am questioning my own comment immediately below. I was thinking of Ms. Carlson strictly as a gun grabber, not a feminist.
Oh, she’s pure feminist, no doubt whatsoever, and all that that impies.
http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/sociology/faculty-staff/carlson-jennifer
Yep. Helpfully point out that single mothers raise all the criminals, with the help of a corrupt child support system, and they come full circle back to “well, that’s because the MEN ain’t s#!t!” Basically, “well if the man was around…” Well? Which is it, damn it!? And they get insulted when we call them “undecisive…”
Great post, thanks for the read.
I read Ms. Carlson’s article in the LA Times and was surprised to see that it was NOT another “firearms owners are knuckle-dragging Neanderthals with small penises and low IQs and are dangerous seething cauldrons of rage who will explode at the slightest provocation” article.
I have to wonder if we are actually starting to get through to some of the gun grabbers. I imagine they still do not like the fact that we embrace firearm ownership. And yet some seem to be starting to at least understand it … dare I say respect it even if they would never want to own one themselves.
A group can demonize good people and suppress the truth for only so long before reality begins to rear its ugly head.
I loved the story so much I shared it with my wife, 3 sisters, and 3 sisters in law that all own/carry guns.
What about all the WOMEN than carry?
They have small penises, too. Didn’t you get the memo?
So why do women carry guns? Oh, I bet it’s because all the insecure men carrying guns has frightened them into doing so. Yeah, that’s gotta be it.
Ok Robert Farago.
What do YOU think this article is about. There is debate on Calguns wither this is a backhanded attack on men using a gun to compensate, or if this is a person recognizing a man’s desire to be a protector and that is ok.
I fall into the backhanded group. You?
Backhand.
Because above ALL else, a Progressive is Progressive *first*.
Both. The author is recognizing the natural desire to be a protector, but can’t help but couch in in requisite insulting terms.
AGAIN, and STILL, who the F would ask a woman what it means or takes to be a man.
W O R S E
AGAIN, and STILL, who the F would ask anyone at the LA Times???
“As men doubt their ability to provide, their desire to protect becomes all the more important.”
Or, they disassociate with their role in society and their interaction with the fairer sex becomes more primal and women and children suffer. (a/k/a – the Middle East).
So what about gay men, who are actual targets of hate :X
I imagine shed still think youre an evil misogynistic gun owner compensating for something 🙂
Tats, worthless firearm, finger on trigger, no muzzle discipline, sullen expression, random holes in his face…only thing missing is having the baby covered in camouflage paint.
Was this photo done by the LA Times? The pic seems anti-gun to me…but that may just be my reaction to a nice pictorial summary of what passes for American culture.
they wanted a “scary” picture to fit the emasculating ridicule diatribe by the femi-nazi writing the article. Form follows function.
She’s a newbie and barely out of College (2013). From her Amazon bio:
“Jennifer Carlson is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Toronto, splitting her time between Detroit and Toronto. She received her Ph.D. in sociology in 2013 from University of California, Berkeley.”
Explains a lot. She was well indoctrinated.
You supposed to have a natural, biological urge to protect your family and offsprings. If you do not, then there is something fundamentally wrong with you.
Typical psychobabble coming from the land of the whispering bush!!
Just another Mongoloid writing about what they know not and proving it by writing, Peace, love, Dope sounds more this reporters style, maybe the expression of phallic symbols denotes a Libido of wishful thinking of fulfillment! Enough schmoozing, Get facts straight before mangling the English language more than it is! may the bird of paradise grant them their wish of living in a perfect rubber room! divorced from reality!
I love the image chosen for her comments. Angry look on face, all the tough looking tats, no shirt, not particularly fit, really masculine looking shotgun. The typical gun owner. Yep, just like me. Not!
Lemme see~ what do I need today?……..Some west coast chick TELLING me, a MAN…..what men think and feel, about guns no less. Riiiiiight, not. I am able to think on my own, thank you very much……
My gun is an extension of my penis. I don’t know what the heck she is talking about.
If that’s the case, then to paraphrase Massad Ayoob, then why do I choose to carry a 2″ snubnose?
…what *is* that thing he’s holding? Not the baby, the other thing. Doesn’t look like a shotgun.
Anybody clarify?
Mossberg Persuader. I have one just like it, but with a Hogue tamer grip because I got tired of my hand swelling up to the size of a cantalope using the stock grip.
Dustin…thank you! *8)
Sure I owned a .22 rifle and a shotgun, but honestly, I was not prepared to use either one as a defensive weapon when my children were young. They were pretty much grown by the time I had the money and time to spend on firearms and shooting. I was too busy providing for my family to spend time feeling inadequate about not be able to do it. Sure I carry firearms for defensive purposes, but that’s not what drives my interest. I just enjoy them. What a crock.
This is just the updated version of “guns are just compensating for small naughty bits” nonsense. She can try to legitimize it under the guise of social science research, but her rant is nothing more than one big opinion piece.
Does she have peer reviewed research to back up all of her claims? Musings, unsubstantiated conclusions and feelings are not scientific research and can’t be substituted as such.
What’s up with the almost religious worship of peer reviewed studies? They are known to be faulted and biased, and heavily influenced by financial considerations.
I’ll defend my wife and kids to the death.What are chicks compensating for? I saw this crap yesterday and didn’t comment because it connected with fakebook. Never leave your real name on a wacko site. Whatever…it’s far from the worst gun thing I’ve seen lately.
If you think this 5in inch 0.6in dia barrel is compensating for something… Well, you seem like the sort who is already familiar with a gas station bathroom where I can show you a little sursprise…
Womens’ selections processes are so hopelessly screwed up at this point, men need to become the screeners. They believe that being socially dependent is a strength quality… They want a dumb hormonal loser they can own and control for the ego trip of it, even if he’s barely human. It’s sad.
Finding a woman that isn’t a worthless dumb animal is impossible. The opinions of such, whether or not she has a thesaurus handy, are equally worthless.
All by design, none of this as accidental. The state has replaced the man as the ruler of the family, feminism is one of the social conditioning vehicles that has helped move us here.
As men doubt their ability to provide, their desire to protect becomes all the more important.
Actually, all I ever doubted was the ability of some women to stop running their mouths and talking stupid sheeit.
Guys, before you go dissing the lady, go to her own web site jdawncarlson.com. Then read the links to her women with guns articles. Yes, she went to Berkeley and she is clearly also influenced by her current Toronto lifestyle, but her writing, while annoyingly sociological and excessively intellectual, is not anti-gun and is not anti-male. I am sure that in her heart she would like “guns to go away” but seems to realize that is a fairy tale. Some of her stuff is quite pointed and indicates that she actually listens to the people she interviews. She took issue on her web site with how the LA Times used her article. Some other statements she makes are quite naïve. Michigan is a “liberal” state? Not the Michigan that I lived in.
+1
She really does seem to be trying to be fair. I think RF should interview her. Read her comments about her latest latimes editorial (she did not pick the headline title for instance)…
Let’s do the math:
+ Feminist
+ Living in Canada
+ Writing for the LA Times
+ Calling out guys, making no mention, comparison or contrast with females
+ Talks about guys’ “need” to carry guns, like we are mindless Neanderthals whose instinct overtakes our choice
+ Implies that it is a blue collar thing
+ Says that having guns is not reducible to the fear of crime (then why do I EDC?)
= Libtard agenda, albeit well disguised and obviously successful at taking some people in.
Michigan has gun registration = Liberal in my book, especially when you add in all the socialist/union stuff. At least she got that part right.
Michigan only requires registration of pistols. It sucks, but that is really the worst of it. Few restrictions compared to many other states.
The baby looks really worried??
” . . .As men doubt their ability to provide, their desire to protect becomes all the more important. . .”
This is the core of a typically weak radical feminist argument that would never stand up to the rigors of real sociological theory, Here’s why. Let’s turn her comment around and say, instead, that as long as men are able to provide their desire to protect becomes less important. Really? That’s just beyond stupid. It’s worth mentioning that theories are just ideas that we use to explain phenomena. Nothing more, nothing less. Some are good at explaining things, while others are not. This “explanation” falls into the latter category. In common with every radical feminist sociologist I’ve ever encountered, this one has about as much insight into male roles as a duck. I could go on and on discussing just why her theory is bunk, but I’ll spare you this. I will say that, for someone with a Ph.D. in sociology to be so completely tone-deaf about the relationship between men, weapons, and a willingness to protect, is a bit stunning. The fact that she thought this up all by herself and now thinks it’s something to share with others is even more stunning.
When Beowulf went after Grendel I don’t think he spent much time wondering if his ability to provide was going to interfere with his ability to kick ass and take names.
“As men doubt their ability to provide, their desire to protect becomes all the more important. I see the feminists are attacking males again. Good males should provide and protect regardless. Good females should do likewise.
OMG! A baby! And a gun!
No, I just want to be armed when some sick, violent product of liberal society decides to go on a shooting spree where I happen to be,
Not that hard to understand.
Yep! I bought my first gun in February of 2013 at the ripe young age of 47. I didn’t have young kids to protect and I was not paranoid over any personal threat. I started bearing arms for two reasons. 1, Obama and the anti freedom party was into a second term. 2, the Newtown and Aurora shootings prompted me to do the right thing and join the good guys with guns club. I answered the question of the day, “Are Non-Gun Owners Shirking Their Responsibility?” over two years ago. I was pro gun yet I didn’t own any. I remember the news reporting that among the victims in the “gun free” theater were service men home on leave. The logical question came to mind “what if just one of those military guys had ignored the stupid gun policy and been able to fight back?” The very next thought I had was that I had no right to even ask such a question unless I am willing to take on that responsibility. So I earmarked my profit share check to buy guns. I got my conceal license and have never looked back.
No, men carry guns more frequently now in response to progressive policies.
I have a son maybe a little bit older than the child in that video. I also ccw everywhere and probably own more guns than the average American but that is an extraordinarily creepy picture.
Comments are closed.