David Codrea writes [via ammoland.com]:

Didn’t Col. Colt and John Moses Browning take care of this over a century ago?” Glenn Reynolds asks in a Sunday Instapundit post. He’s referring to an ongoing XPrize contest to “design a wearable solution that can keep women safe.”

“The Anu & Naveen Jain Women’s Safety XPRIZE is a $1 million global competition that challenges teams to leverage technology to empower communities with a transformative solution that ensures women’s safety,” the competition overview explains.

“Armed with innovative safety nets, communities everywhere can rapidly respond to threats against any of its members, ensuring that help is always available when needed. The winning team’s solution will autonomously and inconspicuously trigger an emergency alert while transmitting information to a network of community responders, all within 90 seconds and at an annual cost of $40 or less.”

In other words, they’re not armed with arms. And the alert won’t even go out until after an attack has had considerable time to progress. Yet the contest sponsors present that “solution” as “transformative,” and actually have either the gall — or the ignorance — to assert that set of conditions “ensures women’s safety.”

90 seconds to activate the network and how long until a capable intervention arrives on scene…? And will they bring chalk and a body bag to save having to make a second call?

For such smart people, the folks behind the prize sure are proposing idiocy if the purpose is for women to survive unharmed. And it’s not the first time we’ve seen ridiculous “solutions offered by those who recommend a woman do anything except defend herself with a gun.
How “escape proof” is this, assuming an enraged rapist won’t mind mutilating the wearer to escape?

Several years back, such minds were placing great hopes on the Rapex, “a product worn internally by women. The hollow inside is lined with rows of razor-sharp hooks, which are designed to latch on to a rapist’s penis during penetration. They can only be removed by a doctor.”

Its main drawback – you had to actually be raped for it to “work.” And let some maniac pervert with who-knows-what diseases bleed inside you. And be at his mercy, assuming he couldn’t just cut his way out of you.

A few years later, a team of engineering students from India came up with electric shock-dispensing anti-rape underwear:

“The underwear, called Society Harnessing Equipment (SHE), deploys a 3,800kV charge to anyone touching the outside of the underwear while protecting the wearer with a polymer lining. It can shock an attacker up to 82 times [and] the bra of this underwear set is equipped with GPS tracking device that can notify cops and family members in real-time in the event of an attack.”

As ridiculously dangerous to and victimizing of women as both of these “solutions” are, they still beat advice given until recently by the Illinois State Police:

It may sound disgusting, but putting your fingers into you [sic] throat and making yourself vomit usually gets results. (This method is not often used except as a last resort.) Use your imagination and you can think of others.

And most “importantly”:

If you must fight Use of a firearm to protect yourself or property is not recommended.

This is still the message women are being subjected to by Michael Bloomberg, with his armed bodyguards (even where most police aren’t armed), and Shannon Watts, with hers.  It’s all part of a conflation effort to make it seem like no one can (who’s not a cop or a bodyguard) be trusted with a gun.

Here are a couple quick fixes for the arguments they raise and the media parrots: If you don’t want a gun in the home to be a greater danger than not having one, don’t live and associate with people engaged in criminal activities.

And if you don’t want a gun taken away from you and used against you, get a bit of training. I’ve been waiting 12 years for this nitwit to put his money where his mouth is.

Talk about a sexist attitude, making that assumption and applying it to all women.  And why should we expect any different from Opposite Day “progressive feminists”?
The Defender of Virginity

The January 1994 issue of Women & Guns magazine quoted (still in office) District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, one of 25 women in Congress who sent a letter to the National Rifle Association protesting its then-new “Refuse to be a Victim” program.

“Women are virgins when it comes to guns,” Norton advocated. “It should stay that way.”

Even if it means rapists and killers can have their way with them.

The undeniable takeaway is that people discouraging self-defense with a firearm would rather see a woman dead than armed. Or a man. One thing you can say about “progressives” – when it comes to denying rights to those they would control, they’re all about equal opportunity.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2017/02/xprize-contest-highlights-ludicrous-steps-anti-gunners-will-take-deny-reality/#ixzz4ZzzhrrR7
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

44 COMMENTS

  1. Until some really smart nerd invents the “Star Trek phaser on stun”, Sam Colt is da man! /;-)

  4. “Women are virgins when it comes to guns,” Norton advocated. “It should stay that way.”

    Wow. As uncouth as it would be, I’m sorely tempted to twist that quote attributed to Orwell into something about rough men standing ready to do violence upon women who sleep peacefully. People like this man are truly evil and insane on a very base level, probably even unbeknownst to them. They would rather women remain as helpless, innocent children than for them to take proactive steps to secure their own safety and freedom, even in the absence of others willing to do so for them. They see human self-actualization as a sin, and aspire to be farm animals at the mercy of their betters.

    That denial of human agency is the crux of the various dystopian theories, whether Orwell (1984), Huxley (Brave New World), or Rand (Anthem)

  5. “It may sound disgusting, but putting your fingers into you [sic] throat and making yourself vomit usually gets results”. We are sponsoring a mostly for women self defense class at my workplace where the trainer will change this to “It may sound disgusting, but putting your fingers into the perp’s eye sockets and pushing really hard ALWAYS gets results”. (He is not against CCW; just makes the point that if a person is jumped, they need to be able to respond immediately with overwhelming violence in a way that the perp does not expect and will without a doubt get results).

  6. “Women are virgins when it comes to guns,” Norton advocated. “It should stay that way.”

    Wow. As uncouth as it would be, I’m sorely tempted to twist that quote attributed to Orwell into something about rough men standing ready to do violence upon women who sleep peacefully. People like this woman are truly evil and insane on a very base level, probably even unbeknownst to them. They would rather women remain as helpless, innocent children than for them to take proactive steps to secure their own safety and freedom, even in the absence of others willing to do so for them. They see human self-actualization as a sin, and aspire to be farm animals at the mercy of their betters. They do not care one bit about protecting or empowering women, as composed of individual females, but about Women, the idea of a collectivist sisterhood marching lockstep in pursuit of political goals. Therefore, so long as Women are given special treatment and consideration by authorities with little gadgets like this deployed en masse at great expense, it doesn’t really matter if individual women are raped or murdered while at the mercy of attackers in the meantime. So long as the illusion and intention of measures on their behalf are maintained, the political benefit is the same.

    That denial of individual human agency is the crux of the various dystopian theories, whether Orwell (1984), Huxley (Brave New World), or Rand (Anthem)

  8. ‘…autonomously and inconspicuously trig ger an emergency alert while transmitting information to a network of community responders, all within 90 seconds…’

    So by the time your ‘first’ responders arrive at the scene your rapist has just enough time to slip you a roofie and play a couple of Otis Redding songs before making his move.

  9. The snatchgadget might work as a deterrent of sorts if it performed a penisectomy upon intrusion of an unwanted member.

    • But the device unfortunately assumes that the only indignity the attacker intends is rape. Hardly a safe assumption, IMO.

      Not to mention how he will respond on discovering the device.

  10. How is it that the same “progressive” people who are pushing to keep women from arming themselves in their civilian lives are also pushing for women to be integrated into combat units in the military? If a woman can handle an m4 for equality in the military, I say they are certainly capable of handling a 9mm for their safety.

    My personal belief is that if someon can do the job, I don’t care what their gender is. The right to protect yourself from harm by every means at your disposal is also not dependent of having male genitalia.

  11. “Women are virgins when it comes to guns,” Norton advocated. “It should stay that way.”

    So, does she believe the following (just as true, apparently, in the spirit she seems to intend)?

    “Women are virgins when it comes to voting,” Norton advocated. “It should stay that way.”

  12. >>communities everywhere can rapidly respond to threats against any of its members, ensuring that help is always available when needed.

    Sounds like yet another poorly-thought IoT startup. Also, Bystander Effect.

    And intra-vaginal traps are, by definition, useless against rapist with more…diverse taste. Those vocal about keeping women unarmed are unlikely to care, though.

    • Well, yeah, and also “intra-vaginal traps” require women to demean themselves every day by shoving that thing up their vag, and walking around with it. These leftist ideas seem incredibly degrading.

      • Indeed. And an example of a product designed under incompetent and eager management, with poor requirements, no feedback from users, and ad campaign implemented by people who does not have a clue. Hell, what about women who might want to use both firearm and snip-a-dick for those unlucky caught in Condition White? “No, no and no! Deadly force is verbotten, so shut up and stick that mousetrap up yours”. Brilliant, yeah.

  13. The “shocking underwear” idea would be great, though, if it could be modified so parents could put it on their teenage daughters before they go out on dates – and only the parents could unlock it!

  14. Where does this 1 in 3 figure come from?
    As a male, having been in a few scraps growing up, I guess I qualify as having been subjected to physical violence. None of them required shooting anybody.
    Makes me wonder how many violent encounters with women were cat fights.

    • well, yeah.

      just loke the PC definition of “sexual assault” includes “one-night stand that the girl regrets the next day”.

      • It also includes “Hey, baby, wanna go back to my place and get naked and sweaty?” Even when the answer is no, and the guy walks away, today that is considered a sexual assault.

    • “Look to your left, look to your right; odds are both men will rape you.”
      “*I* won’t try to rape you”
      “I might.”

  15. I’ll be convinced of the efficacy of the rube-goldberg “women’s safety” contraptions when they take away all cops’ guns and issue cops these things….

  16. The core of the problem, IMO, is that people, groups and even so-called “feminists” treat the concept of a women defending herself very differently from that of a man defending himself. Which is quite sexist.

    It’s okay to teach a man to avoid stupid people, places and things but teaching a woman that is somehow victim blaming. It’s okay to teach a man to be situationally aware but again that’s victim blaming when it comes to women.

    It’s okay for men to use force to prevent an assault of any kind but women are told to piss themselves and cry.
    Men teach each other to punch, choke, slash and shoot while women teach other that all of that is “for men” and they just need whistles or phones to call for help if they survive.

    This modern feminism is just fetishizing the womens culture of victimhood. It took me years to break my wife out of this mindset. Now she’s determined to never be a victim and is willing to fight, claw and blast her way to survival. Unfortunately her sisters and mother are still dug into the “I’m just a women” thing. Funny enough her sisters all participated in those women’s marches a few weeks back while she just rolled her eyes in disgust.

    If I ever raised a hand to her she’d put me down. That’s a real woman.

  17. I think the Canadian perspective is useful here, because it is a powerful antidote to the “sensible” voices telling Americans not to use the most effective arms for self-defense.

    TTAG covered this before, but let’s not forget what the Liberal Canadian Federal status of women minister (Patty Hadju) had to say about pepper spray. Conservative member of Parliament Kellie Leitch proposed that the laws be changed to allow women to carry pepper spray for self-defense (this is currently illegal in Canada except for use against wild animals). Hadju’s response (in part):

    “Ms. Leitch’s proposal is unrealistic and offensive to women across this country. Her misguided approach places the onus on women to defend themselves rather than focusing on addressing and preventing gender-based violence. ”

    Sure, those anti-gun voices may sound reasonable and calm and sensible and whatnot- but the endgame is what I just quoted. Not being able to defend yourself at all. A bunch of sympathetic nonsense words but no real solutions. They’ll call you paranoid for wanting a gun, but then tell you how often sexual assault happens and the terrible results.

  18. The article is spot-on. True defense rips the throat out of the attacker, so to speak: you have to be savage and quick. Or end up dead or worse than dead. For a woman, best way is to use a gun. The more powerful the gun, the better. Don’t play around with ‘cutesy’ faddish crap… get a gun and train often under stress. And carry the damn gun all the time, carry the damn gun with a bullet in the chamber, safety off!

    Also, failure to defend yourself enables the criminals and puts other citizens at risk: if all of us were armed and dangerous, the criminal element would be greatly weakened.

    • Gun people are going to point out that I should have said “round in the chamber” instead of bullet.. I wrote ‘bullet’ for rhetorical effect. A round is the same as a cartridge, which includes the bullet, the case, the powder and the primer. A bullet is just the thing you hit the criminal with.

      • On the other hand, I hear people say all the time “I sent [X number] of rounds down range” when in fact only the bullet did so. So saying “bullet in the chamber” is more correct.

  19. … communities … can rapidly respond to threats against any of its members … The … solution will … trigger an emergency alert while transmitting information to a network of community responders, all within 90 seconds …

    There is definitely some merit to this idea. Suppose a rapist decides to attack a woman and she triggers the “I need help!” alert. If the alert goes out within 90 seconds, someone heads to their door within 30 seconds, and that someone is approaching the rapist and woman within 60 seconds, that is a total time of 3.0 minutes. That isn’t much time for a successful rape.

    Having said all that, there are still huge problems for anyone who relies solely on this “solution”. That 3.0 minute response time is incredibly optimistic and response times could easily be as much as 6 or even 15 minutes. The rapist could also be armed and shoot one or two Good Samaritan responding to the distress call. Of course the rapist could quickly rip the clothes (including the transmitter) off the woman and take her away to a secondary location to complete the attack without interruption. Finally, this “solution” does not help when an attacker simply wants to severely beat or kill a woman … which is quite easy to accomplish in 30 seconds, let alone 3 minutes or more.

    This community alert approach is a nice complement to solid self-defense strategies, such as carrying a handgun for self-defense. I would like to see it marketed that way.

  20. So they are worried about us being vigilantes because we carry guns but their requirement is to inform an actual group of vigilantes within the community…

  21. Wait, what happened to teaching all the men not to rape? By expecting women to defend themselves, aren’t we victim blaming? Oh right: it’s only victim blaming if conservatives say it, or if somebody suggests women use guns to defend themselves.

  22. So, when the “community” alerted by the “Rape Whistle” arrive with their smart phones, what do they do, take a selfie w/ the victim? The perp? Both? Chant the BG into surrendering in shame?

  23. is this counting places like Uganda and Saudi Arabia?

    Because in the USA 1 in 3 has GOT to be bullshit.

Comments are closed.