Remember this: Sometimes a person or group can
call something by a defining label. Seek for yourself the definition of that
group's concept before assimilating the message it holds as a part of your
mystique. This message could start out clear, but become less clear, pointedly
destructive, or misleading. It is not unknown for members in a group to branch
off and distort the true goals and objectives for selfish, emotional,
manipulative reasons. We, as people, must take care at all times.
For a while, I
have seen commentary on women's invading role in the sport of Hunting. Even though
my research on this topic is incomplete it does help me build certain
viewpoints or perspectives on the subject; spectrums are like that.
As a point of
interest, I perused a somewhat popular social page for relevant information to
make some of my assessments. I will not divulge the name because it is not my
intent to ruin the work the administrators of that page have generated. This
page, I assumed, had a target audience geared toward manly men with a hint of
class, style and elegance not teenage boys with raging hormones. Even though at
times, I wondered if a teenager with raging hormones was at the helm.
Occasionally,
I saw comments toward feminists. I could only imagine this was for that group
tagged as extreme. What these said feminists brought to light, in a not so
subtle way, was the true nature of the page administrators or their real beliefs
towards women in the sport. I will note some of the feminists were huntresses. Family people sickened by the lack of
consideration to their viewership and spoke up. The concepts being posted were
at times confusing for the viewer. One post might have been a woman holding a
gun attired with a bikini. The next day, there might be a post of a woman doing
non-hunting activity but proclaimed as a mother, wife, huntress, etc. Yet again, a photo posted of women holding guns.
Granted
photos can be misleading. Just because it looks like something doesn’t mean it
is so. The photo is put there as a suggestion and leaves it up to the viewer to
fill in the blanks without concrete facts.
That is the
travesty of thinking someone is a person with unquestionable public standing.
What they are conveying to you may not be a truth, only a misleading idea. Bad
people build excellent reputations all the time with an appropriate facade. Not
that I am saying this page was that way, but it is an idea to keep in mind.
Those objectified
posts were far and in between but mostly the post of objectified women as
sexual objects were more than available. Every once in a while, you would have
an administrator make comments about the photos then the postings would change
as would the viewership. I noticed the number at the top of the page for
subscribers. There were 57,000 as a number but on days when it was strictly
about hunting, regardless of gender, the numbers were around 25,000 viewers.
On
days where there was what seemed to me a different administrator with posts
geared toward objectified women, the number of viewers went down by 10,000. I
watched this over several days and did much research on the affect negative
posts had influenced viewership with rotating administrators.
Otherwise, I
watched a page that I truly enjoyed become one that made me feel like I should
avoid it and go elsewhere. I thought in terms of the page being a business or a
platform for public relations, or product advertising. The idea, if you put it
into terms of money, was on days women in objectified posts were put up
viewership decreased. Those would be the days the business would lose money as women are consumers. Women are also avenues of word of mouth for a business.
Not having consideration for the female consumer would be damaging. How negligible this effect would have on sites where hunting was a topic but women were discouraged, would be up debate. That would lead me to believe that even though there were
loyal viewers they tended not to take part in such posts. My other question was:
if these viewers were women, what long term effect would it have on this page I
considered wonderful at one time?
My disappointment deepened.
Even though
my activities did seem like a strange sort of market analysis, things
that can ruin a website or page, it was enlightening. One reason for this
scrutiny was not to tear apart a page on the internet. In truth, I was
reading a book I had checked out from the library about building a better
website. I merely applied the rules the author provided inside on a known page
to confirm the author was pretty spot on. The question asked specifically was:
if you were the viewer perusing a page, what would drive you off?
With that I
can say, if women are enjoying a page based on hunting but posts are put up that
would discourage their partaking of the social aspect of it, then it is not
geared towards all hunters united. There is always an exclusionary clause to
these activities that is hidden amongst the fine print.
As to men
that hunt and their view of huntresses, there are double standards everywhere.
Women can view a hunting page but not comment or say something bothers them.
Women can hunt but should not compete with men directly for an audience. Women
can hunt but only in the term of a follower and not a leader. Women can
morph into the hunting societies elite only if they have all the trappings and
maintain a respectable distance as a viewer, not a participant. That is limited
to how serious people treat you. Somehow, you made another person an
expert and you had to convince them of your relevance.
It made me
wonder as a woman who hunts, why can’t I just be me? Why do I see the
suggestion, to be considered relevant or acceptable, people have to live a
certain lifestyle to be amongst other hunters? Why do I have to fit in with
them? Why cannot they fit in with me? It was a funny set of questions.
WHY MUST I
CONFORM TO SUIT SOMEONE ELSE?
I can see
where people would feel they were applying for some fabulous job, only to
find out the boss really is a beast.
I say when
you have women that advertise themselves as an extreme huntress, you will find a
person that has been limited at some time by this very ideology. This person will have taken
things to extremes to be put in a position where the huntress herself has to fight
for meat in a wolf pack.
The idea is to elevate one to a influencing position, where these
concerns are no longer a consideration, generates others to seek
your acceptance. The negative side to this is there is always someone vying for
your spot even if you feel comfortable. After that, she might get respect but
men will always hold her separate because of the thought she is not controlled
or influenced for very long. Beauty will only get you so far, for so long, after
that media is looking for a replacement.
Granted some
men like beautiful things but women are not things or objects. Neither are men
but women are learning from men as well. They can objectify a man in the blink
of an eye or should I say an eye for an eye? This objectifying of men and women
causes a chasm between their unities.
Men want
women and women want men but the disconnect is so unbearable to watch you have
to turn away from its ugliness at times. Of course, to limit my treatise I
exclude same sex relationships for other posts. I do not feel that same-sex relationships are any different than heterosexual relationships.
I also wanted
to limit my mulish blinders on the prospect of objectified women. Truth
be told, there are women looking to support themselves financially that have no
other goal but to buy dinner and pay the rent with those checks. You can't hate
an independent woman even if she's not on the band-wagon of feminism. I am sure
there are feminists out there that wouldn't give a dollar to these ladies, so
every woman for herself I guess.
I
thought in terms of what it was to be a feminist. My understanding of feminism
was a concept to promote equality of women within the realm of society. As far
I as I know it didn't indicate that women were any better than men. It has long
been held that even individuals are better at certain tasks than others but
that is not so much a gender issue.
First, I would
like to take a more magnified look at current feminists from a different
perspective.
I really didn’t
find a lot of information on feminism in terms of hunting. Hunting is a
sport you chose to do that is open to everyone. It’s not like you’re going to
the DNR to buy a hunting license and they are going to say no because you are a
woman. No one is stopping a woman from hunting her dinner. The only complaint
is objectified pictures or maybe not having prominent female role models
representing women on the television or the news. I say don’t look at the man
porn and move on: some woman is paying the rent off of a stupid man.
I was reading
commentary on a young female hunter who wrote from the perspective of feminism
as she saw it. Her stance was to be self-sufficient and take the attitude of
doing it yourself. When you’re young you think you are a superhero but as you
age and your body fails you. You begin to realize you can’t do everything for
yourself.
I saw
something else.
For a person
to be self-sufficient they are living under the pressure to achieve without
help from others. That person may also feel they can’t depend on another
individual because of past experiences. Disappointment in humans came to mind. People today are in such competition they no
longer help others, for any kind of benefit, because it would take away or horn
in on their goals.
People might help you if they see they are going to benefit
in some way, other than that they will not bother with you. Hence the death of
friendship exists. I question that friendship only exists when a relationship
of mutual materialist exchange is present. There is no such thing as friendship
anymore, only associations and symbiotic relationships that end eventually.
I also took
into consideration the absenteeism of men in the lives of women or vice versa.
I am not a man. I can't speak for them only assume or try to construct some
explanation.
Women are
finding themselves more alone than ever. For every man there is X amount
of women. Woman and man are not really looking for the love of their life
anymore just people to spend time with for the moment. If they are looking, it is with an inflated sense of what the other person should look and act like.
Could it be
women are moving more into what is considered men's territory merely to
be with them? To relate? To share?
Biology would
explain that. It is in a man and a woman’s hard-wiring to breed. If you
considered women posting pictures of themselves in alluring hunting gear to
lure men and men post pictures of women in seductive photos, they are merely
tell the other what they want. If you are not that perfect ideal do not apply.
It's reproduction and sex simply put.
You know
someone is serious about you when they don’t think of you in terms of sex all
the time. They are geared toward something more meaningful.
They are in it for the long haul, not a quick truck-stop fix. Let me say again,
men and women are guilty of this.
How is that
for equality?
Could the
sexes be so far removed that this behavior is more like a symptom to a deeper
problem?
It can
be looked at from the terms of the 50s housewife sitting at home cooking. She waits for her husband to come home to spend time with her, but he's in the
woods. What is she to do? Go to the woods. It makes perfectly sense. If the story behind
that, to make it more believable, is to be equal she can do that by herself. No,
that woman wants to be with a man.
It just blows
my mind. Men don't get this concept. This could be a reason women want the man to be with
them that makes the difference. If a woman gets a whiff of the man just wanting
her there for selfish reasons and not honestly wanting to share time with her,
you are probably going to have a falling out. Disconnect ensues.
I will also
make the statement as individuals, men and women both do have problems with
intimacy in relationships at time. Could a man going out to hunt, not want to be
intimate in that way with a woman? Does the man only want it limited to a bedroom?
I do take
into consideration of family in hunting. I will save that for another
commentary.
I have always
been fascinated by the concept of at arm’s length and its destructive force
in male/female relationships.
To cry
feminism is really to project a sense of equality with the goal merely to share
the same space with a man and to be with them physically and emotional. Unless
the man is violent, women do like feeling secure even when there is no threat.
That is our excuse to be with men at times. Not all the time.
Maybe I am
incorrect with my assumptions? I do love to speculate.
I can honestly say, I limit things I see online when it comes to hunting. It puts
me in a bad mood.
I do see a
lot of problems within the hunting community. These problems between people are born from
misunderstandings, misconceptions, and a quick unintelligent response in a
reactive way that is negative. Think before you react or keep your mouth
closed.
When I review
what I have wrote, I think in terms of decoys. When you take topics and look at
them you begin to see a pattern of decoy-ism. There is an issue that when
you look closer, it is not the issue you considered being the main problem. As a
huntress or hunter, spotting the decoy in the issues you purport to fight
against or support should really be assessed.
You don’t want to be foolish in
the bush chasing a ghostly deer that doesn’t exist.
When you view
someone as feminist take a closer look. Listen to them. The true issue may
rise to the surface if you are willing to understand another person’s
perspective. Who knows? Maybe one day someone will extend that same courtesy to
you.
Written by: W Harley Bloodworth
~Courtesy of the AOFH~
