Out of the Hunter’s Sensual Reach.

Remember this: Life is a little drama.

Dubiously I refer to women as huntress but I have difficulties with this verbiage because it does seem to lack a certain lady-like quality. I use it anyway because people know the word and accept it as a descriptive of a woman who hunts whether ladylike or not. I think men like it because it carries the weight of being wild and untamed but being wild and untamed in the male/female relationship goes towards cheap, easy, and disposable. This being said if you’re in a long standing relationship where both parties are comfortable with daring sexual acts by all means-have at it.  Men and women both like romantic amours but society frowns down on promiscuousness. It’s really better to be committed because at least you’re secure to some degree on familiarity. It reminds me of the concept of a trusty pair of well-worn holey shoes you can’t seem to part with.  Men like the idea of this temporary condition but want to have some control over their woman maybe because this makes their role clear even if it makes a woman’s murky. Once again women need to give men a job or a purpose in life and not a hard time (its alienating). Men want the job as protector and boss. That is just how it is. Unless they give up that job and want to cook, clean and have babies (scary thought but the marvels of modern science).

I have always had a general hope for opposite sex relationships (or anyone wanting such a thing). If people want to be together- go for it I say. As I was doing some research on the Southern Belle of Antiquity I was immersed in the construction of a myth: the myth of the Southern Belle. The more bizarre antidote about this is the creator: the Southern Gentleman. How does this pertain to hunting? Let me elaborate.

Back in the golden days, men regarded Southern Women (with breeding) as ladies. Their roles were to navigate the social circles without damaging the family reputation, running the house while the man was away, and being there for family, friends, and husband. We could say all things feminine. Ladies were not in direct competition for the necessities of life but rather sheltered by the Gentleman Hunter a.k.a. the husband or father. Nevertheless the Gentleman Hunter was the all-encompassing provider unless the lady was endowed with money at marriage. These women were stereotyped much like the women of the 40s and 50s. Housewives with no longing for an adventurous life outside the home other than what the significant other could provide. Southern Belles were also placed on a pedestal where they were beyond sexual desire and unblemished. This myth building of an ideal of what that particular woman was stringently defined her lot in life and how she was perceived by society and her significant other.

How does this myth building come into play with Hunting? I asked myself that question after reading up on the antebellum ladies of society.

If the hunter and huntress are at odds because of conflict based on competition for hunting based jobs, position in society and community, and role as the patriarchal authority figure (or provider) over home and hearth this could cause the Gentleman Hunter to react in a very defensive way.

The first thing an animal will do is try to drive off a threat with a defense mechanism brought on by hidden or direct threats. I have seen something akin to this in the Gentleman Hunter community. It is the myth building of the hunter’s ideal woman.

Women that hunt are not perfect physically or mentally. Yet the Gentleman Hunter community without knowing it is advertising their ideal huntress in photos on social media. It literally works as a repellant to the average huntress. This may be so reactive that the Gentleman Hunter does not know consciously that he is literally pushing back against the perceived barrages of female invasions into his hunting space, which is sacred to him. It defines his manliness and he doesn’t want to compete with a woman over manliness. Women are women-not men but they take on male roles to compensate for lack of a partner to fill the void of what would be considered ‘your rock’. Poor Cassiopeia is chained to a rock and the wolves are at the door therefore she acts like a man without a choice.  No man steps up to do the job or save her from chain and rock. Also by pushing pictures of an ideal unattainable woman in the guise of a huntress the Gentleman Hunter is sending subtle signals to the female competition that they are not what he or others desires. This is a complete lie but it’s a defense mechanism because they are threatened when there is no need for it. Men have anxiety too. On the other hand the huntress wants to be with the Gentleman Hunter but in the effort to have something in common confuses the situation more. A sad explanation of this tragedy is lack of home training when it comes to bonding with each other by communication and compromise with a willingness to understand and hold each other in equal regard.

Can the Gentleman Hunter and the Lady that hunts come to terms with this invasion into manly space? I don’t know the answer to that.

Therefore you could say to save himself the Gentleman Hunter has pushed the huntress away from him physically to save himself or his sense of self. The huntress has taken on a role that is not so much hers and relinquished the Gentleman Hunter of his responsibility to be the man. Both have inadvertently separated each other from beyond the sensual reach of the other.

Hunting has been about the eternal struggle of man against beast but in this case its man against woman. I hope it’s a draw for all our sakes.

Really can’t this be overcome or do men and women need one more thing to pull them apart? Hunting should be about forming bonds. What is a greater bond then sharing in something with someone you love? Let’s hope that ship has not sailed yet.

Written by W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Where Did You Go Gentleman Hunter?

Remember this: I have never met a true gentleman. Have you?


"I grant an ugly woman is a blot on the fair face of creation; but as to the gentleman, let them be solicitous to possess only strength and valour: let their motto be: Hunt, shoot, and fight: the rest is not worth a flip."

Charlotte Bronte; Jane Eyre ch.17.

 “Show me a gentleman devoted to the chase and I will show you, with rare exception, ‘the noblest work of God, and honest man,’ respected for manly virtues, a good husband and father, a zealous friend, and open enemy.  “The rich man’s equal, the poor man’s benefactor”-richly adorning the pages of life with the shining virtues of charity and benevolence—who memory will be a green spot in the dreary waste of sordid worldliness.” Quoted Mississippi Governor Alexander McNutt.

There are a lot of things being posted on the internet nowadays about the conflict between men and women. I have seen a lot of news and conversations from the men’s camp about being a gentleman and a hunter. There is also the concern and questions about this ever growing gap between the two sexes. Whether or not the gentlemen hunter is now feeling like he too may become an obsolete dinosaur, while being castrated figuratively by an unknown assailant, is probably for concern. 

There has always been an issue of control. This control is only balanced when one or the other sex has decided, willingly or unwillingly, to acquiesce to the other sex’s demands and wished. I can attest some do seem like manly gentlemen but you also have not so manly impostors. I have never seen such a creature but I would think it would be quite the spectacle if I ever laid eyes on one. This brings me to the question I had pop up in my mind. Let me set the stage.

A gentleman hunter and a not-so-ladylike huntress are out hunting together (as a couple or not). A gigantic dream buck walks through within bullet range while both have a clear shot. Once the realization the dream buck is in the cross hairs, exactly what would be the outcome? How would the story go down? Oh the horror!

Does either one step back and say, “Go ahead. I’ll step aside so you can shoot that deer” or “Ladies first?” Really, in this virtual simulation who is going to get to shoot the deer?

This was a conundrum I really found interesting because it’s happening right now. Not literally, but figuratively. I wondered exactly how far men were willing to be pushed, in what was considered a traditionally male role, before they balked or fought back for lack of better words.

I dug down into history for this lost gentleman hunter. As far as my investigation has reveals, the gentleman hunter was closely the same but more refined in his endeavors. I read from Nicolas W. Proctor book, Bathed in Blood: Hunting and Mastery in the Old South, a quote the gentleman hunter, “wrote about experiences in the field with the same care and detail they devoted to their business dealings and selected hunting companions as carefully as political representatives.” Most definitely a discerning type of person.

The social construction of the gentleman hunter was exhibited through his peers. The gentleman hunter could gain recognition based on his prowess, self-control, and mastery of skill. These descriptive words were a direct show of his masculinity. Young men would use these mentor types as a measuring stick for their own accomplishment at hunting to validate their ability to exhibit their functioning manliness. This positioned the man in the role of provider. Depending on how good a provider you were would indicate your responsibility level, dependability and ability to provide security as this is what most women worry over. In a strange way, these types of ideals gained through the hunting endeavor was the backbone for the gentleman hunter’s self-esteem, sense of self, and self-worth. The gentleman hunter’s ambiance was defined. There was no reason to question his role, or position in the world.  

This time period in the South prostrated the gentleman hunter by using hunting as the instrument for social cohesion between men and women. The role of sex changed over the centuries. Now hunting participants, unless married, are standing on two difference sides of a chasm that gets bigger with each circumstance of direct competition.

In today’s world, you have a lot of solitary individuals basically taking care of their needs and no one else. If a lone female or male hunters are in direct competition for the food source, the glory and acclaim while validating themselves to hunting peers there is going to be conflict. No everyone in the world is going to partner up and get married to rectify that situation. I hardly doubt either is going to stand aside especially if their livelihood or basic senses of survival are threatened.

I asked myself: Are men feeling the pressure of being emasculated? I think yes. It questions their value and renders them with a perceived decline in power over circumstance. This leaves them to wonder what their options are and if they have to adapt.  They will either embrace it or exert dominance while running the women they come to admire and love away for survival sake. Maybe this is running the men away? If men and women are meant to be together, social structure and its shifting structure are really making it fall to pieces. The appearance is ugly bleeding cracks in the surface.

If women could depend on men to go back to being present and taking responsibility for the family, would the female hunter let them? Would the gentleman hunter be so detached he just decides to become a hunting gigolo?

If the gentleman hunter’s defined role is being tested and stripped away, what is going to be left of him?

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth