She’s Raising Your Consciousness with Her Rack
In the late ‘80s, I took part in a lot of performance art that included nudity, so I was familiar with baring my breasts in public.
So boasts Texan resident Phyllis Masters, with yet another classic sentence from the pages of the Guardian.
After all those gun-rights advocates brandished their weapons at Chipotle and Target this spring, everyone knows it’s legal to openly carry around your firearms in Texas. Not many folks know that it’s also legal for women to go topless in the state’s capital city… Since these ammo-sexuals feel it necessary to exercise their right to take a gun out for a date, [my friend] Lola and I decided to exercise our own.
There is, I fear, video of this terribly bold breast-wielding activism. And so those with an appetite for shouting, bad signage and the breasts of two rather fleshy middle-aged women – women exercising their legal right to express disdain for other people exercising their legal rights – can indulge themselves here. I think it’s fair to say that a mutual understanding wasn’t reached on this particular outing, and the intended consciousness-raising concludes with the following exchange:
“Can I talk?”
“No.”
Ms Masters “settled in Austin, Texas in 1981 and loves it despite gentrification.” Via Julia.
The clue’s in the headline: “Do I have your attention now?”
I think it’s fair to say that a mutual understanding wasn’t reached on this particular outing, and the intended consciousness-raising concludes with the following exchange:
“Can I talk?”
“No.”
Calling gun owners “nuts” and “ammo-sexuals” isn’t a great way to start a discussion or change anyone’s mind. But I think she knew that.
“Oy! The face is up here – the tits are down there. Will you stop looking at my face!”
Calling gun owners “nuts” and “ammo-sexuals” isn’t a great way to start a discussion or change anyone’s mind. But I think she knew that.
Well, quite. I don’t know enough about Texan law, open carry activists or the preferences of the Texan electorate to have much of an opinion on the ostensible issue. What caught my attention, though, is the disingenuous air of Ms Masters’ stated position. The topless protest is presented as a consciousness-raising exercise, an attempt to “draw attention” to the issue and inspire discussion. And yet she and her associate stake out their credentials by pre-emptively dismissing their opponents as “ammo-sexuals,” “fetishists” and “open-carry chuckleheads” who are “taking a gun out for a date” and compensating for the possession of tiny genitals.
Which rather casts doubt on any genuine openness to debate.
Despite setting the low tone of any subsequent exchange, Ms Masters then complains that the gun rights activists “insulted [her] appearance.” As if such comments had nothing whatsoever to do with her own statements and behaviour. When she insults them, at length, it’s righteous; but when some of them repay the favour we’re expected to see her as being unfairly mocked. Ms Masters (who claims not to be against firearms per se) would have us believe that, unlike breasts, “guns only bring death.” Though I suspect that the hundreds of thousands of people who in any year have used guns to defend themselves and their families against violent predation – including those, the majority, who did so without needing to actually shoot the attacker – might argue otherwise.
Funny thing, I can pretty much guarantee that if that stupid mare had found herself accosted by some (desperate) low-life and screamed for help, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those gun owners would have come to her defence.
Of course as a typical femi-loon, the idea that others might have a valid alternate view does not occur.
Hint to the gunnies, shouts of ‘get em out, get em out’ shortl followed by ‘Arrrghhh, put em back, put em back’ will work wonders.
I like her sign:
“MORE BOOBS, LESS GUNS”.
I hate to be pendantic but I think it’s *fewer* guns. And why not have both? But if you’re going to try to make people choose, it’s probably not a good idea to flaunt pendulous granny boobs as an alternative to the sexy engineering craftsmanship of a SCAR-H. That comparison only works on Wayne Rooney and Harold and Maude fans.
“10 OUT OF 10 BABIES AGREE” – yes, but babies are idiots. My baby thinks the cat’s tail is a fluffy baguette. He poops himself at the dinner table, then grins at his achievement. He is terrified of the shower but enjoys chewing on electrical cables. He believes music attained perfection with “What Does The Fox Say”.
Is she saying gun control enthusiasts are like babies?
Well, she does stress how she wants to constrain the liberties of “random” (i.e. other) people so she can “feel safe”, and that speaks of a child-like mentality.
But the reality is that all the new Austin hipsters could care less about their big weapons, my own kids are cringing at how they make Texas look, and my peers here are simply passionate into different things.
Unfortunately…
1) Hipsters “could care less”? So what? The appeal to what babies think was more persuasive. The only thing I want to hear from a hipster is “Here’s your coffee, sir.”
2) I’m sure her kids are cringing at seeing Mum’s leathery National Geographic teats flailing around on the news like an obese pipistrelle.
3) It’s nice that her peers are passionate about different things. The “ammosexuals” aren’t the ones trying to ban other people’s pursuits.
She also seems to be straying into Laurie Penny style fabulism in her account of how she and her sun-dried udders courageously faced down “skinheads”. According to the gun guys quoted in a local paper:
open carry advocate Tom Jefferson said the women harassed gun advocates: “They followed us into a small coffee shop and called us the Aryan Brotherhood. They continually used terms like white pride and white power.”
Who to believe, eh? 🙂
OT (or maybe not):
“Is the decline in topless sunbathing a backward step for feminism?”
http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2014/aug/02/is-decline-in-topless-sunbathing-backward-step-for-feminism-debate
“Can I talk?”
“No.”
Just shut up and look at my breasts.
Ms Masters “settled in Austin, Texas in 1981 and loves it despite gentrification.”
It was great when people like her moved in to change the culture of the place, but now the wrong people are doing what she did 30 years ago. The horror!
The open-carry people are to me a lot like the sort of people who would march in a gay pride parade dressed like Sean Connery in Zardoz: a bit out there and certainly trying to get attention, but also in theory serving the purpose that people next door who own guns look sensible.
Or, that would be the effect if the media weren’t tirelessly propagandazing against private-sector guns.
“Do I have your attention now?”
I don’t care if it’s bad attention, everyone look at MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
“all those gun-rights advocates brandished their weapons at Chipotle and Target … We found out that the group “Come and Take It Texas” holds monthly arms marches around the statehouse here, in which the goals are to condition the rest of us to “feel safe” around random people toting their guns around”
Oh no, that sounds terrifying and threatning! I hope you don’t completely contradict yourself a couple of paragraphs later by claiming their alleged attempts to intimidate you were ineffectual and ridiculous, thereby undermining both claims and casting doubts on the accuracy of your entire narrative, as well as your basic competence as a reporter!
Also, “brandishing” means to wave a weapon about in a threatening manner, Mrs Professional Writer. As in against the law, even in Texas.
“I will admit to engaging them just a bit”
You admit to it? This is considered a sin amongst Guardianistas? It’s just most people regard giving consideration to other people’s viewpoints a good thing.
“but then it dawned on me that confrontation was what they wanted”
That’s right, the guys you waved your tits at while following for five blocks were the ones looking for a confrontation.
“They certainly seemed to think it was strange that we weren’t intimidated by them or they weapons”
Aaaaand there it is.
“But the reality is that all the new Austin hipsters could care less about their big weapons”
Somone really ought to tell Guardian columnists that evoking hipsters to support your argument isn’t a good idea.
“my own kids are cringing at how they make Texas look,”
Ask them how they feel about their mum following groups of strangers about with her boobs out.
“and my peers here are simply passionate into different things”
So, open carry advocates aren’t at all intimidating, nobody could care less about their cause and everyone else is simply into other things. You are aware that all this makes you protest completely pointless?
Ms Masters “settled in Austin, Texas in 1981 and loves it despite gentrification.”
It was great when people like her moved in to change the culture of the place, but now the wrong people are doing what she did 30 years ago. The horror!
I’m finding the ‘gentrification’ debate in places like – yes, you guessed it, the Guardian – grimly amusing. For years, if anyone dared to suggest that there might be a problem with the way that rapid large-scale immigration was changing the character of certain towns and cities, they were instantly howled down as racist, Islamophobic, a little Englander, etc, etc. But now that the white middle classes are moving to places like Brixton, trying to preserve the ‘heritage’ or ‘integral character’ of an area suddenly becomes important, and worthy of a sympathetic hearing.
http://www.theguardian.com/society-professionals/2014/jul/18/gentrification-what-happens-to-those-left-behind
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/24/london-race
“my own kids are cringing at how they make Texas look.”
Ask them how they feel about their mum following groups of strangers about with her boobs out.
Someone fetch cake for Bart.
Not that muck, the good cake.
Ask them how they feel about their mum following groups of strangers about with her boobs out.
Question answered by Rodney Carrington, who was born in Longview, Texas.
“(I)t’s a matter of basic respect for others. But…”.
…only for those who agree with her and those like her. Those who differ are ipso facto not entitled to respect.
Liberal Fascism in a nutshell.
If it stops there, with a couple of swamp donkeys flashing their saggy tits at the non-anointed, then at least we can all have a good laugh.
My guess is that it will get much, much worse than that before it gets better.
My guess is that it will get much, much worse than that before it gets better.
You are right. We might end up with fewer guns, and then where would we be?
We might end up with fewer guns, and then where would we be?
Err- probably paying more for them.
We might end up with fewer guns, and then where would we be?
Defenceless. And still being robbed/raped/killed by people who don’t care about gun laws.
Defenceless. And still being robbed/raped/killed by people who don’t care about gun laws.
Because there is so much less violent crime in the US where there are plenty of guns than in those places that don’t have them.
I wonder how many English people can honestly say that they wander round their towns and cities at night and wish that more of their neighbours were carrying firearms.
Err- probably paying more for them.
And especially for the black market ones. Which hardly seems fair. It’s hard enough being in a gang without that sort of covert taxation.
If you think homicide or crime rates are specifically related to the ease of availability of firearms, think again.
France has much more liberal gun laws than the United Kingdom; their homicide by firearm rate is three times higher than ours, yet our overall homicide rates are exactly the same.
I hope you have a good security system and some sturdy locks on that ivory tower of yours.
You’d feel easier if more of the the youths down your way were carrying Lancastrian Oik? I hope you don’t live in some of the bits of Lancaster that I know.
How many deaths by firearms in the US last year? I forget.
As Karen suggests, gun laws tend to have greatest impact on the already law abiding. And disarming the law-abiding can in terms of crime have unintended consequences. As Thomas Sowell says, “the great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.”
This isn’t a pet issue for me – it’s not something I get excited about – but I can certainly understand why some people, in other situations, feel very strongly about the right to defend themselves and their families with firearms. As I said in another discussion on this, for an actual victim of violent predation, home invasion, rape, etc., any benefit of a police response is usually after the fact. A person faced with intruders in their home in the middle of the night can’t assume that the police will arrive in time and take care of the problem for them, even if a call for help can be made. In that sense, armed self-defence is an existential concern as much as a sociological one, and hence the strength of feeling on the issue.
As Karen suggests, gun laws tend to have greatest impact on the already law-abiding.
There is no evidence for that. Law abiding people in places where guns ownership is restricted do not seem to suffer any ill effects. The opposite in fact because the criminal types are much more likely to be able to get hold of a gun where there are lots of guns that are easily bought than in places where they are scarce.
Like Chicago, perhaps? Home of the most restrictive gun-control laws in the entire country? Yeah, like that.
Anyone who faces three home invaders, jeopardizing himself or his family, might find 30 bullets barely adequate.
From the article David linked to above. Where do these people live I wonder. The Hindu Kush?
Minnow – “How many deaths by firearms in the US last year? I forget.”
About 11,000. Out of a population of over 300,000,000.
But the majority were suicides.
And the murder rate in the US has been dropping steadily for decades.
If you’re an American, you are much more likely to be killed by a drug overdose, alcoholic liver disease, or the flu than you are by a gunman.
Maybe Obama should bring back Prohibition.
I wonder how many English people can honestly say that they wander round their towns and cities at night and wish that more of their neighbours were carrying firearms.
When you could own and carry firearms without much restriction in this country the murder rate was lower than it is now. Some countries with liberal gun laws have no higher murder rates than we do. There’s no simple connection between gun ownership and murder or indeed crime generally, the cultural context makes a lot of difference.
One of the ladies in want of a vest says that she has no objection to guns as such, at least I think she says that, it’s hard to tell amidst all the squawking. So quite what her objections are I don’t know. It seems unlikely that displaying guns openly somehow leads to more gun use so it’s probably safe to conclude that her problem lies with people doing something perfectly legal and harmless that she doesn’t like. You’re right in a way though, the thought that those intolerant harpies might have guns is rather alarming
Minnow,
Where do these people live I wonder. The Hindu Kush?
You’re being glib.
Assume for a moment that our hypothetical elderly friend Mrs Wilson lives with her disabled husband in a remote farmhouse, with little realistic hope of a sufficiently prompt police response. (Assuming, that is, that any call for help could even be made.) Assume, too, that her home has been targeted more than once by predatory thugs, intent on thieving or worse. On what moral basis do you decide whether Mrs Wilson needs a firearm to deter the gang of masked intruders who’ve once again broken into her home? What would you say to her? What would you have her do?
No, I believe that is 12,000 or so homicides by firearm. Of course you can drink yourself to death too, but nobody can do that to you. They can shoot you though. And they do, in the US, quite a lot.
You’d feel easier if more of the the youths down your way were carrying Lancastrian Oik?
Don’t put words into my mouth.
@Minnow
Have a read of this (don’t forget to purchase via our esteemed host’s link):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature
Loads of fascinating insights and includes a discussion on the US murder rate. Canada and Switzerland (from memory) have similar gun laws, but a much lower murder rate. So it’s very unclear as to what effect gun controls have on it.
Definitely worth a read.
Minnow
I can’t quite follow your logic re violent yoof and gun ownership. Surely if we could all own guns and carry them then said chaverie would presumably think twice, assuming they are capable of such a thing, before attempting to use one themselves ?
I suppose it would be no good my suggesting that consequentialist arguments about hypothetical crimes are beside the point and that what matters is liberty, in this case the freedom to own a gun without running foul of plod.
The important comparison is not the number of firearm deaths, but the number of overall murders (not suicides) or the overall crime rate. Of course banning guns will reduce the number of firearms-related murders; the question is whether eliminating the right to self-defense increases the crime rate?
Of course you can drink yourself to death too, but nobody can do that to you.
What not even the wicked breweries and supermarkets, are you going off message ?
Minnow –No, I believe that is 12,000 or so homicides by firearm.
I read an article in the Guardian that quoted that statistic and said it included suicides, but can’t be bothered checking.
Purely from a numbers basis, it doesn’t make much difference. 12,000 or so out of 300,000,000 – while tragic – does not correlate with a significant risk the average person needs to worry about. Not compared with the other, more likely, causes of death.
Of course you can drink yourself to death too, but nobody can do that to you. They can shoot you though. And they do, in the US, quite a lot.
Around 33,000 Americans are killed in car accidents every year. Perhaps they should ban cars. People can drive cars at you.
The road traffic death rate hasn’t been falling as fast as the murder rate in the US. So Something Must Be Done.
But minnow, how is the proletariat to have its revolution if it is deprived of arms and the opportunity to learn how to use them?
But in all seriousness, US violent crime has been falling since 1991 during a period in which gun ownership and the right to carry have been enormously expanded. Rather the opposite situation to the UK…
@Minnow,
You, among many, repeat these statistics about deaths and the hands of another with a firearm, while at the same time ignoring the decrease in all crime in places with liberal gun ownership laws, including concealed carry. When the legislature of my state was first contemplating enacting a concealed carry statute, we were warned that the state would turn into the Hollywood version of the Old West. Quite the contrary. And given that the news media loathes firearms as much or more than you, one would expect full coverage if a CC permit holder were to commit a crime. It doesn’t happen. What does happen, is that CC permit holders prevent crime. The fact of the matter is, the Left desires a defenseless populace in order to enforce its “vision” upon society.
Civilis – the question is whether eliminating the right to self-defense increases the crime rate?
The region of the US that has the highest gun homicide rate is Washington DC – 16.5 gun murders per 100,000.
It also has the lowest rate of (legal) gun ownership in the US – only 3.6% thanks to the most restrictive gun controls in the USA.
In Texas, where 35% of people legally own guns and concerned breasts flap freely, the gun murder rate is 3.2 per 100,000.
So you’re more than five times as likely to be shot dead in the US capitol – where concealed or open carry is illegal and all firearm purchases must be approved by the police – than you are in rootin’ tootin’ Texas, where a man may openly carry his Ar-15 in a coffee shop.
Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming have far higher rates of gun ownership than gun-happy Texas – over 50% – and far lower rates of gun homicide.
What conclusions may be drawn from this?
Around 33,000 Americans are killed in car accidents every year. Perhaps they should ban cars. People can drive cars at you.
I haven’t checked the recent numbers, but the last time I checked the statistics of the Center For Disease Control—the 2012 numbers, I think—, the rather clearly stated causes of death in the US were, in descending order, disease, disease, disease—keep reading down—, a rather large number of deaths by car—keep reading down—some definitely smaller number of deaths by murder, including by firearm, and then somewhere after that, the suicides, including by firearm . . .
Do have a look at whatever the current numbers are, where of those numbers I saw, I was rather unsurprised to see that firearms had to be bundled in with other causes of death to even turn up that high on the list.
Like Chicago, perhaps? Home of the most restrictive gun-control laws in the entire country? Yeah, like that.
During or right after the most recent weekend of rather major headlines regarding many multiple scattered deaths by firearm in Chicago over a single weekend, I experimented by dropping into Google; Georgia and shooting. The news reports that turned up for for the entire state of Georgia basically were mainly their own coverage of the deaths in Chicago.
See also a comparison of Chicago suburb Morton Grove, vs that of Kennesaw, Georgia.
What conclusions may be drawn from this?
Exactly the ones I was hoping would be inferred from this. As someone that lives in the DC area (admittedly, in Virginia, the state with the more sane gun laws), there seems to be a remarkable correlation between ‘parts of the area I’d rather not go in’ and ‘parts of the area that more heavily restrict firearms’. I note that same correlation elsewhere in the country.
While I am more likely to be shot in the US than in the UK (although as a resident of the suburbs with a modicum of common sense and no connection to the drug trade, the difference is miniscule), I’m much more likely to be the victim of violent crime in the UK.
My usual style of argument is not to state conclusions, but state which facts would be needed to reach a conclusion and let honest debaters work from there.
The spam filter is being a little twitchy. If anyone has trouble with comments not appearing, email me and I’ll shake them free.
I’m reminded of my favorite example of the immense differences between right wing liberal and left wing liberal, and conservative.
Consider three statements, and judge how they should be considered:
A) Gays are evil and wrong and must be dealt with and must be converted and we must protect the innocent children, and Etc . . .
Q: Is that sort of proclamation considered right wing or left wing? Is that sort of proclamation considered conservative or liberal?
B) Guns and gun ownwership are evil and wrong and must be dealt with and must be converted and we must protect the innocent children, and Etc . . .
Q: Is that sort of proclamation considered right wing or left wing? Is that sort of proclamation considered conservative or liberal?
C) We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re permanently and thoroughly armed and willing and able to defend ourselves and our families. You politicians will openly and freely acknowledge these facts or we will vote your asses out of office . . . .
Q: Is that sort of proclamation considered right wing or left wing? Is that sort of proclamation considered conservative or liberal?
—As an assist, Google for pink pistols to see a conservative organization that the rabidly right and left wing liberals rather prolly wish would just go away . . . .
“my own kids are cringing at how they make Texas look.”
As a dirty Yoorpean furriner, I’d just like to point out that it’s bloody Texas. I’d be extremely disappointed if I visited and didn’t see people wandering around with guns.
“I’m finding the ‘gentrification’ debate in places like – yes, you guessed it, the Guardian – grimly amusing.”
Heh. I remember learning about gentrification in school Geography. It took me some time to realise that we were supposed to consider it a bad thing.
There is no argument, fact or statistic which make an anti-gun Leftist so much as reconsider their position. Logic, fact and statistics have always been against them, since the very beginning. They BELIVE, despite all evidence to the contrary.
They pretend their belief is built on scientific evidence, but upon examination all the “evidence” is jinned-up balderdash printed in scientific journals because the clowns who ran them at the time were True Believers.
Among the gun control elite there are none more obstinate, pig headed and foul mouhted than the British contingent. Having achieved nothing less than total victory in Britain, having made self defence with a firearm completely illegal, their ardour is not cooled one iota and now they are screaming for knife control. I kid you not, knife control.
This is at a time when Britain is more violent and dangerous than the USA, excepting the likes of New York and Chicago.
So really, the appropriate treatment of anti gunners is to laugh in their faces and walk on. They are to be scorned and defeated, not reasoned with.
Law abiding people in places where guns ownership is restricted do not seem to suffer any ill effects.
North Korea, for example. Which is obviously of no concern if you’re convinced a government could only ever finish the sentence “We have decided for your own good that we are no longer going to allow you to” with “own guns”.
Siiiiiiigggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh.
A) Selfies
When, during Monday’s City Arts & Lectures appearance, a member of the audience asked Alec Baldwin about the worst (“worst” is presented as a euphemism for “s-“) trends in celebrity-hood, the actor beckoned the questioner to join him onstage.
The man leaped to the invitation and, cell phone in hand, rushed to Baldwin’s side to take a selfie. The star said the man had answered his own question, and dismissed him from the stage, “to loud laughter and applause from the audience,” said a spy.
B) Selfies
Drunk Mexican man accidentally shoots himself in head while posing for selfie
New York Daily News – 3 hours ago
Now that minnow’s wrong again, I wonder if legislation outlawing the manufacture of these troublesome instruments of law and order would solve the problem minnow seems ill-equipped to summarize in a coherent argument.
That is what minnow wants, right? To criminalize the devices unique through history at best upholding law and order?
Law abiding people in places where guns ownership is restricted do not seem to suffer any ill effects.
Law abiding people in places where gun ownership is virtually unrestricted do not seem to suffer any ill effects either.
I’m reminded of my favorite example of the immense differences between right wing liberal and left wing liberal, and conservative.
I think you’re using different terminology than I’m used to. There are very few people that believe statement A literally, though it’s a statement often assumed to be associated with conservatives. (The Phelps clan, the textbook example of people that believe A, are politically abnormal and fit no readily established category besides perhaps ‘crazy’, as they’re strongly anti-war, and Phelps senior was both an associate of Al Gore, a Democratic politician and a noteworthy Civil Rights crusader.)