Sporty spice defends Springfield Armory’s legacy.

Cane Caldo found an image of the B&S guns billboard that I referenced in my last post.

Also, RecoveringBeta pointed out that Springfield Armory has a new marketing campaign focused around women:

..you might check out Springfield Armory’s new ad for their Saint AR. 6 strong (attractive) women…aaand sales to betas and omegas skyrocket.

I hadn’t been to Springfield’s site for probably a year, and I’m surprised to see that Springfield has really gone overboard in this regard.  Springfield has remade their entire brand image with a corny marketing campaign centering on their very poorly timed entry into the AR market:

With the new Defend Your Legacy site and hashtag (#DefendYourLegacy), Springfield hopes to open up a dialogue about the importance of defending one’s legacy and encourage others to share ideas on what legacy means to them. All of this seems to be leading up to a the release of a new Springfield Armory product. Named the SAINT, this new product is expected to be introduced on November 1st of this year. The website even features a countdown until the release of the SAINT. So far, little is known about what the SAINT will be, other than this new product will be unlike any other from Springfield Armory.

A week after Springfield joined the already crowded AR market with their SAINT, Trump won the election and sales of AR 15s dropped.

Jeremy S. at The Truth About Guns reviewed the SAINT in December and explained Springfield’s rebranding:

Springfield Armory is embarking on a bit of a corporate re-branding. According to the gunmaker’s marketing mavens, their “Defend Your Legacy” slogan targets Americans between 25- and 45-years-old. Buyers who know their safety is their own responsibility. Who understand that the good guys have firearms because they’re the best tool for the job of self-defense. That all Americans have a historical right to keep and bear arms. Enter The SAINT.

He added some more thoughts on the new Springfield brand image in the comments:

I really like how all of the product ads I’ve seen for this gun are geared primarily towards women, yet it’s a black, “black gun.” No pink or frilly or traditionally “girly” crap. Springfield is being very clear that it’s an excellent rifle for a woman to defend herself and her family, seek out professional training with, etc etc, and it can and should be the same rifle used by the dudes. I really do like this. I don’t know how women feel about it of course or how they’ll react, etc, but I think it’s a breath of fresh air… we all know firearms are “the great equalizer” and such, and I never liked what I perceived as the condescending nature of the industry saying “we’ve painted this gun pink because it’s for women.”

I think he is right that Springfield is going for the image of a woman’s gun that men can shoot too.  If you look at the product pages on the Springfield website, 6 of the 7 products are pictured in the hands of women (X D, XD-MOD2, XD(M), XD-S, SAINT, M1A, and 1911).  I’m not surprised that Jeremy S. is enthusiastic about this, as this was a core point in my previous post.  However, I think they have gone too far in anchoring their brand so firmly around the kickass conservative gal image.

As much as shooters love the kickass conservative gal image, positioning Springfield as a seller of women’s guns that men can shoot too goes too far.  While men will tend to support the campaign, I don’t think most men will want to identify with a product marketed as made for women.  Even worse, women want to break into the male space.  Now that Springfield is identifying itself as a female space that men can join too, the thrill of breaking into the male space is also gone.

To the extent that marketing doesn’t matter, Springfield should continue to sell well as their entire X D line has a large following.  But as marketing campaigns go, I don’t see this rebranding as helping Springfield with either men or women shooters

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Guns, Moxie, Social Justice Warriors, The Real Feminists, Traditional Conservatives, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

130 Responses to Sporty spice defends Springfield Armory’s legacy.

  1. Pingback: Sporty spice defends Springfield Armory’s legacy. | @the_arv

  2. Reede says:

    Women do love breaking into male space for reasons I don’t understand.

    I’ve always found it annoying, from political stuff to games. They usually aren’t there for the same reasons guys are, either. Often there’s some desire for attention or validation. My South Korean friend calls them b*tches and their fans p*$$y lickers, when this sort of stuff happens in the Korean gaming circuit.

    I have met some girls who play games to play games online, but all the half decent ones have been Chinese or Malaysian girls, and they’re usually cute so I give them a pass.

  3. While I do agree that there are too many beta men eating this go grrls with guns stuff up, I suspect its just a ploy by gun makers to sell more guns. Sorta like how all the fashion companies are trying to market women’s stuff to men.

  4. Anonymous Reader says:

    Reede
    Women do love breaking into male space for reasons I don’t understand.

    Yes, you do. You just don’t know that you understand.

    They usually aren’t there for the same reasons guys are, either. Often there’s some desire for attention or validation.

    See? You knew it all along.

  5. anonymous_ng says:

    I suspect that Springfield is struggling to remain relevant.

    IMO, there are better striker fired guns than the 😄 line. Their 1911s are good, but so are a thousand others. The M1A was a great platform when your choices for a .308 battle rifle were AR10, FN-FAL, GALIL, and the HK91. Now, AR pattern .308 rifles are plentiful in both proprietary and semi-standardized versions. So, I don’t imagine the M1As are flying off the shelves like they once did.

  6. anonymous_ng says:

    I hate the automatic emoticons. That smiley face is supposed to be an X and a D.

  7. Dalrock says:

    anonymous_ng

    IMO, there are better striker fired guns than the X D line.

    Many prefer GLOCKs or the S&W M&P, but from what I’ve seen they are very popular. I personally like the X D, at least the ones I have shot. I imagine much of it comes down to your thoughts on the grip safety.

  8. Dalrock says:

    Speaking of S&W M&P (Military & Police), I see that the banner image for the S&W M&P page features a pistol in a woman’s hands: https://www.smith-wesson.com/mp

  9. Lost Patrol says:

    Look at the faces of the kickass, girl power, Sporty Spices. Are these models of “Alpha” females, the ones men want to be with, and women want to be like?

    What is the photographer saying to them? “Now, look into the camera the way a man would look if he was an angry tough guy issuing an unspoken challenge.” The women imagine this, and that’s the face you get. They should all be wearing black pussy hats.

  10. Gunner Q says:

    “Women do love breaking into male space for reasons I don’t understand.”

    The first woman in gets 100% of the male attention.

  11. Cane Caldo says:

    @Augustus Tilton

    While I do agree that there are too many beta men eating this go grrls with guns stuff up, I suspect its just a ploy by gun makers to sell more guns. Sorta like how all the fashion companies are trying to market women’s stuff to men.

    Arrrrrgh! Yes, but why this ploy? That’s the question! Market research comes from a place called: The Market. They looked at The Market, and decided kickass girls was a winner. Why?

  12. Bruce says:

    I ‘ve noticed that entry level AR’s have dropped to sub $400 dollars recently. I guess the drop in gun sales post Trump explains this?

  13. Dalrock says:

    I’ve added the MP4 that is the banner for http://www.defendyourlegacy.com to the beginning of the post. It is striking how corny this new branding for Springfield Armory is.

  14. PeterW. says:

    Guns for the man who has to ask his wife’s permission……..

  15. PeterW. says:

    QUOTE: Succesful advertising is often about finding something “new” when the existing market is pretty well saturated.
    That means trying different ideas, and there are plenty of failures along the way.

    I rate this song with those corny recruiting ads headlined “be all you can be”, while the picture is telling you that “all you can be” is a chick. Then they wonder why they have a shortage of high-testosterone young males.

  16. Scanman says:

    Multi-culti bs.

    Pony tail blonde hitting a heavy bag… Woman doing sit ups holding her rifle in one hand (WTF?)…Tattooed broad shooting a bad ass look… Lolzz

    Goofy hogwash.

  17. Reede says:

    @AnonReader
    Yeah yeah you’re right.. I would say some girls do like playing some games, but oddly they seem to be Asian girls mostly. The ones I referenced used deliberately ambiguous usernames and would not talk on mic. I only found out they were girls after friending them when they kicked my assets in TF2.

  18. Ironsides says:

    That ad campaign is absurd. Makes me glad I’m a CZ man when it comes to pistols. The odds of the Czechs going all grrrl power are pretty dang low.

  19. Anonymous Reader says:

    Bruce
    I ‘ve noticed that entry level AR’s have dropped to sub $400 dollars recently. I guess the drop in gun sales post Trump explains this?

    Obama was gun and ammunition salesman of the year 8 years running. Nobody has repealed the law of supply and demand. Predicting is difficult, especially about the future, but I won’t be surprised to see more lesser-known brands of Armalite style carbines drop to around $400 and stay there. Expect some companies to go out of business entirely.

    The advertising shift is not that much of a surprise; if one market sector is saturated, but another is not, then go after the other one. No idea how many indoor gun ranges there are in the Dallas area, but going after the female shooters is a possible niche. It would all be a big “so what” if not for rampant GirllPOWER running all over everything in sight.

    Reede
    Yeah yeah you’re right.. I would say some girls do like playing some games, but oddly they seem to be Asian girls mostly.

    Girls go where the boys are. Asian girls are girls. Therefore…

  20. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    Let’s not overlook the financial incentive for them to target (pardon the expression) women; men already purchase firearms, and perhaps they’ve found that the male market is pretty much maximized in terms of reach. It’s more effective to focus women who historically have not been big gun buyers. In other words, greater potential for increased sales.

    The same thing with football; it used to be primarily men who watched it on TV, but the female-share of the market has grown incredibly over the last several years due to how they’ve been targeting that demographic. It’s not so much an agenda as it is financial; they can demand that much more from advertisers.

  21. Reede says:

    @AnonReader

    Kind of…
    My Korean friend tells me feminism has reared its ugly head in South Korea, and I have to say he makes some solid pointsm. Korean women aren’t promiscuous but they have become more and more “egalitarian” while demanding men work themselves to death like they presently are in South Korea. Also, they fantasize that white men are God’s gift to them and if you can speak Korean (or even a bit like me) they will squirt all over themselves.

    While egalitarianism is quite unpopular in Asia I would say it’s still an extremely materialistic society and its suffering for it.

  22. Ironsides says:

    As a side note, pretty much any gun ad that isn’t purely centered around features and function comes across as pathetic and laughable. The firearm is an inherently serious object, however fun they are to shoot. Any attempt at “hip, cool, funny,” etc. is going to come off as parody.

    All ads are clownish, when you come right down to it, but the firearm highlights it like nothing else. The only way to not make a weapon ludicrous is with an understated, minimalist approach, in my opinion.

  23. Matamoros says:

    Just think, you too can buy and fire a girly gun! Doesn’t that make you feel so macho!

  24. mrteebs says:

    It’s like a girl’s bike with a removable crossbar that can be installed when a man rides it. Screams “made for a girl but strong enough for a man.”

  25. Reede says:

    @Ironsights

    What’s a Czech guy doing here? The Czech girls I know aren’t religious but they are quite decent to deal with. Is it a different situation in your opinion?

  26. Pingback: Sporty spice defends Springfield Armory’s legacy. | Reaction Times

  27. Ironsides says:

    @Reede

    Sorry, i was unclear. I’m American, but I prefer CZ pistols to most of the other brands. I have no idea about Czech women, I’ve only seen them once or twice when passing through Prague airport on my way to Russia.

  28. Reede says:

    Ah I gotcha.

    The Czechs are too atheistic for my tastes but they are a very realistic bunch. Women are much more down to earth than what you are used to.

    I had the benefit of being born in uber multicultural Canada as well as some exposure to foreign cultures through internet or direct contact.

    Russians are a decent lot, some more than others. My Russian friends family moved here a little while ago. His family are very decent, the man is a hard-working tradesman and the wife stays at home. She’s a very solid woman who focuses first on her family. Apparently I was the first “normal” friend Dmitri brought home.

  29. RecoveringBeta says:

    Comment on manosphere blogs for a week. Already get a mention for cogent comment. Not tired of winning.

  30. anon says:

    AR: “Obama was gun and ammunition salesman of the year 8 years running. Nobody has repealed the law of supply and demand.”

    I’d say he was salesman of the year 7 (maybe 6.5) years running. Hillary was the salesperson of late 2015 and most of 2016. More gun sales in 2016 than any year in history. But now she’s out and people are relaxing rather than scrambling to buy the guns and ammo they were assuming would be in short supply and heavily regulated in the near future.

  31. Bart says:

    I noticed in the linked photos from Springfield, that the M1A in .308 was the one wielded by a man.
    Apparently the AR15 platform (and 5.56/.223) is a “girly gun”. I guess that means I need to buy a .308 autoloader.

    The 7.62X39 (AK, SKS) is the cartridge of choice for arming 12 year old children in Africa and Asia. The 5.56 is a gun for girls. The .308 is a man’s rifle?

    Also, “sub $400 AR15’s”? Wow! Maybe I need to buy a second one.

    Now that I know they are girl guns, I am ashamed to buy one.

    I’m kind of a “gun guy” myself, and felt that this advertising campaign from Springfield was off-putting. Now Dalrock explained why.

  32. anon says:

    Gold is girly too (I’ll show you an advertisement). So is property (I’ll show you an advertisement).
    So is food….so is…just about everything else.
    AR15s were kind of an outlier thing back in the early 90s but Clinton changed all that in 1994 and they’ve been in high demand ever since.

  33. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    To tell a woman she can’t enter a male space is like telling Eve she can’t eat of the forbidden fruit.

    Like a child, she’s burns with curiosity and resentment. She wonders what’s so special about that male space, and why she can’t enter it. It must be something really special. It isn’t fair. How come Adam can hog that space? How come God can hoard the fruit? Why can’t she share in it? It isn’t fair.

  34. Spike says:

    Springfield is saying that sex sells.

    It is well known that women are the world’s biggest consumers in everything. From nail polish to real estate.
    A man will spend $200 a year on the cosmetic industry if he’s lucky. He will buy razors, shampoo and maybe aftershave. If he suddenly gets rich, he’ll spend probably about as much.
    Not so women: Their haircuts alone are hundreds of dollars. Then come beauty treatments and on and on. If she gets more money , she gets more beauty treatments.
    Who decides what house to buy, where? It’s women. Men don’t care about ”nice” neighborhoods. They are practical – a place to live close to work, recreation and maybe schools for his kids. Women want up-market real estate and real estate agents know it. The same goes with SUVs as opposed to the family car.

    What man do you know that gives a f*ck about diamonds? He doesn’t – until he needs to buy one for his woman. There is a whole Blood Diamond Trade that kills children so that Western women can wear pretty rocks. It’s insane.
    My point is: in a country that already has a huge number of assault rifles sold in it, arms manufacturers, like all other sellers, need to find new markets. Marketing to women makes sense because they are mindless impulse buyers, and that impulse can be spurred by fear and envy.

    So, do Assault Rifle Firing Kick Ass girls have schmoes as well?

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    Bart
    Also, “sub $400 AR15’s”? Wow! Maybe I need to buy a second one.
    Now that I know they are girl guns, I am ashamed to buy one.

    Get an upper in 6.5 Grendel or 6.8mm, that’s more Manly. Don’t forget the magazines.

  36. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The sculptor who created Wall Street’s Charging Bull statue might sue to have Fearless Girl removed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/12/charging-bull-sculptor-says-fearless-girl-distorts-his-art-hes-fighting-back/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.d20eb6ea3fce

    With hopes of dispensing the “perfect antidote” to the stock market crash of 1987, Italian-born sculptor Arturo Di Modica spent two years welding a 7,000 pound bronze bull statue designed to capture the resilience of the American people.

    Under the cover of night and without a permit, he installed his massive “Charging Bull” directly before the New York Stock Exchange, a gift New Yorkers loved but New York City initially hated. Authorities removed it, but later reinstalled it under pressure at a small public park in the financial district.

    In the 18 years since, it has become an institution.

    Then last month, on International Women’s Day, a new statue of a symbolically brave “Fearless Girl” stole its spotlight — and, Di Modica says, fundamentally corrupted the artistic integrity of his “Charging Bull.” …

    The artist will hold a news conference Wednesday with attorney Norman Siegel, the former director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, to explain his plans to challenge the city officials who let “Fearless Girl” happen without asking his permission.

  37. Bart says:

    Anonymous Reader –
    Unfortunately I am a bit of a cheapskate. When it comes to ammo, I tend to prefer less expensive rounds. I mainly tend to shoot 22, 9mm, 7.62×39, 7.62x54R, 5.56, and 12 gauge. Rounds like 6.5, 6.8, 300 blackout etc. are a bit fancy for me. I recently started reloading .38 sp to save money.

  38. I work in sales and marketing for a big global company and developed brands for several startups and products. Dalrock, I think your analysis is spot on: this kind of gender-specific targeting is likely to backfire.

  39. PeterW. says:

    We see it in various emergency and military services.

    The politicians insist that we must have more women.

    The heads of services and the office-dwellers who depend upon being Politically Correct, follow the party line and make all the right noises.

    In the meantime, 99% of the real work on the front lines is done by men, and those who care about results know this. Even the minority of women who like the idea of “being a …….” disproportionately fill admin and other “safe” roles.

    Equality is a game played by politicians and a distraction faced by those at the front line who shunt it sideways as quickly as possible.

  40. mmaier2112 says:

    I want to vent at Springfield for their stupid GRRRRLLLL POWRRRRRR ads but cannot think of a constructive way to do so. Their Saint campaign has been annoying me even before they revealed what it was. And how much underwhelming could that reveal be?

    That said, Glocks suck. I love my XDM Mod 2 subcompacts in 9mm & 45ACP. They feel great in my hand, when shooting and I shoot them well. And they’re black and evil-looking.

    What more can I ask?

  41. Mandy says:

    FYI, Jenny Erikson is having a baby this month as a “happy single mom” her post marriage spinsterhood rocks on

  42. Brian K says:

    Ironsides: I love CZs as well, and think the P-01 is about the perfect mid-sized 9mm carry gun, but CZ is not immune to this stuff: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/02/23/new-shadow-from-cz-cz-shadow-2/

  43. Hose_B says:

    @mrteebs
    “It’s like a girl’s bike with a removable crossbar that can be installed when a man rides it. Screams “made for a girl but strong enough for a man.””

    Actually, its not. What you describe is a “pink rifle”. A rifle manufactured with a female in mind.

    The SAINT is just a regular old AR-15. Its the fact that its NOT a girls gun that gives the advertising pull. The rifle is as civilian “tactical” as it comes. To sell it to a guy, you talk about the chrome vanadium barrel, 1:16 twist, submoa etc. To sell to a woman, appeal to her emotion.

  44. Pingback: Sporty spice defends Springfield Armory’s legacy. - Top

  45. Tarl says:

    The M1A was a great platform when your choices for a .308 battle rifle were AR10, FN-FAL, GALIL, and the HK91.

    Except I like all of the other ones better than the M1A… that’s why I have an AR10 and an HK91.

    Incidentally when I bought the AR10 (over 10 years ago now) the guy at the store emphasized, and these are his exact words, “this is a manly gun in a manly caliber”. (Boy you really know how to sell a gun to a man!)

    Now, AR pattern .308 rifles are plentiful in both proprietary and semi-standardized versions.

    It hurts too much to shoot .308.

    No, not the recoil.

    Each trigger pull costs $1.

  46. Ironsides says:

    Yes, 5.56 is pretty much the way to go for those not leaking money out of every pore. Though being an oddball all round, I prefer a Mini 14 to an AR — though I totally understand why most people go for the AR. .308’s price tag is painful.

    Speaking of painful, that female CZ ad is enough to make one wince, also. Though it’s not quite as cringeworthy as the Springfield ads, which are ghastly.

  47. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Charlize Theron’s 5-year-old son might be transitioning into a girl: http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00104854.html

    Charlize Theron is the Grrrl Power actress of Mad Max fame.

  48. Brian K says:

    Another cringeworthy CZ ad, this one from nearly a decade ago. Googling CZ ads with girls turns up a wealth of heinous material: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgmSw6c587A&feature=share

  49. Brian K says:

    More actiongirl stuff from this year’s SHOT show. My favorite shot is probably when the one girl muzzles the cameraman with the Dillon minigun while her friend texts in the background: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwv3SL_tCw&feature=share

  50. mad_kalak says:

    Do you like the 2nd Amendment, and are you happy that conservatives won (largely) the culture war on guns? Are you surprised that in 25 years we could go from threatened nationwide bans during the Clinton presidency to the Heller and McDonald decisions, and a president and a majority of Congress in support of gun rights? How did this happen? The cultural change has been enormous. Most of it was due to women seeing guns as protection from bad guys and that thing their husband used to hunt with, rather than seeing guns as something the government should protect them from. This has come about because women are being increasingly introduced to guns. The market for men was saturated, and companies started to market to women. This Springfield bit is just the last of a long train of marketing since the NRA started its “Women On Target” program back in the 1990s.
    While the number of women gun owners has not changed much: “Personal ownership of firearms has not appreciably change for women from 1980 through 2014. Between 9% and 14% of women personally owned a firearm during those years…..” (GSS) http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf
    The reason they own a gun has changed!
    “Currently, 48% say the main reason they own a gun is for protection while 32% cite hunting and 18% give another reason. In a 1999 ABC News/Washington Post survey, 49% of gun owners cited hunting as the main reason for owning a gun while just 26% said they primarily owned a gun for protection.” http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-2-opinions-of-gun-owners-non-gun-owners/
    Majorities of both men (67%) and women (58%) believe having a gun improves home safety. While one in three women say it makes for a more dangerous place to be, only one in four men say the same about guns in the home. http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx
    Bottom line, if you like the Second Amendment and was to see it continue to be culturally and politically supported, let the girls shoot, and take a girl shooting.

  51. mad_kalak says:

    p.s. Women didn’t ask to break into this male space, they were invited.

  52. I greatly prefer the S&W M&P’s.

  53. m11nine says:

    Q:
    RE Abedini,

    I follow him on Facebook. This week, he went warpath on major Christian leaders for hanging him out to dry. Apparently Graham advised him not to defend himself at all, so he went quiet on his horrible wife problem/wife accusations for much of the past year.

    It, of course, did him do good, but it was easily predictable whose side the Christian world would side with. The Facebook comments the past few days from women have been vicious, and these are from his “followers”.

    The church and parachurch must cater to women at all costs, including never holding them accountable. This poor bastard was better off in prison in Iran.

  54. Otto Lamp says:

    “FYI, Jenny Erikson is having a baby this month as a “happy single mom” her post marriage spinsterhood rocks on”

    OMG, I was wondering what happened to “The Most Abominable Christian Wife On The Internet”.

  55. Anonymous Reader says:

    At least when he was in prison in Iran, Abedini knew who his enemies were.

    In Boise? Not so much.

  56. Gunner Q says:

    Unbroken! From Saeed: “…I believe I am fighting with spirit of Jezebel these last years who got control in our beloved country USA and I never give up.”

    Go get ’em, cowboy. The devil has nothing left to attack you with. Why can’t more of our immigrants be like this?

  57. Talk about an idiotic gun advertisement… what women aspire to be like the women in that ad?

  58. Part of the issue is that while guys like looking at hot Women with guns (or cars), it doesn’t mean they share any part of the culture or appreciation for the subtleties. It’s also goes along with messing up the ad campaigns. It’s a masculine activity that some Women can do. You can’t make it feminine without losing the Men.

    If you really want to appeal to Women with the guys, have male models looking sexy while firing them. That’ll do more.

  59. safespaceplaypen says:

    @mad_kalak

    yep lol. won the culture war on guns. lost the culture war on pretty much everything else. “muh right to own guns” is more of a libertarian i-can-do-as-i-please position rather than simply a “conservative” one. If your only political agenda is maintaining the 2nd amendment, then sure, no one here can really complain about women invading mens spaces and making everything pampered and gay. But if your political goals are a little bit more complex, including basic items like, idk, not being a country filled with whores and fags, then every little gay “muh i’m a girl i can do it too!” should be suspect. This should be obvious.

  60. Greg A says:

    @anonymous_ng

    I would disagree with your thoughts about SA struggling to remain relevant.

    They have the best CS in the firearms industry, bar none.

    Their 1911s are among the best production 1911s available, and their custom shop made pistols are among the best you can get.

    Their custom shop is so backed up, they are not taking in new work.

    Their M1A rifles are in high demand among competition shooters and guys who love the punch of a 7.62.

    About women:

    This “Saint” AR is actually a pretty good rifle, especially for the price. I have no need of one because I have preferred Colt or DD for some time now, and no one has displaced them. But I have looked over the Saint very carefully, and it looks solid. While I think the whole rollout of the Saint was quite hokey, I applaud them reaching out to women in such an open manner. Women need to shoot well also, and no rifle is better for women than the AR. My daughter has been to 3 NRA Week competitions at Camp Perry starting when she was 13. She shoots CZ pistols very well, and she can put 19 rounds of 9mm rapid fired from a CZ into the head of a steel silhouette at 20 yards.

    I will not always be there to protect her. She had better be a damn good shot.

  61. Hose_B says:

    Does anyone know of a firearm commercial geared towards men that uses paramilitary images like this one does? Maybe I’m Missing something. Why is she doing bicep curls with the steel target?? What would the public outcry be if this featured men doing the same thing in an ad to sell military style weapons? Or substitute black men? How about Arab men??

    This is Springfields XDm Ad

    Here is a Kel-Tec video.

    This Glock ad keeps up the “Great equalizer” BS (she doesn’t even have to shoot) but is still based on self defense.

  62. safespaceplaypen says:

    so much conservative feminist butthurt by some commentators in these past two threads.

    here we have, “b-b-b-b-but she needs to learn to shoot ’cause her man won’t always be there!”

    next we’ll be hearing “b-b-b-b-but she needs to get a job ’cause her man won’t always be there!”

    and possibly “b-b-b-b-but she needs to get fucked by other men, ’cause her man won’t always be there!”

  63. Hose_B says:

    @safespaceplaypen
    here we have, “b-b-b-b-but she needs to learn to shoot ’cause her man won’t always be there!”
    next we’ll be hearing “b-b-b-b-but she needs to get a job ’cause her man won’t always be there!”
    and possibly “b-b-b-b-but she needs to get fucked by other men, ’cause her man won’t always be there!”

    This is a very common view. Case in point, my kids maternal grandparents are the ones pushing college. Any point I make otherwise is met with anger that I DARE suggest otherwise. And these are the churchgoing grandparents. I am viewed as the heathen in the family.
    My oldest was given a “Gone With the Wind” birthday card with the handwritten inscription “stay spoiled……….and strong. Love grandma” Scarlet Ohara is used as a GOOD example of “Doing what it takes to survive”!! No comment when I pointed out that Scarlet whored herself out to save her PLANTATION, not even her life.

  64. Ironsides says:

    @safespaceplaypen Do you mean that you’re at your woman’s side 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? You don’t work? Your boss never sends you on an overnight business trip? A week-long business trip? Your wife NEVER drives to the grocery store on her own? Never walks outside without you hovering over her shoulder?

    Your vicious attack on people who want their wives to be able to defend themselves in their husband’s absence, comparing it to active cuckoldry, is simply grotesque.

    I personally prefer to have a woman who can protect herself when I’m not there — because I’m not a rich insane guy who can sit there constantly at her side glaring at every dust mite that dares to come within ten feet of her. I’d rather not spend two days in the hospital for some minor but overnight procedure, say, and return to find that my wife has been raped, tortured, and killed by some random vibrant or nutcase, if there’s a simple, practical way to decrease the odds of that happening.

    You’re twisting people’s words in order to sneer at them. It does not reflect well upon you.

  65. mad_kalak says:

    @safespaceplaypen – Don’t make the mistake of assuming that because I support women shooting, that I support feminism. How the long have you been commenting on this blog that you can assume that? What fantastic leaps of logic you engage in! Yes, culturally, and historically, hunting has been a man’s activity. But culturally and historically, women were given responsibility for their own defense if a man wasn’t around. There is nothing “masculine” nor “feminine” about self defense. Sure, the “ugogirl” gun ads annoy me, but if women need to see guns as personally “empowering” (which they are, wtf do we want to keep the government from banning them) to support the 2nd Amendment right that we all benefit from, then so be it.

  66. “stay spoiled……….and strong”.

    You can’t be both.

  67. BuenaVista says:

    I own a Saint and it’s a good carbine. It’s now my truck gun, my Hi-Point is in the garage, and my piston-driven Beretta is in the safe. It doesn’t matter to me if SA wants to sell more guns by appealing to chicks. I know exactly one female who enjoys breaking down a weapon and cleaning it, and her dad was a Navy captain and she designs jet avionics now. If the rest of the women want to buy guns and lower the price for me, great.

  68. @Ironsides:

    PlayPen is most likely concern troll. He’s not an honest actor in these discussions.

    As to Women & Guns, it’s a value judgment in most cases. If you live in Japan, your wife has zero need to learn how to use a Gun. If you’re in a much more dangerous location, you’re being needlessly insecure if she can otherwise handle a firearm.

    Some people, and a lot of Women, just cannot handle a firearm. That’s fine. Quite a lot of similar decisions need to be tailored to the situation, as that’s just Wisdom.

  69. Anonymous Reader says:

    BuenaVIsta, unless there’s something special about that HIPoint you should consider selling or trading it. Nothing personal to you or anyone else who owns one of their firearms, but they don’t hold up in the longer term very well. Speaking from experience here that cheap firearms are not worth the trouble.

  70. Wood Chipper says:

    Someone posted this about link on Facebook today on emotional abuse.

    http://www.mentor2day.com/2017/04/every-single-one-of-these-10-things-is.html?m=1

    Give me any man, and I will use this to show how he is an abuser. TLDR: if she FEELS emotionally abused, he is guilty. Denying it only makes you more guiltily.

  71. Wood Chipper says:

    Sadder on that emotional abuse post, was that every harpie commenting on FB said it fit her ex husband to a T.

  72. @Ironsides

    here, before commenting back, print this out and post it on your bedroom wall

    It’s pretty simple: it’s a man’s responsibility to protect the home, not the womans. Learning how to kill is a male activity and role, not a woman’s. Learning how to defend yourself and your country is a male activity and role, not a womans. If you feel like you need to teach your wife how to shoot a gun because when shit hits the fan you know you’ll be too puss to protect your family so you need your wifes help, then expect your wife to view you as a pansy who doesn’t trust himself. If you feel like your jobs taking you far from home so you won’t be there to protect your wife, then go ahead and show her how a gun works, but don’t expect her to actually do a good job defending your family and don’t expect her to not freeze up and cry lol and don’t expect people to not say “where the fuck was Ironsides? Why was he on his business trip? Why wasn’t he at home taking care of his wife and children?”

    If you expect your wife to actually protect herself just cuz “she knows how to use a gun” then i’m sorry, you’re doing your wife more harm then good lol. There’s a lot more to self defense then just knowing how to pull out a gun and shoot it. What makes you think your wife will actually do that when someone breaks in?

    You shouldn’t trust your wife at all in defending the home. Why? Because she doesn’t want to fucking do it, and she chose you so that she WOULDN’T have to worry about that kind of decision. Its your responsibility, and ultimately when you go on your little business trip and your wife gets attacked and raped and killed, its still ultimately your fault. Life isn’t fair and protecting your family isn’t something that can be done 100% all of the time. Your wife is your property, and if she dies, then yeah, you are responsible for it. Doesn’t matter if you were on a “little business trip”; doesn’t matter if you “gone golfing with your best buds lol”. Still your fault because you let your property die and you were dumb enough to think your property signed up for the responsibility to protect the entire home.

    The fundamental thing here is that while yes, showing your wife how to use a weapon is fine if thats what makes you happy, but if you are actually expecting your wife (and trusting your wife) to successfully bear the burden of protecting the home in the same way, or even close to, as you are expected to protect the home, then i’m sorry, you are a retard.

    No one’s saying women should be deprived of the ability to go and buy a gun and learn how to use it. The whole point is that thinking women SHOULD know how to use a weapon is in fact a retarded line of thinking.

    but to be frank, depriving all women of using a firearm really isn’t that big of a deal, just like depriving women of the vote wouldn’t be that big of a deal. Sure there would be some consequences to it, but there would be the enormous societal benefit of women being subjected to the complete authority of men, which is a lot better than what we have right now lol.

    Quit thinking so individualistically and look at things from a more Utilitarian or Teleological perspective bro

    @mad_kalak

    “How the long have you been commenting on this blog that you can assume that?”

    long enough to know you’re retarded lol

    “Yes, culturally, and historically, hunting has been a man’s activity. But culturally and historically, women were given responsibility for their own defense if a man wasn’t around.”

    no not really. women have, culturally and historically, been subjected to men. If you don’t think that women shouldn’t be subjected to men, then for all intents and purposes you are a feminist; if you do in fact think women should be subjected to men then you would have to agree to the fact that depriving women of the ability to use a firearm would be a simple way of enabling that. But even then, i’m not saying women should be deprived of that ability. Just saying that its really not their responsibility to defend the home because (a) the suck at defending everything due to their nature and (b) promoting the “u need to use guns to fight along side your husband”, while coming from a good place, siimulatenously promotes the equalist, “strong and empowered” agenda.

    There are other reasons too, but frankly i don’t feel like getting into it all because i don’t think you really care and i’m kinda tired of talking about this whole thing lol.

    “There is nothing “masculine” nor “feminine” about self defense.”

    Conservative Feminist spotted!!!1!

    “Sure, the “ugogirl” gun ads annoy me, but if women need to see guns as personally “empowering” (which they are, wtf do we want to keep the government from banning them) to support the 2nd Amendment right that we all benefit from, then so be it.”

    yep. you have shown yourself to be unable to see the big picture of how feminist propaganda works and how it affects society. You are looking at only two things – the 2nd amendment and “self-defense”, while ignoring secondary consequences.

  73. @Ironsides

    here, before commenting back, print this out and post it on your bedroom wall

    It’s pretty simple: it’s a man’s responsibility to protect the home, not the womans. Learning how to kill is a male activity and role, not a woman’s. Learning how to defend yourself and your country is a male activity and role, not a womans. If you feel like you need to teach your wife how to shoot a gun because when shit hits the fan you know you’ll be too puss to protect your family so you need your wifes help, then expect your wife to view you as a pansy who doesn’t trust himself. If you feel like your jobs taking you far from home so you won’t be there to protect your wife, then go ahead and show her how a gun works, but don’t expect her to actually do a good job defending your family and don’t expect her to not freeze up and cry lol and don’t expect people to not say “where the fuck was Ironsides? Why was he on his business trip? Why wasn’t he at home taking care of his wife and children?”

    If you expect your wife to actually protect herself just cuz “she knows how to use a gun” then i’m sorry, you’re doing your wife more harm then good lol. There’s a lot more to self defense then just knowing how to pull out a gun and shoot it. What makes you think your wife will actually do that when someone breaks in?

    You shouldn’t trust your wife at all in defending the home. Why? Because she doesn’t want to fucking do it, and she chose you so that she WOULDN’T have to worry about that kind of decision. Its your responsibility, and ultimately when you go on your little business trip and your wife gets attacked and raped and killed, its still ultimately your fault. Life isn’t fair and protecting your family isn’t something that can be done 100% all of the time. Your wife is your property, and if she dies, then yeah, you are responsible for it. Doesn’t matter if you were on a “little business trip”; doesn’t matter if you “gone golfing with your best buds lol”. Still your fault because you let your property die and you were dumb enough to think your property signed up for the responsibility to protect the entire home.

    The fundamental thing here is that while yes, showing your wife how to use a weapon is fine if thats what makes you happy, but if you are actually expecting your wife (and trusting your wife) to successfully bear the burden of protecting the home in the same way, or even close to, as you are expected to protect the home, then i’m sorry, you are a retard.

    No one’s saying women should be deprived of the ability to go and buy a gun and learn how to use it. The whole point is that thinking women SHOULD know how to use a weapon is in fact a retarded line of thinking.

    but to be frank, depriving all women of using a firearm really isn’t that big of a deal, just like depriving women of the vote wouldn’t be that big of a deal. Sure there would be some consequences to it, but there would be the enormous societal benefit of women being subjected to the complete authority of men, which is a lot better than what we have right now lol.

    Quit thinking so individualistically and look at things from a more Utilitarian or Teleological perspective bro

    @mad_kalak

    “How the long have you been commenting on this blog that you can assume that?”

    long enough to know you’re retarded lol

    “Yes, culturally, and historically, hunting has been a man’s activity. But culturally and historically, women were given responsibility for their own defense if a man wasn’t around.”

    no not really. women have, culturally and historically, been subjected to men. If you don’t think that women shouldn’t be subjected to men, then for all intents and purposes you are a feminist; if you do in fact think women should be subjected to men then you would have to agree to the fact that depriving women of the ability to use a firearm would be a simple way of enabling that. But even then, i’m not saying women should be deprived of that ability. Just saying that its really not their responsibility to defend the home because (a) the suck at defending everything due to their nature and (b) promoting the “u need to use guns to fight along side your husband”, while coming from a good place, siimulatenously promotes the equalist, “strong and empowered” agenda.

    “There is nothing “masculine” nor “feminine” about self defense.”

    Conservative Feminist spotted!!!1!

    “Sure, the “ugogirl” gun ads annoy me, but if women need to see guns as personally “empowering” (which they are, wtf do we want to keep the government from banning them) to support the 2nd Amendment right that we all benefit from, then so be it.”

    yep. you have shown yourself to be unable to see the big picture of how feminist propaganda works and how it affects society. You are looking at only two things – the 2nd amendment and “self-defense”, while ignoring secondary consequences.

    There are other reasons too for why your views are retarded, but frankly i don’t feel like getting into it all because i don’t think you really care and i’m kinda tired of talking about this whole thing lol.

    Do whatever you feels right

  74. RichardP says:

    @Safespaceplaypen: Another Yoda aphorism is “Do! Not Try.”

    You are full of “shoulds”. That tells me you are not very experienced. You have an idealistic view of the way the world works. It is good to have guidelines to help us deal with the unknown, and standards against which we can measure our movement toward or away from something. But the truth is, no battle plan survives contact with the enemy (in this case, the enemy being the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). When your plan meets the real world, the real world wins (quoted from link below). Now whatcha gonna do. How you gonna do, and not just try? Well, for one – you have to figure it out as you go along. And if all that you know is a set of rules that have suddenly become useless – how you gonna “do”, and not just try? For that, you need to be able to think on your feet. And you won’t develop that ability until you let go of your shiny list of rules about how life “should” be. Develop the ability to deal with it as it actually is. But you can’t do that if you won’t come out from behind the “protection” of your list of rules.

    I grew up in the country, not the big city, around family farms and small family-run businesses, and prowling wildlife. Learning to shoot, and how to safely handle firearms was just a fact of life – for both sexes. Protecting what you were building with your family was everbody’s job, even if everybody understood that some were better at certain types of “protecting” than others. Everybody had a role to play, and a job to do.. Starting with everbody understanding that they shouldn’t do anything stupid to put at risk what the family was building together. Behaving properly is as much a part of defending the family as is knowing how to shoot the fool that tries to cross your boundary.

    Seriously, that is a fine piece of writing you presented above this post. And it would seriously get snorted at by many of the women I grew up around. It’s a good presentation of how many think the world should be. But not a very accurate reflection of how it actually is for many people.

  75. Anonymous Reader says:

    safespaceplaypen
    It’s pretty simple: it’s a man’s responsibility to protect the home, not the womans.

    So when the man is not home, the woman is to be easy prey for intruders, along with any children?

    Learning how to kill is a male activity and role, not a woman’s

    You don’t know much about women.

  76. Tarl says:

    Someone posted this about link on Facebook today on emotional abuse.

    http://www.mentor2day.com/2017/04/every-single-one-of-these-10-things-is.html?m=1

    Give me any man, and I will use this to show how he is an abuser.

    EVERY Single One Of These 10 Things Is… the sign of a man with tight game, bahahahaha! Strong frame, amused mastery, STFU, it’s all in there.

  77. They Call Me Tom says:

    The ar-15 in general is a great weapon. Light, accurate, light recoil and simple to operate. Having built one, it was the only way to have a ‘featureless’ rifle prior to the election, and put a hundred rounds down range… it really is something anyone could use effectively.

    That said, SA’s marketing over focus on one sector of potential customers for the Saint is foolish. What’s great about the weapon is that almost everyone can use it competently… not just one demographic.

  78. @RichardP

    I partially see what you’re saying, but frankly, what i’m pushing isn’t really all that “idealistic”, whatever the that means lol. Conservative principles are “idealistic”, so are liberal ones, so are “pragmatic” ones, so are “natural rights” oriented principles, and so are religious principles. If you have a vision AT ALL of how the world should be WHATSOEVER – i.e. if you think rape is wrong and should be prohibited from happening to your daughter – then you are being “idealistic”, since you’re trying to apply an ideal (i.e. your daughter not getting raped) to the real world lol. Therefore being “idealistic” really doesn’t mean much, since virtually every human being is endowed with some vision of how the world ought to be lol.

    If you want to defeat Feminism and Liberalism, then you absolutely NEED an ideal to strive for, otherwise you will fall into either Moral Skepticism or some form of Nihilism (there’s a handful of other alternatives, but they’re all pretty similar and are not worth discussing lol). You NEED to be willing to tell other people how to live their lives – you NEED to have expectations for other peoples behavior, and if they don’t abide by this expected behavior, then you NEED painful consequences. ALL THIS SHIT is necessary if you want Feminism and Liberalism and other forms of modern retardation to not exist any more. Enough of this pussy-footing, half-backed “but muh we need to accommodate for reality cuz there are bad things happens sometimes a-a-a-a-and people in the past did it s-s-s-o that means we should do it too a-a-a-and if we don’t then libz will think we’re dumb.”

    Do you think Feminists are thinking “oh well, reality says there are a lot of women who think abortion is wrong. maybe we need to accommodate the movement towards their views.”?

    NO!

    They’re thinking “wtf!?!? how can we get rid of this gender-betraying cunts?”

    And guess what! They win win win at every little cultural thing because they don’t “accommodate for reality”! Their ideal is to win and to ensure each and every one of your daughters are whores! <=== try using your reasoning with them and see how much they care when you're baby girl's aborting her first baby lol.

    People who change every inch of their moral standing to "accommodate for reality" either (a) have never heard of the Is-ought fallacy, or (b) are pansies who aren't fully convicted by their own beliefs.

    "And it would seriously get snorted at by many of the women I grew up around. It’s a good presentation of how many think the world should be. But not a very accurate reflection of how it actually is for many people."

    Look man, do you think women should be fully subjected to men or not? If so, then men MUST bear the full responsibility of protecting them and thus the use of firearms is within the domain of men. period. If you do not, then fully expect this gay shit

    to come to fruition lol

  79. Mad_Kalak says:

    @safespace
    I’ve been reading and commenting on Dalrock and the Rational Male for years now, so to call me a conservative feminist considering my comment history is laughable. I think that you must be going through the anger phase of your red pill. You argue like a woman and resort to name calling and straw-manning. *sigh* But again, you’re a newbie and I don’t want to discourage you too much, so I suggest you spend an hour of two over at the Rational Male reading up on your manosphere fundamentals.
    If you weren’t such a newbie, you’d know that women’s innate sophism means that the only way most women will understand the 2nd Amendment and how it is a check against government tyranny is if they find it personally empowering. If that’s what it takes for winning the cultural war on guns, I’m on board because there is no overlap with some women having CCW permits and feminism. Generally speaking, feminists are against guns as liberals. I’m from Missouri, the show me state. If you say there are secondary effects to allowing women to defend themselves, show me. Make a rational argument instead of name calling and some hand-waving slippery slope stuff.
    As for your histrionics, our modern concept of self-defense goes back to ancient English common law, and women were expected to defend themselves when a male wasn’t around. Castle doctrine comes from common law, and this was patriarchal, as the woman was supposed to defend her bodily integrity and the castle when the man was out fighting. Let 30 seconds of Google research slow down your ranting.

  80. Reede says:

    It seems perfectly reasonable to train your wife to shoot. My first and final concern in such situations is my family’s safety, not some kind of androgenic posturing.

    The Chechens are the most warlike group of people in the world, and when the Mongols eradicated most of the Chechen men even the pregnant women took up arms to defend themselves. Women should be protected first and foremost but you have to accept that desperate situations will occur.

  81. feministhater says:

    If you weren’t such a newbie, you’d know that women’s innate sophism means that the only way most women will understand the 2nd Amendment and how it is a check against government tyranny is if they find it personally empowering.

    Hahahahahahaha! Lol! Women don’t understand why you have the 2nd Amendment… Haha! We wouldn’t be in this position if women truly understood it. They can’t grasp it. In the end, if anyone is to stand up to the government, it is to be men with guns. History of the vote proves this… gun rights are what men want, women want somebody else, i.e. government goons, to do the heavy lifting. You’re losing the culture war by pandering to feminist cliches

    I’ll explain why I think your statement is laughable. Women want more government, not less, this is proven daily with new laws, redefinitions of current and past crimes to include new levels of criminality to protect the mere feelings of women. The law is constantly looking for ways to remove gun rights from individuals. Feminists continuously want to ban guns because of the ‘evil patriarchy’ – that’s you by the way..

    Who enforces these laws? Men with guns from the government. Irony of irony, women want guns in so much as it allows them to injure men, not to protect them from government overreach. Haha! To enforce these laws and future ones, they will eventually come for your guns because the women say so. You cannot escape this, women are safety first always and freedom a very distant number 59999999 on their list of important things, right after making a meal for their lover boy, Chad..

    Guns do not empower women, government does. The gun is merely a tool of the citizenry against government overreach and the sex that values freedom over safety are men, always have been and always will be. Train men, let the women do their own shit. The few women who get this, instead of posing for pictures in bikinis with a gun, will instead find a strong man, settle down, have some kids and be a helper. She doesn’t need a gun to feel empowered – the word of a feminist by the way..

    You’re losing because you cannot say ‘no’ to women and try to empower them with the tools of men.

  82. feministhater says:

    And when I say the ‘history of the vote proves this’ I mean it. Men had to fight, with guns and other weapons, for their rights. Women? Bitch, moan and complain to daddy government about how evil men have the vote and that she needs to teach them a lesson. Daddy government doesn’t even quibble and gives them the vote, knowing that it dilutes the power that men had to fight for.

  83. feministhater says:

    English common law, and women were expected to defend themselves when a male wasn’t around. Castle doctrine comes from common law, and this was patriarchal, as the woman was supposed to defend her bodily integrity and the castle when the man was out fighting. Let 30 seconds of Google research slow down your ranting.

    Common sense. A man cannot be everywhere at the same time. They were expected to defend themselves, not parade around feeling empowered. Still, most women would easily be brushed aside by a man with a sword. Only the element of surprise saves them. Even with the invention of the gun, women cannot defend themselves and demand others do it for them.

    Sure, train your wife to use and gun, just don’t expect her to be a warrior. She can’t do it and we do them a disservice pretending otherwise.

  84. King Alfred says:

    Self defense is a fundamental human right. I don’t see anyone here seriously disputing that. Safespaceplaypen has made some very good points, namely that those trying to limit erosion of society in one area have ignored or actively eroded other vital areas. I believe his point is that the “gun rights” people have achieved a hollow victor that may ultimately be more damaging than a defeat. This assertion merits serious consideration, which seems to be the reason Dalrock chose to highlight the matter in the current and previous posts.

  85. Bart says:

    Anonymous Reader,
    The HiPoint carbine is OK for what it is, and has a decent reputation. I bought one in .40 S&W a while back for $200. Sure, they are cheaply built, low capacity, ugly, and only pistol powered.

    On the other hand, it is a fun plinker, and is pretty accurate. Its been reliable. It is short and handy. I think it makes an OK beater gun. Plus, it fills the power gap between my .22 rifles, and my intermediate powered AR/AK/SKS.

    The HiPoint could work for home defense if you were too broke to buy something better. I’m glad I have several better rifles

  86. Andreas says:

    It’s female vulnerability in large part that gives men an excuse to lay aside differences and cooperate. Therefore to try and diminish the vulnerability of the individual woman, will only make the whole community less safe in the long run, because it will end up being every man for himself. The question really comes down to short-term security vs long-term… individual vs communal.

    Giving women legal/voting rights and self-defense training will eventually shatter men’s ability to cooperate effectively, which basically entails the demise of your country in the long run.

  87. Anonymous Reader says:

    Andreas
    It’s female vulnerability in large part that gives men an excuse to lay aside differences and cooperate.

    Really? Explicate on that a while. You are taking the fact of sexual dimorphism and attempting to build a sociological theory on top of it.

    Giving women legal/voting rights and self-defense training will eventually shatter men’s ability to cooperate effectively, which basically entails the demise of your country in the long run.

    One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just isn’t the same.
    Criminy, this is a new low, it’s not even the usual “Is!” vs. “ought!” or religious doctrine catfights.
    Dalrock’s point about marketing and YouGoGirl is perfectly reasonable, this devolution is not.

    Look, if any man doesn’t want his woman [*] to know how to shoot, then don’t train her. Simple.
    But there’s not a single man here with the authority to tell other men “don’t teach her how to shoot”. Not even the biggest blowhard buffoon has that authority, no matter how much of a legend
    he is in his own mind.

    Again it’s that simple. Don’t want your wife to know how to shoot? Don’t teach her. But don’t tell other men what they should not do with theirs.

    [*] Wife, sister, daughter, neice, cousin, or for several in this thread, Waifu. Pick the shoe that fits.

  88. feministhater says:

    Again it’s that simple. Don’t want your wife to know how to shoot? Don’t teach her. But don’t tell other men what they should not do with theirs.

    You seem to have a real problem here and you can’t seem to get over it. Nobody has told anyone to do anything. It’s all just personal opinion.

    His theory proves itself though, giving women their independence has led to a total reliance on government brought about by the acts of women. Hence a massive reduction in your personal freedom as a man. Your inability to see that is causing you to lash out. Their safety is more important to society than your freedom.

    It goes like this. Women stop relying on their men to protect them and go get self-defense classes and firearms training, as they are taught they are just as capable and strong as men, this leads to the ‘go girl’ power trip culture we are seeing in both society in general (bikini chicks holding guns) and in fantasy movies in particular (Star Wars, Marvel comics, Trans-formers). Inevitably, it doesn’t go to plan, women get killed, they get injured and crime goes up, government steps in as women demand more safety. More gun laws, more restrictions, more regulations and more red-tape. Cause A is the idea that Woman + Gun = Kicking men’s asses. Cause B is the realisation that fantasy doesn’t equal reality but unwilling to face reality, other solutions are sought, namely, the removal of your freedoms

    This leads to serious ramifications for your personal freedom to own a gun, use it and defend your family. Your very reason for training your wife leads to a harder time for you to defend her. Why are you getting angry? Cause some men are trying to dissuade you from turning your wife or girl friend into a wannabe GI Jane? Go get her trained. no one is going to try and stop you.

    Women + Safety = More government.

  89. Andreas says:

    Anonymous Reader, well when it’s every man for himself then nobody has any real authority over anything. And what you end up with is a sluggish centralized form of governance with a no real local cohesion or roots. Everyone can thus decide for themselves as they wish, well within government edict that is, including women also. Is that true freedom though?

  90. Anonymous Reader says:

    Andreas
    Anonymous Reader, well when it’s every man for himself then nobody has any real authority over anything.

    So? Could there be any philosophers who have addressed this? If so, have you read them?

    And what you end up with is a sluggish centralized form of governance with a no real local cohesion or roots. Everyone can thus decide for themselves as they wish, well within government edict that is, including women also.

    “No real authority” of your first sentence directly contradicts “sluggish centralized form of governance”. You’re not thinking, but rather emoting.

    Suggest you go read John Locke’s “Two Treatises on Government” and think about it. For now you are pretty close to clueless.

  91. Anonymous Reader says:

    feministhater
    His theory proves itself though, giving women their independence has led to a total reliance on government brought about by the acts of women.

    We’ve been over this a few times on this site, even after you showed up. I could explain it, but you wouldn’t read and understand it.

    tl;dr
    Votes for women is not the same thing as great-great-great-great grandma shooting a fox by her chicken coop in 1800 (when her property rights were quite limited and she could not vote).
    Got that? Or is it too complicated for you?

    The quality of thinking displayed in this thread is close to zero.

    Hence a massive reduction in your personal freedom as a man. Your inability to see that is causing you to lash out. Their safety is more important to society than your freedom.

    How’s your Waifu doing?

  92. Andreas says:

    Haha, I was afraid it was gonna come off as a contradiction to you, but as I guess it can’t be helped as you have already predetermined my cluelessness in your eyes.

  93. feministhater says:

    Votes for women is not the same thing as great-great-great-great grandma shooting a fox by her chicken coop in 1800 (when her property rights were quite limited and she could not vote).

    Got that? Or is it too complicated for you?

    Lol, you’re acting like a cuck. I suggest you reread the point above and digest it slowly. I never suggested women shouldn’t shoot or kill an animal to eat. lol! They could not vote then, they were not taught ’empowerment’ stories then either. It is a different scenario.

    However, they do vote now, it has caused damage. Are you suggesting that women, by and large, use their votes well? Are you suggesting that government has gotten smaller or bigger since women got the vote? Welfare? Gun rights? Individual freedoms?

    Are we in better shape now or before women got the vote?

    You’re the only ‘real’ man in the house, you’re the one telling us how it is. It’s you buddy, no one else, get your head out your anus. It’s been stuck in there long enough.

  94. feministhater says:

    How’s your Waifu doing?

    You’re in no place to make jabs at others. Your shaming means zilch, buttercup.

  95. PeterW. says:

    Without getting into the current brangle, I’ve been running through Grosmann’s “On Combat” again.

    He points out that there is a strong correlation between the advent of violent, “kick-ass” female characters in children’s programs, and violent behaviour by girls and women. Both against other girls, and against boys.

    The interesting thing about the intersexual violence dynamic is that it starts off well for girls, because at 12/13 they can beat the average boy. However by the time they reach 15-16, obviously boys are bigger, stronger and faster, BUT by this time many of both sexes have come to believe that intersexual violence is normal.
    Follow this generation through into their twenties and early thirties, and the largest category for domestic violence or “Intimate Partner Violence” is “Mutual”. In other words, most DV involves men and women being violent to each other, not the stereotype of the big nasty man hitting the helpless woman because she didn’t make his sandwich right.

    Throw in the increasing amount of research showing that women initiate more than 50% of DV, and we reach the conclusion that the biggest thing that women can do to reduce DV is to stop hitting men.

    I don’t mean this to be an argument against self defence. Taking responsibility for your own safety is as basic as responsibility for your own health and nutrition. But REAL security means understanding the nature of the threats and your ability to deal with them. Half a dozen self-defence classes do not make anyone into a “warrior princess”.

  96. Aonymous Reader says:

    feministhater
    However, they do vote now, it has caused damage. Are you suggesting that women, by and large, use their votes well?

    Where did I write that? I didn’t. Don’t change the subject.

    Are you suggesting that government has gotten smaller or bigger since women got the vote? Welfare? Gun rights? Individual freedoms?

    No. My position on this has been clear since before you showed up.

    You’re the only ‘real’ man in the house, you’re the one telling us how it is.

    Nope. Keep making up stories, maybe you can get one that will work.

    <it’s you buddy, no one else, get your head out your anus. It’s been stuck in there long enough.

    Do you have a point to make, or are you just trolling someone else’s site for flames?

  97. Anonymous Reader says:

    Andreas
    Haha, I was afraid it was gonna come off as a contradiction to you, but as I guess it can’t be helped as you have already predetermined my cluelessness in your eyes.

    It is a self contradiction. The only person who can determine your cluelessness is you.

  98. Anonymous Reader says:

    @PeterW
    Don’t you mean David Grossman’s “On Killing”? Or is there another book?

  99. My parents both worked full time jobs after they got married, saving up for a home. Twice my mom was almost attacked when alone, working in north west Indiana. That’s life. Most of us men can’t afford to tell wifey to stat home and clean the apartment or house.

    Reality is reality. If you can afford to live in a safe area, fantastic. Maybe you can be sole breadwinn home. Awesome, I am impressed. I’d love to make 70k a year and have my woman stay at home.
    However for us mortal couples where the man and woman both work… Unless you to can work in the same office, At least 40 hrs a week you won’t be there a nd she’ll be a solo target for ferals and such unless you live in a pure white town.

    Teaching her how to shoot, getting her a pocket pistol, isn’t going to make your dick fall off. You’ll shoot better than her, you’re teaching her something, and you can simply have some nice rough sex if you feel she’s getting too arrogant.

  100. Cane Caldo says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    Look, if any man doesn’t want his woman [*] to know how to shoot, then don’t train her. Simple.
    But there’s not a single man here with the authority to tell other men “don’t teach her how to shoot”. Not even the biggest blowhard buffoon has that authority, no matter how much of a legend
    he is in his own mind.

    This is your blindspot, and it surprises me to see it from you of all the commenters. It is irrelevant whether or not a man has the authority to tell another man how to train his wife. What is relevant is that none of us exist in a vacuum. It matters what another man does with his wife.

    Peter W.’s comments on how women invade male spaces is on target. Bob, Joe, and Tom want to go shoot together. Sadly, Tom’s wife insists on going too, and while there Tom loves to talk about what a good shooter his wife is, whether she is or not. Later, they have a dinner party of all three couples. Tom’s wife talks about this fantasy of how she is a great shot and how it is so important to her that she be able to defend herself because sometimes Tom goes out of town…but she’s ready because she’s a tough, kick-ass chick who knows how to handle a gun. This generates fear, desires, and conflict in the others wives; things which they did not have before the dinner party.

    I don’t have the authority to make other men do what I want. I do have the authority to tell them what is likely to happen if they do something foolish like include women in group shoots and thereby normalize a deceptive female fantasy.

  101. BillyS says:

    Perhaps Cane, but stuff like that will happen in some form or another no matter what a husband does. Females are competitive, especially among themselves.

    I would rather have a wife trained in some self defense than one who is helpless when I am not home.

    The risk of the power of the State being that bully is far more dangerous than learning to shoot.

    Tom also needs to learn to assert that he needs time with other men, without wives around. Though few men get that in any manner today. He doesn’t have to allow her to tag along to help her learn to handle a gun.

  102. Cane Caldo says:

    @BillyS

    Perhaps Cane, but stuff like that will happen in some form or another no matter what a husband does.

    This is just cowardice and resignation.

    Tom also needs to learn to assert that he needs time with other men, without wives around. Though few men get that in any manner today. He doesn’t have to allow her to tag along to help her learn to handle a gun.

    One great way to do that–even though it hurts the feelings of conservative feminists–is to make it clear that violence is the realm of men, and not the realm of women. Because it is. All these excuses and contingents and what-ifs are smoke in the winds of male cowardice in the face of female usurpation.

  103. Gunner Q says:

    BillyS @ 10:55 pm:
    “I would rather have a wife trained in some self defense than one who is helpless when I am not home.”

    What is wrong with my panic-room suggestion from the previous thread? Lethal force is hardly the only way to be safe. Unarmed doesn’t have to mean helpless.

  104. feministhater says:

    p.s. Women didn’t ask to break into this male space, they were invited.

    Only by male cucks.

    There should be male spaces, it improves our well being to be amongst men, you know, just some of the time. Your point about empowering women with a gun is moot because you are committing the same mistake politicians make over and over again. You’re a panderer. You will pander to women to get their vote. You’re no different than a corrupt politician using flattering words to win over the vanity of the female. I don’t care for such shit, if they need to be pandered too, rather than understanding the real reasons for the 2nd amendment, they don’t deserve that freedom.

    If women didn’t have the vote, you would not have to pander, your 2nd amendment wouldn’t be under attack. Neither would the rest of your rights, such as freedom of speech. Male authority is God ordained, female pandering is not.

    You’re just another tradcon.

  105. feministhater says:

    And let me be perfectly clear. I despise tradcons/conservatives more than I do feminists. You guys lost the culture wars, you are failures.

  106. PeterW. says:

    AR….
    I have “On Combat”, successor to “On Killing”.

    https://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549

  107. Mad_Kalak says:

    @feministhater
    Do you realize that you can’t have a meaningful debate when you engage in ad hominin attacks? Moreover, given the format of this blog, multiple long posts mean whatever points you make get lost in a wall of text and other replies. Say what you mean, succinctly and with clarity, or you’re just noise.

    Because I respect your opinion in general, let me clarify a point. Women, due to the sophism, don’t understand the idea of an armed populace as a generalized check against government tyranny. What they do understand, thought, is that their personal gun can defend them or their kids from bad guys. Women as a class increasingly view guns as something empowering to them, not as scary loud things that the government needs to protect them from. The latter is the mentality of a leftist. Guns are bad, thus the government must protect us from them. If it takes women seeing a gun as personally empowering (as it is, why else have a CCW permit?) and if that mean that I get their generalized support for the 2nd Amendment, I am willing to deal with it. I wish women understood the 2nd Amendment like Madison did, but hey, I live in the real world. Moreover, nobody here has been able to point to any slippery slope problems with women having guns. First they have a revolver in their purse, next thing you know, they are lesbians and practicing witchcraft? I’m sorry, feminists and liberals, (in general) don’t and *never will* support firearms ownership. Leftists give others responsibility for their own defense.

    Secondly, while I agree with you, and know that giving women the right to vote has led to women looking to government as a surrogate husband or father, I am also realist in thinking that once a group has the franchise, you’re not going to take it away again. Absent some sort of civilization reset, it has never happened.

  108. BillyS says:

    Gunner Q,

    What is wrong with my panic-room suggestion from the previous thread? Lethal force is hardly the only way to be safe. Unarmed doesn’t have to mean helpless.

    I didn’t see that, so I am not completely certain, but I would prefer an active defense over a passive one. Hiding has merit, but not as the only solution.

    Cane,

    This is just cowardice and resignation.

    Noting female nature is cowardice and resignation? I would argue ignoring it and using a dubious claim as the foundation for an argument is foolishness.

    Men can and should lead. Women will ALWAYS buck against that (see the curse on Eve). Acknowledging that trend is Scriptural realism, nothing else. Figuring out the key elements while not being misled is our task in life.

    One great way to do that–even though it hurts the feelings of conservative feminists–is to make it clear that violence is the realm of men, and not the realm of women. Because it is. All these excuses and contingents and what-ifs are smoke in the winds of male cowardice in the face of female usurpation.

    It is true men should be responsible for core defensive elements, but a woman does not need to be a helpless pile of goo to accomplish that.

    This seems more like arguing that only men should take out the trash. It is a focus on the wrong things.

  109. Anon says:

    Artificial Intelligence is Sexist (and Racist too!):

    Well it is certainly going to destroy large parts of the FI, because the huge unconscious female-favoring bias in millions of decisions will be stripped out when AI is incorporated.

    Some people here think otherwise because beta males will program AI with female-favoring bias. I disagree, because the bias is like the air – they have no capacity to notice it, so they won’t (and can’t) program it into any AI tasked with increasing business productivity (the primary purpose of AI). They truly do believe in the ‘pay gap’ or that ‘50% of tech CEOs should naturally be women’. Hence, AI will be a disaster for women.

  110. Oscar says:

    “Let’s just cut through the nonsense, shall we? The logical end of all this controversy is painfully obvious.

    ‘Men’s’ and ‘Women’s’ divisions in competitive sports must be eliminated, for the good of the sports and for the good of the athletes.

    We must eliminate ‘women’s sports’ and replace it with simply ‘sports’ — open to everyone who wants to compete against each other, damn the sexism and damn the misogyny.” ~ Mark Rippetoe

    Finally, equality!

    https://pjmedia.com/blog/rips-modest-proposal-end-mens-and-womens-divisions-in-sports/

  111. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anon: They truly do believe in the ‘pay gap’ or that ‘50% of tech CEOs should naturally be women’.

    As I noted in a previous thread, feminists in the “horror/science fiction community” believe that 50% of all screenwriters, film directors, novelists, and even fans should be women. If the attendance at a fan convention, if the presenters and panelists and fans, are not at least 50% women, then there’s a “problem” that the entire genre community must acknowledge and seek to fix.

    Hence, women only genre film festivals, panels, and events in fandom. Because, apparently, there still aren’t enough Strong, Kick-Ass, Grrrrrl Power Women characters in films, TV shows, and novels.

    All part of this bizarre notion that every endeavor must at least be 50% female, or it’s proof of oppressive sexism.

  112. PokeSalad says:

    @Cane:

    You say this:
    It is irrelevant whether or not a man has the authority to tell another man how to train his wife. What is relevant is that none of us exist in a vacuum. It matters what another man does with his wife.

    ..and yet also say this:
    make it clear that violence is the realm of men, and not the realm of women. Because it is.

    The nub here is that violent men are not in a vacuum either….they periodically interact (violently) with the “realm” of women. Boy, it would be great if we could always segregate our women 24/7 from the possible “realm” of violent men.

    So, Why one and not the other? How can my decision (if that is my decision) to ‘arm’ my gf be everyone’s business, because rebellion, but somehow those violent men out there are going to keep to themselves and never make themselves my gf’s business?

    You often hear the joke about a multiculti Swede getting butchered by a ‘vibrant’ and his dying words were, “at least I wasn’t a racist!”

    I’m thinking of a woman being killed by a vibrant, and her last words being, “at least I didn’t use a gun and further female rebellion!”

  113. Just Saying says:

    feminists in the “horror/science fiction community” believe that 50% of all screenwriters, film directors, novelists, and even fans should be women.

    Why aren’t the Feminists protesting the fact that 93% of all of the homeless are men? Why aren’t they protesting that men get another 60+% more time in prison sentences for the same crime that a woman commits? Why aren’t they protesting the fact that now only 38% of all college enrollments are men? Why aren’t they protesting that the vast majority of suicides are men? The answer is the same for each – because THOSE are the GOALS of feminism. To destroy men, and to deny women what they need to be happy. But at the same time, they are destroying young women – something for which I am grateful. Without Feminism I wouldn’t have my bed filled with young women, out to “experience” life. Sure a lot of men are destroyed by Feminism, but those who aren’t get to live like kings, because women haven’t changed – they are attracted to the same things in men they have always been attracted to. All that Feminism has done is to destroy the numbers of men that fall into that category. So for the men who do, why would any man EVER saddle himself with one woman? And if he did, why would he do it in the US?

    I saw a thing on tennis and the prizes. For men’s tennis they had bigger “purses” than women’s, and there was all sorts of protesting. So now the prizes are the same, but men have to play 5 sets, and women only 3 – so women are payed 40% more than men for the SAME work…. But no protesting of that?

    Look, you’re not going to change the nature of someone that is insane – use it to your advantage. So point the insanity to what you want destroyed, and use it to your advantage. Feminism is like the stupid dog that doesn’t know why it’s biting as long as it’s biting something, or someone (no comment on the fact that most feminists look like that image). But you can use it to your advantage… You can spend your time trying to change a rising tide, or be having sex on the beach enjoying the time – that’s your choice…. Me, I’ll spend my time on the beach enjoying all of the sweet young things available to me… And make a break for greener pastures (there are a lot of countries to enjoy) before the flooding starts.

    Trump is the US’s last chance – but unless there is blood in the streets – things aren’t going to change. Someone I was chatting with used the above about “blood in the streets” and he’s a liberal. I told him – “Who do you think bought all of those guns? Liberals? And who’s blood do you think it will be in the streets if it comes to that? I think you may want to reconsider your position on what is needed for change.”

  114. Lost Patrol says:

    Sporty Astrid and the profession of arms in Norway.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/inside-world-s-first-all-female-special-forces-unit-norway-n746041

    “the world’s first all-female military special forces unit.”

    “at the end of the one-year program the female soldiers are just as capable as their male counterparts.”

    “one of the female soldiers shot better than some of the men in the elite platoon,”

    “the female unit has also shown a stronger sense of solidarity among its members.”

  115. Badly off topic but I had to put it somewhere…..in an interview with Ali Fedotowsky about The Bachelor, she was complaining about the recent “overly sexed” season where the girls thought they needed to take their cloths off. She ended her answer with what she saw as the redeeming factor…..

    But I do think some of the girls felt they needed to play up the sex thing… but look, Vanessa, the girl he ended up with, never flaunted her sexuality. If anything, she showed up with her personality, her brains. She’s the one he chose in the end. What does that tell you? That’s what wins a man. Being a strong, independent, smart woman. Not taking your clothes off.

    Uh huh….

  116. Oscar says:

    @ LP

    Someone’s been taking the show “Vikings” a bit too seriously.

  117. BillyS says:

    I am sure the bachelor never thought of what she might look like without clothes….

  118. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Just Saying: Why aren’t the Feminists protesting the fact that 93% of all of the homeless are men? Why aren’t they protesting that men get another 60+% more time in prison sentences for the same crime that a woman commits? Why aren’t they protesting the fact that now only 38% of all college enrollments are men? Why aren’t they protesting that the vast majority of suicides are men?

    I’ve heard feminists say that women living longer than men is proof that women are superior to men. Sometimes they say it half “joking,” yet one senses the glee in their voices. (Women live longer than men — ha ha! — We’re superior.)

    I once saw a TV news piece on the biological differences between men and women. They said that men have larger lungs. The woman reporter thus speculated that women might make better service personal on nuclear submarines, because, having smaller lungs, they’ll use less air.

    I suppose by that “logic,” gerbils would make even better submarine personal, as their lungs are even smaller.

  119. Reede says:

    @RPL

    My theory is that women are by default insecure. This is why they traditionally passed in guardianship from their father’s to their husband’s domains; they were always guaranteed protection in exchange for the female side of the marital bargain.

    Now we are telling women that they are just like men with vaginas, but a woman always subconsciously knows that she is far weaker and more vulnerable than the average man. The reason they feel “unhaaaapy” as well as constantly having to remind themselves how superior they are is because they feel a constant sense of danger and vulnerability that translates into generalized anxiety.

  120. Steve says:

    Watched that video of the all female special forces unit. Did you see that girl throw that smoke grenade? Went about 5 feet. That was funny.

  121. Anonymous Reader says:

    Some one or other up thread claimed that if a man trains his wife how to use all the tools around the farm that will somehow affect the entire of society in a negative way, no doubt a super “butterfly effect”. Leaving aside the historical ignorance required to make this statement (Laura Ingalls Wilder, anyone?) this statement is risible.

    Because this is what such drivel reduces to is this: The personal is political.

    Now we have allegedly red-pill men arguing against women defending themselves and children, just like many 2nd wave feminists do, using a pet feminist catch phrase from the 70’s and 80’s. Well, put on your aprons, boys, and have some tea with each other.

    PS: In case anyone’s arguing “just call the police”, I have many retorts for that.
    Here’s one:
    When seconds count, the police are just minutes away
    and
    Call the cops. Then call for pizza. See which one gets there first.

    Some people are way too short for this particular fun ride, that is painfully obvious.

  122. Anonymous Reader says:

    Steve, men I have known in the Army and Marines have told me that virtually all women are unable to throw a grenade beyond the blast radius. That means they can’t throw it far enough away to be safe from the fragments of the explosion. The feminists in charge of Norway and Sweden are having a long, drawn out argument with reality. Reality is going to win, but a lot of people will suffer in the process, and both countries may be so changed in the process that they cease to exist.

  123. Jim says:

    Steve, men I have known in the Army and Marines have told me that virtually all women are unable to throw a grenade beyond the blast radius. That means they can’t throw it far enough away to be safe from the fragments of the explosion.

    This little woman certainly had problems throwing one.

  124. feministhater says:

    <blockquoteSome one or other up thread claimed that if a man trains his wife how to use all the tools around the farm that will somehow affect the entire of society in a negative way, no doubt a super “butterfly effect”. Leaving aside the historical ignorance required to make this statement (Laura Ingalls Wilder, anyone?) this statement is risible.

    Can you point to the comment that said all 'tools around the farm' thank you. I'm generally interested. I checked up thread but I might have missed it.

  125. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jim, excellent vid. Worth 1,000 words.
    Even Army Strong females in uniform are too weak to trust with fragmentation grenades.

  126. Anonymous Reader says:

    feminsisthater
    Can you point to the comment that said all ‘tools around the farm’ thank you. I’m generally interested. I checked up thread but I might have missed it.

    If not here then in a previous thread. Key words are “fire extinguisher”, “coyote in the corral near a foal”, “weasel near the chicken coop” and so forth. Clearly there is a philosophical issue here, since I consider small arms to be just another form of emergency equipment, not “weapons of war” as GunnerQ (ironically) referred to them.

    If you want do discuss this I can do that. If you’re just trolling me for flames, don’t bother.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s