Feminism, Freedom, and Gun Control, Oh My!

The title of this post is a pun on “Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!” from the Wizard of Oz because I feel like I am tackling a lot of big scary things with this post. Things I've been thinking a lot about -and things I have a lot more thinking about to do. My opinions tend to evolve, and there is always more to learn about any issue. So, please feel welcome to comment. This post started as a comment to a friend's post, so I've left it in that format. Obviously, it got way too long to post as comment though. :)

ON FEMINISM

So, (deep breath) here some of the thoughts I had while reading your post. I loved what you said about womanhood -particularly, “What we should be fighting for as women is mutual respect, and dignity in what we are and choose to be.” This has so many wonderful implications. I also couldn't help thinking of the “wear pants to church” thing that happened in December. I think a lot of people mistook what that was actually about for many of the women who participated. For me, (although I missed church that day) it would have been about a lot of things, but it would NOT have been about trying to take over Priesthood responsibilities. It would NOT have been about trying to prove that men and women are the same or have been given the same responsibilities from God. It would have been about helping women find a voice who feel like they have lost theirs in the church's male hierarchy -particularly women who may have been wronged or ignored by a priesthood holder in the past. It would have been about admitting that these things happen and that members of the church (even our own priesthood leaders) are not always perfect. It would have been about helping women with doubts (or women who disagree with certain statements or opinions from the general authorities – from the past or present) find support and love and an answer that “it is okay to have questions and to disagree with certain things –it does NOT mean that you are a heretic who needs to leave the church.” It would have been about opening a discussion about ways our “mormon culture” -particularly in Utah- could be improved to be more inclusive -more understanding. More willing to listen.

I think the idea that men and women should be the same and should fulfill the same roles in the same ways has been an enemy to feminism. I loved this article called Why Women Still Can't Have It All written by Anne-Marie Slaughter http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/ She talked about trying to balance motherhood with a high-power, government job. Because the job was so un-family-friendly, she ended up switching to a less prestigious position in order to spend more time with her teenage sons who needed her. It made me sad, because she is just the type of responsible, family-oriented person that I would want in government. It made me sad because I wish there were more female voices in government, but, since the current male-dominated system dictates that women should fill these positions in the same manner that men do (i.e. long hours, long commute, little flexibility), women are often pushed out. Do you see what I mean? Maybe there are some implications here for the article that you read about women serving in the military. Maybe there are ways for women to get involved -to play an equal part- without being drafted. Ways that would be more workable for them -more suited to their responsibilities and natures. After all, isn't that what happened during the last great wars? Women kept things running at home and cared for the injured. That said, if a woman wants to fight in the army -or be a general in the army, for that matter- I say that she should. And I think there are things we could do as a society to make that career choice an easier one for her -starting by giving her the same level of respect while acknowledging that she may do things differently or have different demands placed upon her than a man in that same position would. Some people would say this is an anti-feminism thing to say. In that case, their breed of feminism isn't the same as mine.

FREEDOM AS IT RELATES TO GUN CONTROL

So, to switch topics, back to the second half of your post about gun control. (Another deep breath). The main thing that your post made me think about was this very important idea of “choice.” I think this idea gets over-simplified at times. The way I see it, it is not just either “we either choose to let you have a gun” or “we take your choice away by taking your gun.” I think there is so much “gray area” between those two extremes. For instance, when a new tax comes into effect, you no longer get to “choose” what to do with that money. However, you do “choose” to live in America, you do get to “choose” your representatives in government and you hope that their choice (that the tax is necessary or worthwhile) would also represent your choice and would be in the best interest of our society. Our representative government chooses, and then it becomes law. That's the pattern. For example, we chose that we would not tolerate the negative affects of drugs on our society and, therefore, we cannot use certain drugs legally or must have a prescription to use others. New gun legislation would fit this same pattern. We determine that we will not tolerate the negative affects of guns -or certain types of guns- on our society, and we create new legislation. It probably wouldn't be, “you cannot choose to have a gun” but, “if you choose to have a gun, you must undergo regular background checks, pay a gun-tax, or some other regulation." Is this a breach of freedom and choice? I would say yes. But so are many other things. I cannot “choose” to drive without a license. I cannot “choose” to go 100 mph on the interstate. I cannot “choose” to go through airport without getting the full body pat-down. And, as an extreme example, a young man cannot “choose” to ignore the draft.

I sympathize with the “Ron Paul” view of less government = more freedom because I think it is true in the purest sense of the word “freedom.” But I don't want to live in that country. And I am confused when some breaches of freedom (e.g. our taxes paying for public education) seem so much more acceptable than other would-be breaches of freedom (e.g. our taxes paying for public healthcare) when they both happen by this same democratic process. We determine the level of violence we will tolerate, the level of inequality or injustice that we will tolerate, the level of abuses among the easily victimized that we will tolerate, and we act. You could say we are trading certain freedoms, yes, but isn't this the nature of civilization? We try to elevate our society. We try to preserve it. I do not believe that a free-market system, left unchecked, would accomplish this. You could argue that our current system is not accomplishing this either. I respect that opinion. I also respect the opinion that more free-market, less government/less regulation would be for the best. What concerns me is when these opinions and judgments seem to be made primarily along along party-lines -rather than through careful reason and thought. If someone believes that paying more taxes/going into more national debt is worth it in order to build an enormous national military but not worth it in order to help fund college educations, they should be able to explain why. They should really think about why it is worth trading freedoms in one instance and not in the other.

Because I am in favor of stricter gun regulation, does not at all mean that I am not concerned about freedom. I am very concerned about our freedoms. I am concerned that our very democratic process is under threat from the extremely influential, often extremely wealthy, powers that be. I think it is fascinating that there is so much discussion of freedom as it it relates to gun control, but hardly any as it relates Citizens United, a Supreme Court ruling that allows for limitless, anonymous campaign financing. When our elected officials are beholden to those who financed their campaign, what kinds of decisions do we think they are going to make once in office? The amount of money you have seems to increasingly determine the amount of influence that you have in our current political system. I am very concerned with how this affects our democracy and our freedoms. I see the downfall of America stemming from this type of corruption, greed, and arrogance.

MORE ON GUN CONTROL

But back to gun control. I also think there is a fundamental difference between telling someone whether or not they have the right to carry a gun versus whether or not they have a right to be feminine. Both are rights, but carrying a gun is a much heavier right. It's a lot like having a driver's license. If someone's vision is inadequate or they have a history of x-number of past offenses, they can't carry a license to drive. If someone's mental health is inadequate or they have a criminal record, they can't carry a gun. Some responsibilities and rights seem to need to be regulated. I guess you could argue that carrying a gun is a right whereas carrying a driver's license is a privilege...but that just seems backwards to me.

I think you brought up some other really great points. I also don't believe that stricter regulation will stop the violence. But I do hope that such laws would decrease it. Of course the die-hard criminals will still commit horrific and violent crimes, but it seems to me that we should at least make it harder for them to do so. There are not many weapons that will kill people as rapidly or as effectively as an assault rifle. The Oklahoma bomber was very effective at killing a lot of people, be he expended great resources to do so. He had to create the bomb (not an entirely easy thing to do since dynamite is illegal) and then I believe he also tested it in advance. Now, contrast that with the Virginia Tech shooter. He opened a couple of credit card accounts that were being promoted on-campus (each with a $500 dollar credit limit), bought the assault weapon and a bunch of ammo, and stated shooting. It doesn't seem like the current system could have made it much easier for him than that. Maybe he would have gone to great lengths to obtain a powerful weapon even if we had better regulation in place, but maybe not. Maybe he simply wouldn't have had the resources, perseverance, or intelligence to do so without getting caught. The likelihood of him having been able to commit a crime of that magnitude with better gun regulation in place almost certainly goes down. I think this same logic applies in situations where the crime is not premeditated. If two guys start fighting in a bar, someone is likely to get hurt. Tables, glasses, even knives may be thrown. But the likelihood of fatalities occurring from this fight (to those fighting and to the bystanders) is much lower if guns are not involved. I also think suicide rates go down in countries with fewer guns for this reason. People who try to over-dose are often unsuccessful. Guns are very effective at what they do.

How we protect ourselves is an important question. In many instances, there are other ways to be protected. In an up-close attack, I would think that pepper spray would be pretty effective. Better home security systems probably help a great deal against intruders. Against the government...well, all I can say about that is that the government currently has some pretty impressive weapons on their side... Also, I seriously question the gun wielder’s judgment when it comes to declaring what actually constitutes tyranny. But still, what do we do when a criminal has a gun (because it will still inevitably happen, no matter how strict the regulation)? It is an important question and not easily answered. I just don't think we solve the problem of guns with more guns. After all, isn't that the situation we currently have in America (i.e. TONS of guns and ammo in circulation)? It doesn't seem to be working.

I also wonder about the need for guns in a post-apocalyptic scenario. And I also need to think about the Mexico issue that you bring up.

I agree with you when you say that what the world needs most is people making little choices every day to do the right thing. For most of us (myself included), I think that's where our lives have the greatest impact. But I also think the world needs its “movers and the shakers” -the suffragettes and abolitionists of yesterday. Where would we be without them? We recently watched the PBS series called The Abolitionists, and I was very impressed with it. William Lloyd Garrison preached and practiced pacifism, but he never stopped sharing his voice. He never stopped printing and speaking out against slavery. Many people from his time thought he was a radical -an extremest- and frowned upon his outspokenness -even those who were anti-slavery in their hearts. And yet, his influence in ending slavery is too great to measure. My point is, I think there is something in many people that reflexively dislikes “activism” and I think we should be wary of that attitude.