Women and hunting.

In My Humble Opinion
101

Please clarify - are you talking about the activity itself, or the photos?

If you don’t like the idea of women hunters, yeah, that’s sexist, and very unattractive.

If you find pictures of women with dead animals even less attractive than those of men with dead animals, I’d call that either a harmless quirk, probably the result of early indoctrination into a sexist culture that you may have otherwise overcome.

Now that I am thinking about it, I would probably find a picture of woman “kneeling down grinning with a lifeless body bleeding beside” her particularly unpleasant. Not because women should not hunt, but because gender-neutral does not mean adopting every ugly little practice from the other gender. But I don’t know - my friends don’t hunt.

102

Interesting thread and varied opinions - I like it!

Here’s my take on hunting:

Hunting for survival - okay
Hunting for trophy - not okay
Hunting for food even though you don’t really need it - that’s where I’m debating with myself.

What follows is kind of rambling as I think this through.

To expand on the last one. There have been several posters that have talked about the amount of planning and expense that goes into the hunt, which I don’t question at all. But, if you’re spending “$50/pound” (one of the figures above), then you clearly don’t need to hunt for survival, you clearly have the funds to just go to the grocery store. Yes, there is the issue of just switching who does the killing of the animal when you buy it at the store, so I’m a little conflicted on that.

But if you don’t need to hunt for survival, then why do you do it? The only answer can really be because you enjoy it. Fair enough. But that means you’re hunting for “sport”, doesn’t it? Which is pretty similar to trophy hunting in my mind. Functionally, of course, if you eat the animal anyway, I suppose it doesn’t matter if you needed it or not. I’m okay with that.

But here’s the kicker for me - where’s the “sport” in using a firearm to kill an animal? Okay, I get that all the tracking and planning and all may be interesting and fun and educational, but if that’s where the “fun” of hunting is, then why not just stop there? Track the deer, get it into a position where you can kill it, shine a laser pointer on it and claim victory. Kind of like “catch and release” in fishing.

Oh, but then you don’t get to eat it, but we’ve already determined you’re probably not doing this for survival anyway. So all that’s left is you don’t get to pose with a picture of it or hang it on your wall. In other words, you don’t get the trophy, right?

Killing a deer with a gun isn’t hard. Tracking it and getting into position to kill it, yes, that may be hard. But the actual killing of it only requires a little pull with your index finger, right? And there’s virtually zero risk to the hunter.

I think it would be much more impressive if the sport hunter used, say, a knife. In other words, an analog to to the antlers. Get up nice and close, and give the deer a chance to injure you as well. To me, that would be real sport hunting, in other words, a sense of “sportsmanship”, “fair play”, etc. That sounds like a joke, but it’s not.

103

Historically, it’s been about status, male camaraderie, and impressing women by showing up with a choice cut of meat. Outside of whaling big game hunting has never been primarily about food; hunting small game was a more efficient means of gathering meat. Hunting large animals was for male bonding, and because you can boast more about killing a big, impressive animal than a small one. But when measured by calories, it’s the little animals that provide the most food for those who survive that way.

Which is why it’s traditionally been a male activity; it’s served male interests, not female ones. If a woman wanted to hunt for meat she’d just hunt rabbits or the like, because that was a better means of getting meat. She’s not likely to be interested in male bonding or boasting, and only a minority of women are interested in seducing other women; that eliminates the main historical reasons for big game hunting.

And yes I know you said “hunting” not big game hunting; but this entire thread has treated the two as identical, and it’s big game hunting that people get worked up over.

104

Doesn’t bother me. I take a “live and let kill” outlook on life.

105

No, another answer is that the person really thinks divorcing the eating of meat entirely from the death of the animal is hypocritical or immoral; that those of us who only know meat in styrofoam and plastic wrap do not respect the animal or our own connection to the natural world.

And “the actual killing” also requires pointing the gun in the right direction, which requires some skill.

I don’t hunt. I don’t even like game. As I said earlier, I find the idea of posing with a dead animal abhorrent. But I have “gone hunting”, and there is more to it than a drunken testosterone fueled ritual.

I would be interested in the anthropological studies that support that opinion.

106

Yeah, no offense DT but I’d have to ask as well. I have a degree in anthropology and I don’t recall ever hearing anything about males hunting animals larger than rabbits being primarily a social pursuit rather than subsistence.

107

The studies in question were fairly recent as I recall. But no, I didn’t bookmark them sorry.

108

I don’t know how to respond to comments such as this. As a hunter, I don’t think it’s really possible to explain to a non-hunter the totality of what is involved with hunting, i.e. the physical, mental, and emotional aspects of it. It is not simply a matter of going in the woods, waiting for a deer to prance by, and putting a bead on it. It’s not an intellectual/logistical pursuit. There’s much much more involved, especially on an emotional (or dare I say “spiritual”) level, and most of it cannot be put into words.

Perhaps it can best be explained with a real-life example. Famed hunter Ted Nugent started deer hunting when he was nine years old, and since then never missed a deer season while growing up in Michigan. He got his first deer when he was… twenty years old, and it was a doe. Think about that for a minute… he went out year after year and didn’t get anything, yet he still looked forward to hunting. Same with me. I simply love the whole experience of hunting, even if I don’t see a thing. Which is the case 95% of the time.

Again, it’s not something that can be easily explained to non-hunters. So I won’t even try.

109

In other words, your traditional habit of spouting unsupportable nonsense and then refusing to back it up. OK. :rolleyes:

110

As a woman hunter, I find you pretty unattractive.

111

(emphasis added)

Does that mean you are a woman who hunts, or does it mean that you are a ‘hunter of women’? Your post is just a bit ambiguous. :wink:

112

I’m a lifelong city boy (NYC), so I’ve never hunted. However, I’m married to a woman from a remote and poor rural area where everyone hunts. And everyone eats what they kill. It’s universal there – they get their deer or moose (or seriously politically incorrect seal), have it butchered, and freeze and/or can the meat, and eat it. All of it.

And yes, they enjoy hunting, too.

Since I’m a meat eater, I’m in no position to object to hunting. I never did, actually. Who knows, one of these years when I’m visiting the in-laws, I may go along for the hunt.

And I certainly don’t find woman hunters unattractive – I married one, after all.

113

I’m with you, believe me. Have you ever seen a motorcycle that hit a deer? In this part of the country (northeast), deer are a plague.