A new tactic is emerging amongst those opposed to hunting for what they perceive to be the ‘cruelty’ it inflicts on ‘innocent’ animals. It involves convincing the public that the personality traits that motivate the hunters’ activities are identical to those that drive the psychopath or serial killer.
This imaginative theory’s proponents deliver their invariably highly dramatised diagnoses via innumerable anti-hunting websites and Facebook communities, where they play to packed audiences. The thrust of the pseudo-psychology behind the ‘theory’ goes something like this:
- When young, the budding psychopath often exhibits cruelty toward animals, for which he feels neither guilt nor remorse.
- The psychopath exhibits a profound lack of empathy as demonstrated by the hunter for his prey.
- The psychopath is prone to anti-social behaviour e.g. hunting.
- The psychopath loves to display his anti-social and disinhibited behaviour e.g. hunting photos posted on Facebook etc.
The spurious detail of the theory is always needlessly emotive, but that’s it in a nutshell.
Psychopathy; also known as – though sometimes distinguished from – sociopathy, is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterised by enduring antisocial behaviour, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behaviour. It may also be defined as a continuous aspect of personality, representing scores of different personality dimensions found throughout the population in varying combinations, blah blah.
Of course if the hunting = psychopath/serial killer theory were true, it would mean the human race owes its success to the disorder. ‘Humans’ have hunted for at least 2 million years. It has long been a vital part of social cohesion and the focus of great celebration, and hunters have long shared pictures of their hunting endeavours, as Australia’s 40,000 year-old rock art clearly shows. Even today, Australia’s remote aboriginal people are happy to dance semi-naked as they tell the stories of the Dreaming, many of which have a hunting focus and I suspect this could be considered pretty ‘disinhibited behaviour’ if it suited one’s agenda to portray it thus.
If in fact the hunter-psychopath/serial killer theory were true, one would be forced to wonder that our forebears were not wiped out eons ago by generations of Jeffrey Dahmers returning from the hunt intent on mass murder, cannibalism and the invention of the chest freezer.
While it is tempting to simply dismiss the hunter/psychopath theory as the work of lunatic fanatics desperate for justification, the comments left by its many acolytes on anti-hunting websites and Facebook walls reveal some interesting, if troubling facts about the anti-hunting community. But more on that shortly. First I thought I’d look briefly at some of the common claims intended to incite opposition to hunting and disdain for its practitioners. As always, I am interested in the readers’ views on my analysis, which may be shared in the comments section below.
Hunting is cruel
This is the most common and perhaps the least logical of the common claims. Cruelty has two main definitions, neither of which can be applied to the hunters’ trade; 1. wilfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others 2. enjoying the pain or distress of others. The hunter goes to great lengths to ensure his quarry will feel no pain or distress whatsoever. S/he puts in many hours of practice and instrument tuning in order to ensure a swift clean kill marked by the fact that the quarry “never knew what hit him.”
To accomplish less than an instantaneous death is considered among hunters to be a mark of failure and few people set out to fail in the eyes of their peers. Of course sometimes the hunter will fail and the failure is recognised by the hunter, not least for the distress it causes the quarry, but as it was not his intent to cause distress, or pain, the incident cannot be counted ‘cruel’. It may be considered deeply regrettable perhaps, certainly unfortunate, but not cruel because the act lacks the callous disregard for, or delight in, pain and suffering intrinsic to acts of genuine cruelty.
Hunters kill for fun
I am yet to meet the hunter who claims s/he kills for ‘fun’. This is the construct of people such as the Greens and the media, aimed at giving the public cause to hate people and activities they would otherwise be indifferent to. The promulgation of hatred in the community is their stock in trade and though they will deny it, the fact that seething hatred is the outcome their activities produce is beyond question.
Their media releases, their programs, their news stories featuring hunting are always contrived to incite hatred for those whose culture includes hunting as an activity. For example, Channel 7's Morning Show recently included a segment on lion hunting in Africa. Comments were invited on the network's website, where a picture of lion cubs at play was posted to head-up the comments column. Yes, lion cubs at play, not grown lions of the sort actually hunted, but rather gorgeous little baby lions, which are never hunted, this being the image guaranteed to convey the "awww" factor and incite the vilest comments. Mission accomplished!
They do this in order to encourage people to watch their programs, buy their papers and visit their websites, because this is where their meal tickets advertise. And they know exactly who the consumer is, so they make their pitch accordingly, planting the seeds of anger, fertilising them just so, and harvesting the desired result.
They do this in order to encourage people to watch their programs, buy their papers and visit their websites, because this is where their meal tickets advertise. And they know exactly who the consumer is, so they make their pitch accordingly, planting the seeds of anger, fertilising them just so, and harvesting the desired result.
There is one notable exception to this rule of course. While news and current affairs programs, animal welfare and political agencies will always contrive content and propaganda to portray hunters as cruel, mindless, primitive brutes, this is only the case when the hunter is white. If the hunter is not white, his hunting activities are noble and traditional and must be preserved as a vital and sustainable aspect of a highly spiritual cultural heritage. If the public is uneasy about this, cultural education and tolerance are recommended. If the hunter is white, only the humiliation of a public pillorying, with associated threats and general demonisation will do.
Hunting is not a sport
This common refrain has some merit in my view, but then I know few hunters who refer to their activities as sport, save perhaps for want of a more appropriate noun. “Sport’ suggests competition and as it is often claimed; “if hunting was sport the quarry would surely know the rules?” In fact the rules are known to the quarry and they are very simple rules.
Rule 1. When danger approaches, evade the danger.
Rule 1. When danger approaches, evade the danger.
Rule 2. Use the senses, abilities and strategies honed and perfected over millions of years to obey Rule 1.
Still, for the vast majority of hunters, hunting is not a sport any more than farming or mushroom collecting could be called sports. For that matter, I think the term “sports fishing” has dubious merit. The objective is to put food on the table, to live off the land (or sea) and to do so in the company of others who enjoy learning and preserving simple skills and traditional practices.
Shooting and archery are certainly sports in the appropriate setting, with targets, scores, handicaps a competition schedule etc. Trophy hunting and game fishing might be considered sports, because the object is to outclass other hunters/fishers by catching an animal that is bigger or better in some way than the animal harvested by an opponent. But the vast majority of hunters and fishers do not hunt for trophies or points.
Hunting is a cultural pursuit, a tradition, a natural harvest activity, but probably not a sport. However, given few hunters believe they’re engaging in a sport anyway, surely to call hunting’s varsity as a sport into question says more about the intellectual inadequacy of the accuser, than the ethical inadequacy of the accused?
Big gun, small dick
This common (in all respects) slight merits little commentary for the puerile inference is clear - hunting is all about power, a pursuit of males of dubious masculinity. I will say only that the mind truly boggles at the hue and cry that would follow the suggestion that women aspiring to be CEOs, do so only in the pursuit of power and this of course makes them deficient as females. After all, as we all know, the bigger the title on the door, the dryer the....!
Yes, it is offensive isn’t it, but no more so than the vacuous big gun, little dick mantra.
Of course the above accusations would be nothing were they not accompanied by the usual litany of heartfelt wishes expressed by the caring, empathetic, shining examples of responsible community participation and positive social adjustment who object to hunting.
“I hope you die painfully, you disgusting filth”, writes Tammy L, animal lover from Perth.
“I hope a lion kills your children in front of you, so you can know what it’s like, you pervert”, writes Tanya B from Padstow.
“Scum like you killing animals makes me sick. I hope you die horribly from cancer of the balls, you...!” offers Michelle T , from North Terrace, SA.
Who could forget Charmaine B from Frankston in Victoria, “I look forward to the day someone pushes rusty saws up your children’s orifices while beating them to death with clubs so we can watch it all on youtube and laugh, you sicko scum!”
Or what about Christina C, “Disgusting and barbaric..... If you want to be a hero.....get a herd of paedophiles and have a paedophile hunt.” I guess we know Christina's views re: penalties for paedophilia.
Tracey L has this to say on the topic of ‘canned hunting’ in Africa, “Sad poor animals bred just to be killed”. Not so malicious I’ll grant you, but I guess she forgets all the pigs, chickens, cows, goats etc. she buys at Coles, all of them bred just to be killed.
Charli M writes, “Are you actually serious! Fair enough an animal killed for food but how disgusting anyone who is ok with that [trophy hunting] should be hunted themselves.” I must remember to ask her which animal told her it was happy to be killed for food? Oh, it’s just her opinion. Right, gotcha!
And finally there is the contribution made by Morning Show “social commentator” Amber Petty, “If I thought I could get away with it, I would actually go shooting these people! [referring to trophy hunters] but, umm, I prolly wouldn’t risk that? But these people need to be locked in a cage with these lions, without their guns and just left there while everyone drives off into the sunset, because it’s just appalling!” [Morning Show hosts heard agreeing in the background]
Obviously there is nothing sociopathic about entertaining the notion of killing people, or locking them up with man-eaters, oh no. That’s just Amber's revenge fantasy and hence perfectly acceptable, perhaps even responsible?
Interestingly, the male commentator invited to participate in the same segment (7 News reporter Bryan Seymour), expressed no malice toward hunters and in fact made a point of saying he was not opposed to hunting, though 'canned hunting', he indicated, was a different matter. Fair enough.
Believe me I could fill a book the thickness of the Sydney telephone directory with evil, malicious and disturbingly imaginative wishes for hunters and their families to suffer in retribution for killing ‘innocent’ animals. And perhaps most disturbing of all is the fact that all but an infinitesimally small percentage of them could be attributed to women!
 |
| 'Social Commentator' Amber Petty, the Morning Show |
Yes, the traditional nurturers of our society. They just happen to be the people who create the bulk of the hunter hate websites and Facebook communities such as the renowned “We Love Hunting Accidents” Facebook community. Women are the principal authors of articles making appallingly graphic attacks on their fellow community members, other women among them.
Women account for the majority of fanatics who generate the most ethically corrupt petitions and spiteful pamphlet campaigns too, calling hunters filth and comparing them to paedophiles and perverts and suggesting boys should be carefully monitored for signs of hunter psychopathy etc.
And they are incited to riot by the likes of the Greens and a media only too happy to manipulate sadistic, fanatical people to bolster their approval and viewer ratings.
It would be disingenuous of me to suggest that hunters are not capable of some pretty angry spits via social media. However, in terms of psychopathology there is a world of difference between calling someone a “Stupid bloody greenie” or suggesting the “Hippie should go get a bloody job”, and wishing them and their children actual bodily harm, trampling, dismemberment, disemboweling, murder and even prolonged and often elaborately detailed tortures. This is the province of the anti-hunter alone, mostly women, who delight in calling hunters callous animals that are primitive and without empathy.
If the reader doubts my claims about the depth of malice attributable to predominantly female opponents of hunting, I challenge you to visit a few anti-hunting communities and check for yourself. Then analyse the number of vindictive, malicious comments that can be attributed to the far smaller representation of male contributors on the same sites.
What must be remembered is that hunting is not some new and perverse activity like kitten bonsai, equine auto-eroticism, or, perish the thought, philately. It was not so very long ago that the hunter was revered by his community, which survived or perished on the basis of his skills. I say ‘his’ skills because until relatively recently hunting was an all male domain, however, I acknowledge this is no longer the case.
Still, there was a time when the hunter returning from the field was the focus of great anticipation and community engagement, and why not? A successful hunt meant resources for the community, full bellies and the promise of a relatively easy winter.
There would be feasts as an immediate result, but also much work to be done drying, salting or smoking meat, preparing hides for various uses such as clothing and shelter, sinew for sewing, bone for tools such as needles, fish hooks and points for spears and arrows, creating handicrafts, combs, jewellery and even religious artefacts. All of this took place in an atmosphere of community cooperation, conversation and not inconsiderable merriment. And it must be said, this is still the case amongst the people’s off less developed, less affluent countries throughout the world, whose “killing” does not make them the objects of scorn and threats, but rather of respect and romantic aspiration.
So why is the hunter reviled in the affluent west today? Why should it matter to non-hunters, if hunters wish to carry on a perfectly natural, productive and healthful tradition of eons standing, and why are those who hate the hunter with every malicious fibre of their being, predominantly female?
I don’t claim to know the answers for certain; I have not completed any exhaustive peer reviewed research into the matter, nor do I claim to be some great oracle with the power to make windows into women’s souls. I do, however, have some suspicions that I will share, no doubt forever branding myself the misogynist for the effort. So, here we go...(mind the step).....
I believe women’s antagonism towards hunters is the result of a number of factors, aside from their generally recognised role as society’s ‘nurturers’. To begin with I think that as with so many things people seek to ban, they find it easy to do so because they are not immediate stakeholders. It is easy to demand an end to things we don’t participate in or benefit from and on the whole women are few and far between in the hunting game, although it must be said a resurgence of interest in the self-sufficient lifestyle is drawing increasing numbers of women to hunting as a source of organic and genuinely free-range resources.
But perhaps it is the fact that over the eons, women were traditionally excluded from hunting activities, considered men’s pursuits, which lies at the root of their opposition today?
As a result of this exclusion, women didn’t develop the same basic mindsets and capacities required for hunting, many of which were drilled into boys from the time they could walk. These things are deeply ingrained in the male psyche, not only genetically, but also through the many subtle differences in the way we treat boys as compared to girls. These subtle differences prepare men for their role as hunters and defenders, which includes the very necessary capacity to look at another living creature without becoming instantly invested in it emotionally.
Were this not the case a community might starve or freeze to death surrounded by a myriad adorable little faces with gorgeous big brown eyes that’d just break your heart.
Women have embraced the rarefied affluent western lifestyle that affords them the luxury of abandoning yesterday’s necessities. The most commonly expressed defense for their anti-hunting vitriol, is that "hunting is no-longer necessary!" But must a pursuit be 'necessary' to be valid? Necessary to whom and in accordance with what measure of necessity e.g. is portraiture 'necessary' now we're all equipped with digital cameras? Is it necessary to raise sheep for sheering, so folk can spin in the traditional manner, now synthetic textiles can be made and spun by machines with no need of docking, mulesing or sheering?
Women are content in a world where bread and milk come from Coles, meat from a butcher who does the unpleasant work for them, and where warmth is provided by air-conditioning rather than hides and a belly full of solid protein. They therefore see no need to keep redundant anachronisms like hunting, alive.
Women are content in a world where bread and milk come from Coles, meat from a butcher who does the unpleasant work for them, and where warmth is provided by air-conditioning rather than hides and a belly full of solid protein. They therefore see no need to keep redundant anachronisms like hunting, alive.
In short, women have embraced modernity, which is their right. But they do not have the right to sneer at, to ridicule, to insult or to vilify those of us who see some practical, cultural or even spiritual merit in preserving practices of the past, provided those practices are sustainable and not unreasonably cruel in an honest and objective sense.
If one needs an example of what is and isn’t cruel, I would say killing Bambi and skinning her for her hide is perfectly acceptable. The other way ‘round, not so much!
Finally, I’d like to touch on the subjective nature of ‘cruelty’.
I was recently crucified via social media for daring to counsel restraint in some very public and very hateful criticism of Glenn McGrath’s African hunting activities. My critic was a well educated, articulate and highly qualified, and in most other respects, a very reasonable woman with something of a profile in various social justice related spheres. Her very aggressive and offensive statements shocked even this old cynic and eager that there should be no bad blood between us because we work together on occasion, I nipped over to her Facebook page intent on reconciliation.
It was there that I found a post in which she spoke proudly of her departed grandfather, whom it was clear she held in the very highest esteem. Accompanying her tribute to ‘Grampy’ was a photograph of a bequest he’d made to her, a Sulfur Crested cockatoo named ‘Mate’. Mate could talk and dance, he could even whistle just like Grampy used to, and why wouldn’t he, for Mate had been Grampy’s prisoner and the focus of his anthropomorphic efforts for some 75 miserable bloody years!
The net result of confinement to a cage a little over a metre square, not to mention imposed celibacy for three quarters of a century, is a ‘bird’ that no-longer knows it’s a bird, that cannot speak bird nor fly, and due to the appallingly bland and repetitive diet it has been forced to endure for longer than many humans live, a bird without a single feather on its poor underdeveloped body. All this work of Grampy’s my critic thought “absolutely adorable”. In my view, it was testimony to prolonged, callous abuse that was set to become intergenerational, and lo, I was suddenly struck by a profound reluctance to offer an olive branch to a fecking hypocrite of the first order!
But then my thoughts on ‘cruelty’ are such that I will not own a dog while I live on a residential block. I just don’t think it’s right to own an animal simply to deny it the liberty it craves and deserves, except in short spurts when it suits me to take it walkies. Ergo, I have made a decision for me. I do not feel the need to convert others to my philosophy of dog-space and I do not feel compelled to label as cruel, heartless, evil etc., or to wish harm and misfortune to those choosing to confine three cats and an Alsatian to a home-unit. I simply choose not to do it myself.
Hunters do not want the public’s approval for their activities, but regrettably they need the public’s tolerance. We need it because in our democratic system, if enough vile, malicious, ignorant harpies with a world of hate and intolerance to share get together, even this base element can put the fear of election failure into cowardly opportunistic politicians and law makers.
So the battle continues and perhaps the ‘enemy’ is a little more clearly defined. But if I am correct, if hunters are predominantly men and if opposition to hunting lies predominantly with women, is the war not then just a wee bit sexist in nature?
Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...
If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/hunting-and-psychopath.html
For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.
If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.
