Women, Girls, and the So-Called Achievement of Killing

Two months ago, I got angry--really angry--about something happening over at Feministing and wrote this post: "Killing 'Without Qualms' Does Not a Feminist Hero Make." It's an angry post, yes, but it's an angry post with a point that needed to be made.

And essentially everything I wrote there applies also to this infuriating, nauseating killing (and the article that seems to be glorifying it): "Woman hunter kills elephant with bow and arrow: Female hunter Teressa Groenewald-Hagerman has become the first woman in the world to shoot an elephant dead with a bow and arrow." It happened two years ago, so why two UK newspapers paid such attention to it a few weeks ago isn't entirely clear, but the articles and information are out there, so let's discuss, shall we?

When a man goes on safari to kill animals for the thrill of killing, it's disgusting. When a woman does it, it's equally disgusting. Congratulations to  Teressa, for being in the company of the likes of Sarah Palin, women who champion the perverse and, frankly, idiotic idea that the ability to callously kill, the ability to viciously take a life and enjoy taking it, is something to aspire to.

Here are some jewels from a Telegraph (UK) article:

Groenewald-Hagerman, 39, she sneaked into the animals herd and killed the creature with one shot from just 12 yards.

The woman, from Kansas, was inspired to go on the safari after being challenged by a male friend who said women could never draw such a heavy bow. . . .

She describes leaving the animal overnight lying on its side before returning to check it was actually dead the next day. . . .

"He indicated only one or two women had completed the buffalo with a bow and no woman had ever taken an elephant with a bow. Of course, I couldn't turn down the challenge."

"Couldn't turn down the challenge"? Yes, she could have. She could have reached deep inside and found an ounce of compassion and spent all that energy and time (and gobs of money) doing something good in this world. She could have considered that maybe, just maybe, this elephant's life mattered more than her bloodlust, ego, and profit. She could have decided this in the case of all the animals she has proudly slaughtered as a "professional hunter."

A Daily Mail article took a tone and approach less full of tacit approval than the above-quoted Telegraph piece:

She shot the creature then left it to die overnight before plucking up the courage to approach the carcasse. . . .

The injured creature staggered 500 yards, leaving a bloody trail, before crashing to the ground.

The sick image of her so-called 'achievement' was posted on the internet, where Ms Groenewald-Hagerman boasted of her hunting exploits.

She said she had worked out for four hours a day for eight months in order to be able to fire the weapon with enough force to bring it down during the 2007 trip.

Want to know how the woman herself describes her violent endeavor? I found this in a post from her on an archery Web site (emphasis mine):

once we got in, my mind and body became completely focused. All I thought was shot placement. The elephant that finally worked with me stood behind some bushes. I had to kneel, draw back and wait until he gave me an opportunity. It was incredible. When the arrow went in, the elephant jumped, turned and looked at us and ran off. He only ran about 50 yards before he stopped. He stayed there moaning until we left. Dudley, the PH, decided to leave because it was getting dark and the other elephants were agitated.
The next day we found the elephant about 500 yards away. The tracking was a bit difficult because he kept going around in circles. There was blood every where and on both sides of the trail. He bled out in several different places.
I don't know how long it took for him to expire since we left.

This is all matter-of-fact. Or is she actually bragging about how much blood there was? Does it not bother her that he stumbled around in agony, dying slowly, so that she could have the bragging rights for killing him, so that she could be the first woman to cruelly kill an elephant with an arrow? And she writes as if the elephant was a willing participant in his own killing, as if he was giving his life over to her. What an absurd and self-serving lie.

As upsetting as her own remarks on the killing are the responses she received from her fellow forum members, some of whom wanted their young daughters to meet her, so that they could witness what they too could become and do someday if they trained (i.e., killed) hard and long enough. Teaching kids that needless violence is an art, that it is something to enjoy, is a practice I cannot wrap my mind around. (Some hunters argue that they teach their kids to "respect" the animals they kill, but that's a cop-out--unless they're also teaching their children to "respect" humans who are different from them by chasing them down and shooting them for no reason but the thrill of killing another living being.) And encouraging women and young girls to take up the traditionally male practices of pointless violence--and celebrating them when they excel at violence--is the last thing this world needs. The world and its children, female and male alike, need fewer, not more, Teressa Groenewald-Hagermans (and more, for example, Ruby Roths).

Following is what I wrote about the glorification of a female bullfighter; you can swap out the names, the animals killed, and how they were killed, and the same truths apply:

There are some male-dominated spaces in which I'm perfectly OK never seeing women make breakthroughs. Just as I wouldn't celebrate a "skilled" female rapist for breaking into that male-dominated area or celebrate a woman presiding over genocide or war, I also won't celebrate a woman's breakthrough into the vicious practice of killing bulls for fun and money. . . .

If she had walked into that ring and taken on the men killing animals for enjoyment--if she had stood up and said to the bullfighters and to the audience, "This is not right"--I would call that brave, absolutely, and I would celebrate her. I will not, however, romanticize her violent killing of provoked and terrified animals. I will not agree that every time a woman breaks into a "male-dominated space," it is an automatic victory for women. There are things that men do and have done over time that I do not wish to celebrate, that I do not wish to emulate. . . .

Compassion is not a sign of weakness, not in men and not in women, and compassion is not unique to either the urban or the rural; nor is true strength.

And compassion for animals--who are the greatest victims of the patriarchal system--should have a place in strong feminism.

---

Edit: I hope that those who eat animals and animal products but who are inclined to chastise--even attack--this particular woman will stop and consider that they are equal contributors to animal suffering and cruelty. Indeed, virtually all of the tens of billions of cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, goats, fish, and other animals killed and exploited each year for human "food"--for meat, dairy, and eggs--suffer just as much as (if not far more than, especially given that it's over time) this elephant did, also for humans' selfish desires. Paying other people and companies to torture and kill animals for your pleasure is no more acceptable than torturing and killing animals for pleasure directly.