houndbitch:

prudencepaccard:

Consider that weapons are things which literally or figuratively threaten, harm and kill, and which are wielded either against people or objects whose ultimate victim is people.

(An axe in the hands of an axe murderer or a knife in the hands of a slasher is a weapon, but an axe in the hands of a lumberjack or a knife in the hands of a chef is a tool. Provided they’re used on trees and food, that is.)

Serious question for people who use the term “weaponized femininity” to describe their aesthetic praxis: what is the nature of this weapon and whom/what are you using it against? Why is your impulse destructive rather than creative? Is it possible to be aggressive and/or militant without harming or destroying a target?

(Is it possible to be strong and subversive without being aggressive or militant?)

Weapons are also used to defend oneself, and I think that’s something you’re really missing in this context, or even worse you’re intentionally ignoring that. 

Any weapon in the hand of a person who chooses to do ill will cause harm.

The same weapon in the hand of a person who’s protecting themselves or another is a completely different thing. Yes, injury could still be done, but consider that the individual holding the weapon in question did not pick it up the the intention to destroy but to protect or defend.

So, I pose that question back to you. Is a woman who stabs a man trying to sexually assault her with a knife is not justified? Is a young man who stands between his abusive mother and his baby sister with an ax in his hands wrong?

Just something to consider while you try to challenge this idea.