Flowing from the dynamics of the military-industrial complex, the gun emerges not only as a by-product of sustained military expenditure but also as an artefact (sic) through which masculinities are produced, reinforced and contested. To this day, the ideal embodiment of a soldier or warrior is masculine (Morgan, 1994). From this understanding, militarised masculinity can be defined as ‘the assertion that traits stereotypically associated with masculinity can be acquired and proven through military service or action, and combat in particular’ (Eichler, 2014). It is this notion that sustained the old age (sic) policy of conscription, an arrangement that is still evident today for instance in the Russo-Ukrainian war (Chernova & Picheta, 2025).
Evidently, the policy of conscription has been widely frowned upon, with shifting attitudes in strong masculinities based on economic factors and achievements. These shifts have reshaped patriotic masculinity within a market-driven military-industrial complex.
As Eichler opines, the market- being a new driver of militarised masculinity has drawn varied masculinities based on hegemonic and subordinate masculinities (Eichler, 2014). As an illustration, Western private contractors who hold the hegemony have employed mostly young men from what is referred to as Third World Countries to participate in combat, and provided manual labour in defence hubs in a new wave of neocolonialism (RLI, 2025).
Beyond the battlefield, the entanglement of ‘masculinity and guns’ finds expression in the everyday social world. Civilian gun ownership, recreational shooting and even media portrayals reflect a cultural landscape in which guns shape identities and define what power and belonging looks like for many young men.
According to the ‘Precarious Manhood Theory’,(Kachel et al., 2024) the status of being a man is characterised by many complex insecurities unlike women. Since this implies that masculinity can easily be lost, men ‘overcompensate’ (Willer et al., 2013) for threats to masculinity through gun ownership.
These contests on who qualifies as a real man have also been a characteristic of contemporary politics. Here, masculinity is often expressed through displays of dominance and aggression, such as bullying or ‘strongman’ behaviour. These performances reinforce gendered divisions and contribute to partisan divides based on differing ideals of manhood (Cardiff Metropolitan University, 2025).
Furthermore, is the notion of apocalyptic masculinity: a cultural and political stance that promises a return to traditional social arrangements. It frames men as victims of state overreach and societal change, ‘forgotten casualties’ (An & Carlson, 2024). This vision of restoration appeals to those who see themselves as besieged by modernity and emasculated by shifting power structures.
To this end, gun ownership ensures this self-reliance and independence from the state. Just as the Military Industrial Complex is shaped by capitalist market forces, civilian gun ownership is influenced by similar narratives. As economic instability, driven by state policies like regulation and globalisation, undermines men’s traditional role as providers, some men turn to the role of ‘protector’ through gun ownership as an alternative way to express their masculinity (Warner et al., 2021).
— Yvonne Tesire and Samantha Schroeder in The political economy of the gun: militarised masculinity, commerce, and the global health burden of firearms examined
yeah, what we need is an article written by two left wing liberal anti-gun women from the U.K. for whom violent criminals do not exist and its always the gun trying to tell us what masculinity is – its like using Walz to appeal to masculinity – nether one has the slightest idea. These are the same types that tell us an illegal alien murderer and rapist is our ‘neighbor’ and has a right to be supported by tax payer dollars – ya think they have a handle on reality enough to lecture us on what masculinity is?
Did these two Leftist/fascist AWFULs perhaps ever stop to consider that they have it exactly back-asswards? That, in fact, the use of guns does not infer ‘masculinity’ (toxic or otherwise), but that there is a natural inclination of ‘masculine’ men to gravitate toward the use of guns as a viable and useful tool??? Nah, that would require a level of thinking beyond the ability of these two tw*ts. As George Orwell told us, “There are some things only intellectuals are crazy enough to believe.”
They are correct in many ways most conservatives, don’t want to admit in public.
You can substitute a gun for a sword made of wood. For a small young boy. This was very normal 300 years ago.
In pre colonial America. The Indians had boys learning to make the bow and arrow. And going on hunts with the abult warriors of the tribe.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that a gun should be substituted for a ball. In a boys young life. So he can learn about safety. And not have accidents.
Teaching boys. And girls how to shoot and be safe with firearms, should be made widely normal in America.
They way it use to be.
Children learning about guns from an experienced father. A grandfather. An uncle. Or a brother or nephew. This was very normal before the “welfare industrial complex.” Replaced the father in the home. With a government check.
Most people have no idea where the term Military Industrial Complex originated from. They think it was President Eisenhower.
But 140 years ago. The USA was getting its military rifles from Germany. Because the 1903 Springfield was a licensed firearm. America paid a fee to German gun makers. For the right to use the Mauser rifle action. In the Springfield design.
So when America entered the “Great War.” The pacifist Left correctly said.
“Both sides are using the same guns. And making gun makers very rich.”
The firearms industry was the foundation of the military industrial complex. Not Raytheon not Boeing. Not Bell Helicopter.
Rebels are first using small arms. Not tanks. Not battleships.
It’s the “gun”. That will cause a government to fall. Not the expensive B52.
Tyranny really hates a gun in the hands of the ordinary citizen.
And these man hating (probably le zb,;i@n) professors also hate guns in the hands of any age male.
You can find similar statements being made well over one hundred years ago. I know I’ve researched it.
These people long age were attacking the Boy Scouts. Because the Boy Scouts were teaching a little boys about guns. The Left has a very long history of attacking the idea of boys and guns being together.
This is just another attack on the image of the male. And smearing it.
Men Are Going to Strike Back.
ht* tps://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2026/02/09/men-are-going-to-strike-back-n2670837