Kendall Jones, cheerleader with a gun, most hated woman on the internet

Kendall Jones Facebook page

WASHINGTON, July 10, 2014 — Kendall Jones may be the most hated woman on the internet. Against the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Palin, and Hillary Clinton, that is a major achievement.

Jones is a 19-year-old college student and cheerleader in Texas. She studies marketing and sports therapy at Texas Tech. She is the very image of a Texas cheerleader: blond, attractive, vivacious and self confident.

And she kills animals for fun, including lions, elephants, and rhinos.

Jones posts pictures of herself with her trophies on social media, and in her pictures she looks delighted. Here she straddles a lion she’s killed, radiant with joy. There she holds a dead leopard, as pleased as if she aced a final. There she is again, beaming over a cape buffalo brought low by her shooting skills.

What exactly it is that people hate about her is hard to get them to admit. Most of us eat dead animals, and we learned before middle school that chicken parts aren’t grown on plastic trays under layers of plastic wrap on the chicken farm. It makes no more sense to hate Jones for killing animals than it makes to hate cattle ranchers for putting beef on our dinner tables.

Perhaps it’s that she enjoys the kill. The morality of killing animals raises arguments that can engage us for years, but given that few of her critics are vegans, the argument that killing is okay so long as you don’t enjoy it is perverse. That would be like hating a person for enjoying the practice of law, or hating singing cowboys.

The animals that she kills might be the problem. Cows elicit little sympathy, and chickens are just ridiculous, but lions are majestic. Some people who loath Jones would hack to death a snake in their garden with no more sympathy than they’d spare for a roach. Some animals are more sympathetic than others. Americans look on eating dog and cat with disgust, yet in Asia, many people would consider that gross sentimentality.

Kendall Jones claims with some justification that hunters are at the forefront of conservation efforts. Hunter-conservationists have done a great deal to preserve and expand elk and whitetail dear populations in the U.S., and Ducks Unlimited has done more to preserve wetlands — 13 million acres so far in the U.S. — than any other private organization.

The end of big-game hunting in some African countries led to wide-scale poaching, with no local incentives to preserve animal populations. Countries that include hunting as part of a total conservation effort have seen some rebound. Some of the animals that Jones hunts are at risk or endangered, but activities of people like her have added to the value of maintaining populations by locals. Income from hunting permits, for instance, encourages farmers to keep lions on their property. We need not take her at her word that her activities save wildlife, but the argument is a fair one.

Nothing that Jones does should automatically make her despised, yet an campaign got 325,000 signatures in an effort to get her trophy pictures off of Facebook. That was successful, though until Thursday morning Facebook allowed a “Kill Kendall Jones” page to remain active. Facebook claimed that Jones’s pictures violated their standards, while the Kill Jones page did not.

Jones has received copious hate mail, as have numerous other Kendall Joneses on the internet. She’s been called a bitch, slut, bimbo, and other names we won’t print here; she’s received death threats and rape threats. A lot of people, presumably not gun-toting conservatives, want her dead.

At this point it is tempting to indict liberal hypocrisy, but that’s too easy. With words like “bitch” and “slut,” with language as harsh and harsher than Rush Limbaugh used against Sandra Fluke, the left admits that a war on women is fine, as long as it is a war on gun-toting, Texas cheerleaders and not a war on feminists. But the wave of hatred launched at Jones is about more than the liberal-conservative split.

Other big-game hunters — GoDaddy CEO Bob Parsons, Donald Trump’s sons Donald Jr. and Eric, King Juan Carlos of Spain — have been roundly criticized for the activity. But the loathing directed at them has been as much for wealthy excess as the hunt itself, and they haven’t drawn the hateful language that Jones has.

Jones in many ways is the feminist ideal: a woman who plays a man’s game — hunting — with a man’s toys — guns and bows and arrows — does it well, and does it with huge self-assurance. She takes what some people think is a masculine attitude toward hunting, not the nurturing, hug-a-panda attitude we expect from a woman.

If Jones were big and brawny — if she looked like a cheerless gender warrior from NOW — she might pass under the radar. Even with their enormous wealth and lightning-rod father, criticism of the Trump boys was minuscule compared to the criticism leveled at Jones. Whatever it is about Jones that has drawn the heavy fire, it clearly has something to do with her gender, her looks, and the unashamed, undeniable pleasure she takes in what she does.

Killing isn’t something we should take likely. People who blast away at rabbits for the fun of it and who swerve to kill a snake in the road are somehow deficient, lacking in something important to humanity. Yet no one who wears leather, eats meat, fish or fowl, or kills unpleasant animals in the garden is in a position of commanding moral superiority on the subject of big-game hunting. These things are all a matter of choice, not necessity. Whether for food, clothing, or preserving the garden, we kill or sanction killing because it satisfies a want, just because it pleases us.

To complain about killing a “noble” animal is just to claim that some animals are better than others. What makes a lion more noble than a chipmunk? Neuter your cat and keep it indoors if the deaths of birds and lions offends you. If you don’t want eagles killed, demand that wind power stations be dismantled; the bird carnage around some of them is horrific. If you care about wild animals, stop eating hamburgers and save some habitat.

The hatred aimed at Kendall Jones is impotent. It does nothing to protect endangered species and habitat, it’s just a way to feel superior that costs nothing. The Kendall Joneses of the world aren’t the reason rhinos are endangered. It only makes us feel good to pretend that they are.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • dodge

    Well said. Hating people is a way of feeling better about ourselves. She hunts, hunting is bad, I don’t hunt therefore I must be good. If she is really bad then I must be really good. The truth is she is actively participating in nature and doing something positive for conservation, native animals and habitat. The haters are slopping down processed meat and grains from farmed land where no native animals live and they reside in concrete villages where native habitat and animals have been wiped out to be replaced by dogs and cats and they call themselves animal lovers.

    • Guest

      A good trophy hunter is a dead one. Hunters DESTROY WILDLIFE. Eradicate trophy hunters, save wildlife

      • Fadz

        I agree. I’m hunting meself sometimes. But my motto is, you don’t kill what you don’t eat. Of course, there’s some exception to that rule such as pest control and that one time when a wild boar ran amok. Took 10 rounds of buckshot at to bring it down.

      • JWPicht

        Perhaps so, but people who live in cities also survive on the creation of zones devoid of wildlife. I think we’d save more a lot more wildlife by eradicating beef consumption than by eradicating trophy hunting.

        • MakeMe142

          Yet if you “eradicated” beef consumption, you would leave millions of people in the agriculture industry unemployed. And what would we do with all of the cattle we currently have? Turn them loose to eat all of the grain fields? Then you’re “eradicating” cattle, bread, corn, and all of the other useful byproducts of that business as well. As a 5th generation cattle rancher and grain farmer, as well as a fellow big game hunter, I encourage you to educate yourself on the food chain.

          • Platibus

            If drug consumption (this includes smoking and drinking) was erradicated, a very large number of people would lose their jobs as well. The reason both activities are an issue is people all over the world have to suffer and die for them to perpetuate. World hunger and excessive pollution are a consequence of your bussiness, and everyday people die because of it. If you haven’t been able to feel for any of the animals your family has killed so far, maybe realising someone is dying in despair because of you will get you thinking twice.

      • Blaser270

        Very dumb statement. Going to be an interesting competition to see who is the dumbest amongst the village idiots.

  • Danny

    One flaw about this argument, using killing chickens and cows for food is a FAR FETCH from killing lions, rhinos, etc. The chickens and cows that are killed for food are only alive because they were bred for food. They weren’t naturally occurring and there are A LOT more of them than there are elephants or leopards. 500,000 (and decreasing still) leopards versus 19 billion chickens is quite a difference if you’re killing for fun. Just want to point that out, it’s like comparing a train derailment to the holocaust.

    • JWPicht

      If I raise lions on a ranch for hunters to kill, would that make hunting lions okay? I feel at some level that there’s a difference between hunting an animal which exists in billions – say, passenger pigeons in the 1800s – and one that is rare. And I feel that there’s a difference between killing an animal that was raised for slaughter and going out to hunt animals in the wild. Yet I’m not sure that it’s a difference that makes a difference. That would suggest that it’s better to raise rare tigers for the slaughter than to hunt wild deer. I think that most of those upset with Ms. Jones would be more upset by the former than the latter.

      • vRex

        In the hunter gatherer sense, it makes sense as long as you are hunting an animal based solely for your survival… but it does become perverse if you’re killing something just for the heck of it…
        Hunting is by no means an act of bravado… There’s nothing brave about shooting a defenceless animal, from 50 yards away..

        • Platibus

          Animals aren’t being killed for our survival, but for our mere commodity and pleasure. People can live lengthly and full of health without any animal produce whatsoever. Saying otherwise is just one of many excuses for the harmful habit of needlessly ingesting meat; not only is it harmful to the animals sacrificed but for millions of people living daily in thirst and hunger. The amount of water and grains destined to livestock alone could feed 800 million people, not to mention the land and great amount of resources used in farming which many of them also need. Did I mention the astounding index of pollution emerging from it already? I think I’ll save it, seeing that you all are selfish people who have no qualms about animals no different than your pet dogs or cats living a dreadful existence.

          I’m yet to find a single argument that succeds at justifying the willful death and use of animals on such a grand scale. All I read and hear comes from a defensive stance, a stance usually taken when something wrong is done. Now, why is that?

      • Charlie Ibblekink

        I challenge you to raise lions 🙂
        Let’s say….1000 lions at once. You know what? I will help you to let them out for hunting purposes 🙂

  • roggoyute

    Jim Picht, terrible biased article. So transparent. Get a job at fox news you lose, and learn to write. Think a lion and a chicken are the same. Clearly you know little about the understanding and intelligence of some of these animals. As far aa conservation you say she is right but show no proof. Are you a conservation expert? It’s proven otherwise. Also, enjoying the act of killing is sadism. So there is a difference. Your entire article is as if written by a 19 year old psycho teenage cheerleader from texas. Waste of time.

    • Jim Bozeman

      Time to declare open season on you slimey trolls.

  • David D

    Mr Picht,
    you make some interesting points and calling a teenager lots of horrid names is unlikely to stop them from wanting to kill precious species. I’d like to see her out in jail personally, at least for a while.

    your statement ,
    “Whether for food, clothing, or preserving the garden, we kill or sanction killing because it satisfies a want, just because it pleases us.”

    Is a ridiculous assumption that all other people share your lack of sympathy for life!
    I may be glad that i have caught a rat in a trap but only because i know that if i don’t it will threaten my home( this is the real case) but there is no pleasure in the act. Because i am a human being i can witness the consciousness and capacity for feeling in other life forms and i have the power and responsibility to be sympathetic towards them. Because i am a human being i am aware of the fact that we as a race have caused immense damage to our planet, its ecosystem and that there are animals who desperately need our every care in order to survive. Because i am human i can directly witness the difference between a white rhinoceros and a chicken. the soul may have the same value but its role in the ecosystem most definitely is different.,
    Understanding the influence of interfering with different levels of the food chain is also one of the few things we can all be aware of to help the earths rare beauties survive for our children’s offspring.

    • Blaser270

      You should need a permit to leave home. She did not kill a white rhino! The white rhino was darted for tagging and testing by the wildlife management team. She PAID good American money to be able to dart the rhino. The thrill of the hunt is still there as is the cost but the animal is not harmed and has to be tranquilized to be tested and tagged anyway.
      You might also make yourself a little aware of how Africa survives these days. Trophy hunting is one of it’s major sources of income. The game that is killed is eaten by the ranchers and the locals. Nothing is wasted. If we don’t pay to hunt these animals they will be killed because then they become nuisances to the cattle herds and other livestock. Ignorance is a choice you make in order to sound like you’re above it all. You’re not.

  • acmaurer

    I’m going to disagree with the premise. She doesn’t “kill for fun.” Hunting for trophies (as opposed to for food) is about the challenge. Hard for wussified metrosexual men to understand this.

    • Blaser270

      Good post. You were way to kind in describing them however. They are useless as tits on a boar hog….

  • Peter

    It’s true what you are saying. People are just want to feel good about themselves, so they put others down. They did it in primary school, they do it still.

    Also, having lived in Africa for 4 years, I can assure you, it is better that people breed these animals for hunting and that people will pay to kill them, otherwise the locals will eat everything up, as is the case in many nations already.

  • Tine

    Your argument is based on the fact that you have not the tiniest bit of respect for the lives of animals – be it chickens or rhinos.

  • willie

    “Yet no one who wears leather, eats meat, fish or fowl, or kills
    unpleasant animals in the garden is in a position of commanding moral
    superiority” ~ are you making a case for veganism? if so, i support you.