Why do Men’s Rights Activists hate the heroes of the Aurora theater shooting?
Our old nemesis The Pigman — the MRA blogger and one half of the cartooning team responsible for atrocities like this — has some thoughts on the Aurora shootings, specifically on the men who lost their lives to protect their girlfriends from gunfire. Their heroism makes him angry, much like the fellows on The Spearhead we looked at the other day. Here’s his complaint:
How’s that for inequity? How’s that for disposability? These guys appear to have sacrificed themselves for these people primarily because of their sex.
Well, no, I think they sacrificed themselves for their girlfriends because they loved their girlfriends.
After all, where are the guys who jumped in front of their best mate, or their dad or brother? And above all, where are the women who died saving their boyfriends?
There were many heroes in the Aurora shooting. Jonathan Blunk, Matt McQuinn, and Alex Teves died protecting their girlfriends. Stephanie Davies risked her life to keep a friend shot in the neck from bleeding to death. Other acts of heroism had less storybook endings: Marcus Weaver tried to shield a female friend. He was wounded but lived; she died. Jennifer Seeger tried to drag a wounded victim to safety, but fled when the shooter returned.
But the Pigman is interested in none of this:
This isn’t heroism, this is male disposability at its worst and by praising it society is encouraging it.Cheering these men’s actions is as reprehensible as it is stupid and discriminatory.
The heroes in Aurora acted quickly, and on instinct; they didn’t have time to stop to think. Is it possible that, in the cases of those men who tried to shield the women with them, gender socialization had something to do with what their instincts told them to do? Almost certainly.
But “male disposability” has nothing to do with it. We live in a society in which heroism, as an idea and as a cultural ideal, has been gendered male for thousands of years. In the stories we tell ourselves, the video games we play, the movies we watch (including The Dark Knight Rises) , the “hero with a thousand faces” is almost always male, and the damsel in distress is, well, almost always a damsel.
The Pigman ignores all this, instead attacking the three dead men as
foolish enough and unfortunate enough to fall for a lifetime of anti-male propaganda telling them to die for the nearest woman whenever the shit hits the fan.
I have no doubt that many are concerned with the feelings of the dead men’s survivors and wish I would just shut up.
But then he barrels ahead anyway:
But this is a simple case of “What you praise, you encourage,” and I for one think calling out those who encourage men to waste their lives for people worth no more than themselves is more important than being “sensitive”. Die for a child if you must, die for some guy on the verge of finding a cure for cancer if you must – die for someone no better than you simply because you have been taught to and you are a fool.
Had these men died protecting male buddies, would The Pigman have applied this calculus of worthiness to the beneficiaries of their heroism? Would he have suggested that the dead men thought they were worth less than their friends? Of course not.
The three men didn’t do what they did because they thought they were worthless or disposable. They did what they did because they wanted to protect those they loved. Others in the theater, like Stephanie Davies, risked their lives for friends, or people they didn’t even know. There’s nothing foolish or “wasteful” about putting yourself on the line to protect others. In every major disaster, whether natural, or like this one man-made, ordinary people emerge as heroes precisely because they are willing to put the lives and safety of other people ahead of their own.
Do these real-life stories of heroism play out in gendered ways? Often times they do. Men may be more willing to risk their lives to protect their wives or girlfriends; mothers may be more willing to risk their lives to protect their children.
In real life crises, it’s hardly surprising that people sometimes act like characters in these stories we tell ourselves. If you want to change how people act, you need to change these stories.
MRAs like to pretend that men are the “disposable sex” but in their hearts they know that’s not true. They’re well aware, as are we all, that our cultural narratives of heroism privilege and glorify men and put them at the center of almost every story. MRAs like The Pigman aren’t interested in expan ding our cultural narratives of heroism to include female heroes — nor are they willing to even acknowledge that there are such things as female heroes in the real world. They certainly don’t want more stories, more games, more films featuring female protagonists.
Instead they’d rather wrap themselves in the mantle of victimhood, and attack real heroes like Jonathan Blunk, Matt McQuinn, and Alex Teves as “white knights” or “fools.”
How people react in a crises reveals a lot about them. How MRAs like The Pigman, and like the Spearhead commenters I quoted the other day reacted to the Aurora shootings has certainly revealed a lot about them, none of it good.
Unfortunately, attitudes like theirs aren’t confined to the fringe that is the manosphere.
After hearing the stories of Blunk, McQuinn, and Teves, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto tweeted “I hope the girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice.”
After numerous readers responded to his remarks with outrage, Taranto offered an apology of sorts, along with an explanation that suggested he really didn’t understand why people were angry in the first place. When someone does something noble and heroic out of love, it’s not up to you to second guess their actions or their love. Taranto’s words not only dishonored “the the girls whose boyfriends died to save them;” it dishonored the heroes as well.
Like The Pigman, like the Spearhead commenters, Taranto has failed this test of his humanity.
Posted on July 26, 2012, in misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, patriarchy, white knights. Bookmark the permalink. 856 Comments.
Or if a person has two possible alternate explanations, that doesn’t make them more wrong than the person who has only one, provided those explanations don’t rely on each other to be true. (Added this because after going back to re-read I’m not sure what anyone’s actually arguing anymore)
Nikan: So do you think that if we have two different valid explanations,
Again, all you have to do is show that it’s valid, not hypothetical.
Because, yes, if what you have is competeing hypotheses, the simpler is the rational choice.
It’s the agnostic choice.
But you… you are saying, “I have this complicated theory, contrary to most people’s experience, and you ought to give it at least as much credit as the one that matches experience”.
Why?
“Because I say so”.
No, we don’t. That’s the “myth of the middle”, that because two theories are in competition the truth must lie somewhere in between. But that’s not the way the world works.
And even if that would be the case, why do you take that so seriously? People here think that I am male, straight and an MRA, though they don’t have even the remotest evidence for any of those assumptions.
There is evidence for the last in that series. That is, in our experience, indicative of the preceding elements, because the MRM isn’t all that friendly (nor inviting) to non straight (cis) men.
Deranged Counter-Troll — there’s also the factor that both explanations have to be equally correct, which Nikan is failing (thus why I went with the simple explanation of Occam’s Razor, no point complicating it with factors that don’t apply here)
Did I just cause a meta Occam’s Razor?
Did I just cause a meta Occam’s Razor? – Argenti
*Universe implodes*
Time for another round of Spot That Fallacy!!
Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct
An example, since I don’t think Nikan is going to get it — “Some would say that hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet, but others claim it is a toxic and dangerous substance. The truth must therefore be somewhere in between.” (it’s the latter one)
Pecuniam,
“blah blah blah, and I could go on.”
Fuck man, I’m sure you could. Everybody gets it, pecunium. You’re an erudite guy well acquainted with history, no need to lay it on too thick.
“”Um… No, that’s not what, “our cultural narratives of heroism privilege and glorify men and put them at the center of almost every story.” means.””
Not what it means? Seems like that’s what it amounts to all too often. Being the hero means facing the danger, and for every hero that comes out of that you get a bunch of corpses that don’t come out of it. Most of the time this is a generally male affair rather than a female one, so you can do the math about whose dead bodies end up getting stacked higher by this glory and heroism business.
“So let me help you”
Well, allow me to return the favour, peccy.
The definition you quoted held that the person condescended to has to be regarded as being on a lower level, which was not at all what I said with respect to MRAs. I generally view Feminists and MRAs as opposites in the same swamp, not higher and lower.
“English, it’s subtle.”
Indeed, not like you then!
“It’s not about privilege, because you are equivocating; using the meaning of privilege as personal advantage, do attempt to disprove the privilege of social structure.”
Oh I can see where this is going to go. A debate on privilege, what it is, and whether or not it exists – for the 10,000th time. How about absolutely nah.
Felicitations, canine friend. It has come to my attention that you are fond of Occam’s Razor; therefore I applied Occam’s Razor to your Occam’s Razor argument, that you might consider the most likely true answer to your consideration of the most likely true answer.
Why are people surprised when we mock misogyny here?
Well this is different, usually we have people demanding we go through 101 stuff with them, because we’ve done it hundreds of times, but it’s new to them. RHW is saying we won’t discuss 101 level concepts because they’ve been done before…I think this might be a first.
Shade — Two minutes to Belgium!
Roscoe, I’m going to agree with you on the need to change societal narratives about heroism. I have to say, you’re solution is a solid solution.
Here, have the turret opera to alleviate some of the tension here.
@Deranged Counter-Troll:
Well, thank you, maybe they listen to you.
I don’t say it’s more likely possible, I say it’s reasonable likely. What do you know about men? Well, I think you know enough, but you don’t want to see the truth. My own brother now *** a disabled woman, because he apparently couldn’t bear it anymore after years of being single. So what’s a “likely possibility” for me, shifted a bit, based on my own experiences.
@Ugh:
No.
Who says that I get mad? I just see that you really like to speculate, yet you don’t take it well, if someone who disagrees with you does the same thing.
@Diogenes The Cynic
For the story you linked to about Jamie R, I doubt he’ll make it to the end of the year before committing suicide. He played by the rules of feminism. He openly cries, revels in emotionalism. He is a feminists dream come true, practically androgyneous.
The same women who taught him about his evil masculinity now ridicule him for not acting masculine. Just look at the comment section. The blaze is as left as you can get. Like I said, not likely he makes it to the end of the year.
No, it doesn’t. As a gender, you get credit whether you do or don’t. That’s part of the point.
Since this is most often raised in regards to war, it’s actually women’s bodies who end up stacked higher. Surprising nobody who actually knows about history, more civilians die in war than soldiers, and the majority of those civilian deaths are women…
This gambit works a lot better when you’re not actively trying to engage with the stuff you say is ridiculously old hat. As is you just look inept.
You must be a fucking riot at Thanksgiving dinners. Like you know, objectively, that you’re an asshole, right?
Haha speculating on the likely gender or trolls is EXACTLY the same as speculating about whether recent murder victims were just begging for sex. Yeah, that checks out.
@RHW
The feminists in this conversation are saying that men can be caring, loving and altruistic. The MRAish dudes are saying that they may have just died for sex with women they didn’t care about at all. Who do you think holds the high ground here?
Heroism is coded female, if its in terms of highly infectious disease, where people require nursing.
Women routinely put their lives at risk treating the sick and dying in hospitals ALL the time. There are far more nurses in any given hospital than male doctors.
Someone call Cliff to talk about some of the physically dangerous shit nurses encounter on a routine basis…
Women are heros, but our society doesn’t want to talk about how many lives were saved by good nursing when there’s one man wh created a cure. Society doesn’t want to talk about wartime nurses putting their lives at risk when soldIers are being shot at.
Society also doesn’t generally talk about heroism unless people died. I’m sure that many, many people took risks on behalf of others in that theatre, but didn’t die and weren’t wounded. So nothing to look at here right?
@RHW
Also, it’s pretty hilarious that someone who feels the driving need to tell people about how he would like a fat girllfriend to hide behind, because he could never care about a fat girl, to pretend to be an authority on where the high moral ground even is.
A lot more than you, if you seriously think ‘dying for sex’ is a thing.
I dunno, seeing your reality distortion goggles at work here, I’m going to bet that isn’t why, and you just think it is.
Let me guess: yours is the latter position.
*holds breath*
Raw, Helpless, and Witless: Oh I can see where this is going to go. A debate on privilege, what it is, and whether or not it exists – for the 10,000th time. How about absolutely nah.
I’m not talking about privilege, I’m talking about you being dishonest in debate.
As to my being subtle, sometimes it’s not worth it. One has to know the audience.
The point to that list (and that it was cut short) is the vast difference in the narrative stories of the nobility of men dying for others.
You choose to pretend it’s about puffing my historical knowledge. It’s more about trying to get through to you; who pretended it was all about being a human shield.
As to condescension… you said they were less able to cope; by way of mental infirmity.
That’s a difference of level.
English isn’t that subtle. I begin to think your lack of understanding is a pretense.
“My own brother now *** a disabled woman, because he apparently couldn’t bear it anymore after years of being single.”
You do realize that you just said that a woman has inherently less value as a human being because of her disability, right? And that not having sex is sooooooo hard for men that they would stoop low enough to fuck said devalued woman, right?
YOU UNDERSTAND NOW WHY THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING TO SAY, RIGHT?
*still in good faith*
“My own brother now *** a disabled woman, because he apparently couldn’t bear it anymore after years of being single.”
Disabled women aren’t fuckable? Wtf? Does that apply to all disabilities or just ones you find unattractive? If your blind date turned out to be with a diabetic woman would you dump her on the spot for being undateable?
I mean, you’re welcome to have a “will not date” list, but you aren’t welcome to spew hatred on anyone who disagrees.
Oh and Occam’s Razor only applies if both options are equally correct, there’s a reason quantum physics hasn’t been tossed out as needlessly complex (it isn’t needlessly complex as less complex solutions have had serious flaws)
NWO — I say this with the utmost seriousness, you can go to hell for that last comment. Men who dry are likely to commit suicide? Got anything, at all, to back up that claim? Bear in mind here that refusing to seek mental health services because that isn’t “manly” probably does actually increase the risk of suicide.
Whoa, Rutee, think I’m gonna need a citation for that more women killed in war stuff. Got a feeling it’s gonna be the Gender Studies Institute of California or something.
But, apart from that, the glory and heroism business percolates through into daily life. Let’s not tery the slight-of-hand that it’s just in the business of war. Men beat each other up more than the beat women up, and it’s partly because of macho posturing sessions – happens often at the weekend but it can and does happen anywhere. One of the many privileges of being a guy – greater exposure to violence. Awesome.
“This gambit works a lot better when you’re not actively trying to engage with the stuff you say is ridiculously old hat”
Sorry, sentence has to make sense for me to bother.
“As a gender, you get credit whether you do or don’t. That’s part of the point.”
Oh right. So I’m socially regarded as a glorified hero without doing anything. I must’ve missed myself being in the local papers or something?
I’m tired and cranky, so not going to engage with the trolls (but so glad the rest of you are doing so), but I found a video which shows humans being kind to bears and I thought I’d share:
“As to condescension… you said they were less able to cope; by way of mental infirmity.
That’s a difference of level.”
Ahem, not to be it’s not. I view the mentally infirm as equal and worthy of consideration and don’t see a difference of level at all. Hey, if you’re a bigot I can’t help you.
Having been a man and single for many, many years—from birth, even—I don’t feel any desire to *** (what does this even mean? Three asterisks?) a woman who falls well short of my standard of attractiveness (which is what I assume you mean, but if you were my sibling I doubt I would appreciate your assessment of your brother’s *** at all because it sounds pretty fucking ableist), nor do I consider the reward of sex to be even remotely worth the risks of getting shot.
Riddle me this, Batman: if a dude dies for sex… uh, how exactly does he get his sexytimes reward?
The idea that this was just about dudes wanting to get laid is lazy and assumes the worst of men at best, assumes these guys were stupid at worst. I can think of few things dumber than dying for sex since the very nature of death generally makes anything happening after the fact, including supposed reward sex, kind of imimpossible.
cloudiah: Aww! I was expecting just one moderately sized bear to pop out, then suddenly.. BEARCUBSPLOSION.
RHW: Above It All.
Ahem, not to be it’s not. I view the mentally infirm as equal and worthy of consideration and don’t see a difference of level at all. Hey, if you’re a bigot I can’t help you.
So what was the problem with calling them on their shit?
ostara: It’s not that they wanted to die for sex, it’s that the need for sex was so great they were willing to risk death to get it.
This, you see, makes all the women want to jump your bones.
“So what was the problem with calling them on their shit?”
Call them all you like, just said you should avoid being nasty and ridiculing. Having said that, now that I’ve actually posted on this site I can see the appeal of it. All this snark for snark is strangely enjoyable, so I guess I can see why you do it.
RHW: Aaaand what movement has set its sights on tearing down the shitty gender norms that result in men fighting men to prove their masculinity?
That’s right! Feminism!
You know, most of the time I have to actively restrain myself from ragesploding when I read Owly’s shit. It feels like somebody is strapping me to a chair and taking a metaphorical shit in my brain. I almost can’t bear it.
People aren’t criticizing him for crying. There’s nothing shameful about crying. People are criticizing him for abandoning his family to save himself. He didn’t even try to find his own children to take them out of the theater. If it weren’t for the hero Jarell Brooks, his girlfriend and children probably would have died.
It was cowardly and selfish for him to abandon his own children when they were in danger.
This isn’t a gender thing either. I think adults should be responsible for protecting and rescuing children during crises. Children need more help, and they have their whole lives ahead of them so their safety should come first.
*puts on douche hat and wizard staff*
Nikan:
Let’s bring the spirit of Occam’s Razor into sex-getting tactics. There’s countless easier ways to get sex than to throw yourself in front of a bullet. If these guys REALLY wanted sex, taking a bullet is a monumentally bad way to get to that goal.
The obvious issue being that you might not live to get that sexy reward. Or, if you do, God knows how badly you’ve been injured, so you might not be CAPABLE of having sex. If having sex was the ultimate goal of these guys, running out of the theater and trying again with a new partner (if they got dumped) would have been much simpler and smarter.
Now that I’m done with that…
I prefer to attribute what these guys did to the best that human nature has to offer, e.g., bravery, kindness, love (romantic, platonic, or other), and regard for others. Whatever was going through their heads, yes, is lost. We’ll never know.
But given that what they did obviously does not come naturally to us all (and I say this without denigration to those for whom it does not), I think it is more likely that their actions were from a very unselfish place in their hearts, than from their crotches.
RHW: Call them all you like, just said you should avoid being nasty and ridiculing
Right… you are asking them to be given special treatment, because some of them might have a mental disability.
That’s condescending.
Gee, you’d think people who keep harping on this would know about how feminists (at least in the US) keep pushing for women to be able to serve in combat.
It ain’t feminists who are pushing the narritive that guys need to do dangerous shit in order to be “real men” or that women are not capable of doing heroic things.
I also wondered about what 3-letter word this could be. Some possibilities:
ate (doesn’t quite work with “now”)
bit (same problem)
efs (extended spelling of letter f to stand in for the verb fuck)
has (but why the need to mask such an innocuous word with asterisks?)
wet (was she on fire? just really parched?)
wed (might make the most sense, but again, is wed a bad word for troll?)
But really, I think there just aren’t enough asterisks to work with. Perhaps troll central is rationing them? Hard to say.
Nikan, get the fuck out, you ableist shithead.
I’m assuming they traded the bulk of their supply for ellipses (ellipsises?)
Fucking shoddy ellipses, if you ask me..
Lemme Google that for ya.
I once *** a whole ***, with a *** right in the ***, and let me tell you: until you’ve done ***, you simply do not understand what it’s like to be a single man.
including The Dark Knight Rises
Indeed, the movie in which one of the two heroes was female, and the main villain was female.
Almost always, my metaphorical posterior. We live in a feminized, “grrl-power” society. And yet, as you correctly note, men remain the vast, vast majority of sacrificial “heroes”. The explanation, thus, is “male disposability”, not any sort of heroism bias.
@Morkaischosen
Yes, well considering how the MRM abuses punctuation, I highly doubt the asterisks were in all that great a condition themselves
However, if they’re obese, then it would be impossible for you to care about them, right?
You don’t get to take the high road after that load of shit.
LOL! Your brother being with someone you deem unworthy isn’t YOUR experience, that’s your brother’s experience. Unless your brother is telling you all the time he’s with the person he’s with because he just wanted sex, then who the hell are you to say he does not really love this woman? Just because she isn’t someone you wouldn’t want to be with doesn’t mean no one else would. For example, I personally would never have dated any of my sister’s boyfriends, but she cared very deeply for them.
Also, being with someone below your sibling’s standards isn’t evidence of some supreme dudely desperation to get laid, so desperate in fact, it includes risking one’s life. The two aren’t even related. That those two things have occurred in this world means that there are some brave men who died and that somewhere out there is a person who I am very sorry for because it appears they have a very shitty, judgemental sibling who has a rather juvenile ideal of love and an extremely damaging view of men.
@Steele
How do you feel about Nikan saying that it’s more likely that one of men who died was begging for sex rather than acting out of actual love or bravery?
For someone so obsessed with the concept of “misandry,” you seem pretty lax on coming to the defense of men here.
Male disposability’s got nothing to do with it, are you blind or is this another example of your amazing reading comprehension skills that didn’t get you into the humanities because MISANDRY!!!
” I think there just aren’t enough asterisks to work with. Perhaps troll central is rationing them?”
S*rry, * st*l* *ll th* *xtr*s.
Steele: “[...]The Dark Knight Rises[...]
Indeed, the movie in which one of the two heroes was female, and the main villain was female.”
The movie is a BATMAN movie.With BATMAN. THE BATMAN. Catwoman is pretty solidly an anti-hero, and is not a female equivalent to THE BATMAN when one considers perspective/motivation/attention/screen time/etc.
Also? The main villain was BANE. The Surprise! Bad guy is a girl, too! At the end does not qualify as (1) being a female villain (2) grrrrrl power.
I just watched this movie like two hours ago.
…a movie that doesn’t even pass the Bechdel test.
“One of the two heroes”? How are you counting this shit?
Commissioner Gordon
Batman
Blake
Catwoman
As heroism in that movie goes, that’s the short list, and the clear majority of them are men. I’ll happily grant that Selena Kyle is a good character, and that certain sexist tropes are subverted by the film, but using that movie as evidence of a “feminized, ‘grrrl-power'” society is fucking laughable.
For bonus points, ask yourself which one of the listed characters above rides around in a skin-tight suit showing off their ass.
I also like that thebionicmommy got Steele’s number a whole page ago:
Right down to the obnoxious “grrrl-power.”
@Argenti: …What?
You didn’t meta Occam’s Razor, you used a misunderstanding of Occam’s Razor to meta your misunderstanding of Occam’s Razor. I don’t know if the Universe imploded, but my brain did for a moment there.
1. Both of those make only 1 assumption, so Occam’s Razor does not apply.
2. All else is not equal (as in, both assumptions are probably not equally valid) so Occam’s Razor would not apply *even if* either side made more assumptions than the other.
3. Occam’s Razor is a “tool” you use when there is more than one possible reason for something and want to narrow down the possibilities. Unless you are somehow using it to potentially remove itself from your methods of narrowing down possibilities (and I can’t imagine how that could happen) there’s no meaningful way you could apply it to itself.
You can argue that Nikan is a crappy human being for making that assumption in the first place, but there is no level that I’m aware of where the Razor applies here.
The main villain was BANE.
Indeed, the one who turned out to be a disposable pawn.
I sense a pattern emerging…
And it is misandry.
You don’t have a literal posterior? Welp, that’s even worse than being short a few asterisks.
oh, it’s factfinder
…a movie that doesn’t even pass the Bechdel test.
Incorrect!
Did someone say showing off their ass?
To me “Hark, a Vagrant”!
http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=295
Ha ha, thebionicmommy pre-pwned Steele! She is the super-ninja!
it’s actually you making things up to be angry about and failing miserably at it (’cause youre kinda dumb)
BEARCUBSPLOSION FTW, I think I’m just going to ignore the idiots and watch that again…
“For bonus points, ask yourself which one of the listed characters above rides around in a skin-tight suit showing off their ass.”
Commissioner Gordon? XD
“Indeed, the one who turned out to be a disposable pawn.
I sense a pattern emerging…
And it is misandry.”
Bane was disposable my ass.
Dude, you realize that having BATMAN and BANE as main characters and Catwoman and that other chick as secondary hero/villain types means that your main people, both hero and villain, are still men?
When 3/4+ of your cast is men, every archetype is more likely to be men. Bane was far less disposable than police goon #2, but they were both men because that’s who got cast in the film — men.
Nope, still not misandry, cause guess what, BATMAN, is still the hero, surprise surprise. And again, the movie doesn’t even pass the bechdel test.
@Argenti Aertheri
“Bear in mind here that refusing to seek mental health services because that isn’t “manly” probably does actually increase the risk of suicide.”
Modern psychology is simply modern feminism. Not really much difference from being here. Either men are bad, men aren’t good enough for women or men are hurt by masculinity. This hallowed place is the epotime of psychology.
———–
@MorkaisChosen
“Aaaand what movement has set its sights on tearing down the shitty gender norms that result in men fighting men to prove their masculinity?”
The poison of society is the genderless box. Options that can’t exist for either gender can only lead to self destruction of society. Annnnnd, yes, it is feminism exclusively that stuffs us into a genderless box. Well done ladies!
————
@thebionicmommy
” People aren’t criticizing him for crying. There’s nothing shameful about crying. People are criticizing him for abandoning his family to save himself.”
Feminism is all about self and deconstructing masculinty. He is a product of feminism. He is a male feminist. Feminists made him what he is. He is not masculine in the least. He is clearly feminine. He’s a whimpering crybaby unable to control his emotions. What? You want him to being a sobbing dress wearing child one minute and a brave soldier the next? It doesn’t work that way. He’s a product of a feminized society.
————-
Check out the communist network news
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/opinion/bennett-aurora-three/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Pay particular note to the comments. Ahhh, the gender war is heating up. The gang at the top sure does love funding feminism. I wonder why? And you’re going to tell me feminism isn’t the very cause of this? Women are goody, goody? It’s gotta be the fault of men. Or wait, the patriarchy. The only way women could be blamed in any way is if they uphold the patriarchy.
Go ahead, go to any site and read the comment section. The hatred just flows. Or just stay here and read the comments. I’ve told you before. You could’ve just been content to say, “Men are great for being so loving and giving.” And said nothing else. But noooooooo. Ya gotta play women are just as good, even better. Hey maybe you could tell you heroine, Amanda to shut the fuck up once in a while. That’s your heroine, someone like yourselves whose livelyhood and entertainment revolves around calling men shit.
For bonus points, ask yourself which one of the listed characters above rides around in a skin-tight suit showing off their ass.
I suspect the feminists grudgingly allowed this because it is as it was in the ’60s comics. It was a concession to the fanboys.
And, speaking as someone who has actually viewed the film, Gordon and Blake are bit players.
@Steele
Still waiting for the condemnation of Nikan’s man hatred…
God, I can picture Steele in college (after failing and quitting his creative writing course) being a little philosophy major boy who, despite all the evidence, is convinced that he is smarter then all the professors combined.