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.
@Ugh – You’re not gonna get it. You’re going to be ignored by Steele until you can say something that he can (A) blame on misandry or (B) use to justify calling you a vile misandrist-feminist.
I just finished my 4th edit of a journal article that I am so thoroughly sick of I hope it never gets published. Yay. Now I am having to sit on my hands to keep myself from posting more BEARCUBSPLOSIONS (or kittenplosions, maybe) to celebrate being finally free of that ghastly chore. Just warning you all, I may not be able to resist much longer.
And that would matter why, if the primary sources support the statement? Not that I need to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
But hey, the Soviets did have some women in the front lines (Never you mind that the majority of the deaths are civilians, which is pretty normal). I’d go with something more visceral, but my books aren’t physically with me, sadly. You should read some journals from soldiers in the past though. There were a lot more women present at military campaigns than most idiots seem to think. In supporting roles, yes, but that doesn’t really matter that much when you still get an arrow through you
I knew RHW was a returning troll, but I’ll grant I didn’t think it’d be Factless.
So wait. Let me get this straight. Every important character save one is a dude, and Bane being a pawn means it’s all misandry? Dudes get a range of representation across the entire spectrum, and that’s misandry?
You’d be a lot cuter in your aping feminists if you weren’t serious.
O K if we’re going to have a DKR discussion session, I’m going to go play Pharaoh and clean the kitchen, because I haven’t seen it and the Surprise! Villain is a Girl! is now no longer a surprise to me.
Laters.
And remember- this whole movie caters to a demographic that is overwhelmingly male-dominated; that is, geeks and more specifically comics fans. And Nolan’s other films have been unapologetically mantastic.
If even friggin’ Christopher “Manly” Nolan’s Manly Batman movies are feminized and contain elements of misandry (Bane’s disposability), imagine what the rest of the society is like!
mikey this is a new level of pathetic even for you. go back to work or whatever is that’s supposed to keep you from stalking us.
It’s never a concession, in fact, I’m pretty sure it’s widely considered to be an overall problem within the industry itself.
Also, have you brought up that one example of a man being killed for being a man that was requested of you a few threads ago?
Steele if men are so disposable, then why is so much time being spent on portraying them as heros? Why are people taking time to read about their sacrifice? Why are people so angry that those men had to die?
Does society put so much work into their tissues? Do we talk about the sacrifices made by native men? Black men? Asian men who built Canadas railways? No. Because they were seen as disposable. Those marginalized men are the ones with a right to complain about disposability. More thought is given to disposing of a coffee cup than is spent on men who aren’t white.
Ugh: You don’t get to take the high road after that load of shit.
RHW wasn’t taking any high road. He was using the possibility of the mentally ill who happen to belong to the MRM as a stick with which to beat us, and pretend that we lack in morals, or consistency.
For bonus points, ask yourself which one of the listed characters above rides around in a skin-tight suit showing off their ass.
I was going to be silly and answer this with “Batman?”. But then I remembered the batnipples.
DC-T: @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.
Since we have three competing theories (men who were heroic out of affection, men who did it out of social pressure from the historic narrative, or men who were heroic in the pursuit of sex), Occam’s razor can be dragged out. Since it was dragged out in direct response to a question from Nikan about why one ought to choose the least complex theory…
mr. ‘rational’ is moving on to tantrums about things being too feminized. this is fucking priceless.
Torvus Buttsteele:
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.
Then you weren’t paying attention to the film;
Gur Zrepranel jnfa’g gur Ivyyvna, ONAR jnf. Onar jnf n jbzna.
“And remember- this whole movie caters to a demographic that is overwhelmingly male-dominated; that is, geeks and more specifically comics fans. And Nolan’s other films have been unapologetically mantastic.”
It’s like he almost gets it!
“If even friggin’ Christopher “Manly” Nolan’s Manly Batman movies are feminized and contain elements of misandry (Bane’s disposability), imagine what the rest of the society is like!”
But then he doesn’t :(
because celebrating men risking their lives encourages men to risk their lives or something. it’s based on the assumption that men are the dumbest most gullible creatures on the planet.
so you know, standard mra thinking about men
Steele, how thick are you, your claim of “Bane’s disposability” has been refuted concisely several times already, and you’re still pulling it out. Get a better argument or go away.
is RHW Preggo Punchout?
Well that explains a lot.
Ms. Moonz – There is absolutely nothing wrong with a subculture simply being male-dominated- there are subcultures that are female-dominated, after all. And there’s nothing wrong with catering to your audience. Indeed, it’s not even catering- after all, the Big Figures are themselves more likely to be male than female- so they naturally write what they know.
Don’t say you weren’t warned:
I can just hear the sarcasm rolling off this, but come on, just think for a second.
Where should I look for an unbiased study on socially based gender differences? The geology department?
That’s kind of what gender studies is for.
Nikan: “Two words: three weeks.”
i fell in love with my husband in (two words): three seconds. Saw him across campus when i was 14, love at first site.
So…lol ur hatred, but I fully believe these people had altruistic feelings of the highest order, no matter how long they’d known each other, and that deserves our respect, not your hate.
whoah really?!? hollywood is controlled by dudes? those misandrists!
Panda explosion:
he’s the only one who’s ever called me ‘shar’.
and he recognizes that all i do is ‘snipe inanely’. (which whoah, i dont ‘debate’ with self-righteous, whiny dummies)
and he apparently doesnt know what inane means, but is cool with using anyway
so… preggo puncher, i think
Careful, we all know that noticing Steelepole tripping over his own arguments is MISANDRY!!!
Enough with the “Bane’s disposability is misandry” shit. Any sense of him being disposable was because of Nolan is a fairly simplistic director who lets people like David Goyer spin stupid “99% bad, cops good” storylines.
Hell, even with that, the treatment of the villain Bane wasn’t even wholly negative, much less an example of made up “cultural misandry”
After all, he was portrayed as a guy who:
Is respectful of his day-of-the-Jackal-esque mentor Ra’s, protected a kid with his life, and killed a bunch of robber barons.
I’m pretty sure the rest of us are laughing at this… XD
Deranged Counter-Troll — I didn’t apply Occam’s Razor to itself, but rather to my explanation of it. You’re using it wrong too though, that really shouldn’t be a numbered list since the more complex solution could be the correct one if the simpler solution is objectively less correct (eg physics). And I brought it up because Nikan asked if the simple solution was the correct one, to which I said “see Occam’s Razor, as yep, usually”. The discussion of Occam’s Razor never really needed to get this complex…
Steele/Varpole — do you even know what the Bechdel Test is?
“There is absolutely nothing wrong with a subculture simply being male-dominated- there are subcultures that are female-dominated, after all. And there’s nothing wrong with catering to your audience.”
None of what you’re trying to refute matches anything I said.
Also, the idea that the comic book/nerd/geek/gamer subculture is male-dominated means that the male narrative gets more airtime, not that there aren’t a shit ton of women in it. FYI.
i’m sure he means the decision was made by the ‘Big Figures’ of comic book culture, or something, but since that’s transparently moronic im going to be generous with my interpretation
I’d go with something more visceral, but my books aren’t physically with me, sadly.
You’re full of metaphorical feces. I do not believe you. More men are killed in wars than women. I’ll grant there may be rare geographic exceptions, but World War II destroyed an entire generation of European men… not women.
“Steele/Varpole — do you even know what the Bechdel Test is?”
I was going to ask, but for some reason I’m still taking Steele on good faith. And in his defense, I think Catwoman has a convo with some other chick about the impending doom at some point.
Sorry for the spoilers, guys, I understand if I get voted off the island :(
Wow, It’s almost as if patriarchal gender roles hurt men too!
I’m pretty sure the rest of us are laughing at this… XD
Excuse me? I am saying that if we can see even elements of misandry in male-dominated institutions like comics culture, what does that say about the rest of society?
I just got the chills.
Metaphorical Feces is the name of my band. Please stop using it.
More pandas:
“I do not believe you.”
That’s the thing, Steele. There’s no law saying you HAVE to believe facts.
@cloudiah: Metaphorical Feces is the name of my band. Please stop using it.
Grindcore?
“is RHW Preggo Punchout?
Well that explains a lot.”
PP/FF/IR and now RHW, at least he realized we’d just abbreviate his nym and did the work for us?
cloudiah — D’AWW, repeatedly. This thread needs the cuteness.
“I just got the chills.”
Did you just realize you don’t know anything about what you’re talking about?
is this anyone else’s favorite of mikey’s verbal tics? because i crack up every time he does it.
So you’re going to special plead with the Russians, who took more casualties than any other state in WWII? It’s not much nicer for the Chinese either.
I mean, I’m cool with you not accepting the actual thrust of my argument unsubstantiated, because unlike you I understand how this works, but you realize you’re just special pleading, right? XD
Also that you’re not actually substantiating your claim that it was mostly dudes, right? XD
To quote Rutee
zip your fly
I have no doubt that someone can be madly in love with a girl/boyfriend at only three weeks. In fact in my experience, that wild, out-of-control, I-love-every-f’ing-thing-about-you feeling manifests itself more in a new relationship than an older one. At three weeks into a relationship, the way he clips his toenails is adorable. A year later, it’s more likely that I’m asking him please do that in another room.
So, yes, garvan and Nikan, I can believe he loved her at three weeks into their relationship, loved her enough to shield her with his own body.
whataboutthemoonz — either that or it’s the weather, it’s raining in my apt currently (yeah, I could close a window,but the chill is rather a pleasant change). And oh, ok, so maybe it does actually pass (is the other woman named?).
@Ugh:
Now, tell me where are your “MRAish dudes”, who say that? That’s what I say, and if you classify me as “MRAish dude”, you’re wrong, as wrong as you probably can be.
@whataboutthemoonz:
Good grief, all caps — I HEAR YOU, moonz!! And yeah, I understand that this isn’t a nice thing to say, but still it’s the truth, which often is, you know, not very comfortable.
@Tulgey Logger:
Keep saying that to yourself, you may even convince yourself to believe that (and feel better), but don’t think you will convince me.
You don’t see how your lame brained defense of male domination in media undercuts the idea that it’s anti-male, huh XD
Not that farrell isn’t full of shit to beginw ith, and he’s the only ‘support’, such as it is, for disposability…
I literally loled. Like, “pbbbt hahaha.” Thanks, Steele!
But do tell me more about how Bane is the disposable pawn while Gnyvn vf gur bar qevivat nebhaq jvgu gur sernxvat ahpyrne obzo, shyyl rkcrpgvat vg gb tb bss evtug ba gbc bs ure.
It may have passed the Bechdel test, but just barely:
http://bechdeltest.com/view/3437/the_dark_knight_rises
And in a way that’s quite easy to miss.
It’s good to know that the Feminist Field Censors were willing to allow Catwoman’s sexy outfit because it was in line with the old comics, though.
“And yeah, I understand that this isn’t a nice thing to say, but still it’s the truth, which often is, you know, not very comfortable.”
I WILL SPEAK IN ALL CAPS AT ANY TIME I DESIRE, IN ORDER TO EMPHASIZE THINGS IN A WAY THAT YOU WILL NEED TO UNDERSTAND.
Is this an objective truth, or a truth personal to you, specifically?
Again, careful, catching him refuting his own arguments is MISANDRY!!!
Of course I am aware of the Bechdel Test, though it is often used in a misandrous manner to cover up and downplay the many movies that also fail the reverse test, such as Bridesmaids.
@aworldanonymous
More like microtonal free jazz crossed with reggaeton, but we sing in Finnish. We’re really popular in Albania, for some reason.
I really wish Nolan had just stuck to using either Bane or the other one. Instead he just ended up rushing Bane’s death for a nonsensical addition of the other one.
p.s. Where does one go about learning Spoilerese?
@Nikan:
Let’s get this straight.
First you say that someone who isn’t a man doesn’t get to say anything, then when a man says something you arbitrarily decide whether you believe them or not.
You’re a shithead.
The bechdel test isn’t a thing because sometimes, a movie fails it. It’s a thing because *consistently*, it is failed. Because society loves dudes and isn’t super huge fans of women XD
But go on, I love watching you fail XD
I feel Tulgey’s devastation all the way over here
And for those claiming Bane is the “main villain” – give me a break. Talia al Ghul (the daughter of Ra’s from the first movie!) is the main villain. Everything Bane did was, to my estimation, orchestrated by her.
Boobz and delusions, boobz and delusions…
Steele, if you can come up with ten movies in the last three years that don’t fit the “Reverse Bechdel Test”, I will never ever reference the Bechdel test again.
What movies that fail the reverse test, aside from Bridesmaids, if there’s an institution of misandry like you say, there should be plenty more than that.
AAAAnd ninja’d by whataboutthemoonz, whataboutthemoonz wins the ninja world series.
Well, there goes everyone’s efforts not to spoil the movie shitstain.
“Of course I am aware of the Bechdel Test, though it is often used in a misandrous manner to cover up and downplay the many movies that also fail the reverse test, such as Bridesmaids.”
Oh FFS, try naming a half dozen more that fail the reverse test, and if you can manage that, try assembling a list of hundreds — you can go back as far as you want for that. You might also want to note that movies that fail the reverse are usually called “chick flicks” in a derisive manner.
So when Batman’s ex- was elected to be less important than Dent, was that also misandry? XD
Oh, and seriously, can you dig up a source for ‘disposability’ that isn’t ultimately Farrell’s Fail? Because you’re the one trying to claim it’s a huge thing XD
This is on top of Nikan’s previously established Ableistic shitheadedness, of course.
It was so great that now the sun will set 5 seconds earlier.
The bechdel test isn’t a thing because sometimes, a movie fails it. It’s a thing because *consistently*, it is failed. Because society loves dudes and isn’t super huge fans of women XD
Incorrect on all counts! Society is misandric, and loves women. Also, movies don’t really fail the Test that often- definitely not much more than they fail the reverse, in female-centered movies (really, it comes down to – is the protagonist male or female?)
Finally, and as an aside, I’m beginning to think that “dude” is misandrous. It seems that feminists like to use the word incessantly, because it implies a sort of unserious, dismissive nature.
Totally ninja’ed.
Shadow — spoiler-ese
TEN MOVIES, THREE YEARS.
Not only will I never reference the Bechdel Test again, I’ll even name the reverse test after you. I’ll even start the list!
1. Bridesmaids.
Your turn.
Oh and look, now “dude” is misandrous and not just informal /)_<