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.
shouldnt you be putting this creative energy into your writing. i mean if you spent as much time coming up with stories as you do making this shit up, youd have a novel done by now.
Of course
lol wut?
Quoth Nikan:
Whoa. OK, well done, you’ve just demonstrated you’re a total piece of shit and not worth my time.
Disabled people are people and as worthy as any other. If you reject that, I’m not going to waste any effort trying to reason with you.
now it’s officially pathetic
Dude is misandrous? That explains why I enjoy The Big Lebowski, I guess.
p.s. The only reason I am not mad about the movie spoiling going on here is that I have such a terrible memory I will undoubtedly forget the spoilers. It’s kind of my superpower.
@Argenti
Cheers. Will be useful when not in a conversation with dickhead over here
I like to imagine Steele’s posts in a whiny ant tantrum-esque tone, especially when he insists that society IS misandric.
” I’m beginning to think that “dude” is misandrous.”
Don’t worry, I put it on the list: http://whataboutthemoonz.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/things-that-are-misandry-as-compiled-by-manboobz/
So, Steele, did I miss anything? (Why did I just get a Balto flashback?)
*and, keyboard fail.
imagine?
Dude.
Dude is misandrous?
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.
Incorrect: society is patriarchal, and glorifies male pursuits while diminishing those of women.
By the way, how’s that novel coming along?
“Dude is misandrous? That explains why I enjoy The Big Lebowski, I guess.”
I know dude, I know. (Bad pun is bad…)
I guess Steele/Varpole could manage to argue that The Big Lebowski is misandrist because Maude says vagina…(holy fuck, is that where they get the whole sperm-jacking thing from? She specifically just wanted sperm, not child support!)
As always, every MRA troll ultimately devolves into
Ooh, tell me more about this “truth” of yours. Is there a scale of how different disabilities affect your value as a human being? Do I have more value on the days that I can use my cane than on the days I need my wheelchair? What happens when I’m sleeping or something and not trying to get around, anyway – does my value reset to able-bodied-person levels, or do I just stay less valuable because if I did want to walk, I wouldn’t be terribly good at it? What if I get an entirely separate injury, like a broken wrist – does that lower my value, too? If so, how does healing figure into that – do I stay at the broken-wrist value until the cast comes off, or does my value increase steadily throughout the healing process? Oh, and does this value calculation work in reverse, too? Are you less valuable than someone in particularly great physical shape? (Because, if so, I suggest you go work security at the Olympics. I’m sure the athletes would be happy to know that you are willing to lay down your sad, less valuable little life to protect them.)
Nearly every single movie I’ve seen in the last 10 years has failed it. I think Thor made it on a tiny conversation between Natalie Portman’s character and her grad student, which is still better than most.
Only one of those sets is really treated as a Big Fucking Deal, dude XD
Sure, why not? That’s not any less founded than the rest of your shit. Still waiting on the structural disadvantages XD
“Dude” is definitely, in the context the misandrist-feminists use it (ie, dismissive, unserious) extremely misandrous. This is without question.
My only thought is whether “dude” can be used in a non-misandric context; whether it can be “reclaimed” as it were. At this point, I am inclined to say it cannot. The Marcottes and Doyles of the world have injected too much hate into the term.
Steele says stupid things. We dismiss stupid things. We dismiss Steele’s stupid things. We call people Dude. Steele is a Dude. We call Steele Dude. We call Steele Dude while dismissing his stupid things. Steele assumes we are dismissing him because of his pee pee, and not because of his stupid things. Steele assumes we are calling him Dude as we dismiss him because of misandry.
Did I get it?
Okay, now I’m just in the mood to hear Carla Bozulich swearing:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! To be fair, predicting that MRA’s will say “grrl power” is like predicting that the sun will rise in the morning, or that birds in North America will fly south during cold weather.
Hey steele, this one’s for you
(Also, my boyfriend would laugh very hard to hear that he is settling for me and my wonky leg because he’s just so desperate. He is not exactly a guy who has terrible trouble attracting women.)
Steele has apparently never heard the words “what’s up dude?” before.
My viewpoint on this whole thing is this:
If we believe in equality and each person is of the same value as everyone else, then there is no need for these men to “protect” their girlfriends, or vice versa.
By the men acting as a human shield and having their lives cut tragically short, they where subtlety saying that their girlfriends had more intrinsic value then them.
This just seems like a sexist attitude to hold, in my opinion.
Nearly every single movie I’ve seen in the last 10 years has failed it. I think Thor made it on a tiny conversation between Natalie Portman’s character and her grad student, which is still better than most.
Excuse me?
http://bechdeltest.com/
This is a misandrist-feminist site, and even they concede that- it seems to me- over half of contemporary movies pass the Test. I do not think reverse-Bechdel statistics would be all that different. Again, I say- it comes down to if the protagonist is male or female.
I know, it’s hard to make stupid proclamations in the age of Google.
It’s already been claimed by the sea turtles
“So he was infatuated (well, that’s the best explanation, there are worse, maybe he just wanted to have a good argument to finally take the relationship one step further.)”
Why are MRAs so convinced that they are the cosmos and other men are all just like them? And that all relationships are just like their relationships? There’s really no other explanation for assuming that in random couple who you don’t know, one of whom died heroically saving the other, obviously they weren’t having sex yet, because the woman refused to put out, which of course the man must have been nagging her about, but she wouldn’t give in, so he thought that “but I saved your life!” would clinch the deal.
Just writing that made me feel ill. Have more respect for the dead, you assholes.
this is not a thought
See, I use Dude (or more accurately Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude) as an expression of surprise. Context varies from an implied “Dude, did you really just say that?” (dismissive, contemptuous) to an implied “Dude, that’s awesome!” (informal expression of approval)
The first is, in fact, roughly what Steele’s talking about. (!)
Steele’s conclusion is ridiculous, due in part to the latter.
(I’m pretty sure I’ve deployed a type-1 “Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude” at Ruby recently – I tend to use it with no regard to gender – so, um, no.)
Sure it is. Yup. You got us. XD
Dude, do you interact with people at any point in time? XD XD XD
seriously, does nobody else crack up at this?
I’m sure you do. This is why we appreciate that extra effort you put in, and why we appreciate your blog so much.
so go out and prove it instead of screaming about how we have to take it on faith that your right. i thought you were supposed to be rational.
Reclaiming “dude”—excuse me while I die laughing.
“Whoa, lady, that’s not your word, dude.
Dude is our word, brah.
You can’t just ignore history and go slinging the D word around, dude.
It is in healthy male culture that the dude abides.
The dude abides, dude.“
Tulgey: Dude. I hear ya.
WAAAAAAAAH why dont those mean feminist do my work for me. WAAAAAAAH
Brah is MISANDRY, Tulgey!
Did I say “Every movie”, or did I say “Every movie I saw“? Seriously now, read along. XD
You said they didn’t fail often. I contested that specific claim. I did not lend support, nor contest, statements on all movies, because I do not watch all movies.
“If we believe in equality and each person is of the same value as everyone else, then there is no need for these men to “protect” their girlfriends, or vice versa.”
Except when you give a shit about other people, you might want to protect them. With your life. This can happen regardless of gender.
Also, turtles are misandry.
so go out and prove it instead of screaming about how we have to take it on faith that your right. i thought you were supposed to be rational.
I believe it is upon the makers of the misandrist-feminist Test to do so; that is, unless they wish to be intellectually dishonest. In lieu of that, I believe I am justified in assuming, on anecdotal evidence, that the reverse-Tests fail in similar numbers. After all, we live is a misandrous society.
But Steele, dude, what about the TURTLEZ?
I want a T-shirt with “misandrist-feminst” written on it. And turtles. Lots of baby sea turtles.
Oh noes! Bill and Ted are are vile misandrists!!! HATE CULT!!!1!!1
(video possibly NSFW: They yell “69!” and later moon some trolls.)
Look at this MISANDRY:
Sorry, I forgot to check my privilege!
Dude…have you ever really checked your privilege? I mean really checked it, dude?
Far out.
no dude, you have to prove your own claims. this is basic claiming stuff.
again, your problems seem to trace back to the fact that you make excuses to never do anything. that’s on you.
Steele’s in a circular logic trap. We live in a misandrous society. Therefor, movies are misandrous. He doesn’t have to prove movies are misandrous, however, because society at large is. Because of movies.
Can we get Argenti in here?
it’s funny cuz i was joking with the ‘feminist wont do my work for me’ thing, but apparently you actually think other people should do your work for you.
and then you get all indignant when you get called entitled.
As ever, I am in awe of your clear, unbiased critical thinking, dude.
Ok, I’m beginning to think Steele lives in some bizzarro world where there is an institutionalized hatred of men, much like the institutionalized hatred of women in our world. And he somehow stumbled upon this blog through some rift in the space-time continuum, and thinks it’s his universes equivalent of an MRA blog.
Other notes:
“Nearly half of all movies manage to give women the bare minimum assumption of agency that is required to think women’s lives don’t entirely revolve around men” is Steele’s idea of the concession that misogyny is over, apparently XD
Also, I’m curious whether he actually watched Bridesmaids now. Lord knows I didn’t XD
and then you get all indignant when you get called entitled.
Vile slanderer. I merely state the moral obligation of the M-feminists to give a thorough and fair-minded assessment of the situation, to avoid intellectual dishonesty.
But given the M-feminists’ dishonest framing of the mythical “wage gap”, I suppose this is par for the course.
mikey if you throw this kind of shitfit when your boss hands you an assignment, no wonder you spend so much of your workday bother us instead of doing anything
yeah, exactly like that.
@Sharculese
Who is mikey btw, is it Steelpole, Or someone I haven’t noticed yet?
Steele, I think you need to do a blog post on Sharculese being a vile slanderer. The world needs to know.
Steeledude
U mad dude?
Considering how much of his workday is spent here, I expect he’ll soon have plenty more time on his hands to bug us. After all, we live in a misandrous society.
also tossing the phrase ‘intellectual dishonesty’ around doesnt really change the fact that you want to be an activist but you keep coming up with excuses not to actually do it.
@aworld
mikhael varpole was his first username for screaming at us, before he stopped bothering us to go start the blog and came up with an excuse to quit that
PLEASE DO A BLOG POST ON SHARCULESE, STEELE. YOU CANNOT LET THAT VILE SLANDER GO UNEXPOSED.
@aworldanonymous
Steele’s first incarnation was Mikhail Varpole
“‘and then you get all indignant when you get called entitled.‘
Vile slanderer”
Actually, observing that you get indignant when someone calls you something isn’t slander, dude.
Sharculese, I implore you, don’t make yourself the jester’s fool. I am, naturally, not at the workplace at the moment.
Sharculese, your summing up makes him seem even more sad. I think I almost feel bad tweaking him now. Almost. Then I read his bechdel test thing to my girlfriend again, and started chuckling. XD
oh god he’s killing me XD
slan·der [slan-der] Show IPA
noun
1.
defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2.
a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3.
Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
Yeah, nothing about calling someone out for indignation at the prospect of being entitled here.
SHARCULESE IS A VILE, SLANDERING JESTER’S FOOL. BRING BACK ANTIMANBOOBZ!
omigod dude, do you read this shit?
‘i implore you dear sir forthwith i shall dub thee fooleth the fool. harumph harumph.’
At least NWO’s frothing rage makes sense within the paranoid, delusional world he’s created for himself. Steele is literally throwing a tantrum over being called “dude,” without so much as a make-pretend story about feminist overlords to pseudo-justify it.
This would be really sad if it weren’t so fucking hilarious.