>
One thing I am struck by again and again as I read the blogs and the message boards of the manosphere is how little basic human empathy I see there, towards women in general and towards feminists of both sexes. We see it in the routine references to women as “whores” and “cunts” and other terms that reduce them to their genitalia.
We see it in the profound lack of empathy for women injured or killed. You may recall my recent post about an MRA blog that basically celebrated the possible death of a missing Las Vegas dancer. The body of the murdered woman, Deborah Flores-Narvaez, has since been found. The news inspired a moderator of the Happy Bachelors Forum to start a topic entitled “Dirty skanky whore found dead.”
And of course we’ve seen similar reactions to the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six others. While many in the manosphere responded to the shootings like normal human beings (displaying honest shock and horror) and others responded like typical internet paranoids (wildly speculating on how this meant the government would take away all our rights), there were others who found ways to blame women for the shootings or to twist the issue into one of men’s putative oppression. On NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forum, one commenter found an ingenious way to blame women for the shooting:
He [was] probably dumped by a girl and that’s what started him on the road to crazy batshit loonery. I can’t think of any other factor that could more quickly drive a man to violence than women.
Others complained that the news coverage was slanted by evil feminism. From the MGTOW proboards forum:
it pisses me off when i see all this outrage on the news and from the public knowing that if it was a congressMAN who was shot, everyone would be wondering what he did to deserve it.
this really shows you how society values women over men. and she’s not even dead!
Over on NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum, one member complained that Giffords was getting most of the news coverage and that the six others who were murdered in the attack, most of whom were probably men, were being ignored:
This is yet another example of how Femerica values female lives more than male lives. In the eyes of most Americans, men are less human than women.
The male judge gets a mention because he is a lackey for the interests of the elite. Even though he is dead, since he is a male, his death is presented by the media as less of a tragedy than the non-lethal shooting of a female politician with a good chance for recovery.
The death of the young girl was portrayed as third in line in terms of level of tragedy. By American standards, it was a tragedy because she possessed a vagina, but since she was not grown enough to be a full-fledged feminazi, her death was less of a tragedy than the non-death of the female politician.
It wouldn’t be surprising if the four unnamed dead people were men. If they were men, they would be considered less human than the others. They are not even human enough for the media to investigate and name. Their death, by American standards, was a tragedy but less of a tragedy than the non-death of female politician.
This comment is jampacked with an assortment of bad assumptions. To correct the most obvious of them: Giffords has gotten most of the coverage because this was not a random murder, but an attempted political assassination. Gender has nothing to do with it. When people talk about the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, they rarely mention the three others who were also wounded that day. (Except for James Brady, and that’s because he has gone on to be an influential gun control advocate.)
The male judge has gotten a good deal of attention, but isn’t the main focus of the coverage because he was not the target of the assassination attempt. The girl has gotten attention because she was a child. The other victims were not named at first because authorities had not yet notified their next-of-kin. There were three men killed in the attacks, two women, and one girl.
Meanwhile, on this very blog, a regular antifeminist commenter who calls himself Random Brother has made clear that he doesn’t extend basic human sympathies to feminists. Asking whether or not Giffords is a feminist, he explains:
I want to know if she has spent her whole career passing laws that harm men. I want to know this before I commit any sympathy to her. If she was a great politician who tried hard to help her constituents, was fair and just then she has all of the sorrow in the world from me. …
If she was a typical politician, a bigot or a man hater, why should I care?
Setting aside for a moment the fact that there is precisely zero evidence that Giffords is any any way a “man hater”: Because she’s a human being?
Sadly, this failure of empathy isn’t confined to the manosphere, as Marianne Kirby notes on The Rotund:
Empathy is, in its simplest form, the ability to acknowledge the thoughts/reasoning/emotions of another person as valid. It is, so to speak, being able to see where they are coming from even if you do not agree. … Empathy is, I think, coming to the realization of our own humanity and the humanity of other people – we are all simply people. …
[W]hen politicians depend on hate and violent rhetoric to stir up their followers, no good can come of it. … It teaches them that these people who believe different things are “the enemy” – that they are a danger and must be eliminated.
Is it any wonder that some people reach a point where the literal elimination of those who are different becomes the end goal?
For a long time I labeled the MRA/MGTOW blogs I’ve put in my sidebar as my “Enemies List.” It was a partially tongue-in-cheek reference to Nixon’s famous “enemies list.” But many people took it literally, and some (even if they didn’t) worried that this kind of terminology could lead to precisely the sort of dehumanizing of the “enemy” I’ve been criticizing here. In the wake of the Arizona shootings, and after pondering several eloquent emails sent to me on the subject, I’ve decided to change my “Enemies List” to, well, a “Boob-roll.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “boob” as “a stupid or foolish person; a dolt.” The people I write about may be — at least in my mind — wrong, and foolish, and sometimes hateful assholes, but they are people.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>"2. No where on this blog is misogyny used to mean "disagreeing with a feminist." 3. No where on this blog are pleas for equality shamed. Rather, misogyny is shamed."—Sandy2) I've seen it happen on blogs like this and forums. 3) Feminists aren't for equality, they are for female supremacy. You shame MRA and equate it with misogyny when you can.
>"Because the link THOROUGHLY handles your argument and hence was the point. Men did not put women and children first out of some stupid "nobility" which made men's lives valuable – men did it because men are (and, biologically speaking, always will be) the more expendable sex."—Dr. Deezee You hit the nail on the head here.
>So by this logic men should cease and desist aiding women in any way, as it signals to the women they are weak and assumes ownership by the man. BTW, had this happened the death toll would be much higher. If men stopped doing all the crappy jobs they do in order to help their families society would cease to function. Food, energy, waste removal, construction, road maintainance, machinery repair, fire control-all dominated by men and all dangerous jobs. We call it the glass cellar. Few of these pay particularly well, most are in harsh weather conditions, and many require outside of 9-5 work hours. ALso note these are the jobs feminists are NOT knocking down the doors to gain parity with men. You may want to stop with the "men helped because they were oppressing women and pushing their idea of self value" and just say thank you. I certainly appreciate men's contributions for what they are.
>The media bias was mainly in the headlines, which is all many people read. Headlines which rarely mentioned she only assisted in taking the clip, one headline reading "Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload" He was no longer reloading as he was being wrestled to the ground by two men. "A 61-year-old woman wrestled an ammunition clip from the Arizona gunman as he tried to reload his weapon, it was revealed today.Patricia Maisch told of the moment she tackled Jared Loughner, stopping his killing spree outside an Arizona supermarket on Saturday.Loughner had allegedly just shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords through the head and murdered six other people including nine-year-old Christina Green, who was born on September 11, 2001."Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345622/Arizona-shooting-Patricia-Maisch-stopped-Jared-Loughner-linked-American-Renaissance.html#ixzz1Aly0MkhKThere was more to the article but only after a lot of pictures and ads. Most people only read the first bit, which was very misleading.
>@Bee:"Jesus fricking pancakes, The Biscuit Queen … where did anyone say that the woman tackled Loughner? I've read a lot of reports on the incident, and nothing I've seen even came close to suggesting that version of events."London Daily MailJanuary 10, 2011http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345622/Arizona-shooting-Patricia-Maisch-stopped-Jared-Loughner-linked-American-Renaissance.htmlSecond paragraph in the article:"Patricia Maisch told of the moment she tackled Jared Loughner, stopping his killing spree outside an Arizona supermarket on Saturday."
>And men never really "owned" women as a widespread policy, just as "rule of thumb" was a carpenter's measurement term rather than some law which condoned wife beating. Most men and women were too poor to worry about gender relations. Everyone had to work very hard to keep from starving, and things like childbirth injury and death to women and farm/job/war injuries and death to men as well as a high infant and child mortality meant that ownership of each other was the last thing anyone worried about. Sure, some men had some advantages in the past, but SO HAVE SOME WOMEN. The have/have not line was not gender related, it was wealth related. Nice try.
>Below is a quote from the sheriff where the shooting occurred. He mentions the gender of the woman who pulled away the gun's magazine. But he omits the gender of the others, who happened to be men, and they were the ones who actually physically subdued the shooter. I submit that the sheriff omits the gender of the men precisely because they are men. This is a common theme in our culture. Women are recognized as women for both their heroism and/or their victimhood, whereas men are recognized as men only for their alleged perpetration. This video explains the phenomenon:"Men Don't Exist"
On the video from the ABC News report, here's the quote from the sheriff, which occurs about 6 minutes or so into the video:"He unloads, and he's trying to reload when one of the individuals hits him over the head with a chair, two people grab him, and a lady grabs the magazine. And at that point he is subdued."Source of the ABC News video:http://abcnews.go.com/watch/world-news-with-diane-sawyer/SH5585921/VD55105820/world-news-110-tucson-shooter
>The Daily Mail is not exactly a bastion of fine journalism. Nor is it a feminist mouthpiece. I did see a few early news articles that exaggerated what Maish did. I attribute this mainly to 2 things: 1) when something like this happens, much of the initial reporting is inaccurate because of the chaos surrounding the incident and 2) the idea of a woman, particularly an old woman, wrestling an ammo clip from a gunman is unexpected. In the world of news, the unexpected generally gets more attention than the expected. Is that unfair to the male heroes who tackled the shooter? Or to men in general? A case could be argued either way: the fact that people assume men will more likely act heroically in a situation like this could actually be seen as anti-female sexism. The heroism of Daniel Hernandez has certainly gotten a good deal of attention, as I think it should.
>John, the reference to the male heroes as "people" could also be interpreted as an example of men being considered the "default sex."
>@David Futrelle:"John, the reference to the male heroes as "people" could also be interpreted as an example of men being considered the 'default sex.'"So men being invisible is a sign of male privilege, whereas women being pedestalized and privileged is a sign of female oppression. Like I've always said, feminists sure have a knack for portraying the privileges of women as burdens, and the burdens of men as privileges. It's a deceptive ruse that the public eats right up, but nevertheless a deceptive ruse.
>I'm sorry, John, but the notion that men in this culture are "invisible" is beyond ludicrous. Also, the notion of putting women on a pedestal is not a feminist notion. It is a rather traditional, patriarchal notion. If you support patriarchy — and you do, right? — then it seems a bit churlish to complain about this kind of female "privilege."
>@David Futrelle:"I'm sorry, John, but the notion that men in this culture are 'invisible' is beyond ludicrous."It's not ludicrous. The notion that men are NOT invisible is what's beyond ludicrous. To illustrate why I believe this, I again point you to the following video:"Men Don't Exist"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9AIf you disagree with me on this, then refute the points that are made in the above video, because they describe my perspective perfectly. If, however, you simply make a statement that my perspective is ludicrous without refuting the points in this video, then you concede the points that it makes which invalidate your view. Female suffering, female fear, and female heroism is given special attention as specifically female."Also, the notion of putting women on a pedestal is not a feminist notion."So I assume that you would support the repeal of primary aggressor laws, which permit female abusers to avoid arrest for their own perpetration of domestic violence even in states where arrests are required? That sure sounds like pedestalizing women to me.Based on your supposedly anti-female-pedestalizing statement above, I also assume that you would support the repeal of the Violence Against Women Act too. After all, VAWA as written prohibits its STOP grants from going to any organization that isn't specifically devoted to *primarily* to violence against women in particular.Source:"Frequently Asked Questions on STOP Formula Grants"http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/FAQ_FINAL_nov_21_07.pdfPage 3:Q: Can STOP funds support services for men?A: Yes. However, funding may only be directed to those entities whose primary focus is combating violence against women.Male victims of domestic violence are comparatively invisible under VAWA.
>@David Futrelle:"If you support patriarchy — and you do, right? — then it seems a bit churlish to complain about this kind of female 'privilege.'"Patriarchy is a cultural system where fathers and heads of family clans possess authority — along with its attendant responsibilities — relative to their families. Patriarchy is not reflected merely by the fact that more men are in positions of leadership in today's society. If you want to get into a discussion about patriarchy, then first you should use more precise language to define your lexicon, because I reject the feminist interpretation.
>No John, the feminist perspective of this is "what about teh menz".Patriarchy is supposed to be about male privilege. It always makes me laugh how feminists always try to present female privilege in the guise of patriarchy. Its friggin ludicrous at its best.In a feminist perspective, any problem either gender has all results to the fault of men. This is pretty much the core perspective from the majority of feminist who exist. To sit here and tell me that the feminist movement is not rampant of bigotry is a crack up. It's basically not calling a spade a friggin spade. A bigot refuses any responsibility from a gender even though it’s as obvious as bright as day.This even goes to the point of any failure a woman has in life such as career, it's the fault of men one way or the other. Patriarchy/men are used as a multipurpose scapegoat to avoid women having to take accountability and responsibility for their own shortcomings.
>nick, I don't know what planet you're from, but feminism on this planet bears very little resemblance to what you've just sketched out here. Also, patriarchy does not mean what you think it means. I suggest you read up on these subjects before posting more idiocy. One good place to start would be Gerda Lerner's The Creation of Patriarchy.Here is a detailed summary of the book:http://mark.degrassi.ca/papers/ma/soc-family-kinship/gerda-lerner/creation-patriarchy.html
>Dr. Deeze,No, "women and children first" was not "because otherwise how will we repopulate?" It was because women and children were weak, and the noble thing was to protect them. It is about the chivalrous idea of protecting those weaker than yourself.The link does not "prove" otherwise.
>Also, note the phrase (and practice on ships) didn't emerge until 1852. Strange for a practice that is vital to the survival of the species. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/women-and-children-first.htmlFurthermore, there are plenty of cultures where women and children are not rescued first.
>"Captain Herndon's first order, 'Save the women and children!' was the test of this Christian heroism… Every man on board that doomed ship knew the captain was acting rightly."Heroism. Not following the natural order, but acting valantly, rightly, with chivalry.
>Quick show of hand: who here is currently on a sinking ship with too few lifeboats?Anyone?Deezee?Uh oh. I'm afraid Dr. Deezee may have gone under. Another victim of chivalry!
>No not chivalry, we would sacrifice Dr. Deeze because he will be of no use repopulating the new, post ship wreck, world.
>chocomintlipwax said… how Giffords got herself shot by "not taking threats seriously" (kind of like how women "get themselves raped" or "get themselves pregnant," right?), and then we have someone claiming MRAs totally see women as people. This killing has nothing to do with 'women' and with the gender of the victim. It was a killing of a politician, gender irrelevant.The killing would have taken place, regardless if this politician has been a man or a woman.Any reference to pregnant women or raped women etc. is bare feminist propaganda.To question the basic necessity of crime prevention is hardly understandable.To presume that the female gender of a politician might protect her against an attack is bare nonsense.
>David, instead of throwing me a link of some feminist claptrap which is just more rubbish of "everything is the menz fault", please explain in exact logical detail of how its patriarchy of what you were discussing with John.In your own words (not some feminist link about blaming men for everything) HOW IS IT PATRIACHY? Explain it all in exact logical detail. Make a good argument out of itSeriously, what you were discussing before with John is the very definition of idiocy. Its so fucking stupid and simplistic to blame such a scenario on patriarchy. Its fucking stupid and simplistic within its self to blame any form of female privilege on patriarchy. Really and truly, I don’t know either to be disturbed or amused at such feminist stupidity.You femiclowns need to face up to the fact that not every god damn thing that goes wrong in the world is the fault of men. For fucks sake, isn’t it clear enough that this feminist type of attitude is just pure evil bigotry?Its totally sexist beyond belief.
>I personally love the arguments from 1912, they're lulzy.
>Nick, I have officially given up on you.
>What a great post. The example you set is awesome, showing that even when our heads are in the right place, reconsidering things never hurts. As reactions to the shooting in AZ have unfolded, I've tried to reexamine my own thoughts & feelings of anger and violence towards others. Those who espouse policies that end up harming society's most vulnerable? Those who tacitly (or explicitly) support sexual, physical, any kind of assault or abuse? Those who view others as less than human? They get my wrath up. But dehumanizing them the way they dehumanize others doesn't help… it doesn't help me be any happier, at any rate. Your post was a good reminder to reconsider even my tongue-in-cheek manifestations of said sentiment.Thanks for fighting the good fight… or… some less violent aphorism. Anyway, you do an impressive job.