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.
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