Categories
misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy white knights

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.
Vaguely aware that he may have crossed a line here, the Pigman pauses for a moment:

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.

856 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sharculese
12 years ago

I believe it is upon the makers of the misandrist-feminist Test to do so;

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.

whataboutthemoonz
12 years ago

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?

Sharculese
12 years ago

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.

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
12 years ago

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.

As ever, I am in awe of your clear, unbiased critical thinking, dude.

aworldanonymous
12 years ago

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.

Rutee Katreya
12 years ago

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

Steele
Steele
12 years ago

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.

Sharculese
12 years ago

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

Sharculese
12 years ago

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.

yeah, exactly like that.

aworldanonymous
12 years ago

@Sharculese

Who is mikey btw, is it Steelpole, Or someone I haven’t noticed yet?

cloudiah
12 years ago

Steele, I think you need to do a blog post on Sharculese being a vile slanderer. The world needs to know.

pillowinhell
12 years ago

Steeledude

U mad dude?

Shadow
Shadow
12 years ago

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

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.

Sharculese
12 years ago

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.

Sharculese
12 years ago

@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

cloudiah
12 years ago

PLEASE DO A BLOG POST ON SHARCULESE, STEELE. YOU CANNOT LET THAT VILE SLANDER GO UNEXPOSED.

Shadow
Shadow
12 years ago

@aworldanonymous

Steele’s first incarnation was Mikhail Varpole

whataboutthemoonz
12 years ago

“‘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.

Steele
Steele
12 years ago

Sharculese, I implore you, don’t make yourself the jester’s fool. I am, naturally, not at the workplace at the moment.

Rutee Katreya
12 years ago

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

Rutee Katreya
12 years ago

oh god he’s killing me XD

aworldanonymous
12 years ago

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.

cloudiah
12 years ago

SHARCULESE IS A VILE, SLANDERING JESTER’S FOOL. BRING BACK ANTIMANBOOBZ!

Sharculese
12 years ago

Sharculese, I implore you, don’t make yourself the jester’s fool. I am, naturally, not at the workplace at the moment.

omigod dude, do you read this shit?

‘i implore you dear sir forthwith i shall dub thee fooleth the fool. harumph harumph.’

Gametime
12 years ago

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.

1 12 13 14 15 16 35