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.
WHAT ELSE IS SHARCULESE, STEELE? WE NEED TO KNOW.
Please, please let this thread never end. XD
I was recently perusing Boobzland’s forum for a recent blog post and noticing that there’s more lying about the mythical wage gap:
http://manboobz.forummotion.com/t1033-things-they-think-are-feminism-that-are-actually-sexism
It’s full of M-feminists claiming that men should pay for dates because of the wage gap (which doesn’t exist).
We see the vile, disgusting, hypocritical, vile attitudes behind closed doors.
You will never see me pay for a date. If a privileged woman expects it, she’s in for a rude awakening, and there will of course be no second date- and this has actually happened, as someone who goes on many dates.
My current girlfriend, who is an excellent individual, was more than happy to go dutch. It was never even questioned. That’s an upstanding person.
Dude, you know that you are seeing it because it is not behind closed doors, right?
@ Steele – some synonyms for vile: http://thesaurus.com/browse/vile?s=t
Mix it up a little!
“We see the vile, disgusting, hypocritical, vile attitudes behind closed doors.”
But was it also vile?
P.S. public forum on the internet =/= closed doors
okay now youre just fucking with us!
Steele, is your memory so shitty you didn’t realize you used the same word twice in four words or is your writing so awful you just didn’t care? Given your posting history, I’d be legitimately surprised if the answer wasn’t “Both.”
As is typical, the M-feminists focus, in rapid succession, upon a minor typo.
It’s pathetic.
lol
i’m sure there’s no second date after you scream at a woman for not moving for the check, just not for the reasons you think.
Let’s check imdb’s top 50, shall we?
The Shawshank Redemption (1994) — does not pass, passes the inverse
The Godfather (1972) — does not pass, passes the inverse
The Godfather: Part II (1974) — no results on the Bechdel test database, and I haven’t seen it, so ?
Pulp Fiction (1994) — passes both
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) — no results on the Bechdel test database, and I haven’t seen it, so ?
12 Angry Men (1957) — does not pass, passes the inverse
Schindler’s List (1993) — passes both
The Dark Knight (2008) — passes (both?)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) — does not pass, passes the inverse
The Dark Knight Rises (2012) — does not pass (arguable)
Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back (1980) — does not pass, passes the inverse
Fight Club (1999) — does not pass, passes the inverse
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975) — does not pass, passes the inverse
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) — does not pass, passes the inverse
Inception (2010) — arguable pass
Goodfellas (1990) — arguable pass
Star Wars (1977) — does not pass, passes the inverse
Seven Samurai (1954) — no results on the Bechdel test database, and I haven’t seen it, so ?
The Matrix (1999) — passes the inverse, arguably may pass
City of God (2002) — does not pass
Forrest Gump (1994) — does not pass, passes the inverse
Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) — does not pass
Casablanca (1942) — does not pass
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) — does not pass, passes the inverse
The Silence of the Lambs (1991) — does not pass, passes the inverse
Se7en (1995) — does not pass, passes the inverse
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) — does not pass, passes the inverse
The Usual Suspects (1995) — does not pass, passes the inverse
Rear Window (1954) — passes
Psycho (1960) — does not pass either I don’t think
It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) — does not pass
Léon: The Professional (1994) — arguable pass
Sunset Blvd. (1950) — does not pass
Memento (2000) — does not pass, passes the inverse
Apocalypse Now (1979) — does not pass
American History X (1998) — does not pass, passes the inverse
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) — passes
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) — does not pass, passes the reverse
Saving Private Ryan (1998) — does not pass, passes the inverse
North by Northwest (1959) — does not pass
Alien (1979) — passes
City Lights (1931) — passes
Citizen Kane (1941) — does not pass
Spirited Away (2001) — passes
The Shining (1980) — does not pass, passes the inverse
American Beauty (1999) — passes both
Taxi Driver (1976) — does not pass
Toy Story 3 (2010) — passes
Vertigo (1958) — does not pass
Modern Times (1936) — does not pass
A key — “does not pass” on its own means I haven’t seen it to comment on whether it passes the inverse, but excepting Psycho, I’m assuming they have a cast of more than two and thus have to pass the inverse; “passes” means it passes per the database, but I haven’t seen it and thus can’t comment on whether it passes the inverse, but that’s Steele’s task to solve. Note that Star Wars and LoTR both run 9+ hours and fail.
Seriously? Dude, I would love to read your fiction. After all, we live in a misandrous society
It’s vile twice, that’s how vile it is. It’s supercalifragilisticexpialidociousvile, is what it is. Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious.
Fail link! imdb
In fact, if you’re young (which I suspect most Boobzers are), childless (likewise), and urban (likewise), it is women who- by Boobzland’s logic- should be paying for their dates.
you were so eager to throw in the only mean word you know that you included it twice. it’s fucking hilarious.
>Publically viewable forum
>Behind closed doors.
And however much you fantasize about the wage gap being over because a poor study that even then only found a gap against dudes in a tiny fragment of the populace
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/02/24/more-illustrations-of-incomewealth-distribution/
http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-updated-april-2011
http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-2010-updated-march-2011
Note their source for the statistics is the Meriken Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even the fucking CONSAD report found a 16ish% wage gap after going out of their way to erase it (My favorite was erasing benefits from pay, but they also collased full and part time workers)
Only a few industries ever have a hiring gap in favor of women. Even in those, you see promotion gaps that favor men, which is an effect referred to as ‘the glass escalator’.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3096961
The circular logic was too obvious, I got distracted by proving him wrong 🙂
Steele, can you offer up some evidence that the wage gap is mythical anywhere except for your imaginary misandrist apocalyptic wonderland?
“As is typical, the M-feminists focus, in rapid succession, upon a minor typo.
It’s pathetic.”
I minor typo is “liek” instead of “like”. What you did was a syntax error. Also, it’s funny because you use that word every third post or so. Also, there was no other content in your post worth looking at.
Therefore, and in point of actual fact, Boobzland should be paying for their dates- cornered by their own vile, misandric logic.
I smell an AMBZ post coming up!
I’m still dying over the fact that a “thread full of M-feminists” consisted of 8 posts
Steele, can you offer up some evidence that the wage gap is mythical anywhere except for your imaginary misandrist apocalyptic wonderland?
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/10/24/for_young_urban_professionals_at_least_a_pay_gap_in_reverse/
In addition, for other demographics, most of the Gap can be explained by choice. There may be some insignificant discrimination amongst older individuals in higher-up positions.
Steele makes a good point. Who died protecting whom is the cinema shooting and why – this is unimportant. What is important,is who paid for the tickets?
Full of M-feminists? That’s what you call two people that sorta say that because women end up paying more for much other stuff and because women tend to have lower wages, they can sorta understand the men chipping more? And completely disregard this caveat:
oh god mikey dont ever stop
yessssssss!