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.
Oh and from the previous page… *raises hand* also a woman who paid for her own dinners, and a large part of the daily expenses, with my ex. He was a student then and I was better off, so it was the natural arrangement. In my current relationship my partner usually pays for dinners out, and I buy and cook most of the daily dinners because it’s the arrangement that fits our current situation. Although it’s not a rule, sometimes we go dutch (no pun intended; the dutch don’t actually “go dutch” by principle but for practical reasons) or I pay, depending on who has more cash in their wallet at the time.
It doesn’t have to be difficult. Pragmatism works quite well.
Blitzgal: it’s interesting, secretaries were men. Women were in the steno-pool.
As to lawywers, I don’t know. The thing that will tell is who gets the judgeships. That’s harder too, because a lot of places elect judges. I’m also curious about “family law” judges. Are women being put there because it’s, “more feelings”, and shit.
I do know that, 15 years ago, the number of lawyers was all out of proportion to the available work for them I don’t know what effect that is going to have on the profession, and what that means in terms of how women who are admitted before the bar are treated.
Esp. because a lot of people discover, after the fact, that practicing law isn’t for them. My former housemate is a legal secretary because she discovered being a lawyer wasn’t for her (this was after she spent a decade in the ministry, She’s an interesting person).
eline: There was a big discussion of “going dutch” on Worldwide Words in the past few weeks. The impression the Dutch who took part was that there were cultural principles; and that it goes back quote some time: http://www.worldwidewords.org/nl/phau.htm
This also seems to be what a friend of mine who has moved to Amsterdam said. There is a strong tendency to see that no one is paying someone else’s share of things.
crap… the impression from those who took part and knew Dutch. The next issue has some more on the use of “Dutch” as an adjective in English.
There are also some men that demand they pay the check at a restaurant, because they think it is emasculating to have the woman pay the bill. Some will go so far as to have the woman put money in his billfold before the check comes, so that they can actually go dutch but still make it look like he’s paying it all. How does steeltroll feel about those men, or is that also women’s fault?
On the gender coded work issue, the austerity mesures taking place in the UK at the moment throw up some interesting points. Public sector jobs are coded feminine, and as right-wingers treat the public sector like the Jabberwocky, jobs have been slashed. Interestingly though, in a lot of areas, even though women make up around 65-75% of council staff, about 90% of the redundancies are women. So as times get tough and councils are having to cut down to bare-bones staff, they’re only trusting men to do it.
There’s also a horribly disingenuous Tory MP named Louise Mensch, who appears to have appointed herself as the official cheerleader of the government. She wrote something a few months ago about how the Tories are totes concerned about women’s rights (despite cutting funding for mothers, rape crisis centres, stopping legal aid for victims of domestic violence, making people pay to use the Child Support Agency, shutting Sure Start children’s centres, making women redundant, demonising single mothers, attempting to restrict access to abortion, trying to implement ‘abstinence only’ sex ed – just for girls etc. etc… /rant)…anyway, as evidence for this support of women’s rights, she said “women make up 80% of the lowest-paid council staff, who’ve all been assured that they will receive a pay freeze”. Which was just… gah. ‘You might all be on minimum wage, but rest assured we’ll keep you there* so you can enjoy your wage devaluation, unless we fire you!’.
(*Derail: the government have also been launching a wholesale attack on the national minimum wage, forcing jobseekers to complete 8 week placements stacking shelves in supermarkets etc. for no pay, encouraging unpaid internships and classifying certain jobs including working at Subway as ‘apprenticeships’, which means that the company only has to pay the worker £2.60 p/h instead of £6.80. Oh and a few MPs tried to force a bill to just plain scrap NMW a few months ago.)
why Subway?
i mean, dont get me wrong, subway is gross and all, but that just seems… arbitrary…
It was the first fast-food service chain using what it claims are ‘apprentices’ I could think of that would translate across the Atlantic, there’s plenty more.
@pecunium
“There is a strong tendency to see that no one is paying someone else’s share of things.”
Do you feel that to be true? Are feelings reality?
———
@thebionicmommy
“Some will go so far as to have the woman put money in his billfold before the check comes, so that they can actually go dutch but still make it look like he’s paying it all.”
I know tens of thousands of people and have never heard of this happening. The internet storyland of opinions is ficticious.
——–
@TheNatFantastic
“Public sector jobs are coded feminine, and as right-wingers treat the public sector like the Jabberwocky, jobs have been slashed. Interestingly though, in a lot of areas, even though women make up around 65-75% of council staff, about 90% of the redundancies are women.”
Imagine a world without public sector jobs, without government. What would you do?
Yeah, I have a feeling that like the medical industry, there will be certain areas that are female dominated and then devalued. Politicians and judges will continue to be male (unless it’s family law, as you note). The sections of law that are coded female will be lesser paid and viewed as less valuable or important.
@thebionicmommy re your last post
Yes, thank you for pointing that out. I can’t tell you how many times this has happened to me. I usually protest if someone wants to pay for me, but then they insist, and I usually back down, but maybe I shouldn’t?
Ia ia ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn
It’s a no win situation. If a man insists that he pay the bill, and you let it, it’s mooching. If you argue and pay anyway, then you emasculated him. If you pay half, then you are too independent. The only correct answer is to wash dishes to work off the bill, thus protecting the man’s billfold and his ego.
Seriously, though, I don’t think there is a right answer. Perhaps steeledude can enlighten us.
“Ia ia ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn”?
Vg jbhyq nccrne Pguhyuh’f tebhcvrf qbrf abg fcrnx ebg13.
I think Steeldude has been gone since last night.
after doing a lot of shit to erase it.
(in other words, accounting for some obvious variables and methodological flaws, which really gets Rutee’s knickers in a twist, apparently)
That’s exactly the problem. You have stripped away the variables that make for the wage gap.
So you admit that there are “other variables” aside from discrimination, which isn’t really a factor except for in some very specified fields, and maybe at the highest echelons. Most of the wage gap is accounted for by choice- which, indeed, is affected by cultural pressures, and maybe you can talk about that. But it has nothing to do with this mythical “discriminatory wage gap” that you continue to push. It does not exist.
I stand corrected.
Yeah, he’s gone now, but he will be back. No doubt about it.
I wonder how nitpicky steeledude gets on his pay 50/50 at all times rule. If he cooks a meal for his girlfriend, would he hand her the grocery receipt for reimbursement? If they buy some donuts at Wal-Mart, does he demand she pay him 75 cents plus tax at the checkout? If she’s broke and they’re at a restaurant, does he eat a meal while she orders water? Enquiring minds want to know.
LOL, well speak of the devil!
Steele. That would be like me saying that the lower life expectancy doesn’t exist because men make choices and sure there’s some societal pressure.
oh cool, mikey is back and this time he’s pretending to understand science
go back to work, mikey
I wonder how nitpicky steeledude gets on his pay 50/50 at all times rule. If he cooks a meal for his girlfriend, would he hand her the grocery receipt for reimbursement? If they buy some donuts at Wal-Mart, does he demand she pay him 75 cents plus tax at the checkout? If she’s broke and they’re at a restaurant, does he eat a meal while she orders water? Enquiring minds want to know.
Of course not- this isn’t about being nitpicky and ridiculous. It’s about men, by default, being expected to subsidize women’s food intake. Despite all of Boobzland’s ridiculous M-feminist posturing, some Boobzers have recently revealed that they expect men (those evil white men!) to continue to subsidize them, ironically, for energy to spend being misandrist.
As usual, M-feminists want equality, except for when it suits women.
says the dude who spent all of yesterday evening getting all worked up because a batman villain was just too villainous
go back to work, mikey
@Polliwog:
I don’t have a “scale of human value”. Believe me, I didn’t want to devaluate this woman, or any disabled person, for that matter, still — I think I can fairly say, she’s very unattractive by any standard.
All I wanted was to give you a vivid example of the desperation a T-fueled brain experiences after a few years of celibacy: a guy who always boasted to prefer the glamour model type, now has to settle for that.
I don’t expect that you understand this in the sense of empathize, that’s impossible for women born women, but try to grasp it analytically, on an objective descriptive level (remember, science can explain all kinds of strange behavior we find in the biosphere).
@KathleenB:
[citation needed]