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.
Hey dudes! I finally caught up on the comments here and wow . . .
Steele sure is one weird dude. Glad that I caught up in time to see him return.
Hiya Steele. We’re still waiting for you to give us a list of ten movies that came out within the past three years that fail the reverse Bechdel test.
To everyone else: with regards to law becoming a woman-dominated field, I don’t think that’s happening any time soon. I’ve noticed that while there are plenty of women law students and associates, there aren’t very many female partners. Men are more likely to get promoted and there’s a lot of sexism at the top. The old generation dying off won’t be enough, the whole culture needs to change.
dumb made-up sciencey sounding gibberish is not one of those things, sadly
Um, no, actually. You should probably read the study. It collapses full time and part time workers (Which last I checked, ignorant dudes like you insisted has to be controlled for; it does, but you idiots think it generally isn’t), and strips benefits from pay. That actually creates confounds. Full time and part time workers are typically given differing compensation to begin with, both in rates and in benefits. Benefits are also meaningful forms of compensation, although less so in the USA.
I mean yeah, the fact that women are typically on fewer hours doesn’t speak well of society’s expectations on us in terms of child rearing, but even with full time we get the short end of the stick.
Of course, a fool like you thinks only comparing recent college grads is valid. What other humans exist and are worthy of your time? XD
Also, re: discrimination, I keep linking you these and you keep not responding.
you almost might say his obsession is… creepy
Dude: 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.
So you can bear to reply.
The variables are the things you are calling choice.
The same way that men choose to be miners, and truck drivers and soldiers.
Oh wait.. you think that’s because of cultural misandry. Not choice. But those women, they totes want a job that pays less, so they can’t afford to support their families.
It is nice, however, to see you finally admit there is a gap. The next step is for you to admit it’s the result of misogynistic aspects of the culture.
p.s. How does your boss feel about all the time you are spending away from work? What about the effect your steady-state posting has on your entrepreneurial ventures and you classes and your dating life?
Nikan, how is it that women can’t sympathize?
Women do spend significant time periods living celibate in spite of the fact that they really want to get laid…
@rutee
QED.
Also, you still know you’re a piece of shit, right?
“you almost might say his obsession is… creepy”
You vile Male-feminist!
Nikan: are you serious????
Yeah, you pretty much let that one out of the coop with your first post. Scramble all you like. And you say women can’t empathize with… being attracted to human beings whom they’re attracted to? Having a “T-fueled brain”? (science!!!)
…um, no, you can’t. Any standard? What about those self-proclaimed fat-chasers? Do you think fat is unattractive to men who find it attractive? ENGLISH, DO YOU SPEAK IT??
…can it explain your behavior?
also, dude just never responds to counter-examples he doesnt like. i’d make a jab about him being ‘intellectually dishonest’ but in all honesty dumb, lazy, and spoiled is the more parsimonious explanation
What if a man buys supper for a male manboobzer? Does the fact that it’s a man being treated cancel out the misandry of the other man paying for food? My husband earns the money to buy our family’s food, but I do all the meal planning, grocery shopping, cooking, and clean up. We’re both happy with the arrangement, so why does it bother you?
Also, what if a man insists upon paying the bill, because he thinks it’s emasculating for the woman to pay? Should she sneak some money in his billfold to pay her way while protecting his ego?
The nerve of some women, wanting food! How about the fact that it’s usually the woman who does all the gardening and canning? Does her work to provide food count for nothing because it doesn’t come with a paycheck?
So, Ugh, tell me, then I must also be a misanthropist when I say that a human can’t empathize with a great white shark?
@bionicmommy
you post here but youre also married with kids, so by mikey’s warped rubric you dont exist and he doesnt have to account for you
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.
While perhaps women are generally inclined to live a few years more than men; of course, most of the life expectancy gap is due to choice. Men take more risks. Men smoke and drink more. Men are generally under more pressure, more stress; they work more.
All this is worth talking about; however, I wouldn’t call it misandry (there are plenty of other examples of actual misandry; read, Bane’s disposability).
NIKAN YES MEN ARE TO WOMEN WHAT SHARKS ARE TO MEN THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!
Holy fuck there is a lot of cannibalism in your worldview.
@howardbann1ster:
[citation needed]
i would like to know what it’s like inside your weird, robot head
And… there’s no substantive difference between those two examples?
Like, women are human beings? Y’know?
You imply stuff like that, and then say citation needed on your misogyny? No.
@Steele
50 comments on Batman, none on the comparison of men to mindless sex-seeking cannibalism. Pretty much sums up your “activism,” doesn’t it?
Nikan: If you didn’t want to, why did you do it?
whataboutthemoonz: You do realize that you just said that a woman has inherently less value as a human being because of her disability, right?
Nikan: 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.
That’s you saying disabled people are worth less than able-bodied people. Is it an absolute thing… disabled people are all “worth less than chimps”, or is it a slidig scale, where a missing hand isn’t as much of a devaluation as a missing penis?
And that whole nonsense about how hard it is for a man to not get laid… men aren’t different from women in this regard. Women don’t like being abstinent either, if it’s because the people they want to have sex with aren’t interested.
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
I’m a guy. So… since I can’t agree with you (because really… it’s wrong), I don’t see (aside from the dismissive othering of the misogyny you are using in the course of your insulting men; as you mock the disabled STEELE THIS IS THE SORT OF ALLIES YOU HAVE!) any reason the women here are wrong when they say you are wrong.
Honestly, that they can’t empathise with your lies, is to the good.
That’s rather the point, really.
Nikan, sharks have nothing to do with this. Human beings, male and female are the SAME SPECIES!
Not being able to sympathize with a being that is far enough separated as to not be a mammal is a ridiculous argument to make.
Also, humans are able to sypathize with an astonishingly wide array of living creatures. Should I look down on you because you don’t understand what it is to be an ameoba?
Although I would call you a misanthropist as you compared your brother having a relationship with a disabled woman to BEING FATALLY SHOT.
I really can’t ask it enough, you know that any reasonable observer would say that you’re a complete piece of shit, right?
LOL, fair enough.
Hey steeletroll, if you want women to earn more money and pay their way more, why aren’t you demanding more men to do their fair share on caregiving for small children and elderly parents?