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.
I’m reading Lynn Peril’s Swimming in the Steno Pool, which has some good background on the history of secretarial work. In the 19th century, white-collar offices were all-male and secretaries and clerks were men; the jobs didn’t pay well but were seen as a step up the ladder to an eventual executive position.
Starting in the post-Civil War economic depression, government offices, then businesses, started hiring women as secretaries because you could pay them half as much and never promote them. The increase in female secretaries coincided with the invention of the typewriter, and women soon dominated typing jobs (which, in the early days, were often done from home, in the same way women used to “take in” sewing and laundry). Because typing was women’s work from the start, it was always seen as feminine and menial; women were said to be good typists because of their small fingers, not because they had valuable technical skills or anything. By the 1930s, secretarial jobs were almost entirely female.
Throughout my life I’ve basically devoted my worldview to making decisions and adopting viewpoints based on what lines up best with reality, and what offers up the least spite towards my fellow human beings. Even when I was with the MRM I honestly didn’t hate women, I just bought into the whole “feminism has led to the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction” thing. I left after some serious introspection and analysis of my beliefs, I felt that the MRM, while attempting to raise some important points about mens issues, was going about things entirely the wrong way. Then I actually did some research about what feminism is really about, and found that it lined up far better with my underlying beliefs than “masculism” did. I’m not claiming to be perfect yet, but then again who is, but I do think I’ve learned quite a bit since high school.
Sorry if this is rude but were you really part of the mrm? I recall in another thread you just say you blamed other people for your problems not even specifically women. Being a misogynist/blaming women and people for your problems is not really what a mra is (those attitude definitely crossover into the mrm though). I would consider someone a mra only if they read or contributed to those comms online and believed what they wrote.
Sorry if I am wrong here but I think you are being over harsh on yourself, blaming other people for your issues is pretty common especially when you are younger. XD
Ahh okay nvm I just read your comment above.
High school was a confusing time for me to say the least, I was bullied a lot, I felt pressured to have a girlfriend, and when I didn’t I fell down the “Nice Guy” hole and started to blame women for it. In my bitterness I came across the MRM, and while I don’t recall being a particularily active member, I was very passionate about what it stood for. I also remember that I mostly saw it not as a counterpoint to feminism, but as an alternative based around focusing on mens issues. When I actually got around to researching feminism, I found that it had a much more focused and organized way of not only solving most of the trivial issues that men face, but attempting to work things out so that everyone can be happy.
Well good thing you got out of it at least. @_@
I know mras are not very supportive of their members unfortunately.
@howardbann1ster:
Oh, genderist rage… Really, I don’t see it. When I suggest, that they might not be saved because of “love”, that may be not nice, but there’s not a hint of hatred towards women in that.
@pillowinhell:
That wasn’t an argument, that was an example. I tell you that I’m absolutely not able to empathize with someone who is so desperately “driven” he has to **** that poor disabled woman instead of leaving her alone. I would conceive it as misogynist, if someone suggested I was able to.
@Nikan
Does this woman want to be left alone? If yes, you’re an even bigger piece of shit than I thought for not fucking calling the cops.
Like seriously, if you know a serial rapist, for fuck’s sake dial 911 right now!
Oh, you are funny! Do you have to practice for punchlines like that?
There are ten kinds of fucked up in that statement. If she’s just a warm hole, yeah, that’s fucked up and misogynistic. If you or your brother only value women for sex or sexy traits, that’s also misogynistic.
Your enytire perspective is seriously fucked. You do realize that your hand or a good sex toy can allieviate that “testosterone poisoning” right? That women aren’t a cure all for men with a screwed up view of sex?
Sorry, I think you’re suppar and trying to hard. Were you an MRA in your “last life”?
Anyway, so where did I say anything misogynist? The question still stands.
@Nikan
IS YOUR BROTHER RAPING A DISABLED WOMAN?
IF SO WHY ARE YOU POSTING RATHER THAN CALLING THE POLICE RIGHT NOW.
I’m waiting for Sharculese…
@Nikan
IS YOUR BROTHER RAPING A DISABLED WOMAN?
IF SO WHY ARE YOU POSTING RATHER THAN CALLING THE POLICE RIGHT NOW.
I’m going to keep posting until I get an answer on this.
@pillowinhell:
And what’s your evidence for that?
@Ugh:
No, what they do is consensual.
Oh thank fucking God.
my internet was down, what do you need, creepo
Of course, you’re still a total asshole for comparing your brother’s consensual, non-abusive relationship with being shot dead.
But I’m glad you’re not an accessory to rape.
Nikan, you’re the one saying your bro is suffering from too much testosterone due to lack of sex.
Toys or palms give pleasure too. Enough to give relief.
Ugh, that’s a pretty low fucking bar. I’m just hoping his brother isn’t an asshat and its projection on Nikans part.
Anyone else find themselves hoping that Nikans bro straightens him out (assuming that bro is a decent man)?
@pillowinhell:
Waiting for the evidence…
is robot boy asking us to explain jerking off to him?
i guess i just cant understand what its like to j/o a great white shark… or whatever