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.
This is Owly.
He’s what I like to call an anti. He doesn’t seem to have anything he’s for, really, just things that he opposes. If you ask him to tell you about his philosophy, he’ll list off a bunch of things that he hates, but not have any positive suggestions at all.
It’s a fundamentally negative, very sad way to be. I’d feel sorry for him if he didn’t seem like a potential danger to the people around him.
Shorter Owly: I never have and never will have a problem with both looking and being completely ignorant.
Who walks into a conversation, states up-front that they don’t know what’s going on, have no intention of finding out, then proceeds to talk out their ass about what they want to believe is going on as though it’s relevant?
Answer: NWOslave, of course.
I clicked on the link to the Pigman cartoons…I think that was the worst thing I’ve ever seen. Definitely in the top ten.
“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.”
and perhaps,
“…because of just one plain simple rule: ‘Love thy neighbor.'”
You’re right: keep saying this. Say it again and again – say it even when all the haters and the blamers just want to scrap and say that it’s not true. Love thy neighbor.
Love they neighbor indeed… especially if you happen to be a man, since it’s your job and it’s expected of you. Be a self-sacrificing hero, as all good and decent men should.
But not women. Never women. It’s unfair and sexist to ask it of them, let alone expect it. Only men can be heroes. No, there’s no sex-role assumptions going on here, nosiree.
‘Don’t give in to hate… that leads to the Dark Side.’
Copyleft,
Don’t be bitter. You have nothing -nothing- to prove, to justify, to explain, or to excuse to David Futrelle, Amanda Marcotte, to me, or to anybody else.
Commentators (of all stripes, be it the left or right, or anywhere on the social or political spectrum) talk in generalities to the masses – but they are read by individuals – you and I – and in their zeal it’s very easy for them to forget or to gloss over the fact that THEIR well thought out interpretations and experiences aren’t always going to resonate with everyone, because, surprise surprise- they are NOT universal and omnipotent. David Futrelle, I suspect, is like just about everyone else and tends to give more credence and credibility to everything and everyone that coincides with HIS current worldview: ‘confirmation bias’ I think it’s called. It’s more common than the common cold, and no one seems to be fully immune – certainly not the folks in this world who spend significant time talking and thinking about everything in terms of gender, only gender… in my opinion)
I think David Futrelle has some very significant (Heck, sometimes gaping) blind spots when it comes to anti-male bigotry: For reasons that seem good to him, for reasons that resonate with his logic and experience, he considers anti-female bigotry a more worthy target of moral and intellectual scorn; but, from my PERSPECTIVE, (and I would guess from yours and others as well) it does indeed seem that he is willing (and sometimes, even maliciously eager) to mitigate, to excuse or to outright deny any instances of anti-male bigotry, for the supposed sake of less anti-female bigotry. Ironically, trying to justify, explain away, or belittle something that looks hypocritical often backfires, because it draws the eye to the apparent contradictions, rather than satisfying questions of logic or conscience. If one has no faith in the intentions and the compassion of the messenger, they will not be effective in soothing sincere questions coming from the heart and mind. Indeed, some people approach questions as an invitation to mock and belittle, rather than as an opportunity genuinely persuade (or to be persuaded).
As I see it, one cannot end end anti-female bigotry without, first committing to end bigotry (including anti-male bigotry). Futrelle et al might see it as a small thing, a ‘firefly compared to the sun’ – but symbolically, it’s not. [ I say anti-male bigotry; individual beliefs and prejudices, both among the powerful and powerless on society -I personally don’t see gender as the sole matrix for power in society. I would not dare to use the word ‘misandry’ lest I open myself up to the argument that ‘misandry’ cannot exist under our current societal power make-up; but I’ll save that structural debate for another day…]. Anyway, it seems paradoxical to take a moral stance against bigotry, stereotypes, and prejudice of one type, while exercising (or condoning) a bigotry of another type. In advocacy of any cause or belief, nothing erodes one’s credibility faster than the appearance of being a hypocrite: In my experience, a zealot may not always be a hypocrite, but a hypocrite is always a zealot. I’ve never met a humble hypocrite. And to speak with moral authority on issues of morality (and I think bigotry and prejudice are issues of morality, as well as legality) one must have moral authority and credibility. Hypocrisy and bias, or the perception of hypocrisy and bias, undermine all of that.
So, when David Futrelle (or any commentator, for that matter) speaks from a position or attitude of high moral authority, (or righteous indignation) then they should rightly be met with skepticism and challenge if their subjective experiences, perceptions, and conclusions don’t resonate with (or flat out contradict) our own subjective perceptions, experiences and conclusions. And it does not do either side any good to confuse or conflate individual subjectivity with universal, unquestionable objectivity.
Most commentators love sweeping generalizations, and, given the nature most political and social topics it’s hard to avoid them (see). We are less apt to notice, and less likely to complain when the generalizations are limited and positive. For example, asserting ‘Americans are generous to a fault’ – alright, maybe that hasn’t been my own EXACT experience, but seems to be generally true- and what harm could it do to err on the side of the positive. But when the generalizations are negative, they become more divisive and ineffective; people could and do scrutinize them more. That’s the difference between generalizations like: ‘All women are great’ and ‘Men are violent’ – when a generalization has an inherently negative connotation and it does NOT resonate (or even contradicts) all our own experience, then, of course, a person should challenge them.
Challenging is not defending ‘institutional privilege’ – that’s the privilege of defending the validity of one’s own experiences and following the dictates of one’s own conscience; and no one is above that, and no one is beneath it.
Mind you, just because a generalization DOES resonate with our own experiences, doesn’t make it true (even if David Futrelle, Amanda Marcotte or Walter Cronkite himself simply SAYS it is) – for example: The generalization that ‘all French people are snooty’ – one that I used to believe – has been proven to be patently false, based on a recent statistical study (conducted over several cases of cases of fine Champagne).
In any case, David Futrelle, Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti, Hugo, Glen, Rush, Wolf, Skip, Flip, Lip, Bob, or anybody else for that matter, is not God, simply because they have a fancy blog and a readership following. They have no power to render universal almighty judgment from on high, on all of us below and everything in this world. And no they are in no position, none, to dispute YOUR experiences as invalid. (Walter Cronkite may have been a god – he did have god-like authority in his day; but the fact that he’s been dead now for a number of years seriously takes away from any claim to deity. And Fred Rogers was simply a saint – really; read some of the stuff he wrote for parents- I swear that guy was saint disguising himself in a plain zip-up sweater and sneakers…)
Anyway, it’s better to disagree (fervently sometimes) with people than to disengage from them- all human progress has been founded on some form of dialogue, compromise and accommodation (best of all, when all the chips are counted, the zealots and bigots don’t end up doing too well in an environment like that). A better world sometimes means accepting that some views and beliefs are simply irreconcilable; just as some peoples’ life experiences are irreconcilable – but it’s not always a zero sum game. Zealotry and bigotry should never be the end goal; I have passionately disagreed with people who, nonetheless, were never disagreeable, and respected them all the more for it (though they seldom changed my views, they reinforced the value of respecting other peoples’ perspectives and helped me to become a better person in many different ways)
It’s easier to put faith in someone else’s (divergent) experiences if we have faith in their motives and their impartiality. As somebody once replied when told ‘We understand your experience, we just don’t care!’ -so he said: ‘If you don’t care about my experience, why should I care about yours? In any case, I do.’
To have to faith in others, first keep faith in yourself; and act with confidence, generosity and compassion (even if you don’t expect it to be reciprocated, always be patient – if you are and you still get burned, that’s no slight on you – it is a sign of strength, not weakness)
The only expectations you need to live up to are you own; make them good. Follow your conscience and hope for the best – do what’s right because it’s right- not so that thoughtless or wicked strangers will hate you less (because those people will always find another reason to hate). And I’ve never heard anyone say ‘I regret that I did the right thing.’ There are a lot of broken people in this world who gravitate to ideologies because of genuine caring and good will, yes, but also a lot who do so because they offer targets for blame and righteous indignation. Even when the intentions are good, or the logic is sound, zeal can obscure and drown everything else. Expect the worse, and keep hoping for the best; even where Futrelle is concerned…
So, that’s my opinion of a perceived bias for somebody else – I’m sure others would take pleasure in pointing out what they perceive as mine.
Haters are still gonna hate. But you don’t have to hate them to transcend them.
Hope that helps.
tl;dr
See, this is why you check for ninjas before you post, I was going to say the exact same thing. 😛
Skimmed lightly. This jumped out at me.
Misandry still ain’t a thing. But nice try hiding it in a huge block of text and renaming it.
Saying that men are kind decent heroes who courageously stood up to a madman and saved their loved ones is VIRULENT anti-male bigotry and confirmation bias.
If you needed a fucking study to know that 60 million people do not all have the same negative personality traits based on their country of birth, I don’t know what to tell you, champ.
Also, standard essay format is:
1. Introductory paragraph with clear thesis.
2. Arguments in clear support of thesis.
3. Summary of evidence and re-articulation of thesis
Not:
1. Obscure meaningless disagreement with a strawman, David Futrelle has never claimed to be omnipotent, though we meet have on Make Up Things About David Futrelle Day.
2. Long unrelated sentences
3. Pretentious unrelated life affirmations to convince your readers that you are above it all.
Hey Ugh, howardbann1ster,
I think you’re wrong.
But I think your sarcasm is biting and incisive. Unnecessary, and not conducive to making me more receptive to your opinions and arguments – but biting nonetheless: I hate it when people say ‘nice try’ when they really just mean ‘You’re not just wrong- you’re REAL wrong.’
I’ll be the first to admit: Brevity is not one of my strong suits.
Nevertheless, I appreciate your gentle good humor and taking the time to provide the constructive criticism; but I still think you’re wrong. ( btw – the French thing was a facetious remark. I thought the Champagne reference was a giveaway – my point was stereotypes are bad; not new, but it’s certainly worth repeating. Never more in the wake of a tragedy do we need to affirm life – I’m not above it all, and I’m not beneath it all either, and neither are you, and neither is Futrelle- we’re all in it) I never accused Futrelle of claiming to be omnipotent- he just just comes across like he is sometimes; it’s not always appealing or becoming – but that’s an admittedly subjective observation.
“Saying that men are kind decent heroes who courageously stood up to a madman and saved their loved ones is VIRULENT anti-male bigotry and confirmation bias.”
I’m not even sure where you’re going with that – except that it confirms a bias that I believe people are fundamentally good, and given a chance they often prove it; even if it can mean giving up their lives for a loved one -how is that virulent anti-ANYTHING bigotry? Are you suggesting they all did what they did because they were acting out your conceptions of supposed gender roles and rigid stereotypes? Real people are not like that.
Your outrage has eluded me. Love thy neighbor. That’s it.
PS – What does ‘straw man’ even mean anymore? The accusation gets tossed around so much without follow-up or explanation that it’s lost all meaning- just say “I think your argument is invalid, but I don’t respect you enough to even bother explain why, let alone consider your perspective. I could explain my perspective patiently, without expectation or condescension, because my position is more compelling- but I won’t.”
I hate that too.
No one cares about your receptivity. Who are you again?
David’s entire argument is that people who are trying to drag these men’s name through the mud as a political talking point are hilariously full of shit, because the men were brave and kind heroes.
Then you came on here to whine about how David, by saying these men are great and their detractors are full of it, was perpetuating anti-male bias by cruelly claiming that these men were great.
Then I made fun of you for it.
I think that brings us up to speed.
Obviously you didn’t come here to listen. This is pretty apparent given this:
I know you feel super sneaky, but it’s pretty clear that you’re here to argue “HOW TERRIBLE THAT DAVID ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN WHAT HE IS SAYING WHY DOESN’T HE JUST ADMIT EVERY NOW AND THEN THAT WOMEN HAVE TOO MANY RIGHTS.”
It means you’re arguing against a construction of someone that exists only in your head. You’re trying to convince Copyleft that Futrelle is not omnipotent, which really only his cats believe, or
Which noone here has done. Literally noone here, other than MRAs, has argued that gender roles do not harm men or shouldn’t be changed. What we have argued is that the Aurora heroes acted out of love and bravery and were awesome. Which you see the need to write two essays in disagreement.
That is pretty much a perfect example of a strawman. The reason you keep hearing about it “these days” is because you keep doing it.
You’re trying to convince Copyleft that Futrelle is not omnipotent, which really only his cats believe, or – Ugh
Noooo! That would be dogs.. cats think they’re the omnipotent ones. 😛
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/funny-pictures-cats-and-dogs-think-differently.jpg
I just googled “straw man” and found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME7K6P7hlko
WTF. These people are making videos now?
I dunno why that didn’t embed, but it’s a short animated movie called “Meet Your Strawman!” that could have been made by Peter:(Andrew)–Nolan, or whatever he’s calling himself these days, but narrated by a young woman.
Uh Ugh,
Just to clarify, my longer post/rant/’essay’ was in reply to Copyleft’s comment.
I had agreed with Futrelle in this article and in particular, the instance where I quoted his comment: I had said in my original (short) post exactly this:
” ‘These 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.’
and perhaps,
“…because of just one plain simple rule: ‘Love thy neighbor.’”
[David Futrelle] You’re right: keep saying this. Say it again and again – say it even when all the haters and the blamers just want to scrap and say that it’s not true. Love thy neighbor.”
Copyleft replied:
“Love they neighbor indeed… especially if you happen to be a man, since it’s your job and it’s expected of you. Be a self-sacrificing hero, as all good and decent men should.
But not women. Never women. It’s unfair and sexist to ask it of them, let alone expect it. Only men can be heroes. No, there’s no sex-role assumptions going on here, nosiree.”
I thought Copyleft had a rather cynical outlook; I was not saying ‘love thy neighbor’ to be ironic or cynical – I was saying it because I believe that. There are many times and many instances in the past where I disagree with Futrelle, or his tone. But THIS let me reiterate, (“they did because they thought they were worthless or disposable. They did what they did because they wanted to protect those they loved.”) THIS was NOT one of the things I disagree with.
I thought Copyleft missed the mark. The point of the post to Copyleft was that no one HAS to agree (or for that matter, disagree) with everything Futrelle says, the way he says it, to be a good person. And those people who were killed didn’t have anything to prove or to justify to anyone either. Neither did Copyleft. If someone thinks they do; well, they’re wrong- not evil, just wrong. But by the same token, nobody has to justify their views to Futrelle or to anyone else, whether Futrelle is right or not.
That is what I feel is obscured by Futrelle’s writing sometimes: and I thought I noted that that was a subjective observation. Yeah, I believe that sometimes people hate men just because they’re men. Frankly, just because I MIGHT deign to disagree with Futrelle about the exclusivity of bias (which I qualified as “individual beliefs and prejudices”) doesn’t mean I expect him to change his views or his style; and it certainly does not mean that I somehow want less rights for women. Does every other feminist agree with absolutely everything every other feminist says EXACTLY, every time? If you can’t even tolerate that, how can you possible tolerate socio-political perspectives that are not NOT rooted in gender? The question is rhetorical, and of course, no one has to accommodate anyone else.
When I said I thought somebody was wrong, I never called Futrelle or anyone “whiners” or “liars” or said that anyone was “full of shit.” I don’t like sarcasm and I don’t like condescension; I am totally convinced that Futrelle wants to mock misogyny; and why not- there’s nothing good about misogyny. But MRA extremists (like any extremists) are low hanging fruit. Futrelle wants to mock misogyny; great that’s his thing and he wants to do it, and he’s real good at it. I would rather he wanted to transcend misogyny. But that’s the problem- there’s no posture to be struck there, no pose, no knee-jerk cynicism or condescension, no pithy comeback. Just a lot of back-and-forth talk with people who don’t agree, yet won’t be vilified, and won’t vilify others. I don’t agree that mocking and taunting your way there is the best way to the top of the mountain. That is not what inspires people. I don’t like it being taunted or mocked, and I can’t imagine anyone else does (whether they’re “right” or “wrong”, whether they “deserve it” or not). I don’t think Futrelle is wrong for taking extremists to task. But I don’t think he cares about being impartial either- that’s a subjective perception. Whether a person biased for what I believe in, or biased against what I believe in, they’re still biased: it’s hard to overlook. Tell me I’m wrong; convince me- I’ll believe you.
I have articulated it incredibly poorly (as you have repeatedly told me) so far, but what the hey.
Kirby, you can engage all you want as far I’m concerned. It’s actually kind of fascinating what an insipid blatherskite our new troll friend is.
Crap wrong thread!
You are really on the wrong blog. I am going to continue being sarcastic to you. You can leave if you want.
Lol “extremists.” AVfM and Reddit are considered to be the “moderate” MRA spaces, and they make up half the posts here.
The problem with MRAs isn’t a few misogynist extremists. The problem is that misogyny is the only consistent feature of the “movement.”
“Futrelle is correct that these are horrible people! He is also biased in thinking they’re horrible.” You have an actual opinion buried somewhere here. Care to take me to it?
Is this it? You wanted to make sure that Copyleft knew that personal experiences inform writing? Is this the truth bomb it took you 2000 words to explain? I’m pretty sure that, being an adult, we all know that different people have different opinions.