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.
So basically you are saying that women should spend the rest of their lives sitting next to a grave and not use the gift they were given to live their lives to the best of their ability. Especially if it means that they may have new love in their life.
Ah the old “i’m a shitlord so everyone else must be too” technique.
I am a female and I automatically expect to be the one to protect others because that is who I am. Helping others is has guided me for most of my life and I have no reason to change now.
I’m not saying anything, I just said I would do the same thing they are going to be doing, and probably already have done. I’m saying these guys are suckers and they have re-enforced the idea that I am worth less than a woman because I am a man.
Of course they are getting a better deal than the men, they didn’t die. They’d all be getting a good deal if someone hadn’t come in and shot the place up. I personally feel that the major way these men ‘got a raw deal’, as someone upthread says, is that they FUCKING DIED, not that their girlfriends might meet somebody new. Seriously, if you like somebody enough to sacrifice your life for them, I’m guessing you would hope that they would live a long and happy life, not die alone pining after you forever.
“I’m not mad at these girls for going out and getting some new guy to cum on their faces”
Are you sure? You sound exactly like all these other dipshits fixating on the future sex lives of the survivors, like it matters at all.
On the contrary Mike, you’re saying very loudly and repeatedly that you’re a hateful waste of oxygen. So you know, good luck with that.
…you’d have some guy ejaculate on your face? I’m rather surprised you’re into that, but hey, more power to you.
It’s really, really, incredibly creepy how you’re wanking over the imaginary sex you think women you’ve never met and whom you know nothing about besides “their late boyfriends were pretty awesome dudes” might someday have. Also, seriously, why are we talking about sex at ALL? This story has nothing to do with sex. Yes, the girlfriends of the remarkably heroic men who gave their lives will probably have sex again at some point. They will also probably eat sandwiches again – why are you not concocting equally detailed creepy little fanfics about the precise acts of sandwich-eating they might engage in?
are you stupid?
That is saying something dipshit. And the fact that you are fixated on the girlfriends not spending the rest of their life in mourning for a lost love shows that you are angry that these men had such wonderful relationships they were willing to die for the ones they loved. Because you know that you will never have such a wonderful relationship.
And yet they are still worth more than you because they cared enough to try to protect their loved ones.
I’m just not afraid to do the same things women do. Women take advantage of their vagina card all of the time, and if somehow I can learn from that, then I will have to use that to my advantage. It’s war out there and you have to fight fire with fire.
seriously are you stupid?
I am going to venture a guess and say yes to that question Sharculese.
I couldn’t think of a better way to die than to die protecting the people I love. Do you ever stop and think of the survivors’ guilt some of the survivors must be going through? I do. I know, because survivors guilt is something I deal with every day. How do you think someone would feel if they read what you’re writing right here, after they already blame themselves for people they love dying? Try to show some empathy here, Mike.
@Polliwog, yes, you summed it up better than I have been able to. There is just something so disturbing about how quickly these MRAs go from “blah blah disposable men” to “and you know what, those women will ONLY GO AND HAVE SEX in the future!!” I just can’t imagine what drives a person to hear about somebody’s tragic death and then immediately start thinking about their partner’s future sex and just ugh. What.
It’s like, if you were dead, you’d no longer be able to control anybody’s sexuality.
BTW, if I’m creepy for saying I would use this to my advantage to sleep with women, so be it. Whatever a guy has to do to get laid, outside of raping, he should do. Not that it is creepy, you are just trying to shut me up and it’s not going to work
But since it didn’t happen, I guess it won’t help you get laid, whether it’s creepy or not.
this is like super creepy dude.
im a dude and my skin is still kinda crawling.
Yes, I can see how that would be the worst aspect of dying.
So much projection and insecurity.
That is gross.
Oh it’s creepy, that’s for sure. I’m not trying to shut you up, though. You just keep on talking and keep showing how awful MRA’s really are.
My hero.
What a surprise, creep.
Mike sounds familiar. Anyway…
Who cares if these women get “plowed” in the future? You won’t be the one plowing–is that what frosts your flakes?
Also, these guys did nothing to demean YOU, halfwit. This isn’t about you. But since you clearly have a child’s view of the world, you mistakenly believe it is. Grown the fuck up and try to become a human being.
Yes yes yes, it’s creepy. Lying and maniuplating is an integral part of getting laid for guys.
I’m so shocked to find out that misogynist shock jock Tom Leykis is your hero, Mike.
/sarcasm