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.
Here, have the turret opera to alleviate some of the tension here.
@Deranged Counter-Troll:
Well, thank you, maybe they listen to you.
I don’t say it’s more likely possible, I say it’s reasonable likely. What do you know about men? Well, I think you know enough, but you don’t want to see the truth. My own brother now *** a disabled woman, because he apparently couldn’t bear it anymore after years of being single. So what’s a “likely possibility” for me, shifted a bit, based on my own experiences.
@Ugh:
No.
Who says that I get mad? I just see that you really like to speculate, yet you don’t take it well, if someone who disagrees with you does the same thing.
@Diogenes The Cynic
For the story you linked to about Jamie R, I doubt he’ll make it to the end of the year before committing suicide. He played by the rules of feminism. He openly cries, revels in emotionalism. He is a feminists dream come true, practically androgyneous.
The same women who taught him about his evil masculinity now ridicule him for not acting masculine. Just look at the comment section. The blaze is as left as you can get. Like I said, not likely he makes it to the end of the year.
No, it doesn’t. As a gender, you get credit whether you do or don’t. That’s part of the point.
Since this is most often raised in regards to war, it’s actually women’s bodies who end up stacked higher. Surprising nobody who actually knows about history, more civilians die in war than soldiers, and the majority of those civilian deaths are women…
This gambit works a lot better when you’re not actively trying to engage with the stuff you say is ridiculously old hat. As is you just look inept.
You must be a fucking riot at Thanksgiving dinners. Like you know, objectively, that you’re an asshole, right?
Haha speculating on the likely gender or trolls is EXACTLY the same as speculating about whether recent murder victims were just begging for sex. Yeah, that checks out.
@RHW
The feminists in this conversation are saying that men can be caring, loving and altruistic. The MRAish dudes are saying that they may have just died for sex with women they didn’t care about at all. Who do you think holds the high ground here?
Heroism is coded female, if its in terms of highly infectious disease, where people require nursing.
Women routinely put their lives at risk treating the sick and dying in hospitals ALL the time. There are far more nurses in any given hospital than male doctors.
Someone call Cliff to talk about some of the physically dangerous shit nurses encounter on a routine basis…
Women are heros, but our society doesn’t want to talk about how many lives were saved by good nursing when there’s one man wh created a cure. Society doesn’t want to talk about wartime nurses putting their lives at risk when soldIers are being shot at.
Society also doesn’t generally talk about heroism unless people died. I’m sure that many, many people took risks on behalf of others in that theatre, but didn’t die and weren’t wounded. So nothing to look at here right?
@RHW
Also, it’s pretty hilarious that someone who feels the driving need to tell people about how he would like a fat girllfriend to hide behind, because he could never care about a fat girl, to pretend to be an authority on where the high moral ground even is.
A lot more than you, if you seriously think ‘dying for sex’ is a thing.
I dunno, seeing your reality distortion goggles at work here, I’m going to bet that isn’t why, and you just think it is.
Let me guess: yours is the latter position.
*holds breath*
Raw, Helpless, and Witless: Oh I can see where this is going to go. A debate on privilege, what it is, and whether or not it exists – for the 10,000th time. How about absolutely nah.
I’m not talking about privilege, I’m talking about you being dishonest in debate.
As to my being subtle, sometimes it’s not worth it. One has to know the audience.
The point to that list (and that it was cut short) is the vast difference in the narrative stories of the nobility of men dying for others.
You choose to pretend it’s about puffing my historical knowledge. It’s more about trying to get through to you; who pretended it was all about being a human shield.
As to condescension… you said they were less able to cope; by way of mental infirmity.
That’s a difference of level.
English isn’t that subtle. I begin to think your lack of understanding is a pretense.
“My own brother now *** a disabled woman, because he apparently couldn’t bear it anymore after years of being single.”
You do realize that you just said that a woman has inherently less value as a human being because of her disability, right? And that not having sex is sooooooo hard for men that they would stoop low enough to fuck said devalued woman, right?
YOU UNDERSTAND NOW WHY THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING TO SAY, RIGHT?
*still in good faith*
“My own brother now *** a disabled woman, because he apparently couldn’t bear it anymore after years of being single.”
Disabled women aren’t fuckable? Wtf? Does that apply to all disabilities or just ones you find unattractive? If your blind date turned out to be with a diabetic woman would you dump her on the spot for being undateable?
I mean, you’re welcome to have a “will not date” list, but you aren’t welcome to spew hatred on anyone who disagrees.
Oh and Occam’s Razor only applies if both options are equally correct, there’s a reason quantum physics hasn’t been tossed out as needlessly complex (it isn’t needlessly complex as less complex solutions have had serious flaws)
NWO — I say this with the utmost seriousness, you can go to hell for that last comment. Men who dry are likely to commit suicide? Got anything, at all, to back up that claim? Bear in mind here that refusing to seek mental health services because that isn’t “manly” probably does actually increase the risk of suicide.
Whoa, Rutee, think I’m gonna need a citation for that more women killed in war stuff. Got a feeling it’s gonna be the Gender Studies Institute of California or something.
But, apart from that, the glory and heroism business percolates through into daily life. Let’s not tery the slight-of-hand that it’s just in the business of war. Men beat each other up more than the beat women up, and it’s partly because of macho posturing sessions – happens often at the weekend but it can and does happen anywhere. One of the many privileges of being a guy – greater exposure to violence. Awesome.
“This gambit works a lot better when you’re not actively trying to engage with the stuff you say is ridiculously old hat”
Sorry, sentence has to make sense for me to bother.
“As a gender, you get credit whether you do or don’t. That’s part of the point.”
Oh right. So I’m socially regarded as a glorified hero without doing anything. I must’ve missed myself being in the local papers or something?
I’m tired and cranky, so not going to engage with the trolls (but so glad the rest of you are doing so), but I found a video which shows humans being kind to bears and I thought I’d share:
“As to condescension… you said they were less able to cope; by way of mental infirmity.
That’s a difference of level.”
Ahem, not to be it’s not. I view the mentally infirm as equal and worthy of consideration and don’t see a difference of level at all. Hey, if you’re a bigot I can’t help you.
Having been a man and single for many, many years—from birth, even—I don’t feel any desire to *** (what does this even mean? Three asterisks?) a woman who falls well short of my standard of attractiveness (which is what I assume you mean, but if you were my sibling I doubt I would appreciate your assessment of your brother’s *** at all because it sounds pretty fucking ableist), nor do I consider the reward of sex to be even remotely worth the risks of getting shot.
Riddle me this, Batman: if a dude dies for sex… uh, how exactly does he get his sexytimes reward?
The idea that this was just about dudes wanting to get laid is lazy and assumes the worst of men at best, assumes these guys were stupid at worst. I can think of few things dumber than dying for sex since the very nature of death generally makes anything happening after the fact, including supposed reward sex, kind of imimpossible.
cloudiah: Aww! I was expecting just one moderately sized bear to pop out, then suddenly.. BEARCUBSPLOSION.
RHW: Above It All.
Ahem, not to be it’s not. I view the mentally infirm as equal and worthy of consideration and don’t see a difference of level at all. Hey, if you’re a bigot I can’t help you.
So what was the problem with calling them on their shit?
ostara: It’s not that they wanted to die for sex, it’s that the need for sex was so great they were willing to risk death to get it.
This, you see, makes all the women want to jump your bones.
“So what was the problem with calling them on their shit?”
Call them all you like, just said you should avoid being nasty and ridiculing. Having said that, now that I’ve actually posted on this site I can see the appeal of it. All this snark for snark is strangely enjoyable, so I guess I can see why you do it.
RHW: Aaaand what movement has set its sights on tearing down the shitty gender norms that result in men fighting men to prove their masculinity?
That’s right! Feminism!