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.
Did someone say showing off their ass?
To me “Hark, a Vagrant”!
http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=295
Ha ha, thebionicmommy pre-pwned Steele! She is the super-ninja!
it’s actually you making things up to be angry about and failing miserably at it (’cause youre kinda dumb)
BEARCUBSPLOSION FTW, I think I’m just going to ignore the idiots and watch that again…
“For bonus points, ask yourself which one of the listed characters above rides around in a skin-tight suit showing off their ass.”
Commissioner Gordon? XD
“Indeed, the one who turned out to be a disposable pawn.
I sense a pattern emerging…
And it is misandry.”
Bane was disposable my ass.
Dude, you realize that having BATMAN and BANE as main characters and Catwoman and that other chick as secondary hero/villain types means that your main people, both hero and villain, are still men?
When 3/4+ of your cast is men, every archetype is more likely to be men. Bane was far less disposable than police goon #2, but they were both men because that’s who got cast in the film — men.
Nope, still not misandry, cause guess what, BATMAN, is still the hero, surprise surprise. And again, the movie doesn’t even pass the bechdel test.
@Argenti Aertheri
“Bear in mind here that refusing to seek mental health services because that isn’t “manly” probably does actually increase the risk of suicide.”
Modern psychology is simply modern feminism. Not really much difference from being here. Either men are bad, men aren’t good enough for women or men are hurt by masculinity. This hallowed place is the epotime of psychology.
———–
@MorkaisChosen
“Aaaand what movement has set its sights on tearing down the shitty gender norms that result in men fighting men to prove their masculinity?”
The poison of society is the genderless box. Options that can’t exist for either gender can only lead to self destruction of society. Annnnnd, yes, it is feminism exclusively that stuffs us into a genderless box. Well done ladies!
————
@thebionicmommy
” People aren’t criticizing him for crying. There’s nothing shameful about crying. People are criticizing him for abandoning his family to save himself.”
Feminism is all about self and deconstructing masculinty. He is a product of feminism. He is a male feminist. Feminists made him what he is. He is not masculine in the least. He is clearly feminine. He’s a whimpering crybaby unable to control his emotions. What? You want him to being a sobbing dress wearing child one minute and a brave soldier the next? It doesn’t work that way. He’s a product of a feminized society.
————-
Check out the communist network news
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/opinion/bennett-aurora-three/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Pay particular note to the comments. Ahhh, the gender war is heating up. The gang at the top sure does love funding feminism. I wonder why? And you’re going to tell me feminism isn’t the very cause of this? Women are goody, goody? It’s gotta be the fault of men. Or wait, the patriarchy. The only way women could be blamed in any way is if they uphold the patriarchy.
Go ahead, go to any site and read the comment section. The hatred just flows. Or just stay here and read the comments. I’ve told you before. You could’ve just been content to say, “Men are great for being so loving and giving.” And said nothing else. But noooooooo. Ya gotta play women are just as good, even better. Hey maybe you could tell you heroine, Amanda to shut the fuck up once in a while. That’s your heroine, someone like yourselves whose livelyhood and entertainment revolves around calling men shit.
For bonus points, ask yourself which one of the listed characters above rides around in a skin-tight suit showing off their ass.
I suspect the feminists grudgingly allowed this because it is as it was in the ’60s comics. It was a concession to the fanboys.
And, speaking as someone who has actually viewed the film, Gordon and Blake are bit players.
@Steele
Still waiting for the condemnation of Nikan’s man hatred…
God, I can picture Steele in college (after failing and quitting his creative writing course) being a little philosophy major boy who, despite all the evidence, is convinced that he is smarter then all the professors combined.
@Ugh – You’re not gonna get it. You’re going to be ignored by Steele until you can say something that he can (A) blame on misandry or (B) use to justify calling you a vile misandrist-feminist.
I just finished my 4th edit of a journal article that I am so thoroughly sick of I hope it never gets published. Yay. Now I am having to sit on my hands to keep myself from posting more BEARCUBSPLOSIONS (or kittenplosions, maybe) to celebrate being finally free of that ghastly chore. Just warning you all, I may not be able to resist much longer.
And that would matter why, if the primary sources support the statement? Not that I need to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
But hey, the Soviets did have some women in the front lines (Never you mind that the majority of the deaths are civilians, which is pretty normal). I’d go with something more visceral, but my books aren’t physically with me, sadly. You should read some journals from soldiers in the past though. There were a lot more women present at military campaigns than most idiots seem to think. In supporting roles, yes, but that doesn’t really matter that much when you still get an arrow through you
I knew RHW was a returning troll, but I’ll grant I didn’t think it’d be Factless.
So wait. Let me get this straight. Every important character save one is a dude, and Bane being a pawn means it’s all misandry? Dudes get a range of representation across the entire spectrum, and that’s misandry?
You’d be a lot cuter in your aping feminists if you weren’t serious.
O K if we’re going to have a DKR discussion session, I’m going to go play Pharaoh and clean the kitchen, because I haven’t seen it and the Surprise! Villain is a Girl! is now no longer a surprise to me.
Laters.
And remember- this whole movie caters to a demographic that is overwhelmingly male-dominated; that is, geeks and more specifically comics fans. And Nolan’s other films have been unapologetically mantastic.
If even friggin’ Christopher “Manly” Nolan’s Manly Batman movies are feminized and contain elements of misandry (Bane’s disposability), imagine what the rest of the society is like!
mikey this is a new level of pathetic even for you. go back to work or whatever is that’s supposed to keep you from stalking us.
It’s never a concession, in fact, I’m pretty sure it’s widely considered to be an overall problem within the industry itself.
Also, have you brought up that one example of a man being killed for being a man that was requested of you a few threads ago?
Steele if men are so disposable, then why is so much time being spent on portraying them as heros? Why are people taking time to read about their sacrifice? Why are people so angry that those men had to die?
Does society put so much work into their tissues? Do we talk about the sacrifices made by native men? Black men? Asian men who built Canadas railways? No. Because they were seen as disposable. Those marginalized men are the ones with a right to complain about disposability. More thought is given to disposing of a coffee cup than is spent on men who aren’t white.
Ugh: You don’t get to take the high road after that load of shit.
RHW wasn’t taking any high road. He was using the possibility of the mentally ill who happen to belong to the MRM as a stick with which to beat us, and pretend that we lack in morals, or consistency.
For bonus points, ask yourself which one of the listed characters above rides around in a skin-tight suit showing off their ass.
I was going to be silly and answer this with “Batman?”. But then I remembered the batnipples.
DC-T: @Argenti: …What?
You didn’t meta Occam’s Razor, you used a misunderstanding of Occam’s Razor to meta your misunderstanding of Occam’s Razor. I don’t know if the Universe imploded, but my brain did for a moment there.
1. Both of those make only 1 assumption, so Occam’s Razor does not apply.
2. All else is not equal (as in, both assumptions are probably not equally valid) so Occam’s Razor would not apply *even if* either side made more assumptions than the other.
3. Occam’s Razor is a “tool” you use when there is more than one possible reason for something and want to narrow down the possibilities. Unless you are somehow using it to potentially remove itself from your methods of narrowing down possibilities (and I can’t imagine how that could happen) there’s no meaningful way you could apply it to itself.
You can argue that Nikan is a crappy human being for making that assumption in the first place, but there is no level that I’m aware of where the Razor applies here.
Since we have three competing theories (men who were heroic out of affection, men who did it out of social pressure from the historic narrative, or men who were heroic in the pursuit of sex), Occam’s razor can be dragged out. Since it was dragged out in direct response to a question from Nikan about why one ought to choose the least complex theory…
mr. ‘rational’ is moving on to tantrums about things being too feminized. this is fucking priceless.
Torvus Buttsteele:
The main villain was BANE.
Indeed, the one who turned out to be a disposable pawn.
I sense a pattern emerging…
And it is misandry.
Then you weren’t paying attention to the film;
Gur Zrepranel jnfa’g gur Ivyyvna, ONAR jnf. Onar jnf n jbzna.
“And remember- this whole movie caters to a demographic that is overwhelmingly male-dominated; that is, geeks and more specifically comics fans. And Nolan’s other films have been unapologetically mantastic.”
It’s like he almost gets it!
“If even friggin’ Christopher “Manly” Nolan’s Manly Batman movies are feminized and contain elements of misandry (Bane’s disposability), imagine what the rest of the society is like!”
But then he doesn’t 🙁
because celebrating men risking their lives encourages men to risk their lives or something. it’s based on the assumption that men are the dumbest most gullible creatures on the planet.
so you know, standard mra thinking about men