JohnTheOther, blabby videoblogger and Number Two at A Voice for Men, has now weighed in with his own, slightly tardy, manifesto on the Aurora shooting and the evils of supposed male “disposability.” I didn’t read the whole thing – seriously, dude, OMIT NEEDLESS WORDS – but a few things stood out when I skimmed it. For example, this lovely passage, which seems to be a longer and fouler version of that ill-advised tweet from the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto that I mentioned in my last post.
Our mainstream, which is to say, our corporate media – that which bends and fawns for access to the corrupt elected officials and modern robber barons of corporate statehood – is telling you, young man, that in order to be worthwhile, a real man, you’d better be prepared to die without complaint for the child, or the little old lady, or the drug addled slut in the next seat.
But Mr. TheOther is having none of it:
The instinct – expressing itself variously as chivalry or as fatal self sacrifice — is just one more that no longer has any discernable benefit. It is an encumbrance to any real pursuit of a civilized society in which one class of humans is not legally and socially elevated over another.
Sorry, kids; sorry, old ladies; sorry “drug addled sluts” — you’re on your own. Apparently, in a truly civilized society, no one ever looks out for anyone else. Altruism is for barbarians and Bill Bennett!
Here’s JtO’s stirring conclusion:
Those three men are not heroes, they’re just dead. The calculus of death, where one life is traded in celebration for another by preference of a vagina, is pathological and regressive. It must be recognized as the sickness it is. Those who lionized these men, whose fatal and unexamined instinct led to self-destruction; those who held them up as a heroic example to follow, are cordially invited to go first — or to go fuck themselves.
Charming as always, Mr. TheOther.
In the discussion of Mr. TheOther’s post in the Men’s Rights Subreddit, AVFM’s Paul Elam expands on the whole they aren’t heroes” theme, arguing that we need to retroactively strip away the hero status of the three men who died protecting their girlfriends — because they died protecting women.
dgm: Hellkell…don’t worry, I won’t upset the smug little clique you’ve got going here & feel free to ignore my comments if they conflict with the ideas in your head if you’re not interested in a mature counter argument to what I’ve said.
Nice little catch 22. If we disagree we aren’t interested in mature counter argument, and if we don’t say anything in disagreement it’s because we aren’t able to accept conflicting ideas.
And dude… in something like 30 years of holding doors open, from coast to coast, I’ve never had anyone be rude about it. I’ve had lots of people thank me (and much of that door holding has been in places like SoHo, San Francisco, etc. Places chock full o’ feminists).
So yeah, I’m willing to say that it’s not a thing.
Because in those cities, and places like Knoxville, San Luis Obispo, Sepulveda, Canoga Park, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, etc. I’ve seen lots of people who were homeless (ignoring the time I spent working at a place which was a homeless shelter for 5 months of the year; which I did for 14 years; it was a City of Glendale Calif. owned building, and they ran a shelter out of it from Nov-Feb, with weather related openings in October and March).
As to “dialogue with the MRM”, if you mean treating the foolish, nonsensical, sort of claims you and Tom Martin, and Varpole, and Brandon and MR.AL make, as if they were serious topics worthy of considered debate… we are guilty as charged.
If by that you mean refuse to talk to them, and look at what they say and engage with it as it deserves, then you are out to lunch, because we do.
It’s just that most of them don’t do any better than you do at actually proposing a subject of merit.
Two things.
Firstly, on protecting others, and the ablist troll’s troll.
I often do a very simple calculation before deciding whether to save a person’s life. It’s one that I have practiced, and will continue to practice.
Can I save this person?
If I can, I will. Because they’re a person. And whether they are a good person or a bad person, whether they contribute to society or drain from it, they are a person. A Christian would say ‘made in the image of God.’ There is something within them that makes them like me, sentience, a soul, whatever.
Troll’s Troll, if you want to troll trolls then go right ahead and engage Steele and Owly. Otherwise you stand as simple a troll, and can safely remove ‘Counter’ from your name. Thank you.
To dgm:
…yet people talk to me all the time! Sometimes they agree with me, sometimes they disagree and correct me. (and so far whenever that’s happened I’ve ended up learning many very valuable things about the world… is this a good place to say how much I love everybody here? Well, maybe not the trolls. But you know what I mean.)
So, thank you for erasing me. Thanks so much. Lovely. I’ll be sure to return the favor whenever possible.
In what sense is “JohnTheOther” Number Two? Is it in the sense I learned as a child?
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was either in a wheelchair or standing with the aid of braces and Secret Service men while he was saving the country from swastinkers like you.
Okay, sacrificing yourself for others is a noble and heroic thing. So why is it only expected of men? I didn’t notice anyone crying ‘coward’ at the women who fled for their lives instead of stopping to save others.
Not that there’s a sex-related difference in societal attitudes and expectations or anything. Heavens no. There must be some other reason.
@Copyleft
And who cried “coward” at the men who fled for their lives, exactly? As far as I know there was one guy who was called a coward because he left his own child behind, ran away from the theater and drove off, but other than him I haven’t seen any criticism of the other men. Perhaps you have seen it somewhere, in which case you would do well to present a citation.