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.
NWO, please take your own advice and leave this wretched place. If it’s so awful, you don’t need to be here, unless you dig the abuse you deserve.
Also, NWO, this:
I would believe you. You make my fucking flesh crawl as it is, this would be the cherry on your particular shit sundae.
Deranged Counter Troll: fuck you and the abelist horse you rode in on.
@Deranged Counter-Troll -Even without knowing the douche you are personally, I’m certain my disabled husband can drum circles around you, fuck circles around you, and has had a fuller and more interesting life experience. I say that because it’s applicable to most other people I’ve met. I’d say “fuck you” but I’ve obviously done a lot better. However, I see a splintery flagpole right up the block…
All I can say is, sometimes I hate people.
Um, since when is holding a door open for someone else, a door that the person holding it is most likely to be passing through as well, an act of altruism?
Altruism, in my understanding is generally percieved as either nobly sacrificing your life ( or certain aspects of it) for another or giving to another what you yourself needed.
In my estimation, holding a door is a very small act of kindness or civilty.
Seriously, are men still dropping everything and racing to get to the door anywhere in the world? Because that is what feminists were originally objecting to, not that the man passing through the door paused to let others go first.
In my experience, people just hold doors for each other, regardless of gender. I don’t see anyone complaining about it unless someone holds the door for someone else who is still far away from the door, but even then it’s not so much complaining as an awkward brisk walk to not make the other person hold the door for too long.
Reading that made me think about one of my first boyfriends (that would have been QUITE a few years ago), who was a little put out, I guess, because I would go ahead and open a door myself. He remarked to me one time, after I opened the car door and got seated, “Won’t you EVER let me open a door for you?” Now, I wasn’t making a point or taking a stand or anything of the sort…. it just never occurred to me to stand by the door, like a helpless waif, and wait for him to open it for me.
How do MRA’s mix up “chivalry” for “basic human compassion”. FFS. How is this really so hard to understand for the supreme beings of LOGIK? As everyone has pointed out COUNTESS FUCKING TIMES in the past few threads the men who sacrificed their lives are heros because they acted selflessly to save someone they loved. They would all been heros equally had the person they saved been a son, uncle, father, mother, sisters or best friend of either sex. Also holding doors for people is BASIC FUCKING COURTESTY. It is good manners. I hold doors open if anyone is walking close behind me. Because it is polite. How is this fucking difficult to understand?
*Files the rushing-to-open-a-door thing under “shit that’s never made sense to me”*
I mean i’ve always just made sure that, if there’s someone (anyone, regardless of who they are) directly behind me, that I make sure the door is going to be open for them. That way, all they have to do is take over control of an already open door when they get there (rather than making them open the entire thing themself).
Or, if they’re someone who will have trouble with the door (for either physical reasons, or they just have their hands full), i’ll stop and hold the door for them before I go through myself.
Those are the mechanics of door holding that have always made sense to me.
Side note: I don’t get how holding doors would be altruistic either. Altruism is helping someone at personal cost, whether that’s your own safety/life, or giving up something you need (as in, something vital to your well-being) because someone else needs it.
Unless you’re holding a door for people running from zombies or something.
Around my way people go well out of their to open doors for others, regardless of age or gender. It can get kind annoying sometimes, actually.
*out of their way
Others have already called you out for being a ridiculously ableist idiot here, but I just want to highlight one particular point – what the hell sort of calculation of “contribution to society” is based primarily on one’s ability to exit buildings quickly? Even if we use your stupid employment-based scale for “contribution to society,” are you seriously claiming that, say, teachers do not contribute to society because their jobs generally do not require a great deal of physical agility? Because…dude, that may be the stupidest thing I’ve seen today, and I’ve seen posts by NWO today, so that’s saying something.
Bad Dog said- “How do MRA’s mix up “chivalry” for “basic human compassion”. FFS”…Firstly, I’m not an “MRA”, I’m a critic of feminism. MRA’s are the flipside to feminists & they are just as guilty of hypocrisy & double standards in their judgments.
It’s feminists who have decided that a man giving up his seat, opening a door, etc. are guilty of “chivalry” & therefore are “insulting” them, not MRA’s.
Opening a door & giving up your seat ARE acts of altruism…altruism is “a concern for the welfare of others”. It’s precisely because men acting in this way are dismissed as “chauvinistic” in a broad sense ( and directly because of feminists…few other women are hostile to the idea of a man opening a door for them ) that causes MRA’s & other men acting in good faith to become hostile to feminism & unfortunately to women per se.
I’m not suggesting that these MRA’s are correct, I’m suggesting that their distorted views are a product of feminism. Ie. feminism created the MRA movement, just as racism created the civil rights movement.
dgm, so glad you came by to share what the strawfeminists in your head are saying today.
So, um, where exactly are all these angry feminists hissing and spitting over open doors or seats on the bus being given up? Did we hire a couple women to travel the world and do this just to keep men in line?
Also, concern for the welfare of others is the definition of kindness, which generally is a factor in displaying altruism. I don’t think that opening a door is going to get medals pinned on your chest. Your definition sets a remarkable low bar for the word. A child of one could leap over it.
ShadetheDruid said- “*Files the rushing-to-open-a-door thing under “shit that’s never made sense to me”*”…I’m talking about holding a door open under normal circumstances, or offering a seat to a woman on a bus. These are acts of common courtesy & yes, they are rooted in altruistism ( altruism defined as “concern for the welfare of others” ) & not a feeling of “I may aswell hold the door open as I’m passing through it anyway”. If we weren’t interested in the next person, we wouldn’t care if the door slammed in their face.
If feminists define these human ( they are not solely performed by men for women ) acts of kindness as “chauvinistic” ( which they do ), then the signal is for men to STOP DOING THEM. The view of the MRA commentators that these men in Aurora were “suckers” for protecting women merely echoes feminist sentiments.
Feminists are happy to encourage any behaviour that could lead to men becoming more misogynistic…whither feminism without misogyny?
@dgm
If someone is only opening doors and/or offering their seat on the bus to women, then they’re being chauvinistic, because they’re treating women like they’re less capable than men.
The guys on the theatre shooting on the other hand, gave their lives to protect their girlfriends, who are not just any woman, they’re someone they love. I am quite confident that people this brave would have done the same if instead of their girlfriends they were there with a family member or a friend, even if they were male. They were heroes, and you are trying to deny that fact and attributing that denial to feminism, but it’s not feminism that’s calling these men “suckers”, it’s the MRAs.
Dgm. There is more than one correct possible action here. Instead of saying “let doors slam in peoples faces, let them struggle on their own should they be too burdened or weak to open it”, society took the position of “let the person who arrives first open the door, unless they are too burdened or otherwise unable to do so”. And “there’s no reason to be concerned by what’s between the legs when it simply a materr of opening the door”
Wherever I have lived, let the person who is first open the door is always what happens. No hissing or spitting has ever taken place in my presence.
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.
Pillow…You may not see any people sleeping rough on the streets of your town, does that mean there are no homeless people in your town sleeping on sofas & in shelters? Feminists don’t need to be seen to “hiss & spit”…they’ve defined “chivalry” in these terms, not me.
If opening a door for a woman is seen as an act of chivalry by feminists, then I just have to take their word for it that THAT’S WHAT THEY BELIEVE. I appreciate that when you enter the feminist universe, you enter a World where the accepted view on things like opening a door suddenly morphs into something quite different…maybe you’re just not hip to rad feminism?
The “low bar” you speak of was set by feminists, not me. When I hold a door open, I don’t EXPECT anything…that’s the point. Least of all do I expect to be considered chauvinistic, but that’s exactly what feminists believe I am. Do you think I’d be wasting my time over this inane argument if it WASN’T an issue?
It’s not about just opening a door for someone, it’s about going out of your way to open a door for someone when they’re quite capable of doing it themselves. Which if you’re doing just because someone is a women, is chauvinistic.
If you don’t do this, then fine. But stop pretending feminists are yelling at every man who opens a door for another person who happens to be a woman.
“Do you think I’d be wasting my time over this inane argument if it WASN’T an issue?”
From what I have seen of the “totally not an MRA people” who have commented here yes, yes, I do think you would waste your time over it.
Pillowbell wrote…. “And “there’s no reason to be concerned by what’s between the legs when it simply a materr of opening the door””
EXACTLY. Except what gender a person is of no concern to me when I open a door…the concerned party are feminists who believe that A MAN holding a door for A WOMAN is an act of “chivalry”.
Now if feminists could just be humble enough to accept that men per se are not preoccupied with offending, demeaning or marginalising women in the course of their daily lives, we could move on.
Your homeless argument fails, DGM, becauise there are a great many homeless folk where I live, I know many of them on a first name basis. I’m also the sper for a low income building and routinely watch tenants cram two and three times the number of occupants into very tiny apartments.
How can this be an inane topic yet also a serious issue? Also, its been many, many years since feminists considered opening doors to be a hot topic, if it ever really registered with the majority, who were working class and would not encounter the issue in day to day settings. Perhaps you’re not so hip to what modern feminists consider to be relavant topics or the range of views?
Most feminists aren’t radical. And we didn’t set the bar low so much as you are trying to redefine words to obfusticate the issue.
No one here said that men were preoccupied with opening doors. If men would quit deliberately offending, demeaning and marginalizing women, we would have already moved on.
“pillowbell”
you can we run pellcheck on this one?