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.
Seriously, who is holding doors open for whom doesn’t even register on the top one hundred things I consider to be relevant issues to me. I suspect the same on a great many other peoples parts.
Dgm, can you point me to a recent feminist article where this has been pointed out as a serious topic in need of discussion or activism?
Sharculese, if that misspelling was deliberate, he’s going to have to try harder.
As for me, gawd my typing sucks today!!
“you can we run pellcheck on this one?”
Idk, it isn’t Pell’s usual writing style, and hell becoming bell could just be a misreading (h does look a bit like b). On the other hand, my magic 8-ball says “outlook good”.
I really can’t work out dgm’s point here, apparently feminists refuse to let men hold doors for them and this is…what exactly? How does “I can get it” affect you in any way? Seriously, let’s pretend that feminists always insist on getting the door for themselves — so the fuck what?
(And how does any of that related to the OP?!)
“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.”
Yes, feminists are well known for making those kind of distinctions aren’t they?
Sorry, but in the feminist universe, the rules regarding men’s behaviour towards women are not subject to your interpretation of what feminism is, they’re simply subject to the person holding the door being male.
How would you describe a woman “going out of her way” to open a door for another woman? “Helpful”, “kind” or possibly “overly polite”, but nothing as hostile as “chauvinist” or “sexist”. Why assume a man’s motivations for holding a door open or giving up his seat or any other “sucker” act are different from those of a woman?
It’s the assumption of the feminist that is at fault, not the actions of the man. If you assume that a man “going out of his way” to open a door IMPLIES something about the woman he’s holding the door open for, you’re setting a parameter for the man…so the act of opening the door is merely one of many subtle ways that a feminist can judge a man’s ( by “man’s” we’re talking about ALL MEN of course ) behaviour toward her…always negatively, since any “positive” action by a man is a non issue.
If the aim of feminism is to achieve an “equal” society, then they need to question their outdated assumptions regarding men’s motivations.
As opposed to your entirely correct assumptions about feminists. And its only correct provided you strip away all context, history and relevant cultural practices Dgm.
And once again, it was the MRA calling the men suckers, not feminists. Nor do we tend to think of one man being all men. So again, nice try getting us to fall in line with your assumptions and viewpoints.
I haven’t seen someone so upset about holding doors open and giving up seats on the bus since that other not-a-MRA-just-a-critic-of-feminism, B_____n, but he thought men should never do it, even for people with temporary or permanent disabilities. Weird.
Filing this, like every door opening story that isn’t “I opened the door for someone else and nothing happened”, under “Shit that never happened”.
Were you asking a question, or telling me what I thought?
If a dude only opens doors for women, then no, it’s not.
Go to the board and diagram that sentence. Hint: Parameter doesn’t mean what you think it means.
…because judging people by their actions is solely a feminist trait? What?
‘outdated’? Did that much change in a year?
Argenti said- “I really can’t work out dgm’s point here, apparently feminists refuse to let men hold doors for them and this is…what exactly? How does “I can get it” affect you in any way? Seriously, let’s pretend that feminists always insist on getting the door for themselves — so the fuck what?
(And how does any of that related to the OP?!)”
That’s not what I said. I said that feminists regard SOME everyday acts of courtesy ( opening doors, giving up seats on buses, etc. ) by men TOWARD WOMEN ONLY as instances of “chivalry”, which they regard as sexist & patriarchal.
Therefore, the argument that the actions of the men in Aurora…protecting WOMEN from danger, is, in the eyes of some “MRA’s” on a messageboard, the actions of a “sucker” is a response to the aggressive “we don’t need you looking out for us, we can look after ourselves thanks” feminist mindset.
Somewhere down the road, these men went from “fuck you if you think I’m sexist, when I’m only trying to be nice” to “fuck all women & fuck the men who go out of their way to look after them”.
It’s an extreme mindset that is a product of another extreme mindset.
This blog is all about how stupid men are. What it isn’t interested in exploring is how men got there, it just assumes that MRA’s & others hold these views and they’re boobz for doing so.
No context, no examination…let’s all just laugh at men & link our blog to feminist blogs so that they can say “I told you so, this is what we’re fighting against”.
I’ve yet to come across a feminist blog that even tries to enter into a dialogue with men, let alone MRA’s.
dgm, you were doing so well with “maybe has half a point here, flesh it out more” right up until “This blog is all about how stupid men are.” — nope! This blog is about how stupid the MRM is (and PUA, and sometimes even women! Ruby and GirlWritesWhat sure as shit don’t get free passes)
Oh fun, that last sentence, would you even think of phrasing that as “I’ve yet to see a Jewish blog that dialogues with neo-nazis” or “I’ve yet to see an anti-racism blog that dialogues with the KKK”? No? The MRM really isn’t much better.
On topic points — men dying for women (not on topic points — anything involving holding doors). So feminists said “men really don’t need to go dying for women” and instead of men going “cool, we didn’t like that dying thing anyways” the MRM goes “men who die for women are suckers, see?!”
Well, there are blogs that do cater to mixed company.
everyone else —
“Somewhere down the road, these men went from “fuck you if you think I’m sexist, when I’m only trying to be nice” to “fuck all women & fuck the men who go out of their way to look after them”.”
That’s nearly exactly wtf Mr. Al said about why reddit hates women.
I personally fail to see the point of dialogue with groups of people who see me as “a waste of skin surrounding a vagina” a “drug addled whore” a person utterly lacking in human traits such as empathy or compassion or intelligence, who already view my character as “vile” and “utterly rehensible”. Do you think that men who think this way are going to listen to anything I have to say?
“Well, there are blogs that do cater to mixed company.”
With men in general? Sure, but I was taking that as a point about the MRM. Since they seem unwilling not to make it all about them, yeah, small wonder they aren’t welcome in many feminist spaces.
Rutee….”parameter”- “any constant or limiting factor”. You’re unaware that I’m aware what the word means in the context I used it.
“because judging people by their actions is solely a feminist trait?”…Context is something you seem not to be aware of.
“Were you asking a question, or telling me what I thought?”…neither, I just don’t enjoy using “one” instead of “you” when speaking hypothetically.
That’s what I love about message boards…people will go out of their way in an attempt to understand your viewpoint. No masturbatory point scoring here.
Aw crap, I used a banned word.
Anyways, I fail to see the point in trying to discuss issues with people who paint women as disgusting, vile, drug ridden, lacking in intelligent thought or critical thinking skills.
Not exactly conduicive to a free exchange of thoughts where each side attempts to see the others POV.
@dgm
dude, do you realize that the men who died were not protecting just “any woman”, they were protecting their GIRLFRIENDS? That, in this case, the reasons are way deeper than chivalry, because they were protecting people they cared for?
(Formerly enelke)
Ok, actually starting to read the thread and seeing dgm’s attitude. My contribution was useless.
*Retreats in shame*
Summarizing is fun. Did I get it right you guys?
Dgb: “you feminists freak out when I hold doors open for women! This is a very serious issue!”
Manboobz: “no we don’t and no it’s not”
Dgb: “no but really feminists freak the fuck out about the door thing. Haven’t you heard of radfems?”
Manboobz: “by ‘feminists’, do you mean yourself? Because you’re the only one freaking out.”
Dgb: “Why won’t you feminists just stop freaking out about door-opening protocol? It’s not even a big deal you guys STOP FREAKING OUT SERIOUSLY OMG”
Manboobz: “dude no one cares”
Dgb: “why won’t you admit that my version of reality is more real than yours, despite lack of evidence for my assertions?”
Manboobz: “oh FFS”
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.
Dude, I wasn’t aware there was a mature counter argument to your inane whining and bizarre door tantrum other than “go to your room, you sound like you need a nap.”
oh, blockquotes…
What a showing today: the BIGGEST FARKING ISSUES men face is the nasty feminists’ expectations that men PAY for dinner on dates, and being mean or expecting to have doors opened for them.
THESE, my dudely dudes, are the issues of our times!
THESE, oh manly men, are the injusticest against which you must rise up (or, up you must rise?)!
THESE, oh gentlemanly chowderheads, are THE UNKNOWN AND UNNAMED CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES OF the 21st century……and the way you’re going about it, will continue to be unmarked until the 22nd.
Sheesh–you really expect to sell anybody on a social justice movement that’s all about:
1)waah she won’t have sex with me
2)waaah she expects me to pay for dinner and won’t have sex with me
3)waaaaaaah DOORS! Chivalry! She won’t have sex with me after I open the door for her.
4) WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, the TiTANIC!
I particularly like the “you will engage my asinine childish ramblings or else you are petty and immature so HA!” line trolls like to throw out.
I love how we have one troll in one thread arguing that feminists are evil because hate it when men open doors for them, and another in a different thread arguing that feminists are evil because they sometimes allow men to pay for dates.
Imaginary feminists sure are a complicated lot.
Also hilarious:
The blog you’re commenting on enters into dialogue with men all the time. I’d imagine David calls it “proofreading my work,”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if your anti-oppression movement is mostly about getting laid, it’s possible that you are not actually all that oppressed.