As closely as I can determine it, arguing for the human recognition – and human rights – of men, must, by necessity imply the subjugation and hatred of women. This comes from an attempt at rebuttal of one of my recent articles by the SPLC’s Arthur Goldwag. Goldwag starts with stating the painfully obvious.
For most Americans, the recent mass murder in Aurora, Colorado was an unspeakable human tragedy.
The implication here is that MRA’s don’t care when people die because we’re sociopathic monsters, or something. I should refute this, right? Make a grand and pious declaration of “Oh, no, I think it’s a tragedy too!”? Or can I just assume that’s understood without endless recitation, or at least understood by readers with a modicum of common sense?
Goldwag, (who has not to date denied that he is an anti-semite) continues:
If the story had any political dimension at all, it was guns and gun control (or the lack thereof).
Oh, good call, Arthur! It’s the guns that make people violent, because without guns, nobody would have a murderous disposition, or be so anaesthetized to violence that murder in the news barely merits notice.
It’s not the normalization of solving problems by the application of lethal force – such as a President who cheerfully admits to maintaining kill lists and conducting extra-judicial murder of Americans, as well as foreigners, using drone strikes. Its certainly not the ethical trickle down effect of heads of state flatly ignoring the law, killing Americans and foreigners. It’s surely not that human beings, as social animals, are influenced by leaders who kill anybody they feel like, without pretence of due process, through the proxy of the military. Yeah, it’s just whether the guns are legally available or not.
The moral and intellectual giant Goldwag continues:
But for a vocal few in the misogynistic online world of ‘men’s rights’…
How does Goldwag make the logical jump from advocation of human rights for men and boys, to hatred of women? From the “misogynistic online world of ‘men’s rights’”?
Well, he doesn’t make any logical jump, he’s simply invoking an emotional hot button, to let his readers know who the bad guys are. It’s like playing sinister music when the villain of a film first steps into camera.
The posting of mine he was responding to argued the point that the social expectation of men in times of violent crisis, to serve as willing human bullet shields is, in my view, fundamentally unethical. I refer not to an individual’s choice to fatally self sacrifice, but to our culture’s prominent public ethic, reflected in editorials by the likes of Bill Bennett, Hugo Schweitzer and Hannah Rosin – who all variously held the self sacrificial deaths of three men as the correct and proper male role, and in the writing of those who excoriated men who chose to protect themselves.
What cowards, choosing to live, rather than throwing their lives away. What failures as men, eh?
The emotional value of whose deaths matter, and whose death don’t, is evident every time a news-reader reports on a tragedy in which miners, or settlers, or workers, or any time people die, but are described by job title rather than the designation “people, humans, or men.” Extra-special pathos is added to reported tragedy by invocation of “women and children” among those killed. These are the human beings we care about, because dead miners, workers, or volunteers don’t tug our emotions, unless they owned ovaries.
“Among the dead were women and children”
Goldwag does get it at least partly correct, titling his rebuttal, “Men’s Rights Activists Disdain Men’s Sacrifice in Colorado Shooting”.
However, his reading and my reading of that heading differ.
This is what I see: “Men’s Rights Activists Disdain Human Sacrifice in Colorado Shooting”.
See what I did there Arthur? I substituted the word men for an alternative word : “human”. And I did that because I think men are human beings. But Arthur is right, I do distain the public cheering of the use of humans for bullet shields. Even if they’re male, which means, you know, disposable.
However, Arthur’s article is posted along with the sub title:
Posted in Anti-Woman by Arthur Goldwag on August 3, 2012.
That’s the paint-by numbers emotional cue to his readers to something he doesn’t quite get around to making any kind of case for. It’s an assertion without even an emotional argument behind it. And it is so everybody knows who the bad guys are. The argument that men (human beings) are not of lesser value, or disposable due to their sex. Rather, men arguing for their own human rights must be, in this emotional landscape – anti woman.
No case needs to be made, no evidence provided, because this is deeper than reason or rational thought, everybody knows that men unwilling to conveniently die must surely hate women.
Although I recognize this ethic, I don’t know by what logic the conclusion can be reached. Perhaps in Goldwag’s view, human rights are a finite commodity and affording them to men means taking them from women. Or he may simply be pandering to the un-intellectual and reactive by pressing the hot-button of “anti woman” to ensure donations continue to flow into his hundred-million-dollar (ahem) poverty palace.
Interestingly, Goldwag doesn’t attempt to refute or even criticize any part of my repudiation of the socially normal expectation of fatal male self sacrifice. He simply repeats it, listing his article filed in the category of anti-woman. It’s almost like he doesn’t have any rational or ethical argument to make. In fact, it’s almost like he’s catching on to the fact that the MRM is a human rights movement, and he’s fighting on the wrong side. Didn’t the SPLC once act as a human rights organization in the 1960’s and 70’s?
Don’t let it keep you up at night Arthur.
Oh, I almost forgot, when Golwag types : “ Men’s Rights Activists Disdain Men’s Sacrifice in Colorado Shooting.” his use of “men” doesn’t mean “human beings” in the same sense I understand the term. It’s that darned principle of ethical universality I keep tripping over. You know, if the lives of one group of humans matter, then the lives of other human’s matter in the same degree, without weighting or preference of ethnicity, religion, social caste, sexuality or sex.
Goldwag also takes a swipe at James Taranto, whose tweet speculated on whether the self-selected deaths of three men acting as bullet-absorbers were worthwhile sacrifices. The backlash against Taranto was based, of course, on the public assumption that compared to human females, human males are disposable. Goldwag called it sour and unchivalrous. Chivalry, of course, is the antiquated idea that male human beings are disposable in preference to females. Taranto’s tweet was indeed unchivalrous, and that’s a good thing, because de-valuation of human lives by preference of one sex over another is antithetical to any ethical or moral principal.
Chomsky states this simply :
…the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something’s right for me, it’s right for you; if it’s wrong for you, it’s wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has this at its core.
Like racism, chivalry is atavistic, socially toxic and must be abandoned if any consistent recognition of human beings is to ever be realized.
Of course, having already pointed this out a number of times, claims of female “heroism” will be obligingly trotted out by bad actors clinging with a fingernail grip to the idea that anyone rejecting the socially accepted model of male disposability is nothing more than woman-hating scum.
Mytheos Holt, writing for theblaze.com named a man who raced for the exit as a coward. Clearly, not a worthwhile man at all, because he has the sheer unmitigated nerve to flee from gunfire. Nobody, meanwhile, is claiming any female who may have saved their own asses are by that action, no longer worthy human beings.
The admirable Hugo Schwyzer makes the case for which most other trad-cons and feminists alike are too intelligent to give voice. That is simply that men alive today live under a debt, payable by their own deaths, for women who died in childbirth throughout history. This apparently inherited guilt is biblical in it’s character. Schwyzer omits from consideration the millions of men who have died through history in provision and protection of women, and the total failure of ethical reason in positing guilt to previous generations of men for deaths in child birth. But Hugo is absolutely correct in his distillation of our mainstream’s calculus of whose death matters, and whose doesn’t.
Goldwag, after quoting my prediction of the media’s excoriation of the man who fled the gunfire, also writes a conclusion and pretends it is mine. Attributing this statement to me, he says:
“Their sacrifice, he concluded, was merely a victory for misandry, the principled hatred of males.”
Goldwag wasn’t quite stupid enough to wrap this in quotes (Hello Tory), but It’s most revealing that he not only identifies hatred of males, he calls it principled.
Let’s never forget, it’s not a culture of male human disposability to which I or other MRAs object. Just listen to Arthur. The objection to praise for dead men, and their use by the strutting media whores can all be explained away by invoking that ever serviceable boogyman: hate towards women. Or something.
So gentlemen, get back to serving, providing and dying when convenient, and then maybe Arthur will allow that your own self worth as a human isn’t actually hate of who he thinks you should die for.
Also, this article was filed in the category of Anti-semitism, on Saturday August 4th. For no particular reason, except that anti-semites are very bad indeed, and it’s a big red hot button to push.