Regarding three men who died shielding women from the gunfire: "we should hold the Aurora three high. It is only by telling their story that this code of honor [of men sacrificing their lives for women] will survive for future generations of men."

ThePigman · 2012-07-26T02:28:27+00:00

"After his death we learned that Blunk had an ex-wife and two children living in Nevada.... to illustrate that, in spite of shortcomings..."

So having an ex-wife is a shortcoming? How does that work? That's right, it only works if you assume that divorce is at least in part Blunk's fault, otherwise there is no way to see it as a shortcoming. Sexist asshole.

ThePigman · 2012-07-26T03:57:33+00:00

To all the conservatives who litter our ranks, keep this article in mind the next time you feel like giving us leftists some bullshit about how misandry is the exclusive domain of the liberal.

2012-07-26T05:45:46+00:00

I don't agree with the thread questioning whether the women were worth dying for. I think it disrespects the dead and devalues their sacrifice, not to mention I'm sure the women are blaming themselves horribly, possibly even wishing their boyfriends hadn't done what they did.

That said, it's absolutely revolting to say that men should always be willing to die for their women. I'm more in favor of espousing mutual sacrifice and protection. There certainly are women who would be willing to die for their loved ones, myself included, but there aren't enough. I do agree that there are a large number of women who expect to be protected and provided for, without feeling the need to reciprocate. That needs to change.

ThePigman · 2012-07-26T02:14:21+00:00

Bennett is a massive piece of shit, a vile scumbag responsible for some of the US's most evil drug laws, and a hypocrite who goes on about discipline while stuffing his face like an out of control warthog.

2012-07-26T01:12:35+00:00

In my mind these situations are so rare that you literally can't determine what you would do until it actually happens. Arguing for or against what they did is irrelevant. The act speaks for itself.

PeterArching · 2012-07-25T23:52:48+00:00

As I said in another thread...will they die for me?

I'm not a bullet shield object!

2012-07-26T14:42:40+00:00

Dear Mr. William J. Bennett,

You first.

ninjaguineapig · 2012-07-26T08:20:36+00:00

[permanently deleted]

snoopyzanus · 2012-07-26T15:28:17+00:00

I think there is a false dichotomy here.

Some people seem to think that men being socially conditioned to sacrifice themselves invalidates the heroism when they do; and some people, deeming the act itself as heroic, reject any suggestion that social conditioning may have played a part.

Both positions are based on the premise that influence from social conditioning invalidates the sacrifice. I reject that premise.

I think that the sacrifice stands on its own.

Having social conditioning doesn't mean that you effortlessly act on autopilot. It's that you seek to live up to the values someone else, whether an individual or a culture, has instilled in you.

Sometimes those values are good. Sometimes, however, they are intended to serve others' interests (which is why it is important for a mature individual to sort through his values and affirm or reject them for himself).

Nevertheless, whether you are following values which have been handed on to you by others, or those you have examined and determined for yourself, you still need the initiative, presence of mind, courage, and fortitude to put those values into practice and live them, when it comes to the crunch. There is no difference in validity here. No reduction in the value of the sacrifice.

For example, I may see the manipulation involved in a man shamed into enlisting in a war because he was given a white feather, but when he dies fighting in that war I will have no less respect for his sacrifice — only compassion in addition.

We can acknowledge individual sacrifice while still examining the issue in general. In fact, it is important to do so in order to have a basis to determine our own values for ourselves, rather than having people like the man in the linked article choosing them for us.

Some men will decide that a man's life is equal to a woman's and that he has no obligation to sacrifice his life, except on his freely chosen terms (say, love or compassion for an individual person).

Other men will decide that they should protect women because (for example) as a man they are bigger and stronger and more able to do so.

Both positions are fine, if they are values chosen by an individual for himself.

On a related note, personally, I don't think it's right to assume to know what specific, individual men's motivations were when they do actually sacrifice themselves for others — either way. There is no need to assert that social conditioning was what motivated them, or that it played no part.

If you break free of the false dichotomy, you can respect the magnitude of their sacrifice either way, while still acknowledging and examining the issue of social conditioning when it comes to discussing the topic in general.

eyenot · 2012-07-26T01:23:06+00:00

By William Bennett

And that's where I stopped reading...

a_weed_wizard · 2012-07-26T08:03:44+00:00

Men should stop sacrificing, especially for a society that hates them and sees them as utilities.

Lawtonfogle · 2012-07-26T04:01:50+00:00

I think everyone needs to ask why there wasn't a single woman who did the same thing as the men, rather than making excuses or letting women make excuses - like the one, "I would have done the same for him, but I wasn't big enough to throw him to the floor".

EvilShallWin · 2012-07-26T19:48:08+00:00

Fucking... so I should sacrifice myself for a woman who I don't know? (That's what this is implying).

Fuck that. I'll save myself and those who I love, thank you very fucking much. If I have to use a woman as a shield to save myself and those I love, I'm sorry to say this:

I fucking will.

Bobsutan · 2012-07-26T00:32:35+00:00

I was just going to post this. See, men need to stop doing this IMO. Women wanted equality and so long as men keep doing this stuff, which is noble and all, it's just going to continue inequality between the sexes. Women wanted equality and they need to start doing this more for men and men less for women. Granted it's harder said than done since this appears to be an instinct, as cited by generals as to why they don't want women on the battlefield, but that's aside from my point at large. Then again, if we acknowledge men naturally tend to sacrifice themselves for women, then perhaps we need to recognize that in law somehow, such as, I don't know, giving men some additional... privileges... perhaps?

Gingor · 2012-07-26T01:47:05+00:00

By all appearances, these men believed that a man has a responsibility to protect a woman, even to the point of death

And thats whats sad about it.

Record numbers [of men] aren't marrying

I wonder why...

Their actions remind us that good triumphs over evil

That line honestly was what I hated most about that article.

Are there really people that believe morals are as easy as "good vs. evil"

enkidusfriend · 2012-07-26T02:17:43+00:00

Their instincts were to protect, not run away.

And this is a gender roles problem. Men are taught that they should protect and run towards danger. In fact, this is one of the hilarious things about the video game tropes kerfuffle. Every single violent video game tells young men that it is their duty and responsibility to run towards danger and put oneself in harms way. What a dangerous and stupid expectation to hold half the human race to.

They believed that there are things in life worth dying for and the innocent woman sitting next to them was one.

The men themselves were not also "innocent"?

ThePigman · 2012-07-26T02:21:23+00:00

"By all appearances, these men believed that a man has a responsibility to protect a woman, even to the point of death."

By all appearances,these men had shit for brains.

mrcap · 2012-07-26T00:54:41+00:00

Well I can assure all you feminists out there I will never bother to protect a woman. Ever. No woman is worth sacrificing my life over.

masterofshadows · 2012-07-26T06:50:57+00:00

I refuse to use their deaths as something for or against this cause. They chose to save someone they loved. Would i have done the same? I would hope so. It's despicable that people would criticize that sacrifice as if it did not matter that those three are dead. Have a little respect.

2012-07-26T12:19:08+00:00

Outside of children I think men should espouse a higher form of heroism. I would much rather die bumrushing or attempting to attack and stop the shooter than being a sacrificial lamb for a girlfriend.

If you are with your child do whatever it takes to ensure its life, regardless of everything else.

Le4chanFTW · 2012-07-26T11:46:48+00:00

This thread feels like a twilight zone version of Jezebel. Really? 3 Men sacrificed themselves to save their partners they loved. Holy fuck, turn down the rage. The article is cheesy as shit, but. . . . Decrying their sacrifice pretty much says you wouldn't save your loved ones. You would let your mother get shot? Your daughter? Your girlfriend? These weren't random women, and even if they were it's still a sacrifice to be honoured, not misandry.

Poor taste, guys, poor taste.

almostchristian · 2012-07-26T09:38:42+00:00

There's no honor in dying. These men removed themselves from the gene pool and should be candidates for a Darwin award. I'm a man, but I wouldn't want anyone to make the ultimate sacrifice for me. I'd have too many self-doubts as to if I deserve the sacrifice, I'd be a nervous wreck. I think in those situations, everyone should just look out for number 1, or children.

Comments