If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Uproxx)   A Wall Street Journal columnist wonders if the women who were saved by men in the Aurora shootings were worth the sacrifice. Sounds like this guy would make for an AWESOME boyfriend   (uproxx.com) divider line 330
    More: Sick, Wall Street Journal, morning, George Costanza, shootings, James Taranto  
•       •       •

17365 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jul 2012 at 11:34 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



330 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-25 01:26:09 PM

doglover: Philimus: Marine1: "... Honest question for the Farkettes here: if your boyfriend/husband sacrificed himself like that, would you be open to the idea of loving again someday? Or would that sacrifice create a bar that just couldn't be reached by other men?"

The farkettes can certainly speak for themselves. However, as a guy, my guess is that the kind of man who is willing to sacrifice himself for the woman he loves would probably also be unselfish enough to want her to be happy when he's gone. Obviously, there's no way to know for sure with the men who died in the Aurora theater massacre, but in general I suspect that a person with the bravery to turn into the sound of gunfire to defend his significant other is not apt to be the controlling or jealous type about what she does with her life after he is dead and gone. Wouldn't it be enough to know you will always be remembered as someone's personal hero?

\then again, love is strange (as the song says).

You're thinking too much. In my experience acts of heroism come without much thought at all. Someone's in your base about to attack your captain, you are runnin' down at him even though you've got a broadsword and are fat while he's cut from wood, wearing lighter armor, and has a bloody pole fighter for back up and biceps like pythons that just ate a goat.

I imagine with real gunfire, the adrenaline will be pumping at least as hard as sword fighting. You see your love about to be shot, you do the only thing you can think of: toss her ass behind yours. The time it takes that to happen mentally is nil. What she does two seconds later, let alone for the rest of her life, isn't part of the equation. It just happens in your brain " GO THERE, TAKE HIT"


Makes sense. I tripped down some stairs once while carrying my baby. Didn't let go. Absolutely no conscious thought, just grabbed the baby extra tight and twisted to take the fall on my back. It was kind of a relief to find out that maternal instinct is real.
 
2012-07-25 01:27:30 PM
Doglover, you're right. And your answer makes more sense than mine did. It's true. In situations like that, our instincts take over, and I doubt anybody really knows exactly what he would do when faced with such danger until it's actually happening in real time.
 
2012-07-25 01:28:33 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Wolf892: LeGnome: Every woman's a feminist until the shooting starts.

Yup and yup. Also, why no stories of girlfriends instinctively shielding their boyfriends?

Ha. This reminds me of a funny story: my girlfriend's sister recently met and started hanging out wig this touch, no-nonsense feminist chick who literally refers to herself as an "alpha female." The "alpha female" invited her to a "liberation weekend" trip to Miami. While there, the girlfriends sister was nearly abducted by a couple creepy guys who tried to lure her into an alley. The "alpha female" ran off when the guys became aggressive, leaving my gf's sister alone, in Miami, at night near a dark alley with some suspicious characters.

The gf's sister talked her way out of the situation and caught up with the "alpha female" back at the hotel.


Easy rulke of thumb, anyone who describes THEMSELVES as "an Alpha X", or "Master so-and so" or a "ticking time bomb" or " a lone wolf" etc, is a self-deluded idiot who is as far in real life from what they imagine themselves to be as is possible.
 
2012-07-25 01:28:51 PM

FormlessOne: A Fark Handle: Lady Sally: The My Little Pony Killer: Magnanimous_J: miniflea: It doesn't matter if they were worth saving or not, perhaps some of them are not. What matters is doing the right thing when push comes to shove, and that's what a lot of those guys did.

Agreed. Any man who dies saving a woman is a hero.

Any man who dies saving anybody is a hero.

Anybody who dies saving anybody is a hero.

this is such an obvious opening to go all godwin.

seriously, not everyone deserves to be saved. sometime saving a life is good. sometimes saving a life is a waste.

Who decides?


hey, i don't have all the answers. i just know that not all lives are worth saving and some might even be worth taking so let's not pretend otherwise.
 
2012-07-25 01:29:23 PM

FormlessOne: A Fark Handle: Lady Sally: The My Little Pony Killer: Magnanimous_J: miniflea: It doesn't matter if they were worth saving or not, perhaps some of them are not. What matters is doing the right thing when push comes to shove, and that's what a lot of those guys did.

Agreed. Any man who dies saving a woman is a hero.

Any man who dies saving anybody is a hero.

Anybody who dies saving anybody is a hero.

this is such an obvious opening to go all godwin.

seriously, not everyone deserves to be saved. sometime saving a life is good. sometimes saving a life is a waste.

Who decides?


George W. Bush
 
2012-07-25 01:32:06 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: Makes sense. I tripped down some stairs once while carrying my baby. Didn't let go. Absolutely no conscious thought, just grabbed the baby extra tight and twisted to take the fall on my back. It was kind of a relief to find out that maternal instinct is real


I wish the "It's just a game and you really can't beat the physics of a pole weapon just by replacing the steel blade with a hard rubber one." instinct was real. But hey, when your captain is the winning conditions, you gotta a few lumps for the team.
 
2012-07-25 01:33:05 PM

Void_Beavis: Mr. Titanium: They were clearly worth it to the men who made the sacrifice. And that's all that really matters, isn't it?

In before

"Took a bullet for her, still friendzoned."

/Forever Alone
//aisle seat


Heh, I once tried to do the IRL white knight thing for a girl getting beat up by her crazy stalker ex. I ended up getting 6 stitches in my left palm between my ring and pinkie finger from a boxcutter he pulled on me.

Women talk a big game about wanting that knight in shining armor to rescue them and slay the dragon but only if the guy underneath all that shiny armor is already Brad Pitt.

She of course went right back to dating him again.

One of her girlfriends was much more impressed so I guess the stitches were eventually worth it.
 
2012-07-25 01:34:59 PM

Strategeryz0r: Prevailing Wind: I agree with the evolutionary nature of the male reaction to protect women. My question is, looking at this thread, why the scorn heaped on this guy who challenges the rationale behind that reaction?

Because he's trivializing heroic behavior. We're not the ones to judge whether these women were worth it or not, and neither is he. Not to mention what if it was a gay man protecting his male lover? Why does it have to be gender specific simply because 3 instances of boyfriends protecting the women they care about occurred?

Prevailing Wind: In other words, I think we can all agree that there is some manner of biological imperative which compels a man to protect a woman, but why are we (the farkers here) agreeing that the imperative is correct and thinking of the guy who doesn't have that imperative as being sub-male?

Because stripping away societal issues like sexism, and breaking this down to basic biology and evolutionary imperatives, that's what men are supposed to do. That's what we're hard wired to do, what we're built to do. Not following what should be base male instinct, but also just doing the right damn thing in general, would cause me to look down on someone. Even if I was at the theater alone, I know for a damn fact I would do anything I could to help people around me. Not only because I have training that could be useful(EMT training for example), but because it's just the right thing to do to me. I can keep my cool under pressure, and it's my job as a man and as someone who has been instructed on how to handle certain things that may arise over the course of a tragedy like this(during and after the shootings), to help these people out. Male or female, adult or child, black or white, it all makes no difference to me.

Think of that teacher who died saving numerous students at Columbine. How is that any different from a boyfriend shielding their girlfriend? Nobody looks back at that and says "I hope those kids were worth it." So why the h ...



I agree with the assessment that the men who did the protecting were correct to do so.

What I'm asking, mostly for the sake of argument, is why are they correct...from a societal value stand point?

For example, lets say a woman HAD protected a man in the shooting. Would we now be heaping scorn on that man for letting his girlfriend defend his life?

My gut tells me we would. The fact that it does says more about us than that we simply feel men should protect women because if that is the case than it is also true that we feel that women NEED protecting and furthermore based on this thread at least, that we are ok with that.

If we do feel that way with respect to these men defending these women in the Colorado shooting, then how does this same process apply to women in the military, the police, or any situation wherein mission efficacy could be adversely effected by a man's instinctual need to protect a woman from danger?

See what I mean? Its a sticky wicket when you bring it out.
 
2012-07-25 01:35:16 PM

Philimus: Doglover, you're right. And your answer makes more sense than mine did. It's true. In situations like that, our instincts take over, and I doubt anybody really knows exactly what he would do when faced with such danger until it's actually happening in real time.


well unless you're training for it. amazing what training can get people to do against their instincts. but yeah, for the rest of us, we'll just have to see in the moment.
 
2012-07-25 01:36:40 PM

Lorelle: What a jerk.

TheGreenMonkey: In my experience women want respect, validation, and equal treatment. Yet in much of the time they still want to be treated as inferior - like having a man open a door for them. Chivalry is an out-dated concept in that it demeans women into thinking they must have a protector to handle the dangers of society that one encounters every day in life.

In my experience, humans want respect, validation, and equal treatment. That's why I hold doors open for others, and thank them when they do the same for me. It's simply common courtesy, not an attempt to belittle others.

I've no idea how you came to equate good manners with treating others as inferior, but I have noticed that teenagers and those in their early twenties are least likely to acknowledge polite gestures.


There is a subset of feminists who get angry if they are treated chivalrously, because they view such acts as being treated as if they are inferior. My guess is that's what TheGreenMonkey is going for.

I agree with you, regarding common courtesy. I hold the door for anyone, regardless of gender.
 
2012-07-25 01:36:51 PM
damn you effect/affect!!!
 
2012-07-25 01:40:10 PM

One Bad Apple: One of her girlfriends was much more impressed so I guess the stitches were eventually worth it.


So you only helped out with the hopes of getting some tail later? I mean, ok, that sucks that she went back to him, seriously, for everyone involved. And ok, I guess it's nice that you did end up getting tail from it... but something about your motives in that situation just strikes me as incredibly odd.
 
2012-07-25 01:41:03 PM

miniflea: Coolfusis: As much as the dude is a douche for saying that, it makes me wonder what it'd be like for one of those girls were they cheating on their boyfriend at the time. Can you imagine having to live with that?

Not to worry, I'm sure they'll manage to rationalize it somehow.

It doesn't matter if they were worth saving or not, perhaps some of them are not. What matters is doing the right thing when push comes to shove, and that's what a lot of those guys did. Except that one that abandoned his pregnant girlfriend or whatever.


Well said.

GF: Flowers, how nice. My last boyfriend took a bullet for me. 5.99 @ the checkout lane.

Talk about a tough standard.
 
2012-07-25 01:41:20 PM
I have often wondered if I could ever do anything like this. The closest I have ever come is going into a bar brawl to drag out a friend stuck in the middle of it on more than one occasion. The worst was at this one club where a fight broke out on the dance floor of this club I saw a friend of mine catch a stray fist we lost her in the mess but me and another friend managed to drag her out she had a nice bump and bruise on the side of her head and we were her "heros".
 
2012-07-25 01:45:42 PM
This guy is a douche. We all have a soul that allows us to decide to be completely selfless and do whats right no matter what the personal cost. Id like to believe that if God forbid I was ever in this situation I wouldnt treat my fellow human being like a math problem of probability and "evolutionary benefit" and just do what needs to be done.
 
2012-07-25 01:48:45 PM
Women are no less ignorant, stupid, selfish, savage than men. It's just that men are instinctively driven to protect females, but no, women are not worth it. Imagine that they are just another dude.
 
2012-07-25 01:50:50 PM
Any women die to save their man? Of course not. What a ridiculous notion.

Equal rights, unequal responsibilities.
 
2012-07-25 01:51:39 PM

CapeFearCadaver:

Anyone who sacrifices themselves for another, regardless of any individual defining characteristics, is a hero in my eyes.


What if I saved Hitler from some mad gunman?
 
2012-07-25 01:54:15 PM

Prevailing Wind: What I'm asking, mostly for the sake of argument, is why are they correct...from a societal value stand point?


The reality is there is no societal value in terms of who got saved vs who didn't. If women want equality then that has to be the harsh reality of it, they are no better in the eyes of society than your average man(following the feminist desire for equality). However, it can be argued that it's not a societal value they have. But, rather, an evolutionary value. Men protect women because, at the end of the day, you have to have a woman to continue society as well as human evolution(by association). Like someone else said, it takes 1 man to get 10 women pregnant but the same cannot be said for the reverse. So, in order to continue populating your society(which I guess is a form of societal value) and continue human evolution, you can argue the woman has more value than the man.

Prevailing Wind: For example, lets say a woman HAD protected a man in the shooting. Would we now be heaping scorn on that man for letting his girlfriend defend his life?


In my eyes, we shouldn't heap scorn on that man. Who's to say his attention wasn't distracted and his girl was just quicker on the draw when it came to getting him out of the way? What if that woman is former military and her man is not, thus meaning her training kicked in and she reacted without thinking? There's a number of factors there. As much as I think we shouldn't scorn the man, I know many would.

Not to start a flame war, but I guarantee you the first people to heap scorn on that man would be feminists too. Feminists and the atypical "why weren't you a MAN?" alpha male types.

Prevailing Wind: If we do feel that way with respect to these men defending these women in the Colorado shooting, then how does this same process apply to women in the military, the police, or any situation wherein mission efficacy could be adversely effected by a man's instinctual need to protect a woman from danger?


Different circumstances in my eyes. If you take an average man and an average woman(no military/police/whatever training), the current expectation is for the man to protect the woman. As I said when you break it down to basic biology and evolution, that's what the man is meant to do.

Now say we have a male and female both in the military. The military already takes steps to limit risks for female service members. They're not allowed in special forces units, for the longest time the navy wouldn't allow them to be on subs, they weren't allowed(pretty sure this changed) to serve as combat pilots, and I don't think the army allows women to be apart of any combat specific unit period(not sure). There are MANY examples of women displaying great heroism in the field, but that base instinct of males protecting females has already formed military policy. In combat, there are numerous examples of male soldiers shielding female soldiers. I wont argue against that not having an affect on mission efficacy. It's impossible to say it didn't have an some affect, as odds are it probably did.

You know what else also happens though? That instinct that causes men to protect women, also has caused them to fall on grenades so the rest of their all male unit doesn't get killed. This isn't some type of behavior that's exclusive to men protecting women. It's more like in an instance where you're in a mixed-gender group, the base instinct of most men will be to protect the women. But in a situation where it's an all male group, that instinct may take over for the man to protect what he sees as his brother or friend. It's a behavior that is anything but rational, but that behavior has caused a great many to sacrifice themselves so a few could survive. In some cases it probably cost a mission objective, but in other instances it may have been the sole act that allowed a unit to accomplish their goals. It's a double edged sword really.
 
2012-07-25 01:56:01 PM
lol. So not jumping in front of a bullet to sacrifice yourself for the nearest woman makes you a misogynist now. If that's all it takes, then I really don't give a rat's ass if somebody accuses me of being one.
 
2012-07-25 01:57:22 PM

Prevailing Wind: Are the lives of women worth more then those of a man?

If so, by what measure?


You're looking at this the wrong way. Those men who died sheltering others didn't have time to make up their minds about who was worthy of being protected. They responded according to training and biological imperative.

Humans have instincts. They tend to be strongly over-ruled by intellect in most non-combat situations, but they are there nonetheless (with rare exceptions of those whose mental deficiencies cause them to prey upon women and children). We are hard-wired by physical and cultural evolution to protect women and children- even at the cost of our lives. Cultures which laud this innate tendency are more likely to suurvive and expand than those without it.

When those men first realized that they were under attack, they didn't ponder ethical variables or the societal value of other individuals at risk- they reacted to the threat the way their cultural and biological history had trained them to do: they got between the threat and the threatened, to buy the threatened a chance to live with their own lives. It isn't rational, but it is very human.

Since someone else has already quoted Heinlein, I'll add a couple more:

All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly, which can- and must- be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly- and no doubt will keep on trying.

Men are expendable; women and children are not. A tribe or a nation can lose a high percentage of its men and still pick up the pieces and go on... as long as the women and children are saved. But if you fail to save the women and children, you've had it, you're done, you're through! You join Tyrannosaurus Rex, one more breed that bilged its final test.
 
2012-07-25 01:58:13 PM

Marine1: You know, I'd like to say the sacrifice by those men proves that chivalry isn't dead... but... they sacrificed themselves and died.

Honest question for the Farkettes here: if your boyfriend/husband sacrificed himself like that, would you be open to the idea of loving again someday? Or would that sacrifice create a bar that just couldn't be reached by other men?


Wow, that's an interesting question. I'm sure eventually I'd settle down again, but I probably would always wonder if the new guy would do the same for me should the necessity occur.
 
2012-07-25 02:00:37 PM

Zizzowop: Well, he's not getting laid for a while, not that he was in the first place.


I'm not so sure. There seems to be a class (or phylum...something like that) of woman that gravitates toward fat, derpy, asshats like this. Gingrich has been nothing but shiatty to his past female partners, and has even said that he thought woman shouldn't fight in the military because they got monthly "infections," and yet, inexplicably, he keeps finding women willing to marry him. Rove likewise continues to get laid. It's the same kind of masochism one finds among those chicks that fall in love with felons serving a life sentence. Or maybe it is more like the Stockholm Syndrome, where you fall in love with the evil oppressor because you think that will increase your chances of survival. Either way, it's pretty gross and all too common.
 
2012-07-25 02:01:13 PM
www.alarmingnews.com

Given how he looks and tweeted, he doesn't seem in the right place to judge women of whether to save them or not. Stones at glass houses and all.
 
2012-07-25 02:04:22 PM

Strategeryz0r: Prevailing Wind: If we do feel that way with respect to these men defending these women in the Colorado shooting, then how does this same process apply to women in the military, the police, or any situation wherein mission efficacy could be adversely effected by a man's instinctual need to protect a woman from danger?

Different circumstances in my eyes. If you take an average man and an average woman(no military/police/whatever training), the current expectation is for the man to protect the woman. As I said when you break it down to basic biology and evolution, that's what the man is meant to do.

Now say we have a male and female both in the military. The military already takes steps to limit risks for female service members. They're not allowed in special forces units, for the longest time the navy wouldn't allow them to be on subs, they weren't allowed(pretty sure this changed) to serve as combat pilots, and I don't think the army allows women to be apart of any combat specific unit period(not sure). There are MANY examples of women displaying great heroism in the field, but that base instinct of males protecting females has already formed military policy. In combat, there are numerous examples of male soldiers shielding female soldiers. I wont argue against that not having an affect on mission efficacy. It's impossible to say it didn't have an some affect, as odds are it probably did.

You know what else also happens though? That instinct that causes men to protect women, also has caused them to fall on grenades so the rest of their all male unit doesn't get killed. This isn't some type of behavior that's exclusive to men protecting women. It's more like in an instance where you're in a mixed-gender group, the base instinct of most men will be to protect the women. But in a situation where it's an all male group, that instinct may take over for the man to protect what he sees as his brother or friend. It's a behavior that is anything but rational, but that beh ...



I agree with the military assessment. You also have training which will be in place to counteract instinct too and that wold factor in. Police though, that might be a bit different...also fire fighting perhaps.

Again, I'm not making any kind of judgement on this. I'm just curious how the same logic that applies to calling this anti-male twerp from the WSJ a douche would be applied to making decisions about sending women into dangerous situations.

I have a hard time reconciling my own thoughts on it to be honest, particularly when I personalize it. Is it ok to let women be in the military? You bet! Is it ok to let my daughter be in the military? Over my cold dead body.

Anyway. Fun diverting thoughts today. Thanks for the discourse.
 
2012-07-25 02:09:53 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Hamster On A Wheel: Honest question for the Farkettes here: if your boyfriend/husband sacrificed himself like that, would you be open to the idea of loving again someday? Or would that sacrifice create a bar that just couldn't be reached by other men?

I think I'd feel like I owed it to him to mourn and move on. What point would it have served for him to sacrifice his life for mine if I refuse to live it, and being in a loving, committed relationship is part of living, IMO.

This. I've told my wife repeatedly that if something unexpected should ever happen and I'm suddenly not around anymore.... to grieve and move on, quickly. If anything, the loss should push the point that our time here is limited. No point wasting it in some misguided gesture of loyalty to the dead.


A man and his wife are laying in bed reading. She says,"Honey, if I died would you remarry?"
"Well, probably. We are still young and I think I would get lonely."

"Would you live in this house with her?"

"Well, it is a beautiful house. Great neighborhood, close to work and the schools are excellent. We probably would."

"Would you stay in this bedroom with her?"

"Honey, it is the master bedroom with the huge walk in closet and amazing bathroom. We would stay in this room."

"Would you sleep in this bed?"

"Hmm, it is a fantastic bedroom set and a different bed would cause me to have to redecorate the entire room right down to new carpet and paint. So, yeah. We would sleep in this bed."

"Would you let her use my golf clubs?"

"No way. She's a lefty."
 
2012-07-25 02:12:01 PM

farkingnotworking: Zizzowop: Well, he's not getting laid for a while, not that he was in the first place.

I'm not so sure. There seems to be a class (or phylum...something like that) of woman that gravitates toward fat, derpy, asshats like this. Gingrich has been nothing but shiatty to his past female partners, and has even said that he thought woman shouldn't fight in the military because they got monthly "infections," and yet, inexplicably, he keeps finding women willing to marry him. Rove likewise continues to get laid. It's the same kind of masochism one finds among those chicks that fall in love with felons serving a life sentence. Or maybe it is more like the Stockholm Syndrome, where you fall in love with the evil oppressor because you think that will increase your chances of survival. Either way, it's pretty gross and all too common.


Yes, but those people are famous(public figures), this asshat is not. Works for scrawny, ugly rock stars too.
 
2012-07-25 02:13:52 PM

Prevailing Wind: I agree with the military assessment. You also have training which will be in place to counteract instinct too and that wold factor in. Police though, that might be a bit different...also fire fighting perhaps.


Police is different yes, this is where I have a teeny bit of experience(i was a reserve officer with the local PD for a couple years). Women are allowed to do anything men can do, at least in my local, police units. If a woman wants to be on a SWAT team and fulfills the requirements and can pass the physical assessments then she can be on the SWAT team. Most male officers treat their female counterparts as equals too, as they know trying to shield the female officers from danger just pisses them off.

Firefighting, same mentality as police. At least the ones I've seen and dealt with.

Prevailing Wind: Again, I'm not making any kind of judgement on this. I'm just curious how the same logic that applies to calling this anti-male twerp from the WSJ a douche would be applied to making decisions about sending women into dangerous situations.


i don't think he's a douche for singling out the women in specific. I think he's a douche for merely questioning the actions of a few heroes. Those guys made an instinctive decision in the heat of the moment that saved the lives of their girlfriends. There's no reason for this question to ever be asked, and simply putting it out there makes you a jackass in my book. As this WSJ writer just trivialized something I sincerely doubt he would have done himself.

Prevailing Wind: I have a hard time reconciling my own thoughts on it to be honest, particularly when I personalize it. Is it ok to let women be in the military? You bet! Is it ok to let my daughter be in the military? Over my cold dead body.


While I understand your viewpoint about your daughter joining the military, I would respectfully disagree. It may seem odd, but I think joining the military may be one of the most empowering things a woman can do. It's one of the few places where, training and treatment wise, they are put almost on exactly the same level as their male counterparts. I've personally witnessed female soldiers who can kick the shiat out of their male colleagues, and that is just awesome. I don't know exactly how I feel on military policy regarding what women can and can't do. As I understand their justifications go far beyond just "protect the wimmenfolk." It extends into things like diverting the attention of male soldiers, and the like. Which is understandable considering how horny your average man is, and in combat the last thing you need is a guy distracted by "dat ass." At the same time though I know women are capable of doing those jobs, and I know there are plenty of guys with the self control to not be distracted by the fact a woman is sharing a foxhole with them.

If my daughter wanted to join up, I'd be the one driving her to the recruiting station.

And no, thank you for the discourse. Not often you can have a reasonable, intelligent, discussion on Fark. Especially concerning such an inherently touchy subject.
 
2012-07-25 02:15:52 PM
Wow! How did a smarmy prick like that get a job at a Rupert Murdoch newspaper?
 
2012-07-25 02:16:30 PM

farkingnotworking: Zizzowop: Well, he's not getting laid for a while, not that he was in the first place.

I'm not so sure. There seems to be a class (or phylum...something like that) of woman that gravitates toward fat, derpy, asshats like this. Gingrich has been nothing but shiatty to his past female partners, and has even said that he thought woman shouldn't fight in the military because they got monthly "infections," and yet, inexplicably, he keeps finding women willing to marry him.


$o, I have been $itting here trying to figure out what draw$ the$e women to $omeone like Gingrich. $ome thing$ are de$tined to $tay a my$tery I gue$$.
 
2012-07-25 02:18:26 PM

farkingnotworking: Zizzowop: Well, he's not getting laid for a while, not that he was in the first place.

I'm not so sure. There seems to be a class (or phylum...something like that) of woman that gravitates toward fat, derpy, asshats like this. Gingrich has been nothing but shiatty to his past female partners, and has even said that he thought woman shouldn't fight in the military because they got monthly "infections," and yet, inexplicably, he keeps finding women willing to marry him. Rove likewise continues to get laid. It's the same kind of masochism one finds among those chicks that fall in love with felons serving a life sentence. Or maybe it is more like the Stockholm Syndrome, where you fall in love with the evil oppressor because you think that will increase your chances of survival. Either way, it's pretty gross and all too common.


You forgot money.
 
2012-07-25 02:19:50 PM

CapeFearCadaver: One Bad Apple: One of her girlfriends was much more impressed so I guess the stitches were eventually worth it.

So you only helped out with the hopes of getting some tail later? I mean, ok, that sucks that she went back to him, seriously, for everyone involved. And ok, I guess it's nice that you did end up getting tail from it... but something about your motives in that situation just strikes me as incredibly odd.


But in a very real sense, that motive is at the heart of a lot of common sentiment about the "chivalry" thing, particularly as seen by supposedly "Nice Guys," and it's WHY a lot of women are not comfortable with it.

The unspoken agreement is, "I'll protect you (or open the door for you or whatever it is) and in exchange for that, you OWE me." And yes, that's farked up. Insisting on doing favors for people so that they owe you one is farked up.

Not everyone opening doors for women is thinking that way, but enough creepy "Nice Guys" are out there that it legitimately makes a lot of women wary.

"Chivalry" is just one version of it, of course, the same screwy dynamic exists in families where parents insist on doing everything for their children and then berating them for being weak and unable to support themselves.

Meanwhile at least one woman stayed in the theater while the guy was still shooting to put pressure on her friend's wound - another woman, who had been shot in the neck. Luckily in that case both survived.

I think that a lot of altruistic people will for pure motives try to save another - regardless of the sex of that other. But the way this WSJ guy asks the question, hell yeah he comes off as a "Nice Guy" creeper.
 
2012-07-25 02:19:53 PM

Snarcasm: miniflea: Coolfusis: As much as the dude is a douche for saying that, it makes me wonder what it'd be like for one of those girls were they cheating on their boyfriend at the time. Can you imagine having to live with that?

Not to worry, I'm sure they'll manage to rationalize it somehow.

It doesn't matter if they were worth saving or not, perhaps some of them are not. What matters is doing the right thing when push comes to shove, and that's what a lot of those guys did. Except that one that abandoned his pregnant girlfriend or whatever.

Well said.

GF: Flowers, how nice. My last boyfriend took a bullet for me. 5.99 @ the checkout lane.

Talk about a tough standard.


I was in the dating pool for awhile. Went out with a woman that was lovely. Intelligent, pretty we were hitting it off real well. Then we decided to talk about our last relationship. Her's was with her finance`. Great guy, love of her life. It ended Sept 11th, he was in one of the towers.

Never called her back. No way am I going to compete with the image in her head of the life she should have had.
 
2012-07-25 02:21:15 PM

Prevailing Wind: Helen_Arigby: TheGreenMonkey: LeGnome:

Honey, you wouldn't make the cut anyway. Go buy a Fleshlight.
...


And by Fleshlight, she means this...
[l.yimg.com image 300x233]


Hopefully he uses it while wearing a pretty checked gingham dress and moaning "Who's a pretty birdie? Who's a pretty birdie?"
 
2012-07-25 02:25:35 PM

itazurakko: I think that a lot of altruistic people will for pure motives try to save another - regardless of the sex of that other. But the way this WSJ guy asks the question, hell yeah he comes off as a "Nice Guy" creeper.


He comes off as a "nice guy" anything for seemingly insinuating that these men shouldn't have sacrificed themselves because their girlfriends may not have been worth it?

I fail to see how he's a "nice guy" in any meaning of the word. More like absolute dickhead.
 
2012-07-25 02:29:44 PM

Strategeryz0r: He doesn't comes off as a "nice guy" anything for seemingly insinuating that these men shouldn't have sacrificed themselves because their girlfriends may not have been worth it?

I fail to see how he's a "nice guy" in any meaning of the word. More like absolute dickhead.


ftfm, forgot a word.
 
2012-07-25 02:35:17 PM

Strategeryz0r: itazurakko: I think that a lot of altruistic people will for pure motives try to save another - regardless of the sex of that other. But the way this WSJ guy asks the question, hell yeah he comes off as a "Nice Guy" creeper.

He comes off as a "nice guy" anything for seemingly insinuating that these men shouldn't have sacrificed themselves because their girlfriends may not have been worth it?

I fail to see how he's a "nice guy" in any meaning of the word. More like absolute dickhead.


"Nice Guy" with quotes is actually anything but nice. "Absolute dickhead" is a pretty good synonym for it, really. I think we feel similarly about him!
 
2012-07-25 02:37:03 PM
Bullkitchen and I would both draw our concealed weapons and, from a protected area, simultaneously pop up and take out the shooter with well-placed shots to the head and knees.
 
2012-07-25 02:37:18 PM

itazurakko: Strategeryz0r: itazurakko: I think that a lot of altruistic people will for pure motives try to save another - regardless of the sex of that other. But the way this WSJ guy asks the question, hell yeah he comes off as a "Nice Guy" creeper.

He comes off as a "nice guy" anything for seemingly insinuating that these men shouldn't have sacrificed themselves because their girlfriends may not have been worth it?

I fail to see how he's a "nice guy" in any meaning of the word. More like absolute dickhead.

"Nice Guy" with quotes is actually anything but nice. "Absolute dickhead" is a pretty good synonym for it, really. I think we feel similarly about him!


ok lol. just checking. I figured that's what the quotes were, but with fark you never know..
 
2012-07-25 02:37:49 PM

Strategeryz0r: I fail to see how he's a "nice guy" in any meaning of the word. More like absolute dickhead.


He's talking about the variable "Nice Guy" syndrome, which is why he put it in quotes. You see it a lot in certain Fark threads when some guy is complaining that that he's such a nice guy, and women always be talking about wanting a 'nice guy', but then they just end up with someone... other than them. And it almost always reeks of this "I did something for you, you owe me something in return" aspect to their stories about how they're such a 'nice guy', and that stupid, worthless girl didn't see him for the awesome person that he truly is.

The guy in the article? Don't know enough about him to make any assertation. Nor do I want to.
 
2012-07-25 02:38:16 PM
This comment would be perfectly acceptable if he was a better looking guy.
 
2012-07-25 02:40:00 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: doglover: Philimus: Marine1: "... Honest question for the Farkettes here: if your boyfriend/husband sacrificed himself like that, would you be open to the idea of loving again someday? Or would that sacrifice create a bar that just couldn't be reached by other men?"

The farkettes can certainly speak for themselves. However, as a guy, my guess is that the kind of man who is willing to sacrifice himself for the woman he loves would probably also be unselfish enough to want her to be happy when he's gone. Obviously, there's no way to know for sure with the men who died in the Aurora theater massacre, but in general I suspect that a person with the bravery to turn into the sound of gunfire to defend his significant other is not apt to be the controlling or jealous type about what she does with her life after he is dead and gone. Wouldn't it be enough to know you will always be remembered as someone's personal hero?

\then again, love is strange (as the song says).

You're thinking too much. In my experience acts of heroism come without much thought at all. Someone's in your base about to attack your captain, you are runnin' down at him even though you've got a broadsword and are fat while he's cut from wood, wearing lighter armor, and has a bloody pole fighter for back up and biceps like pythons that just ate a goat.

I imagine with real gunfire, the adrenaline will be pumping at least as hard as sword fighting. You see your love about to be shot, you do the only thing you can think of: toss her ass behind yours. The time it takes that to happen mentally is nil. What she does two seconds later, let alone for the rest of her life, isn't part of the equation. It just happens in your brain " GO THERE, TAKE HIT"

Makes sense. I tripped down some stairs once while carrying my baby. Didn't let go. Absolutely no conscious thought, just grabbed the baby extra tight and twisted to take the fall on my back. It was kind of a relief to find out that maternal instinct is real.


I have done the exact same thing. Twisted the shiat out of my knee and got some horrible bruises, but baby barely felt it when I went down.
 
2012-07-25 02:41:08 PM

hiker9999: belhade: She better go home and cure cancer, or make a better lightbulb or something...

We tried building a better lightbulb. Morons went ballistic claiming duh gubbamint's stealing mah bulbs!


You sir deserve a cookie as it made me chuckle.
 
2012-07-25 02:46:02 PM

Wendy's Chili: farkingnotworking: Zizzowop: Well, he's not getting laid for a while, not that he was in the first place.

I'm not so sure. There seems to be a class (or phylum...something like that) of woman that gravitates toward fat, derpy, asshats like this. Gingrich has been nothing but shiatty to his past female partners, and has even said that he thought woman shouldn't fight in the military because they got monthly "infections," and yet, inexplicably, he keeps finding women willing to marry him. Rove likewise continues to get laid. It's the same kind of masochism one finds among those chicks that fall in love with felons serving a life sentence. Or maybe it is more like the Stockholm Syndrome, where you fall in love with the evil oppressor because you think that will increase your chances of survival. Either way, it's pretty gross and all too common.

You forgot money.

AND

$o, I have been $itting here trying to figure out what draw$ the$e women to $omeone like Gingrich. $ome thing$ are de$tined to $tay a my$tery I gue$$.


Yeah, ok, good point. God, I can't imagine a sum of money large enough that would make letting a porcine helmet-head sweat on me for five minutes seem like anything other than a reason to kill myself, but yeah, you must be right.

*shudder*
 
2012-07-25 02:46:23 PM
here's a followup question:
You are married and you have kids (i know it's a foreign concept to many farkers). Your wife is stuck on the train tracks. You desperately try to free her as a train is bearing down. Do you stay and die with her, or do you save yourself for the benefit of the kids?
My honest feeling is that i would rather die with her, but would save myself for the kids.
 
2012-07-25 02:50:04 PM

greenboy: here's a followup question:
You are married and you have kids (i know it's a foreign concept to many farkers). Your wife is stuck on the train tracks. You desperately try to free her as a train is bearing down. Do you stay and die with her, or do you save yourself for the benefit of the kids?
My honest feeling is that i would rather die with her, but would save myself for the kids.

I think (rationally, sitting here being a computer screen eating lunch) that I would jump out of the way at the last moment I think I can survive, because yeah, the kids.

Who even remotely knows in real life, though - the lizard brain can be unpredictable.

Thinking the same way though, if it were ME on the tracks I certainly wouldn't want my spouse (or heck, even a friend) to die with me. Stay nearBY sure, but dammit, when it's the last possible moment for you to survive, JUMP AWAY.
 
2012-07-25 02:51:12 PM

itazurakko: sitting here being a computer screen


Er, make that "BEHIND" a computer screen.

/I am actually human
//even if some doubt
 
2012-07-25 02:51:48 PM

greenboy: here's a followup question:
You are married and you have kids (i know it's a foreign concept to many farkers). Your wife is stuck on the train tracks. You desperately try to free her as a train is bearing down. Do you stay and die with her, or do you save yourself for the benefit of the kids?


Life insurance usually pays double in the event of an accident, right?
 
2012-07-25 02:51:58 PM

greenboy: here's a followup question:
You are married and you have kids (i know it's a foreign concept to many farkers). Your wife is stuck on the train tracks. You desperately try to free her as a train is bearing down. Do you stay and die with her, or do you save yourself for the benefit of the kids?
My honest feeling is that i would rather die with her, but would save myself for the kids.


Instinct says die with the woman you love.

Logic says one of you needs to live for the sake of the children.

I would say the latter is the correct course of action. Otherwise 2 people die, and your children are farked for life. Nobody is done any favors. If you live, it's a terrible tragedy that your wife is gone. However, the reality is you did everything you could to save her, and by ensuring your children have at least one parent in their life you can continue to honor her legacy.
 
2012-07-25 02:51:59 PM

Strategeryz0r: Prevailing Wind: I agree with the military assessment. You also have training which will be in place to counteract instinct too and that wold factor in. Police though, that might be a bit different...also fire fighting perhaps.

Police is different yes, this is where I have a teeny bit of experience(i was a reserve officer with the local PD for a couple years). Women are allowed to do anything men can do, at least in my local, police units. If a woman wants to be on a SWAT team and fulfills the requirements and can pass the physical assessments then she can be on the SWAT team. Most male officers treat their female counterparts as equals too, as they know trying to shield the female officers from danger just pisses them off.

Firefighting, same mentality as police. At least the ones I've seen and dealt with.

Prevailing Wind: Again, I'm not making any kind of judgement on this. I'm just curious how the same logic that applies to calling this anti-male twerp from the WSJ a douche would be applied to making decisions about sending women into dangerous situations.

i don't think he's a douche for singling out the women in specific. I think he's a douche for merely questioning the actions of a few heroes. Those guys made an instinctive decision in the heat of the moment that saved the lives of their girlfriends. There's no reason for this question to ever be asked, and simply putting it out there makes you a jackass in my book. As this WSJ writer just trivialized something I sincerely doubt he would have done himself.

Prevailing Wind: I have a hard time reconciling my own thoughts on it to be honest, particularly when I personalize it. Is it ok to let women be in the military? You bet! Is it ok to let my daughter be in the military? Over my cold dead body.

While I understand your viewpoint about your daughter joining the military, I would respectfully disagree. It may seem odd, but I think joining the military may be one of the most empowering things a woman can do. I ...


I have followed, and enjoyed this conversation.
 
Displayed 50 of 330 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report