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 329
    More: Sick, Wall Street Journal, morning, George Costanza, shootings, James Taranto  
•       •       •

17366 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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-25 12:45:43 PM

theorellior: keypusher: Another gaggle of people who never read the pre-Murdoch WSJ, I see.

I did, I had a subscription for a few years back in the 90s. Sure there was derp, but I don't remember it being quite so concentrated.


The old WSJ was weird in that the editorial side was full derp, but the reporting was independent and excellent. Often the editorials were undermined by fact-based reporting in the same issue. Murdoch put a stop to that, so it's full derp both sides now.
 
2012-07-25 12:46:56 PM

DougExeter: 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?

It would take me a VERY long time to consider loving another man if Mr. Exeter did that. I think I'd feel too guilty and I probably would never take my wedding ring off. So, no. I don't think I could love again but I can't say that with any certainty. Folks used to re marry out of necessity all the time.
/Mr. Exter is the type of man to give that very sacrifice.
//we'd probably both die or get hurt trying to save the other.


S' the wrong way to look at it. If I were in that situation, I'd HOPE my wife began dating again, and soon. I didn;t give up my life so she could waste the rest of hers mourning over me. I'd be in a better place, or meat for the worms, but either way, past care and hurt.
 
2012-07-25 12:48:07 PM
The only people that can answer that question are dead....the men that sacrificed themselves to protect their girlfriends.
 
2012-07-25 12:48:38 PM

Fano: gunga galunga: Snargi: This columnist was in the theater. He was saved when he pulled the 6-year-old in front him.

/douchebag

[i117.photobucket.com image 320x236]

"I'm Greg Stilson and I approve this defense measure."

Dangit! Spent too long hunting down the baby picture! Good call.


But you found the right pic, so it's a tie.
 
2012-07-25 12:49:13 PM
My question is: how many of these guys dove on the women to save them, vs how many were trying to rape them thinking they only had minutes to live? Hmm? Think about that one.
 
2012-07-25 12:50:01 PM
I'm not parroting WSJ douche.
My sister worked for USAA a USA military oriented banking and insurance company. Everyday many times over, she would receive phone calls from returning soldiers from war zones literally crying that their bank accounts were empty and wives gone. The soldiers would beg her to put the money back (she could not), sometimes the wives would remove the money days before the soldiers return. This happens every day, that's some sorry shiat
 
2012-07-25 12:50:03 PM

Frantic Freddie: THIS is how a man dies.

This is how a MAN...lives!


Since you didn't attribute it,I will,that's Robert Heinlein.


I would modify it to say "This is how a human dies...This is how a human...lives!"

All it would take to solve so many of society's problems would be to adopt a philosophy of helping others before you help yourself
 
2012-07-25 12:50:20 PM

Virtue: TheGreenMonkey [TotalFark]


Smartest
Funniest

2012-07-25 12:01:30 PM

LeGnome: Every woman's a feminist until the shooting starts.


I like this comment because from what I've seen it's at least partially true. Not in a literal sense however, but in little everyday things, like opening a door for a woman.

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.

I am glad these women were saved as a result of the sacrifice of their boyfriends, but I do wonder if they really understand what it means. I don't expect them to be celibate for the rest of their lives or to never have another relationship but I do think they should honor the sacrifice, And they certainly should not hold it as a standard for any future mates.



If men and women are equal then why weren't there 3 women who died defending their boyfriends?


You win +1 internetz. And owe me a keyboard.
 
2012-07-25 12:51:40 PM

miss diminutive: From one of the links in the article:While using their bodies as shields, Matt McQuinn, 27, Jonathan Blunk, 26, and Alex Teves, 24, were killed in the worst mass shooting in US history.

"He shielded her. He got down on the floor and covered her up," said Iacovelli, who lives in Barneget, NJ. "She was pulled out from under him. I don't know who pulled her out."

For me, these sort of heartbreaking stories just reinforce how the worst in human nature can also bring out the best.

These people reacted on instinct and put themselves in harms way to save their loved one or total strangers. Whether or not those sacrifices were "worth it" is completely irrelevant, they shielded their loved ones and others out of love. It was an act of conscience born in the soul (or whatever you call the thing inside us that is more than the sum of our parts) and not some analytical cost benefit choice made by the mind. They put themselves in harms way on instinct because they were good people, end of story.

Way to completely miss the point, guy-who-will-probably-never-get-laid-again.


I don't think people like James understand all that "loving someone" silliness. Life for them is purely a cost-per-value transaction. I'm sure he pays exactly his half of the bill everytime, to the penny, no more.
 
2012-07-25 12:51:51 PM

silverjets: The only people that can answer that question are dead....the men that sacrificed themselves to protect their girlfriends.


selfish bastards. couldn't even stick around to answer a few questions.
 
2012-07-25 12:51:53 PM

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.

unless, of course you were referring to 'mankind', then apologies.
 
2012-07-25 12:53:07 PM

TheGreenMonkey: LeGnome: Every woman's a feminist until the shooting starts.


I like this comment because from what I've seen it's at least partially true. Not in a literal sense however, but in little everyday things, like opening a door for a woman.

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.

I am glad these women were saved as a result of the sacrifice of their boyfriends, but I do wonder if they really understand what it means. I don't expect them to be celibate for the rest of their lives or to never have another relationship but I do think they should honor the sacrifice, And they certainly should not hold it as a standard for any future mates.


I want a man to open a door for me because he reached it first and it's good manners. I would also prefer he be civil to the waitstaff at restaurants, chew with his mouth closed, and follow basic traffic etiquette. It's what I try to do. Who wants to date a heathen?
 
2012-07-25 12:53:15 PM

qualtrough: theorellior: keypusher: Another gaggle of people who never read the pre-Murdoch WSJ, I see.

I did, I had a subscription for a few years back in the 90s. Sure there was derp, but I don't remember it being quite so concentrated.

The old WSJ was weird in that the editorial side was full derp, but the reporting was independent and excellent. Often the editorials were undermined by fact-based reporting in the same issue. Murdoch put a stop to that, so it's full derp both sides now.


Another non-reader. Why do people feel compelled to write about a newspaper they don't read?

Why do I care? Because I actually know real-life WSJ reporters. And they STILL write stuff that contradicts the editorial page.
 
2012-07-25 12:54:01 PM
A woman can have a baby by any man she wants, or at least one of equal quality.

A man can not have a baby, and can't even father one by any woman he wants--only a man of truly exceptional quality could even come close, and most are lucky if they have a woman at all: women do not as a rule, marry losers.

As the feminist cynic said "Every man should marry. No woman should." Married men live longer, but it is at the cost of married women who have to put up with them when they retire.

Therefore the average woman is worth more than the above average man in purely darwinian terms. In some countries, the status of women may be low, but then a few men usually bogart all the women in those countries, maintaining the evolutionary asymettrical warfare between the sexes.

So this is pretty much a universal.

In the USA, however, the status of women is high. They are typically better educated and smarter and better-dressed than their husbands or boyfriends. They usually look a class or two higher than their men.

In this case, American women are a lot superior to American men (but not as much as the difference between Scottish lassies and Scottish men). Ergo, a man should always throw away his useless life for a woman, espcially if she is the mother of his children, and I might add, especially if he is a conserative American and she is a liberal.

Didn't yo Momma teach you anything, boy?

As for women not sacrificing themselves for men, I am reminded of a historical incident in which Alexander the Great was beseiging a city. He agreed to let the women and children go unmolested, with what they could carry. At the appointed time, the women came out of the city, each woman carrying a husband, father, son, or other man on her back. Alexander the Great is said to have been so impressed by their spunk he spared the city, men and all.

Chances are that you have been carried by a woman for at least nine months. Chances are that you are still being carried by one, schmuck. The rest is sentimental claptrap and propaganda. Most men will trample women and children to save their own skins. They may not trample their dates, wives, or daughters, but they will happily trample everybody else's.

They say a civilization can be judged by how it treats its women, but I think a case could be made for how it treats its homosexuals and other unpopular minorities. A lot of conservative rich women don't have to worry about being treated a thousand times better than the average man. Not all women are liberals and not all of them are good mothers. But on the whole, civilization depends on them more than on work, money or fighting.

A woman who can not hold a clutch purse at a party can lift the refrigerator if she is determined to dust under it, and lift a car if it is on her child.

As Sir Terry Pratchett put it, entire cultures depend upon the astonishing load bearing capacity of little old women.
 
2012-07-25 12:54:11 PM

Prevailing Wind: OK...I'll bite. To me this really does give rise to an interesting set of questions.

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

If so, by what measure?

If you answered yes and are thinking what I think you are thinking, are you reducing the value of a woman to her biological capacity?

If so, then do the biological variants of men (increased strength or something) also come into play when making comparisons for other questions?

These questions are asked as part of a strictly heuristic analysis wherein estimates of individual worth are made from a societal vs. a personal perspective.


I'm curious about what some of the farkettes might think here because, I dunno. Were I them, this entire discussion would be an uncomfortable setback in terms of gender progress.

My own instincts would be to protect a woman. It wouldn't be rational, I just would. The fact that I would says something unsettling about my view of women...that they need protecting. Would a woman looking at this feel that the men SHOULD have sacrificed themselves for those women? If so, why?

In other words, this guy is a doucher...no doubt. But it IS an interesting subject to posit, even if only to engender some self-analysis amongst those who read it.

Also, the misogyny label might be a bit off. Given the source, I doubt it, but its possible. He might argue that rather than hating women, he actually believes them to be the equal of any man and therefor do not need to be a vassal to masculine chivalry.

/yes. I'm trolling.
//but I really am interested in the conflict which this kind of thinking engenders. (le mot juste)


I think this is really all about deeply ingrained human behaviors with a basis in biological reality. At this point in evolution, it's a gut instinct.

For instance, most males have been and will always be physically stronger than most females. In addition, females are responsible for the most time-consuming and dangerous part of furthering the species. So in most cases where physical danger is involved, females do need to be protected.

Although of course it was unlikely they could stop bullets. Which I guess only reinforces the instinct theory.

This douche, however, is a douche. If it really weren't about misogyny (sp?), he wouldn't have specifically singled out the women. He would have said "I hope all those people are worthy..."
 
2012-07-25 12:55:21 PM

Lady Sally: Anybody who dies saving anybody is a hero.


If someone deliberately took the bullet that was meant for the shooter, would this make them a hero?
 
2012-07-25 12:55:31 PM

rotsky: rotsky: t, it's not to late to mak

too

/damn. main page, too.


Two

/sorry, pet peeve
 
2012-07-25 12:56:57 PM

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.
 
2012-07-25 12:57:12 PM

Wolf892: LeGnome: Every woman's a feminist until the shooting starts.

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


It works like this: women shield the children, men shield the women. We're like onions, meaty, meaty onions.

/I'm going to hell.
 
2012-07-25 12:57:26 PM

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.
 
2012-07-25 12:57:40 PM

keypusher: qualtrough: theorellior: keypusher: Another gaggle of people who never read the pre-Murdoch WSJ, I see.

I did, I had a subscription for a few years back in the 90s. Sure there was derp, but I don't remember it being quite so concentrated.

The old WSJ was weird in that the editorial side was full derp, but the reporting was independent and excellent. Often the editorials were undermined by fact-based reporting in the same issue. Murdoch put a stop to that, so it's full derp both sides now.

Another non-reader. Why do people feel compelled to write about a newspaper they don't read?

Why do I care? Because I actually know real-life WSJ reporters. And they STILL write stuff that contradicts the editorial page.


I know Christians who actually show love and tolerance to all they encounter, too. Doesn't mean the Church isn't culpable for the crimes other, more dubious "Christians" perpetrate under the same umbrella.

People suck. Persons, however, are worthwhile.
 
2012-07-25 12:58:01 PM

Wolf892: LeGnome: Every woman's a feminist until the shooting starts.

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


Are you kidding me? Selfless self-sacrifice is a construct of the oppressive and controlling Patriarchy. The women that ran away, leaving their boyfriends to face certain death, are true feminist heroes.
TPHMT.
 
2012-07-25 12:59:09 PM

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?
 
2012-07-25 12:59:42 PM

fonebone77: Do most of you feel that men should sacrifice themselves for women? Aren't people who believe this actually misandrists?


You're thinking in archaic terms.

In reality, it's the imperative of the strong to protect the weak. Women protect men, men protect women, and while societaly it's assumed women are the weak ones, there's plenty of big sisters picking fights on behalf of their younger siblings too. If you had a wishy washy milquetoast and tomboy girl with him, she'd jump in front of the bullet, most likely.


In this particular case, several men were faster than their girlfriends. A half a beat less reflexes and you might just see a brave woman shielding her boyfriend.
 
2012-07-25 01:01:18 PM
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.
 
2012-07-25 01:01:25 PM

doubled99: How come women don't do this for their men?


Every mother would do it for her children.
 
2012-07-25 01:02:21 PM
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).
 
2012-07-25 01:02:43 PM

Virtue: TheGreenMonkey [TotalFark]


Smartest
Funniest

2012-07-25 12:01:30 PM

LeGnome: Every woman's a feminist until the shooting starts.


I like this comment because from what I've seen it's at least partially true. Not in a literal sense however, but in little everyday things, like opening a door for a woman.

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.

I am glad these women were saved as a result of the sacrifice of their boyfriends, but I do wonder if they really understand what it means. I don't expect them to be celibate for the rest of their lives or to never have another relationship but I do think they should honor the sacrifice, And they certainly should not hold it as a standard for any future mates.



If men and women are equal then why weren't there 3 women who died defending their boyfriends?


There is certainly some truth to this.
 
2012-07-25 01:03:41 PM

Strategeryz0r: This "tough question" is one that should have never been asked. Misogynist jokes, sexism, and feminism aside. These men, acted like men. Regardless of whether they were boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife, fark buddies, casual acquaintances, or didn't even know each other, they did what men are supposed to do and protected the women and children near them.

Sure their girlfriends COULD have been cheating. Sure they COULD have intended to break up with them after the movie. Who knows? That's not for us to ask. These men were probably under the assumption that those girls liked/loved them as much as they liked/loved their girls. They did what any real man would do in the same situation, and protected those they cared about.

So Mr. Wallstreet Journal can kindly take his "tough question" head back to his moms basement(where he lives), write it down on a piece of paper, and shove that "tough question" right up his own ass. And I hope that paper cuts his anus the hell up.



It like those real men were acting like real decent human beings.

I suppose the real tough question would be if the ladies were real ladies and would sacrifice their life for their real men or their real children.

Perhaps this is a real issue where only real Americans would act this way.

/Real slashies
 
2012-07-25 01:03:54 PM

brantgoose: As Sir Terry Pratchett put it, entire cultures depend upon the astonishing load bearing capacity of little old women.


The rest of your post was derp, but this is important to point out: little old ladies have amazingly strong right hooks.
 
2012-07-25 01:05:00 PM

doglover: In this particular case, several men were faster than their girlfriends. A half a beat less reflexes and you might just see a brave woman shielding her boyfriend.


Yep, women are slow.

//That may not have been what you meant.
 
2012-07-25 01:05:19 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?


It'd take awhile but yeah. Although red flags might rise up a bit faster - say if I'm quickly getting scary sick at work and he won't take me to urgent care (thanks SO).

We've also had the don't feel guilty if the worse thing happens conversation.

My ex physically put himself between me and a scary effing edging on stalking coworker twice. Didn't sacrifice his life but neither one of us knew what his plan was. Just because the current SO hasn't had to doesn't mean I'm not sure he would.
 
2012-07-25 01:05:51 PM
Have had girlfriends I would shield.
Have had girlfriends I would use as a shield.
 
2012-07-25 01:06:01 PM

FormlessOne: keypusher: qualtrough: theorellior: keypusher: Another gaggle of people who never read the pre-Murdoch WSJ, I see.

I did, I had a subscription for a few years back in the 90s. Sure there was derp, but I don't remember it being quite so concentrated.

The old WSJ was weird in that the editorial side was full derp, but the reporting was independent and excellent. Often the editorials were undermined by fact-based reporting in the same issue. Murdoch put a stop to that, so it's full derp both sides now.

Another non-reader. Why do people feel compelled to write about a newspaper they don't read?

Why do I care? Because I actually know real-life WSJ reporters. And they STILL write stuff that contradicts the editorial page.

I know Christians who actually show love and tolerance to all they encounter, too. Doesn't mean the Church isn't culpable for the crimes other, more dubious "Christians" perpetrate under the same umbrella.

People suck. Persons, however, are worthwhile.


But your post is completely inapplicable, because, you see, the Wall Street Journal PUBLISHES the contradictory news story. So the analogy you are apparently attempting to draw between the Church and the newspaper is invalid.
 
2012-07-25 01:07:52 PM

stuffy: Have had girlfriends I would shield.
Have had girlfriends I would use as a shield.


I can live with this.
 
2012-07-25 01:08:02 PM

Rapmaster2000: sigdiamond2000: Ladies, he's single:

[www.alarmingnews.com image 425x281]

[rediscover911.com image 513x325]

Sophisticated and sexy...


A Master of the Universe.
 
2012-07-25 01:08:04 PM

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.
 
2012-07-25 01:09:31 PM

doubled99: How come women don't do this for their men?


I would. In a heartbeat.

He's the type who treats me like a queen - opens doors, seats me at tables, spoils me rotten - for all of the last 23 years, and I've got just enough smarts to appreciate it and to treat him like a king in return. And in all honesty, we've discussed the fact that the perfect ending for both of us would be to go together.

/I feel like I won the love lottery
 
2012-07-25 01:10:01 PM
women want equality until it's not convenient for them.
 
2012-07-25 01:10:02 PM

Lorelle: but I have noticed that teenagers and those in their early twenties are least likely to acknowledge polite gestures.


I'm in my mid-twenties(26) and have noticed this myself. I've always held doors open for people my entire life regardless of age/sex/race. You're completely right. Something about this new generation makes them seem like they expect everyone to just do shiat for them because they want it. I blame parents not beating their kids enough(I got my ass beat as a child!)

SquiggelyGrounders: It like those real men were acting like real decent human beings.

I suppose the real tough question would be if the ladies were real ladies and would sacrifice their life for their real men or their real children.

Perhaps this is a real issue where only real Americans would act this way.

/Real slashies


I wonder that myself. I mean the usual chain that I could see going down in my head would be man shielding his wife who's cover their child. So how many women in the crowd grabbed their young one as their husband/whatever jumped in front of them? Sadly there's too many parents I look at on a daily basis that I think would just toss their child aside and make a break for it just to save themselves. Which disgusts me..
 
2012-07-25 01:10:48 PM

urbangirl: Prevailing Wind: OK...I'll bite. To me this really does give rise to an interesting set of questions.

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

If so, by what measure?

If you answered yes and are thinking what I think you are thinking, are you reducing the value of a woman to her biological capacity?

If so, then do the biological variants of men (increased strength or something) also come into play when making comparisons for other questions?

These questions are asked as part of a strictly heuristic analysis wherein estimates of individual worth are made from a societal vs. a personal perspective.


I'm curious about what some of the farkettes might think here because, I dunno. Were I them, this entire discussion would be an uncomfortable setback in terms of gender progress.

My own instincts would be to protect a woman. It wouldn't be rational, I just would. The fact that I would says something unsettling about my view of women...that they need protecting. Would a woman looking at this feel that the men SHOULD have sacrificed themselves for those women? If so, why?

In other words, this guy is a doucher...no doubt. But it IS an interesting subject to posit, even if only to engender some self-analysis amongst those who read it.

Also, the misogyny label might be a bit off. Given the source, I doubt it, but its possible. He might argue that rather than hating women, he actually believes them to be the equal of any man and therefor do not need to be a vassal to masculine chivalry.

/yes. I'm trolling.
//but I really am interested in the conflict which this kind of thinking engenders. (le mot juste)

I think this is really all about deeply ingrained human behaviors with a basis in biological reality. At this point in evolution, it's a gut instinct.

For instance, most males have been and will always be physically stronger than most females. In addition, females are responsible for the most time-consuming and dangerous part of furthering t ...


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?

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?

We are rationalizing the instinct. What is the nature of that rational justification?

I think brantgoose has some good points along this vein, but too confrontational to be taken seriously.
 
2012-07-25 01:10:54 PM

sincitynewbie: I'm not going to RTFA. but let me guess: Within months she'll be sipping pink frothy drinks drinks at the club and sluttin it up with some other bad boy who treats her oh so terribly.

How close am I?


So... one must always stay celibate after their partner dies?

It's been over six years since my fiancee (at the time) died, but now I'm married with a kid. Am I a horrible piece of shiat?
 
2012-07-25 01:11:16 PM

TheGreenMonkey: LeGnome: Every woman's a feminist until the shooting starts.


I like this comment because from what I've seen it's at least partially true. Not in a literal sense however, but in little everyday things, like opening a door for a woman.

In my experience women want respect, validation, and equal treatment.


Yes.

Yet in much of the time they still want to be treated as inferior - like having a man open a door for them.

I like to have a human being open the door for me for the same reason I open the door for other human beings: it's polite and considerate. The genders--to me, obviously not to you--are irrelevant. But I guess you're too feminist to think of that.

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.

Yes, although for some guys it seems to serve only as a reminder to mind their manners. I like manners.

I am glad these women were saved as a result of the sacrifice of their boyfriends,

Yes.

but I do wonder if they really understand what it means.

Because having a vagina means they can't figure out what you can.

I don't expect them to be celibate for the rest of their lives or to never have another relationship but I do think they should honor the sacrifice, And they certainly should not hold it as a standard for any future mates.

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

And to all and sundry asking why there aren't 3 dead women: allow me to introduce to you a concept called "disparity in upper body strength". Perhaps you've never been close enough to a female to notice it, but if both the boyfriend and the girlfriend try to push the other down, he's getting on top.

My money's where my mouth is, before you flame: once offered to throw down with three or four drunk dudes who were shoving my husband around. (He, for the record, was trying to defuse the situation with words.) But you're smarter than me, of course: go ahead and explain how I'm anti-feminist.
 
2012-07-25 01:13:34 PM

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"
 
2012-07-25 01:14:18 PM
I would hope that anyone who heard gunfire would have the sense to hit the ground, and not worry about who was on top. When people are scrambling for safety, someone has to end up being closer to the bullets than someone else just by the laws of physics, or something. Who can say whether these dudes meant to take a bullet? Doesn't change the fact that the article writer is a clickbaiting ass for saying the surviving women didn't deserve it.
 
2012-07-25 01:17:21 PM
That fat prick could have saved 4 women on his own.
 
2012-07-25 01:22:15 PM
Something tells me those men who saved their girlfriends would just love to come back and beat this shiat out of this fool.
 
2012-07-25 01:22:39 PM

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 hell would anyone sit here and ask if these women were worth it? They obviously were to someone who isn't with us anymore, and that's all that should matter.

Prevailing Wind: We are rationalizing the instinct. What is the nature of that rational justification?


You can't rationalize this instinct, because the only rational reaction in a situation like this is self preservation. Yet a base instinct fights that self preservation. Which goes to show that, from a purely biological and evolutionary viewpoint, men are meant to have that instinct because that's our role. What's wrong with that idea?
 
2012-07-25 01:22:58 PM

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
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 329 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