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 103
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-25 11:38:39 AM  
24 votes:
They were clearly worth it to the men who made the sacrifice. And that's all that really matters, isn't it?
2012-07-25 11:52:28 AM  
9 votes:
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.
2012-07-25 11:37:27 AM  
9 votes:
Sperm are cheap, eggs are scarce. Biological imperative.
2012-07-25 12:06:03 PM  
7 votes:

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.
2012-07-25 11:40:10 AM  
7 votes:

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?


If they lack the conscience enough to cheat, they don't have the conscience to care after the fact.
2012-07-25 11:58:24 AM  
6 votes:

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?


there is that kind of person out there. and i've seen it - it would only be weeks. not months, weeks. and that long only because her schedule is currently filled up being the center of attention about rising the coattails of someone else's sacrifice right now.

folks don't risk that kind of danger and sacrifice because others are good enough people to be worth saving - they generally aren't.
folks risk that kind of danger and sacrifice because THEY are good enough of a person to just be the type to do that.

performing an action like they did really isn't a comment on the relative worth of the people they saved, its only a commentary on the people doing the saving. we should remember that, whether those saved actually rise to deserving it or not.
2012-07-25 11:49:42 AM  
6 votes:
I read this at an impressionable age. and while I've grown up to disagree with
much that the author held sacred, this bit has become somehow integral to my own moral code:

... "Patriotism" is a way of saying "Women and children first." And that no one can force a man to feel this way. Instead he must embrace it freely. I want to tell about one such man. He wore no uniform and no one knows his name, or where he came from; all we know is what he did.

In my home town 60 years ago when I was a child, my mother and father used to take me and my brothers and sisters out to Swope Park on Sunday afternoons. It was a wonderful place for kids, with picnic grounds and lakes and a zoo. But a railroad line cut straight through it.

One Sunday afternoon a young married couple were crossing these tracks. She apparently did not watch her step, for she managed to catch her foot in the frog of a switch to a siding and could not pull it free. Her husband stopped to help her.

But try as they might they could not get her foot loose. While they were working at it, a tramp showed up, walking the ties. He joined the husband in trying to pull the young woman's foot loose. No luck.

Out of sight around the curve a train whistled. Perhaps there would have been time to run and flag it down, perhaps not. In any case both men went right ahead trying to pull her free - and the train hit them.

The wife was killed, the husband was mortally injured and died later, the tramp was killed − and testimony showed that neither man made the slightest effort to save himself.

The husband's behavior was heroic − but what we expect of a husband toward his wife: his right, and his proud privilege, to die for his woman. But what of this nameless stranger? Up to the very last second he could have jumped clear. He did not. He was still trying to save this woman he had never seen before in his life, right up to the very instant the train killed him. And that's all we'll ever know about him.

THIS is how a man dies.

This is how a MAN...lives!

2012-07-25 11:49:08 AM  
6 votes:
Every woman's a feminist until the shooting starts.
2012-07-25 11:40:04 AM  
5 votes:
I don't even want to think about who or what is on the staff of the once-proud WSJ these days.
Thanks Rupert. Remind me to piss on your grave.
2012-07-25 12:10:00 PM  
4 votes:

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


Because the women did a better job of defending?
2012-07-25 11:44:12 AM  
4 votes:
Awww look at the cute pudgy little mysogonist. You just want to pinch his cheeks and tear them off his face.
2012-07-25 11:12:36 AM  
4 votes:
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?
2012-07-25 12:31:37 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2012-07-25 12:05:22 PM  
3 votes:

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?


No idea, honestly. Perhaps if the right one came along later; but I'd be farked in the head for a good long while, at least. And I'm sure I'd always, forever love the one who did sacrifice; so in a sense it would kind of be up to the new guy if he could handle that knowledge...

/theoretical questions are theoretical. shrugs.
2012-07-25 11:46:26 AM  
3 votes:
This really is quite an interesting philosophical issue. Thanks be to the douchebags out there with the courage to ask.
2012-07-25 11:44:44 AM  
3 votes:
If this human turd had been shot instead, would anybody be sad about it?

I'm just asking the "challenging" questions!
2012-07-25 11:43:19 AM  
3 votes:
It's the WSJ. I assume they think the chicks are lucky duckies who should have pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps and saved themselves instead of relying upon others.
2012-07-25 11:40:49 AM  
3 votes:
Ah, the Wall Street Journal. The Fox News of newspapers.
2012-07-25 03:21:10 PM  
2 votes:

Skyrmion: Strategeryz0r: Skyrmion: On one hand, I do admire the selflessness of those men. But at the same time I consider them to victims, not only of the shooter, but of a sexist society that tells men to act as if their own lives are worth less than those of women. This fact makes it tricky to praise them without perpetuating the problem.

They probably didn't act because society says their lives are worth less than women.

They probably acted because a person they deeply care about was in an extreme amount of danger. So they did the right thing, and tried to protect those they care about.

People don't join the military or the police forces because society says their lives are worth so little they should sacrifice themselves for everyone else. They join because they WANT to protect those they care about. Since when does doing the right thing immediately mean you did so because society told you your life is worth less than the person you saved?

The "right thing"? When society tells you that doing the "right thing" means laying down your life for someone else it is also implicit that your life has less value.


In all honesty, that's a pretty warped view. If that's how you truly see it, I feel sorry for you. If you truly care about someone, I mean really truly care, your instinct will be do what it takes to keep them safe(especially speaking as a man). Sacrificing yourself for those you love is the ultimate display of affection and care. Its not symbolic of your life being worth less.

Likewise people take up the role of protectors(police/firefighter/military /etc) because somebody has to do it. Sure some do it for a power trip, but a great many do not. It's one of the most noble things a person can do. And taking up that responsibility does not mean your life is worth less than others. It means you see the inherent value in life so much you're willing to protect others' right to live.

This is not about who's life is worth more. Its about who cares enough to do the impossible. Who loves their spouse/significant other so much, that they will throw down their life in defense of them. There is no way to say those women weren't trying to do the same thing their men did and just got overpowered by their boyfriend. If it was reversed would you be saying how sad it is that those women felt their life was worth less than their boyfriend's? Call me nuts, but I doubt it.
2012-07-25 02:19:50 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:16:30 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:41:22 PM  
2 votes:

A Leaf in Fall: So...what if a man had saved his boyfriend? Or his brother? Or his dad? Or even his buddy? Would he be as heroic as the men who saved women?


Anyone who sacrifices themselves for another, regardless of any individual defining characteristics, is a hero in my eyes.
2012-07-25 12:25:40 PM  
2 votes:

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?


I think honestly, I could eventually move on to love again. If my boyfriend were to sacrifice his life for me, that is an unbelievable display of love that sticks with a gal forever. But comparing all future men to that one act just isn't feasible in my mind. I believe I could find a new love that understands that no matter what happens I will always carry that special connection to my dead boyfriend with whom I owe my life.

But that's just me.
2012-07-25 12:19:52 PM  
2 votes:

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?


I would imagine that if my significant other sacrificed himself he would want me to live my life to the fullest and be happy. Living your life to the fullest means that the option for falling in love again is a possibility.

I know if I sacrificed my life for a partner I wouldn't want him to spend the rest of his life alone and unhappy just because he felt he 'owed' me something.
2012-07-25 12:18:51 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-07-25 12:13:28 PM  
2 votes:

A Fark Handle: equal rights, equal shiat. ladies save yourselves. i'm getting the fark out of there.


Not for the woman I love. She means something.
2012-07-25 12:06:10 PM  
2 votes:

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?


So by asking this you are claiming that if your girlfriend died on your behalf, you'd never again get involved with another woman.
2012-07-25 11:57:14 AM  
2 votes:

LL316: KiwDaWabbit: Like his article or dislike his article, it's all the same because now you know of him.

+1


I thought that as well; he might be pushing the "all press is good press" routine. However, hopefully, most of us will remember that name, see it in a byline, and remember "oh this is going to be a useless article by a useless person" much as one does when seeing a WorldNetDaily link.
2012-07-25 11:52:13 AM  
2 votes:
I like to think it is all about reaction time. I know for a fact that my husband reacts quicker to some situations than I do. In this situation it might be him who reacts to save me, or it might be there other way around. I think it has less to do with chivalry and more to do with who knows what the fark is going on first.
2012-07-25 11:49:54 AM  
2 votes:

James!: His great grandfather Giuseppe Taranto was shot on the Titanic whilst throwing women and children overboard to make room for himself on a life boat.


Because remember everyone, women = children.
2012-07-25 11:48:05 AM  
2 votes:
That's a firing, I hope.

Love his Twitter tagline: "So sharp, he sneezes thumbtacks." So dumb, he shoves thumbtacks up his nose and Tweets things like this.
2012-07-25 11:43:49 AM  
2 votes:

inglixthemad: 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?

If they lack the conscience enough to cheat, they don't have the conscience to care after the fact.


This. This, and This.
2012-07-25 11:43:24 AM  
2 votes:

jso2897: I don't even want to think about who or what is on the staff of the once-proud WSJ these days.
Thanks Rupert. Remind me to piss on your grave.


This this thisity this.
2012-07-25 11:43:09 AM  
2 votes:
A lot of these right-wing bloggers look like the Doughy Pantload. Coincidence? I think not!
2012-07-25 11:40:48 AM  
2 votes:
I think the best part of him ran down his mother's leg..........
2012-07-25 11:38:36 AM  
2 votes:
www.moviequotesandmore.com

"Earn this... earn it"
2012-07-25 11:37:07 AM  
2 votes:
if the MEN didn't act all crazy the MEN wouldn't have got shot either.
2012-07-25 05:28:45 PM  
1 votes:

CliChe Guevara: Strategeryz0r: If it was reversed would you be saying how sad it is that those women felt their life was worth less than their boyfriend's?

When have you ever met a woman that felt their life was worth less than their boyfriend's?

Its hard enough to find one that thought their shoes were worth less than the life of their boyfriend.


See a few posts up. I provide a few examples, pulled directly from google, of such women who put themselves on the line for their husband or a child. They exist. They just don't get as much notoriety as the stuck up princesses that inhabit the world.
2012-07-25 05:17:18 PM  
1 votes:
I'm late to the party and I know this will be unpopular - but let's face it....equality goes out the window awfully damn fast when there is actual trouble.

I'm not sure if we should continue to insist that men and women are equal. Maybe we're better off for it, maybe we aren't. But I do get awfully tired of everyone playing both sides of the coin. If you consider yourself a feminist, if you believe men and women are equal, if you think women and men should get paid the same and that nobody should be told what profession they can or cannot do because of their gender....

How can you also support the idea that, at the first sign of any trouble, whomever has a penis is worth less and inherently better to handle danger and/or death?

Granted, that's about as extreme of a situation as you can find; but it really does illustrate a point. A woman can hide behind her human shield of a boyfriend/husband/even stranger and it's heroic. Reverse the genders and the whole world would be up in arms against the pussy of a man who cowered behind a woman. Hell - some people would want to call it murder on the assumption that the only way that could even happen is if a big strong man forcefully held a woman out in front of him to shield himself.
2012-07-25 05:03:56 PM  
1 votes:

Fano: I never had any friends later on like the ones when I was twelve.


Awesome movie.
2012-07-25 03:44:32 PM  
1 votes:
best lol ftfa: (after comparing this guy to George from Seinfeld)

''Ladies, whatever you do, if you somehow find yourself engaged to James Taranto,
don't lick the wedding invitations...''

/almost missed that line between the videos
2012-07-25 03:38:40 PM  
1 votes:

Strategeryz0r: There is no way to say those women weren't trying to do the same thing their men did and just got overpowered by their boyfriend.


Sure, no way to prove they weren't. But I doubt it happened, and I bet you do as well.

If it was reversed would you be saying how sad it is that those women felt their life was worth less than their boyfriend's? Call me nuts, but I doubt it.

If there were a social expectation that women sacrifice themselves to protect men when necessary, I would absolutely be calling bullshiat on it.

There are some analogous situations: some conservatives tell women that they should be willing to die to protect their fetus rather than have a life-saving partial-birth abortion, for example. That's messed up.
2012-07-25 03:36:41 PM  
1 votes:

dopekitty74: A Leaf in Fall: So...what if a man had saved his boyfriend? Or his brother? Or his dad? Or even his buddy? Would he be as heroic as the men who saved women?

Yes, anyone who gives their life unflinchingly to save that of another is a hero in my mind


This, very much this.. The idea of saving someone else is not gender exclusive, and saving a woman over a man doesn't make you more or less of a hero. At the end of the day, you did something few would be willing to do and took the defense of someone you may or may not know to heart. By doing the most selfless thing one person can possibly do, you are without question a hero.
2012-07-25 03:09:22 PM  
1 votes:

Strategeryz0r: Skyrmion: On one hand, I do admire the selflessness of those men. But at the same time I consider them to victims, not only of the shooter, but of a sexist society that tells men to act as if their own lives are worth less than those of women. This fact makes it tricky to praise them without perpetuating the problem.

They probably didn't act because society says their lives are worth less than women.

They probably acted because a person they deeply care about was in an extreme amount of danger. So they did the right thing, and tried to protect those they care about.

People don't join the military or the police forces because society says their lives are worth so little they should sacrifice themselves for everyone else. They join because they WANT to protect those they care about. Since when does doing the right thing immediately mean you did so because society told you your life is worth less than the person you saved?


The "right thing"? When society tells you that doing the "right thing" means laying down your life for someone else it is also implicit that your life has less value.
2012-07-25 02:56:40 PM  
1 votes:

Skyrmion: On one hand, I do admire the selflessness of those men. But at the same time I consider them to victims, not only of the shooter, but of a sexist society that tells men to act as if their own lives are worth less than those of women. This fact makes it tricky to praise them without perpetuating the problem.


They probably didn't act because society says their lives are worth less than women.

They probably acted because a person they deeply care about was in an extreme amount of danger. So they did the right thing, and tried to protect those they care about.

People don't join the military or the police forces because society says their lives are worth so little they should sacrifice themselves for everyone else. They join because they WANT to protect those they care about. Since when does doing the right thing immediately mean you did so because society told you your life is worth less than the person you saved?
2012-07-25 02:54:52 PM  
1 votes:
"Wall Street Journal columnist" is really all you need to know.

Peggy "Still Humping Reagan's Corpse" Noonan is a regular contributor, if that tells you anything.
2012-07-25 02:13:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:56:01 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:54:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:50:50 PM  
1 votes:
Any women die to save their man? Of course not. What a ridiculous notion.

Equal rights, unequal responsibilities.
2012-07-25 01:28:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:27:30 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:26:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:22:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:13:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:10:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:10:01 PM  
1 votes:
women want equality until it's not convenient for them.
2012-07-25 01:01:25 PM  
1 votes:

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


Every mother would do it for her children.
2012-07-25 01:01:18 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:59:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:59:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:58:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:57:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:53:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:51:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:51:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:50:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:50:01 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:46:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:38:21 PM  
1 votes:
So...what if a man had saved his boyfriend? Or his brother? Or his dad? Or even his buddy? Would he be as heroic as the men who saved women?
2012-07-25 12:37:56 PM  
1 votes:
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)
2012-07-25 12:28:32 PM  
1 votes:
Reminds me of the time when Fark got into a shiatstorm about a father of 2 risking his life saving a stranger in the subway.

A good chunk of Farkers said that the father show not have risked his life for a stranger when there are two daughters who could have grown up without a father had he failed. Obviously, this is different, but it shows that even people here make value judgments over life-or-death situations. Although it's always after the fact.
2012-07-25 12:26:57 PM  
1 votes:

ArkAngel: Private_Citizen: Well, the GOP has achieved their holy grail: A moral justification for Greed.

He's just going for the brass ring: A moral justification for being a misogynist and a coward.

I would think he would be a feminist. How dare these men think their women need them for protection?!


Indeed, and even if men feel the need to do stupid stuff, what happened to women and children first?

Let us not forget that protecting women over men only makes sense in small communities. With thousands of people living in a single small town there is no danger of extinction if 12 women doe instead of 12 men.

Saving someone you love is okay
Don't go expecting me to die so some unknown women can live just cause she can pop out babies.
2012-07-25 12:25:57 PM  
1 votes:

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?


Oh there is already a bar, it would just shove it up another 30 feet.

I already know that if anything happened to my husband I would only marry a guy that would respect the memory of my first husband. That means give me space on my original wedding anniversary and the anniversary of his death and expect me to wear my original rings on those days in his honor.
2012-07-25 12:25:50 PM  
1 votes:

A Fark Handle: Marine1: A Fark Handle: equal rights, equal shiat. ladies save yourselves. i'm getting the fark out of there.

Not for the woman I love. She means something.

well, there's your problem right there...


I'm... well... I'm not seeing the problem.
2012-07-25 12:19:37 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-07-25 12:10:20 PM  
1 votes:

Kuroshin: A man sacrificing himself to protect a woman is such chivalric bullshiat. Just further proves how women are objectified and seen as weaker and not as capable as men. Sexism at its finest! She doesn't need your protection, Mr. He Man. At least these guys pulled themselves out of the gene pool so they can't infect future generations with their perpetuation of the Patriarchy.



/rolling


Unless you (correctly) see chivalry as a cultural practice. The fact that these guys apparently died protecting their women, and the fact that it's being widely reported, means that those ideas are being reproduced and promoted. Even though they won't pass along (any more) genetic material, they've done their part for cultural reproduction, and the perpetuation of Patriarchy.
2012-07-25 12:05:52 PM  
1 votes:
I would say that the sort of person willing to sacrifice themselves for another person would be in the top few pertcentile of 'people the world needs more of'. Assuming the people they saved were just an average cross section of society, I imagine the world has slightly smaller percentage of awesome people than before so I guess 'technically' the author does have a point... Not that I'd ever say anything like that in a national publication ;)
2012-07-25 12:04:26 PM  
1 votes:

Rapmaster2000: Update: James Taranto says his Twat was "challenging". He's just asking questions.

LinkLink


Lol, what a smarmy prick. "Oh see, in reality I was just having a conversation so far above most of you, don't you feel foolish now?"
2012-07-25 12:04:04 PM  
1 votes:
A man sacrificing himself to protect a woman is such chivalric bullshiat. Just further proves how women are objectified and seen as weaker and not as capable as men. Sexism at its finest! She doesn't need your protection, Mr. He Man. At least these guys pulled themselves out of the gene pool so they can't infect future generations with their perpetuation of the Patriarchy.



/rolling
2012-07-25 12:03:10 PM  
1 votes:
Interpreting tragic events so that the dead loved one did something "heroic", even if essentially they just got shot trying to escape when you didn't, is a pretty well established grieving mechanism.
2012-07-25 12:02:44 PM  
1 votes:

CliChe Guevara: 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?

there is that kind of person out there. and i've seen it - it would only be weeks. not months, weeks. and that long only because her schedule is currently filled up being the center of attention about rising the coattails of someone else's sacrifice right now.

folks don't risk that kind of danger and sacrifice because others are good enough people to be worth saving - they generally aren't.
folks risk that kind of danger and sacrifice because THEY are good enough of a person to just be the type to do that.

performing an action like they did really isn't a comment on the relative worth of the people they saved, its only a commentary on the people doing the saving. we should remember that, whether those saved actually rise to deserving it or not.


Pretty much.
2012-07-25 12:02:22 PM  
1 votes:

Brother_Mouzone: [i.imgur.com image 400x254]


i49.tinypic.com
2012-07-25 12:02:00 PM  
1 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: Sofa King Smart: then there's this guy... the bailer... he's single again... but alive (and un-bruised)

Hard to tell what's happening there with no sound... did he let the ball bounce off of his girlfriend before "catching" it?


kind of worse... he was standing in front of her like he was going to catch it... until it came right at him and then he jumped out of the way... letting the ball hit her. (brave brave sir robin)
2012-07-25 12:01:30 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-07-25 12:00:09 PM  
1 votes:
Original WSJ column or it never happened. Uproxx, after all, is a kiddie viral entertainment network. Do you really believe anything thy say without checking their facts?
2012-07-25 11:59:00 AM  
1 votes:
"Chivalry" is mostly stupid nonsense that should be gotten rid of and forgotten, but ummmm, "women aren't worth it" might not be the right tack to take.
2012-07-25 11:55:36 AM  
1 votes:

Sofa King Smart: then there's this guy... the bailer... he's single again... but alive (and un-bruised)


Or this guy:

It is usually not my style to meddle in other people's relationships, but I've got to join the chorus of those advising - in internet comment sections, duh - Patricia Lagarreta not to marry Jamie Rohrs. Legarreta, Rohrs, and their two kids were among those at the midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" in Aurora, Colorado last week (don't even get me started on bringing kids to a late-night showing of an ultra-violent movie); when James Holmes entered the theater, set off tear gas bombs and began shooting people in the crowd, Rohrs and Legarreta became separated. They were later reunited at the hospital, where Rohrs dropped to one knee and asked Legarreta to marry him. Normally I would be like, "Aww, after facing death, they decided to make the most of life!" but no. See, after Rohrs was separated from Legarreta, her four-year-old daughter, and their four-month-old son, he managed to get out the theater. And then he went to his car. And then he drove off. Legarreta and her kids, meanwhile, barely escaped harm thanks to the heroic actions of a total stranger, Jarell Brooks, 19, who shielded her and took a bullet in the leg in the process. Legarretta's leg was hit with schrapnel but she and the children were otherwise unharmed. No thanks to Rohrs, mind you.


In another article I seem to recall him saying that he was carrying the baby and put the baby down because it was crying and would draw the shooters attention to him.


What a winner.
2012-07-25 11:55:22 AM  
1 votes:
Gee, I wonder if there will be any misogyny in this thread.
2012-07-25 11:54:52 AM  
1 votes:

Private_Citizen: Well, the GOP has achieved their holy grail: A moral justification for Greed.

He's just going for the brass ring: A moral justification for being a misogynist and a coward.


I would think he would be a feminist. How dare these men think their women need them for protection?!
2012-07-25 11:54:18 AM  
1 votes:

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!
2012-07-25 11:53:37 AM  
1 votes:

BarkingUnicorn: Love his Twitter tagline: "So sharp, he sneezes thumbtacks."


dgt1.net
2012-07-25 11:52:53 AM  
1 votes:
Who knew that the Wall Street Journal hires its columnists from Bag End?

I would say how glad I am to have a daughter for the express purpose of forbidding her to marry him, however after getting a look at the greasy faced, repulsive, farty little man, I don't think that's really necessary.
2012-07-25 11:51:29 AM  
1 votes:
Like his article or dislike his article, it's all the same because now you know of him.
2012-07-25 11:48:29 AM  
1 votes:
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?
2012-07-25 11:47:39 AM  
1 votes:
Maybe he meant it in the "Saving Private Ryan" kind of way and just has a horribly douchey way of saying things?

"James, earn this... earn it."

ransomechua.files.wordpress.com

/BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, PEOPLE
2012-07-25 11:44:57 AM  
1 votes:
OCCUPY ALL STREET JOURNALS
2012-07-25 11:41:36 AM  
1 votes:

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


No, you save women so they can have babies. Even if 10 women were saved that night it only takes one man to impregnate them all. Allow me to demonstrate...
2012-07-25 11:41:13 AM  
1 votes:
If they were worthy, they would have died while fighting with their boyfriends over who's saving who. I mean, that's how I want to go.
2012-07-25 11:39:04 AM  
1 votes:

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?


Well, at least this way they would never have to worry about him finding out. Warm fuzzies all around.
2012-07-25 11:37:52 AM  
1 votes:
Scott? Scott Adams? Is that you?
2012-07-25 11:37:21 AM  
1 votes:
She better go home and cure cancer, or make a better lightbulb or something...
2012-07-25 10:56:23 AM  
1 votes:
His great grandfather Giuseppe Taranto was shot on the Titanic whilst throwing women and children overboard to make room for himself on a life boat.
 
Displayed 103 of 103 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report