Can We Still Call Men Heroes?

[lorin]

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012 ... 14925.html

If just one man had given his life by throwing himself atop his girlfriend to shield her from bullets in that Aurora, Colo., theater, it would have been cause for amazement. That three apparently did so is deeply affecting. People earn the Medal of Honor for such courage and self-sacrifice in the military. There is no equivalent in ordinary life -- or what should be ordinary life.

Jon Blunk, Matt McQuinn and Alex Teves all reacted instantaneously when the horror began to unfold at the theater. The mother of Jansen Young, Blunk's girlfriend, said that Blunk, 26, pushed Jansen under the seat. "He was 6-feet-2, in incredible shape ... He pushed her down on the floor and laid on top of her and he died there."

Alex Teves, 24, did the same, pushing his girlfriend, Amanda Lindgren, about whom he was very serious after a year of dating, to the floor to protect her. His aunt told the Daily News: "He pushed her to the floor to save her and he ended up getting a bullet. He was gonna hit the floor himself, but he never made it."

Matt McQuinn, 27, dove in front Samantha Yowler and took three bullets --one to the chest, one to the back and one to the leg. Yowler was hit in the leg as well, but survived.

What makes men such as this?

Just in January, we were treated to the spectacle of men behaving like louts on board the stricken Costa Concordia. In contrast to the chivalrous "women and children first" code that, contra the James Cameron movie, really did characterize the conduct of the men aboard the Titanic, the stories from a shipwreck almost exactly a century later were hardly uplifting. An Australian lady aboard recalled, "We just couldn't believe it -- especially the men, they were worse than the women." A grandmother who was on board agreed, saying, "I was standing by the lifeboats and men, big men, were banging into me and knocking the girls." A third passenger said, "There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboats."

Those are the sorts of men who tend to make the news. We speak so often of men as problems to be solved. They are the vast majority of rampage killers and criminals in general. They abandon their kids at much higher rates than women. They have more traffic accidents and die younger. Boys cause more classroom disruption, have higher rates of learning disabilities and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. We have endless complaints about the male sex.

In America, for decades now, we've been focused on promoting and supporting the interests of women and girls. Their job prospects, their classroom participation, their self-esteem, and their needs have dominated the agenda.

That attention to women has had consequences. It hasn't been a good half-century for men. They've become a shrinking minority in colleges and universities; their role in the family has become attenuated; young women are beginning to out earn them; and they've dropped out of the labor force in greater numbers than ever before. In 2007, writes Charles Murray in "Coming Apart," more than a quarter of men (27 percent) without a college degree were failing to earn a living, "more than triple the proportion in 1973."

We've pretty thoroughly devalued the traits that have traditionally been considered manly virtues -- protectiveness, responsibility, courage. In what we like to think of as our highly civilized culture, such traits are regarded as primitive and/or obsolete.

But as studies on family structure demonstrate, men aren't just useful to have around in an emergency. Stopping bullets is not the only thing they are for. When men cease to perform their roles as husbands and fathers (because they've been invited not to by the feminist movement), the result is social decline. Children are clearly worse off when they grow up without a dad at home. Every social pathology is more pronounced in the children of single mothers than in two-parent homes. But women, too, have paid a steep price. Women are not as happy as they used to be. Every year since 1972, the General Social Survey has asked a representative sample of Americans about their happiness. And every year the reported happiness of women has declined.

Though the cultural arbiters have devalued the unique protectiveness of men, it seems that it takes more than a few decades of disrespect to drain the heroism from them. Now seems like a good time to rediscover the other unique virtues of manliness -- it would be a fitting tribute to Blunk, Teves and McQuinn.

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

[Iolanthe]

We have the George Medal covering the UK and Commonwealth. Here are three recipients:

Michael Skippen - the head waiter on the ferry MS Herald of Free Enterprise, died attempting to get passengers to safety when the ship capsized (1987)

Helen Dickson - Aramoana, New Zealand, elderly woman had recently had hip replacement shot at during Aramoana massacre, crawled on hands and knees inside to phone for help, then back out to assist shot neighbour, then crawled inside to phone emergency services again. (1990)

Lisa Potts - Nursery teacher, protected children in her care from a knife attack. (1996)

Edit: It was entirely by accident that I copied and pasted 2 women and 1 man - there are lots of men in the list.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Good article.

[Vraith]

It isn't a good article except for people who aren't going to change their minds anyway.
For instance we haven't "devalued" courage or responsibility...we've just admitted not only certain men [cuz it's never been ALL men, it's by classes, races, religions, blah blah] have them. [[I deleted a lot more to avoid excess ranting that ignores/glosses over that a lot of people are now dead, a lot more suffering and will be...I wouldn't have commented at all except for the extraordinary whining out of context bullshit of the second to last paragraph of the article...and the conclusion]]

[I'm Murrin]

Yeah, without intending to denigrate the rest of the article, those anti-feminist jibes near the end don't sit well with me.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Now let's not go getting all 'Tankish in GD... the main thing here is the sacrifice these men made to save the women they love, and the impression it leaves is a bit of a throwback to old times. Nice to know that chivalry isn't dead.

[Vraith]

Now let's not go getting all 'Tankish in GD... the main thing here is the sacrifice these men made to save the women they love, and the impression it leaves is a bit of a throwback to old times. Nice to know that chivalry isn't dead.

I can't help it, I'm going to be tankish...but it's not me, it's the article...so maybe it belongs in the tank. One part of what it seems to want to say is obliterated by what the other part does say.
In precisely the same was as, at root, "Nice to know that chivalry isn't dead" contradicts your sig from Ghandi.

We CAN call anyone a hero. Sex/Gender/Role-isms are not relevant to whether we SHOULD and/or whether they ARE. Only acts and individuals matter for that.

[lorin]

Work where I work, walk in my shoes for just one day and see the results of the steady devaluation of the man in our society, maybe then you would feel differently about the essay.

[Savor Dam]

lorin, there are those of us here who have been telling you for YEARS that working where you work and walking in your shoes was steadily destroying the joy and light in the member we know as lorin.

Don't feel differently about that yet...

[deer of the dawn]

I don't find the article to be anti-feminist. Admitting the flaws of something does not make it "anti".

Yes, men have long declined to fulfill their responsibilities as husbands and parents, but feminism (while it accomplished good things as well) did indeed give them permission. After all, we can have and do it all, Sisters are doin' it for themselves!! so what do we need men for?

Men need to feel needed and valued and significant. What greater way to do that than a moment of laying down one's life? (Which, btw, is easier than a lifetime of laying down one's life; which is part of why lorin's job is so hard).

[lorin]

lorin, there are those of us here who have been telling you for YEARS that working where you work and walking in your shoes was steadily destroying the joy and light in the member we know as lorin.
Don't feel differently about that yet...

I know you are right. But leaving now is not an option. I have health issues that have to be resolved before I leave. But I know this job is slowly killing me on the inside.

I don't find the article to be anti-feminist. Admitting the flaws of something does not make it "anti".

Yes, men have long declined to fulfill their responsibilities as husbands and parents, but feminism (while it accomplished good things as well) did indeed give them permission. After all, we can have and do it all, Sisters are doin' it for themselves!! so what do we need men for?

Men need to feel needed and valued and significant. What greater way to do that than a moment of laying down one's life? (Which, btw, is easier than a lifetime of laying down one's life; which is part of why lorin's job is so hard).

Thanks you deer. I just don't have the energy to defend this article and appreciate someone other than myself understanding it.

[Morning]

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2131 ... sease.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2143 ... women.html

"You didn't put up that lemonade sale, son, someone else did"
- Barry "Choom-Wagon" Obama

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

"Nice to know that chivalry isn't dead" contradicts your sig from Ghandi.

Vraith I'd consider it a favor if you would justify that remark. (And perhaps that ought to occur in the 'Tank.) Because Gandhi was all about courage and self sacrifice in the face of mortal danger. In fact he did figuratively for the nation of India many times what these men did literally for their girlfriends. So I'm not following whatsoever. "Development" doesn't imply that fundamental moral principles are abandoned.

[[Syl]]

dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true

chiv·al·ry (shvl-r)
n. pl. chiv·al·ries

2.
a. The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.

Maintaining a chivalrous code for its own sake would appear to be maintaining a dogma in order to appear consistent. However, you say, "Nice to know," so it could be seen as support of the ideas behind it rather than the empty title of the code itself.

Similar to Emerson's "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," the key lies in the word "foolish," meaning that doing something just because it's always been done (See also: "Mending Wall," Robert Frost).

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Syl, I suggest that you and Vraith need to re-read my signature if you both take that meaning. 'Maintaining dogmas to appear consistent' is the overtly disingenuous motive of favoring ideological purity over truth; nowhere does it suggest that there are no values that humans ought to consider as embodying truth. And I'd nominate courage, honor, and the willingness to sacrifice one's self for that which one claims to love as values that fit the bill.

[[Syl]]

Eh, I think I understand it just fine. Perhaps if you could provide the context of the quote, it'd help.

"Constant development is the law of life" -- i.e., things change. Get used to it. Alternately, things that don't change work against the law of life and are unnatural. Adherence to a code that takes its name from a system that dominated during feudal subjugation would appear to be against the law of life. If anything, we should have a generally-accepted code of conduct that exceeds that of chivalry.

In fact, I do believe we have such a code. Chivalry, in a classic sense, depends upon a patronizing belief that women are inferior and need to be guided by, and under the control of, the benevolent hand of man. It hearkens back to the hierarchical "great chain of being" that ostensibly provided for the welfare of all when it worked as it should but in practice dicked the poor. Today, on the other hand, we generally believe that while we all need help at times, we are all equally capable of providing for ourselves, no matter our equipment. So while it's possible and quite commendable to laud these men under the banner of chivalry, it's no less worthy of respect than a mother who shelters her child or a man who shelters his life partner in similar circumstances. But when you say "chivalry isn't dead," it sounds more like saying that we are not completely fallen from our golden years which, when looked at closely, have a bit of tarnish on them that doesn't persist unto memory.

In light of the first part of the quote, "maintaining dogmas to appear consistent" doesn't seem to me to speak to the purity of truth as some external ideal but rather an internal one, saying that a man who doesn't recognize that he also must change is not in harmony with himself (and thus in a "false position").

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Syl, I realize that you are an erudite man of letters that is quite literate, articulate, thoughtful, and intelligent, all moreso than myself in many ways no doubt, but I feel that you are really missing the mark with your interpretation.

"Constant development is the law of life": Development is not simply change as a principle, it is change acting upon something essential in a manner similar to growth. Development of what? In this case, I believe Gandhi (as ever) is here primarily concerned with the individual's understanding of The Truth and the principles this understanding implies – principles that must be put into practice if they are to be considered real. In other words, one's understanding of The Truth develops as one attempts to live it in practice, and by living it we discover more about it and our understanding develops more. The Truth has not changed, but our understanding of it has developed.

"a man who always tries to maintain his dogmas": Note the presence of the word "always" as I consider it telling. Eliminate that word and the meaning comes out a great deal more like what you and Vraith have inferred. "Always" implies that some of the time – perhaps most of the time – it is important to cleave to what one understands of The Truth. In other words, one should not deviate from the moral principles one has been using as a guide lightly. Gandhi is not advocating against constancy; quite the opposite. But there are times when one must admit that his understanding is limited in some way and needs to adjust. This is the difference between the man of conviction and the dogmatic wretch who only pretends to have principles but is really caught in the vanity of pure ideology. In other words, we should never be so certain in our understanding of The Truth that we cannot adjust that understanding even when it is warranted by our experience of The Truth. So through vanity we may come to substitute our understanding of The Truth for The Truth itself: which is a lie, or a "false position."

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

To address the political portion of your post (and thereby invoke a move to the 'Tank almost inevitably), I think it is true that radical feminism as a deconstructionist movement has damaged the social function of gender roles and thereby harmed society. Not that it is all bad, or that women should be chained barefoot to the stovetop, but that a great deal of the social glue has been corroded into dust. And we are suffering for it. If I say a phrase like "chivalry is not dead" I am harkening back to a time when society was a self-supporting system of interdependence rather than a solipsistic platform for individual aggrandizement as it seems to be currently. To the extent that stilted and oppressive attitudes have been swept aside, however, I do consider change to have been a good thing. I just worry that the good may be outweighed by the bad.

[[Syl]]

Flattery will get you everywhere, Don.

No, I get what you're saying, and I agree for the most part. Certainly Gandhi isn't saying to completely abandon all principles in exchange for new ones (in effect, leading to there being no principles at all). And certainly men are to be lauded for defending their loved ones, maintaining a continuous link of right behavior that reaches back far in time.

Where I disagree is that you don't think there's also room for interpretation of your statement "chivalry isn't dead" and your quoted signature to be at odds with each other.

Let me preface by saying that my own mother raised me under a code similar to chivalry. Never hit a girl (even if she's hitting you). Always hold open doors. A gentleman pays. That kind of thing. And while I've chosen to adopt that code (the "chosen" part being key), I also have to admit that my mother was a woman who lived her life according to those principles and suffered for it, depending on the men in her life (and what a lot they were, let me tell you) to provide for, or at least assist in, her well being.

Also, I'm a huge fan of Palahniuk's Fight Club, which highlights the growing dissatisfaction of males who find their natural (which is not to say traditional) gender roles effaced and devalued. I believe strongly that our culture must allow boys and men to be such. I strongly detest the double standard in today's advertising and other media that portrays men as helpless or hapless, out-of-touch morons who need to be shown the way or put in place by the confident woman (who naturally uses Brand X).

However, I don't think that allowance should come at the cost of the achievements we've made as a society. We've rightfully put behind much of the attendant baggage of chivalry. There's room for both sexes to be capable, and if I want to let my wife wear the pants in this family, so to speak, then that's fine, too. We still have much to do in the "continuous development" category and always will, but we don't need to cling to an outdated code of conduct to find safety and prosperity.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Ok, that's fair enough. I guess any mention of the word chivalry can be understood as an analogue for the patriarchal oppression (gilded slavery) of women if one is determined to see it that way. But I find the conflation of the notion that men have a socially useful role as protectors with the advocacy of the oppression of women to be – particularly in view of the magnitude of the gallantry and sacrifice described in the article – pedantic and somewhat mean of spirit.

Present company and devil's advocates excepted, of course.