Kevin's Watch

Don Exnihilote wrote: – particularly in view of the magnitude of the gallantry and sacrifice described in the article – pedantic and somewhat mean of spirit.

Syl touched most of the bases I would have concerning my statement, so I'll leave it.
But I found the ARTICLE to be what I quoted above, pointed at itself. Pedantic, condescending, dismissive, fairly whiny, and definitely mean spirited...towards the readers in total, and the men...who actually DID act heroically and which NO ONE was denying!
The writer was shifting and using the incident to serve a particular agenda just as those who are trying to use it to alter gun regulations.

I don't find anything strange in three men lying over their partners to protect them from bullets strange at all and I don't think it has to do with being 'men' or even heroes. It's just what you do, what nature decided you do if you like, in such circumstances. You don't think or make rational decisions when the s**t goes down - you just do.

Here's an interesting thought I just had: How do you suppose those women feel -- the ones whose men were killed in protecting them? Seems to me it would add a layer of survivor's guilt to their grief. Not to mention some measure of anger at the guy.

I mean, if a guy turned all protective on me in a situation like that, and died because of it, I think I'd be furious at him. I'd grieve, too, of course. But I'd still be mad as hell.

Note to self: leave Ali to die.

I know if I let my wife die in some kind of attack, she'd never let me hear the end of it. Oh, wait...

She might come back from beyond the veil and haunt you!

peter wrote:I don't find anything strange in three men lying over their partners to protect them from bullets strange at all and I don't think it has to do with being 'men' or even heroes. It's just what you do, what nature decided you do if you like, in such circumstances. You don't think or make rational decisions when the s**t goes down - you just do.

peter, what do you make of the Concordia then?

Hi Don - I'm sorry, I don't get the connection with the Concordia; perhaps if I amplify a bit on my meaning (it was a badly put post I thought after entering it) it will be clearer. This was to me not a male or femail thing - it was a humanity thing. Which one of us, male or femail, would not like to believe that in that instant where the chips were down, we would do the same for the ones we love. The key here is in the 'instant'. This is the instant where 'heroics', which in my mind require at least some prior knowledge of the danger one is to be faced with along side the possibility of side-stepping it, are neither here nor there. This is instinct - to instantly protect the ones you love (Dawkins would find a less 'prosaic' description based on genes and future generations, but I prefer love). Or perhaps not. If we label those who died shielding their partners as heroes - and chivalrous ones at that - how do we view those who did not. And perhaps more importantly how do they view themselves. I don't believe this tragedy is helped by the introduction of gender issues and who is a hero and who not, into the mix.
That three men died in this fashion is explained as follows. These three couples were in close enough proximity that when pandemonium broke loose the adrenalin fueled higher strength and speed of the men enabled them to rough-house their partner to the floor and sheild them. Had the women been the stronger I have little doubt the genders of the sheilders would have been reversed. Similarly women with their children would have sacrificed themselves in the same manner (and no-one would have been suprised by this). None of this is to in any way reduce the tragedy of what occured here, nor to reduce the value of the gift of life, that the sacrificers gave to their partners by their actions. But as I say I think it's outside the gender/heroics/chivalry thing.

nb Ron - sorry Don . Were you refering to the fact that there was precious little of the 'Women and Children First' spirit shown aboard the Concordia. Again I would perhaps relate this to a combination of the relative slowness of the unfolding of the danger in this case together with the percieved level of danger to those 'left behind' on the ship which was fundamentally different to the situation faced by the eruption of a gun toting maniac at close quaters. Alas it may be the very 'humanity' thing I referd to above that explains this - perhaps the instant behavior of the sheilders when faced with the gunman infact comes from the 'lower' ie pre-human behavior patterns - are their not many examples of animals sacrificing themselves for their mates/young. Perhaps it is actually when the 'human' parts of our brain kick in that we become selfish in the pursuit of our own survival as opposed to others. Also on the Concordia did individual males thrust their own wives and children back in order to secure their place on the lifeboats, or was it just (just!) other peoples wives and children. There is a difference here.

peter wrote:This was to me not a male or femail thing - it was a humanity thing. Which one of us, male or femail, would not like to believe that in that instant where the chips were down, we would do the same for the ones we love.... If we label those who died shielding their partners as heroes - and chivalrous ones at that - how do we view those who did not. And perhaps more importantly how do they view themselves.

This is exactly it. This is why I would be p.o.'d at my significant other if he died "protecting" me. It's not a male/female thing at all -- it's "who is in the best position to protect his/her loved ones." I would like to think that if I were the one closer to the shooter, I'd be knocking my S.O. down, not the other way around.

aliantha wrote:

peter wrote:This was to me not a male or femail thing - it was a humanity thing. Which one of us, male or femail, would not like to believe that in that instant where the chips were down, we would do the same for the ones we love.... If we label those who died shielding their partners as heroes - and chivalrous ones at that - how do we view those who did not. And perhaps more importantly how do they view themselves.

This is exactly it. This is why I would be p.o.'d at my significant other if he died "protecting" me. It's not a male/female thing at all -- it's "who is in the best position to protect his/her loved ones." I would like to think that if I were the one closer to the shooter, I'd be knocking my S.O. down, not the other way around.

Somehow I believe this Ali!

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

aliantha - paraphrase wrote:I'd be pissed if my spouse protected me. Oh, and have survivor's guilt.

Looking at some of the responses, it seems its very hard to call men heroes lorin. At best, we may get, "yea, sure, but...".

Cybrweez wrote:

aliantha - paraphrase wrote:I'd be pissed if my spouse protected me. Oh, and have survivor's guilt.

A better paraphrase would be: I'd be pissed if my spouse protected me purely because of some antiquated cultural notion that I'm unable to take care of myself, and got his stupid butt shot in the process.

And yes, I would feel guilty. Why should the (perceived) weak outlive the strong(er)? I'm past my childbearing years, so it wouldn't be about the survival of his genetic material. Whereas he would presumably have some ability to fight off the attacker. So why pick me to save?

Not that I would be pleased if he pushed me out in front of him and said, "Don't shoot me, shoot her instead!" But I think the best-case scenario would be for the two of us to figure out some way for us both to survive.

Given the current location of this thread, I think I will let it go with the parting observation that I haven't seen much on this thread to convince me that the article is not substantially correct. Adieu.

This seems mildly synchronistic if one believes in that stuff.
[I haven't checked the methodology or anything so take it as you will]
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/women ... ref=topbar

They limited their study to disasters that included information on the sex of survivors, that involved at least 100 people, and where at least 5 percent survived and 5 percent died.

Their findings run counter to the notion that women and children get priority when escaping a shipwreck. The sinking of the Titanic 100 years ago, where three times more women survived than men, popularized this "unwritten law of the sea," because the captain ordered that women and children went into the lifeboats first.

But it turns out that this is the exception rather than the rule

But Cybr, I'll say again, and several others are saying pretty much the same, the problem isn't saying "these men were heroes" the problem is saying [as the article does] that it's the "men" part that matters.

It's synchronistic when an objectively acausal connection feels subjectively meaningful, Vraith, though usually that entails a contrast of kind or being in the synchron. Yet there could be some correlated ideation circulating through the noosphere, so the felt fortuitousness of it may simply be due to the spontaneous confluence of theme, as in 100 monkey theory.

As for the rest of it, let's take it outside. Like men. And ornery women.