Air Force reservist remembers colleague killed in theater - U.S. News

I'm often told, especially by women, that it isn't about picking a side, it isn't about man vs. woman but it's about helping one another.

That is what I'm told and yet time and time again I see men doing the helping. When a man dies to save another person and he loses his life he's not just losing his consciousness. He loses his hopes, dreams and ambitions as well. He loses any contact with the people he loves. He loses any chance to hold, touch and feel the warmth of his dearly beloved. He can no longer smell the sweet scent of nature nor behold it's beauty. He can no longer enjoy life's simple pleasures. Simply put, he loses everything.

He loses everything to save anybody man, woman or child. In actuality, when it comes to saving others at the expense of dying, for some men, it isn't about picking a side, it isn't about men vs. women and it is about helping one another. It is women, who often enjoy this benefit with nothing close to reciprocation. Many men practice what women preach and what do many women practice?

They aren't making marriages and families work and they certainly aren't respecting fatherhood. They aren't raising children to be respectable adults and they certainly aren't valuing the lives of the unborn. They're not respecting manhood, even telling us, how worthless and useless men are to them while enjoying the benefits provided to women at men's expense. If you're stranded on the side of the road they aren't offering you assistance and they aren't defending you if you're being unjustly attacked by a woman or other women. They definitely aren't taking bullets to save us.

What are women doing? How is what they're doing for men worth men sacrificing themselves for women?

I say these things because even though it's unrealistic to expect women to take a bullet it's also unrealistic to expect this of men even though men do these things. I say these things because we're often told that it's about helping humanity by the very people who do humanity no favors but accept humanity's favor. I say these things because men help women at disproportional rates than women help men and if it isn't about picking sides, if it isn't about men vs. women and if it is about helping each other then this shouldn't be the case.

If more women meant what they said and said what they meant, then when put to the test, more women would be helping more people indiscriminately. That means, as a result, more women would be helping more men. Even men themselves are more likely to help women than they are likely to help men but they're more up front about their bigoted attitudes. They just don't often admit there is anything wrong with their attitudes.

The problem I have is with women, who are more heavily valued by society than men are and who are more often taken at their word, preaching one thing but in reality practicing another. They say it isn't about man vs. woman but it is because of women that many sexual inequalities exist. They preach one thing to sound morally superior but don't live it but because they're women people go along with it.

We know that women care a lot about image, about how they look and how they're perceived. For instance, a girl was caught leaving a house after having sex with 2 boys and because it made her look bad, because it made her look like a common whore, she said that those boys raped her. She was evil but wanted to look good or be perceived as good. That IS a problem, being more concerned with looking good than being good.

My ex was all about perception. She used to tell half-truths in order to skew people's perceptions, not just about her but about me too. I know we're all capable of misdirecting and only telling the bits we want people to know, but I just find it extremely more common in women than men.

Wasn't about proving you wrong if you thought it might have been K-man. Just wasn't sure what the hell the actual fact was....

TMOTS

Quote from Marx

My ex was all about perception. She used to tell half-truths in order to skew people's perceptions, not just about her but about me too. I know we're all capable of misdirecting and only telling the bits we want people to know, but I just find it extremely more common in women than men.

You best believe that she learned this behavior long before she met you. Many women are like that. In fact, before I became an advocate of men's rights I had encounter after encounter with women who only spoke half truths in order to get me banned from a forum, slander my name and even get me put in jail. That's why these "innocent little angels" don't gain my trust easily.

We are too lenient with them. Even a child, if you aren't strict will challenge you. We just need to call it as we see it without worrying about how others perceive us. I have made more enemies but possibly more allies as well by being more blunt. The thing is, when you're blunt your allies are more likely to be true allies because they are angry just as you are about the status quo. When you only defend the truth half heartedly you're going to attract half hearted people to the cause. These are people that may "support" us but can also be easily swayed.

It's a lot harder to sway a guy like myself to feminism.

Quote from Celtic Druid

Additionally, I think it's a little unfair to posit a premise "how many women risked their lives to protect boyfriends."

Here's the thing, to expect women to equally participate in heroics when some nutter is blasting away with a semi-automatic rifle is playing the absurdity of feminism and grating against nature. If, as a man, your able to effectuate change for the better of all, then do so, don't be keeping 'gender' score.

It's unfair when women deem men "real men" simply because they die saving women's lives, it's unfair when women vilify a man for saving himself and it's unfair when women blame men for divorce even though most of the time it is women's faults for divorce. None of these things that women do compel me to risk dying to save them, although, to be fair, I don't know for certain what I would do because it hasn't happened to me. They say that life is unfair. Let life be unfair to both sexes instead of just one sex. That is more fair than life being unfair to one sex and not the other. Let them experience what "unfair" is for themselves.

Quote from themanonthestreet

Wasn't about proving you wrong if you thought it might have been K-man. Just wasn't sure what the hell the actual fact was....

TMOTS

No, no.. I didn't take it you were trying the one-up-man-ship-thing.. Not at all. But, this particular case has been an annoyance to me because I've been talking with others on FB about it. I was all set for writing up an article (well, as best I could) - which led me to researching the facts. When I found out what was fact, I replied on FB to the guy telling everyone it was a man and showed him the links to say otherwise. He went silent. Then I found the same guy stating the same story again and telling everyone it was fact, even though he knew it wasn't. I put to him that if we go around misinforming people... we're no better than feminists. He was doing so intentionally. That's why I showed the link & video, because we need to know we're telling truth and fact, not endless made-up stories in the hopes of garnering fraudulent pity-points from others. We need to share & spread hard facts.

Hope I didn't come across as one-up-man-ship either

This is a fundamentally important subject that deserves a thorough debate, and on a much wider forum than this one. Because the belief in the ultimate disposability of males (in contrast to the necessity of preserving females at all costs) is an integral part of misandry. It's all tied in together: misandry could be defined as a belief in the intrinsic worthlessness of male lives.

It is why our societies don't bother providing the same level of healthcare to men as to women; the disparity is huge, but few are worried by it. It is why it is always males who are selected for the military draft or national service, i.e. who are prepared for, and all too often sent out to do, all the killing (of other men of course) and dying in wars. It is why there is little or no state help or intervention when male lives go down the pan; indeed the state will prefer to intervene to ensure they do go down the pan. If you want proof of that, just look at the actions of the state surrounding paternity, family law and divorce. It provides absolutely nothing to enhance or help men's role as good fathers; but is exquisitely cruel in inflicting pain and misery on any man who is suspected or accused of being a bad one, regardless of proof. The state does not just stand idly by watching as the suicide rates among divorced men goes through the roof; it takes positive actions to ensure the toll mounts as high as possible. A woman's false tears in a courtroom count for much more than a man's death; he can go to hell as long as she doesn't suffer.

Other examples are legion in all areas of our lives, as regular visitors to this forum and others know full well: education, life expectancy, crime, violence. Men always come off worst overall, but there is no urgency for change because there is no perception that there is anything wrong with men coming off worst. They are not the people who count.

But it isn't just the state that devalues men's feelings, physical wellbeing and right to life; that devaluation permeates the whole of society. It seems to be a tacit but very powerful orthodoxy of thought. And men are just as guilty of believing in that orthodoxy as women are. It is why we saw the male sacrifices on the Titanic; why men shield and protect women even in situations where women ought to have forfeited all right to any such protection; and why men will support any and every cause that is designed to save or improve the lives of females, while remaining indifferent or lukewarm towards similar campaigns to save or improve those of their own sex. Men will happily run marathons to raise large amounts of money for research into breast cancer, while thinking twice about dropping their spare change into a collecting tin for prostate cancer. Everyone will feel outraged by FGM, men just as much as women, while the fight against the vastly more widespread genital mutilation of boys finds just as many in favour as against, and gets bogged down in endless debate as large numbers of influential men join the women in maintaining that not only is male circumcision acceptable, it is desirable. When men hear of a tragedy which kills women, they feel angry and upset; but when they hear of a plane crashing and killing all six men on board, they shrug and move on to the next piece of news, hoping it will be more interesting.

The same pattern of acceptance of male disposability has been repeated yet again in the Aurora incident: universal approval of men who take a bullet for a woman, condemnation of men who run away. Anyone who even dares to question why men should be sacrificed for women's survival, will draw the wrath of all - but particularly that of other men. Male sacrifice has become virtually an article of faith among men; as if the best, the most heroic and the greatest role models for all of us, are those that waste their lives so that females can preserve theirs. And this forum is one of the very, very few places where anyone dares to ask whether the female lives that are saved are worth the sacrifice.

I don't think this attitude towards the intrinsic worthlessness of male lives in comparison to those of females can be changed; it seems to be hard wired into the male sex. There has been some debate here as to whether it is instinctive or learned behaviour; but I don't think that is so much of a debate because instinct is only accumulated learned behaviour. It is easy to see it as the most natural role for men; women have the babies, we don't, so it is a simplistic equation to deduce that women are more important. That conclusion is most likely to ensure the survival of the species, given the apparently enduring inability of females to fend and provide for themselves. The fact that the earth's population is over 6 billion and growing, that we can actually do without so many babies, and that men have made the world so safe for women that they could most certainly fend for themselves if they had to, doesn't shake that belief. Neither does the fact that we have discovered so many other things to live for, not just procreation of the next generation; nor that a significant proportion of the female population don't have babies anyway. So why should they be valued above men? But they still are. it is enough just to have a womb, regardless of whether you ever use it. We are still locked into the conviction that when danger threatens, it is men who have to sacrifice themselves so women can live. Even brave and noble men are worth far less than unproductive, barren women.

I suppose I can understand that belief, even as the injustice of it strikes very hard. It is cruel and it is frustrating for a man, but that is the way it is. The law of the survival of the fittest - but only applied to males, since all the unfit women still get to survive.

But what really gets to me though, is the denial of that reality. I get heartily sick of people of both sexes blathering on about how much they believe in "equality" when their actions prove the opposite. They pay lip service to the idea that everyone's life is as important as every else's; even when the evidence to the contrary is staring them in the face, and even when their own actions and reactions show very clearly which sex is more important to them. And they carry on with the big lie, deceiving themselves as they try to deceive the rest of us. The fact is that when it comes right down to it, very, very few people of either sex really believe that men's and women's lives are of equal value and are both equally deserving of protection and enhancement. On the sinking ship, it will always be the women that get places in the lifeboat - and both sexes believe that is exactly how it ought to be, no matter what lies they tell at other, more comfortable times.

I would give a great deal for an injection of simple honesty into this issue. I want people to admit that they don't value men's lives as highly as those of women, because that is the truth of it. The engines of state are predicated on that assumption, and work to that agenda. Millions vote for the politicians who continue to ensure those engines grind men down. Women believe it intrinsically, because it is natural to them to do so. Self-preservation is their highest objective. Even men believe it too, and practice it at every opportunity; again because it comes naturally to them. They will sacrifice other men for the sake of women, and do so gladly; even with relish. And in the crisis, faced with the choice of injury/death or living on as a despised coward, they will sacrifice themselves.

Just what is so wrong with admitting this truth?

An interesting thread with predictable results:

How many women risked their lives to protect their boyfriends in Aurora, Colorado? - Literotica Discussion Board

This chap, whoever he is, asks the very simple question "How many risked their lives to protect their boyfriend?"

Now we can all take an educated guess on the answer and give our opinions based on those conclusions... but the folks in the above-linked thread refuse to actually answer the question, even attempt to guess. Instead, they spout out the usual shaming & silencing tactics we see regularly in life when confronted with an uncomfortable truth that they'd prefer to brush under the carpet.

One respondent repeatedly tells the OP to shut up and take it like a man, another tells him to stop whining while another tries to suggest men aren't much use because a) women she interviewed say so and b) the boys in the Lepine shooting did as they were told (left the classroom) instead of standing in front of the girls who Lepine shot.

And several days after his initial post, still no one has bothered to actually answer the simple & basic question.

There's always an excuse with these people. They bring up the Lepine shooting as if women wouldn't have done the same if given the chance. People need to stop talking about which sex is stronger because you don't have to be physically stronger to take a bullet for someone. Being stronger doesn't make you bullet proof.

Their indifference and nastiness towards men is going to cause less men to sacrifice themselves for women and maybe even more men to do what Lepine and Holmes did. It's not going to help our cause but it won't help their case neither when men refuse to protect them. If given the time to think, younger men will learn to think of themselves.

Quote from paul parmenter

I don't think this attitude towards the intrinsic worthlessness of male lives in comparison to those of females can be changed; it seems to be hard wired into the male sex. There has been some debate here as to whether it is instinctive or learned behaviour; but I don't think that is so much of a debate because instinct is only accumulated learned behaviour.

From anecdotal evidence it's difficult to ignore the guilting influence mothers have, instilling into their sons this distorted value dynamic. This is the catalyst where many males learn their lives have less value than females. And while daughters remain little princesses no matter what, many boys readily accept their lesser station in life because mum said it's just how things are, and 'you'll become a man my son' in accepting this. Schools, media, ideologues and the state then reinforce the chauvinistic theme as males journey throughout life in a confused state!

Why not instead teach children the worth of somebody is valued by how they conduct themselves and how they treat others etc, not soley by virtue of the arrangement of ones genitalia!

Quote from Celtic Druid

From anecdotal evidence it's difficult to ignore the guilting influence mothers have, instilling into their sons this distorted value dynamic. This is the catalyst where many males learn their lives have less value than females. And while daughters remain little princesses no matter what, many boys readily accept their lesser station in life because mum said it's just how things are, and 'you'll become a man my son' in accepting this. Schools, media, ideologues and the state then reinforce the chauvinistic theme as males journey throughout life in a confused state!

Why not instead teach children the worth of somebody is valued by how they conduct themselves and how they treat others etc, not soley by virtue of the arrangement of ones genitalia!

We can't ignore the role that many fathers and men play into this as well.

I suppose my mother did me a favor then because she has never been a big part of my life. So she wasn't there to guilt me.

If it was about helping each other and not exclusively about helping women then why are men's sacrifices to save another man being ignored while men's sacrifices to save women are being glorified. Why are men exclusively being told that they should be willing to die saving a woman?

If it was about helping each other in equal measure and not a one sided affair why aren't women being told to do things for men? I'm not even talking about taking a bullet, just anything period. Anything women are told to do for men they deem as offensive, sexist, slavery, etc. By maintaining the position that women should not be expected to do anything for men but still telling men they should die for women, respect women, etc. whether you are blunt about it or not you are siding with 1 sex over the other.

The reason we even have these discussions is because one sex is favored over the other and can you guess which sex that is? Most women don't see the problem with the way things are and any problem they see is against women. They don't see things for what they are but from a feminized undertone. Any objective person can see that men are royally screwed over as things are but most people aren't objective. Most women don't want these things to change and/or don't believe that things have been taken far enough.

Don't overlook that other heavy influence on people's perception about the inherent worthlessness of men's lives: the depiction in popular "culture" of the destruction of men's bodies. Switch on any TV and within the next 24 hours you can be guaranteed to have witnessed countless images of male bodies being smashed, punched, shot, stabbed, blown up, thrown off cliffs etc. The same image is hammered into us at every turn in films, computer games, even pop music videos (ever noticed how female pop singers love videos in which they are depicted as martial arts experts battering men into the ground?) - in fact anything that uses moving images.

It is so commonplace that it has also become another elephant in the room. And these images are fed to us constantly. From the earliest age, children get used to the depiction of the male body not as the temple of a living, sentient, intelligent being with its own range of emotions and extraordinary abilities and potential; but as a punchbag or a target that looks good when it explodes in a satisfying welter of blood and guts. It helps of course to ensure that the depiction is also of something evil that deserves to be destroyed; that way we can feel even better about ourselves when we destroy it. Bullets for baddies; and there are millions of baddies ripe to be blasted into oblivion - and all of them are men.

Does this relentless imagery have any effect on impressionable minds, moulding them into a gross insensitivity to any male suffering? What do you think? And if you really think the answer is no, then would you be happy to see the female body subjected to the same treatment and on the same scale? If not, why not?