|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Adam, that's a very uplifting article.
The last toast was perfect: "Finally, Max Schindler of NBC raised his glass. "We'd like to apologize for the women who have forgotten."
Perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not meaning to rain on anybody's parade, but was the sacrifice they made really that honorable? I'm not questioning their bravery, rather I'm questioning the mindset that "women and children" should come first.
Why? Can anybody tell me why?
I would gladly sacrifice myself for my wife and/or child (if I were married and had children), but I refuse to accept the notion that I should sacrifice myself for somebody else simply because she's a woman.
And as far as sacrificing goes, which is more honorable: Sacrifice based on duty, or sacrifice which is voluntarily done even though it isn't required? I have more respect for the person who sacrifices himself because he voluntarily does it, not because he feels he has to do it out of some sense of duty.
Otherwise, we could all look at Jesus and say "Why should I be thankful? You owed it to me to die for me!"
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Napnip,
Good points, and I generally agree with you, except in one way: things back then were far different than today. If I had been a man on the Titanic, I would have honored that noble tradition of serving and sacrificing for "women and children" (and I'd at least like to *think* that I'd have the courage to go down with the ship, like those incredible men did on the Titanic).
But today, NO WAY!! Children, maybe ... women? "No, thank you, ma'am, my life is as valuable as yours! And my children need ME more than they need YOU!"
Today's women simply don't deserve the sacrifice, and if they want equality, well, I can't think of a better way of giving it to them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What makes women of that day so much more worthy of sacrifice than women of today? Thow me on that boat and I'd like to think I'd jump in the water for some kid, but no way for some women I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My thoughts exactly. I understand where JustSayNo is coming from regarding the timeperiod, but ultimately I think it still boils down to this mindset: A woman's life is more important than a man's. And my point still stands about it being done as a sense of duty rather than voluntarily. (That doesn't necessarily apply to all the men on the Titanic, I'm sure some did it voluntarily, but I'd bet good money that a lot of 'em did it because they felt they had to, that it was the "manly" thing to do.
And of course, I'd bet there were a helluva lot of women back then that felt entitled to having a man sacrifice himself for them. "You owe it to me because I'm a woman!"
There's a little concept that Ayn Rand wrote about called "The Sanction of the Victim". She was writing in economic terms, but essentially it also applies to the men's movement. As she wrote, the only power that the "have-nots" have is the power the "haves" give to them. If you feel guilty about having wealth, then you give a sanction to the "have-nots" when they condemn you for having it. If you don't feel that riches are evil and have obtained them honorably, then the "have-nots" can scream at the top of their lungs all they want about how evil you are, but it essentially doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you refuse to feel guilty.
The same goes for the men's movement. If men fall into the trap of feeling guilty about being men, then you basically give a sanction to the feminists when they condemn us for being men. If, however, you refuse to feel guilty about being a man, then all the feminist whining in the world doesn't amount to a thing. The only power they have is the power you give them. I refuse to regard masculinity as evil, thus I give the feminists no power or foundation to criticize me. Their words are hollow because I refuse to recognize the non-existent virtue of them.
I'm valuable because I am an individual human being. I don't give a damn whether anybody else in the world recognizes my value. I think, therefore I am. I am, therefore I have a right to be. I refuse to relinquish that right to anybody, regardless of their gender. I absolutely refuse to feel guilty about being alive, about being a man. I will give absolutely NO sanction to the feminists.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday April 13, @04:26PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"As she wrote, the only power that the "have-nots" have is the power the "haves" give to them. If you feel guilty about having wealth, then you give a sanction to the "have-nots" when they condemn you for having it. If you don't feel that riches are evil and have obtained them honorably, then the "have-nots" can scream at the top of their lungs all they want about how evil you are, but it essentially doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you refuse to feel guilty."
Interesting that you talk of Jesus dying for you yet you follow Ayan Rand.
"It would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
Jesus Christ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good point. You should know that I'm not a full Objectivist. I'm semi-objectivist. I strongly disagree with Rand's atheism. However, as far as her politics and economics were concerned, she was right on the money. (Pardon the pun.) :o)
But she made a good point. If you refuse to see wealth (or being a man in this case) as vice, then the frantic accusations of "evilness" from the feminists have no meaning. When the feminists tell us that men are evil and terrible, it has no negative effect on me, since I don't regard my masculinity as evil. I refuse to give my sanction to their words, hence their words have no power over me. It's the milque-toast men who accept everything they say who fall prey to their words.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday April 13, @02:41PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Good points. Self-sacrifice must be voluntary, otherwise is just called being killed. Were the men on the Titantic killed by an oppressive masculinity that they were incapable of rejecting? Maybe not. After all, a lot of men are starting to reject this this sort of oppression.
I absolutely would not sacrifice myself for a woman "just because I'm a man." Today, the morally correct response is: "Hey, you're a woman, I'm a man, it's your turn to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes!
I get inspiration from the bold actions of other men.
Thank you, Adam, for posting this.
.
- Mr. Dave . . . Reno, Nevada, USA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a great article !
Though it fills me with anger and pride. Pride in that for some men "Duty", "Self-Sacrifice" and "Honour" were not dirty words for cynics to sneer at, and some selfish/insensitive women to abuse.
Anger at a Society that valued the lives of such men so little, and still does to this day. One of Directors/Owners of White Star Line (the company which owned "Titanic") survived the disaster. The scorn, shame and humiliation that Society heaped upon him eventually drove him to suicide.
I salute their courage - and pour contempt and scorn on the Society that took them for granted.
Thunderchild
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
