Associated Press: 'Rainier hiker sacrificed himself to save his wife'
June 16th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
In my recent co-authored column Protect Fathers' Loving Bonds with Their Children (South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 6/13/08), I discussed the heroism of fathers Joseph Richardson and Albert Collins, both of whom gave their lives to save their daughters. Along these lines, several readers recently sent me the touching story of Eduard Burceag (pictured), who gave his life to save his wife and his friend. According to the Associated Press:
A hiker who lost his life on Mount Rainier lay down in the snow and used his body's warmth to protect his wife and a friend from the 70-mph winds of a freak June blizzard, national park officials said.
When it became obvious the trio could not find their way back to base camp in whiteout conditions, they dug a snow trench with their hands. Eduard Burceag, 31, lay down in the snow while his wife and friend lay on top of him. Later, when they begged him to switch places, Burceag refused, saying he was OK.
"In doing so, he probably saved their lives," park spokesman Kevin Bacher said Thursday.
Mariana Burceag, also 31, survived the storm, as did the couple's friend, Daniel Vlad, 34...
Reached by telephone in Romania, Eduard Burceag's brother, Cristian, told The Seattle Times his older brother moved to the United States eight years ago and fell in love with Seattle, its mountains, its opportunities.
Cristian Burceag said his mother was visiting his brother and was watching their two young sons while Eduard and Mariana hiked to Camp Muir.He said he was not surprised his brother died shielding his wife from the blizzard.
"He was a hero for us," the younger Burceag said. "I'm sure he would do that. He knew very well that his children needed a lot of their mother and that was the main thing in his life."
Read the full story here.
"));
19 queries. 0.685 seconds.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:20 am
While I do not believe that the sexist expectation of chivalry, heroism, or disposability should fall solely on men, acts of heroism or kindness are certainly positive attributes of the human race. I am hoping that most women in a similar situation as Eduard would also consider risking their lives to protect the men they love. However, I do realize that men are sometimes reluctant to accept heroic acts of chivalry or protection from women because they might feel "unmanly" or "emasculated."
The masculist analyses aside, this is a positive story, and I wish everyone well that was involved.
MXY
June 16th, 2008 at 11:36 am
MXY said: "However, I do realize that men are sometimes reluctant to accept heroic acts of chivalry or protection from women because they might feel "unmanly" or "emasculated."
Possibly, but given that such cases are as rare as unicorn sightings it's hard to make this kind of generalization about men vis-a-vis macho conditioning.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I saw this when it came out a few days ago and have been consistently struck by the absence of "and friend" from the ends of the headlines. It doesn't seem to matter that it was more than his wife whom he saved and many times you wouldn't know except for a careful reading of the article. The friend, another man, should not be dismissed for lack of heroism because his going to look for help resulted in their being found.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
MXY,
Reality is chivalry, heroism does fall solely on men. Hence men should give it up and not become disposable. To assume that its because of feeling unmanly - is chivalry/feminism masquerading as anything else. This is why I refuse to identify with masculism. Its feminism for men and pretty much has the same sort of philosophies with genders reversed.
Enough raising boys to feel inferior to girls. Enough of men thinking that their wives are better at raising the kids than them. As much as I respect the sentiment of heroism to save family - I also hate it. The sacrifice of life was unnecessary but the man was free to make it - if you ignore chivalrous - 'male = disposable', 'father inferior to mother' upbringing.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I really believe it depends on the situation. We argue, man or woman, masculine or non. It doesn't matter. A human being saved the life of another human being. Male or femal, not pertinant to the subject.
Last year in the city I live in, there was a car accident. Authorities say, to save his wife, he intentionally turned the car so his side would be hit and hers would not. There was not way to avoid the accident its self, but they had small children. My daughters mother's cousin while we were together, flipped her truck, and killed her. She had 4 children, none of which knew their fathers. Her husband of 2 years, adopted all 4 children to be his own.
A few months ago a little girl about 9 years old, jumped in between her mom and a gunman. She was shot several times. Survied, but disabled, including loosing an eye. Her mom was untouched. She said her daughter told the man "Don't you hurt my mom" right before getting shot.
This story tells me, not looking at the genders, there are people who are willing to give a life to save another. In a world that seems to have become selfish and materialistic.
A great story, I heard this weekend. Two young ladies, ages must have been 10 and 12, decided to do something to help the tornado victims in Windsor, Colorado. They had a lemonaid stand for both Saturday and Sunday. In that one weekend raised almost $135.00, to aid those families. Every little bit of kindness people share helps.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Pankaj said:
"Reality is chivalry, heroism does fall solely on men. Hence men should give it up and not become disposable. To assume that its because of feeling unmanly - is chivalry/feminism masquerading as anything else. This is why I refuse to identify with masculism. Its feminism for men and pretty much has the same sort of philosophies with genders reversed."
Thanks for the reply Pankaj. You bring up some interesting points.
However, I disagree that masculism is feminism for men. It is a male perspective (or flipside) on gender liberation that discounts the patriachal paradigm and analyzes anti-male sexism from a male point of view (the opposite of feminism, which sees things from a female-centric vantage point that often assumes females are the sole victims). Examples of this anti-male sexism include chivalry, male disposability, restrictive socialization, the objectification of males as status objects, double-standards in law and custom, negative stereotypes of males, and misandry. In fact, the Oxford Companion to Philosophy defines masculism as follows: "The belief that men have been systematically discriminated against, and that that discrimination can be eliminated." However, with that said, I do consider myself both a feminist and a masculist. I think both paradigms are necessary to establish checks and balances.
I did not say that "feeling unmanly" was the sole cause of misandry, chivalry, or male disposability. But I do believe that it is one of the reasons. It is my general belief that the "blame" for these things are often shared by males and females alike. While too many women are reluctant to offer chivalry and heroism to men out of fear, just as many men are perhaps unwilling to accept a woman's chivalry due to shame. When men do not expect chivalry from a woman, or deny it when offered, this can give women the power of manipulation. Males sometimes exaggerate their strength (Jungian hero archetype) and some women exaggerate their weakness and feign weakness (Jungian damsel archetype). These are related to gender role fantasies.
It is my general belief that the "boy code," or "honor system," is a manipulative ploy used by men and women alike to convince men to do society's dirty work. Terms like "glory," "take it like a man," and "hero" are used to shame men into risking life and limb for the benefit of someone else.
Pankaj said:
"Reality is chivalry, heroism does fall solely on men. Hence men should give it up and not become disposable."
I agree. In fact, I don't think I could fall in love with a woman who is unable to reciprocate my acts of heroism.
MXY
June 16th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
"This story tells me, not looking at the genders, there are people who are willing to give a life to save another. In a world that seems to have become selfish and materialistic."
I agree. But since Glenn is a mens/fathers blogger, activist, and columnist, I don't see anything wrong with a handful of us analyzing stories like this with a masculist, Farrellian, or gender lens. Even the very term "hero" can be traced to bondage and servitude (see "Myth of Male Power", pages 67-68).
I don't think it is unrealistic to suggest that in general terms society values female life more than male life. Males die in higher numbers in almost all categories (suicide, job fatalities, violence, longevity, war, etc). It is also possible that chivalry may play a part in all of this. For example, the "pink ribbon" is a symbol of a societal concern for womens health (breast cancer). There is no "blue ribbon" to raise awareness for prostate cancer, which claims almost just as many lives.
MXY
June 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
MXY says: "I did not say that "feeling unmanly" was the sole cause of misandry, chivalry, or male disposability. But I do believe that it is one of the reasons. It is my general belief that the "blame" for these things are often shared by males and females alike. While too many women are reluctant to offer chivalry and heroism to men out of fear, just as many men are perhaps unwilling to accept a woman's chivalry due to shame. When men do not expect chivalry from a woman, or deny it when offered, this can give women the power of manipulation. Males sometimes exaggerate their strength (Jungian hero archetype) and some women exaggerate their weakness and feign weakness (Jungian damsel archetype). These are related to gender role fantasies."
PK responds: To summarize what others have observed:
1) (MrBad) The number of women trying to be chivalrous towards men, and turned down, are so rare as to be "unicorn" sightings.
2) (JD) observes that the man didn't just save the woman, but also a friend. So this wasn't just male towards female chivalry but simple masculine heroism.
I would add:
3) When women are heroic especially and including towards men, it gets front page coverage under man bites dog. So there is little evidence to suggest that women refrain from heroism or even chivalry towards men out of conditioned fear of the stereotypical emasculated man biting back at them.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
So sad. Such Great Heart.
Many years ago, my future CIL was leading a coed youth group hiking Mt Hood when the expedition was hit in a similar fashion in late spring. The group dug in, with the older kids, boys and girls alike, laying on their backs and cradling the younger hikers. CIL's co-leader, girlfriend and later wife, begged him to spell himself, and let her carry him. He refused, because "one of them had to survive," for the good of all, and he would "be damned before he would live without her." Her job was to spell the older kids, and the odd group number allowed for small temporary respite...two on one.
Mercifully, under bright blue skies, everyone stuggled down the mountain 20 hours later, meeting rescue workers halfway. Heroism all around that terrible night, but there is no doubt that the leadership, determination and sacrifice of the CIL powered the courage of the group. One man, flat on his back, refusing despair, led the way.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Chivalry is one thing,
Chivalry on steroids, that is being fed huge daily doses of anti-male agit-prop, is another, and can be correctly termed "Misguided chivalry".
June 16th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
MXY, it is due to male chivalry that I still have my business on the farm. After the accident, husband and sons stepped up to ensure the greenhouse survived. The BH surprised me with a golf cart to get around once I was cleared for light duty. The boys took over filling customer orders, expanding the perennial beds, and maintence of existing stock. Admittedly, the boys were serendipidous and expansive and Dad was obliged to rein them in...
...But the point is...
Chivalry is a good thing and it takes many forms. Courtesy is a good thing, and is intrinsic to chivalry. These days, consideration for the people you meet and never see again is chivalry. Gallant acts serving those you love and those you do not know is chivalry. So I'm not sure I understand the concept of "misplaced chivalry." Good conduct is good conduct, in any context.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
annie,
"So I'm not sure I understand the concept of "misplaced chivalry." Good conduct is good conduct, in any context."
One example of modern "Misplaced chivalry", is in our school systems where male teachers are tripping over each other to help the girls get an education, at the expense of near dis-regard of our boys educations.
Another example of "Misplaced chivalry" is an officer of the law, who after absorbing his daily dose of faulty and inflamatory agit-prop from the feminist bosses in his precinct, leaves the station foaming at the mouth to save some women somewhere, at the expense of mens basic equal protection under the law.
This is irrational misplcaed chivalry.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Annie, "misplaced chivalry" happens when groups (neo-gender feminists) use faulty and inflamatory agitation propaganda to get super protection from our legal system, at the expense of mens basic equal protection.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I apologize for the racetrack mistake.
MCA...in my experience, chivalry is a good thing that produces good things. I'm not sure I'm getting your POV.
Male and female teachers alike are no less concerned with the achievement of boys, and I'll need some reference to believe otherwise.
Another example of "Misplaced chivalry" is an officer of the law, who after absorbing his daily dose of faulty and inflamatory agit-prop from the feminist bosses in his precinct, leaves the station foaming at the mouth to save some women somewhere, at the expense of mens basic equal protection under the law.
This is irrational misplcaed chivalry.
Ummm...come again?
June 16th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Annie said:
"Chivalry is a good thing and it takes many forms."
Thanks for the reply Annie. The kind of chivalry I oppose is "ladies first." The kind of chivaly I admire is "you first." Common courtesy is obviously a good thing, and few will argue with that. I am sure if the genders were reversed in your example, you would have done the same courtesy for your husband on the farm. And that is admirable.
When I refer to chivalry being sexist, I am referring to the physical, emotional, and financial protections offered by men out of shame, obligation, conformity, and a sexist societal belief that males are more disposable than females. I am also mirroring what Warren Farrell has suggested in "Myth of Male Power", pages 67-72; 248-249. Since men die in greater numbers in almost all walks of life, my suspician is that society as a whole values female life more than male life. Society seems to care more about women's problems than men's problems, and I believe chivalry might have something to do with this. As an example, I believe that the Pink Ribbon Breast Cancer campaign is symbolic of this greater concern. I have not heard of a Blue Ribbon Prostate Cancer campaign despite almost equal death rates. Society spends MUCH more on women's breast cancer research than on men's prostate cancer research. My suspician is that chivalry is partly responsible.
Acts of heroism are great. Few will deny that. But men should not be EXPECTED to engage in these acts in greater numbers than females. Even toys like Gi-Joe start the socialization process that males acquire status and self-worth from putting themselves in dangerous situations. This is when things start getting sexist.
When there is a "noise downstairs," men are stereotypically expected to "check it out." I have faith that males and females alike are capable of protecting each other emotionally and physically.
I try to do nice things for people no matter what their gender.
MXY
MXY
June 16th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
I hear you, MXY...when the male students at VA Tech got bad pundit noise for not uselessly throwing their lives away in an effort to ...do something...however futile...I thought my head would explode.
And bear in mind, the expectations for heroic conduct usually assume at least some chance of success.
Buuut, the thing is...the pink ribbon campaign is woman driven...for a variety of reasons, not the least being the responsibility of women to remain desirable for as long as possible. And for the record...women are the first to insist their men get checkups, get treatment, and are the ones ferociously negotiating the maze of insurance demands, and we take care of our men during treatment and recovery and it is waaaay past time the men here acknowleged the lengths we go to protect their health. For cryin' out loud, when I found suspicious lumps on my man's thighs that turned out to be non-malignant lipomas, I had to threaten to call his mother before he would have them checked out.
MXY, you need to give wives and mothers some damn credit. We don't like taking a club to the fight to get our men into the doctor...but damn...we will carry it, and swing it if necessary. Maybe the reason there is no Blue Ribbon campaign is because women are already doing everything they can to get their men to see a doctor.
Just a thought.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
annie says
"MCA...in my experience, chivalry is a good thing that produces good things. I'm not sure I'm getting your POV.
Male and female teachers alike are no less concerned with the achievement of boys, and I'll need some reference to believe otherwise."
MCA says, ask any generation x males, and if they are not completelly psychologically castrated, they may tell you that yes, they had some teachers who tripped over each other to help the girls.
And the others were beating us over the head with false rape statistics, false domestic violence propaganda, and making a generally "hostile" environment for them.This concept would be studied further accept for the "feminist academic lace curtain".
We could do a broad ranging survey of young males, but feminist contrlloed academia would never fund such a study.
Another example of "Misplaced chivalry" is an officer of the law, who after absorbing his daily dose of faulty and inflamatory agit-prop from the feminist bosses in his precinct, leaves the station foaming at the mouth to save some women somewhere, at the expense of mens basic equal protection under the law.
This is irrational misplcaed chivalry.
Annie..."Ummm...come again?"
MCA says, there are only so many ways to charectorize this avante guard concept of "misplaced chivalry," or "chivalry on steroids", as bold Academics are just refining the jargon as we speak!!
June 16th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Annie says
"For cryin' out loud, when I found suspicious lumps on my man's thighs that turned out to be non-malignant lipomas, I had to threaten to call his mother before he would have them checked out."
MCA says, men have been conditioned by non-stop women as victim agit-prop on most all media fronts (media lace curtain)..., to the degree that they think to themsleves.
....................." who are we to complain, we are men!!"
June 16th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Ann said:
"MXY, you need to give wives and mothers some damn credit. We don't like taking a club to the fight to get our men into the doctor...but damn...we will carry it, and swing it if necessary. Maybe the reason there is no Blue Ribbon campaign is because women are already doing everything they can to get their men to see a doctor."
Hello Ann, and thanks for the reply. If you re-read my posts at 11:20 And 1:16, you will find that I "blame" males and females about equally. Also, in my masters thesis on male stress, I cited research documenting the fact that fewer males are willing to go to the doctor or seek therapy in times of crisis. This is an important point, and I have acknowledged this. Males too often choose to "suffer in silence."
I am the first to acknowledge that the "take it like a man" mentality is an important barrier that stops men from improving the quality of their lives (such as seeking out medical or counseling services during crisis). I have mentioned this many times on this blog. I agree that in general males deserve about 50% of the blame for their less than savory state of affairs.
The reason I oppose male disposability and "ladies first chivalry" is because I have a disdain for human suffering. Nothing more. No class of people deserves to die in greater numbers than another class of people.
"The weakness of men is the facade of strength; the strength of women is the facade of weakness."-Lawrence Diggs
June 16th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
masculist,
......."the strength of women is the facade of weakness."-
MCA says, and when this "facade of womens weakness", is constantly projected on all media, television, radios, and newspapers, it has the effect of encouraging the "misplaced protector males" to try to over protect women, all the women they meet, which is fine, ......but not to the degree innocent men are prejudiced against. Thats where these "misplaced protectors" overshoot their mark.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
MXY...you are not hearing me...I and most women in this world don't give a sailing s--t about "male disposability" because we don't believe our men are disposable and we will take it to the mat and beyond to protect and care for them.
Where is this 50% coming from? Until I went berserk, and threatened meltdown, I was 100% responsible for the manly health in my family. Now, it is down to roughly 15%, as I remain primarily responsible for the health care of the Better Half. The distinction is that these days, the boys have their women, and the BH has gotten old enough to know better.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Annie said:
"MXY...you are not hearing me...I and most women in this world don't give a sailing s--t about "male disposability" because we don't believe our men are disposable and we will take it to the mat and beyond to protect and care for them."
I likewise feel that you are not hearing me. Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other.
Research clearly shows that men die in greater numbers in almost all walks of life, regardless of how many males or females claim to oppose male disposability (actions indeed speak louder than words). Not only has Warren Farrell documented male disposability in books like "myth of male power: why men are the disposable sex", but I have found similar and more current data from the census bureau for my very own masters thesis on male stress. Males are simply the vast majority of suicides, homeless, victims of violence, job-related fatalities, casualties of war, victims of violence, and victims of the longevity gap. And it is mostly men who are objectified by their heroism, status, and success. And it is mostly men who are stereotyped as lacking in emotional intelligence. Like Warren Farrell, I believe that the "blame" for all of this is shared by men and women alike (or more accurately, society at large). This is why I use the "50%" figure.
The feminist in me wants to see more women at the top. The masculist in me wants to see fewer men at the bottom. This is fairness. If women can obtain the right to vote or the freedom to work en masse, I naturally believe that males are also entitled to the fruits of the traditional female role..........including the right to life and pursuit of happiness.
Evolutionary psychology suggests that male disposability is a function of male-male competition, female choice, egg/sperm economics, parental investment theory, and access to females in mating rituals. Research has actually shown that the longevity gap is linked to male-male intrasexual competition. So while females may "not care" about male disposability, they may indeed play a part in it.
Personally, my suspcician is that chivalry and male disposability are correlated entities. Since correlation does not mean causation, it is difficult to discern if male disposability leads to chivalry or if chivalry leads to male disposability.........or perhaps both.
I don't know what else to say Annie. I hope I am not being misunderstood. I don't see what is so offensive of what I am saying, especially when I make it a point to not put too much blame on feminism or women for mens dire predicament. I just don't understand.
These are some thought provoking quotes:
"Feminine traits are called weakness. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs." Kant, 1798, cited in Kammer, 2002.
"IF FEMALES WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGINS OF MALES (by expropriating the reproductive cycle) and their further development (by picking just those males that offered the best service and the highest quality), it seems natural to ask whether they might also have designed the nature of male society. In other words, do females control the intensity of male competition, and if so, to what degree?" Hapggod, 1979, from "why do males exist."
MXY
June 16th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
MCA says, men have been conditioned by non-stop women as victim agit-prop on most all media fronts (media lace curtain)..., to the degree that they think to themsleves.
....................." who are we to complain, we are men!!"
Actually, men just don't want to go the doctor. Please take my word that women don't WANT to go as well. The fact that we do suggests courage, intelligence, and initiative.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Annie said:
"Actually, men just don't want to go the doctor. Please take my word that women don't WANT to go as well. The fact that we do suggests courage, intelligence, and initiative."
Interesting point Annie. I wonder what the reasons are why many men are reluctant to go to the doctor. It begs a plethora of interesting questions:
*Are men genuinely more afraid of doctors than women? If so, why?
*Is men's reluctance to engage in healthful behaviors a function of "suffering in silence"?
*Are men ashamed of seeking out medical help due to stereotypes of male self-reliance?
*Do medical cues facilitate mortality fears and terror management in males? If so, why?
*Do men feel emasculated seeking medical help? If so, why?
*Are females more courageous and practical when it comes to medical matters? If so, why?
*Do males think more about others than themselves by avoiding self-care, or do males have a self-protecting agenda?
*etc.
Very interesting Annie.
MXY
June 16th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Males are simply the vast majority of suicides, homeless, victims of violence, job-related fatalities, casualties of war, victims of violence, and victims of the longevity gap. And it is mostly men who are objectified by their heroism, status, and success. And it is mostly men who are stereotyped as lacking in emotional intelligence. Like Warren Farrell, I believe that the "blame" for all of this is shared by men and women alike (or more accurately, society at large). This is why I use the "50%" figure.
But you cannot extrapolate from the data that the behavior of women is 50% responsible for these statistics, MXY. Women are not responsible for the reality that more men commit suicide, or that more men are homeless, or that more men are victims of violence.
Moreover, women are not generally responsible for male casuaties in war. Men are in fact, responsible for the profound loss of civilian life in 20th century conflicts.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
MasculistXY,
I'm very impressed by you're questions and arguments you put forward. You're keen intelect is a gift to men/fathers/boys accross the country.
I am also a huge fan of Dr.Warren farrels works, as i also believe Academia has become feminist-ly castrated over the last 40 years.
Those that are suffering the most from the anti-male hysteria and mis-information are in fact the younger generations of males who have shouldered the toxic climate of hysteria,
June 16th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Well done, MXY;
My problem is that you have asked questions best answered by men...and...
...Good heavens Slim, my knee jerk response was to answer for my guys.
I'm not going to do that. Can you let me ask them? I have four, all of whom are pretty fond of me.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
The 50% figure is a shorthand way of saying that men and women alike contribute to gender-related depravity. And it helps foster cooperation between men, women, feminists, and masculists because blame is shared equally. The truth is, it would almost be impossible to allocate the actual "responsibility ratio" between men and women for things like male disposabiity due to the sublte and complex ways in which nature, nurture, and human action/reactions interact. But perhaps you are right, and I should abandon my shorthand use of the "50%" figure. It seemed like a trivial issue to me at the time.
I personally believe that men and women alike contribute to war. INsofar that females are attracted to power, alpha male conquests, resource hoarding, and heirarchies of command, they may indeed contribute to war in a covert manner. Perhaps war itself is partly a manifestation of female mate selection criteria. The white feather campaign is a good example of this, where a group of females attempted to shame men who avoided war by giving them a white feather of "cowardice". In fact, just the other day I saw a bumper sticker that read: "girlfriend of a marine" which in and of itself suggests how females often look up to male soldiers as heroes or protectors and reinforce war in the process. Even something as trivial as attending a football game reinforces male-male aggression. I suspect that females find purple heart recipients sexier than draft-dodgers. When females stop objectifying men by status, and when men stop competing with each other for resources and sex, then perhaps war can be avoided more readily. But to say that females do not contribute to war seems presumptoious. When a boy gets his first Ji-Joe he is already being socialized to associate his boyhood fantasies with heroism and violence.
I don't know if you have read it Annie, but much of what I discuss on glenn's blog mirrors what Warren Farrell discussed in books like "Myth of Male Power." If you get a chance to read it, you may find it interesting. He also included sources and footnotes to ensure credibility.
MXY
June 16th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Thanks for the kind words MCA. I also very much appreciate your excellent insight and postings on Glenn Sacks as well. Keep it up dude.
MXY
June 16th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Annie said:
"Can you let me ask them? I have four, all of whom are pretty fond of me."
Feel free to let us know what they say. I for one would be curious!!
MXY
June 17th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Your problem MXY...is that for every civilian gal who is over the moon with some marine who will never call or write, there are a thousand gals who are not impressed, and not interested. The women who serve in our armed forces deserve better than the assumption thatthey are attracted to power, alpha male conquests, resource hoarding, and heirarchies of command, they may indeed contribute to war in a covert manner. Perhaps war itself is partly a manifestation of female mate selection
They are soldiers.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Finally MXY, why are my questions and posts merely "interesting" while MCA is "insightful?"
June 17th, 2008 at 1:21 am
I agree with what all three of you are saying, Annie, MXY, MCA.
In recent years my DH has become better at looking out for himself, healthwise, but it wasn't before much urging and prodding and persuasion from me. I've done all sorts of stuff to make sure he remains healty, from literally feeling his balls for lumps to sniking medication into his meals. Sometimes if I don't do this, he'll simply forget or, as tough as he likes to pretend to be, he'll be too scared of going to the doctors and potentially getting some bad news. But I can't and won't, if I don't have to, live without my family so I continue to ride my husband and our boys about their health. It's just the way it is, and for now the duty of safeguarding our men's health seems to have fallen on us women. Until the male/female paradigms change ... I just look at it as just another one of my duties. At least I know my family has genuine use for me, and that makes me feel good.
That said I completely agree with both MCA and MXY. And by the way Annie, I'll not have you pick on MXY. He's one of the best commentators here in my opinion. He seems to be a wonderful kid who puts a lot of thought into his posts, and is often extremely fair in his analyses. I can assure you--from what I know of his writings here--that he is by no means saying that the role we play in protecting our men's health is to be diminished. But that on a larger, societal scale that males are EXPECTED of BOTH other men AND women to be disposable, and I really can not see how you can deny that.
Yes, more men tend to start wars than women, more men tend to commit suicide, be homeless etc than women and while women may not carry the blame directly they often contribute indirectly to the demise of men either consciously or unconsciously in some way or another. For eg: many a wars have started because of men's devotion to the protection of "women and children". Even with the war in Iraq, back in 2003 just before it started and right after, I remember hearing President Bush saying time and time again that his main motivation is to protect the women and children of this country no matter what the cost. It was later on that it occurred to him to also include the protection of men in his speeches. Men often commit suicide when they feel they've failed their loved ones in life, in particular their women because they feel they can never live up to her expectations. A woman might not know she's influencing her man this way, but that does not change the fact that she indeed does.
The junkies, among other disfavourables, aside, thousands upon thousands of men become homeless either thru sacrifice for their families or former families every day. In the case of drug addictions, government intervention programmes are more in line to help female junkies than the male ones. This is a phenomenon I've also seen manifested in other countries: Scandivinia, continental Europe, Africa ... Saudi Arabia and the list goes on.
What MXY and MCA are talking about is not just in their heads, Annie, just like how the realities of us taking care of our men is not in ours.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:12 am
davina, says
"to sniking medication into his meals."
MCA says, May i recommend you don't do that anymore.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Hello Davina. I always admire your thoughts. And thanks for what you said at 1:21 AM.
MXY
June 17th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
"Yes, more men tend to start wars than women"
Davina, with all due respect this is not true. If you look up the history of Queen Elizabeth, Cleopatra, Indira Gandhi or Queen Isabella - they were just as likely if not more to start wars. The erroneous assumption of yours has been fueled through misinformation of male hormone effects. Wars are started over resources more often than not - whether it be land, water or food or more recently oil. Rarely, but famously, killings of VIPs and beautiful women have been used as pretexts to start a politically advantageous war.
The only exception to all of this is religion - the most meaningless and futile wars without contest.
So to assume that women are less likely to start wars is ignoring the underlying facts of the concept of war. Unless women consume no resources, it is very likely that they will enter a war sooner or later - and I would not blame them for the war, rather the allowance of growth in consumption. Had it not been for the wars "started by" men, the children of women would have been starved or enslaved by whoever happened to control the resources. Once you are a slave you have pretty much no rights - legal, physical or sexual. I am sure you would not encourage this sort of living conditions. If nothing else, the deterrents of military power have prevented a whole lot of human suffering and oppression than they caused. Without war or any acts of aggression, the society would have been a community of rabbits - even they need predators for maintaining a sustainable population.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Not to worry, Davina. 'Twas just a shot at light teasing...that fell flat. MXY is easy to talk to, and I enjoy reading his stuff
June 17th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Well, MCA, when my husband is seriously ill and refuses to take his meds on his own initative because he "hates taking those damn pills", I'll continue to snike them into his meals if they contribute toward preserving his life or the quality of it.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Annie, no worries.
MXY, thanks and you're welcome.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Hello everybody. I just stumbled onto this very interesting conversation, and I feel I just have to drop you good people a line.
I'm not an educated man; I’ve been a Marine for years, a grunt...so I can't quote famous sociologists. Political Science books were the last thing I felt like reading, so I have no grasp of the jargon du jour. I've never been on a debate team, so my arguments may seem weak, and I am prepared to be torn apart by you folks in a bit.
But I have been to Iraq too many times. I've done bad things, and so have my men. So please let my experience carry a weight that my education cannot. In the Corps, at least, the infantry field is still exclusively male. However, due to the nature of the conflict, and political pressure, females are exposed more and more to the hazards that were once a hallmark of the infantry. They aren't performing well.
I've seen with my own eyes females put behind the spade grips of .50 Cals, who needed a male to climb up the truck to rack the bolt back for them. I've seen them hide when they take fire. I've heard even more unflattering stories. When I rotated back home to become a combat instructor, I've had females gaff off training, refusing to participate. And their officers and Staff NCOs agreed with them, saying that they'll never be expected to carry a wounded man, or search for an IED. These aren't normal, run of the mill Ladies. These are Marines. They wear my uniform, and have had to prove themselves a cut above the populace.
But I would never trust them with my life. No grunt would.
The truth is, women don't belong in war. It's terrible, and everything good and bad within you is magnified. It really does create a pack mentality, but that's necessary to survive. What man would want the woman he loves to experience that? To have to pick up the pieces of their friend in little bags? To destroy a van that isn't responding to your warning signs and finding a family with a bunch of little girls inside, and KNOWING that you made the correct decision to fire? To follow a grenade into a room to clear it, knowing that in house-to-house fighting, an 80% casualty rate is EXPECTED.
Men and women are built differently. We're larger, stronger and faster. We have a responsibility to use those gifts to protect those that are smaller, weaker and slower. Do you disagree? That isn't attributable to socialization alone.
Masculinist XY, you mentioned the "noise downstairs" situation. Would you honestly expect your wife to go "check it out" for you? Your body and instincts are far more suited to fighting than hers, would you send her down there regardless just to prove a point? In a very real sense, we ARE expendable.
Like I've said, I don't have a fancy education and I haven't been exposed to the books you folks are talking about. But if the woman I loved was in danger...hell any woman or child; I would die to keep them safe. You may call me a victim of the "myth of male power", or call me deluded or even an ignorant fool. But look inside yourself. When everything goes to hell and the rhetoric disappears in a puff of hot air, Wouldn't you do the same?
That, my friends, is pretty damn Dulce et Decorum.
Take care, and good night.
June 18th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Thanks for the polite response Grunt. I will attempt to reciprocate the same level of civility. Personally, I am a masculist and also a researcher of male psychology (division 51 APA). My response may resonate with some of the esoteric language from these disciplines.
Grunt says:
"The truth is, women don't belong in war."
I don't believe men or women belong in war. John Huston's documentary "let there be light" about PTSD in WW 2 veterans made this crystal clear. The government actually banned it so that it could perpetuate the myth that men could handle the harsh realities of war unflichingly. Also, it is interesting to note that more vets killed themselves after vietnam than died in the war itself. If you want to read a comprehensive book about the terrors of male disposability, feel free to read Warren Farrell's "Myth of Male Power." The book shows how men die in greater numbers in almost all walks of life (suicide, job fatalities, violence, longevity, etc). For example, over 90% of job fatalities are men. If men were so "cut out" for dangerous endeavors or jobs, there wouldn't be such a thing as male disposability in the first place because all the men would have the ability to circumvent death. This is not the case. Just because men are slightly bigger and stronger this does not translate into justifying male disposability. I also vehemently oppose the male only draft. I believe that females are stronger than they get credit for, and I believe that men are weaker than they get credit for. There is an old quote: "The weakness of men is the facade of strength; the strength of women is the facade of weakness."
Grunt said:
"Masculinist XY, you mentioned the "noise downstairs" situation. Would you honestly expect your wife to go "check it out" for you? Your body and instincts are far more suited to fighting than hers, would you send her down there regardless just to prove a point? In a very real sense, we ARE expendable."
I believe in equal rights and equal responsibilities, not proving points. Ideally, I would hope that my wife and I could check out the noise together. I actually got that idea from Warren Farrell himself, and I think it is a good one.
Saying that men are disposable is like saying that women are "rapable." It can turn into an excuse. When men blindly believe the idea that they are disposable, this can manifest into a form of learned helplessness where men "take it like a man" and accept their dire state of affairs as if they can't do anything about it. Before women had the right to vote or the freedom to enter the workplace, things seemed pretty hopeless for them too. Feminists not only took action and did something about their "powerlessness", but they also asked for mens help too and many men helped them.
No group of people deserves to die in greater numbers than another group of people. This is a human rights violation. Society can do something about it too. It can work on improving the working conditions of men do reduce job fatalities. It can improve mental health services for men to reduce the suicide ratio. It can find ways to reduce the stress men face to reduce the longevity gap. It starts with education and blogs like Glenn Sacks. Most people haven't even heard of the phrases "male disposability" or "status objects". With education, we can define the problem and then offer possible solutions.
Grunt said:
"Like I've said, I don't have a fancy education and I haven't been exposed to the books you folks are talking about. But if the woman I loved was in danger...hell any woman or child; I would die to keep them safe."
I agree as long as the woman I love would be willing to do the same for me. I believe the expression "women and children first" is sexist. Some of this reflects cultural conformity. Watch any action movie or look at the boy's toys in the toy isle. Males are largely objectified by their heroism, status, success, and disposability. The research seems to suggest the same. Just as the early feminists resented being objectified by their sexuality, masculists also resent being objectified by their heroism, status, and success. It is a masculist thing. I don't expect everyone to understand. I am a non-conformist. I challenge the status quo. I think for myself. I think outside the box and against the grain.
Men are not disposable. And men are not walking wallets. They are human beings. Feminists, in the pursuit of equality, wanted access to traditional realms of male privilege (right to vote, go to college, work, etc). Masculists, in the pursuit of equality, want access to traditional realms of female privilege (safety, security, fringe benefits, parenting, pursuit of happiness, etc). Nowdays, females largely enjoy the fruits of the traditional male and female roles. They can work OR stay at home. When feminists want rights without responsibilities, they are essentially asking to "have their cake and eat it too." This is not real equality, but rather "animal farm equality" (if you are familiar with George Orwell's work).
"Feminine traits are called weakness. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs." Kant, 1798, cited in Kammer, 2002.
MXY
P.S. Thanks again for the post Grunt. But we may have to agree to disagree on a few things. After all, I am a non-conforming punk rocker with a sense of idealism. I don't intend to speak for everyone.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
MasculistXY said:
"I believe in equal rights and equal responsibilities, not proving points. Ideally, I would hope that my wife and I could check out the noise together. I actually got that idea from Warren Farrell himself, and I think it is a good one."
You gotta be kidding me...
June 18th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Grunt...while Dad was deployed, Mom was responsible for handling all "noises" in the dark. Luckily, she was well trained and fiercely protective.
Buuut, despite the fact that my Dad was a Demolay instructor who saw to it his bride and kids knew their way around firearms, and I am confident of my abilities...
...the Better Half would have serious issues with the notion of sending me out to investigate homefront potential danger. When I point out that I was responsible for such activity the many months his job kept him from home...he points out that he is "home now."
June 18th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Annie said:
"Grunt...while Dad was deployed, Mom was responsible for handling all "noises" in the dark. Luckily, she was well trained and fiercely protective."
Good for her Annie! I very much admire protective qualities in a female. If I ever fall in love, I am hoping that she would be protective of me. I think true love involves men and women alike being willing to protect each other in times of danger. I do realize, however, that some men may find it difficult to "let" a woman protect him due to the silly "honor code."
MXY
June 19th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Good posts Anonymous Grunt and MasculistXY. The polite, respectful posts are the best.
"When everything goes to hell....wouldn't you do the same?" There is an element of truth to what A.Grunt said.
However, M.XY reminds us that that there is a price to pay for "equality" and the common man has paid the deadliest of dues for this contemporary version of top-down political idealist maneuvering.
It looks like we, society, are paying the price for an illusion that seems to be dividing an aspect of N.American culture, the relations between the sexes. With the blog spaces found in Glenn's site we can talk (write) about issues that are not allowed elsewhere. Keep writing, guys. This is the best site anywhere.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Grunt tangentally points up some painful realities...whether in war or dealing with noises in the night...folks are generally not going up against organized harpies or sneaky "cats."
If I am pretty much assured my opponents are other women...I'm confident of my abilities and wherewithal. Not so much, knowing or assuming that what is bearing down on me is male, and armed.