There's a (now deleted) tweet that has showed up on my radar multiple times this month. The tweet tells of The Montreal Massacre, where a gunman who entered a room and told all of the men to leave. After they left, the gunman shot all of the women.
Of course, everyone has some choice words about the men who left. Even men are jumping on the bandwagon. The women who worked for The Order of the White Feather would be proud. Notice how not a single damn is given about the men who got shot during that massacre, whom for all we know, may have tried to intervene. Something else that gets overlooked is the fact that the men didn't know what the shooter was planning, and some, who feel survivors' guilt to this day, have said they would have helped if they knew.
Here's a life lesson for you: unless it's their job, no one is obligated to risk their life to rescue you, whether you're a male or female. If a stranger decides to jeopardize their safety, family, etc. just for you, that's one hell of a blessing, but not a right. Our society is so spoiled and judgmental regarding this subject that too many people need to study this paragraph.
That said, the mindset of people complaining about the men says a lot about what society thinks of males. The term for this perspective is "male disposability." Apparently, a father's life is so worthless that he needs to take a bullet for women in order to be redeemed. Your son is a waste of life until he tries to fight a murderer and become an extra victim.
And to you guys who believe that men should play superhero at a moment's notice, what would a random woman contribute to the family you leave behind for her? Would she adopt your kids? Would she start paying the bills for your family?
Choosing to be a hero is your decision, and I can respect people who make that sacrifice. What I don't respect are people who condemn the men who save themselves. Some say that being a protector is a male instinct. What they seem to forget is that survival is a human instinct.
Men have been dying to protect others for ages, and Western society is still ungrateful for it. The media is more interested in how many women die, than preserving the names of any men, living or dead, who helped others. On that note, the heroes go unnoticed by the masses, while every criminal act gets turned into a "toxic masculinity" discussion. Why not memorialize the heroes in the name of positive masculinity with the same energy you give to the toxic? Boys grow up to endless "men are criminals" propaganda, as well as systematic bias from their teachers.
Yet males are expected to sacrifice themselves for people who think so lowly of them?
Ironically, the fact the victims in the gunman story were all women is the only reason people care. As I said, the male victims are rarely mentioned. Maybe because they survived, but then why aren't the injured female survivors ignored as well? The male victims of the Isla Vista Massacre were immediately cast aside, despite outnumbering the female victims, because violence against women is all that matters.
Everyone knows that the average person isn't going to rush into a room full of men who are about to be shot, and save them. Studies show that people would rather help a woman, even at their own expense. Even if it means hurting men to do it. Hell, men are so far down the pecking order that we don't have the privilege of expecting to be rescued. Even if support does come, men know they have to wait in line for all of the women to escape first. The general public doesn't even care about groups of boys being murdered. Just look at Boko Haram.
So that rules out the "no one cares about women" argument that somehow pops up during every tragedy. If anything, women have it better than we do. Most people won't look to a woman to step up during a hostage situation. They certainly don't try to condition girls into believing that their life's purpose is to go out of their way to protect men and children. No one expects a bunch of random women to team up and save the day when a psycho killer goes psycho. Hell, women are far less likely than men to be murdered.
Maybe the women who think men owe them their lives should step up to the plate more often. Ladies first, after all.
As long as we're bringing up old events, what about the Titanic? Last I heard, the rule was women and children first. 304 out of 412 female passengers survived, compared to 128 out of 776 male passengers. Were the women cowards for leaving their husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers, etc. to die? If not, why? Firemen and police are told to abide by the "women and children first" rule to this day. Are women not real women if they don't tell their man to leave the burning house first?
Helen Smith said it best in her book, Men on Strike. She was talking about the sinking of the Costa Concordia. Male passengers scrambled for the lifeboats, shoving and trampling over everyone. Naturally, people who weren't there scoffed at the men for not calmly standing around until all the women were saved. Here are her comments:
"The guys’ behavior is a culmination that has been years in the making. Our society, the media, the government, women, white knights and Uncle Tims have regulated and demanded that any incentives men have for acting like men be taken away and decried masculinity as evil. Now they are seeing the result. Men have been listening to what society has been saying about them for more than forty years; they are perverts, wimps, cowards, assholes, jerks, good-for-nothing, bumbling deadbeats and expendable. Men got the message; now they are acting accordingly. As you sow, so shall you reap.
"So now people are surprised when men are heading for the exits? They shouldn’t be surprised. Men have been pushed there for some time. We should actually be surprised that it has taken so long."
How quickly some women forget their privilege of having about half of the population be expected to die for them. A man who refuses that deal isn't a coward. The true cowards are the men and women who talk down to that man for choosing not to die for someone else.
