Thursday, April 19, 2007
The masculine/feminine culture debate revisited
I blogged about this not too long ago but it has resurfaced in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy. Conservatives Michelle Malkin and Jay Nordlinger and now libertarian Neil Boortz are saying that when a group of people are threatened by one long gunman you're going to die anyway and so the best course of action would be to rush the guy and thus limit the carnage. Makes sense to me but Lionel, who recently said that he wants to hear and read EVERYTHING, said this is beneath contempt. Maybe his point has to do with how Malkin, Nordlinger and Boortz presented their argument as somehow blaming the victim or what he called "the wussification of America" but I sure hope he's not actually criticizing the validity of their point. It's true fear is a great paralyzer in such a situation and you almost need a telepathic consensus to pull this thing off, hey wait a minute, that happened on Flight 93 that was headed straight to Washington on 9/11, the heroes on board all gave up their lives but a far greater tragedy was averted (hard to see it this way in the context of the other similar events of that day). In a way we have become a nation of victims and I don't mean this disparagingly in any way, it's simply a statement of fact whether Malkin and company present it politely or not. So why is pushing people to defend themselves more so controversial? Why can't schools hold classes in how to defend yourself and others in such a situation? This is another reason why I much prefer a masculine to a feminine culture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From the last school tragedy in the Amish schoolroom, you convinced me that we need to stop allowing ourselves to be victim, and although I agree that fear can be paralyzing, I now think if we get the mindset ahead of time that we can do more than just run or hide, then major tragedies like this can be avoided. I don't blame the VT students, because they are just going along with what culture dicates at this time, but we need to change that culture. And it makes me chuckle that you call it a masculine culture, because when I told my husband I felt this way that we need to learn to fight back, he thought I was crazy.
ReplyDeleteOf course there is a lot of discussion out there also that if the campus were not a gun free zone and just one student or faculty member could have been armed, then this killer's spree could have ended sooner. I say hell yeah, there should be a level playing field!
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, a feminine culture is good for setting the dinner table but for saving and protecting lives you have to give priority to the masculine culture. Feminism sees nothing good with the fabled patriarchy but with the feminine culture you get female co-workers who sometimes don't like how their male colleagues talk to them (and I'm not talking sexual here) and they sometimes get good workers fired and with a feminine culture you get people who are always passively victimized.
ReplyDeleteHa ha, the feminine culture is good for setting the table. Good one.
ReplyDeleteFemales can be protective, too, you know, of their children and maybe cute animals.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou know the feminists are funny, they go all out for increasing the punishment for various crimes against women running the gamut from harassment/stalking to rape and yet are all against the right of a woman who is in real danger to use a handgun to protect herself. I call this after-the-fact legislation instead of before-the-fact acts you can do to protect yourself.
ReplyDeleteIf a woman doesn't want to carry a gun, I recommend learning karate or self-defense techniques. But those who wish to carry one should be allowed to!
ReplyDeletedon't mess with Beth
ReplyDelete"But those (i.e. women) who wish to carry one should be allowed to."
ReplyDeleteJeane Harris, Scarsdale Diet Doctor, hell hath no fury
are you sure about this Beth?