I know a lot of guys skip interviews so I’ll post the one provocative question separately in case they miss it:
BC: Recently, you wrote a piece about the Virginia Tech incident in which you lamented the state of contemporary manliness. You mentioned the “Montreal massacre” and the way in which the men meekly left the room after armed gunman, Mark Lepine, asked them to. Is it your belief that men, when confronted with an armed assailant uninterested in harming them, should instinctively bulrush the fellow and sacrifice their lives in the process?
Mark Steyn: I don’t know whether men should give up their lives for strangers or not. I don’t know about that. In a sense you’re right under the logic of feminism. If we’re no longer expected to open the door for strangers then the whole women and children first thing no longer applies. Personally though, I’m not comfortable with this. I am a women and children first kind of guy. The movie Titanic shows rich men in first class cabins barreling past women and children to escape but that’s not what really happened. In real life those men went down with the ship. You know, it’s very dangerous to have a society based on what happened in Montreal. What should happen is that when a gunman like that shows up at a college he should fear that somebody there might take a gun out and blow his head off but American colleges are gun free which means that they are safe places to commit murder.
10 Responses
“Women and children first.”
It’s ironic that the “women and children first” kind of guys, such as Mark Steyn, created the environment that empowered the privileged class of women to pressure studios to rewrite history and falsely claim that rich guys barrelled past women and children to escape to assuage young women’s consciences…
It appears that it’s dangerous to have a women and children first kind of society too. A society that treats men as second class citizens undermines the innovators, risk takers, and providers of a culture. Welfare cultures are “women and children first” societies and look how great they’re doing!
Anne Coulter classified leftism as a religion. Let’s add chivalry to the list.
Posted on June 1st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
at 57 yrs old, i was raisd to open doors, not swear too loud and generally treat women in a kindly manor befitting their feminine demeanor. having watched 30 years of sit-comes, movies, commercials and newsprint deride, ridicule, castigate and treat men worse than one would a dog, those days are long gone, for me.
i do make exceptions for elderly ladies that i know were and are not a part of todays cultural decline.
Posted on June 1st, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Redefine chivalry so it is not an entitlement, but a privilege to be earned.
Posted on June 1st, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Manliness is a constellation of factors, of which Chivalry used to be a integral part. Chivalry itself is a constellation of behaviours and attitudes and that too seems to be breaking apart into its constituents.
There is talk from time to time about chivalry and its decline. It never existed in a vacuum of course and there was a female behaviour set that complemented it. That feminine constellation disintegrated long ago and it is hardly suprising that chivalry ended up like a beached whale.
The remnants of both can be seen here. Few men are willing to put women first (children still get priority) but reasonable manners are still often used. Look how everyone treats Joyanna. She earns respect from her intelligence and female viewpoints and gets good manners in return. Even Denise who pokes with a sharp stick is seen as someone to accomodate and be friendly with (or is that just me?).
But chancing one’s life? Ah. The line is drawn a long way short of that. There are few opportunities for risking one’s life for someone and most of those are best avoided. I would wager that many men today who would refuse to risk themselves for a woman - walk out at the invitation of the gunperson - but would for a child. I’d wager that most men would fight the child.
The modern Titanic would go down with lifeboats full of kiddies. The women would drown along with the men.
(But odds are that in each lifeboat there would be several women to ‘look after’ the kiddies. No men of course, for fear of a paedophile sneaking aboard. The women wouldn’t allow it).
Posted on June 1st, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Amfortas, you old sweetie! I’ll hold the door open for ya!
I couldn’t help but say something here….Actually, I once saw a documentary on the movie Titanic…and besides the fictional “love” affair, James Cameron did research for over ten years to get every little tiny detail right, including the fact that there were some men rushing for the boats.
Every aspect of what happened that night was carefully and historically put into the movie…as much as possible.
And since the lower classes were locked downstairs…who knows how the gentlemen in those classes would have acted?
Funny, I was just reading about this subject…someone said that Chivalry was started with the men returning from the Crusades..they had been influenced by the Moslem Persian literature, where the women were subjects of exravagant compliments and devotion.(I guess this was before the stoning stuff)
Certainly the Viking had no such feelings.
The women were left to watch the crusading Lords’s castles, and while they were away, the other men had to really use different “tactics” on the women in charge.
Then, with the building of Chartres Cathedral, Mary , the mother of Jesus was was brought into the human psychic…where as before she had been pretty much in the background. Her elavation in the church helped out gave the romantic period a good shot in the arm. (according to this historian) \
It had a pretty long run…
Still…ever watch a male pigeon strutt? Every watch a man show off in some sport trying to get the attention of some good lucking girl?
I’ve watched many a male animal courting his mate in the most chivalous way! And as for myself, I don’t know about Denis…ANYONE who holds a door open for me gets a big THANK YOU.
I did like Gonzmans answer…or as Ronald Reagan would say…
Trust….but verify.
As for dying for that person? Whoa…it’s a whole new world.
Good subject to bring up Mr. Chapin!
Posted on June 1st, 2007 at 11:40 pm
You get what you give Joyanna!
TMOTS
Posted on June 2nd, 2007 at 6:43 am
“Women and children first” is a trope that has long outlived its usefulness. As long as the human race was in some danger of extinction due to lack of numbers, saving women and children at the expense of men made sense. That’s because, if the species is threatened, our chances for survival are enhanced by an overabundance of women. A single man can impregnate many women, but a single woman typically gestates but a single child which takes 10-12 years to reach sexual maturity. So, if anyone has to die, it should be men. But of course the days when there were too few people on earth are long-gone. The opposite is true today and the idea of saving women at the expense of men should be long-gone as well. Children of course are different because they cannot care for themselves.
Posted on June 2nd, 2007 at 8:54 am
The last line in the 4th para in post#4 above should end with fight *for* the child.
Whoops!
I’m surprised someone hasn’t picked that one up. What is this? Doesn’t anyone read my posts? Awwww.
Posted on June 2nd, 2007 at 10:03 am
“When the public code of chivalry was changed from a woman’s privilege to a woman’s oppression, the entire system began to break down.”
- zed the zen priest
I agree, bolwriter, that the WACF policy has no function these days, though the biological basis for it that you refer to is pretty deeply embedded in human nature because it was functional for so much of human history. So one can expect women (not all, of course, but many) to always be pushing that button and demanding special consideration. This is why it’s so difficult getting men’s side of things out there: women changing the subject back to their concerns works.
Posted on June 2nd, 2007 at 11:53 am
I just hold the door open for anyone who appears to be hard working and self respecting. The Deadbeat Sult Welfare recipients do not get an open door unless their children are with them, as the child’s predicament is not of their picking, perhaps one kind act will open their minds.
I will take the hit if attacked for my consideration of others, but I will also use that act as my currency to state my growing Patriarchical Beliefs, and spend it accordingly.
The MRM does not just need a message, like as the WRM sold Masochistic Dominated Myn the NEW WORLD DISORDER, the MRM needs an ORDER to replace the Jezebel State. Not just womanly whining about life not being fair, but the Jezebel State must be shown to be ultimately destructive to all parties
Whose Message are you going to listen to:
“Life/the Courts/the government/the CSS/divorce laws is/are unfair” (whine whimper and cry)
or:
“The Jezebel State and New World Disorder of Feminists has destroyed the function and purpose of Men and made them second class citizens, jsut look Construction and Military cannot get Men to Build and Defend in the numbers needed.” [Something like that]?
Which one is going to awaken the majority on both sides of the issue?
See how one addresses the effect, and one addresses the larger cause?
Unlike the Feminists, what we do here is going to effect the WHOLE of Society for the Better, not just certain individuals.
Is this not the strength of our possible message?
If you want to see the alleged strength of our opposition’s message and how their ideas benefit ALL, look at the comments of ‘tom of covent garden’ at http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/05/30/matriarchs-pop-tarts-and-unparented-children/#comment-42752
absolutely unadulterated twisted logic of a masochistic mind.
Posted on June 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Add A Comment