Ask New Question
Sign In
Quora uses cookies to improve your experience. Read more
Do the narratives of boyfriends shielding their girlfriends during the shooting enforce harmful stereotypes about masculinity?
Answer Wiki
16 Answers
We should endeavor to report the full truth of what happened during the incident. Bravery by men and women should be fully reported.
If it turns out that more men did acts of self-sacrifice than women, well, that's what happened. (Or, if it turns out more men panicked and acted selfishly, that's what happened.)
It sounds to me like you are asking if reporting what happened might be harmful, because it might not fit a particular agenda.
You should really be asking:
P.P.S. That said, if this ever happened at my workplace, the most likely person to act heroically is probably a particular woman who barely reaches 5' in height.
If it turns out that more men did acts of self-sacrifice than women, well, that's what happened. (Or, if it turns out more men panicked and acted selfishly, that's what happened.)
It sounds to me like you are asking if reporting what happened might be harmful, because it might not fit a particular agenda.
You should really be asking:
- How can the incident be reported, in a way that tells the full story, without falling into gender clichés. You're right to be angered by TV reporting that just goes for lazy, emotion-ridden, gender-normative anecdotes.
- How you should alter your agenda in light of new information. A particular shooting incident is just a data point. Maybe if you did a survey of similar incidents you'd learn something important about men versus women.
P.P.S. That said, if this ever happened at my workplace, the most likely person to act heroically is probably a particular woman who barely reaches 5' in height.
Related QuestionsMore Answers Below
I admire the bravery shown in Aurora by some men, and some women.
That said, I object to the use of the term "overly gendered" in Ms. Senway's earlier comment as a conscious or unconscious effort to insert dogmatic, gender studies blather into this analysis. Men and women are wired differently, in spite of post-modern attempts to define gender as a social construct versus a natural state. Her answer shows an interest in spotlighting the brave women who emerged from the reports of that tragedy, which I think is helpful, and she rightly explains that courage is an individual trait to which all can aspire.
But that terminology - gendered - is a phrase which I would choose not to use.
Whilst there is tremendous overlap of the bell curves that describe the behavior and capabilities of men and women, still, key differences are inborn, and no amount of wishful thinking or collegiate indoctrination will supress those differences. Men test better at spatial reasoning; women test slightly better at multitasking. Men process emotions differently than women. But we both process emotions.
Dennis Prager's new book, "Still the Best Hope," includes the wonderful line: "...when you obscure the differences between men and women, you end up with many aimless men and angry women." We are doing a good job in this culture empowering women, but we are terribly derelict in how we teach young men. We should once again channel boys' natural aggression into proper channels, instead of medicating them. Schools are set up to optimize the teaching of girls, while the boys too often tune out, and fall behind. Witness the vast legions of young male video game experts, still living at home at 25. Our lack of teaching viable male archetypes, such as are now dismissed by the doctrinal education establishment, is one of the reasons more "men" seem to be running from danger these days. Or why they fail to launch.
My wife is one of those strong, brave women who would bind up a wound faced with a similar circumstance, as the heroic woman in the theater. Either of us would fight like wolves to protect our children, boys and girls. I would give my life to save her, and she, me. But I think her primal, and correct instinct would be to flee with the kids while I stayed to face the threat, or shielded them all in their escape. Or, I would pick them all up and rush them out. (Or, given a 50/50 chance, neutralize the gunman with my hands.)
To use the phrase "overly gendered" is to sniff about for offense, where there is none. Only in a college class would one get credit for such an effort. In real life, it just makes a person look like a whiner.
That said, I object to the use of the term "overly gendered" in Ms. Senway's earlier comment as a conscious or unconscious effort to insert dogmatic, gender studies blather into this analysis. Men and women are wired differently, in spite of post-modern attempts to define gender as a social construct versus a natural state. Her answer shows an interest in spotlighting the brave women who emerged from the reports of that tragedy, which I think is helpful, and she rightly explains that courage is an individual trait to which all can aspire.
But that terminology - gendered - is a phrase which I would choose not to use.
Whilst there is tremendous overlap of the bell curves that describe the behavior and capabilities of men and women, still, key differences are inborn, and no amount of wishful thinking or collegiate indoctrination will supress those differences. Men test better at spatial reasoning; women test slightly better at multitasking. Men process emotions differently than women. But we both process emotions.
Dennis Prager's new book, "Still the Best Hope," includes the wonderful line: "...when you obscure the differences between men and women, you end up with many aimless men and angry women." We are doing a good job in this culture empowering women, but we are terribly derelict in how we teach young men. We should once again channel boys' natural aggression into proper channels, instead of medicating them. Schools are set up to optimize the teaching of girls, while the boys too often tune out, and fall behind. Witness the vast legions of young male video game experts, still living at home at 25. Our lack of teaching viable male archetypes, such as are now dismissed by the doctrinal education establishment, is one of the reasons more "men" seem to be running from danger these days. Or why they fail to launch.
My wife is one of those strong, brave women who would bind up a wound faced with a similar circumstance, as the heroic woman in the theater. Either of us would fight like wolves to protect our children, boys and girls. I would give my life to save her, and she, me. But I think her primal, and correct instinct would be to flee with the kids while I stayed to face the threat, or shielded them all in their escape. Or, I would pick them all up and rush them out. (Or, given a 50/50 chance, neutralize the gunman with my hands.)
To use the phrase "overly gendered" is to sniff about for offense, where there is none. Only in a college class would one get credit for such an effort. In real life, it just makes a person look like a whiner.
Any overly gendered narrative obscures the very real instances of individual bravery. Those men didn't necessarily die because they were men, but because they had the courage and quick-will to think about someone else. Not every man would act that way, and saying that it was base instinct I think is tragically unfair to these men who put their lives on the line for another person (man or woman).
The problem with the narrative too is that it erases the very real bravery of the women in that theatre:
The men-protecting-the-women story fits our cultural conceptions of what bravery looks like, but I think true courage is above all an individual trait we should all hope to aspire to.
The problem with the narrative too is that it erases the very real bravery of the women in that theatre:
- Stephanie Rodriguez made a tourniquet out of her belt for a (male) stranger to stop his leg from bleeding upon exiting the theatre.
- Allie Young, who sat at the front of the theatre, and stood to warn other people before getting shot in the neck
- Stephanie Davies (Allie's friend) who kept her hand against the wound, dialed 911 and refused to leave Allie's side, despite her friend's protests.
The men-protecting-the-women story fits our cultural conceptions of what bravery looks like, but I think true courage is above all an individual trait we should all hope to aspire to.
There is truth. Truth is unknowable. There was an event that happened. That truth will never be fully known or understood by anyone. If I believed in God, I'd say "except by God." But with or without God, there is truth.
Then, there is the philosophical, social, and cultural basis of all of our lives, and that is narrative. We build self-concept, national concept, etc. based on narrative. We will never know the truth----though there will be A Truth, just one----we will never know it. But there will thousands and thousands of stories told about the events.
How those stories are told, what is stressed, what is ignored, what is elided, what is lied about, what is confused unintentionally, all of THAT will be gendered. We are always gendered when we tell our stories to one another. If I were Oprah, I'd say, "express our truths," but what it means is our versions. What I know about what happened combined with what I know about everything combined with my opinion about the events and my opinion of my audience, and then cast with the flavor of my skills and intelligence. That's my truth, my narrative, and in that I am gendered and so are you, my narrative will be gendered.
Does a narrative that says "men made an effort to save women" stress gender over-much? It's a valid question. Perhaps, in the service of telling this story instead of others, in that time and space are always limited and choices have to be made about what stories to tell, even over the back fence to your neighbor, stories about women who were heroes to other women, stories about men who were heroes to little boys, stories about men who were cowards, women who were cowards, etc. will be obscured.
A good question to ask is: who cares? does it matter? it might. I can't honestly see how right this minute, truthfully. Our world is full of overly gendered stories. This will just be another. I don't think it will cause more boys to do whatever or more girls to do whatever. People do what they do to survive when survival is on the line. Those men were not able to construct a narrative that did not include saving these women. These women were not able to construct a narrative that did not include accepting that help at the expense of their partners. The shooter was not able to construct one that did not include killing these people. I don't really think it changes that much about the next time someone kills someone else.
Still, it's a valid thing to talk about and look at. But, never forget that there is only ONE thing that happened. And no one will ever know what that is. No one.
Then, there is the philosophical, social, and cultural basis of all of our lives, and that is narrative. We build self-concept, national concept, etc. based on narrative. We will never know the truth----though there will be A Truth, just one----we will never know it. But there will thousands and thousands of stories told about the events.
How those stories are told, what is stressed, what is ignored, what is elided, what is lied about, what is confused unintentionally, all of THAT will be gendered. We are always gendered when we tell our stories to one another. If I were Oprah, I'd say, "express our truths," but what it means is our versions. What I know about what happened combined with what I know about everything combined with my opinion about the events and my opinion of my audience, and then cast with the flavor of my skills and intelligence. That's my truth, my narrative, and in that I am gendered and so are you, my narrative will be gendered.
Does a narrative that says "men made an effort to save women" stress gender over-much? It's a valid question. Perhaps, in the service of telling this story instead of others, in that time and space are always limited and choices have to be made about what stories to tell, even over the back fence to your neighbor, stories about women who were heroes to other women, stories about men who were heroes to little boys, stories about men who were cowards, women who were cowards, etc. will be obscured.
A good question to ask is: who cares? does it matter? it might. I can't honestly see how right this minute, truthfully. Our world is full of overly gendered stories. This will just be another. I don't think it will cause more boys to do whatever or more girls to do whatever. People do what they do to survive when survival is on the line. Those men were not able to construct a narrative that did not include saving these women. These women were not able to construct a narrative that did not include accepting that help at the expense of their partners. The shooter was not able to construct one that did not include killing these people. I don't really think it changes that much about the next time someone kills someone else.
Still, it's a valid thing to talk about and look at. But, never forget that there is only ONE thing that happened. And no one will ever know what that is. No one.
As someone who finally got around to completing some advanced study relatively late in life, I applaud the use of critical thinking in everyday situations.
I have come to believe that there is a place to ask questions of the simplest of choices and situations life throws at us.
As a Father of twins (M/F - he was born 13 minutes ahead of her, hence the placement of sexes) and a stay at home Dad at that, I did my level best to offer gender neutral responses to early situations.
The result?
He still wears shorts and ratty T-Shirts in Chicago winters, she's always preferred Pink and frilly, in spite of my "suggestions" to alternatives.
What I think I do object to in the original questions is that somehow a natural response to something extraordinary can be re-framed to be something negative, even something wrong in the response of the members of the audience who chose to protect other members of the audience. I want perfect equality in the world.
I want my Daughter and my Sons to have every opportunity their skills and aptitudes can offer them.
How can that be possible when even someone who obviously has had access to education (you really don't learn the language the question was expressed in while operating heavy earth moving equipment in an open cut mine, for example) wants to take away another negative from the experience, no, in fact they want to completely negate an example of true Humanity in action.
This is a classic example of using Political Correctness as an ill-wielded power tool.
For that, I think you need to feel shame and embarrassment that you have to find fault with people attempting to be the best they can in a really bad situation.
I have come to believe that there is a place to ask questions of the simplest of choices and situations life throws at us.
As a Father of twins (M/F - he was born 13 minutes ahead of her, hence the placement of sexes) and a stay at home Dad at that, I did my level best to offer gender neutral responses to early situations.
The result?
He still wears shorts and ratty T-Shirts in Chicago winters, she's always preferred Pink and frilly, in spite of my "suggestions" to alternatives.
What I think I do object to in the original questions is that somehow a natural response to something extraordinary can be re-framed to be something negative, even something wrong in the response of the members of the audience who chose to protect other members of the audience. I want perfect equality in the world.
I want my Daughter and my Sons to have every opportunity their skills and aptitudes can offer them.
How can that be possible when even someone who obviously has had access to education (you really don't learn the language the question was expressed in while operating heavy earth moving equipment in an open cut mine, for example) wants to take away another negative from the experience, no, in fact they want to completely negate an example of true Humanity in action.
This is a classic example of using Political Correctness as an ill-wielded power tool.
For that, I think you need to feel shame and embarrassment that you have to find fault with people attempting to be the best they can in a really bad situation.
For the sake of argument, let's just say that yes, instantiations of male bravery reinforce stereotypes of male bravery. Also, YES, some people will see instances of men being brave and assume that all men are brave and all women are therefore weak. Does that make it wrong to talk about instances of male bravery?
For contrast, what if one were to ask:
Did the instances of boyfriends shielding their girlfriends during the shooting reinforce harmful stereotypes?
Perhaps the answer to that question is "yes" as well. Does that mean that those men shouldn't have shielded those women?
Also, one might also ask:
Did harmful stereotypes prompt these men to shield their girlfriends?
The answer here might again be yes and the lesson might be that in the non-academic world we have to take the good with the bad.
All that said, if bravery on the part of men were over-reported and the bravery of women under-reported, then we are reinforcing stereotypes that have no basis. If we found that the "male bravery" stereotype were a sort of self fulfilling prophecy, in an interesting twist, that harmful stereotype is also beneficial. Again, good with the bad.
For contrast, what if one were to ask:
Did the instances of boyfriends shielding their girlfriends during the shooting reinforce harmful stereotypes?
Perhaps the answer to that question is "yes" as well. Does that mean that those men shouldn't have shielded those women?
Also, one might also ask:
Did harmful stereotypes prompt these men to shield their girlfriends?
The answer here might again be yes and the lesson might be that in the non-academic world we have to take the good with the bad.
All that said, if bravery on the part of men were over-reported and the bravery of women under-reported, then we are reinforcing stereotypes that have no basis. If we found that the "male bravery" stereotype were a sort of self fulfilling prophecy, in an interesting twist, that harmful stereotype is also beneficial. Again, good with the bad.
I think the wrong question was asked. The right question is why are there, to the best of my knowledge, no instances of women using their bodies to physically shield their male loved ones during such events, and men not ashamed to be publicly grateful for their sacrifice? I recall the S.F. office massacre- same thing of a guy jumping in front of his wife or sig other. And of the course the media hypes these examples because the men died. I find at least a hint of undervaluing of male life, relative to female, in the question and the thread. Pretty ironic, in context.
The larger point is that we have not evolved so far from male physical dominance. The answer is to convince more and more people that men can be passive and soft and that is okay, even good, and the same for women being aggressive and courageous. A really important step that began to come about only recently is feminists demanding direct combat roles in our military. Now we need a Mr. Rogers for this century and female action heroes who wear fatigues and boots rather than body stockings and stilettos.
The larger point is that we have not evolved so far from male physical dominance. The answer is to convince more and more people that men can be passive and soft and that is okay, even good, and the same for women being aggressive and courageous. A really important step that began to come about only recently is feminists demanding direct combat roles in our military. Now we need a Mr. Rogers for this century and female action heroes who wear fatigues and boots rather than body stockings and stilettos.
In a way, yes. But it is subtle.
Some narratives tend to enforce the stereotype that in a situation like that, a person has clear thinking and free will.
I have had an experience (far less extreme of course) where I thought the female acquaintance I was speaking to at the time was in imminent danger of harm from something happening behind me (a large shelf-unit collapsed). My mind wanted to turn and see what was happening, but my body ignored the request and tried to shield her - totally against my will. I believe that is exactly what happened in the theatre - hard-wiring took over to protect someone the men cared about.
It is difficult to accept that we can have such a lack of control in an emergency situation, so we pretend these guys are "special". In so doing, we attempt to reward instinctive behaviour - which is futile.
The "special" thing about these guys is that they cared about their companions. What they did was human.
Some narratives tend to enforce the stereotype that in a situation like that, a person has clear thinking and free will.
I have had an experience (far less extreme of course) where I thought the female acquaintance I was speaking to at the time was in imminent danger of harm from something happening behind me (a large shelf-unit collapsed). My mind wanted to turn and see what was happening, but my body ignored the request and tried to shield her - totally against my will. I believe that is exactly what happened in the theatre - hard-wiring took over to protect someone the men cared about.
It is difficult to accept that we can have such a lack of control in an emergency situation, so we pretend these guys are "special". In so doing, we attempt to reward instinctive behaviour - which is futile.
The "special" thing about these guys is that they cared about their companions. What they did was human.
View More
Related Questions
Still have a question? Ask your own!