Fighting back.
A minor skirmish has started over at The Corner. John Podhoretz is shocked that John Derbyshire wondered why anyone didn't fight back.
I agree with Derbyshire. I, of course, don't know how I would react in such a situation. Maybe I would cower like a bunny or cry like a little girl. But I know how I would want to. I hope I would fight. This was one man against scores. Yes, the scores were outgunned, but he was outnumbered.
There was a time when the thought of young men jumping out of windows while young women were getting shot would have been shameful for the men. They would fight back because that is what they thought was expected of them as men.
Men, think of this situation: Suppose Cho came into your house and started shooting, and say he already has hit a family member. You are unarmed (and can't reach for a gun) but you could get away. Would you get away, and let your family deal with him? After all, he has a gun! If you fight, he'll just kill you!
Of course you don't run, or at least, of course you hope you are not the type to run. You grab anything you have to throw at him, or just rush at him.
Part of this is also training. I've read the safest thing for soldiers to do when caught in an ambush is attack the ambushers. It puts them off guard and on the defensive. But soldiers have to be taught to do this. The first instinct is probably to run, which simply increases their probability of being killed. But soldiers can be trained to fight back. When ambushed, the training kicks in, they fight back and most of them live.
Our young men are no longer trained to protect the women around them. It simply doesn't enter their head that is what they are expected to do. And it has been this way for at least a generation. It certainly wouldn't have entered my head 25 years ago when I was in college. Knowing who I was back then, I think I would have jumped out a window. But I have a feeling my father, at that age, would have felt compelled to protect those around him, even at the cost of his life.
This is a change for the worse.
I agree with Derbyshire. I, of course, don't know how I would react in such a situation. Maybe I would cower like a bunny or cry like a little girl. But I know how I would want to. I hope I would fight. This was one man against scores. Yes, the scores were outgunned, but he was outnumbered.
There was a time when the thought of young men jumping out of windows while young women were getting shot would have been shameful for the men. They would fight back because that is what they thought was expected of them as men.
Men, think of this situation: Suppose Cho came into your house and started shooting, and say he already has hit a family member. You are unarmed (and can't reach for a gun) but you could get away. Would you get away, and let your family deal with him? After all, he has a gun! If you fight, he'll just kill you!
Of course you don't run, or at least, of course you hope you are not the type to run. You grab anything you have to throw at him, or just rush at him.
Part of this is also training. I've read the safest thing for soldiers to do when caught in an ambush is attack the ambushers. It puts them off guard and on the defensive. But soldiers have to be taught to do this. The first instinct is probably to run, which simply increases their probability of being killed. But soldiers can be trained to fight back. When ambushed, the training kicks in, they fight back and most of them live.
Our young men are no longer trained to protect the women around them. It simply doesn't enter their head that is what they are expected to do. And it has been this way for at least a generation. It certainly wouldn't have entered my head 25 years ago when I was in college. Knowing who I was back then, I think I would have jumped out a window. But I have a feeling my father, at that age, would have felt compelled to protect those around him, even at the cost of his life.
This is a change for the worse.
posted by Harsh Pencil | 4/19/2007 09:53:00 PM
In ancient war, battles would sometimes rage for hours with few losses on either side. Men would hit each other on their bronze armor doing little damage. Then one side would break, turn their backs, and the slaughter would begin.
It's better to be on offense than defense.
They say, for women being attacked, you're better off to fight. Having a gun is best, but even kicking and biting gives one better odds. Most bullies are wussies at heart.
Interesting take on armour here. Next time you buy it, buy the entire set of it, not just the half the protects the front.
Ohhh the mindless slings and arrows of half thought out wit.
Post a Comment