Are fathers supposed to no longer value their own lives?

[Winston]

I have a question I'm wondering about. How come most fathers on TV and in public say that they love their children so much that they wouldn't hesitate to give up their own life for them if they had to? Even Alex Jones said that in his Christmas speech. It's so common to say that that it's become a cliche.

Now I know that situations where you have to sacrifice your life to save your kids are extremely unlikely and overdramatic. But the point is, it seems that there is this expectation or tendency for a father to no longer value his own life as soon as he becomes a father, as if all he cares about afterward is his kid. At least that's what fathers publicly say.

So I'm wondering, when a guy becomes a father, does he somehow lose his passions, desires and ambitions for other things, and no longer values his own life?

If so, how come my desires, passions and ambitions remained the same after I had my son? How come I didn't become some selfless father who only cared about his kids and no longer valued his own life, like other fathers do? Does that mean there is something wrong with me, since I don't conform to that cliche of "placing your child's life above your own and devaluing your own life"?

To be honest, I'm not sure that I'd be willing to jump in front of a bullet that was heading toward my kid, even though it's a cliche to say that you would. Of course, I'd try to save him if a bullet came at him, yeah. But as to intentionally choosing to give up my life to save his, I can't say that I'd do that (even though I'm supposed to say that I would, according to society) since I value my life too.

So, if I value my life the same before and after I have a son, does that mean there is something wrong with me? How come I don't follow the cliche that other fathers follow? Should I try to force myself to follow it just to follow it? Am I morally obligated to become self-sacrificing? Isn't it best to seek a win-win balance?

In fact, it seems that people on TV are often very self-sacrificing. Here are some examples of self-sacrificing cliches:

- In war movies, the soldiers that survive often look at the graves of their befallen comrades and often say "I wish I could exchange places with him" or "I should be dead, not him" as if his life were somehow less valuable than his buddies. Why?

- When someone is about to shoot the protagonist, a person who loves the protagonist often steps in the way and takes the bullet to save his/her life. This is a very overused cliche in movies, and again states that good people are willing to give up their lives for others, as if their lives are less important.

- When a villain points a gun at the protagonist, the protagonist often says "Go ahead and shoot me. Get it over with. You're wasting your time." Whenever that is uttered, the villain never shoots of course. Do people in real life really say that to someone pointing a gun at them? That's hard to imagine.

- And when a villain is down and defeated at the end, with the protagonist pointing a gun, knife or sword at him, the villain often says, "What are you waiting for? Finish me off!" and then the protagonist spares his life. This is another overused cliche of course.

So why are people in movies so self-sacrificing? Are we supposed to be like that too? Why is that a good thing? What's wrong with placing value on one's own life? Isn't it part of our natural survival instinct to preserve ourselves?

Is there something wrong with people who aren't self-sacrificing, including fathers?

Now, I understand that a father naturally loves his kids and wants to take care of them, raise them and help them. I'm not questioning that. What I don't understand is why a father would automatically devalue his own life and forget his own ambitions and needs, to serve his children's, as though it were natural to do so?

It's not the love that I don't understand, it's the devaluing of one's life that I don't get. I mean, why love someone so much that you no longer care for your own life? What is the logic behind that?

It's as if the father's own life no longer matters, and their only purpose now is to serve their kids. Somehow, a father's passions, ambitions, desires, etc. vanish after becoming a father, so that their passion becomes about caring for their kid. Why is that?

Yet that didn't happen to me though. I still have the same passions and ambitions and I value over my life the same, before and after I had a son. Does that mean there's something wrong with me?

[gsjackson]

I think it's mostly a U.S. thing. Since we have no real strategies for living fulfilled adult lives -- because we are at war with truth -- we have this cult of sacred childhood. Adults are without worth because they have tasted of the poisonous tree of knowledge, children are pure and blameless, and therefore have more value. Since truth is put off limits for them, Americans are unable to acquire wisdom, which in sane societies is what older people have to offer and is highly valued.

You are engaging a most sacred rhetorical cow, Winston, but you're in the company of one of the best thinkers this country has produced, Ralph Waldo Emerson. Observing the remains of his dead son, he noted that he just couldn't feel a great sense of loss. His full individuality was still intact.

[ssjparris]

I agree with gsjackson about the father U.S. brainwashing. but since your mostly in another country. your mind-pattern. or the outside perspective of the foreign society says it is okay to value your own life and your kids life too. Plus winston your not like every one else. your very different and special. but in a really good way. always insightful, inquisitive, intelligent, a rebel against the system. Someone with these qualities is not going to follow the herd mentality. so perhaps your uniqueness is causing you to have a different perspective on reality. hope this makes since.

[momopi]

Every culture has its own value system. For example, a question was asked, if you were on a boat with your family and it sank, you only had time to save 1 person. Would you save your mother, your wife, or your child?

The "correct" response for Confucian ideology is "mother" because you can always remarry and have another child, but you can never replace your parents. Thus, filial piety comes first. You'd risk your life to save your mother instead of your child.

While it's expected for the son to sacrifice himself for the welfare of his parents, it's also said that "white hair grief over dark hair" is the worse tragedy. Thus, happiness is father dies, son dies, grandson dies. If your family, generation after generation, pass on in that order according to the natural course of life, that is happiness.

[Winston]

Good points guys.

I don't understand why, when the Titanic sunk, the women and children were spared first. Why are the lives of women and children more valuable than men? For what logical reason? Just cause society says so?

I understand this is a taboo subject. But it just doesn't make sense why society says that you should no longer value your own life at a certain stage.

Even Alex Jones, the king of the anti-NWO movement and a major figure in the conspiracy movement, said that he wouldn't hesitate to give up his life for his kids if he had to.

Now, he may genuinely love his kids, and that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. Love is a wonderful thing. I agree with that. But I don't get why a father has to no longer value his own life when he has kids, just cause everyone says so? That's the part I don't get.

I agree that children are sacred and precious. That's fine. But why aren't the lives of fathers and men sacred and precious as well? Why are fathers expected to be self-sacrificing and view their own lives as worthless? Just cause society says so? Nothing else? That's not fair or good enough.

[Winston]

Question for everyone:

If you were on the Titanic, and they let the women and children off first, leaving you to remain on the sinking ship, would you protest that or accept it?

It seems that US society holds the lives of women and children as sacred, yet the lives of men are somehow not sacred? In fact, men are expected to be self-sacrificing and be willing to give up their lives to save women and children. Movies show this all the time. If you remember, in the movie "Titanic" the women and children were brought off the ship first, as if their lives were more valuable than the men's. Thus society obviously deems the lives of men to be far LESS valuable than the lives of women and children.

Why is that? What is the logic behind that?

And if America is the land of free speech, then why aren't men allowed to complain about this kind of discrimination against them? Why are you only allowed free speech in America as long as you agree with the politically correct consensus, but not if you disagree with it? How is that free speech? Isn't that more like hypocrisy?

Another example: Comedians are allowed to make fun of men and say that women are smarter, but they cannot do the opposite, or make fun of women and say that men are smarter. To do so would be totally taboo. How can America, the land of free speech, have so many taboos? And why aren't men allowed to complain about the discrimination and double standards against them? Is free speech only available to those who agree with politically correct views? Doesn't that demean the concept of free speech?

Where are the mainstream media's critical thinking skills on this?

[Woman'sview]

Winston, my understanding is in the West and in America, they practice the basic concept of "chivalry". In chivalry, the strong and able protect the weakest and vulnerable. It is an ancient Christian tradition, to protect the "weaker vessel" mainly women, and children. This practice also applies to the infirm and the aged. Many novels, movies and enlightened Christian societies sought to promote chivalry, not because man's life was less worthy, but to show that he had a CHOICE and he was noble enough to use that choice for something higher than his physical survival. He was above concern for self. Thus society deemed him a hero. And worthy of the respect of all women and everyone.

Some men have a highly developed sense of self-sacrifice. They will die for people they do not even know, or even people outside their group, with nothing to get in return.

There was a plane crash in the Potomac River in DC a few years ago, moments after takeoff. The water in the Potomac was freezing with ice. Time and time again, a helicopter let a rope down with a life saving apparatus, and this one particular man would grab the rope and hand it to another person, in that terrible freezing conditions. It must have felt like an eternity for him each time he did it. Three times the rope came, three times, he did it. When the rope finally came for him, he had drowned

Now that is a hero.

Dying for your child is a natural thing to do, especially for mothers. It is your genes, so it is survival of your genetic code. You already lived your life. His has just started. It's not a logical thing, it is a gut reaction, that goes past logic.

Some people will rather die, than live a moment without their child. Some people will die in a heartbeat if it means that they will save their child's life, gladly, rather than face a day without their child.

This is not just in the West. In women this is a universal trait.

As Kahlil Gibran says, life moves forward, never backwards.

[momopi]

Question for everyone:
If you were on the Titanic, and they let the women and children off first, leaving you to remain on the sinking ship, would you protest that or accept it?

I'd go look for rope and wooden doors & furniture to strip and build makeshift rafts. It's a supply and demand issue with insufficient supply, so the goal is to increase supply. If the men are well behaved and not prone to panic, it may be possible to organize a team to do this. If the men are from New Orleans, you might want to distance yourself from them as much as possible, least they rob your makeshift raft and overload it with stolen merchandise as it sinks from the weight of the loot. If all else fails, at least you can die like a man with dignity.

And if America is the land of free speech, then why aren't men allowed to complain about this kind of discrimination against them? Why are you only allowed free speech in America as long as you agree with the politically correct consensus, but not if you disagree with it? How is that free speech? Isn't that more like hypocrisy?

Another example: Comedians are allowed to make fun of men and say that women are smarter, but they cannot do the opposite, or make fun of women and say that men are smarter. To do so would be totally taboo. How can America, the land of free speech, have so many taboos? And why aren't men allowed to complain about the discrimination and double standards against them? Is free speech only available to those who agree with politically correct views? Doesn't that demean the concept of free speech?

The First Amendment protects your right to express your opinions. If you wish to set up a web site to advocate men's rights, publish a newsletter, or hold a conference to discuss why men are discriminated, you're free to do so. HOWEVER, if you're on a sinking boat and the captain issued an order to give women and children priority seating on the life boat, and you act to interfere with the order & incite the men to force their way to the life boats, that would fall under "speech that incites imminent lawless action" exclusion. If the ship had security staff with firearms, they'd be at liberty to shoot you. But no, there is no law against being politically incorrect. If you choose to express unpopular opinions, you'd receive negative reception anywhere.









If comedians weren't allowed to make fun of women, there wouldn't be any blond jokes.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPlqhw8A ... re=related[/youtube]



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCggDLRo ... re=related[/youtube]


The boundary of comedy and satire was tested in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), when the United States Supreme Court voted 8-0 in favor of Larry Flint & Hustler Magazine's parody on Jerry Falwell f*cking his mother.

[odbo]

um that's complete bullshit winston

fathers value their lives more than ever, because they have something to live for. i know people who were wild, getting into fights with gang members, etc. (basically only cared about fun and didn't care whether they lived or died), but as soon as they had kids they realized their duty is to provide for their children so they stopped doing stupid stuff, doing stunts on motorcycles... and so on.

it's part of becoming a man. i think you're confused because in the US there are many man-childs who do childish things into their 40s. and from the perspective of a party animal/video game lifestyle, becoming a father seems like ending the good times.

how many times have you heard in films "i can't, i've got a family now" when the guy is being urged on a suicide mission. that's actually realistic. but the way they do it leads me to believe hollywood is trying to convince guys not to have a family because of how miserable you will be with obligations (not free to go on suicidal military missions)

also it's not just a cultural thing, it's a genetic thing (and not only in mothers). it's about the selfish need for your seed to be passed on. i'm not sure if it's triggered when you adopt a child.. but there are people who hate their kids, but pay their way through college because they are compelled to even when love has nothing to do with it.

lastly i'd like to say that according to eustace mullins, the titanic was built for the purpose of sinking, killing key opponents of the federal reserve. which explains; why the captain was speeding through iceberg infested waters despite having years of experiences, why there weren't enough life boats, why they chose to pretend everything was fine (continuing to celebrate), and why the titanic wasn't completed (if the compartments were built all the way to the top, it would of been "unsinkable").

[Boner_Jones]

when you no longer fear death, you won't hestitate to take a bullet for your kid if that was the only way to save him.

But our materialist individualistic society makes us fear death by pushing the message of "if it feels good do it"... we dont feel a part of anything bigger than ourselves anymore, we're just out for ourselves.. we live to work and work to buy expensive shit to distract us from our realities... we are just playing stupid games with ourselves to distract ourselves from the thought that all of us will one day be dead..

[The_Adventurer]

I always remember that line, "You are like a son to me... and like a son, I can always have another."

[momopi]

I always remember that line, "You are like a son to me... and like a son, I can always have another."

[Winston]

So how come women and children are considered sacred but men aren't? What is the logic behind that? Why are men more expendable somehow? What is the basis of that?

[Rock]

So how come women and children are considered sacred but men aren't? What is the logic behind that? Why are men more expendable somehow? What is the basis of that?

Do we know that rule/value to apply to all cultures? Would Saudis/Indians/Polynesians/etc. automatically give women and/or children first priority access to limited life boat space?

[Winston]

So how come women and children are considered sacred but men aren't? What is the logic behind that? Why are men more expendable somehow? What is the basis of that?

Do we know that rule/value to apply to all cultures? Would Saudis/Indians/Polynesians/etc. automatically give women and/or children first priority access to limited life boat space?

I don't know. Maybe it's mostly an American/British thing. But then again, what is the basis and rationale behind it in America? Why is it that in America, men are not sacred but women and children are? Based on what logic?