Quote: (12-19-2012 08:28 PM)LooTa Wrote:
I don't really have a problem with that. Wouldn't you rather go down fighting than be executed while sobbing in the corner, begging for your life?
Yes, but this isn't what she's saying. She's saying it's a shame more real men weren't around to act as absorbers/dispensers of violence on behalf of the women and children there. To her, the lives of men are only important so long as they are useful to others--anyone else isn't really a man to her. The breezy air of entitlement and her flippant and reflexive willingness to sacrifice the sons/husbands/uncles of other people is also a large part of what's instructive here.
To be protectors and human shock absorbers has been the traditional obligation of men since time immemorial, but it came at a cost to women: they were subject to masculine authority. This was a core civilizational pact that has been broken with the full-throated support of left-leaning feminists and the more tacit, but still strong support of traditional conservative women as well.
Never forget that traditional conservative women are often just as feminist as hardcore leftists. The only difference is that they want a man's resources---and his life & limb---largely slaved to one woman, whereas leftist women want the very same to be the communal property of all women. What the man wants is immaterial to them as men don't exist for themselves, but for the benefit of women. However in exchange for these obligations, neither tradcon feminists or left-leaning feminists want to yield to masculine authority. For both groups of women, men are disposable, interchangeable, and simply a means to an end (there obviously a number of exceptions, and to varying degrees). Both groups of women are gynocentric and woman-first to the core, but want men to receive no compensation for the enormous social cost this places upon them.
