Is it the man's job to sacrifice himself for the safety of his girlfriend/wife if it comes to a life and death scenario?

[HawkPerception]

Yes

No

[wynning]

I would say no. Not that it won't be appreciated but it shouldn't feel like a duty or dogma.
It should come from the heart. And I think it should be the same sentiment for a woman and her boyfriend/husband too.

[SteveSmith1985]

I'm a progressive guy, but nobody wants his wife to fight in his stead. Maybe I'm just getting old.

This is very fair and balanced. But if you're attacked together,. It's ok to get behind your husband. It's no time to consult the feelings of anyone's heart. It's life or death.

I wholeheartedly believe it a man's duty. (one of the only duties he has that is a sex-specific one)

What are they teaching the youth these days? Are the young ladies walking around with Shillelaghs over there?

😋 (so you know it's meant in love and friendship. Not to mean "don't worry, just kidding" I am not)

[wynning]

@SteveSmith1985 No it's grand. You've a curious blend in you - bit of the ol chivalry, the "male duty" (so to speak) and a fair dose of progressiveness that I've never really seen before lol

I think it's more of a generation thing actually - for us, you're either a simp / white knight or a based sigma male in Gen Z terms.. No room for Jesus or the middle ground so there isn't.
@wynn-ing lass he knows what that yoke the shillelagh is! Would you believe... Fair play, that's gas so it is haha
You strike me as someone with a grand bit of dedication in you. Very emphatic altogether!
I think the whole thing about equality over the various waves of feminism has made balance and fairness something that strongly flows through the heart lands of the young. Running deep like the River Shannon. No bad thing at all but can't complain about this either!

[SteveSmith1985]

I am a bit of a curious mix of the 'ol male chivalry and a fair bit of progressiveness. I take that as a compliment. I haven't ever seen it before either. I am my own unique mixture.

To tell you the truth, I'm a little sad to hear you using those Manosphere terminology and telling me it's generational. I believe you. It's just, really sad if that way of looking at guys has become mainstreamed.

I got called a "white night" last night. When I told a 33 year old man, he was a piece of shit, for calling a scared, pregnant 16 year-old; a whore. That's more the kind of people I'd be expecting to be using the term. I usually consider a man an idiot when he starts talking about that "alpha" "sigma" bullshit. This is depressing. I guess I'll have to rethink my assumptions if I'm talking to someone young.

I think you'll find me way more progressive than not. Progressive on most everything but who does the fighting or dying if it comes to it. This question in particular might give the impression that there's more of the old chivalric duty in me than there really is. I'm usually a big fan of fair and balanced.

What's the new-male term for a man who lets his wife fight for him? 🤔

😋

[wynning]

It's a compliment for sure.
No please don't rethink any of it - you're absolutely right, they are manosphere terms but they have become mainstream as well. They haven't magically become more forgiving terms! Dare I say they're even dumber now than before... But it goes to show how much MGTOW (I like to say it's short for Men Getting Triggered Over Women lol), Inceldom and everything under the sphere has expanded into the "normie culture", faster than the feminism they hate so much.

Also, I've gone so deep into those holes just to observe and try understand why they are the way they are that I'm bound to have had them rub off on me at least a bit!

Progressive with exceptions... Honestly sounds more coherent than whatever those Tate types cook up! I think I interact with too many people who think in absolutes when it's really not that black and white.

The new term would be "beta male cuck" probably. Or "grade A simp"

[SteveSmith1985]

I hate Andrew Tate more than I can put into words. He is the embodiment of everything I hate. I cannot believe anybody admires that piece of shit. It blows my mind. He's the worst example of how anybody should be.

You don't even know how much things have changed. It's not that femininism is infiltrating anything. That all happened before you were born.

When I was 19, I would have just been starting first year Uni. There was no such thing as incels, open misogynists, or any of this "men's right's" bullshit. It would have been socially unacceptable in the extreme. Andrew Tate, would have no friends. At all. He would be a loner clown. Someone we would make fun of.

It's been unbelievable to watch the change. Your whole life has been during the backlash. (starting with Gamergate in... I wanna say 2013 or 2014).

I never would have guessed you had been down those rabbit holes. I've never spoken to anyone your age who was familiar with more than what they see going on around them.

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts sometime about why they are how they are. I have trouble with that. I have trouble finding any sympathy whatsoever for them, so I tend to not need to know how they got that way, I just want them to fuck off and crawl back under a rock elsewhere.

[SteveSmith1985]

I actually do tend to think in fairly black-and-white terms. I can tell you that I think something is wrong, or fine, or good, or terrible. I just don't follow anything aside from what I've developed for myself over time. I do have principles I tend to see in black and white terms.

I also can seem somewhat self contradictory. I hate drugs and think people should stay away from them; but I believe they should all be legal, (for an off-topic example), and I can defend my position--both parts individually and combined.

You seem to be full of surprises too. Sometime I'm gonna have to pick your brain about the Manosphere and the youth. Don't be using their terminology, if it's not already just how everybody speaks. It was a way better world when "alpha male" referred to gorillas.

In my head, you're "the burning umbrella one" (just fyi)

[SteveSmith1985]

Oh you got MHO! So our little back and forth will be right at the top. Everybody can get to know a little more about each of us if they're so inclined. Good times.

[wynning]

My head IS on fire now! It's embarrassing when you think about it. It's genuinely difficult for me to imagine a world without all of it. It's so... deeply woven into the social fabric of how many people my age act and are in one way or another.

It's hard to get away from it once it "touches you" either through a meme someone shares, a thread online that indirectly exhibits it etc.
Often you get people who either try to make amends with it and get on with other stuff (put up with it really) and people who get won over by it. Ordinary guys, guys I grew up with, guys who I've studied along with in my male-dominated (and very nerdy) degree... And I'd never know how much some of them hate me for nothing but being a woman if it weren't for people like Tate bolstering them when they're on the verge of blaming everything but themselves. They're emboldened. Most of them are grand fellas to be fair but the excluding types are not shy by any means...

I've even pretended to be a man down the trenches to see things from the "mano" perspective. I genuinely tried to wrap my head around it. And I hate to admit that beneath it all I just saw hurt, pain and a desire to pin it to someone else, something else that is out of their control - if I'm being empathetic, I would say it's because of bad experiences they've had with women or misaligned expectations about what women "owe" them. Hurt people really DO hurt people.

This would be the shortest summary of the majoritu of my 4 year long escapade into the places I would never be welcome in lol

The more I learn about people, the more I realize that we are walking contradictions. Some way more than others and somd in ironic ways. Like their opinions align at face value but if you try to connect them up with the same logic across the board, they... Just don't make sense.

Alright my brain is deep frying now I'm taking it out of there!

[SteveSmith1985]

4 years? Alright, we're gonna have to have a talk sometime. That's some serious research.

I agree that it's based on hurt. But it's the expectation that women owe men anything that I can't understand. Where the hell did that come from? It's so upsetting to hear that you work with a bunch of guys who don't like you because your're a woman. That just doesn't compute for me. That's something it's hard to imagine. I work with people of all ages, so younger people are gonna be a minority. There are mostly guys, with some women but not many. That shit wouldn't fly. A younger guy coming into this male-dominated (albeit blue-collar) work, wouldn't find a pleasant reception if he started talking about having a problem with someone because they're a woman. I'm gonna say none of the ones who feel that way about you are "grand fellas." I'd have another name for 'em.

Honestly that makes me really angry to hear. It should not be socially acceptable to be a misogynist anywhere. Your very first reply on this thread takes a whole new meaning.

I know what you mean about the frying of the brain with too much of this. Hurt people do hurt people. But that doesn't make it any more ok. It's not an excuse. Or a mitigating factor. They have mothers, and sisters, and aunts, and nieces and grandmothers. It's disgusting.

[Staximus]

"Based sigma male in Gen Z terms"=Bitch boy

[wynning]

@Staximus Different times! There's even a huge difference between what that term is considered to be depending on subcultures within Gen Z. Not to mention the disdain older generations have for us in general (I don't blame you/them)... I don't think there is an upgrade like label-wise from that at this point lol

[Staximus]

I think they need to take the last surviving WW2 vets and have them give classes and seminars to today's young men on how to not be a big baby, how to not be a coward, how to be a man, etc.

[Crimsyjo]

A man who loves his family should want to as much as the woman doesn't want him to because of her love for him.

[HawkPerception]

This is exactly my own opinion and you're getting MHO 👍🏼

[Crimsyjo]

Aww bless.

I don't know why but you made me think of the Titanic and how horrible that must have been for the women and children getting on the life boats first. Cos yes lucky them but also horrendous seeing your partner stay behind to die. Heart wrenching really.

[ShellyB]

I did not answer the poll bc I don’t think it is that straightforward. First I think if two people love each other very much, either one would rather die than the other one die. I don’t know if you can call that a “job” but I think a loving man would sacrifice himself to protect his woman but I also think a loving woman would sacrifice herself for the man, maybe in different ways.

Second if what you have in mind is physical threats, like a mugger with a knife, or a bear attack or something, then yes I think that if somebody has to deal with it, that would be the man. But hopefully it isn’t about dying, it is just about risk or maybe getting hit or something like that.

I have hid behind my guy several times when for example a drunk person charged us (but it ended up being joking around not a threat) or when a scary looking dog was watching us, if either of us is fighting a drunk guy or a dog, it would be him while I get away and call for help.

[DishLady]

Going back to ancient times men and women both fight to protect and defend their family/tribe/etc. in their own ways. So many mothers laid their life on the line for their children, for example, and the men consequently protected their women, often risking their own lives. It’s the basic dynamics of love and caring.


“Job”? It’s not the term I’d use. A person has to be inspired or motivated to throw themselves into the fray.

[Sonorous]

I think it is. Mainly because we're often more athletic & more up for violence than most women are. But it wouldn't take that rule to make me want to defend my loved one. I would easily defend them with my life. No hesitation. Doesn't matter what weapon is being used. I'll make do.

[SteveSmith1985]

Yes. Yes it is a man's job. I would despise a man as a coward if he failed to do this. This might just be the most sexist opinion I hold. I do feel strongly about it nonetheless.

[Shiprex]

That's quite a misandrist stance that a man is cowardly for not stepping up to sacrifice his life for another who may have actually created a situation that made it become dangerous.

[SteveSmith1985]

@Shiprex

I'd say it's sexist; but you could see it that way if that's how it strikes you. Either way, I make no apologies for my view on this.

Now, I'm not saying there is no situation you can come up with where I wouldn't think this sacrifice was a duty. I'm sure there are circumstances where I wouldn't consider a man a coward for shirking this duty. The man who hides behind his wife in the face of danger is a coward. The man who saves himself, over his wife or girlfriend is a coward.

[Shiprex]

I don't see it as hiding behind anyone if a woman has taken it on herself to escalate a situation she can't follow through to the end. If she creates a situation of her own doing a man should not be expected to fall on a sword SHE puts out.

[SteveSmith1985]

@Shiprex

So, it sounds like you're talking about one of those outlier cases where I wouldn't apply this view. But you are not talking about anything like a typical situation where sacrificing becomes at issue. Whatever specific circumstances you have in mind. I'm probably going to agree with you. I just don't think that most cases where sacrificing one's life is at issue, is created by the wife.

[Shiprex]

A typical situation with a drunk woman creating a scene in public that escalates so the guy she's with has to take action isn't rare.
Like at a club or bar is common. Touchy men, other women groups and women fighting etc. aren't rare. It's not cowardly to walk away when she's brought things on herself. Treating women like unaccountable children isn't brave. Learning to be a responsible adult is for everyone

[SteveSmith1985]

@Shiprex

But the situation you describe isn't even applicable to what I originally said.

The situation you're describing isn't even applicable to the question. A fight at a club is not a life or death situation at all. This is completely different.

It's a life or death situation I'm talking about. You and your girlfriend are walking in the alley, a guy pulls a knife and says "you can go, I just want the girl"

Or there's a gun pointed at you and your wife.

Or only one of you can escape from the edge of the volcano. Life or death shit.

I'm not talking about agreeing to fight some guy who wants to fight because he likes your girlfriend. That's some petty everyday stupid bullshit. It's not even an outlier, it's completely different stakes.

You're talking about not getting into stupid fights over male pride and ego bullshit when a woman is an instigator of something. She's not in any danger. It's completely different. But she's still your girlfriend. You claim her as your partner, she claims you.

If you leave her out to dry (walk away if she's in danger) then you're a coward. You have a duty to have her back as long as you call her your girlfriend/wife. It is a part of the many things implied in those titles.

If your girlfriend acts like an idiot, get a different girlfriend. This should not be a chronic problem for anybody.

[OlderAndWiser]

As @ DishLady has noted, sacrificing your life to save the life of a person who you love is not a job, it is what you want to do when you really love that person.

[princeofromance]

A man will always protect his lady.

[MrOracle]

For me it is, but that's also why I have the leadership role in the relationship. Authority comes with responsibility, and responsibility comes with authority. You cannot separate the two.

I have gone over safety procedures with my girlfriend. She fully understands that I can't protect her if I can't make the decisions regarding our safety. And it's almost never an issue - but when it IS, there's no time to argue about it or question it.

Unfortunately, Feminists (which is NOT all women) want and expect to be protected when any ACTUAL threat appears, but they still want to make all the decisions and to stand around and take their time deciding whether something IS a threat and whether they want to accept protection and the limits that such protection comes with. That doesn't work, and sometimes they get hurt, or even killed, as a result.

For anyone who has seen the Whitney Houston/Kevin Costner movie The Bodyguard, this is one of the key lessons of the movie: you either take care of your own protection yourself OR you submit to the instructions of those who are providing you protection, because they can't protect you if you don't.

Even Presidents can't just do whatever they want whenever they want - their protectors (the Secret Service) has to put limits on their activities in order to be able to protect them.

[TheSpaceGnome]

"You cannot separate the two"

They are seperated quite frequently.
Knowing about something doesn't obligate you to deal with it, and dealing with it doesn't mean you know what course of action is best or even just sufficient.
Whether or not you choose to do anything is a personal choice, as is what you choose to do (for better or worse).
Complete protection however, is a myth. We are all vulnerable, frail beings and most of our protections are illusions.

[RandomUser1000]

1. Your kids first if you have kids
2. Your girlfriend/wife if you really love her.
3. Yourself

At least in any type of critical situation.
If it's minor things you don't always have to follow this order.
For example getting a babysitter to be able to have a date night with your partner would be okay as long as the kids are happy and safe.
Sometimes you can think of yourself first if the family are fine. Like spending time enjoying a hobby/interest.

But in a critical situation I would not put myself first.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Adults are not less or more important than children.
Males are not less or more important than females.
They are all a "1"
Except assholes, assholes are a "2"

People don't want to admit this, because it means you have to admit that sometimes being selfish is ok, and sometimes your only choices are all going to leave you sad or angry. So they make up this self rightous mentality to make themselves feel better by creating teirs of value or importance, so they never have to deal with having no "right choice".

Reality however, it is not. In reality, if you sacrifice yourself for your family, its just as awful as them dying and you surviving.

Sometimes everything is just awful.

[RandomUser1000]

@TheSpaceGnome

Sometimes things are awful.
Unfortunately you are right about that.

Sometimes being selfish is okay.
But I think it's a different thing to spend a day away from family to play golf or whatever you like, compared to abandon your family in an emergency.

The list above is how I would prioritise in a critical situation.
I can't decide if this is right for everyone.
But for me, if I had to choose, that way to prioritise would be my preferred way.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Ew golf.
Its bad to spread the idea that adult men matter less than everyone else.
Too many people do that still.

[RandomUser1000]

@TheSpaceGnome

It could be skydiving or kayaking or whatever.
I don't know your interests.
Just a general example.

I couldn't live with myself if I'd have to actively sacrifice a kids life to save myself.

[TheSpaceGnome]

feeling guilt for trying to survive is bonkers.

[RandomUser1000]

@TheSpaceGnome

Maybe I'm not narcissistic enough to think I'm the most important on this planet.
Or maybe I am bonkers.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Thats just it though, if everyone is of equal value, then no one is in the wrong for doing self preservation. To critisize self preservation is to claim that some people are more valuable than others.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Imagine you have a son, and you tell him that when he grows up, hebwont matter as much as women or children.

he is still the same person, be it in child form or adult, he still matters, and so do we.

[RandomUser1000]

@TheSpaceGnome

A parent - child relation doesn't just stop because they turn 18 though.
If you have a son or daughter, they are still your son or daughter even after they turn 18.
You are still their parent even after they become adult.

Putting your own children ahead of yourself makes sense to me.
Well maybe unless they turn out to be criminals and do violent crimes and such.
Kinda like you saying a-holes comes second.

But if they become good fellow humans.
I would put them ahead of myself if necessary.

Maybe it helps you if you think of me like an a-hole. Then you think I shouldn't be put first.

[Pegases]

Yes. If you love your family, that is what a man will do. But, it's never been more important to choose women correctly. A lot of women don't even recognize that this is a sacrifice a man that loves them will make, so as a result many won't appreciate it. So choose wisely. Women worth this level of sacrifice are not everywhere.

[Shiprex]

It is likely that a man WOULD but SHOULD implies he is obligated to value his life as less than hers and that is how society has viewed men since forever. It's not right but it is probably human nature as women are regarded as the source of next generations and therefore need to be protected.

However, if a situation arose where there was continued risk to a woman where there were say a bunch of attackers or ones who would likely do untold harm to her AFTER dude was out of the picture then there's an element of "get out of the way and gtf out of there" that should be considered.

[TheSpaceGnome]

No, no one should be expected to martyr themselves for any reason.

But if you love someone, you should protect them.

by the way a bullet can go through 1 person and hit the person behind them.

a bullet as big as pictured would pink mist you and anyone near you.

[TheorionMage]

Functionally, it ties into the dynamic of 'mating'... if you do NOT place the highest worth upon perpetuation of the HEALTH of YOUR 'coupling'... then in affect, you are little more than just an opportune genetic syringe,... easily substituted by anyone your companion circumstancially fancied.

[aceleon]

Yes and no.
İt is not our job to do that for a woman because we are males.
İt is everyones job to sacrifice themselves for their loved ones.
İ won't protect you because you are a girl and i am a Man but because i love you as a person and you are one of my own people, i would protect a friend the same way.

[Screenwriter]

It is completely up to the person and their values and the situation. Some people might value their own life more than a wife or girlfriend. Humans have a strong drive for self-survival.

I'd say it's MORE likely that a person gives up their life for a child, than a girlfriend or spouse..

[Levin]

Well, I'd say that would probably come naturally for a man, to protect with his life.

But there is a caveat. ain't no man throwing himself into that line for a typical woman. A woman who just criticises a man. Who doesn't appeciate him. Who has nothing good to say about man in the first place. This implicit assumption is reserved a woman who keeps her end of the sacred bond between man and woman. A woman of morality, kindness and goodness.

[NicholasRedone]

@HawkPerception it's stupid to even get into that predicament or into the situation. Thankfully single me will never ever have to worry of such situations 🤭🙃 I'm just enjoying my single time, merrily single me, until the good devil 😈 ever decides to return me back 🤭🙃 I always prefer underground over heights 😁

😈 Happy Easter all 🐰

[Angelo75]

Depends on the roles.

Are we talking about when women used to be more in the easy-going and letting the guy take charge? Then yes. Sure. The man is the provider and protector.

Are we talking about women who are way too far into the politically-correct-men-are-worthless kinda movement? The ones that would feel insulted if a guy opened the door for them? Well... then they should also stand on their own and take that bullet themselves. (And fix their own cars when it breaks.)

[Entertained_Adult]

No, that's what women have guardian angels and astrology for!

[SAMI_DABBAB]

It’s not really a question when it comes to someone you love, if you just decide to let em die don’t you dare say you loved them

[Phoenix98]

It's not a job it's just what you do for those you love and/or care for or for women and children.

There are many instances of this throughout history, more so recent history (last 100 years )

[SmokinAces2000]

I think it depends but I’ve been with my girlfriend for years and she’s the mother of my children so I’d sacrifice myself for her without hesitation.

[karate_renee]

I don't think it should be required, but a good man should do what's right under dire circumstances.

[caitycat21]

Well yes, my 4”11 100 lb ass is NOT saving nobody in a life or death scenario with my bare hands 😭you’re on your own buddy

[RavVid]

In the one experience I've had of a dangerous situation, I didn't get a chance. She ducked behind my back quick as a flash. I think she was pushing me forward too.

[Dongie]

This used to be the norm. The days of women and children first are long gone.

[AMS700CX4u2]

You basically volunteer when you take your wedding vow. Add children to the mix and the laws of nature step into play.

[4ngelic]

not a girlfriend but wife maybe, especially if you have kids with her

[QuestionObsession]

No. It is absolutely selfish of women to let their man face danger first and sacrifice themselves.

It should have been Rose Dawson in the water and Jack Dawson on the fucking board in Titanic!

[RingOfFire]

Yes, millions of men have already died protecting the lives of women and children in war.

[RingOfFire]

I'm reminded of Corey Comperatore, the hero who gave his life to protect his wife and daughters when an assassin tried to murder President Trump in Pennsylvania.

abcnews.go.com/.../story?id=112888368

Protecting women and children is among the most solemn responsibilities of men. It is their natural role and their evolutionary purpose.

[Jackblue]

In theory yes, though I have never been in such a situation so I am not in a position to judge men who have failed to do so.

[Sluttt]

Men's world is tough and he knows how to handle it. although it becamd soft enough for womem to be in it these days.

[LiamJHayden]

I'll risk my life for those I love, but sacrifice? No.

[Ariesman81]

A man will do it automatically for someone he loves. It should never be an expectation.

[douride2]

The short answer is no.

[sirderpsalot123]

Yes, and it's a good way to die because we all have to die in the end anyway.

[queenofcardio]

We should try and save each other

[chrissykerdock]

yes that's a man's job

[exitseven]

Yes, a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do.

[Jennz6]

Yes, a man’s job

[oldpigg]

No, I would never do that for a woman.

[darlingRose]

lol yh
Because l’m a female 😂🥹

[Jamie05rhs]

Yes. For HIS woman. Not for just any random woman.

[Jay-_-]

I know I would, if she is who I'd die for.

[Guanfei]

Not anymore, sacrifice yourself, ladies.

[fish5505_87]

I think I will, and hope I can!

[Kristina98]

Yes, your operation is a human shield.

[alice55]

Yes is it