Interesting story in the local paper.
Sometimes there really aren't any marriagble guys out there.
From this article.
"I said: 'Right, now it is only you versus many people, you are going to lose, what would you like to do?' He said: 'I would like to stay and fight.' "
The terrorist in the black hat then went to speak to someone else and Mrs Loyau-Kennett tried to engage with the other man in the light coat. She said: "The other one was much shyer and I went to him and I said: 'Well, what about you? Would you like to give me what you have in your hands?'
"I did not want to say weapons but I thought it was better having them aimed on one person like me rather than everybody there. Children were starting to leave school as well."
Mrs Loyau-Kennett was not the only woman to show extraordinary courage in the Woolwich street.
Others shielded the soldier's body as the killers stood over them.
Joe Tallant, 20, a van loader who lives near the scene, said a friend and her mother went over to help the soldier as he lay dying in the street.
"Her mother was so brave, she didn't care what happened to her," he said. "She knelt by his side and comforted him. She held his hand and put her other hand on his chest. I think she might have been praying." MPs last night praised the "extraordinary bravery" of the women and raised concerns about why it took armed police 20 minutes to arrive at the scene while people's lives were at risk.
Cue this post by Roissy.
And this one by myself.
Update from the Daily Telegraph. It appears that the murderers allowed women to tend to the victim and not men. Still, there was a whole bunch of guys standing in the background there that could have rushed them.
24 comments:
Not to diminish her bravery.
A man would have been murdered. Don't you think?
An action is only heroic if there is a possibility of dying by doing it. Clearly the woman there was prepared to die, the men weren't.
The woman wasn't a threat whereas the men were.
Sounds like they hit the guy with a car and then butchered him. Then sort of just stood around until the cops showed up. Clearly an outrage, but what would you expect an unarmed man to do in that situation? Jump in and dodge the cleavers? The woman that went in clearly did a brave thing but she didn't try to tackle them or threaten them or anything. It was a politically motivated terrorist act, probably over by the time anyone realized what was happening or came out of shock. It might have been different had it happened in a miner's town, but this is London, among office and school buildings, full of accountants and analysts. What would you have done, lassoed their machetes with your stethoscope and banged their heads together?
"An action is only heroic if there is a possibility of dying by doing it. Clearly the woman there was prepared to die, the men weren't."
You missed the point, a man would probably have been killed. The possibility is not binary. A man poses more of a threat and is more disposable than a woman. She did a brave thing, for sure, but an unarmed man attempting the same thing would be taking a bigger risk.
Yeah, what if they killed HER at the first sign of trouble from the men? It's not like anyone nearby had a gun or some projectile weapon that could take them out at a distance by surprise.
This sort of stupidity is the level of 'gender analysis' that The Social Pathologist performs on this site.
He's all about telling men what they should do and blaming all men for what he THINKS that some men should have done in past circumstances most of which the facts he doesn't even bother to acquaint himself with. He wrings his hands constantly. I'm sure if our blog author here was over THERE he'd have dispatched those two terrorists forthwith with just his bare hands or a pair of car keys (and the woman of course wouldn't have been killed or taken hostage thus ruining any chance she MIGHT have had at saving the poor victims life) because you see, that's what Real Men do and our friend here is most definitely a Real Man.
Pretty pathetic, really.
Clarence
P.S: I even agree with him on some of these cases but its obvious he doesn't do his research on these kinds of stories, and its also obvious he's a one-trick pony.
Agree that a man who stood up to them would have likely been killed. But remember this is Britain where people have been neutered not to get involved and let the authorities handle the situation.
Sounds more like the women were aroused, because they actually didn't do anything other than try to get near the dangerous men. Demonstrates how false all the hysteria about "violence against women" is when women feel comfortable walking up to bloody murderers like animals that have no predators. These females in heat would have complicated things for the police if the killers used them as hostages.
The links for "From this article ..." and "... this post by Roissy both link to the same Herald Sun article. There might be an error here ...
@Miserman
Thanks. Fixed the link.
One man with a gun and there would have been no deaths other than the crazies threatening people... That is the best response to such things - just kill them and be done with it. I can guarantee they will never harm another living soul...
This is the best reason for concealed carry laws that I have ever seen - of course it won't be portrayed in the media that way...
Stop being waifs. Credit where credit is due: she stood up to a knife wielding self-proclaimed enemy of her people.
Making _excuses_ for the men does absolutely _nothing_. Good Lord grow a pair. I don't know if I would have stood up, and shame on me if I didn't. Sometimes the commentors in the 'sphere just blow my mind.
Doctor, I thought you might find this article interesting, for obvious reasons. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329556/How-JFK-secretly-ADMIRED-Hitler-Explosive-book-reveals-Presidents-praise-Nazis-travelled-Germany-Second-World-War.html
@Jason
Thanks for the link.
I think people tend to forget just how seriously fascism was taken as an ideology in the 30's. G. K Chesterton (who had a good nose for sniffing out moral turds) had a fair amount of sympathy for Ill Duce and felt that if Mussolini had not gotten mixed up with all that Aryan nonsense he may have amounted to something.
Fascism in the 30's had a fair amount of respectability, especially amongst life's "winners". Errol Flynn, for instance was was a fascist sympathiser.
The point I'm trying to make is that nearly everyone had given up on the past and were aligning themselves "amongst the parties of modernity": quite a lot of people found their home in fascism.
I actually think that TSP is onto something here.
Many of the commenters are kidding themselves and just making plain excuses by saying that a man would be a threat. Which is the kind of logic that only works from an analytical situation safely stowed behind a keyboard.
Even if you'd accept this twisted logic how would that have worked out right in that situation. Would the guys have been thinking "I'm a man so I'm a threat to him, I'll wait until a woman makes a move". How on earth is this thinking any braver/manly!?
No, compare this case to the earlier post detailing the massacre in Bremen 1913: http://socialpathology.blogspot.se/2013/01/a-tale-of-two-massacres.html
While feminism and the sense of entitlement among women today is detrimental to a healthy society it is also clear that something has happened to the men.
You forgot that British men still fear their government, which treats self-defense as a crime, more than they fear criminals. You want men to risk their lives to be heroes? Then don't threaten them with prison time as punishment for heroism.
In decadent Britain, if a group of, say, fifteen men had gotten together, grabbed some makeshift cudgels, and agreed to bum-rush the murderers and club them into submission, the sniveling UK government would have handed life sentences for murder and "vigilante justice" all around.
Such heroism as you castigate British men for failing to show has only two possible outcomes:
1. Death at the hands of a maniacal Muslim.
2. Life in prison at the hands of a tyrannical government.
It should come as no surprise that heroism isn't something British men are interested in.
"You want men to risk their lives to be heroes? Then don't threaten them with prison time as punishment for heroism."
Is almost Dan Brown worthy. Heroes are brave. Heroes don't give a rat's ass about punishment from government if it means doing the right thing
I'm guessing you also think real men man up and marry those sluts, not giving a rat's ass about how badly the government will screw them in the inevitable divorce.
Fearsome Pirate:
And that has WHAT to do with heroism?
You're grasping for straws.
"Making _excuses_ for the men does absolutely _nothing_. Good Lord grow a pair. I don't know if I would have stood up, and shame on me if I didn't. Sometimes the commentors in the 'sphere just blow my mind."
The murderer was saying "I'm sorry women had to see this,but...blah,blah,blah."
The woman KNEW she was in absolutely no danger from the Muslim.
They just hacked a man to death with meat cleavers, so men could safely assume that they WERE in danger.
What the woman did was not "brave". She had already been verbally cued by the murderer that she would not be attacked,plus she was secure in the way that only a member of a group that only comprises 20% of violent crime victims can be.
Drummer Lee Rigby, and all the other men there were in the other 80%.
Maybe the men weren't too heroic. Men aren't perfect. But calling the woman brave is like calling a guy wearing bulletproof armor (the law) from head to foot and packing an assault rifle (the courts/police/male passersby usually) "brave" for standing up to a guy holding a knife.
It figures that the Social Pathologist deletes comments she doesn't like. Pretty chickenshit, actually.
This pitiful argument? Man shaming. Period.
One can dodge folly without backing into fear.
@Frank
I've had a look at blogger and it hasn't deleted any comments as far as I'm aware. Neither have I. I sometimes deliberately don't delete the particularly stupid and odious comments as they are a far better metric of the idiocy and petty vindictiveness of the author.
Get the hint?
Not sure it's due to lack of stones. Maybe the men just don't really care very much about a society whose elite has decided to radically alter their society to the point of elimination. Bravery requires a core of sentimental attachment that has been systematically been under assault in the West for generations.
Post a Comment