Comments on: Excusing the men who ran away

By: Guest8

Guest8 — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:08:33 +0000

I agree with Mr Styn that these boys did act cowardly. But you don't have to look too far back in history to find similar cowardice. Many Jewish men, fearful for their lives and biding time until the war was over, participated in the destruction and cremation of their fellow Jews. Many stories linger of how bodies were even burned, after gassed, while still alive. Not to mention, the hundreds of Jewish men who volunteered as guards in the camps, or ghettos, acting as de facto Nazis and betraying their comrades. So to give Canadian men special status as cowards is erroneous at best. Cowardice by men can be found throughout the world, if one takes the effort to look.

By: nicholas p.

nicholas p. — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:17:59 +0000

i have a lot of issues with this article. chief among them: no one should have been expected to live in a state of psychological preparedness for what happened at polytechnique. it was an unprecedented act of violence. no one could have predicted it. if the men at polytechnique had decided to band together and tackle the gunmen, perhaps sacrificing a life or two in the process, everyone would have agreed they acted HEROICALLY. there is no question. that would be the attitude. heroism is not expected. that's why heroes are rewarded and, to a degree, naturally worshipped. a lack of heroism should never be criticized as though being a hero was the only proper thing to do. that's totally backwards logic. the coward was the gunman.

By: Bhanu Prasad

Bhanu Prasad — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:56:02 +0000

That's a laughable review. Does the author expect to protect the same women who are out to compete with us in jobs and promotions? Delusional piece of crap. The condition of men in western society is even worse. No fault divorce, hammering in family courts, loss of opportunities to female-centric affirmative action have created a society that sucks male earning power to feed the state and its females. No wonder the men "took it easy" and let the killer off the hook.

In addition, Why should i risk my life for a bunch of people who compete with me at college for grades, jobs and scholarships?.

By: k-dawger

k-dawger — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:38:04 +0000

I have not yet discerned a VALID reason why, as a male, I should automatically consider the life of any and all persons, strangers, or even one swho ahve dissed me and put me down, etc., as superior to, or 'worth more' than my own, simply becasue they posess a vagina, uterus, Fallopian tubes and/or breasts..?

seriosuly, the proposition is that I should sacrifice my own life for the that of some stranger haughty b*tch ?

WTF does this BULL PUCKY come from>?

By: kdawg

kdawg — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:35:37 +0000

even more appalling to me was the reaction on the Greyhound bus when psycho Vincent Li attacked Tim McLean witha knife, killed & beheaded him..all other passengers meekly walked off so Li could finish his cannibalistic meal of McLeans head & eyes, etc. Seems to me that in aconfined space like a bus a passenger could have easily whacked Li in the back of the head with a heavy object, etc. with little risk to him or her-self.

even more pathetic was the respsonse of heavily armed RCMP, with machineguns facing a man with a knife..wait outside, let Li eat McLean and bascially jsut wait until Li decided on hi own to leave the bus and give up

By: k-dawger

k-dawger — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:33:09 +0000

Steyn and others seem to ahve started with the ASSUMPTION that the life of a woman (or a child) is somehw intrinsically more valuable than the life of a man?

who exactluy decided that? that a man should sacrifice his life to save the life of a woman he doesn't know? or barely knows?
hmm?

is that why people can seem to blithely accept the deaths of 120 Cdn. MEN in Afghanistan, or the deaths of thousands of American men in Iraq & Afghanistan, etc. but cry and wet their pants each time the 2 (count 'em, two) CF WOMEN died in Afghanistan?

why is it accepted that it is 'more tragic' when a female dies?

By: k-dawg

k-dawg — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:22:18 +0000

"If you want to know what the default response of an 18 year old Canadian can be to a threat like this, Google Vimy Ridge. The change didn't come from something that's been added to the water since then. It's something that saps the soul. "

right, thousands of young Canadian men tossed their lives away due to peer pressure- for what? so gutless politicians could let Germany re-arm and start another World war with even greater carnage a mere 20 years later, because they were too gutless to even enforce a dis-arming treaty ?

sure, it's agreat idea to let fat old white men (politicians) entice young men into throwing their lives away? NOT -in my opinion

By: kdawg

kdawg — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:21:21 +0000

right, thousands of young Candain men tossed their lives away due to peer pressure- for waht? so gutless politicians could let Germany re-arm and start another World war with even greater carnage a mere 20 years later, becasue htey were too gutless to even enforce a dis-arming treaty ?

sure, it's agreat idea to let fat old white men (politicians) entice young men into throwing their lives away? NOT -in my opinion

By: kdawg

kdawg — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:02:23 +0000

yes, let's all men accept the 'brainwashing' that we should be 'men of courage' – go 'over the top' and charge into virtually certain death, into machine-gun fire, for scum-sucking politicians who have orchestrated a war, then comfortably stay thousands of miles from the front lines as they talk about the 'virtues' of the lower classes or the 'lesser people' fighting for them..all those "hawks" Of the Bush administration who talked and talked and talked about the 'manly virtues of fighting a war' ..most of whom never spent a single day in uniform, and certainly never heard a shot fired in anger..

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " Was bullshit thousands of years ago, and it remains so today..

By: kdawg

kdawg — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:53:26 +0000

I am not sure why the assumption has been made that the life of a woman or child is "more valuable" than that of a man _- who exactly made that decision?sounds liek a 'feminsit conspiracy' ?

guess that's why peoplecan blithely accept the deaths of 120 Canadian men in Afghanistan, but piss moan and whine about the 2 CF women who have been killed there?

By: BlackLadsteak

BlackLadsteak — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:08:49 +0000

Let's see…Steyn uses an unspeakble tragedy to promote his hate-filled(particularly Anti-Islam,though I'm sure folk of my colour
don't exactly thrill him either,unless we're shining his shoes,cleaning his homes or collecting his trash),almost assuredly misogynistic agenda.
In 1912,at the time of the Titanic's sinking,North American women were vote-less,property-less,second(if not third)class-
"citizens" unable even to legally protect themselves from physically and/or sexually abusive partners.By contrast,in '89,
Britain was being(mis)governed by Margaret Thatcher,and here,Kim Campbell was a mere four years in the future.
(If I placed my hand on my backside until we elect a black Prime Minister,I fear it would become permanently attached to my rear.)
Summarizing,Steyn is a perfect example of why neo-conservatism is-FINALLY!!!!!)a dying ideology.Oh,and I defy you
yobs to question MY manhood!!!!

By: James Halifax

James Halifax — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:36:14 +0000

Actually, if one were to think about it….perhaps the issue is not a “male” thing. Perhaps it should most likely be considered a “Quebec male” thing.

Does anyone really think a classroom full of Males from Newfoundland would have shuffled out when the “womenfolk” were at such obvious risk? What about a University classroom filled with male students from Alberta? ( a culture thing)

To be blunt, many of the dudes I have met from Quebec (including my sisters ex-husband) were pretty much NDP material….waiting for someone else to look after them, active pacifists, or relying on assistance from Government when they aren’t complaining about it. It’s not too much of a stretch to assume these chickZhits who left the women to die just assumed they couldn’t do anything about it. They have never learned to try…..only complain and wait for someone else to take care of things.

While I”m sure not all of the men who abandoned those women to their fate were French, I’d say the chances of the same incident happening at Memorial University, or the University of Calgary are much less likely.

ce la vie.

By: Erwin Schnesser

Erwin Schnesser — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:08:02 +0000

Why would the men have taken the risk for the females? Aren’t we all equal in the new, bright, world of feminist gender equality? Why didn’t the females charge the shooter? Patriarchy is dead, and so are the protective obligations of men.

By: Gelfish

Gelfish — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:26:40 +0000

I hope that if I was to ever get in a situation like that, everyone here agreeing with Steyn would jump to my rescue.

I do agree with him.

By: Weekend reading recommendations « Fabius Maximus

Weekend reading recommendations « Fabius Maximus — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:02:03 +0000

[...] “Excusing the men who ran away“, Mark Steyn, Macleans, 5 march 2009 — “The new film ‘Polytechnique’ sidesteps the old norm of ‘women and children first’.” [...]

By: Sophie

Sophie — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:17:58 +0000

I appreciate your comment so much. You must be very brave.

As a 17 girl about to leave the school system in Canada, I know first hand this meekness of which you and Mr. Steyn speak. Conversely, I have also witnessed young men who commit upstanding acts of courage, and one who I am proud to call my brother is among them (he graduated a few years ago).

I want you to know that not everyone has become passive and soft! = ) Of course, there is room for improvement.

By: Sophie

Sophie — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:56:52 +0000

=) I’m not offended–I’m aware of my weakness. Women and men are just built for different things, that is all.

You are so right.

By: Sophie

Sophie — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:55:17 +0000

Mark Steyn is an upstanding male.

By: Sophie

Sophie — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:51:38 +0000

Men and women are very different.

Society has very different expectations of each.

By: Ad Lucem

Ad Lucem — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:05:55 +0000

The passivity of the the class room males was certainly noted even at the time it happened. Interestingly, the police also were, if not passive, overly cautious, and they had guns and were sworn to save lives. For better or worse we have been innoculated and inculcated with caveats such as “don’t aggrevate the situation give him what he wants”, “let the authorities deal with it” etc. etc. Worse yet there is a gnawing belief with those not in law enforcement, that resisting or attacking might mean that you could be charged yourself for reckless endangerment or worse yet, even assault or murder should the gunman be injured or killed. The police and the courts do not take kindly to defending yourself or someone else. And, even if found innocent the lawyer/court fees and pressure deters. The police on the other hand can basically kill with impunity, when they believe, on the flimsiest grounds (a stapler) that their life is endangered. In short we have been trained by a socialist/liberal democracy to hand over responsibility to our betters.

By: James R. Halifax

James R. Halifax — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:50:56 +0000

Yes Sparky, I’m certain that what you say has some merit, though I’m just as certain that if you were in one of those classrooms when Marc Lepine showed up…..you would have beaten as hasty a retreat as the others who left those women to die.

Not surprising, but still a sad testament to what some “men” have become.

By: agnostic

agnostic — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 05:02:41 +0000

Not according to Gage Canadian Dictionary.

By: VI BEHÖVER INGEN YTTERLIGARE PACIFICERING AV DEN VÄSTERLÄNDSKE MANNEN

VI BEHÖVER INGEN YTTERLIGARE PACIFICERING AV DEN VÄSTERLÄNDSKE MANNEN — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:27:49 +0000

[...] Mark Steyn: Excusing the men who ran away. [...]

By: Black Krishna

Black Krishna — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 06:58:16 +0000

Great article that doesn’t just assign blame, it gives Canadians the ideals we need to work for and a reminder that losing them has consequences. Young men have always defended their country, but our emasculation is allowing corruption to run wild, poison our culture and steal our futures. Here’s a great article by Dr. Henry Makow referencing this piece in Maclean’s with a shared perspective.

http://www.henrymakow.com/the_men_who_ran_away.html

By: tuval

tuval — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:37:43 +0000

Mr Steyn writes about viewing men and women equally but he can not hide his contempt for women, it leaks through the cracks.
Using the idea of wearing panties as a metaphor for cowardice and weakness is a simple way of demonstrating your true feelings about women.

By: Kenny

Kenny — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:38:52 +0000

Warwick wrote,

“I do not see, in the realms of literature, film, or political discussion, any real exploration of the difference between the two.”

If you ever get the opportunity, check out the BBC1 drama “Passer By”(2004). IMDB link immediately below.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382465/#comment

Cheers!

By: Warwick

Warwick — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:24:14 +0000

I agree with you that “once the victims enter the passive state” the man with the gun can control them easily.
I wonder how much of our society is based on the assumption that most of us are “in the passive state” most of the time.

There are two different conditions which might be confused.
1. Free people voluntarily choose to co-operate.
2. Intimidated people are either forced or bamboozeled into a greater or lesser “passive state.”

I do not see, in the realms of literature, film, or political discussion, any real exploration of the difference between the two.

Would it be worthwhile to instruct all youngsters in the techniques of self-defence?

Would it be worthwhile to instruct youngsters, and adults, how to recognise the abuse of authority, so that they would find it easier to defy those with power and authority when the need arises? In the Lepine situation, he had the power and assumed authority by means of his gun. But those he commanded had greater power, by virtue of their numbers, if only they had also possessed some solidarity and an understanding that there are times when it is the good, right and proper thing to do to sacrifice your own life for the greater good.

If soldiers, in warfare, can be induced to adopt this attitude, then free people can be inspired to see things in this way if the culture honours this way seeing and acting.

By: cwe

cwe — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:57:48 +0000

B-b-but what about the blaming? Things aren’t like they used to be! Men aren’t as manly, women aren’t as womanly! The school system, it’s all wrong, and it doesn’t prepare us for when bad things happen! Trudeau was no AUSTRALIAN! Liberals! Too much of this! Not enough of that! Coward! Coward!

By: SCISSORPAWS

SCISSORPAWS — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:46:40 +0000

Someone mention John Wayne? He never went to war. George H.W. (“Mission Accomplished!) managed to dodge the draft and desert in the same war. Steyn celebrated this prick for standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a flight suit as though he were just back from the front. (And where was he during ‘nam? Hiding in Canada? Good enough for him then.) Dick Cheney never went to war. Bull Rush Limbaugh never put himself in harm’s way. Heroics is easy in the movies and from the lips of self serving politicians and blowhards who’ve been meticulous about keeping their own asses out of harm’s way. THAT is cowardice, because it’s intentional, preplanned. I didn’t notice Mr Macho Bush rushing the – real hero – who threw his size tens at him. I haven’t read Steyn whining about that. Any one of us, in the right circumstances, could behave boldly and bravely, and would, but I wouldn’t hang myself with guilt because I’d failed to act up to the standards of a “real” man in a life or death situation, nor would I hound anyone else to death for the “crime.” It doesn’t make you a bad person. Personally, I think there’s plenty enough violence and guilt to go around in this world without inciting more. If I occasionally err on the side of discretion, or turning of the other cheek, or loving my neighbour as myself instead of beating the crap out of them because they cut me off or drives too slow, I can live with that. But you’ll never know until you face the gun yourself. Meantime, it’s hard enough to get people to recycle.

By: cwe

cwe — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:13:45 +0000

Come over here and say that.

By: TrueEast

TrueEast — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:13:52 +0000

kc– what remarkable fluff you blow about!
“Unlike Mark i like to think a little beyond my own biases.” Oh, really. You, my dear are firmly contained in your own smug, sarcastic cage with little to offer. But why am i telling you that – you knew it all along!

By: Horst Fritz KRUEGER

Horst Fritz KRUEGER — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:14:25 +0000

Bravo Michael, but not quite enough!
We now live in a world, in which a.-f.-ing is officially celebrated. But this is not the worst of it. A lot worse and mindboggling is the fact, that this whole nation keeps on tolerating this “*!*!*!*”, which has infiltrated all levels of governing importance. This country is free and full of “rights”; for the criminals and the ruling class (which is more or less the same anyways).
Question; “Which country are you in”, where a Canadian gets charged with drunk driving, and still gets elected as a PM?- That’s how low we have fallen.

By: Michael Geoghegan

Michael Geoghegan — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 07:10:21 +0000

Bravo to Mark Steyn for having the courage to point out the fact that our public education system has since the 1970s been churning out ever more passive students, especially amongst males.

No one thought to act alone or in concert against the crazed gunman. In our schools today children are taught not to stand up to bullies but to simply be passive and report the matter to the teacher or principal.

I have taught both my son and daughter to stand up to bullies and that the best defence is a good offense. The result is that they now have no problems with being bullied and other children in their school have learned form their example much to the horror and disgust of the teaching establishment who peddle the mantra of be passive, be a victim, then report the incident to those in authority.

That mantra greatly helped Mark Lepine to slaughter those 14 women, it kept both the men and women docile instead of attacking him en masse. If instead those students had been taught by our public school system to defend themselves many of those 14 women would still be alive today.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:56:27 +0000

Women can, and do, fight. It is true that men are, on average, bigger and stronger than women, but not enough so that one man could win a fight with fourteen women fighting for their lives. In the Lepine case, neither the men or the women fought. If Mr. Steyn is going to ask why the men didn’t fight, then it seems only fair to ask why the women, who had a much greater incentive, didn’t fight either.

By: Tinfoil Hatt

Tinfoil Hatt — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:26:09 +0000

Yes, but when the men walked out of the classroom, did they know that the gunman’s intention was to kill all the women? The women, on the other hand, were there when his intentions became obvious. They had 15-1 odds–still pretty good–but they didn’t manage to do anything either. In short, all of them, male and female alike, reacted the way most human beings would in such a situation. But somehow only the men get blamed, because men are somehow supposed to naturally know how to handle a violent situation, despite growing up in a peaceful society largely devoid of violence.

This ‘psychology of compliance’ is a well-known phenomenon in violent hostage-taking situations. Once the victims (in this case, let’s be fair, the men were victims, too) enter this passive state, it becomes relatively easy for the perpetrator to control them. I remember reading of a home invasion incident in the US in which the intruder, brandishing only a knife, made the husband sit in a chair and told the wife to go get some rope and a hammer. She left the room, searched the house for the requested items, and returned with them. Whereupon the intruder proceeded to tie the husband to the chair with the rope and smash his skull in with the hammer, right before the wife’s eyes. The whole time she was searching for the requested items, it never occurred to her to pick up a phone in one of the other rooms and call for help, let alone search for a weapon that would allow her to overpower the man who was about to murder her husband. As the intruder bashed her husband’s head in, she merely watched frozen in horror, never even attempting to lift a finger to save him. Would we call her a coward? No, she was a victim. Yet somehow if the roles had been reversed, her husband would surely have been labeled a coward.

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:26:18 +0000

Are men really biologically inclined to do such things? I guess not, because if that were true then at least one of the 50 men would have done something, but none of them did.

Maybe this proves the feminists right, and that agressive masculine behaviour really is socialized and the instinctual component of it isn’t significant. For the most part, the women’s movement in Canada has succeeded in removing the masculinization of Canadian men.

The question is, is this what the women’s movement wants? Can a society defend itself without masculinity, even if that masculinity is a social construct?

By: cwe

cwe — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:02:01 +0000

Except kody’s, that is.

By: cwe

cwe — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:36:49 +0000

Poor glak. You shouldn’t let your feelings get so easily bruised. By “what’s being sought here,” I wasn’t trying to exclude you from anything, I was referring to the specific question you didn’t address (and still haven’t, really) with your, uh, “generalized” answer.
Unknot yer panties, Pilgrim; of course Macleans set the site up for a variety of opinions and yours are as welcome as anybody else’s.

By: kc

kc — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:02:58 +0000

Despite what you may think, i wish you no harm. Oops have i gone and made a wimp of myself again? Do you have kids? Things change when their yr own. Men can adapt too! Although yr generally right. I enjoy Wayne myself, so long as folks keep in mind it’s fiction. You can’t take a bullet in the leg and get up and run three miles after the bad guys, and sometimes the bad guys do win.

By: glak from planet zork

glak from planet zork — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:51:14 +0000

I prefer the word generalized to half-assed, but try and extrapolate. My point is that most women are not equiped emotionally or biologically to respond to aggressive situations as are men – generally. True,some can, but women for the most part have different strenghths. It takes about five minutes for me to consider flinging myself from a tall building (kc – don’t get your hopes up)when confronted with a howling child, but most women have an ability to block out the tantrums.
We live in a confused society. Our movies glorify hero and anti-hero bravado while general society is somewhat ambivilant towards selfless bravery. I say bring back John Wayne and dispatch the metero-sexuals.
As for “what’s being sought here”, I must not be on the ‘our gang tree fort club mailing list. I assumed Maclean’s set this site up for a variety of opinions.

By: Kerry

Kerry — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:08:53 +0000

Equality of the sexes is about equal opportunity. It has nothing to do with social manners. The numbers are what’s important here; those men, by virtue of their numbers, not their gender, could have taken the shooter out before he committed those murders.

By: cgnnightmare

cgnnightmare — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:48:42 +0000

I blame “social engineering” and those who brought it upon us in their pursuit of power and control.

By: Liz

Liz — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:27:43 +0000

Right on, old guy. Sometimes the sheer guts it takes just to be a witness is heroic. The “No I am not leaving” people are the most courageous yet often the most mild and unassuming. Some of them lose their lives standing up for strangers. Standing up or staying in because it is the right thing to do. Some of them live to be heralded as heroes. They’d all do it again if given the choice. These sort of people come in both male and female models, and they make the world a better place. Ask those who were saved by such people, either the witnesses who endured and lived to tell the story or those who tackled the maniac(s), if they cared what sex they are.

It is a shame that 20 years on Canada STILL hasn’t got a handle on illegal firearms.

Another shame that Steyn and Lepine are overshadowing International Womens’ Day raising the ever-present spectre of violence.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 05:30:42 +0000

“Anemic” is american, not N. American. The correct Canadian spelling is “anaemic”.

By: kc

kc — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 04:20:07 +0000

A bit Ironic,don’t yo think when you look at the quality of yr remarks, at least the ones i happen to notice?
Sure i can take it, can you? It’s yr hypocracy i have trouble with. I ‘d say you cheap shot more often than engage others. While i have no problem paying the price for my cheap shots[ too many i admit ] it’s evident if you care to look that i do my bit in attempting to rebutt Steyn, who i obviously can’t abide. You i fear don’t contribute anything. I honestly see nothing substantial from you at all.