Are fathers supposed to no longer value their own lives?

BlimpGaz

I have a question I've been 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? Alex Jones even said that in his Christmas speech. It's so common to say that that it's become a cliché.


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.

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, ambitions and passions 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 cliché 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 cliché 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 clichés:

- 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 mates. 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 cliché 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 cliché 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. 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?

karma_

No good will come of this.

The Backwards Man

Films aren't real though. Truth is people say lots of things, but no one knows until they are put in a particular situation how they will react to it.

Seachmall

BlimpGaz wrote: »

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?

Love is an emotion, almost by definition it's not logical.

However evolutionarily speaking there is plenty of logic behind the instinctive willingness of a parent to die for their child.

BillyMitchel

Think it means you are watching to many films and this thread is going to become more exciting than Dallas.

locum-motion

I think you're reading waaaay to much into what is essentially a cliché (you actually used that word yourself) that some people might use without thinking about what they're actually saying.

(Like when people use the word 'literally'... "OMG I've got such a bad hangover, I'm literally dying." When you are 'literally' doing something, it means that you are actually, in fact doing that thing.)

BlimpGaz

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Films aren't real though. Truth is people say lots of things, but no one knows until they are put in a particular situation how they will react to it.

You get the analogy.

For example: 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 Irish/western 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?

Seachmall

BlimpGaz wrote: »

You get the analogy.

For example: 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 Irish/western 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?

Do you think every society that has ever existed got together and decided that men should be the ones going to war?

It was not society's decision to send men into battle and protect the women, it was evolution's.

If anything western society is circumventing that by enabling women to march on the battlefield.

jaffacakesyum

Just because you value your childs life over your own doesn't mean you lose your passions or ambitions or anything like that. It's a rare occassion where you will be given the choice of your life or your sons - this is not TV.

I have no children but if I did and I had the opportunity to save them ahead of my own life I would in the drop of a hat. I'd choose most people I really care about ahead of my own life actually but that is a personal issue, not a trait everyone should strive to have.

But what you've just admitted is very open and honest and I do believe that most good fathers (and mothers) would take a bullet for their child. I'm not saying you're a bad father for not saying so, just that you are perhaps in the minority. Although as has been said, who knows how people react in the heat of the moment. In fact, in the heat of the moment perhaps you would do the exact opposite and your protective instinct would kick in.

_Whimsical_

Parents make sacrifices for their children everyday that they never thought they'd want to make for another human being. Their childs happiness becomes their happiness.
Is it true for all parents? No, but for some it definitely is.

If there wasn't an extraordinary kind of love/evolutionary inclination towards the protection of your child above all else,yourself included, would the species have survived this long ? I doubt it.

Now I've asked two questions and answered them I'm off to high five myself!

The Backwards Man

BlimpGaz wrote: »

You get the analogy.

For example: 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 Irish/western 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?

You're taking an unusual situation sensationalised by popular culture and applying it to the whole of society.

I remember reading somewhere that adult males have a higher chance of survival on sinking ships than women and children, so it's not the case in reality.

Popular culture also says if you stand under a lady's bedroom and serenade her you will win her heart. I know to my cost that this is also not true.

edit; found it
http://www.nek.uu.se/Pdf/wp20128.pdf

azzeretti

I dont' see any flaw in this logic. If I thought/knew that sacraficing myself would ensure my kid(s) would live then I would have no hesitation. I value my life above most things. I would just prefer my kids to live long and happy and if, in the extremely unlikly event, I would without doubt sacrafice my life to save theirs.

I think in realtiity this decision would never need to be made. You use the bullet analog but that would be instictive i.e you either would instictivly jump in front of it or you wouldn't. When faced with a decision, say; give me child my liver to ensure survial (100%) then I would, without questions. However, this types of decision only really happen in the movies though, don't they!? I think the reality is that people find it hard to articulate how much their kids mean to them so they descibe it to the extreme

kneemos

BlimpGaz wrote: »

You get the analogy.

For example: 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 Irish/western 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?

Presumably men would be more capable.

BlimpGaz

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Just because you value your childs life over your own doesn't mean you lose your passions or ambitions or anything like that. It's a rare occassion where you will be given the choice of your life or your sons - this is not TV.

I have no children but if I did and I had the opportunity to save them ahead of my own life I would in the drop of a hat. I'd choose most people I really care about ahead of my own life actually but that is a personal issue, not a trait everyone should strive to have.

But what you've just admitted is very open and honest and I do believe that most good fathers (and mothers) would take a bullet for their child. I'm not saying you're a bad father for not saying so, just that you are perhaps in the minority. Although as has been said, who knows how people react in the heat of the moment. In fact, in the heat of the moment perhaps you would do the exact opposite and your protective instinct would kick in.

How can you say that when you don't even have any children born!?

This really backs up my suspicion that people only say these things to appear selfless and moral.

I'm just honest and rational, while the average person (it very much seems) is dishonest and irrational.

jaffacakesyum

BlimpGaz wrote: »

You get the analogy.

For example: 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 Irish/western 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?

Ah, now you are onto a different topic. In your first post, the examples given were about protecting a child - a mother or father could do that. In fact, my mother would most certainly do anything to protect me even if it meant a 1% chance of her saving me and a 99% chance of us both dying - I know that. Wheras my father would probably be more logical about it :pac:

But your example of the Titanic - the logic was that women were traditionally more seen as the family caretakers rather than men. So if you are going to have children first it was seen as more logical to have women and children rather than men and children so that the mothers could look after the kids.

I don't know if policies in emergancies are still like that?

There should definitely be a children first policy IMO but women and men should be equal in that respect.

Raging_Ninja

BlimpGaz wrote: »

You get the analogy.

For example: 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 Irish/western 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?

Biologically the man is expendable. He can donate sperm to as many women as he wants, but a woman can only be pregant once at a time, and is pretty much out of action for a year or more from a reproduction point of view.

The kid is important because it is the next generation, and it cannot be expected to save itself until it has matured.

Seachmall

BlimpGaz wrote: »

I'm just honest and rational, while the average person (it very much seems) is dishonest and irrational.

I think you're a troll.

Nino Brown

BlimpGaz wrote: »

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?

I think mans natural instinct is to protect his offspring as all cost. That's why we're bigger and stronger than women and children.
Our sole purpose in life is the same as any living thing, to reproduce and carry on the gene pool.
We were doing it long before we ever had a society, so I don't think society is to blame.
Its not just us, its all animals. We evolved that way.

jaffacakesyum

BlimpGaz wrote: »

How can you say that when you don't even have any children born!?

This really backs up my suspicion that people that people only say these things to appear selfless and moral.

I'm just honest and rational, while the average person (it very much seems) is dishonest and irrational.

Nope, I'm being 100% honest. This is boards.ie - I know none of you in person and neither care what anybody on here thinks about me so I have no reason to "act the hero" - it is just the type of person I am. If you knew me in person and we were having this conversation you would have no doubt of its truth - I very much place others' needs ahead of my own, rightly or wrongly. In fact, wrongly a lot of the time - so maybe you do have a point about it devaluing your own life. I do have less self-worth than a normal person, I believe.

NuckingFacker

If a row breaks out, I'm pushing my 16 year old out in front of me. No1, he's bigger than me and No2 hopefully he'll wear them out a bit before I have to get involved. If they still look frisky when my turn comes, the missus gets to tag him out, then the 13 year old. I may then consider throwing the dog at them. I'm not a coward, just pragmatic.

BlimpGaz

Nino Brown wrote: »

I think mans natural instinct is to protect his offspring as all cost. That's why we're bigger and stronger than women and children.
Our sole purpose in life is the same as any living thing, to reproduce and carry on the gene pool.
We were doing it long before we ever had a society, so I don't think society is to blame.
Its not just us, its all animals. We evolved that way.

You make it sound bleak as hell given my situation.

Having a son is a travesty. I strongly advise ANY young man out there to use a condom, refrain from sex entirely if you can. It is not worth it in the slightest, to sacrifice your passion, joy and happiness for the sake of another human who needn't be born.

endacl

BlimpGaz wrote: »

I have a question I've been 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? Alex Jones even said that in his Christmas speech. It's so common to say that that it's become a cliché.


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.

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, ambitions and passions 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 cliché 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 cliché 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 clichés:

- 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 mates. 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 cliché 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 cliché 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. 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?

Got down as far as where you mentioned Alex Jones. Then paused, giggled, and decided not to bother with the rest...

BlimpGaz

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Nope, I'm being 100% honest. This is boards.ie - I know none of you in person and neither care what anybody on here thinks about me so I have no reason to "act the hero" - it is just the type of person I am. If you knew me in person and we were having this conversation you would have no doubt of its truth - I very much place others' needs ahead of my own, rightly or wrongly. In fact, wrongly a lot of the time - so maybe you do have a point about it devaluing your own life. I do have less self-worth than a normal person, I believe.

Personally I'd sacrifice my son in a gun to both our heads situation, but I'm a very unemotional guy put it that way. Is it really the average thing to do though? What if no one else would find out, so they wouldn't guilt trip you?

jaffacakesyum

BlimpGaz wrote: »

You make it sound bleak as hell given my situation.

Having a son is a travesty. I strongly advise ANY young man out there to use a condom, refrain from sex entirely if you can. It is not worth it in the slightest, to sacrifice your passion, joy and happiness for the sake of another human who needn't be born.

Ah, troll it is so. Shame - could've been an interesting discussion!

pickarooney

I've definitely read a variation of this thread before with the same detached reasoning from the op

dark crystal

When you decide to have a child, you also decide to take responsibility for that child. Protecting your child is part of that responsibility.

How exactly is saving your child's life devaluing your own? If your own needs outweigh those of your children, why bother taking on the massive responsibility of having a child in the first place?

BlimpGaz

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Ah, troll it is so. Shame - could've been an interesting discussion!

Why is it so shocking to you that a man would put his own life over that of his child's. I am a very honest guy. I've noticed not many in this country at least are either. Perhaps what we need it more honesty in the world. People should stop living solely for their kids, so they can grow up and live solely for their kids!! Can no one see the absurdity?

To me, a child is like a relative. You care about your relatives in an abstract sense, like you are obligated to because they are your blood relatives. You may help them and do what you can for them. But you are not willing to give up everything for them, or put them above you, especially not your freedom.

dark crystal

pickarooney wrote: »

I've definitely read a variation of this thread before with the same detached reasoning from the op

Yeah, I remember a thread very similar to this one a while back too.

php-fox

This is called the disposability of men:

asdfg!

I would do anything to protect my children. It isn't a case of my disregarding my life in favour of them it's simply an instinct to protect them. Apart from anything else it's nature. There is an animal instinct to protect your offspring and indeed in producing offspring you have fulfilled your purpose in life in terms of reproduction. So for you to die in order to save your children you are in effect protecting your lineage. Far from not valuing yourself you are securing your legacy.

But in a crisis the best option is to protect your children and save yourself in order to continue to protect them.

As a matter of fact becoming a parent often serves to shock a man into valuing himself more. I suddenly became more conscious of my health and became a lot more risk averse once I had children. I don't want to die and leave them without a Father. I've actually considered changing my job because it is risky, which never seemed to matter when I was single and I have become more careful. In fact married men are often excluded from risky situations for that very reason.

It's nonsense to say that men no longer value your lives when they have children.

Napper Hawkins

As I'm not a father and have no intention of being one I can't honestly say what I'd do in a life or death situation where it's me or the kid.

But the women and children first thing has never really sat well with me.
I have a right to live just as much as any woman or child and my belief that nothing but oblivion awaits me after death makes me feel a lot stronger about it.

In a Titanic situation, yeah I'd like to think I'd do my absolute best to try and save everyone and anyone that I could. But the second I realise that I'm gonna die if I don't act quickly then sorry but, you're on your own!

BlimpGaz

asdfg! wrote: »

I would do anything to protect my children. It isn't a case of my disregarding my life in favour of them it's simply an instinct to protect them. Apart from anything else it's nature. There is an animal instinct to protect your offspring and indeed in producing offspring you have fulfilled your purpose in life in terms of reproduction. So for you to die in order to save your children you are in effect protecting your lineage. Far from not valuing yourself you are securing your legacy.

But in a crisis the best option is to protect your children and save yourself in order to continue to protect them.

As a matter of fact becoming a parent often serves to shock a man into valuing himself more. I suddenly became more conscious of my health and became a lot more risk averse once I had children. I don't want to die and leave them without a Father. I've actually considered changing my job because it is risky, which never seemed to matter when I was single and I have become more careful. In fact married men are often excluded from risky situations for that very reason.

It's nonsense to say that men no longer value your lives when they have children.

Do you see yourself as an animal, though? Animals can't control their instincts, humans can. That brings me to the conclusion that people who WILLINGLY have children are more instinctual, and hence less rational.

a fat guy

And on that gender-related note, I'd like to mention that Warren Farrell deals with this sort of stuff too. He's a men's right's activist:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=warren+farrell&oq=warren+fa&gs_l=youtube.1.1.35i39j0l9.125.15500.0.23109.11.10.1.0.0.1.5395.17934.5-3j1j4j0j2.10.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.YZNeCKU9Jog

And Girlwriteswhat(above video) is brilliant too.

Cavehill Red

Threaten my child and someone could end up dead alright.
It won't be me, though, and it won't be my child.

anncoates

I doubt anybody with kids has the time to write posts as astoundingly long as that.

anncoates

pickarooney wrote: »

I've definitely read a variation of this thread before with the same detached reasoning from the op

I remember the same thread albeit from a different username. Maybe a rereg? First thing I thought when I read it

irish bloke

Thread is to serious and glum, on to the next one...

wolfpawnat

As a woman, I can honestly say the maternal instinct took over and I think nothing would stop me defending my offspring. Animalistically I think most of us cannot help it. Have we all got maternal/paternal instincts, no. But there is nothing wrong in that too, you see it every day in documentaries. Females abandoning their young for fear of their own lives, others defend to the detriment of theirs. Human's as much as we try to distance ourselves from the animals, are still very much the exact same. A lot of animals when forced to also choose to save one of their offspring, more often the one with the greatest chance of survival, the "alpha" of the litter, we call it Sophie's Choice. The favourite. In WWII (oh yes, I am going to "Godwin") many women went to the gas chamber rather than leave their children, others didn't and I doubt anyone could blame them!

Men are the same.

Tordelback

I know this is just feeding a troll, but...

There comes a point where you believe that serious injury or death of another person would hurt you more than if it were to happen to yourself. Far from being selfless, or not valuing your own life, you would take any steps to avoid that. This is very frequently the case with parents and their children, or between partners. I would rather die myself than suffer through the avoidable death of my children, that's not undervaluing myself, that's just a fact: it's the lesser of two evils. That there are evolutionary socio-biological reasons is neither here nor there.

On another tack, you let women and children into the lifeboats first because you are a man. That's what that word means.

seamus

You make a big incongruent jump there. Putting your children first does not mean abandoning all of your own ambitions. The two don't need to be exclusive, they don't even need to be in conflict.

But most parents put their children's interests first and will do what's best for the child even if it's not the favourable option for the parent. It's evolution.

And yes, my child is the only person I can honestly say I would die for, if such a simple choice could be made. That doesn't mean in value my life any less than before, just that I value her life higher than anyone else's. I would kill every single one of you if necessary to keep her safe.

asdfg!

BlimpGaz wrote: »

Do you see yourself as an animal, though? Animals can't control their instincts, humans can. That brings me to the conclusion that people who WILLINGLY have children are more instinctual, and hence less rational.

Nonsense. You appear to have a particularly distorted view of life. We are instinctual, in fact if we humans were less instinctual and took a more rational view. We would have far few problems and indeed unwanted pregnancies. I didn't want children but when the time came I accepted my new role because to do otherwise would be to reject something that is part of me and to reject my responsibilities to them because I helped bring them into the world.

Plus there's another thing that only a parent can feel. Difficult to explain but obvious. Not every parent feels it but usually they have issues of their own.

burgermasters

BlimpGaz wrote: »

I have a question I've been 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? Alex Jones even said that in his Christmas speech. It's so common to say that that it's become a cliché.


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.

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, ambitions and passions 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 cliché 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 cliché 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 clichés:

- 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 mates. 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 cliché 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 cliché 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. 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?

You make me want to puke, mods can ban me for this but your not fit to be a father! As a father i haven't change but would still jump in front of a bullet for my kids, shame on ye.

Femme_Fatale

Wouldn't the instinct to protect one's children at all costs, including dying to save them, be something held by either parent?
With regard to the Titanic type situation: I don't agree healthy, non pregnant women should be given higher priority than healthy men at all, but I do think children, sick/elderly (of either gender) and heavily pregnant women should be, simply because they are more vulnerable.
The notion that women should be prioritised above men in a rescue situation is doubtfully as prevalent as it used to be, and when it was, was part of a more traditional, old-school mindset: men as protectors no matter what.

Jesus Wept

BlimpGaz wrote: »

Alex Jones even said that in his Christmas speech.

Even Alex Jones?
Alex Jones Christmas speech?

What the holy ****?/ May god have mercy on us all.

Seachmall

Andy Carroll wrote: »

Even Alex Jones?
Alex Jones Christmas speech?

What the holy ****?/ May god have mercy on us all.

Alex Jones is a logical and rational thinker who doesn't place much weight on animal instinct or emotions.

It's obvious why the OP would refer to him as they are clearly as proficient at intelligent and abstract thought as him.

Tordelback

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

The notion that women should be prioritised above men in a rescue situation is doubtfully as prevalent as it used to be, and when it was, was part of a more traditional, old-school mindset: men as protectors.

You're undoubtedly correct, and it's a logical consequence of a society that laudably embraces a full range of roles for all genders, but for my sins I would still be gravely disapproving of any man who advocated this position, let alone one who acted on it.

StewartGriffin

burgermasters wrote: »

You make me want to puke, mods can ban me for this but your not fit to be a father! As a father i haven't change but would still jump in front of a bullet for my kids, shame on ye.

And then that shocking moment as you lay dyeing and your wife confesses they aren't your kids at all....of course, that would make absolutely no difference - or would it?

Andy Carroll wrote: »

Even Alex Jones?
Alex Jones Christmas speech?

What the holy ****?/ May god have mercy on us all.

I thought there must be some other highly respected moral crusader named Alex Jones I was completely unaware of but no...

On a more happy note - our lives are all desperately meaningless, why not give it up for some higher aspiration, even if it a completely deluded one.

kryogen

Someone watch John Q tonight OP?

Systemic Risk

BlimpGaz wrote: »

You make it sound bleak as hell given my situation.

Having a son is a travesty. I strongly advise ANY young man out there to use a condom, refrain from sex entirely if you can. It is not worth it in the slightest, to sacrifice your passion, joy and happiness for the sake of another human who needn't be born.

That is a horrible thing to say and i really hope you are ashamed of it once youvthink back over it. In fact i dont believe you could have a child with an attitude like that. I wont say anymore or ill get infracted for backseat moderation.

Gyalist

BlimpGaz wrote: »

You make it sound bleak as hell given my situation.

Having a son is a travesty. I strongly advise ANY young man out there to use a condom, refrain from sex entirely if you can. It is not worth it in the slightest, to sacrifice your passion, joy and happiness for the sake of another human who needn't be born.

Maybe your parents wish that they had indulged in a different sex act when you were conceived. Ever thought of that?

HondaSami

Most parents will protect their children no matter what, it's nothing to do with not valuing your own life it's the love you feel for your kids.

The thread last week about the politician who was shot at made me think about this because he crashed his car with his two very small children in it and just legged it and left them there, if i were their mother i don't think i could ever forgive him for that.