It’s not uncommon for men to express their love for a woman they love to the effect that they (the men) would be willing to die for the women if need be. This seems to be a sentiment in literature, etc.
It’s not as common for women to express that same sentiment, but I’ve read a biological explanation: Women are the gender that undergoes pregnancy and typically cares for the offspring, and hence from a reproductive standpoint are far more important than men, who play much less role in reproduction and are more expendable.
Anyway: If you are a woman, would you be willing to lay down your life for a man you loved (i.e., stand in danger’s way, or die so he can live?) Why or why not?
Men may use the expression but they don’t mean it. Not literally. It is only to denote how strongly they feel or wish to impress on the listener how devoted they are or want to seem to be manly and courageous. There are so few instances that a person may be called upon to really lay down his life for a woman that he loves that the expression is just that.
Women may say it as well and mean it just as much. And no, there are very few people in this world who would die for the person they love. It is not an advantage to either party in almost all instances.
I would risk my life to save his. I don’t know if I would jump on a grenade or something. No idea what I would be thinking, or not thinking, in such circumstances.
The only person I would die for is my son. My husband would kill me if I risked my life for him, potentially leaving my son motherless. We’ve actually discussed it.
Really? We have the Birkenhead Drill aka ‘Women and children first’. And if you plug ‘men who died defending women’ into your favourite search engine you’ll get plenty of hits from this year alone. So actually, when actual push comes to actual shove, yes we men do mean it. Not always, but often enough.
My sweetheart once nearly threw himself in front of a tram to save ducklings. He’s a very good person. Yeah, I would throw myself in front of a tram to save him, I say, comfortably from my armchair. I did once jump into a river to save his rapidly sinking frisbee - does that count?
But a lot of scenarios of me saving him don’t work out, since he’s bigger and stronger and faster. I can’t lift him. Even knocking him away from the tram would probably get us both killed. If I’m shielding him from bullets with my body there’s a lot of body left uncovered. He actually had a nightmare a few weeks ago, where we were running away from Teh Big Evil and I couldn’t run fast enough. I’d take his place in a hostage situation though, I’d be a much nicer hostage and they might let me live. Oh, and I’m a better long distance swimmer, so if we’re being dropped in the sea I’ll take that one. And I’d give him my food if we were hungry. I say, from my armchair.
(Actually, I can title this entire post Notes from my Armchair)
Men are taught from a young age to be self-sacrificing to women. We measure a man’s worthiness by how useful he is to society or women. The best thing a man can do is save a woman. Men are raised to internalize their disposability. And at the same time our society raises women to think they’re overly emotional and seek comfort so that they are ABLE to accept that position in the lifeboat, because they are a woman and are entitled to such specifically because of their imagined vulnerability and importance for the survival of the human race.
Men dying in a village did not have the terrible repercussions as much as women. One man can father many children. One woman can only birth one (or few) child every 9 months. Who gets to eat first if there isn’t any food? The women. Who gets the spot on the lifeboat? The women. Who gets saved from a burning building first? The women. The male-dominated jobs are the ones that include danger: the military, coal mines, felling trees, mills, operating heavy machinery… Men are unpaid bodyguards for women and children - or are at least expected to be so. Not protecting women is one of the highest forms of shame a man can achieve.
This is changing, but slowly. I don’t agree with it. as for the original question of the OP - I am not going to go out of my way to die for my partner, and I don’t expect them to do that for me, either. I think it is an unreasonable request. If we were in a dangerous situation I would try to find a way for both of us to come out of it unscathed. BUT, if push came to shove and one of us was going to die, I think I would die for them. You never know until you’re actually in that situation.
I’m not so convinced. People can’t know how they would react when push comes to stove, but I suspect that quite a lot of people would really lay down their life for someone they love.
Dying for someone is an action more than a thought. They don’t always coincide. The intention may have always been there, and maybe the reflex thought otherwise. Or you just couldn’t bring yourself to swim towards the shark.
If I ever died for someone it’d be accidental - no matter how much I love them. I would have figured we’d both come out of it alive. I think that knowing someone actually died for you would be a terrible thing to live with. Except if it’s Jesus. He died for me and that just makes me really really laugh.
I don’t want to die for anyone, but if I did die for anyone, it would be him. He would also sacrifice himself for me, I’m sure, so then we are in a fix. But definitely in the hostage situation I’d switch myself for him - he’s just going to get killed. Don’t women survive hostage situations more anyway?