KARL D. writes:

Have you noticed how the word “hero” has been bandied about by the media regarding almost anyone and everyone who was involved in the Boston bombing? The man who found the bomber hiding in his boat and called the police? Hero. A victim who lost both his legs who visited another victim in the same hospital to give her a gift? Hero.

What is even more surprising is the absolute venom I have encountered from people when I point out the fact that neither of these men were heroes. One was merely a good citizen doing his civic duty, and the other a victim who performed a kind act for another victim. It seems most people really do operate in a knee-jerk emotional way. The fact that the true meaning of the word “hero” has become so watered down as to render it meaningless does not seem to bother them in the least. Interestingly, out of all the people who called me a “nasty little man” for pointing this out, the majority were female.

Laura writes:

I think this exaggerated use of the term “hero” is connected to the sentimentalizing of mass murder. It’s a form of denial. If we react to these events — whether it be a school shooting or a terrorist attack– with enough candlelit vigils, enough bouquets of flowers, enough piles of stuffed animals, enough charitable donations, enough concerts by rock stars, enough exaggerated praise for anyone and everyone who performed the slightest acts of decency, then maybe we can obliterate our unease. Maybe then we can overcome the sense that we are not truly confronting these problems. To confront them would require … heroism. And that is in very short supply.

This is, as you suggest, part of the general feminization of our culture.

—- Comments —-

Bill R. writes:

Laura writes:

“Maybe then we can overcome the sense that we are not truly confronting these problems.”

That’s exactly what liberalism is. It’s what gives this philosophy, that is otherwise so demonstrably ridiculous, its seductive appeal. It’s basically the age-old appeal of getting something for nothing. Liberalism promises a way to feel good without having to do anything for it. It’s “feel good” that personally costs you nothing (at least up front) which is why, like a drug, the feeling doesn’t last, it isn’t really true, so you constantly need more and more of the same words and sentimental gestures to get the same effect.

What is happening to the word “hero” in our culture is not unlike what’s happening to marriage; more and more people are qualifying for the distinction who don’t deserve it until the distinction eventually distinguishes nothing and is defined out of existence (which, in the case of marriage, by the way, is precisely the goal of those who seek to “expand” its definition). But that’s feel-good liberal inclusiveness for you. Include more and more people until the club they’re included in is meaningless because everybody’s in it (except maybe heterosexual white males).

Terry Morris writes:

I should imagine that the way a given society defines terms like “hero,” says a lot about that society. I have often referred to the United States as “Queer Nation” because of the way the masses react to “tragedies” like the most recent Boston massacre. Namely in the ways you mention, Laura. It doesn’t s’much bother me that women react this way, but that the men do so with almost equal passion and emotionalism is not a good sign. How many of these scenes of candlight vigils have we witnessed in the last couple of decades where many of the men in attendance are actually being consoled by their women? I’ve personally seen enough of this to desire not to ever have to witness it again. Nonetheless these images are forever locked into my memory.

Laura writes:

A good example of this is James Taylor’s performance of “Shower the People” at the memorial service for Sean Collier, the MIT police officer who was slain.

Please follow and like us: