Hero is in the eye of the beholder

The word hero is a very loaded word. A hero in some people's eyes may not be a hero in an others, and vise versa. In a way, heroes are in the eye of the beholder. A child striving to be a professional hockey player may see Sidney Crosby as a hero, whereas lots of people would not. An African American women may see Rosa Parks as a hero, where some other people may not. We all have different standards, and different opinions of who falls under the category of "hero". By definition, a hero is "a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities". Immediately this can be criticized for an obvious reason. Why "a man" instead of a person? Can't a woman also be a hero? In my opinion, the word hero cannot be defined. Hero can mean thousands of different things depending on the context. Something inside of us tells us what a hero is, and who we think should be referred to as one. A great example of a well known "hero" is Martin Luther King Jr. He stood up for what he believe in, and fought for man kind. He was not afraid of his opposition, and intended to improve the quality of life of Americans, especially minority groups. As compared to the previous definition, Martin Luther King Jr. fits it to a tee. He is a man who was very courageous, and was admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities. This example proves that, in a way, the definition of hero is a very broad, but useful annotation. But what about a person who doesn't fit this definition? I consider my mother to be a hero. She raised two great children, acts as a wonderful wife, maintains everything around the house, and is always there for me when I need her. Day after day she saves me from mistakes I might make, troubles I'm having, and decisions I have to make. Compared to the definition of hero stated about, does my mother apply to it? No, not really, but in my eyes she is. So although I have given the definition of a hero and an example of a hero who fits the description, I have also portrayed the fact that other, non stereotypical "heroes", can be heroic in the eye of the beholder.
In the story "A&P" by John Updike, the question of whether or not Sammy is a hero becomes evident. As I stated earlier, heroism is an arguable issue. Some people may believe Sammy was a definite hero, and others may not. Comparing Sammy to the definition stated earlier, Sammy somewhat fits it. He did have courage for standing up to his boss, and he did have noble qualities for acting for the good of the three girls who were being discriminated against. It can also be seen that he does not fit the definition of a hero because he did not have distinguished abilities and was not admired for his deeds. Although it's a toss up whether Sammy fits the description of a hero, in my eyes, I don't see him as a hero. In the real world, you can't just quit your job because your boss is trying to enforce a rule. Sammy is not admirable because he does not do it to make the world better, he does it to get positive attention from the girls. This becomes clear when he says "I look around for my girls, but they're gone, of course". The fact that he wanted them to see him be a "hero" takes away the heroic qualities that he may have possessed.
Overall, although some people may believe Sammy was a hero for what he did, I believe that a somewhat heroic act does not make someone a hero. Hero, as previous stated, is a loaded word, but in the story "A&P", no hero stick out for me.