Women and Children first?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Women and Children first?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Women and Children first?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 2:23:57 AM

egern

Posts: 537
Joined: 1/11/2013
Status: offline

When a ship goes down, in earlier times it has been the rule that women and children get in the life boats first - Titanic (minus the poor, of course), and Birkenhead.

Later disasters have shown (most of the) crew to leave first and (quite a few if not most) men elbowing their way to the boats in the general panic.

There is an article about this: Mark Steyn: No more ‘women and children first' that got my attention elsewhere. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ship-336602-titanic-concordia.html

On the Titanic, the male passengers gave their lives for the women and would never have considered doing otherwise. On the Costa Concordia, in the words of a female passenger, "There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboat." After similar scenes on the MV Estonia a few years ago, Roger Kohen of the International Maritime Organization told Time magazine: "There is no law that says women and children first. That is something from the age of chivalry."

Whenever I write about these subjects, I receive a lot of mail from men along the lines of this correspondent:

"The feminists wanted a gender-neutral society. Now they've got it. So what are you complaining about?"

From a grandmother on the latter: "I was standing by the lifeboats and men, big men, were banging into me and knocking the girls."

What do you think?

Post #: 1

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 3:31:15 AM

naughtynick81

Posts: 890
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

What do I think?

Exactly this..."The feminists wanted a gender-neutral society. Now they've got it"

If feminism is truly about equality, that does not include womenfirstism.

We are all humans. Regardless of gender or race, no one is more important than the other.

(in reply to egern)

Post #: 2

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 3:38:57 AM

UllrsIshtar

Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: naughtynick81

Exactly this..."The feminists wanted a gender-neutral society. Now they've got it"

If feminism is truly about equality, that does not include womenfirstism.

Men as a sex can't have abandoned "women and children first" because women demanded equality.

If the driving factor in the change had been women's demand of equality, the notion would now be "children first" and that's clearly not the case from how people have acted in the last couple of disasters.

_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to naughtynick81)

Post #: 3

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 3:41:28 AM

naughtynick81

Posts: 890
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

If the driving factor in the change had been women's demand of equality, the notion would now be "children first" and that's clearly not the case from how people have acted in the last couple of disasters.

Please elaborate the logical working in this?

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

Post #: 4

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 3:56:25 AM

UllrsIshtar

Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: naughtynick81

quote:

If the driving factor in the change had been women's demand of equality, the notion would now be "children first" and that's clearly not the case from how people have acted in the last couple of disasters.

Please elaborate the logical working in this?

Men used to protect women and children because women and children were considered weaker and less capable, and men felt it their duty to protect those weaker and less capable.

Your argument is that, seeing that women demanded equality on the grounds that they are not less capable than men, they no longer have any claim to special protection. If women demand to be treated the same as men in all ways, then they will be treated the same as men in all ways, including when considering the devision of lifeboat seats.

However... children never claimed equal rights, or to be as capable as men.

So if the only reason women do not get special treatment regarding lifeboats anymore is because they demanded equal treatment, then children, who did not demand equal treatment, should still be getting the same special protection they've enjoyed before the feminist revolution.

Considering that nowadays neither children nor women get special protection regarding lifeboat seat, women's demand for equal treatment cannot be the only reason why men's behavior has changed, else it wouldn't have changed in regards to children.

_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to naughtynick81)

Post #: 5

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 4:04:52 AM

naughtynick81

Posts: 890
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

Your argument still isn't making any sense.

In other words, you're making a baseless female chauvinist stance that somehow women generally care about kids more than men because men are generally cold hearted bastards with inferior morals.

< Message edited by naughtynick81 -- 4/5/2013 4:08:12 AM >

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

Post #: 6

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 4:12:49 AM

UllrsIshtar

Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: naughtynick81

You're argument still isn't making any sense.

In other words, you're making a baseless female chauvinist stance that somehow women generally care about kids more than men because men are generally cold hearted bastards with inferior morals.

I said nothing at all about how women feel about children.

The value of how much either men or women care about children is not expressed in my post in any way, shape, or form.

What I'm saying is that, if you are correct, and the reason men are now treating women different is because women demanded equality, then men's treatment of children would still be the same as it was before, because children did not demand equality.

But men's treatment of children has not remained the same... the behavior didn't change "women and children first" to "only children first, and women no longer first, because they are our equals now", instead, it changed to "me first, and both women AND children be damned".

What I'm saying is that women's demand for equality and men's changed behavior regarding lifeboat seats cannot be a cause-effect relationship, without at the very least taking additional factors in consideration, because men's behavior has also changed towards children, whom have nothing to do with the feminist rights movement.

If women are no longer getting preferential treatment on lifeboats because they demanded equality, how do you explain the fact that men no longer give children special treatment either?

< Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 4/5/2013 4:17:03 AM >

_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to naughtynick81)

Post #: 7

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 4:43:50 AM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

There's a story about a couple of members of the ship's crew on the Lusitania rushing the lifeboats in drag, is there not?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to egern)

Post #: 8

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 5:44:02 AM

Yachtie

Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

If women are no longer getting preferential treatment on lifeboats because they demanded equality, how do you explain the fact that men no longer give children special treatment either?

Perhaps because they're holding women's hands? (Okay, that's a bit sarcastic) But I have a question. If women are receiving equal treatment, why are they preferred guardians of children in divorce? As to a lifeboat, how does one separate a child from the mother whom society still deems most fit as to single parent guardianship?

It's Animal Farm. All are equal but some are more equal than others. The children are caught in the crossfire of equalitarianism.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

Post #: 9

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 5:46:59 AM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: naughtynick81

Your argument still isn't making any sense.

In other words, you're making a baseless female chauvinist stance that somehow women generally care about kids more than men because men are generally cold hearted bastards with inferior morals.

Irony alert !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(in reply to naughtynick81)

Post #: 10

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 5:54:11 AM

UllrsIshtar

Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

If women are no longer getting preferential treatment on lifeboats because they demanded equality, how do you explain the fact that men no longer give children special treatment either?

Perhaps because they're holding women's hands? (Okay, that's a bit sarcastic) But I have a question. If women are receiving equal treatment, why are they preferred guardians of children in divorce? As to a lifeboat, how does one separate a child from the mother whom society still deems most fit as to single parent guardianship?

It's Animal Farm. All are equal but some are more equal than others. The children are caught in the crossfire of equalitarianism.

I'm not saying that women are receiving equal treatment.

I agree with you that in a lot of ways the pendulum has swung wholly, unfairly into women's favor with men consistently getting the shorter end of the stick.

I'm not a feminist. I don't expect to be treated as if I'm the same as a man. In fact, I would refuse to date any man that would consider me an equal to him, just as I would refuse to date any man that considers me to be less than him. I'm a woman, and therefore distinctly different from him. I don't want there to be any confusion about that, nor do I want to be considered less than because of it.

I'm not making any kind of judgement call on whether or not men should have "women and children first" as a behavioral guideline, nor am I making any judgement call on whether or not it's a "bad" thing that men have seemingly for the most part abandoned that behavior.

ALL I'm saying is that you can't make the simplistic argument that men have changed their behavior BECAUSE women have demanded equal rights, because that argument doesn't take into account the change in behavior towards children.
The statement naughtynick made does not logically explain the cause of men's change in behavior, because it doesn't take the whole change in behavior into account...

Now as to what IS the explanation for why men's behavior is changed towards women AND children... I haven't gotten a clue... but the answer can't be as simple as "because women demanded equality"; logically, there either has to be more at play than that, or there has to be a totally separate explanation which doesn't have anything to do with feminism.

_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to Yachtie)

Post #: 11

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 5:55:36 AM

PeonForHer

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

The only sensible solution is for the men to chuck all the women and children overboard as soon as the alarm sounds.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com

(in reply to egern)

Post #: 12

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 6:10:35 AM

Yachtie

Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

ALL I'm saying is that you can't make the simplistic argument that men have changed their behavior BECAUSE women have demanded equal rights, because that argument doesn't take into account the change in behavior towards children.

Now as to what IS the explanation for why men's behavior is changed towards women AND children... I haven't gotten a clue... but the answer can't be as simple as "because women demanded equality";

Okay, first you admit you haven't a clue then you go on to declare it can't be as simple as...
How can one, without a clue, state anything?

As to "you can't make the simplistic argument that men have changed their behavior BECAUSE women have demanded equal rights", I ask, why not?

The effects of feminism / equalitarianism have taken root over decades. Men have been pussified, brought to heel by the educational system, legislation and the courts. Their children are taken away with the ease that feminism has wrought. It's seen in the marriage and divorce statistics.

Do you not understand what you wrote about yourself?

I'm not a feminist. I don't expect to be treated as if I'm the same as a man. In fact, I would refuse to date any man that would consider me an equal to him, just as I would refuse to date any man that considers me to be less than him. I'm a woman, and therefore distinctly different from him. I don't want there to be any confusion about that, nor do I want to be considered less than because of it.

You're what a husband wants. You're what a husband would give his life for. You're what a husband would cherish. He'd put YOU, and his (and your) children, in the lifeboat before himself. You're what women used to be.

You're neither a feminist or infected with the equalitarian disease. To bad so many are.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

Post #: 13

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 6:34:58 AM

UllrsIshtar

Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

ALL I'm saying is that you can't make the simplistic argument that men have changed their behavior BECAUSE women have demanded equal rights, because that argument doesn't take into account the change in behavior towards children.

Now as to what IS the explanation for why men's behavior is changed towards women AND children... I haven't gotten a clue... but the answer can't be as simple as "because women demanded equality";

Okay, first you admit you haven't a clue then you go on to declare it can't be as simple as...
How can one, without a clue, state anything?

As to "you can't make the simplistic argument that men have changed their behavior BECAUSE women have demanded equal rights", I ask, why not?

The effects of feminism / equalitarianism have taken root over decades. Men have been pussified, brought to heel by the educational system, legislation and the courts. Their children are taken away with the ease that feminism has wrought. It's seen in the marriage and divorce statistics.

You're now giving a much more nuanced explanation of the issue than simply "because women demanded equal rights".

What you're saying is that it comes down to "because women are currently granted more rights than men, and men are routinely emasculated by legislation, education, and women". You're basically saying that men don't feel the need to be the self-sacrifycing hero anymore, because men and male qualities are completely taken for granted, and all being gallant will get them is being spat in the face because it's expected of them, and therefore not something consider noteworthy, or to be appreciated by women.

That's not the same as "because women demanded equal rights". It's a far more detailed and nuanced view, where the rights per say aren't the issue at all... it's the degradation of things masculine that's the issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Do you not understand what you wrote about yourself?

I understand that very well. I have not a hair on my head that doubts that my husband wouldn't only give up his seat on a lifeboat for me and the kids, but would sacrifice his life to keep other people from taking that seat from me.

We have a very 1950s style dynamic, despite the fact that I consider myself to have equal right as him within our marriage... not even from a legal point of view, just from an ethical one. I demand those equal rights, I wouldn't settle for less, and he has no issue with me having them, despite not seeing me as his equal. He's the head of household in a very traditional sense, but there isn't a single decision he has the right to make that I don't, despite the fact that we have very distinct patterns of who's in charge of deciding what, and rarely even concern ourselves with the type of decisions the other is making. He's the protector/provider and I deeply appreciate him for that... and that last bit is solely the reason I know without a doubt that he'd give his life to protect me: I appreciate him. I don't just appreciate what he does for me, or what I can get from him, I appreciate his masculinity. I appreciate that he feels the drive to provide for me, and protect me. I cherish those things about him.
I don't negotiate for them, I don't expect them, I don't demand them, but I appreciate that -because he's not my equal and isn't the same as me- he has the drive to do those things for me.

So the "why" on why he'd protect me has got squat to do with me having equal rights... I've got those, and it doesn't change anything about his drive to protect and provide for me.
The "why" on why he'd protect me is because I don't emasculate him, nor take advantage of him by demanding more rights, nor do I positioning myself as if I'm better than him.

That's a whole other story than "because they demanded equal rights" though.

_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to Yachtie)

Post #: 14

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 7:08:52 AM

Yachtie

Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

What you're saying is that it comes down to "because women are currently granted more rights than men, and men are routinely emasculated by legislation, education, and women".

That's not the same as "because women demanded equal rights".

Ahhh......

Women demanded it, women got it, and now the piper is being paid.

< Message edited by Yachtie -- 4/5/2013 7:10:56 AM >

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

Post #: 15

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 7:14:33 AM

fucktoyprincess

Posts: 2337
Status: offline

Okay. First, the whole equality debate is really misplaced. Women have always had tremendous responsibilities throughout history. The movement for women's rights was exactly that - a movement to allow women rights given that they already had responsibilities in society that went unheralded (in contrast to the men who had both rights and responsibilities). So I personally think that getting bogged down in the "equality" debate is stupid.

Second, let's look at this from a societal perspective for just a brief moment. For the upper classes it makes total sense in a disaster situation to take a women and children first perspective. Why? Because the upper class is wealthy, by definition. So a rich man dying on the Titanic who leaves behind a rich widow and his progeny at least ensures the continuance of his gene pool - and he knows they will be well taken care of because he is leaving his money behind, too. For the middle and lower classes, not so sure that children first, or women and children first makes as much sense. A child cannot survive on their own. A mother can look after her child but will require resources to do so. If she is working it makes complete sense to put mom and child on the boat for the same reasons as before. If she does not work, it becomes complicated, because how are the mother and child supposed to live afterwards? Also, thinking broadly about a society, because women bear children, they are more valuable to a society than any given male. Currently, men cannot have a child without a woman. If all women were to die tomorrow, the society of man, as we know it, would die. So there is societal value in saving the women and children. A society needs far fewer men than women to repopulate itself.

Third, again taking a societal perspective, it should be obvious that all older people (over retirement age) should stay on the boat. Yes. It is utterly selfish for older people who have already lived and experienced so much, to try to take the spots of younger people, period. The world doesn't function on retirees. The future is in the children, and those who enable them - and I don't quite see how the elderly fit into that.

So, depending on my personal situation, my decision would be made on what made the most sense taking many many things into consideration. If I were married and with a child and knew I had means to support my child on my own, I would expect priority. As a healthy single woman I would also expect some marginal preference because I have the ability to bear children (which a man does not). If I were an older grandmother, I would volunteer my spot for a child (anyone's child). To me this isn't so much about gender as it is about being future oriented and trying to protect society's children.

With that said, we currently live in a world where chivalry is dead, and people are unbearably selfish. So it is not surprising that things play out the way they do.

< Message edited by fucktoyprincess -- 4/5/2013 7:15:14 AM >

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to egern)

Post #: 16

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 7:44:17 AM

cordeliasub

Posts: 528
Joined: 11/4/2012
Status: offline

quote:

With that said, we currently live in a world where chivalry is dead, and people are unbearably selfish. So it is not surprising that things play out the way they do.

I think this sums it up well.

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)

Post #: 17

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 9:23:51 AM

FunCouple5280

Posts: 559
Joined: 10/30/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

What you're saying is that it comes down to "because women are currently granted more rights than men, and men are routinely emasculated by legislation, education, and women".

That's not the same as "because women demanded equal rights".

Ahhh......

Women demanded it, women got it, and now the piper is being paid.

Bullshit. That would be true if you saw men holding women back and ensuring children get on the boats. This is nothing more than a case modern narcissism mixed with degeneration of polite society into this mannerless insult society we have now.

Woment just have to go for the balls and they would get all the seats first

< Message edited by FunCouple5280 -- 4/5/2013 9:24:28 AM >

(in reply to Yachtie)

Post #: 18

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 9:30:13 AM

MistressxBanks

Posts: 9
Joined: 11/6/2012
Status: offline

Female here, one of those who wants equality.

If not getting off a boat first is the price I have to pay to be educated, to vote, and not be be given fewer rights due to the accident of my birth, I would pay it gladly and throw in a tip of not-having-a-man-buy-me-dinner.

The age of chivalry sounds nice and makes for a wonderful film or book, but in reality not everyone can be trusted to act chivalrously; it was also a time in which women had no protection from domestic abuse, couldn't go to university, marital rape was not recognised and rape outside of marriage meant the woman was ruined. Neither did she have a voice in politics to change any of these things.

As a woman, I couldn't be happier that I was born in modern times.

(in reply to cordeliasub)

Post #: 19

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 2:06:06 PM

egern

Posts: 537
Joined: 1/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: naughtynick81

What do I think?

Exactly this..."The feminists wanted a gender-neutral society. Now they've got it"

If feminism is truly about equality, that does not include womenfirstism.

We are all humans. Regardless of gender or race, no one is more important than the other.

I (a woman and a feminist) agree with this. But the children should go first, and the men should not trample others in their haste to get their first - no one should.

I think it may be a matter of finding a 'people' good way of handling disasters.

(in reply to naughtynick81)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Women and Children first?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109