MRAs and Children First: The Spearhead on the Costa Concordia disaster
From The Spearhead, where feminists dying is HILARIOUS.
Most of the coverage of the Costa Concordia disaster at the moment seems to be focusing on the Italian cruise ship’s captain and his douchey behavior, which involved not only running the ship aground but also abandoning ship prestissimo while passengers remained trapped on board.
MRAs, by contrast, are using the tragedy as an excuse to rail against the notion of “women and children first” and, of course, to make jokes about women drowning.
Now, the Titanic aside, “women and children first” isn’t now, and hasn’t ever really been, the standard way to evacuate those on a sinking ship, though many in the public — including some of those who were on board the Costa Concordia – seem to believe that it is. (See here for more details on how evacuations are typically handled these days; generally only those with mobility problems are given special treatment.)
In the case of this particular evacuation, some on board apparently tried to enforce an informal “women and children” policy, but many men weren’t willing to wait.
What’s got some MRAs in a snit is that some people, in the media and online, are calling these dudes cowards. In The Daily Mail, a right-wing British tabloid, A N Wilson wrote:
[I]n our day, with the advent of feminism and the professional woman, chivalry and manners are considered stuffy and old-fashioned.
As the father of three daughters, I do not, with a single fibre of my being, wish to go back to a time when women could not have the vote or get a university degree. Nor do I, surrounded by extremely strong-charactered and intelligent women in my family and among my friends, feel tempted to regard women as the frail sex.
But the fact remains that there is a longing among most men to protect women and children, and chivalry is simply a manifestation of that longing.
And whatever transpires about the reason for the Costa Concordia disaster, the disappearance of a chivalric code is a sorry reflection on society today.
This is not what you’d call a feminist argument; it’s a traditionalist argument, published in a tabloid rag that’s generally quite hostile to feminism.
Nonetheless, some MRAs are using the Costa Concordia disaster as an opportunity to deliver a big “told you so!” to the … imaginary feminists who live in their head.
Over on The Spearhead, where one familiar commenter actually described Wilson’s Daily Mail article as “feminist,” guest poster Lyn87 wrote:
The MRM is getting more vocal, and a lot of guys are now saying, “You wanted equality. This is what it looks like.” And they are saying it aloud and in public. Even a few women chimed in, saying that men have no obligation to die for women if women want equality. (Somehow I suspect there wasn’t much, “I am woman, hear me roar, watch me drown” on the Costa Concordia itself, but hey, it’s a start.)
MRAs: Always up-to-the-minute with their pop culture references!
This post was helpfully illustrated with a stock photo of a woman drowning.
Commenters got in their digs as well.
Keyster riffed on Lyn87’s incredibly au courant Helen Reddy reference:
I am woman hear me…blurp….rah…gurgle…raha…ffftt…orr…roar…gurgle…help me…somebody…fffft…please…blurp…help…help me please!
Aharon told both ladies and fish what’s what:
I eat fish. Fish don’t eat me. My life is too precious to sacrifice it so some spoiled bitch can have a pussy pass into the life boats.
Anti Idiocy got all hypothetical-cruise-ship tough guy on us:
Anyone who attempts to keep me on a sinking ship because of the genitals with which I was born is attempting to murder me. I have the right to respond accordingly.
And Thomas Tell-truth kicked chivalry – not to mention basic human decency — to the ocean floor:
Equality means that when the ship is going down and you are a woman, you had better get out of my way or you are going to drown with my footprints on your back.
Apparently Thomas Tell-truth is actually George Costanza:
Jeb, meanwhile, offered a more scientific rationalization for being a complete douchenozzle:
As far as I’ve heard, the one and only sport in which women naturally out-do men is endurance swimming. Women are also more bouyant, and as survivalists will explain, women float easiest on their backs (making it easy to breathe while expending minimal energy) whereas men float easiest in “the dead man’s float” (ie. face down, head in the water) and must expend more energy to stay alive. Furthermore, women have more body-fat than men which insulates them better against aquatic dangers such as hypothermia.
Given all these factors it is quite rational for men to pick women up by the seat of their pants and toss them overboard to make way for men and children to safely be rowed ashore on the lifeboats.
It’s all about doing the right thing and saving lives, after all.
MRA humor is very sophisticated indeed.
EDITED TO ADD: The Spearhead has put up a followup post, once again taking aim at imaginary “lifeboat feminists,” though the only person the post cites lamenting the end of “women and children” is Rich Lowry from the National Review (not a feminist publication).
Posted on January 18, 2012, in antifeminism, douchebaggery, evil women, gloating, MGTOW, misogyny, MRA, that's not funny!, the fucking titanic, the spearhead. Bookmark the permalink. 1,082 Comments.
Hit a nerve, did I, AZ? Hmmmm, let’s take a look again at the quotation that you provided for what Wood thinks about the sinking of the Costa Concordia:
“Men must take care of women precisely to prevent women from feeling the need to take care of themselves;…”
Seems that I’m not the one who cannot accept what is right in front of me.
Mral, I will say again, the number of women survived 324, the number of men 325. It is not possible for the same number of women to die even if all of them did because there were way fewer women on the ship. It would seem that is what you would have wanted to happen. It would seem to me allowing man/woman in equal numbers would be the way to go if there are not enough boats and since the numbers are damn near equal it turned out.
MRAL, did you mean to say, “the Corcordia is a goddamn miracle of God.”? Is this how you feel about this event?
Xtra, we are talking in PERCENTS, not numbers. If there were, say, 50 men and 10 women clustered around a boat, and the 10 women were allowed to go first, that is preferential treatment, and that’s basically what happened.
The fact that there were many more men than women on the ship, and yet the raw survival rates were the same, is evidence of heavy preferential treatment, not evidence against it. I don’t mean to be rude here, but are you dumb?
MRAL, what do think should have happened?
Sorry, that should read, “What do you think should have happened?”
@Pam
We MRAs do NOT AGREE with Wood. That is why there are two posts condemning Wood … and that is why Wood was roundly reviled in the comments section.
MRAs want men to be free … men cannot be free if women are enslaved. If women are “forced” to care for children … guess who never gets to spend time with children?
You feminists are the PAST. The MRM is the future.
The MRM:
Equal protection under the law.
Equal protection of government.
Feminism:
Hate
Fatman, with the Corcordia? First of all, the evacuation should have begun far sooner. The passengers should have been assembled as quickly as possible in as many numbers as possible- before the boat started to keel and panic set in. The children and their guardians are then evacuated first, and the rest afterward. If individual men want to place themselves at the back of the line, that is their perogative, but they should not be “encouraged informally” by the crew or anyone else.
Frankly, I think at least some of the “hysterical panic” from men was a direct result of male disposability. These men knew they were not valued, and they knew that they would be shunted to the back as worthless men- so they panicked, and shoved women aside. Entirely rational response, and I do not presume to judge them.
MRAL, why do you assume that these men believed that they were not valued? Do you believe that you are not valued and assume that that belief is shared by all people that share a gender with you?
I know you were talking percents mral and talking in percents when one number is clearly bigger than the other is deceitful. It is intentionally trying to make it look a certain way.Apparently in your world 90% of $10 and .09% of $100 is not the exact same amount. In other words and equal amount one is not more than another. If getting the same amount is some pretty lame special treatment.
Fatman, I could be wrong, of course, this is just conjecture. But I think it’s likely I am right. The response of some of these men- scared- supports my conclusion, IMO.
It’s not deceitful at all, Xtra- wtf? It’s talking in raw survival rates that is deceitful. What is your problem?
If 20% of a thousand-odd men survived, and 75% of four hundred-odd women survived… the women received preferential treatment. This is not fucking rocket science.
@Xitra
You are completely lost in your own squirrel cage.
And your analogy is nonsensical because we’re not talking about goddamn money, we’re talking about people. If each penny represents a human, and 90% of the “ten dollars” survived, as opposed to .09% of the “hundred dollars”, I know which group I’d like to be a part of.
@MRAL
I think Xitra is just toying with you. When feminists have no arguments left, they do this.
Zarat: What’s your explanation for the Lusitania, garbage?
You still did not answer? So it would be better if an equal PERCENTAGE instead of an equal number of men and women survived? And why is equal percentage more just in your opinion?
MRAL, of course you could be wrong, we all could be wrong. An appreciation for one’s own capacity for error is healthy, but you never the less think that it is likely that you are right. Why do you think that it is likely that you are right that these men believed that they were not valued? In short, what led you to the conclusion that these men sharing your belief in “male disposability” was likely to be correct?
Are there any more femi-fascists that think the MRM wants to enslave women?
Are you ready to listen quietly and learn?
Are you ready for the truth?
Are you strong enough o handle the truth?
Making all the decisions =/= “spending time with children”. MRA’s don’t want to spend time with children. You do not want to change diapers, cook meals, do laundry and help with homework. You just want to pontificate while taking all the credit. And to that end, you want to have slaves — without, however, any reciprocal obligations towards them.
The Daily Mail? An example of feminism? It is, mostly, a combination of: ‘tee hee, we don’t really support the BNP (except we totally do)’, ‘ALL YOUNG [NON-WHITE] YOUTHS ARE MURDERS, THUGS AND WILL BEAT OLD LADIES* TO DEATH WITH THEIR IPHONES’, The New Rock n Roll, House Prices, ‘WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!!’, ‘Get in the kitchen and make me a sandwitch dearie (and all women who don’t are SLUTS and BITCHES and WHORES although we can’t say that outright)’, ‘IMMIGRANTS ARE TAKING OVER!’ [note: Britain's population is over 90% White British. Not White, White British. I doubt the immigrants are going to take over. And of course, the Daily Fail loves British Emmigrants.] and attempting to sort things into whether or not they cause cancer. Most things go into both groups, by the way. And the occasional WWII piece or ‘fluffy animal’ story.
Oh, and I think the photographs editor has a thing for women’s rears. I would test this, but I don’t want to give them any money. The Daily Mail is just Insane Troll Logic with a fancy header and a sports section.
*Apparently female victims garner more sympathy for… some reason. I don’t get it either.
MRAL, I think there was cultural differences too. Most western cultures believe in queuing, serve the customer at the front first. It seems in this case there were some trying to jump the queue (by pushing old ladies out of the way).
I’m glad MRAL’s dropped the whole “I’m not a troll” bullshit.
Should we also darn your socks and suck your cock while you are “teaching” us?
Xtra, I don’t even know what you’re talking about anymore. The crew of the Titanic didn’t keep a log to keep gender parity in numbers. There turned out to be gender parity, because women were allowed to board first, and so despite the fact that there were many more men on board, a huge number of men them died, trapped on the ship, while a minority survived. It’s as simple as that.
Sorry about the huge Daily Mail rant, I find them offensive on a number of levels. They were a wonderful source of ‘bad reasoning’ examples for my Critical Thinking class though.
Oh, and I’ve seen a few articles supporting homophobia… as long as it’s proper, Christian homophobia, of course. Ugh.
The MRM straight up celebrated the deaths of women. That is clear. They have always celebrated the deaths of women.
You want to somehow segregate the genders, and have VR stand in for real relationships, because you are nucking futz.
Do you really think “We want women to die” is an improvement, antsy? Really? Can you really be that stupid?
Still did not answer the question. Would you rather men and women be able to board the lifeboat in equal numbers, which can be achieved or ….?
Are you then against gender parity where it can be obtained?
@Amused
Lusitania:
Males ages 16 to 35 on Lusitania: 7.9% survival advantage
Females ages 16-to-35 on Lusitania: 10.4% survival advantage
Women were still pampered, but not as much. Why?
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1969142,00.html
“There were a lot of factors behind these two distinct survival profiles — the most significant being time … The Lusitania slipped below the waves a scant 18 min. after the German torpedo hit it. The Titanic stayed afloat for 2 hr. 40 min.”
Any more questions, lawyer?
Seriously, anyone who wants to preemptively replace his wife with AI solely because the possibility exists that she might leave him some day has no place lecturing anyone about how rational they’re being.
The squirrel cage in YOUR head must have been spinning into overdrive for you to interpret what I said as meaning that MRAs DO AGREE with Wood. I was merely pointing out that it’s the ‘men’s obligation to the women who take care of them’ portion of Wood’s traditionalism that gets MRA’s knickers in a twist.
Yes, that’s the conundrum that puts the MRA at an impasse.
Xtra… in case I wasn’t clear, I would rather passengers be boarded as they arrived.
@Amused
“Making all the decisions =/= “spending time with children”. MRA’s don’t want to spend time with children. You do not want to change diapers, cook meals, do laundry and help with homework. You just want to pontificate while taking all the credit. And to that end, you want to have slaves — without, however, any reciprocal obligations towards them.”
You have me confused with Laura Wood. Do you want me to remind you what we think of Ms. Wood?
How long will it take your squirrel cage to deal with this one?
You say you are a lawyer. Are you able to examine facts at all? Read the MRM said to Ms. Wood — the “male supporting” proponent of all these things that you fear.
THE MRM IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK!
ARE YOU READY FOR THE TRUTH?
CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH?
So yes, I am against gender parity if it means that some people are barred from the lifeboats.
Xtra:
[quote]So it would be better if an equal PERCENTAGE instead of an equal number of men and women survived? And why is equal percentage more just in your opinion?[/quote]
Because it would indicate that women likely did not receive preferential treatment vis-a-vis men. Unlike the existing figures, which show the exact opposite.
Yeah, I know. Math is *hard*.
“Seriously, anyone who wants to preemptively replace his wife with AI solely because the possibility exists that she might leave him some day has no place lecturing anyone about how rational they’re being.”
We need to keep repeating this sentiment wherever AZ appears.
Oooops, HTML fail
That would probably be the one who doesn’t classify diapering, feeding, bathing, and a host of other menial chores as “spending time with the children”.
AntZ: Really, don’t try to quote Nicholson. You’re no Jack Nicholson.
And if anyone has a problem with the truth, it’s you.
>>>324 women survived and 325 men survived the Titanic. Equality. The percentage of women vs men is much higher because there were many more men on board.
As much as I hate to agree with him, MRAL has a point here. If there were many more men on the ship than women, then if there are equal numbers of them on the safety boats, that means women were preferred (a woman had better odds of getting on the boat than a man).
For instance, in an hypothetical country where by law half of parliament must be blacks and half must be white (similar to the system in Lebanon, which is half Christians, half Muslims) and the only whites are the 10% of the population that descend from British colonials, there is a clear power imbalance even if someone were to attempt to argue that representation was fair because it’s equal between the two races (putting aside temporarily the problematic assumptions that race is a binary).
Yes, garbage. What is the reason you limited your answer to the 16-35 age range?
TELL US THE TRUTH, ANTZ!
Though if it involves splitting up the genders entirely and using the Mississipi as a divider, we’ve heard that one already.
THE MRM IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK!
It’s not a man who wants men and women to live on opposite sides of a river after VR sex becomes a fact?
I see MRAL, So you’d rather the advantage go to young healthy single men because
children tend to slow people down.
Interesting,you really believe your way doesn’t mean some people are barred from life boats.
Spoiler Alert on the TRUTH,
It involves splitting up the genders and using the Mississippi as a divider.
And Virtual Reality spouses for all.
“Yes, garbage. What is the reason you limited your answer to the 16-35 age range?”
Only two favoured groups. Others were all reduced survival chance (old and young).
The ship sank so fast, endurance. youth, and strength were paramount.
Why don’t you read the article that I linked?
Your hatred of Ms. Wood is based entirely on her belief that she is a valued subordinate to her husband, and that he has some obligations towards her. You DON’T hate Ms. Wood for her claims that women should have no civil rights and no economic opportunities. The MRM DOES want women to have no right to vote, no recourse against abusers, and no economic or employment opportunitites. The MRM DOES want women to have the legal status of chattel, and more than that, as we have seen countless times, your Spearhead friends want it to be entirely legal to rape and kill women, including little girls.
No one here will take you seriously Zarat, you have already proved yourself to be a clown.
Because it would indicate that women likely did not receive preferential treatment vis-a-vis men. Unlike the existing figures, which show the exact opposite.Because it would indicate that women likely did not receive preferential treatment vis-a-vis men. Unlike the existing figures, which show the exact opposite.
Actually, the existing figures in this thread don’t show that at all. Because the existing figures in this thread aren’t actually compilations over long periods, but exist for only a single disaster, which doesn’t really say anything about how disasters usually go. You’re going to need a lot more data sets than one disaster.
Science is hard, isn’t it?
Why don’t you give us the total casualties by gender? Is it because they don’t support your theories of men being “disposable” and women being “pampered”? Oh, I see — women are “pampered” unless “endurance youth and strength are paramount” — which is another way of saying that women are pampered unless they aren’t. Thanks for demonstrating once again how full of shit you are.
Whoop, html fail there.
Actually, the existing figures in this thread don’t show that at all. Because the existing figures in this thread aren’t actually compilations over long periods, but exist for only a single disaster, which doesn’t really say anything about how disasters usually go. You’re going to need a lot more data sets than one disaster.
Science is hard, isn’t it?
wtf, “advantages”? As I said, I’d rather children be given priority because they are helpless. Afterwards, I’d prefer we operate on a first-come, first-served basis.
Rutee, we’re talking about the Titanic, not any other disaster.
Reading comprehension is hard, isn’t it?
“That would probably be the one who doesn’t classify diapering, feeding, bathing, and a host of other menial chores as “spending time with the children”.”
I am not sure what you mean. I have two boys, I enjoy all the time I spend with them. Yesterday my 13 month old had a bad diaper accident that soiled his body, his clothes, and a big spot in the play room — all while my 6 year old was finishing his piano lesson. Cleaning this up while paying the music teacher was not too much fun. However, this is a rare thing. Most times, it is a delight to care for my children.
By the way, mom was out earning money while I was home with the kids.
Better get back in that squirrel cage :)
@Amused
You are smarter than that. Even in the young, fit age group, WOMEN STILL OUT-SURVIVED MEN. Just not by as much.
As far as percentages and raw numbers go: both sides of this argument are somewhat wrong. The correct answer is that you have to look at both, along with the surrounding circumstances.
Simple examples for both: There are 100 men and 1 woman on a boat. There is one lifeboat, which seats 10 people. 9 men and 1 woman take the lifeboat. Ergo, 9% of the men and 100% of the women survive. That’s a huge difference! That’s preferential treatment! Except that it’s not, because that supposed 91% difference actually boils down to a fraction of one person. There’s no particular reason to believe that one women was any more or less likely to end up on the boat than any other individual.
Alternatively, there are 100 men and 6 women on a boat. There is one lifeboat, which seats 10 people. Six women and four men take the lifeboat. Ergo, six women and four men live. That’s a pretty small difference! That’s not preferential treatment! Except, of course, that it very probably is, given the huge difference between percentages saved.
(Of course, as I said, you actually have to look at people as more than numbers. Perhaps the second hypothetical boat had a crew of ninety men and a passenger list of four men and six women, and all the passengers got the lifeboat. Suddenly the supposed preference for women as women disappears, in spite of the percentages.)
Which, in other words, means the situation on the Titanic was unfair with regard to gender, but probably not as unfair as it’s being painted – all of which, of course, is utterly irrelevant because the real issue with the Titanic wasn’t which people died but the fact that anyone did.
The ship sank so fast, endurance. youth, and strength were paramount
Oh, we have read the article Zarat and every time MRAs mention the Titanic to explain feminism, we will mention the Lusitania.
Proof that MRAs don’t hate women!
MRAL, by the numbers we’ve been throwing around, I could agree with you that a higher percentage of women on the Titanic than men made it.
What is deeply, deeply weird is that you took this fact from a SINGLE disaster and somehow got from it a proof that men, as a whole, were seen as “disposable” in American culture for hundreds of years. I can’t even come close to agreeing with you on that, and don’t see how you even came to that conclusion. o.o
Okay, first off, the irony is off the charts here.
Second, last I checked, nobody here is going to be affected by the Titanic (or the Lusitania, for that matter). They happened around a century ago and were singular disasters that killed the people on the boat. What’s more important is how things are conducted, in general. You can’t really complain about lifeboat treatment if lifeboat treatment actually t urns out pretty even. You can’t say “Women are favored in disasters” based on the evidence of one single disaster, as Goose was.
Any more stupid observations, or are you going to keep being your normal self?
Yes, I do happen to be smarter than that — the fact that women outsurvived men in the fit age group does not lead to the logical conclusion that women outsurvivied men in the non-fit age groups, or that women are routinely “pampered” in times of disaster. Once again: provide the breakdown by gender of all victims, or admit you are full of shit.
MRAL’s in the right about using percentages instead of totals. BlackBloc explains it well.
Where I don’t agree with MRAL is in his insistence that this has anything to do with the world we live in now. “Women and children first” is far from feminist thinking. As demonstrated earlier in this thread, most feminists really do want equal survival likelihood among equally-ablebodied adult passengers, with preference for non-ablebodied passengers (who may be less likely to survive without assistance) and children. For the good of the children, most feminists will also argue that at one caretaker per child should also get preference. Now, perhaps the majority of “caretakers” may be female, but that’s the same old tripe about “women being natural caretakers” in action that skews custody decisions as well, and–newsflash!–you’ll find most feminists railing against it. We want men to be able to realize their potential as caretakers (if they want to!) as much as we want women to not be forced into being caretakers (if they don’t want to be!). “Women and children first” is insulting to everyone.
The only people arguing that “feminism”=”men should be trampled” are the strawfeminists that those MRAs’ hamsters are hallucinating. (Also maybe some second-wave feminists from the past? Still not relevant to today!)
Many, actually.
That article is very poor. I don’t know about the study they’re writing about, but the numbers they are reporting are worthless as far as trying to figure out whether there is anything there to talk about. This shows the poor level of science reporting in this country.
The study said Males ages 16 to 35 were 7.9% more likely to live than the control group. There is no indication of the way the groups were sampled or how many samples were in each, and there is no indication of the level of statistical significance (so it’s not even clear that the *measured* 7.9% difference is an actual phenomena rather than *statistical variance*).
Without these numbers you can’t even know that Males 16 to 35 were *actually* more likely to survive than the control group. But most people don’t know much statistics. They think that the difference between the two measured survival rates is equivalent to the difference between the two *actual* survival rates. But unless you have infinite samples, the measured rate is not the actual rate. It is a value that estimates the actual rate and is *more likely* to be closer the more samples you have.
The same critique can be applied to the 10.4% survival advantage of Females 16 to 35. More damning, however, there is absolutly no mention of whether there was a statistically significant test to determine whether the survival rates of Females 16-35 was statistically significantly higher than the survival rates of Males 16-35. Just because you measured a 10.4% difference versus a 7.9% difference does NOT mean that women were more likely to survive. This can all be variance, statistical noise. You need to perform a difference of means test, and quite frankly with those numbers, from a back of the napkin estimate, I’m not sure you could get 90% statistical significance on that difference of means test, much less the golden standard of 99% (meaning that out of 100 studies you would expect one false positive, as opposed to 1 out of 10 studies).
I believe in giving preferential lifeboat places to children, hyenas, zebras, orangutans, and Bengal tigers.
Okay, Polliwog, point taken, but the percents only become misleading if we’re dealing with very small numbers. There were something like 1500 people on the Titanic, about 1100 men and 400 women. The majority of the women- and the VAST majority of second- and first-class women- survived, while a fairly small percentage of men did, in any class.
Add this to the confounding variable that the third-class passengers had a difficult time even finding the deck (if they had, more third-class women would have been saved) and it becomes even more clear that the central determinant in if you lived was whether you had a vagina.
I love that the MRAs don’t understand the real lesson of the Titanic, which is to HAVE ENOUGH LIFEBOATS FOR EVERYONE. Also, if you’re a ship captain, and it’s night, and there’s zero visibility, don’t order the ship to keep barreling ahead in an area of the ocean in which icebergs have been sighted very very recently.
As I’ve pointed out before, my great-grandfather (Jacques Futrelle the mystery writer) actually died on the Titanic. He was a rich dude and could have survived, but he refused to get on the lifeboat my great-grandmother got onto. That was his choice. (Apparently he thought there was a chance he could get off the ship in a later lifeboat.)
My conclusion from this is not CHIVALRY KILLED MY GREAT-GRANDFATHER. But THE WHITE STAR LINE KILLED MY GREAT-GRANDFATHER BECAUSE IT DIDN’T EQUIP THE TITANIC WITH ENOUGH LIFEBOATS AND OH YEAH THE CAPTAIN WAS AN IDIOT.
I’m glad ONE of my great grandparents survived, because otherwise their kids (one of them being my grandfather) would have been orphans. (The kids weren’t on the ship.)
Mr. Zarat, it has been obvious to most of us that the MRA movement has several strands blending into one another that all involve hating and/or bashing women (which they frequently and inaccurately interchange with feminists.)
PUAs want sex and to degrade those women they do manage to trick into bed. They also hate the women they cannot get into bed and frequently appear to be okay with raping women.
Father’s righters are the closest to reasonable as they mainly want to make sure men have access to their kids. But they tend to go overboard with hating women.
MGTOW tend to be about hating those icky women and claiming they will go their own way any day now. Really, honestly!
The Traditionalists want women to be stripped of all the progress of the past fifty years and forced to stay home, raise babies, cook and clean.
The Non-Traditionalists want women to be stripped of all rights and yet still able to fully support themselves and all children born without any help from a male of any age. (Father, brother, son, husband whoever.)
The MRA movement can have people who are a mix of the different types at any give time.
What they all have in common is they hate women. Period.
By the way, I went on a cruise a couple years ago and everyone will be happy to know that, not only did they have several safety drills, if something *had* happened there would have been enough lifeboats. And we weren’t divided up by gender! :D
The Titanic is but one example of male disposability, guys.
– Conscription (Most recently, Vietnam. I understand there is no draft now, but men are still the only ones who have to register for the possibility. It sends a message).
– Seemingly endless, endless, fucking endless women’s health initiatives (many run by the government) despite the fact that women live longer.
– The lack of noise re. the “Glass Cellar”, or the men who make up all the shittiest, most dangerous jobs.
>>Even in the young, fit age group, WOMEN STILL OUT-SURVIVED MEN.
Yes. You have not, however, demonstrated that women WERE MORE LIKELY to out-survive men. Which is what you must measure to demonstrate bias.
If my name is Two-Face and I execute a person if my coin falls on head, the fact that I killed 46 women out of 100 women and 54 men out of 100 men does not demonstrate bias. The coin was fair. It was just chance that more men were killed. Pure variance.