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).
Yes, I know, but every time you bring it up, MRA’s scream that women’s attempts are just “gestures”. I think it’s a combination of factors, actually. Since women are still primarily caretakers, it makes sense that they would choose less violent deaths, since they would be instinctively concerned about clean-up. Being perceived as more obligated towards minor children than men is a factor as well, however. And, of course, access to firearms.
“Try”, as in “I JUST WANT ATTENTION!!!!” If women wanted to kill themselves, they’d be dead. The difference is that if men fail at killing themselves they get shamed for being failures at yet another thing. Do you know how it feels to be regarded as a man who couldn’t even off himself? But if women “fail” to commit suicide they get “OH I NEVER REALIZED HOW IMPORTANT YOU ARE!” You could be a 2 and a “failed” suicide attempt would make you an 8 overnight. I’ve seen it, it turns my stomach.
Also, I don’t consider his name to be “little mediocrity”. That’s just all he is. He doesn’t merit a special nickname XD
And, of course, access to firearms.
Except laws restrict MEN from using guns, not women. Women can use all the guns you want to “defend” yourselves from us evil men. Poor, poor you.
LOLLLL
Pam: He’d not yet sunk to the level of trite seen in the need to point out his, “Ten inches of solid man meat”, which causes all the ladies to just melt into puddles of lustful anticipation of his cervix pounding mad skillz in the sack.
But hey, if he needs inspiration, there is always Literotica ready, willing and able, to give him a clever turn of phrase, or even something close to an original idea.
What’s puzzling to me isn’t the claim that his schlong is enormous, but that it’s apparently … donut-shaped? I don’t know, that shape is usually invoked as a symbol of female genitalia. Weird.
Pecunium:
“Yep… when you (in the very comment you pretend to not be talking about the present state of affairs), say things like, The whole part about the “women and children first” meme just sailed over your pointy little head, didn’t it?”
Er, yeah. Did it perhaps escape your attention that my reference to that meme was in response to wot’s-her-face’s attempt to falsely extrapolate a remark on my part about the overall historical trend with regards to special treatment towards women in disaster situations from my initial response to Xtra and her somewhat wonky grasp of basic mathematics?
Ie. can you grasp that it had nothing to do with the “present state of affairs”?
Historical trend != current state of affairs.
^ This news to you?
*sits back and listens to the echo of question ricocheting off the inner walls of Pecunium’s skull*
Really? Can you cite a single statute that restricts people from gun ownership on the basis of gender? I wait with baited breath.
I may regret this. But what the hell.
MRAL, you seem to be conceptualizing gender issues as though it’s a zero-sum game of all-against-all. If something is bad for men, it must be for women’s benefit, and therefore women’s fault (or at least for women’s enjoyment.) If a woman says, “hey, as a woman, this thing sucks for me,” then it is imperative to counter that with something that sucks even more for men, because anything that makes things better for women must come at the expense of helping men.
Here is what you are missing. When feminists talk about “patriarchy,” we are not referring to a cabal of men running the world and making deliberate, mindful choices. We are not referring to a social system that benefits 100% of the men 100% of the time. What we have is a social system that assigns more value to some traits than others, and also assumes that some traits are inherent to men while other traits are inherent to women.
Our society valorizes a particular conception of masculinity. Men who do not meet these standards are not treated well. Men who do meet these standards may encounter other problems (for example, when “manly” is taken to mean “physically adventurous and unconcerned with risk,” you’re going to have a higher rate of accidents. When “manly” is taken to mean “reticent about emotional problems, and not really supposed to have much in the way of emotions anyway,” you’re going to have untreated mental illness and higher suicide rates.)
This picture of gender has set up male and female to be basically opposites. “Men face more physical danger” is the flipside of “women are weak and need protecting.” It’s not because society devalues men relative to women; it’s because of the traits that are treated as gender-specific. Men are strong and brave and capable; women are weak and frightened and dependent. Ergo, men are soldiers, and women stay home knitting socks (except, of course, when they don’t, which is more often than you might think.)
One of the reasons that you’re getting the pushback you complain about is that you seem incapable of seeing how these gender dynamics are bad for women. We’re saying “we don’t want to be treated as weak and frightened and dependent, because it’s insulting, limiting, and harmful,” and you’re saying “but you’re being protected! Clearly you are considered more valuable than I am!”
But really we’re all getting fed shit.
MRAL, how was the captain of the Titanic NOT reckless? His crew told him,”hey, we can’t see two feet in front of our face, and there are icebergs all over the place,” and he was like “eh, big whoop! full speed ahead!”
Really? Can you cite a single statute that restricts people from gun ownership on the basis of gender? I wait with baited breath.
Can you cite a single statute where employers are mandated by law to pay women less than men? You feminists love to claim that society can oppress a group without laws, but you can’t imagine how it could work against men. Walk into a gun store, flash your boobs, get guns. Don’t pretend you’ve never done this.
So, geese, (duck would have been better, what with the relative penile length, and all), what you are saying is… you didn’t really have anything to say, and the entire trenchant value of your comments really is “sugartits”.
Way to represent the side. I mean, the MRA must be in great shape if they can afford a specimen of your obvious acumen to be spending his time here, engaging in cut-rate middle school taunting sessions when there are real battles to be fought, manifestos to be written, declarations of intent to be published.
The very Halls of Feminism must be about to collapse, if such a titan as yourself can be spared from the fray just to take one woman’s, “wonky grasp of mathematics” apart when the war is being so hard fought on all fronts.
I salute you.
MRAL, how was the captain of the Titanic NOT reckless? His crew told him,”hey, we can’t see two feet in front of our face, and there are icebergs all over the place,” and he was like “eh, big whoop! full speed ahead!”
But only because his wife (who was of course safely at home) promised him sex if he’d do it. xD
STOP!!! YOU”RE KILLING ME!!!
So, geese, (duck would have been better, what with the relative penile length, and all), what you are saying is… you didn’t really have anything to say, and the entire trenchant value of your comments really is “sugartits”.
Must be a Capcom fan.
We do not claim that the law requires employers to pay women less than men — we claim that women get paid less than men, on average, for the same quantity and quality of work. That is a big difference. You stated that THE LAW restricts men from access to firearms. All I’m asking is that you cite the law that does so.
STOP!!! YOU”RE KILLING ME!!!
The men of the world aren’t that lucky.
The law restricts people from getting firearms. It’s only enforced for men. Should I explain how 1+1=2 also?
Geese is right, you are an idiot.
MRAs obsessed with dick size? Putting their fingers in their ears and shouting “LA LA LA LA UR SO ILLITERATE HUHHUH” when they’ve never read anything more challenging than a Star Wars novella?
How very…..
Walk into a gun store, flash your boobs, get guns. Don’t pretend you’ve never done this.
Every woman everywhere has bought a gun. Attempts to assert otherwise will be called out as the flimsy lies they are.
Pecunium:
“So, geese, (duck would have been better, what with the relative penile length, and all), what you are saying is… you didn’t really have anything to say, and the entire trenchant value of your comments really is “sugartits”.”
Nope. Go re-read my comments from the beginning. Take it slow now, grasshopper. (One word per 15-second interval should probably suffice as a speed limit, given your obviously limited intellect.)
Never! I never do this!! Unless the gun is pink and encrusted with diamonds. Does that count?
Xardoz:
Yup, that’s me! I’m such a handsome devil, no really.
I hate to blow this so soon, but aMIRA is a Poe. The alter ego of a Manboobz regular, in fact. Don’t waste your time trying to argue with hir, just sit back and marvel at how little difference there is between hir work and Geese’s.
What would have been really funny is if AntZ or Geese had spent some time agreeing and commiserating with aMIRA before this reveal. But on further consideration, I don’t think that would have happened. As far as I can tell, MRA’s are so totally solipsistic that they completely ignore their putative allies and try to kill feminism all by their lonesome.