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).
Unfortunately, now that the MRM tactics include impersonating women and feminists online in order to create fake proof of man-hatred, that’s no longer trustworthy. Meanwhile, good news for you, manosphere dudes — another body has been found, and it’s that of a woman. Why don’t you break out the champagne and send a congratulatory e-mail to her husband.
The Daily Mail attracts exactly the readers that it deserves. Claiming anything based on comments left there is like basing your theory on YouTube comments. Unless the point you’re trying to prove is that stupid people are stupid, it doesn’t tell you much.
Why would anyone, male or female, who isn’t a sexist idiot even be reading the Daily Mail?
“Really? The comments on the Daily Mail article on the accident prove you wrong…plenty of female comments about how ‘real men’ should be willing to let women go first. Y’all need to read a bit more outside your own sphere. Women on several news sites are lambasting men for getting into the lifeboats.”
Did you see my post directly above yours?
I was talking about the feminists here, not commentators in general. Of course there are still people who think that women should have gone first. There are plenty of MRAs, anti-feminists and people who just never really gave it any thought out there who consider women too weak and incompetent to take care of themselves and needing to be given seats in preference to men, but I haven’t seen a single woman here saying that we should be preferential treatment at other people’s expense.
Amused:
“Unfortunately, now that the MRM tactics include impersonating women and feminists online in order to create fake proof of man-hatred, that’s no longer trustworthy. Meanwhile, good news for you, manosphere dudes — another body has been found, and it’s that of a woman. Why don’t you break out the champagne and send a congratulatory e-mail to her husband.”
Just give them time…
Yeah, lots of women are sexist. It’s a goddamn shame. This is why we need feminism.
I am all on board with equal access to lifeboats. I am not so on board with “equal access to lifeboats means drowning women and I find this hilarious and rather blatantly arousing.”
For the lulz!! It’s one of the Daily Mail’s most recognizable trademarks
“Unfortunately, now that the MRM tactics include impersonating women and feminists online in order to create fake proof of man-hatred, ”
and the source you site is this blog? Any other independent proof that MRAs are pretending to be women online?
Is CBS news a better source then if you don’t like the Daily Mail? Women there were also telling men to ‘man up’ and let women on lifeboats first. It was claimed here that nowhere are there women demanding anything of the kind from men, but sorry to say that’s just wrong.
” I haven’t seen a single woman here saying that we should be preferential treatment at other people’s expense.”
Note the word “here”. Reading is fundamental, dude.
Wow, I read about 100 posts and so far NOT ONE has actually offered any logical argument as to why a woman should be given priority over a man when evacuating a sinking ship. It seems that it all comes down to female entitlement and male disposability.
Virtually every post is personally attacking Paul Elam or MRAs in general. Does that make you feel good? What a waste of time and space.
At least over on A Voice For Men there is some serious discussion and analysis of the topic, and yes the occasional humorous or tasteless comment too.
Has anybody seen or have a link to an evacuation plan for a cruise ship?
I’ve only seen one for our hospital, which says nothing about age or gender.
“Wow, I read about 100 posts and so far NOT ONE has actually offered any logical argument as to why a woman should be given priority over a man when evacuating a sinking ship. It seems that it all comes down to female entitlement and male disposability.”
Perhaps because “women should be given priority” is not an argument that anyone here is trying to make. But no! It can’t possibly be that there is an alternative to the MRA framing of this issue, where either women get priority or men do. Please ignore the many people suggesting that children, the elderly, and the disabled should get priority, since when women argue that children should get priority that makes it hard to call them entitled bitches and justify taking pleasure in the idea of them drowing.
(MRAs – bad at reading as well as spelling and grammar.)
And of course I dropped a letter on drowning. I think my subconscious is still going “there’s no way that they actually made jokes about how funny it is that people died, right?”.
So you didn’t read a defense of women getting priority in lifeboat distribution (truly, a pressing issue if there ever was one), and you’re still pissy about ‘female entitltement’? Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
Shit, son, making a big deal about lifeboats on fucking luxury cruises as if that says anything about gender relations shows just how fucking out of touch you are.
Any idiot who makes this moronic claim is eminently disposable in my book, gender be damned. It takes a special fucking person to whine about keeping women out of the military, whine that they can’t handle dangerous jobs, kvetch about how inferior women are in general, and then complain when dangerous and difficult work goes to men.
That would be because no one was suggesting that? Geez, you are stupid.
gateman, given that you guys are discussing this issue so seriously, could you tell me what the standard ship evacuation procedures are? What the laws are? Whether “women and children first” was ever codified into law, in the US or other countries or in the law of the sea? Whether it was or is the de facto evacuation procedure on ships other than the Titanic?
What does it even mean? That every woman and child should be evacuated before a single man is? Clearly that didn’t happen even on the Titanic. If men do not want to go after women, which would presumably happen a lot, how are men prevented from evacuating? What are the laws on this?
How many ships sink each year? How many people die on these ships? Do men die in disproportionate numbers (given their numbers relative to women on board)? Are ships more dangerous than other forms of travel?
Given that AVFM was planning an actual march on Washington to protest this issue, I would assume you have all these facts and many more at your fingertips.
Have you attempted to contact any elected officials to discuss these issues? Who are the key political players re maritime evacuation issues?
Or are you guys simply ranting about an imaginary issue without knowing shit about it?
No, that couldn’t be.
@Gateman: First, are you MRAL?
Second, the discussion HERE AT THIS SPOT noted the following:
1. One lesson TITANIC is every ship needs a sufficient number of lifeboats.
2. One lesson of various sinkings is that evacuation training on ships might be good (but speaking personally, I’d suspect most people would ignore it because they know they are so special it will never happen to them, and they’d rather hit the buffet).
3. Multiple commenters here made the point that priorities (for getting to the sufficient number of lifeboats) would be children (AND CARETAKERS) and elderly and disabled in the first groups, then able-bodied adults. With plans to make sure enough able bodied adults who could row were in each lifeboat.
You never read the “women first men disposable” because nobody HERE AT THIS SITE EXCEPT TROLL DUDEZ said it.
Also, HERE ON THIS SITE, people pointed how that archaic never codified into law fracking excuse for chivalry was created by MEN because women were perceived as equivalent to children and/or property.
And reading only 100 or so comments–pfffft. Wimp.
If you can’t read a thousand and understand ’em, get offa this site. You’re playing outta your league.
The AVFM article is responding to the news reports and commentary on many sites that state that the men who were not prepared to let women board lifeboats first were cowards and losers. This appears to be the predominant narrative in the media and in western culture driven by a combination of feminism and chivalry.
The Costa Concordia incident occurs against a backdrop of male disposability that perpetuates all western culture and that MRAs have been fighting against for some time.
The comments at many news websites touched a nerve amongst MRAs.
For some reason nearly all the comments here attack Paul Elam and AVFM for daring to suggest that men should stop being treated as 2nd-class citizens.
Look at the data on male health, male homelessness, war dead, male suicide rates, male workplace deaths, men’s greater criminal sentencing, anti-male family courts, ignorance of female-on-male domestic violence etc, etc. Tell me there is not an attitude that men are simply utilities to be used and discarded when no longer productive.
Laws do not state that women must go first on a sinking ship but legislation and the reality of life are 2 very different beasts.
Yesterday’s article at AVFM
http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/maligned/
Gateman:
“Wow, I read about 100 posts and so far NOT ONE has actually offered any logical argument as to why a woman should be given priority over a man when evacuating a sinking ship. It seems that it all comes down to female entitlement and male disposability.”
That would be because none of us actually believe that crap so we don’t feel called upon to defend it. Repeat after me: all human beings are equally important nobody should be given priority except those who are disabled, elderly, children or people who for some other good, physical reason, need extra help. NOBODY is disposable so, no, women should not have priority just because they’re women.
Is that clear enough?
How often do we have to say this before it gets through to you?
This situation can be avoided by 1. Having enough lifeboats 2. Having a competent crew who have planned for this eventuality and are trained to keep passengers calm, moving and taking care of their fellow human being and 3. Insisting that passengers are drilled before the ship even leaves the dock.
SaraGoku : ” Repeat after me: all human beings are equally important nobody should be given priority except those who are disabled, elderly, children or people who for some other good, physical reason, need extra help. NOBODY is disposable so, no, women should not have priority just because they’re women.
Is that clear enough?
How often do we have to say this before it gets through to you?”
Then why is everyone at this website attacking AVFM when the consensus there is THE EXACT SAME THING – that all people should be treated equally.
Sadly this website seems to be all about demonizing MRAs. Don’t you think MRAs have some valid points?
Good reading, terrible analysis. NOBODY SHOULD GET A PRIORITY WHEN EVACUATING SHIPS BASED ON GENDER. (although other things can be prioritized) Is that clear?
” Don’t you think MRAs have some valid points?”
No because they believe in stuff that doesn’t exist. Like women and children first. They also want feminists to drown cos they think it would be funny.
Gateman:
“Then why is everyone at this website attacking AVFM when the consensus there is THE EXACT SAME THING – that all people should be treated equally.”
Because AVfM claiming that we hold a position which we most certainly do not. They are either misunderstanding us or lying about our position so that they can manufacture outrage.
“Sadly this website seems to be all about demonizing MRAs. Don’t you think MRAs have some valid points?”
Many MRAs don’t seem to HAVE a point except that they hate feminists in particular and women in general and they will use any current issue in order to stoke their outrage. This is just a case in point. I have no idea why they consider that the deaths of women, as well as men and children during a cruise disaster to be something thing to celebrate. Some kind of “gocha” moment.
Men are no more and no less important than women. Nobody gets priority except those who need extra help because they are in some way disabled. Nobody is disposable. Every death is equally tragic.
Why is it that because some of the dead are women the MRA seem to think it’s some kind of victory?
Gateman: MRA’s blame WOMEN and/or FEMINISTS for the “horrible oppression” and disposability of men.
MRAs on the site David linked to are joking about drowning women.
The purpose of THIS SITE HERE is ‘mocking’ misogyny.
Any MRA or any MAN who blames women and/or feminists for the terrible oppression straight white men are suffering these days has no valid point whatsoever.
So, NOPE.
And if you cannot tell MOCKING from DEMONIZING, then get thee back to school.
PLUS, we don’t have to demonize them: LOOK AT THE CRAP THEY SPEW FROM THEIR OWN LITTLE MOUTHS. Granted, the mouths are attached to their heads which are so far up their asses that they can’t see out, but still.
No, because those who ID as MRAs takes a perverse pleasure in either making shit up, or taking a good point and doing everything in their power to convert it into a victory, or defeat, in their imaginary gender war. There is nothing wrong in looking after the interests of men. I’m a man and I’m always happy when someone hooks a brother up. I do, however, have a problem with people who want to do it at women’s expense, and the MRM is determined to do this.
Also, I hope that gateman IS MRAL, cos if not I find the MRM even MORE disgusting. If they are the ones that instilled ideas of male disposability into a depressed teen, they need to take a good long look in the mirror and wonder if the World isn’t better off if they never interact with it again (and just so you know MRAs, this is a redacted statement out of respect for David and the other people here who are a lot more compassionate than me)
This is probably the stupidest argument they’ve ever thrown up here.