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).
Says the man who made up a list of non-statements from others to ascribe to ami.
You noticed that too huh? xD
Have a good supper Pecunium 😀
We all agree then-Ami is Awesome.
@ Pecunium
“Ah… but you’ve not disappointed me. I expected you do refuse to face the facts, ergo I was not disappointed.
That you used an elision to incorporate a fallacy was no surprise.
The important aspect of, “at any given point” is that, in those circumstances (i.e. random selection), any given woman is as likely as not to be stronger than any given man.
We have already admitted the total distribution in the two sets has one group (B) falling outside the range of the other group (A). If sports teams were selected by lottery, with any member of the total population being at equal odds of being chosen there is no reason to have segregated sports.
But they aren’t. There is a great scene in Richard Ben Sapir’s “The Far Arena” where one of the protagonists, is recalling his college days. He’d been a good football player, and was hoping to make the pros… he wasn’t good enough. With as much money as is on the line, the selection will be for those who are best at the skills required for the sport.
When one of the skills is strength the 5 points at the upper end of the scale become critical in the selective pressures, which is why women aren’t seen in the ranks of pro-football, but they are more than competitive in things like pool and poker (though the relatively higher number of men in the latter skews the apparent abilities of women. It’s worth noting the lack of repeat, year for year, of the same names in the final table of tournaments. Poker is a game of skill, over the long run; but luck is crucial at points, and random chance… is random).”
Poker is a game of skill but football isn’t?
While what you say is true about 5 points in the upper end of the scale is critical you fail to mention that gender based sports is not just in the pro arena. It is also in every grade (from elementary to high school) as well as after school for competition. Meaning that gender based sports is something practiced by all age groups and all levels of professionalism. Not just on tv where the pros play.
Then you would be for only gender based sports in the professional arena and not for any other age group or competition group?
Ami Angelwings
Our troll is on his last legs.. he stopped being amusing 1.5 hours ago and 1 hour ago he desperately wanted out but his pride (his natural genetic XY pride) won’t let him go (reminds me a lot of Casey Mordred xD ) and now he’s down to personal insults xD
I’m on personal insults yet you call me the troll? lol
Yes my socially constructed view of men and women failing before me.
It is also in every grade (from elementary to high school) as well as after school for competition.
We didn’t have boys and girls team until grade 5… that’s not every grade o_O
Troll isn’t an insult, it’s a descriptive word (and in this case a v accurate one) 😀
@ Ami Angelwings
“No srsly… um… what? xD
Are you SURE you’re still having fun? You’ve suddenly gone into vicious personal insults o_O”
Sure I’m having fun or I could just leave. Why would I just continue on here if I wasn’t? But that was stretching what I said and……………you know it.
Yes my socially constructed view of men and women failing before me.
Good? :3
Sure I’m having fun or I could just leave. Why would I just continue on here if I wasn’t? But that was stretching what I said and……………you know it.
No I don’t o_O
I already explained why you continue here 😀
I think I found a sensitive spot … I thought men didn’t have any in their emotional carapace? xD
So back to something substantive.. when I play sports now… what are the genders of the ppl I play with? 😀
Or… do you wanna talk about some pro sports? 😀 Did you watch the Djokovic/Nadal final? Or do you want to talk about the Superbowl? 😀
I play pokers with dudes if that counts.
poker*
Pecunium
“But that advantage is rarely physical. It’s almost always structural; the victim is held against his/her will. Or do you think the people being tortured in Gitmo are staying there because they are physically weak?”
Up too a certain point. However structural is as factor only as long as individual using that structure have a physical advantage.
If you have 5 100lb men who are not as strong trying to hold down a 200 it is still a lot harder. Even with the structural component like working in a mental institution.
I think they got in Gitmo because there was intelligence involved and someone couldn’t outwit another person thus was caught and then captured through physical means.
Or trade rumours 😀 Like the NHL trade deadline is coming up… there’s a rumour the Leafs might trade for Nash, but I dunno if that contract or another winger is rly what they need, though he’s still a great player so maybe it is a good idea? It’s just a rumour of course xD
Or Leigh Steinberg filing for bankruptcy 🙁 I just heard about it now on the radio :
Joanna | January 31, 2012 at 5:47 pm
I play pokers with dudes if that counts.
Isn’t that physically impossible? xD What about the gender repulsion field?
I think they got in Gitmo because there was intelligence involved and someone couldn’t outwit another person thus was caught and then captured through physical means.
The same people who captured them aren’t the same people who are torturing them o_O
@ Ami Angelwings
“I think I found a sensitive spot … I thought men didn’t have any in their emotional carapace? xD”
I never said that men didn’t have emotion. What did I say?
I said that men guard their emotions for survival reason. As opening themselves up is vulnerable.
I said that by not being emotional and suppressing emotion it can be beneficial (boot camp and military argument).
*The people who captured them aren’t…
10) Ami is awesome 😀
I’m glad that feminists and MRAs are able to find common ground on this important issue.
XD
I don’t know why people object to the word troll, when the only other option is ‘incredibly thick’.
Like really, which one is preferable? Either way you lose.
“Isn’t that physically impossible? xD What about the gender repulsion field?”
I have to play in a bubble lest the world implode.
I never said that men didn’t have emotion.
Nor did I xD
I said a sensitive spot in their emotional carapace 😀