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).
He must have had too much fun xD (or it’s dinner time, as I predicted an hour ago xD )
Nope Ami Angelwings some people just have other things to do.
I make dinner around 7:00 it is 4:54.
By the way you may want to change that picture.
Just saying….
I think he likes you Ami! =o
Ami, he just tried to neg you!
And like most negs it left the intended target going “huh?”.
Man, after the dearth of entertaining trolls lately, this was pretty amusing.
“Man, after the dearth of entertaining trolls lately, this was pretty amusing.”
Nah, that guy making fun of your screen name has a special place in my heart.
After all, nobody here can effect any change for you.
Ami wins at affect/effect usage.
Nah, that guy making fun of your screen name has a special place in my heart.
That was fun.
efasfas: Then you would be for only gender based sports in the professional arena and not for any other age group or competition group?
I’d be for you engaging the arguments presented. But, all things being equal (i.e. teams chosen completely at random from the pool of interested individuals), yes, I have no problems with that, with some minor caveats to adjust for age differentials having some effect (for example, 13 year old girls are, by and large, more physically developed than 13 year old boys, and so tend to be stronger. The flip side is they tend to be a bit less co-ordinated; because they’ve not been that tall/large/strong for very long).
Taking a social construct (that males and females don’t play on the same teams), and also taking into account a different social construct (games like baseball/football/hockey) are “boys” games, and so the skills of throwing, etc. aren’t taught to girls [see Huck Finn, where Huck is caught out at pretending to be a girl because he knows how to catch a ball, but not how to thread a needle] is a different part of a different problem) and doesn’t relate to the question of strength,or skill, but rather the issue of “nurture.
So, when girls, who have not been taught those skills, are put into competition with boys, who have, of course the girls have a lesser skill set. It’s not a function of ability, but training.
Poker is a game of skill but football isn’t?
Again with either a strawman, or a failure of simple English. I will repeat the salient point:
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
Poker, (like pool) has been removed because it’s a game where the skills do not include brute strength. Implying that my comment about one thing being present in one game meant that I was excluding it from all the things I didn’t mention.
Now, would you like to talk about the way the military is run? It’s historical habits? Perhaps a detailed discussion of groups in places where they have limited resources and run the risk of a “Lord of the Flies situation.
Or do you desire to continue pretending all I mentioned was in relation to your poor grasp basic statistical truisms?
efasfas: Up too a certain point. However structural is as factor only as long as individual using that structure have a physical advantage.
Ever heard of Samuel Colt?
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.
I think you don’t know what you are talking about.
And… we still have a reading problem: I didn’t ask how they got there, I asked why they were staying. It must be because they are weak right? Nothing structural keeps them there, they are just choosing to stay.
I said that by not being emotional and suppressing emotion it can be beneficial (boot camp and military argument).
Care to try rebutting my response to that argument? It’s ok if you don’t, I’ll understand.
No, I’m not focusing on grammar so I can reply to others Hrmnn… this supports your admission of being a trifle dim. We tend to focus on grammar so that our replies to others are understood, and we don’t have waste time repeating/clarifying. This is, of course, a bit less useful when the reader doesn’t really understand/pay attention, but it’s still what the bright kids do.
And conflating emotional pain (an intellectual problem), with hunger (a physical problem) is nonsense. It’s (again) a sign of dishonesty, ignorance, or stupidity.
He negged me? o_O
I was playing Terraria xD
I get the feeling after today he hadn’t been PLANNING to stay but now he’s gonna be a regular troll for a few months (kinda like Ion “I TOTALLY HAVE A LIFE AND I”M PROVING IT BY TROLLING YOU FOR WEEKS AND WEEKS” xD ) b/c he’s not gonna be able to let go of this (and apparently me o_O XD )
Joanna | January 31, 2012 at 6:56 pm
I think he likes you Ami! =o
It wouldn’t be the first XD Mellertron likes me too… and I had that creepy stalker guy on NSWATM, and the other guys on NSWATM who told me how attractive I am… xD
Oh he clearly totally completely wasn’t upset or bothered at all XD
nope >_>
Well there is several arguments against that.
Ok…well, let me know if you get around to making any of them, instead of just repeating unsupported assertions.
There is substantial evidence that children who are taught to identify, understand, and manage their emotions are more successful in school, relationships, and work. There is substantial evidence of the value of psychotherapy in helping people–both men and women–to function better. Your repeated assertion that talking about feelings accomplishes nothing is simply false.
It’s a bit like trying to explain calculus to a preschooler, isn’t it?
Well I was going to leave but just for you, I’ll respond just once. More for my pleasure then anything else of completely owing you. 🙂
“I’d be for you engaging the arguments presented.”
Again, a skinny white man bitch (saw your profile about how you broke your ankle–trifle dim) who talks–no glamours–about being frustrated that I don’t take time just to focus should, by and large, shut the fuck up and deal with it.
“But, all things being equal (i.e. teams chosen completely at random from the pool of interested individuals), yes, I have no problems with that, with some minor caveats to adjust for age differentials having some effect (for example, 13 year old girls are, by and large, more physically developed than 13 year old boys, and so tend to be stronger. The flip side is they tend to be a bit less co-ordinated; because they’ve not been that tall/large/strong for very long).”
So far, consistent. Coordinated doesn’t have a hyphen. And, you shouldn’t put entire sentences in parentheses. Parentheses are used to explain certain ideas, not further riddle with sentences. The commas got raped too much, and you don’t know when you to exactly use it. Basically, my English teachers would’ve given you a F for being such a failure.
“Taking a social construct (that males and females don’t play on the same teams), and also taking into account a different social construct (games like baseball/football/hockey) are “boys” games, and so the skills of throwing, etc. aren’t taught to girls [see Huck Finn, where Huck is caught out at pretending to be a girl because he knows how to catch a ball, but not how to thread a needle] is a different part of a different problem)…”
Gee, statistical smart ass, how do you factor in these social constructs? What mathematical equation do you use? Social constructionism (with such small empirical evidence) has no actual validity other then a few sparse experiments that where badly run by marxist hippies during the 1960s?
You point to a fictional character and yet bitch when I point to a fictional book. Is your age causing you memory loss? Or perhaps all the meth you did in the 60s did, old man.
“…and doesn’t relate to the question of strength,or skill, but rather the issue of ‘nurture.'”
Simple idiots like you never have taken a basic biology course, but rather some “social science” garbage. Genes are turned on by environment and objects in environment are turning on by genes. Nurture is not separate indistinguishable from nature. Nurture is comprised of atoms and molecules. Get it now? Good.
Muscular development can strengthen due to practice and skill. For example by throwing a ball you are utilizing your tricep brachii muscles over again and thus causing the sarcomeres to get larger by tearing. Strength is need to throw the ball farther. Fast twitch muscles hone this in to be precise. Practice can help with that. It doesn’t “prove” that nurture just comes into being separate then what nurture is action on–the body. Now that we cleared that simpleton, lets move on.
“So, when girls, who have not been taught those skills, are put into competition with boys, who have, of course the girls have a lesser skill set. It’s not a function of ability, but training.”
Except girls do get taught those skills and STILL not perform equally to men. Training means that there is plasticity in the ways muscles (and other tissues can develop) can develop. Do you think pros are the only people who train? Children have coaches too. Simple put, you are an egalitarian idiot.
“Again with either a strawman, or a failure of simple English. I will repeat the salient point:
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”
Now if you’re going to be a little white man bitch and whine about grammar, please don’t italicize what I write and then italicize all your quote. If you want to re-quote what you wrote you should put it in quotations marks. Quotations marks are for quoting. Just being picky.
“Poker, (like pool) has been removed because it’s a game where the skills do not include brute strength. Implying that my comment about one thing being present in one game meant that I was excluding it from all the things I didn’t mention.”
Strength isn’t just “brute strength,” simpleton. Different muscle fibers are for different activities.Oxidative muscles are different than fast twitch muscles. By working fast twitch muscles, you are, in a sense, getting stronger. It doesn’t allude to teachable skill but rather fine muscle coordination due to strengths specific types of muscles. When I work my flexor digitorum superficialis muscle, there are more fast twitch muscles then what you would find in, say you biceps brachii. Granted coaching may help it but that doesn’t change that muscle strength still is the driving force. You’re just an idiot who has never taken basic physio. I hope you are not a professor. Good luck with that ankle.
“Now, would you like to talk about the way the military is run? It’s historical habits? Perhaps a detailed discussion of groups in places where they have limited resources and run the risk of a “Lord of the Flies situation.”
I have quite had enough with you, to be honest. It was fun while it lasted, but your time ran out.
“Or do you desire to continue pretending all I mentioned was in relation to your poor grasp basic statistical truisms?”
Fail. On every level. You couldn’t even hear what I was telling you because your head is– dare I say–too far up your ass. I will play with you no more on the subject.
“I think you don’t know what you are talking about.
And… we still have a reading problem:”
If I had too constantly repeat what I’m trying to tell you and you continue regress back to your 50/50 argument about how men and women would, of course, be unequal due to the random sampling where 5 point different is key in the prof sphere, then I don’t want to hear that from you.
“…I didn’t ask how they got there, I asked why they were staying. It must be because they are weak right? Nothing structural keeps them there, they are just choosing to stay.”
Assuming that someone is keeping someone else to stay, use of force is necessary. The person with the strongest use of force wins. It also means someone who has some intellectual advantage to out smart a prison guard escape. As these two forces collide the one with the advantages that outweigh–or out preform–wins through some means of a prison break or subduing.
“Hrmnn… this supports your admission of being a trifle dim. We tend to focus on grammar so that our replies to others are understood, and we don’t have waste time repeating/clarifying. This is, of course, a bit less useful when the reader doesn’t really understand/pay attention, but it’s still what the bright kids do.”
“…” is used when quoting a quote that isn’t a complete sentence, not for long pauses (where you come across as retarded). I didn’t know I had to try to impress an insufferable idiot who has no understanding of basic musculoskeletal anatomy. Sorry. You are a worm. You are so stupid and incompetent with dualistic views of “nature v. nurture (where if it isn’t one, it is the other).”
“And conflating emotional pain (an intellectual problem), with hunger (a physical problem) is nonsense. It’s (again) a sign of dishonesty, ignorance, or stupidity.”
Well don’t say that too loud because you friend may argue that hunger can have emotional components as well. Unless of course, you ignore everyone else to focus your “intellect” upon me.
Besides, it was a analogy.
Again, showing your stupidity by not realizing that every intellectual problem (or pain) starts in the brain, a physical organ (where the intellectual and physical are not mutually exclusive). Your idea of “nature v. nurture; the grand divide” reals its ugly head (again). You need to go back to 7th grade and stay there. If you can vote, no wonder why democracy fails. You are a danger to people’s health. Your stupidity knows no bounds. I can only hope and pray, that like a cancer you consume yourself, and then go out.
Unless, of course, you’re Pecunium, who’s intelligence is not based on any physical reality (like the brain). Rather, it is nowhere–where it belongs.
“Well I was going to leave but just for you, I’ll respond just once. More for my pleasure then anything else of completely owing you.”
Yep, he doesn’t care at all! No sir!
BTW, the word you want in that last sentence is “than”, not “then”.
More for my pleasure then anything else of completely owing you.
My dear boy, I don’t think you can begin to comprehend how much you owe Pecunium.
Even Brandon was better than this troll. This one’s sentence structure makes me want to poke my own eyes out with a red pen.
efasfas | January 31, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Well I was going to leave but just for you, I’ll respond just once. More for my pleasure then anything else of completely owing you. 🙂
I told you he felt compelled to stay here xD I’m betting 3 months… at least
You don’t owe us anything you know that right? xD
Besides, it was a analogy.
And a bad one. XD
Not all analogies are equal, you know that right? xD
Assuming that someone is keeping someone else to stay, use of force is necessary. The person with the strongest use of force wins.
I’ve kept you here for over a day without using force, and you’re going to be back XD I wouldn’t be so sure about that theory xD
You point to a fictional character and yet bitch when I point to a fictional book.
Do you understand what linear time is? xD
Quick! Which happened first? o:
Again, showing your stupidity by not realizing that every intellectual problem (or pain) starts in the brain, a physical organ (where the intellectual and physical are not mutually exclusive). Your idea of “nature v. nurture; the grand divide” reals its ugly head (again). You need to go back to 7th grade and stay there. If you can vote, no wonder why democracy fails. You are a danger to people’s health. Your stupidity knows no bounds. I can only hope and pray, that like a cancer you consume yourself, and then go out.
Unless, of course, you’re Pecunium, who’s intelligence is not based on any physical reality (like the brain). Rather, it is nowhere–where it belongs.
Nope. Not upset AT ALL. xD