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).
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?