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).
Seriously, anyone who wants to preemptively replace his wife with AI solely because the possibility exists that she might leave him some day has no place lecturing anyone about how rational they’re being.
The squirrel cage in YOUR head must have been spinning into overdrive for you to interpret what I said as meaning that MRAs DO AGREE with Wood. I was merely pointing out that it’s the ‘men’s obligation to the women who take care of them’ portion of Wood’s traditionalism that gets MRA’s knickers in a twist.
Yes, that’s the conundrum that puts the MRA at an impasse.
Xtra… in case I wasn’t clear, I would rather passengers be boarded as they arrived.
@Amused
“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.”
You have me confused with Laura Wood. Do you want me to remind you what we think of Ms. Wood?
How long will it take your squirrel cage to deal with this one?
You say you are a lawyer. Are you able to examine facts at all? Read the MRM said to Ms. Wood — the “male supporting” proponent of all these things that you fear.
THE MRM IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK!
ARE YOU READY FOR THE TRUTH?
CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH?
So yes, I am against gender parity if it means that some people are barred from the lifeboats.
Xtra:
[quote]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?[/quote]
Because it would indicate that women likely did not receive preferential treatment vis-a-vis men. Unlike the existing figures, which show the exact opposite.
Yeah, I know. Math is *hard*.
“Seriously, anyone who wants to preemptively replace his wife with AI solely because the possibility exists that she might leave him some day has no place lecturing anyone about how rational they’re being.”
We need to keep repeating this sentiment wherever AZ appears.
Oooops, HTML fail
That would probably be the one who doesn’t classify diapering, feeding, bathing, and a host of other menial chores as “spending time with the children”.
AntZ: Really, don’t try to quote Nicholson. You’re no Jack Nicholson.
And if anyone has a problem with the truth, it’s you.
>>>324 women survived and 325 men survived the Titanic. Equality. The percentage of women vs men is much higher because there were many more men on board.
As much as I hate to agree with him, MRAL has a point here. If there were many more men on the ship than women, then if there are equal numbers of them on the safety boats, that means women were preferred (a woman had better odds of getting on the boat than a man).
For instance, in an hypothetical country where by law half of parliament must be blacks and half must be white (similar to the system in Lebanon, which is half Christians, half Muslims) and the only whites are the 10% of the population that descend from British colonials, there is a clear power imbalance even if someone were to attempt to argue that representation was fair because it’s equal between the two races (putting aside temporarily the problematic assumptions that race is a binary).
Yes, garbage. What is the reason you limited your answer to the 16-35 age range?
TELL US THE TRUTH, ANTZ!
Though if it involves splitting up the genders entirely and using the Mississipi as a divider, we’ve heard that one already.
THE MRM IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK!
It’s not a man who wants men and women to live on opposite sides of a river after VR sex becomes a fact?
I see MRAL, So you’d rather the advantage go to young healthy single men because
children tend to slow people down.
Interesting,you really believe your way doesn’t mean some people are barred from life boats.
Spoiler Alert on the TRUTH,
It involves splitting up the genders and using the Mississippi as a divider.
And Virtual Reality spouses for all.
“Yes, garbage. What is the reason you limited your answer to the 16-35 age range?”
Only two favoured groups. Others were all reduced survival chance (old and young).
The ship sank so fast, endurance. youth, and strength were paramount.
Why don’t you read the article that I linked?
Your hatred of Ms. Wood is based entirely on her belief that she is a valued subordinate to her husband, and that he has some obligations towards her. You DON’T hate Ms. Wood for her claims that women should have no civil rights and no economic opportunities. The MRM DOES want women to have no right to vote, no recourse against abusers, and no economic or employment opportunitites. The MRM DOES want women to have the legal status of chattel, and more than that, as we have seen countless times, your Spearhead friends want it to be entirely legal to rape and kill women, including little girls.
No one here will take you seriously Zarat, you have already proved yourself to be a clown.
Because it would indicate that women likely did not receive preferential treatment vis-a-vis men. Unlike the existing figures, which show the exact opposite.Because it would indicate that women likely did not receive preferential treatment vis-a-vis men. Unlike the existing figures, which show the exact opposite.
Actually, the existing figures in this thread don’t show that at all. Because the existing figures in this thread aren’t actually compilations over long periods, but exist for only a single disaster, which doesn’t really say anything about how disasters usually go. You’re going to need a lot more data sets than one disaster.
Science is hard, isn’t it?
Why don’t you give us the total casualties by gender? Is it because they don’t support your theories of men being “disposable” and women being “pampered”? Oh, I see — women are “pampered” unless “endurance youth and strength are paramount” — which is another way of saying that women are pampered unless they aren’t. Thanks for demonstrating once again how full of shit you are.
Whoop, html fail there.
Actually, the existing figures in this thread don’t show that at all. Because the existing figures in this thread aren’t actually compilations over long periods, but exist for only a single disaster, which doesn’t really say anything about how disasters usually go. You’re going to need a lot more data sets than one disaster.
Science is hard, isn’t it?
wtf, “advantages”? As I said, I’d rather children be given priority because they are helpless. Afterwards, I’d prefer we operate on a first-come, first-served basis.
Rutee, we’re talking about the Titanic, not any other disaster.
Reading comprehension is hard, isn’t it?
“That would probably be the one who doesn’t classify diapering, feeding, bathing, and a host of other menial chores as “spending time with the children”.”
I am not sure what you mean. I have two boys, I enjoy all the time I spend with them. Yesterday my 13 month old had a bad diaper accident that soiled his body, his clothes, and a big spot in the play room — all while my 6 year old was finishing his piano lesson. Cleaning this up while paying the music teacher was not too much fun. However, this is a rare thing. Most times, it is a delight to care for my children.
By the way, mom was out earning money while I was home with the kids.
Better get back in that squirrel cage 🙂
@Amused
You are smarter than that. Even in the young, fit age group, WOMEN STILL OUT-SURVIVED MEN. Just not by as much.