The Titanic sank 100 years ago today, and Men’s Rights Activists are still pissed off about it.
They’re not really pissed off that it sank. They’re pissed off that the men on board were more likely to go down with the ship than the women. You know, that whole “women and children first” thing.
Some MRAs were so pissed off about this that they were planning to march on Washington on this very day in an attempt, as they put it, to “Sink Misandry.”
You don’t know how much I would have loved to see this, a dozen angry dudes marching in circles on the National Mall carrying signs protesting the sinking of the Titanic and demanding that in all future sinkings of the Titanic that women and men be equally likely to drown in the cold waters of the North Atlantic. For that would be justice at last!
But, alas, due to unspecified logistical problems this march was cancelled some months back, and so misandry remains unsunk.
Or does it?
For you see, it turns out that the whole “women and children first” thing was not really a thing. Oh, on The Titanic it was. But women unfortunate enough to be passengers on sinking ships that weren’t the Titanic (or the HMS Birkenhead, which sunk off the coast of South Africa in 1852) weren’t able to push ahead to the front of the line. That, at least, is the conclusion of a new Swedish study (link is to a pdf of it).
The chivalrous code “women and children first” appears to have sunk with the Titanic 100 years ago.
Long believed to be the golden standard of conduct in a shipwreck, the noble edict is in fact “a myth that has been nourished by the Titanic disaster,” economist Mikael Elinder of Uppsala University, Sweden, told Discovery News.
Elinder and colleague Oscar Erixson analyzed a database of 18 peace-time shipwrecks over the period 1852–2011 in a new study into survival advantages at sea disasters.
Looking at the fate of over 15,000 people of more than 30 nationalities, the researchers found that more women and children die than men in maritime disasters, while captains and crew have a greater chance of survival than any passengers.
Being a woman was an advantage on only two ships: on the Birkenhead in 1852 and on the Titanic in 1912.
The notion of “women and children first” may have captured the popular imagination, but it’s never been an official policy for ship evacuations. It wouldn’t be fair, nor would it be an efficient way to get as many people as possible to safety.
Nor was “women and children” strictly enforced even on the Titanic. True, my great-grandfather, the mystery writer Jacques Futrelle, was one of those who went down with the ship, while his wife and my great-grandmother, writer Lily May Futrelle made it off safely (in the last lifeboat). But there were many men who survived, and many women who died.
If you want to get mad about the sinking of the Titanic all those years ago, get mad at the White Star Line for not bothering to equip the ship with lifeboats enough for everyone on it. Blame the captain, for ordering the ship to continue plowing ahead on a dark, foggy night into an area of the Atlantic where numerous icebergs had just been sighted by a number of other ships. Blame the crew for botching the evacuation – for the strange lack of urgency after the ship hit the iceberg, for the lifeboats leaving the sinking ship with half as many passengers as they could fit.
Much like the iceberg that sank the Titanic, Elinder and Erixson’s research has poked a giant hole in the “women and children first” myth. Of course, MRAs aren’t interested in historical accuracy. They’re looking for excuses to demonize women and feminists. So I imagine we’ll be hearing about the Titanic from them for years to come.
Here’s another tragic sinking, of yet another ship without a sufficient number of lifeboats:
EDIT: I added a couple of relevant links and fixed a somewhat egregious typo.
BASTA!, you are arguing from your outrage not from the facts, which makes your argument weak. As Pecunium says, show your work. It is not a strong argument to say ‘Because the UN said it, it is gender-political, and therefore wrong.’ That is just laziness. BTW, no one said that all men shoved all women out of the way, that’s a straw man.
We do put an adequate number of lifeboats on cruise ships now. We learned from the Titanic disaster and that’s why there was the Safety of Life at Sea Convention. Cruise ships also have plenty of life vests in all sizes for their passengers and they run safety drills to teach people how to get to their muster stations during a power outage. This doesn’t guarantee a 100% survival rate on a sinking ship, but it’s the better than it was before the Titanic. I did say that saving everyone is the ideal, but if that’s not possible, then children should be given first priority.
I’m also getting sick and tired of MRA’s saying how easy it is for women during natural disasters. Bullshit, natural disasters are hard for both men and women, and it’s even harder for small children and people with disabilities. Nobody is asking you to sacrifice your life for other people in disasters, so calm down. I already feel guilty that I survived the tornado last year while 161 people died. I also felt guilty accepting clothing donations, meals, and toiletries to make it while waiting for insurance money. By the way, the Red Cross and other relief organizations also gave aid to my husband and sons. That must blow your mind that people help male victims of disasters, too.
If your agenda here, BASTA, is to say that women that survive disasters are evil, then just come out and say it. If not, then clarify your points because that’s how it looks to me.
Sorry to double post, but I just want to say how low it is for someone like BASTA to criticize the women in Haiti waiting in lines to get food for their families. They just lost their homes, some of them lost loved ones, and they were responsible for making sure their surviving family members could survive the aftermath. There was so much to do, they didn’t even have any time to grieve. It makes me sick for him to look at them and be jealous that they have women only lines after being pushed around in the other lines. It’s just kicking someone when they’re down.
I know that post-earthquake Haiti is an example MRAs LOVE to use to show how evil and pro-women the world is, but I never quite grok what their underlying argument is. It seems to be that the people in charge of distributing emergency resources shouldn’t make sure that those resources go to pregnant and nursing women or people caring for infants and young children (overwhelmingly women). And that the people in charge of distributing those resources should ignore the circumstances around them — that women are getting displaced in food lines by young men, and raped at their camps — and the social context of the country they’re working in — women are more likely to be caring for elderly and injured relatives, young children, and other people who cannot stand in food lines and care for themselves.
The UN actually (about 10 years ago, if I remember correctly) came out with a report that basically said that distributing resources to women in emergencies was not the best option, since (I’m paraphrasing) it’s likely to make the men feel emasculated in their homes, possibly leading to increased DV. I think that’s interesting, although I’m totally wary of a study whose results are: Men are bad, so let’s not upset the little man-babies! Anyway, this is to say that I’m not entirely convinced that a system where food is distributed to women only is the best in every situation, but I also haven’t heard that single Haitian men died en masse of starvation after the food-distribution system was changed, nor that women have been sitting pretty ever since on their piles of rice, demanding pledges of sperm to show fealty to the matriarchy. In fact, from what I’ve read about Haiti in the past two years, things are still really grim there for women and girls, as far as lack of access to resources (clean water, etc.), and increased instances of rape.
So, what are MRAs upset about, actually, again?
Others have already pointed out all the major ways in which your post was dumb, but I just wanted to quickly add this comparatively minor issue: are you somehow under the impression that the average man does not have a mother, grandmother, sister, daughter, granddaughter, aunt, niece, female cousin, female co-worker, female neighbor, or female friend? Because unless you believe that being single is the same thing as “having no members of the opposite sex in your life in any capacity,” it’s silly to pretend that “single men” are significantly more at risk of being overlooked here.
Another thing is that just allowing the bullies to push women and children and steal their food would cause a lot of conflict. Those women have families and friends, too. If some violent men hurt them to get their food, the family members and friends would probably want to fight them. Food aid distribution centers do not need those kinds of brawls in their lines. The aid centers should be orderly and peaceful, not chaotic.
@pecunium (quoting out of order):
… but when when only some women are guilty of something, then it does matter that it’s only some women, right?
Bullshit. What I rejected was not the experience of UNWFP members who were there, because their testimonies were not in the news piece quoted. The editor who assembled that piece from newswires hasn’t interviewed the workers, but only re-re-re-re-requoted a claim that can only be traced to the UN vyerkhushka, put forth as a post-hoc explanation for instituting the women-only policy. If you can put me in touch with an actual worker who can prove having been there, and that person will testify that indeed men were on a large scale pushing women out of the queue, then I might start rethinking the issue. Until then I consider those “reports” blatant slanderous lies fabricated by feminist operatives in the UN structures.
That’s some complex social dynamic you paint here in support of the embarrassingly simplistic solution amounting to declaring that women are worthy, and men are unworthy of assistance. And yes, when scarcity mentality kicks in, it is fucking expected of men that they do the fighting for resources. Those who unambiguously communicate the expectation to men are often women. Wanna talk about this? Or do you just want men to starve as a punishment for having little choice but to play the role you as a feminist purportedly want abolished?
@Basta!:
And do you have any evidence that this is the case? This is terrible reasoning. Let’s say that I told you I went out to dinner last night. Would it be reasonable to say “Well, until I get a first-hand account from your waitor/waitress that you indeed had dinner, I’m going to assume you stole a car, robbed a bank, and shot three police officers”? No. Because assuming that what you want to be true is true when there is any evidence to the contrary and no supporting evidence is stupid.
The evidence that is out there is the UN’s rationale. Unless you heard a conflicting account from someone else that was involved, then you have no reason to doubt it (it isn’t a particularly wild claim anyway).
You’re blaming the Haitian women for the the actions of the bullies in the aid distribution lines? Some of those thieves were selling the stolen food back to the same women they had pushed and hurt. They were making a profit off of their desperation, not stealing on behalf of their girlfriends and wives. Stop blaming the victims.
In other words, any data that contradicts your worldview is feminist and not to be trusted. Are you Buttman? He argues like this, too.
@ENOUGH!
If you can put me in touch with an actual Haitian man who can prove having been there, and that person will testify that indeed feminist operatives in the UN structures were fabricating their reports, or that Haitian women were unambiguously communicating to all or even most Haitian men their uniform (lady hivemind) expectation that they should do all the fighting for resources, no doubt while those Haitian women were reclining on chaise longues and eating bonbons, I might start rethinking the issue. Until then, I will just consider you an ignorant fuckwit who has neither a logical argument nor any facts in support of your position.
But the UN’s explanation is more plausible! I mean, which makes more sense, “we created separate lines so women could get food,” or “we created separate lines because LOL WE HATE MEN”? Why do you even think that they did that?
No, “misandry” is not an explanation. If we look at examples of misogyny, most of them have reasons behind them (as an example, “women are pure angels of the home who shouldn’t be sullied by silly things like voting”), they are not just “the tears of women make us happy and fill our hearts with joy and laughter.”
Basta, you have also ignored my own life experience where my husband and sons received just as much help as me after surviving a disaster. The relief organizations ensured that everyone who needed water, food, clothes, and supplies could have what they needed. Haiti was a different situation because there was a break down in law and order, so some men used their stregth to be steal food from women, children, and the elderly. You refuse to acknowledge these facts because they get in the way of your desire to bash women.
That is quite possible, but between that and denying food to all men regardless of their behavior there is a justification leap that you don’t allow when the bad guys happen to be bad gals, do you?
Stop punishing the innocent.
That’s not what happened, read the fucking report. Getting served second is not never getting served. Idiots.
Stop existing in an alternate fucking reality.
Also, stop making up a hypothetical gender-swap, then accuse us of double standards that only exist in your imagination.
If there was an alternate universe where women were pushing men around, stealing their food, and then selling it back to them for profit, then I would understand if The World Food Program set up lines for men only. Seriously, are you Buttman? You sure sound like him.
@ozymandias42:
What separate lines? Lines for women and lines for men? That would be more than OK with me. In fact that’s precisely what I considered proposing as a tertium to the false binary of everyone for themselves vs. women first. But that’s not what news reports about the policy say. The picture that emerges from everything I’ve read on the issue is that UNWFP just refused to give any food to men at all, anywhere in Haiti, and there were only lines for women, period.
@Kendra:
Yes I have, because I am focused on what is wrong, and your experience is an example of things sometimes being right.
Except when it is.
If you are served second, then you are served. Basic logic, BASTA. Not even logic, just… English.
Except when what you’re served is “come tomorrow”.
That doesn’t even make sense by your own words, which were that men were being refused outright.
And I’m sure that none of what you read came from site that confirmed your bias.
Hot damn, this one is stupid.
Even if said words of mine weren’t currently under self-imposed revision pending response from ozymandias42, hearing “come back tomorrow” every day would still be perfectly equivalent to hearing “just go away”.
Okay, then you’ll admit that the male tornado victims were treated right last year in Joplin. People were able to access any food, medicine, clothes, and supplies they needed and there was no conflict. One reason is that the police and national guard were able to keep law and order with curfews and restricting access to the hardest hit zones for a while. Another reason is that generous people from all over the US sent in more clothes and food than the victims could even use. The aftermath was handled as smoothly as possible given the circumstances.
The situation in Haiti was much worse. The affected population was huge, with 3 million people affected and 1 million left homeless. They didn’t have the infrastructure and human resources necessary to quickly deliver aid to those most in need. There was a lack of clean water, medicine, and food, causing those supplies to become a form of currency. Given those challenges, it was very difficult for the UN World Food Program to ensure that women and children could get any food at all without setting up lines for women only.
I told you my experience to show you that men are not considered disposable during or after disasters. However, that doesn’t mean that a tornado that wiped out 1/4 of a city of 50,000 people is in the same ballpark as an earthquake that leveled Port-au-Prince.
@BASTA!:
Except that we’re still just dealing with hypotheticals. So all you’re really saying is that you can invent a situation in which people would agree with you. I know some of our trolls have trouble even with that, but still.