Over at Man Boobz, David Futrelle has been talking about a recent Swedish study looking at the ‘women and children first’ phenomenon. Futrelle claims this study debunks the idea that men sacrificed their lives for women, writing that:
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.
He goes on to quote a Discovery News story about the study:
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.
(Emphasis added by Futrelle, in a classic piece of goalpost shifting that I will deconstruct shortly.)
Unfortunately for Futrelle and others opposed to the MRM, the study does not show that the ‘women and children first’ orientation was a myth. In fact, it demonstrates that it was a very real, and very common, practice, prior to the end of the first World War.
What The Study Actually Shows
The study looked at 18 shipwrecks of passenger ships from 1852 to 2011. In two of those incidents, it’s unknown whether the captain gave the ‘women and children first’ order. That leaves 16 shipwrecks. Ten of those occurred prior to the end of World War I. Out of those ten, the ‘women and children first’ order was given on five occasions. In other words, this ‘mythic’ order actually occurred half the time during that period.
From reading Futrelle, though, one would be led to believe that 50% = 0%.
Now it’s true that in the six shipwrecks in the study that occurred after the end of World War I (where it could be ascertained whether the ‘women and children first’ order was given), the order was not given. The last time the order was known to be given was on the RMS Lusitania in 1915, so it’s true that this bit of naval chivalry appears to have died out about a century ago, at least as a matter of official policy.
But Futrelle makes no such distinctions and appears to be promoting the idea that the whole notion was a “myth” and not something that was common at one point, but has since died out. He does this first by downplaying the significance of the Titanic and Birkenhead disasters as if they were minor exceptions, instead of acknowledging that in fact they constitute 20% of the pre-Armistice shipwreck sample and more than 10% of the overall database by incident. By total passengers, the Titanic alone comprises over 15% of the overall database (according to charts in Appendix C of the study)*.
He and others also, as noted, engage in a classic bit of goalpost shifting by changing the question under analysis from ‘Did men sacrifice their lives to save women?’ to ‘Did women’s survival rate exceed men’s?’ As the study itself noted, men are physically stronger as a group, and this likely has considerable value in disaster situations where one has to deal with awkward floor angles, debris, and the need to stay afloat. Moreover, it should also be noted that in past eras women were burdened with considerably more restrictive clothing than they are today, and probably were less likely to have been allowed to engage in physical activities like swimming than men … two factors which almost certainly depressed their survival rates in these kinds of disasters.
So, men did out-survive women in these situations overall, despite the fact that many men also gave up their lives to save women and children. In the Titanic disaster, for example, 83% of the men perished, while only 25% of the women died. Futrelle, however, wants us to ignore the gender disparity in this particular disaster, and focus instead on “the White Star Line” owners of the ship, “the crew,” and “the captain” … all richly deserving of condemnation, no doubt, but their culpability doesn’t change the reality that hundreds of men died so that hundreds of women could live.
Finally, the mixing of ‘women and children’ conceptually in some observations is inherently misleading. The study shows that (not unexpectedly) children had lower survival rates in these disasters than adults. So even if men and women had equal survival rates, it would still be true that ‘women and children’ (as a group) would have a lower survival rate than ‘men’ as a group. (The study shows that overall, 73% of the women died and 63% of the men died.)
UPDATE: The evidence shows that ‘women and children first’ was an even more important phenomenon than I thought. Be sure to read my followup post which explains why.
* Appendix C shows that there were just over 8,600 passengers in the study’s main sample, of which around 1,300 were from the Titanic. If you add crew, the grand total comes to about 11,000 people. I’m not certain about the source of the discrepancy between those totals and other references suggesting that the study encompassed “15,000” people, but it could be due to the set of people whose genders could not be determined and who were therefore omitted from the tables in Appendix C. There is likely a valid explanation for this in a section of the study I glossed over.
This comment thread is the “No Hostility” thread. Please read this and this for the ground rules. The “Regular Parallel” thread can be found here.
So in other words Futruelle is still resorting to partial truths and cherry picking in order to make MRAs look bad? He has no problem finding real problems among them so why do this type of stuff?
Funny that. Supposedly MRAs are so terrible but time and again people need to resort to tactics like this in order discredit them? (I wonder how many people challenged it over there?)
If Futurelle is looking for a cause and someone to inveigh against, he might turn his righteous indignation on RadFemHub.
“As the study itself noted, men are physically stronger as a group, and this likely has considerable value in disaster situations where one has to deal with awkward floor angles, debris, and the need to stay afloat. Moreover, it should also be noted that in past eras women were burdened with considerably more restrictive clothing than they are today, and probably were less likely to have been allowed to engage in physical activities like swimming than men … two factors which almost certainly depressed their survival rates in these kinds of disasters.”
I have to say, these factors would tend to justify the order.
My own guess on this: let’s assume that both women and children are less capable of survival, that there are enough lifeboats, and that all lives are valued equally. In some situations, getting the women and children on first, and then the men, will maximise the expected number of survivors, because it gives the best chance that everyone will survive. In this case, the correct order is “women and children first”.
In other, more desperate, situations, likely the only survivors will be the most capable. In this case, the correct order is “every man for himself”.
My guess is that women usually travel – or used to travel – far more often with children. Surviving alone is of course much easier. In the same vein I’m pretty sure that fathers with children abroad drowned more often.
Sagredo, I’m not sure the unfair disadvantages suffered by women would have “justified” placing unrelated men at greater risk, but I can see how such things would have made a ‘women and children first’ order understandable. Just to be clear, though, I’m not arguing the morality of the order one way or the other. I was simply pointing out that it was disingenuous for Futrelle to claim that it was a “myth.”
Welcome to the blog, tomppeli.
Why would ignoring the women-and-children-first rule make men look bad? As a feminist, Futrelle should be thrilled to see that no gender favoritism was shown and that women were not treated as privileged/helpless victims to be sheltered.
Men sacrificing their lives for women is something all enlightened feminists should condemn. If they’re serious about equality, that is.
“Men sacrificing their lives for women is something all enlightened feminists should condemn. If they’re serious about equality, that is.”
This specific behavior and all forms of it – opening doors, offering help where it wasn’t needed, all that , was a big fat target of Second Wavers. It was called male chauvinism.
“My guess is that women usually travel – or used to travel – far more often with children. Surviving alone is of course much easier.”
tomppeli, women traveling by themselves is relatively new, with or without children. I just finished reading Mansfield Park – 1814 – and at one point the female protagonist wants to leave Portsmouth and return to Mansfield Park. She is completely dependent on waiting for some man in the family to escort her. And even if she had had independent means to travel – she didn’t, and that was normal – she would still have neeeded and escort. And that escort had to be a man of her own station or higher – the coachman did not qualify as a “man” to escort her.
So even without children, women were considered dependent on male protection, and it would be quite normal to epect aman to risk quite a lot to protect a woman.
[...] of the figures in the Mikael Elinder/Oscar Erixson study of maritime disasters I referenced in my previous post. They shed some additional light on what appears to me to be a somewhat biased handling of the data [...]
[...] of the figures in the Mikael Elinder/Oscar Erixson study of maritime disasters I referenced in my previous post. They shed some additional light on what appears to me to be a somewhat biased handling of the data [...]
I happened to read that thread. In my opinion, the thread was more about whether or not the “women and children first ” was as popular in disasters as is commonly thought. My guess is that the average person believes that women and children first always happened, when it seems by the analysis here that it was a coin toss.
Feminists on the site were not outraged that chivalry is no longer the case. There was discussion about how children, the elderly and the disabled should be given preference.
@pillowinhell, your analysis of that thread still boils down to that thread being full of invalid arguments.
It wasn’t a “coin toss” for the same exact reason that in some other quarters of society, a black man walking down the street and getting lynched wasn’t just a “coin toss.” Certain things don’t have to happen each and every single time for it to rise to the level of social injustice. These feminists are trying to string together an argument that would dismiss female privilege throughout history. Here, their main weapon of choice seems to be the false analogy. Not ordering Women And Children First is not the opposite of ordering it. The disasters where the order wasn’t given do not make up for, or cancel out, any of the disasters where the order wasn’t given, as David Futrelle argued.
It’s also completely irrelevant that feminists believe that children, the elderly, and disabled should be given preference. It’s moving the goal posts in response to men who say that Women and Children First is wrong. Elderly and disabled men are excluded by Women and Children First, as well as the only people required to make a sacrifice are men – any kind of men. Today, some women believe that they, too, might step aside for children and elderly, but no one in history has ever forced them to do that against their will and when push comes to shove, they still want men to make the sacrifice. An elderly man for a young woman? Well, at most they should be equal – right? And if the elderly man is a gracious gentleman, he will give up his spot for the young woman anyway. This is as far as feminism will carry the water. They get cornered with female privilege and instead of acknowledging it, they try to shame men by making them sound selfish because of of something unrelated. If it wasn’t about twisting the standard to being about the young, elderly, and disabled, then they’d say it was about abused kittens stuck in trees.
dungone
you don’t agree with the arguments and that”s fine.
You are trying to equate your views of male disposability with racist attitudes and slavery? i say this is a false equivalence, one that often is used in the feminist community and erases the scope and horror of Black history and events both then and now. Its not every last man is targeted like this and its not as if men are hunted down and lynched for failing to give their lives to a woman in distress. At most, he might recieve some harsh judgement from society, and his family will likely be bloody happy to see he survived.
its not a “privilege” to wear restrictive clothing, to not have the freedom to run and excercise in ways that develop strength and endurance or to know that when you really find yourself in trouble you have to relie on the abilities and kindness and strength of men who do not know or care about you (and may not be able to provide what is needed anyways). Women in that time period were not often taught to swim and swim suits of the era were suitable for wading at best. it was more important that a woman be seen as modest than to use appropriate gear for the task being done… ever try riding sidesaddle? or in this case wearing clothing that will tangle around your legs and weigh you down while swimming? It is no privilege to be seen as helpless, to be rendered helpless by custom and clothing, and is often a danger regardless of ones gender.
Feminists on the thread support children, the elderly and the disabled being helped regardlesss of their gender. Did it ever occur to you that elderly women might give up a seat on a lifeboat for a young man because he has his whole life ahead of him? that women would prefer to seee a little boy get a place and not them because they don’t want children to die? and how many situtaions were men being shot where they stood for knocking women over to get to safety first? Yes, many men are feel that need to give preference to women and children, but its rarely enforced. Many women are taught to give preference to children in all kinds of situations too, including life threatening ones.
You dont like feminists and thats fine. You dont want to listen and thats fine too. Feminists do NOT like chivalry. We do NOT like having to depend on men if its reasonably possible for a grown woman to take care of herself. We especially dont like the double binds women and men are placed in to satisfy societies ideas of “proper”.
“If it wasn’t about twisting the standard to being about the young, elderly, and disabled, then they’d say it was about abused kittens stuck in trees.” No. Actually we were trying to discuss what we felt was a more equitable solution and considered that giving aid to those who need it most and would be most likely to suffer and die is a better choice than preference of gender. We also discussed the role of profit and class which is ENTIRELY related to the topic at hand, given the shocking lack of concern for safety and the negligent attitude of HUMAN disposability for more profit. Had there been enough lifeboats more people could have been saved. Had they used proper construction techniques and materials this situation might have been avoided. Had people been doing their jobs properly by the safety codes of the times, the situation would not have happened at all. And if the upper classes hadn’t rowed off with half full boats more men who were lower class and swimming for their lives would have been saved. Looking at those factors was entirely appropriate to the situation, theres more than enough travesty to go around without needing to look for kittens stranded in trees.
You are looking at a supposed privilege in the rare instances when it may help women and entirely ignoring the many instances that female helplessness puts us at an extreme disadvantage or even in danger.
No, it’s not a false equivalence because I never said they were equal. Your argument was simply wrong for the same reason, in the same maner in which the other argument would be wrong. If you disagree, it must be because you believe that sexism against men is perfectly okay.
The restrictive clothing thing is nonsense. That wasn’t men’s fault any more than women’s shoes are men’s fault today – women obsess over the stuff and in fact at times take men’s money and spend it on such things. In the majority of western cultures, women’s fashion is a female privilege. And using it as an excuse to tell men to give up their lives is even bigger privilege. “Oh honey, stand back and die as I slowly make my way up to the lifeboats in this attire which I was using to try to bag a richer guy than yourself… But you understand… Look at how weak and vulnerable I am!”. It’s a double bind.
Secondly, it seriously, seriously does not matter what the feminists on a thread claim that they would want. They’re on a thread, not on a sinking ship starting 160 years ago. They can’t take back history. These men were forced to die against their will, and those feminists make light of it by coming up with various hypothetical scenarios, which never even happened, where they think a woman could volunteer to be a hero. It’s revisionist nonsense. They don’t speak for women who gladly took the lifeboat seats from men. They dont even speak for anything that they or other women Have ever actually done. Andnthey certainlymdont go as far as saying that women should be forced to do it.
Imagine what THAT would have been like… An old woman on a sinking ship refuses to give up her seat for a young man… So the captain of the crew takes out a pistol and shoots her in the head! Is that what these feminists are in favor of? If not, then they are just demonstrating a profound level of ignorance and most likely dishonesty.
These attempts by feminists to be chivalric are just thinly disguised male shaming. I’ve seen it. A young 25 year old woman on a train gives up her seat for an “older” 30 year old woman and then they both look around scornfully at the men who are just trying to mind their own business. It’s a pathetic attempt to enforce male chivalry and maintain privileges that women are starting to lose in our society.
“If you disagree, it must be because you believe that sexism against men is perfectly okay.”. Assuming facts not in evidence. For the record, I neither expect no demand that men put themselves in danger on my behalf. What’s more, I have and will continue to put myself on the line for men, in dangerous situations when I see they need help. I have no more patience for the gender roles expected of men than I do for those expected of women. I disagree with you. There are more reasons than malice as to why people can disagree on a topic than malice. Mine is because I have a different point of view based partially on lived experience. There are many places where a womens dress code is expected and the clothing is restrictive as a result. Failure to comply can come with consequences like job loss and denied promotion opportunities. At the time, women were restricted from wearing trousers and shirts, and a “proper” skirt length was at least to the ankles.
” women obsess over the stuff “. Its not genetically wired, our culture places high value on wealth and appearance. Those values had an even higher value when women were financially dependant on men for survival and were either paid a pittance for their work or were outright barred from applying for better paying “mens” jobs. To look at today, it would seem that men are just as prone displaying their wealth and attractiveness. Mens products and fashion is a booming business and has been at various points in history.
“They’re on a thread, not on a sinking ship starting 160 years ago. They can’t take back history. These men were forced to die against their will, and those feminists make light of it by coming up with various hypothetical scenarios, which never even happened, where they think a woman could volunteer to be a hero.”. Funny, I thought you were on a thread too, and not a sinking ship. So, its revisionist history to point out the various factors that contributed to the disaster? Or is it revisionist history to point out that it should never have been women and children first because the crew should have been following the safety policies and practices of the times, and there should have been enough lifeboat seats for everyone? Terribly sexist to think that everyone should get a lifeboat seat, I know. Or that there would have been more time to evacuate everyone safely had the crew started once they realized the ship was taking on water.
“magine what THAT would have been like… An old woman on a sinking ship refuses to give up her seat for a young man… So the captain of the crew takes out a pistol and shoots her in the head! Is that what these feminists are in favor of?”. No. We were in favor of having proper safety protocols and equipment in place so everyone got off the ship safely.
” A young 25 year old woman on a train gives up her seat for an “older” 30 year old woman and then they both look around scornfully at the men who are just trying to mind their own business. It’s a pathetic attempt to enforce male chivalry and maintain privileges that women are starting to lose in our society.” Please explain to me what dirty looks on a bus have to do with the Titanic disaster. Also, women should not be conflated with feminists because they are not the same thing. A woman can believe herself equal to a man and still not be a feminist. Not all feminists are female. And most importantly, you cannot tell by looking at someone what ideology they may practice, although you can surmise probable outlooks based on various cues. Even then, you may have someone who is working towards a particular ideal but hasn’t worked out all the culturally ingrained behaviours and expectations or their own personal foilbles. In short, you may have caught a person being human.
“lifeboats in this attire which I was using to try to bag a richer guy than yourself”. This is a poor way to view women, this belief that most or many women only choose men based on wealth. A woman may place importance on her appearance for many reasons, and choose their partners for even more reasons. I do not deny that there are women who will do this, but the majority choose men on criteria that have little to do with wealth or where the wealthiness of the man is ranked far lower than other atributes. I’m sure you would not appreciate my saying that men choose women soley for their looks and are so unfeeling that they will toss the woman aside as soon as a better looking woman comes along.
pillowinhell, you’re right that it was a ‘coin toss’ whether or not a man in that era would have his life placed in greater jeopardy than a woman in the same situation strictly because of an ideological assumption that his life was less worthy of being saved than a woman’s. But that isn’t what comes across with David Futrelle’s claim that it was a “myth” or “not really a thing.” I think it’s disingenuous for him to falsely claim it was “not really a thing” as an implied rebuttal to MRAs who even mention the phenomenon at all.
If women who refused their boss’s advances were fired for it ‘only’ half the time, can you imagine any feminist blog agreeing with an MRA’s assertion that such a thing was a ‘myth’ or ‘not really a thing’?
Similarly, while I certainly agree with you on your many points about all of the safety protocols, careful ship construction, and better naval piloting that should have occurred that would have prevented disasters like the Titanic, such things really weren’t relevant to the topic at hand, which was David’s claim that ‘women and children first’ was a “myth.” Once again, how would most feminists react if an MRA were to respond to the ‘fired for refusing to have sex’ example with platitudes about the need to have full employment policies in our economy?
I do tend to agree with you about some of the female disprivileges of that era. I don’t think it’s fair to hold women wholly responsible for the restrictive clothing and lack of physical activity that many of them conformed to as a price for being seen as a ‘member in good standing’ in society as a whole or their class in particular. (It’s not quite fair to hold men of that era responsible for it either, as most of them were simply acquiescing to social norms just as much as women were in this regard.)
I’m not sure if this is true. I suspect a man who tried to shove aside a woman in that situation may have risked being tossed into the sea by other men who were dutifully following the WCF injunction. At any rate, the social injunction was certainly powerful enough that hundreds of ‘good’ men literally drowned in icy water so that hundreds of women could survive.
Its not up to any individual feminist to declare that they do not ask for any man to risk his life on their behalf. Its funny because its like they selectively forget their entire concept of privilege when it comes to declaring themselves as strong independent women. Men are dying on a daily basis to perform tasks which benefit us all, but especially women who are exempt from those tasks. You cannot be a woman in our society without putting a man’s life in peril. Its impossible. You can go live in the woods and refuse to participate in our civilization, but otherwise, men have died on your behalf while women have never been forced to do the same… you as a woman have never been forced to do the same. Even if you choose to make a sacrifice, it is by choice and it is nothing more than you exercising your freedom. By being a feminist, a woman chooses to further women’s privileges at the expense of men, thus indenting herself even further to the disposable male.
While, as usual, you make some solid points in your comment, dungone, I don’t think this specific statement is fair. I think there are certainly some feminists who further women’s privileges at the expense of men, but it’s certainly not true of all. Simply ‘choosing to be a feminist’ doesn’t do this, you have to ‘choose to be a feminist who refuses to be just as rigorous in examining female privilege as he or she examines male privilege.’
(All: This is not a cue to sidetrack onto the topic of what feminism does or doesn’t do ‘in general.’)
Ballgame I concede your point on how feminists would react to having a fifty fifty chance of being fired for the reason you gave. You are correct. There is pressure on men to give up their lives for others and defend women. However, the myth is generally understood that “women and children first” was a rule ALWAYS followed, and that was what was being dispelled. It did not always go that women were given preference when ships were sinking, the crew would simply evacuate whoever got to the lifeboats first half of the time.
“You cannot be a woman in our society without putting a man’s life in peril. Its impossible. You can go live in the woods and refuse to participate in our civilization, but otherwise, men have died on your behalf while women have never been forced to do the same… you as a woman have never been forced to do the same.”
First, we are now talking about military service? I thought we were talking about the Titanic or other ocean going disasters. No one living today can say that they’ve not put another man at risk, including you. Police and military protect your life just as they do mine. Also, women were EXPLICITLY denied entering the military, and are still being denied frontline combat. So its our fault that our leaders of the time thought us too weak and undisciplined to fight on the front lines with the men?? Some women chose to work in munitions factories instead. You know, places that were a high target value to the enemy, enough that bombing raids were routinely sent out to destroy them. Or they worked in hospitals, another fun place to be a civilian target while enemies were trying to destroy important war effort infrastucture.
So, have you been conscripted Dungone? Because if you haven’t you’ve been living hypocritically off the blood of innocent men, just like me. Just be sure to let our female troops and police officers know that they don’t exist, that their efforts are meaningless because at some point some man died trying to protect an ancestor.
Being seen as a helpless woman is only useful in a scenario like the Titanic, provided that you were white and of a certain rank and male kin are around to help. Generally, being seen as helpless gets a target painted on your back and a lot of missed opportunities to make a better life for yourself or even to have any significant say as to how your life will be lived. That “privilege” does more to hold women as a group back than it provides an advantage.
pillowinhell :
Which ones would that be ? Their own children don’t count.
I can’t think of a situation where a woman is expected to sacrifice herself for somebody else’s children(or just a random stranger of any gender, age or ability). I’m asking in all honesty.
You said :
At the same time, :
What gives ? Are women helpless and in need of special treatment or not ? Are you saying chivalry was needed for the time period (I might point out that your hatred of chivalry isn’t as deep as you think) ?
Your arguments in favour of chivalry (women were socialized to be weaker) still work for contemporary society ; women are socialized to be less competitive, therefore, they should get state-enforced promotions to “even it out”.
But don’t get any ideas… Oh wait, I only heard that particular argument 100000 times already . Chivalry’s dead, long live Chivalry.
Why not ? It seems close to the truth, and not in any way a ridiculous position to take.
You empathy people really don’t value honesty all that much, do you? How you can still expect to have an accurate picture of the world with all that phony politeness is beyond me.[Jacksam, I respect your right to believe that there is some kind of dichotomy between 'empathy people' and 'honest people', though it's an opinion I emphatically disagree with. However, it's not OK to personalize that opinion in the way you do here. Also, for future reference, it would not be OK to imply that feminists as a group are dishonest (though I don't think you've done that). —ballgame]
First issue: female hypergamy as accepted by some folks here has little or nothing to do with survival on sinking ships. It still has nothing to do with it Jacksam. I respect your view on the matter and I disagree with it.
Second: “women are socialized to be less competitive, therefore, they should get state-enforced promotions to “even it out”. Modern hiring practices also have nothing to do with survival rates on sinking ships. It would be a huge derail to respond.
Women often do things for other peoples children that lessen their chances of survival. Like give their own food water or clothing to children simply because the children are in greater need. In modern society its uncommon to look out for others even when they are family. I live in poverty, so do most of my neighbors. When we find out a child is going hungry, we give our own food even though that may mean going hungry. When someones child is sick, we take turns watching that child so the parents can go to work. It means calling in sick, and when you’re as poor as some of the families here, it means a huge risk in terms of not paying the rent let alone food. Sometimes when its really extreme, we may take in a child to care for while the childs family members are off looking for work in another city. The single most egregious case I’ve seen was when a little girls father was hauled off by police for trying to stab someone. She was left in the care of a woman who had known her for all of one day. That woman had just moved in as a roomate. There was no food in the house. We (neighbors including a couple of men)all provided the food that little girl needed, a few women took time off of work to go to the food bank,and those women gave up all the food that was supposed to last them two weeks. we all took time off of work to watch that little girl when the woman she was left with had to work. And that woman spent what little money she had (only just recently employed after a layoff) and bought the poor child a cake. It was from her that we discovered that all of this happened on the childs birthday. We all chipped in and bought some presents for her and some needed clothing. Women feed and cloth and watch other peoples children all the time. Even when it means not paying rent or bills. Even when it means risking our jobs and ability to support ourselves. Maybe this doesn’t happen where you are. Maybe you don’t notice because its handled between women without much fuss. As Canada hasn’t had a war within its own borders its impossible to say how far Canadian women would be prepared to go to save a childs life. Women die in fires trying to save children. Women dash into streets to scoop up kids who’ve run out into traffic, save drowning children even though the woman may not be a strong swimmer herself,etc etc. Women also frequently put themselves between people who are intent on killing each other or beating on children. In short, altruism is not a trait strictly limited to those who posses a Y chromosome and identify as male.
Chivalry was needed at the time. I’ll tell you what, you wear a tight girdle from about age thirteen on and see how strong your cardiovascular strength is. You wear long skirts and slips underneath and then try some strenuous exercise like staying afloat in choppy water. Today, it can be argued that the strength of men and women under duress is equalling out. Most folks these days don’t exercise or do hard physical labour. Girls are expected to do the same tasks in gym class and women certainly have access to gyms and strength training. Women and girls are increasingly being taught that they are capable of taking care of themselves under difficult conditions and to think for themselves. Believing that you are capable of survivng provided that you carefully asses your situation and and know how to marshall your resources to best effect is probably the single greatest determinant to survival. Women were often given a lifetime of training to look to men as the means of survival. Each gender has adaptations that allow us to survive under extreme conditions, though those adaptations differ on average by gender. Men still have greater upper body strength on average, which gives some advantage in certain scenarios but in the case of immanent drowning I’m not so certain that its much advantage at all. The chivalry needs to go. In terms of a womans experiences, it does more to harm and hinder. In terms of men it can be lethal, but on a day to day scenario all it does is breed resentment. I’m sure you agree the world will be a better place without it.
Yes. And no, I don’t have that problem.
We are talking about the disposable male and feminists’ denial thereof. We can’t talk about disease in the trees if we don’t understand how the forest works.
Which is the same attitude as Women and Children First. Serving in combat is not a privilege. That’s why rich men’s sons don’t do it. Do you want to also tell me that Women and Children First was actually male privilege because of all the women that really wanted to drown?
This is the appeal to a perfect world. In a perfect world, kittens wouldn’t get stuck in trees, either. It’s a pointless argument.
I have come across several women in Iraq who told me flat out that they felt perfectly safe because I would protect them. One even told me that she never even loaded her rifle when told to do so because she wanted the men to protect her, instead. That one had sex with so many of the guys she had earned a reputation. So as a matter of survival, there’s very few women who I would ever trust with my life. That is perhaps something that women can work out among themselves, along with the small issue of getting pregnant before deployments.
“Chivalry was needed at the time. I’ll tell you what, you wear a tight girdle from about age thirteen on and see how strong your cardiovascular strength is. You wear long skirts and slips underneath and then try some strenuous exercise like staying afloat in choppy water. ”
And this, of course, justifies sentencing another person to death so that you can live? Are you joking?
It hardly matters how restrictive clothing you have or how bad swimmer you might be if you’re in the middle of an ocean in water of who knows what temperatures. So, really, don’t go telling how “needed” it was, because it never was. It was just plain misandry.
Yeah, I guess the extra two minutes that those men could live before getting hypothermia totally justified why women got priority on the lifeboats. Besides, with proper survival training, a dress can become a survival asset. You can cut it off before jumping into the water and then use the wet fabric to create a floating device. You just have to splash water on it to keep it wet and blow some air into it once in a while. It beats the hell out of actually swimming. I wonder if you could even retrofit some of those things as a raft. At any rate, it’s not like men’s fashion was that much better at swimming in. High collars, ties, weirdly sewn coats. Pretty much anyone would have to strip to swim. And either way, the suction created by the sinking ship would overpower the strongest swimmers in the world. And many of the men who were forced to jump in the water didn’t know how to swim, anyway.
@ballgame
3 responses in 8 minutes on the NoH, bad luck for me.
When I use “dishonesty” to refer to Empathics, I mean something a lot more benign that what is usually meant. Deceiving others is the last thing on their mind : In fact, they believe that others want to be lied to (and, most others being Empathics, they are usually right) and that is why they lie.
(I don’t know if you need the clarification, but : They usually call their lies “politeness”, “consideration”, “respect”, …
Can you admit that those things require some tinkering with truth and honesty ? That is all I meant, and the dichotomy stands.)
Technically, they are still lying, but morally, it’s fine by me.
In short, I don’t think Empathics are evil manipulators, but getting the truth out of them is a drag.
Dungone, there are women who honestly want to serve in combat and build a military career the same way men do. Getting maimed or killed is not a privilege, no. However, it is THE duty which has been used as the reason women should be kept as inferiors. Going to work in demanding careers was also not considered a privilege by men. Many women fought to be able to work for a living and to get the educations they needed so that we could determine our own lives instead of living under the rule of our fathers and husbands. Honestly, I think women in combat on the front lines is probably the last barrier to being accepted as full contributing members of society. Because until that happens, there will be men who resent all women for not dying on a battlefield far from home.
” have come across several women in Iraq who told me flat out that they felt perfectly safe because I would protect them. One even told me that she never even loaded her rifle when told to do so because she wanted the men to protect her, instead. That one had sex with so many of the guys she had earned a reputation. “. And the moral of this story is that women are untrustworthy, lazy sluts. Every last one in the military I suppose. Ever wonder why women aren’t jumping up and down to fight side by side with you?? Also, what kind of operation are you running down south that you aren’t weeding out bad soldiers? Some women may be shitty soldiers, but its a pretty pathetic outfit you’re running if your CO”s aren’t ensuring proper discipline.
“This is the appeal to a perfect world. In a perfect world, kittens wouldn’t get stuck in trees, either. It’s a pointless argument.”. No. Actually, this is a pretty reasonable expectation to hold. It is certainly not beyond our means to actually follow established safety protocols. It is not beyond a companies means to ensure that the materials being used aren’t substandard. I doubt the company that owned the titanic really made any profit, once people finished with the lawsuits or avoided using that company to book their voyages on. So it was a gamble for short term gain. Your view let’s people off the hook so that the same bullshit happens all over again. You really want to sit on your thumbs so that an outragously wealthy company can make e few bucks profit? Well, I suppose the almighty dollar trumps the lives of a few men amiright?
BrSy, it would have been so much better if the women had just died in the appropriate numbers but then what would you have to beat feminists over the head with a hundred years later? So imma gonna go ahead and ask you how things should have gone. So far, I’ve seen a lot of men who’ve got a grudge about this but I haven’t seen them offer any ideas on what should have happened so the gender balance was equitable.
BrSy, it would have been so much better if the women had just died in the appropriate numbers but then what would you have to beat feminists over the head with a hundred years later? So imma gonna go ahead and ask you how things should have gone. So far, I’ve seen a lot of men who’ve got a grudge about this but I haven’t seen them offer any ideas on what should have happened so the gender balance was equitable.
It wasn’t about making the gender balance of those who died more equitable its about making the gender balance of the chance to survive that needs to be equitable.
My bad. To make survival more equitable.
So, how would you do it?
Simple. Don’t judge priority based on gender.
Thing is whether or not “women and children first” was an actual policy or law fact of the matter is that though exists. The idea that by virtue of being female a a female’s life is more important than a male’s life (yes that scale can flip the other way). Futrelle seemed to try to play a fast one by first claiming that it never existed at all then later tried to back step and say that he was only claiming it was never actual policy (and for the record in my experience I don’t recall seeing a whole lot of MRAs complaining that it was actual policy, just that it happened).
I’ve seen a few clever pictures, posters, and shirts that say “Woman is not a preexisting condition.” I agree
Because they are privileged and they don’t have to. It’s as simple as that. If men actually joined for guts and glory, there would be all but 10 men left in the military. Men join the military for reasons that women never do, at least not as their only choice. To pay for college – for every man who has no other choice, women have a host of woman-only scholarship programs. To get a citizenship – a woman would be better off just marrying someone. To get better job placement as a police officer or firefighter – most women don’t want those jobs. To get out of poverty – women just have to be pretty and a man will provide. Because a judge gave them a choice between war and jail – women get lighter sentencing than men for the same infractions. Because society shamed them – it’s women who walk around handing white flowers to men, calling them cowards and children for not “manning up.” Not the other way around.
Being in the military ain’t no picnic for the men. Trust me. They have brutal physical standards, heaps of mental anguish, hazing, abuse, death, sleep deprivation, and all kinds of shit that most feminists haven’t even heard of happening to a woman and don’t care enough to find out that it happens to men. We had guys who got trench foot, broken bones, missing toenails, heat strokes, suicide, drowning, shitting and pissing their pants – and that was just the first 3 months in boot camp. Yet men serve. Women rarely do. There are a few good women out there and everyone respects them. Go find one and ask them whose fault it is that women in the military get a bad rep. They’ll tell you straight up – there are some awful women that ruin it for everyone.
And no one is stopping them. They can join up, get promoted, and they don’t even have to risk their lives. What’s the problem? Don’t like the privilege? Then give it up!
There’s one very compelling reason for why women aren’t allowed in combat. Attitudes such as Women and Children First. Why do you keep blaming men for women’s privilege? It’s not men’s fault. Seriously. Instead of blaming men for how good women have it, why don’t you focus on your own gender?
Generals already know that women could fight alongside men, at least physically and mentally, they could be an asset in many ways. Maybe not the same strengths and weaknesses as men, but they do have some advantages. About ten years ago I even spoke about it with one of the top generals in Iraq, when I was there. He said flat out that women could fight just fine. His concern, the reason why he was against it, was because men in our society are trained to give up their lives for the life of a woman at all costs. He was a general, so he was not willing to lose an entire battle over one or two individuals. He felt that women in combat would take precedent over military priority. And he was right, of course. That’s the risk that women pose – not because they can’t fight if they had to, but because it’s not fair to put men into a situation where they will face the dilemma of either becoming social pariahs, cowards, monsters, horrible unworthy scum every time a woman dies and they couldn’t save her.
[Comment originally pulled into moderation because of the 'no consecutive comments in NoH threads' rule. —ballgame]
So a quick check tells me that the last ime selective service was used in the US was 1973. It can be reinstated and applies only to men. However, the last time it was used was forty years ago, and funny, but the US military seems to be going strong. It also appears to have far more than ten men in it doing active tours of duty. And they voluntarily enlisted.
According to you, women can join the military and work their way through the ranks, just don’t let them fight ( I wouldn’t trust a woman to save my life..can’t be bothered to load a weapon…). But simultaneously, you’ll resent women as a group because they will not be sacrificing their lives…interesting. I guess holding that grudge is more important than the equality you claim to want.
You have a general who says the women can fight just fine. I guess he means that women are at least competent. But we shouldn’t be allowed to fight because the men can’t wrap their heads around a competant woman soldier. So because men want to cling to the image of women as helpless and blame themselves for a death that just as easily could have been a man, it fine to keep women from the front lines and a) ensure that men continue to resent women b) prevent men from ever seeing a competant female soldier and c) continue to give society at large the last remaining excuse to not see women as full contributing members of society. Hmm.
Ah yes that scads of money only women get. I mean, tampon boxs come filled with hundred dollar bills amiright? Or, women (including some of my friends) are joining the military to fund their educations just like men. In fact, I have a friend who enlisted a couple weeks ago. She’s been training the past few months to make sure she passes the physical tests. And she’s a military brat, so she has a very good idea of what she’s walking into.
In case you folks haven’t noticed, I’ve been arguing that women should be on the front lines. But somehow you think I’m arguing that women should always be protected by men during war? What? I have zero problem with the draft including women too. So.
And um, what should have been done on the Titanic so that survival would have been more equal on both sides? Any ideas?
“So because men want to cling to the image of women as helpless and blame themselves for a death that just as easily could have been a man, it fine to keep women from the front lines and a) ensure that men continue to resent women b) prevent men from ever seeing a competant female soldier and c) continue to give society at large the last remaining excuse to not see women as full contributing members of society. Hmm. ”
You can be a competent male soldier and die. Others who know you’re going to die and can’t save you – they won’t try, good sense will tell them that the unit comes first. With a woman they might try against all odds, jeopardizing the unit’s objective.
Same competence for the victim. Both die. Except one is judged valuable enough that others want to do illogically risky things to save them.
You are talking to a combat veteran. Are you going to teach me about what it’s really like to be me by Googling it? Honestly – next time, just ask.
A stop loss is conscription and it has happened continually for the past 10 years. At least 60,000 American men have served under stop loss. That’s 60,000 non-volunteers. While “stop loss” sounds vague and possibly harmless, it is in fact much more insidious and unfair than any other type of draft. During a draft, a lottery is held for men who haven’t served in combat yet and each man is given a contract which is honored. During a stop loss, the government literally rips up your military contract and tells you they’re not going to honor it anymore – and then it takes men who have already done more than their fair share of fighting and forces them to fight indefinitely without a contract. The first time that I went to Iraq, they refused to even tell us when we would be allowed to go home – week after week, for months on end, they kept pushing the date back. Many of us were under stop loss orders (no contract) and many more faced imminent stop loss if it went on any longer than it did. A lot of people, military veterans especially, believe that the practice is illegal. Some have sued, but no one had any success in fighting it.
And I realize that 40 years is probably twice as long as you’ve been alive, but those guys are still alive. They could be reading this and getting pissed off at you for basically saying that 40 years ago means that men don’t get drafted.
Please learn a little more than a “quick look” about the volunteer military. It appears that you know next to nothing about how the volunteer military has fared after the longest war in US history. Here’s a fact for you – the current generation of American combat troops are serving in combat longer than almost any American men in history.
For example:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/m.....ours_N.htm
I have a comment in the spam filter because I included a link to the Community of the Falsely Accused. I hope a mod sees this and pulls it out before it is lost
[I emptied the spam filter before seeing this comment. Sorry, Clarence. FTR, if the comment was referencing rape, I likely would have moved it to another thread (depending on what it said), but I definitely wouldn't have trashed it. —ballgame]
“So imma gonna go ahead and ask you how things should have gone.”
It’s not really so hard, is it? Someone even managed to answer it for me already: do not prioritize the seats on the lifeboats based on gender.
Dungone:
Thanks for making the point about the stop-loss. I’m not a former or current military member, but I knew about that aspect of our current wars. But I didn’t know it was so bad. I’m glad you put it in human terms. However, could you clear something up for me though? My understanding is, if you enlist, you have your enlistment period (4 years I think, assuming you don’t re-enlist) and then 8 years on the “active reserve” where you are first come first served for a draft or subject to call back. Is this “active reserve” the same as stop-loss or is it something else?
And while I do feel bad about how I think our military is being treated, and I don’t even think we have any business in most of the proxy wars we are currently involved in, I don’t see how we solve it. Short of Ron Paul (and it’s very unlikely he’ll win) none of two “mainstream” candidates of the Repub or Democrat parties are campaigning on ending the war in Afghanistan anytime soon (even though it’s basically at this point nothing but counter-insurgency) and there’s a good possibility we’ll be at war with Iran soon.
If they draft, I MIGHT be immune (be 41 in May), but I’m not a fan of a draft -esp an all-male one- anyway. I’d volunteer to fight for the country if it was invaded because my family and friends and home are here but I no longer trust or respect the government, which I’ve basically viewed as Constitutionally illegitimate for at least 15 years now. I don’t want to fight in any of their overseas misadventures for dubious reasons with sketchy results.
I don’t know how to help the soldiers now, and I don’t see any help on its way. I’m sorry.
Great comment about the appalling way we’ve been treating our combat veterans, dungone. I imagine there have been some women who have been caught up in this unjust approach to military service, but there’s no question this sort of thing impinges much more heavily on men than women as a group.
You keep trying to spin female privilege around as if it were male privilege. Men don’t “cling” to an image, society punishes them if they do not adhere to it. The vast majority of men in the military are against female privilege if you ask them. But they have nevertheless been socialized into prioritizing women and devaluing their own lives. This is not their fault in the slightest. Do not try to make it out as if it’s somehow anti-women because it’s not. Thousands of women, feminists included, work very hard to promote the disposable male standard for men.
You’re working overtime to ignore the fact that women are allowed to join the military and of those who have, many are doing a horrible job of representing women in a positive light. Contrast that to others who had been banned from combat in the past – black men, for instance. They signed up to fight in droves in spite of facing worse conditions and being forced to do menial tasks of the sort that women never had to endure. Eventually there were so many blacks that the military had to let them fight. Yet they joined, and historically blacks have been over-represented in the military 2-1. Including the women – 30% of the women in the Army are black. That should give a (white) feminist some pause.
@Clarence, it’s called the inactive ready reserve, or IRR. The vast majority of initial military contracts are 8 years total, with whatever part not spent on active duty or reserves being spent in the IRR. None of these contracts are stop loss. Stop loss happens after that. Stop loss mostly affects mid-ranking servicemen such as sergeants, who are in the biggest shortage in the military, so they’re commonly right after they got done the first 8 years, but it could be later – 10 years, 12 years, what have you. Like I said – they have done more than their fair share of fighting. But hey, it’s easier to recruit than retain. Or was it the other way around?
But you are also correct that the IRR is basically like getting drafted. It doesn’t involve ripping up a contract in a dramatic fashion like the stop loss, but on IRR you are technically out. You’re not getting paid, you don’t drill, you don’t have to meet physical standards, etc. If you count the number of guys who got pulled out of the IRR, it would be even more.
dungone, you just posted a comment consecutive to one of your own previous comments (without letting 12 hours pass). This is technically a violation of the NoH rules.
Now, the fact is, you’ve been doing this a lot. I generally haven’t been enforcing this rule against you. You’re a good commenter whose comments are occasionally brilliant and almost always thought-provoking, and our comment threads haven’t been as busy as they were at the time the NoH rules were implemented. (Your comment here was very worthwhile response to Clarence’s question.) However, I have noticed some other commenters have been starting to pick up on the habit, and there is a certain amount of ‘example setting’ I need to be aware of.
So if you find more of your comments being pulled into moderation for a period going forward, it may be because of this rule. If you could be more mindful of it going forward, that would be great.
@Ballgame, I will tone down my obsession with your great blog
Dungone. I have really put my foot in my mouth on the topic of the draft. I’m not American so no, I’m not familiar with your military. When men talk about compulsory service, they say “the draft”. So, when you check you find that the US draft was stopped forty years ago. But what men actually mean is the weasel program of stop loss. Typically, I’ve read all about mens concern with the draft but had no explanation as to why, thank you for enlightening me. I’m sorry to have upset vets who’ve served. That wasn’t really my intention. Also Dungone, I’m just about forty myself, so I’m quite aware that there are vets alive that served under the draft. But it strikes me as strange that men in their twenties are so angry about it when I didn’t know your governments underhanded dealings with their troops. I will however, pass that knowledge along. What a vile way of getting around the draft, which is always wildly unpopular and likely to see the government in office not re elected. Its also slimy in that it misleads other nations into thinking the country is more progressive than it is.
So, society punishes men for not getting himself killed for a woman. Okay, I get that. But that attitude will not change if men are not willing to give up being a hero because of social opprobrium. And I’ll frankly admit, women have quite some work in walking away from that perception too. Not every woman is a feminist, even when they have careers or work non traditional jobs. Sarah Palin leaps to mind.
No, I’m not ignoring the fact that some women do shitty jobs or that women should be doing better. What I am saying is that the military also has. A responsibility to discipline them or drum them out. I can’t even begin to wrap my head around being a woman soldier and expecting the men in my troop to die for me. Even more appalling is the woman who had such high expectations of this she wouldn’t load her weapon. But as an opening argument for why women shouldn’t be trusted in combat, it smelled a little too much of a few bad apples means all women in the military are like that.
I’m still waiting for an equitable evacuation plan. Because, according to the discussion going on currently, too many men are willing to toss their lives away for women under any circumstances regardless of whether or not an order of women and children first is given.
@pillowinhell Even if the draft isn’t used it still contributes in part to how men are socialized in the United States. I was born in 1984 and when I turned 18 years old I had a legal responsibility to enter my social security number into a database that basically meant I was eligible to be drafted if my government wanted me to be, as far as I’m aware that practice still goes on. If that doesn’t reinforce to very young men exactly how society see’s them I don’t know what does.
“So, society punishes men for not getting himself killed for a woman. Okay, I get that. But that attitude will not change if men are not willing to give up being a hero because of social opprobrium.”
Your making a classic mistake also one of the big reasons I dislike the theory of patriarchy as it is used in common political feminism. As a form of anthropology it can be an interesting study but when commonly used it ends up creating this cultural belief that men are more in control of their situation then women are. The problem with the social constructs of our culture is they both force the genders into their roles and offer some rewards for conformity while also punishing heavily those who refuse to conform. I doubt it’s fair to say men are hoarding the martyr/hero position but safer to look at it like we’ve been raised to value it while at the same time our culture places value on men who value that position… it becomes this continual circle.
“No, I’m not ignoring the fact that some women do shitty jobs or that women should be doing better. What I am saying is that the military also has. A responsibility to discipline them or drum them out.”
I applaud you for taking this stance but this has not always been the idea of mainstream feminist movement. In the 90′s you have this great emergence of a glass ceiling hypothesis that the largest factor holding women back from positions of power is the social belief that women can’t successively do these jobs. With this type of belief there is a value in promoting any women willing as long as she is just competent enough because even if they can’t do the job as well as their male counterpart, who is being weeded out via competition with other men, the women in holding the position is not only doing a job but also eroding societal expectations.
Although when polled less people will openly state they don’t view women as capable of being in a leadership position now in days. It did breed a lot of resentment with the idea that guys knew some women who weren’t as qualified for their position ergo all women in a position of power were potentially there as a result of their privilege. Which is truly a shame as it’s unfair to men and women and this belief structure amounts to what could be coined as “Schrodinger’s Female Supervisor”. Whether you believe these policies are good or bad are completely up to you but I believe what you are seeing is a remnant of the idea that having a women simply in uniform and a gun where she can be viewed does residual good outside of her ability to perform her given tasks
I love you pillowinhell
Long time follower, first time poster. I thought I would chime in rather briefly:
Ten years ago, I emigrated to the US. At the end of a rather tortuous process, the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service; now the USCIS) informed me of two things:
1. As a male within the appropriate age range, I would be expected to enroll in the Selective Service system. Failure to do so would incur penalties.
2. I would need to request a Social Security number from the Social Security Administration; without one, they would not be able to properly track my tax contributions and in turn, correctly ascertain my benefit eligibility.
Suffice to say, the INS automatically performed one of the above tasks on my behalf. It was made quite clear to me, on that day, as to what the US government considered my future role to be.
Welcome to the blog, Mechanical Turk.
Thanks for having the blog!
>The study shows that (not unexpectedly) children had lower survival rates in these disasters than adults. So even if men and women had equal survival rates, it would still be true that ‘women and children’ (as a group) would have a lower survival rate than ‘men’ as a group. (The study shows that overall, 73% of the women died and 63% of the men died.)
This has me wondering, what would happen if we grouped “Men and Children” together statistically and compared the fatality rate to that of women, to prove a point?
UK,
“Your making a classic mistake also one of the big reasons I dislike the theory of patriarchy as it is used in common political feminism. As a form of anthropology it can be an interesting study but when commonly used it ends up creating this cultural belief that men are more in control of their situation then women are. ”
Otherwise know as male hyperagency and female hypoagency. Bedrock of the patriatchy. It is apparently so foundational that people raised under the system, even feminists, cannot shake loose of it.
Tyciol,
“This has me wondering, what would happen if we grouped “Men and Children” together statistically and compared the fatality rate to that of women, to prove a point?”
People would simply dismiss them as too discordant with accepted and comfortable belief systems.
Welcome to the blog, Tyciol.
Intriguing idea. If I still have the spreadsheet I used before I’ll crunch the numbers … I’m kind of curious myself, now.