Doug's Women And Children First Claim

[debrand]

http://www.titanic-facts.com/titanic-facts.html

One of the ways that Doug Philips convinces women to remain in their place is with the promise that they will be rewarded by men who are willing to die for them. The problem is that in order to get this wonderful treatment, the women must live in the Vision Forum ideal of womanhood. Stepping outside that box makes a woman unworthy of respect and protection

He uses the Titantic as proof that in some distant time, men were willing to give their lives for women.

I am not downplaying the bravery of some of the men during that disaster but it is apparent that women of lower class was not held in as high of regard as first class women.

COnsidering that the boats held on average over a thousand people and there were twenty boats, most of the passengers probably could have survived.

•The ship was loaded with only enough lifeboats to hold half of the Titanic passengers. There were 20 of them with a total capacity of 1178 people.

•Some of the limited lifeboats were lowered to the waters only half-full

•The Titanic's total capacity was 3547 passengers + crew.

If there had been less lifeboats, it would have made sense to load them first with families with children, the aged and infirmed. There appears to have been enough lifeboats so the idea of women before men actually appears to have unnecessarily cost people their lives.

edited for clarity

[debrand]

It is rare that any of us would be called on to actually give our lives for others. Helping around the house, taking care of the kids, or not getting your wife pregnant with children that you can't afford, all seem much more pratical ways to put your wife first than promising to die for her.

[NurseNell]

Considering that the boats held on average over a thousand people and there were twenty boats, most of the passengers probably could have survived.

If there had been less lifeboats, it would have made sense to load them first with families with children, the aged and infirmed. There appears to have been enough lifeboats so the idea of women before men actually appears to have unnecessarily cost people their lives.

edited for clarity

Those numbers don't add up. If, as you wrote, a boat on average held a thousand people, then twenty boats would hold 20,000 people. It says the 20 life boats had a total capacity of 1178 people, which is less than half of the passengers.

Nell

[bananacat]

It's not worth the price. I'd rather be treated like a human being in both cases. Being put on a pedestal is no fun because it's such a long way to fall.

[demgirl]

Titanic nerd here. The worst type of person, in odds of survival, to be on Titanic would have been a 2nd class passenger male. Most people think it's the 3rd class male passengers, but actually the percentage rate of survival was slightly higher for them than 2nd class male passengers. OTOH, there were many more 3rd class male passengers, so that skews it a bit.

Dougie's claims about Titanic and "women and children" first are not actually incorrect. If you were a woman passenger on Titanic, you had about a 70% chance of survival. If you were a child, it was closer to 50%. If you were a male, chances were only about 30% that you survived. Even as a first class male passenger, your chance of survival was smaller than that of a 3rd class female passenger. Now, 3rd class females had a much lower rate of survival than other females -- only about 50%, compared to 1st class females (almost 100%) and second class females (almost 90%).

On the other hand, the rate of death of children in 3rd class is huge, presumably b/c multiple children stayed with many of the females who were their mothers and also died. But only one child from 1st or 2nd class died, and that was because her parents wouldn't put her on a boat, because they were looking for their infant son (who was sadly already on a lifeboat with his nurse and was the only one of the family to survive.)

Anyway. Sorry. I've had a thing about the Titanic since I was in 4th grade. I guess my point is - Doug's not wrong about the Titanic and the deference to women and children over men, although certainly the deference was higher to upper class women and children. But, in only once case did more men survive than women/children -- and that is that a slightly higher percentage of first class males survived than did 3rd class children.

But the world that Dougie lives in is stupid anyway. It is too high a price to pay in case of disaster and I believe most of us heathens would still fill up the lifeboats with children first, at least. Also, hopefully we'd be smart enough to fill the entire lifeboat.

Also, yeah, there were only enough lifeboats to save about 1/2 of the people on board, if you count passengers, crew and staff.

[Witsec1]

I think if a woman had been part of the decision-making process, there probably would have been enough lifeboats.

[StarrieEyedKat]

Hell, I think if any rational human being that didn't have their head up their ass were in charge of the decision making process, there would have been enough boats. But noooo, many menz were too sure of their own infallibility. I detest arrogance, and Dougie and company have that in spades, just like those who decided their unsinkable ship would never sink, so they didn't supply enough lifeboats. :angry-cussing:

Also, slightly OT, but every time I see the scene in Titanic where the steerage mother is tucking her children into bed as the ship sinks since she knows they're not going to be saved, my heart stops and I have to go hug my kids for about 3 hours. Sends me into panic attacks, thinking of being in her shoes and knowing that my babies are about to die and there's nothing I can do but hold them as they drown. *shudders and tears up*

[liltwinstar]

I think it's just an easy way to make men feel heroic without actually *doing* anything. I mean, a dude could sit on the couch and pontificate about how he'd die for his wife and kids, all while the wife makes dinner, changes diapers, and wipes noses. Honestly, given the fact that women are faced with dinners and dirty diapers WAY more often than they're on sinking cruise ships, they'd probably prefer a man who helped with the family over a man who promised to die for her during some imaginary future/past.

[desertvixen]

Re: the lifeboats - they were operating on some archaic rule for lifeboats that hadn't kept up with the people capacity, and basically carrying the bare minimum because they wouldn't need them anyway.

demgirl writes:

Dougie's claims about Titanic and "women and children" first are not actually incorrect. If you were a woman passenger on Titanic, you had about a 70% chance of survival. If you were a child, it was closer to 50%. If you were a male, chances were only about 30% that you survived. Even as a first class male passenger, your chance of survival was smaller than that of a 3rd class female passenger.

It was definitely part of their manhood status that they sacrificed their seats on a lifeboat - I was always struck by Isidor Straus and his wife, how many were willing to let him on a lifeboat because of her pregnancy, and he told them no. The men who "snuck" onto boats were definitely ridiculed and belittled.

Did you read the survivor's account by Col Gracie (I have it in a double edition with Jack Thayer's story)? He was pretty much calling people out left, right, and center for not living up to their responsibilities - and he's a Titanic survivor who died of complications from being in the water.

eta: riffles

[desertvixen]

And liltwinstar is absolutely right? I don't doubt that my current partner would die defending me and the other members of our family, and not just because he's a soldier.

However, help doing the dishes would probably be a great deal more help in the long run.

[Guest Anonymous]

I don't care what Dougie says. If I had been the sole obstacle between him and an empty seat on a lifeboat, I would have met my Maker with footprints on my back.

[FuManchu]

It is rare that any of us would be called on to actually give our lives for others. Helping around the house, taking care of the kids, or not getting your wife pregnant with children that you can't afford, all seem much more pratical ways to put your wife first than promising to die for her.

Perfectly expressed. In Doug's world, men's responsibilities are ill-defined and related to supposed character traits rather than concrete actions. It's the women who have all the physical responsibilities and so can be judged for not living up to them.

[Kelsey]

Dougie's an idiot.

You know what? A real manly-man should should be willing to help his wife whenever she needs it (and she help him when needed).

Why save your "assistance" for a moment that likely won't come?

[Nothing2CHere]

I have no doubt that if we had been on the Titanic together, my husband would have insisted I get in that lifeboat and leave him.

HOWEVER, I also know that there is no way in hell I would have willingly left him - he would have had to knock me unconscious to get me in that boat without him. I would do anything to save him, just as he would to save me. Dougie, in his desire to appear as the brave, chivalrous knight, is once again totally disregarding the women's viewpoint on the hypothetical situation.

[bananacat]

I think it's important that you guys brought up the class issues. The thing patriarchs forget about chivalry and the like is that it mostly applied only to wealthy, high-class women. Most of the fundie women today would have been in the lowest class, and while they still would have been better off than the men in their class, they still had a pretty high chance of dying because the richer women were just more important.

[DistantStar]

Why would a man have to be a patriarse to help/defend his family? My dad certainly wasn't one, and certainly would have. I'd have done the same for him, but I suppose as a lowly female that wouldn't matter in Dougie's world. Particularly as I am 35, single, don't have or want kids, and am *gasp!* not a virgin anyway.

[MamaJunebug]

Perfectly expressed. In Doug's world, men's responsibilities are ill-defined and related to supposed character traits rather than concrete actions. It's the women who have all the physical responsibilities and so can be judged for not living up to them.

And thus, as FuManchu rather perfectly stated, Doug's "Titanic Society" perfectly maintains the imbalance. Without the imbalance, there's no real need for Doug's seminars. Or book sales. Or tours. Or boy-appropriate/girl-appropriate toys. Or Bourne Christian Assembly instead of a congregation served by a pastor who is accountable.

All that said, I am now loaded for bear the next time my (very accountable, very humble, very congenial) pastor preaches on Ephesians 5 The Lady's Parts (and not the men's).

Not only will i ask him about the men's responsibilities, but in true Lutheran form, I will ask the next question: What does this mean? What is "laying down his life" and short of a tornado or other actual physical-life-threatening event?

[FundiesInMyFamily]

Does anyone really think that men like Doup Philips, Jimbob, Chris Jueb, The Pissing Preacher, and Taliban Tony would actually lay down their lives for their women/children? They love to pontificate about it, sell useless crap that talks about it, and read bible verses about it, but would any of them actually do it?

I think most of these guys are bullies on the inside, thats why they love this lifestyle (that goes triple for the fundie dad in my family)... they are self absorbed assholes. Push comes to shove on the deck of the titanic, and I don't see any of them tearfully helping their families into a lifeboat knowing they are going to die themselves.

[FuManchu]

We should remember that, to Doug, the Titanic sinking wasn't a disaster - it was simply a refreshingly vigorous, sometimes wet, sometimes freezing, manly romp into a mysterious and slowly submerging world.

[Austin]

Perfectly expressed. In Doug's world, men's responsibilities are ill-defined and related to supposed character traits rather than concrete actions. It's the women who have all the physical responsibilities and so can be judged for not living up to them.

ETA: I definitely do not live up to the standards of a woman who deserves to be "saved" by her man in the eyes of Dougie, but nonetheless, I have absolutely no doubt that my husband would give his life without a second thought for me or any of our children. As would I. But how often does that kind of situation come up in real life? The

You don't have to be a fundie Christian to be willing to sacrifice everything for the love of your spouse and/or children. Just a decent person.

[urban explorer]

My brother and dad weren't brought up with Dougies mind set but I could without a doubt count on them to help, as they show that every day.

[uber frau]

We should remember that, to Doug, the Titanic sinking wasn't a disaster - it was simply a refreshingly vigorous, sometimes wet, sometimes freezing, manly romp into a mysterious and slowly submerging world.

I just snorted and woke the baby.

[Swamptribe]

What amazes me about patriarchy is that the movement is obsessed with the past. They idealize it, obsessing over the romantic bits, and ignoring the nastier reality. Funny thing is, in the past patriarchy, the idea that men should take care of 'good girls' didn't work. It never worked. It was never what they imagine it was. That's one of the reasons it went away.

On the Titanic, hundreds of poor women died when the ship went down. They were locked down below. Many of them were probably good Christian women.

Patriarchy doesn't do anything but protect male ego's.

Essentially, the whole patriarchy movement is looking for some kind of Utopia. Utopia doesn't exist.

[jockosmom]

"Essentially, the whole patriarchy movement is looking for some kind of Utopia. Utopia doesn't exist."

This. The obsession with the past for these people fascinates me too. I don't understand it. I'm a history buff, so I enjoy reading and learning about history. But, damn, life was HARD back in the day. People worked themselves literally to death just trying to keep a roof over their family's heads and food in their bellies. Who would really want things to go back the way they were before modern medicine, when a sore throat could kill you in a matter of days because of no antibiotics? I just don't understand what these fundie people think would be soooo much better about living in the type of conditions that existed years ago? I'm thankful every day that my ancestors were obviously hardy enough people that they were able to survive the rigors of life in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

[Austin]

His whole premise with this particular nonsense is akin to a husband saying to his wife, "Submit to me and serve me and if you ever need a kidney, I'll give you one of mine". Because while that does happen, how likely is it in each individual marriage? Not very. . .

No, dude, keep your kidney and if I ever need one, I'll go on a donor list and in the meantime, I'm going to conduct myself like the adult person that I am. Get used to it or hit the road.