Be careful what you wish for feminists!

[Doomed Harlottt]

Sorry to inflict more non-Thinking Housewife nonsense on you, but Laura Wood is making some hay with the fact that big, strong male crew members pushed others, including women and children, out of the way to get to lifeboats when a cruise ship crashed into rocks and went down in (I think) the Mediterrenean. 25-29 people were missing, at least 11 confirmed dead. The captain abandoned ship before the passengers were off and was arrested by Italian police.

The inevitable conclusion? To quote Laura's headline from yesterday: "Isn't this what the feminists wanted?"

*Facepalm*

Now, I read the story and think that the captain is at fault for (a) abandoning ship and (b) not having and enforcing a proper protocol for evacuation. Feminism has nothing to do with this catastrophe.

A cute little debate erupts in the comments. One man contends that men SHOULD try to save themselves because women's lives are no more valuable than theirs. A woman contends that women of childbearing age should be given priority, a suggestion that is utterly stomach turning to me. Laura contends (and I actually agree with this in principle) that priority should be given to the most vulnerable.

There is nothing about feminism that is opposed to the basic principle of protecting the weak. I would hope that were I ever on board a sinking ship that I would give way to children and their parents, pregnant women, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Of course, I would also hope that the ship would have an adequate number of life vests and boats, and a well-practiced protocol for evacuation. But, as a feminist, I don't see any reason why I, as an able-bodied relatively young woman of 40, should be given any special priority over the men. I don't need any special assistance to put on a lifevest or get into a boat, so no need for any special priority. More importantly, I am sure as hell not going to voluntarily embrace subordinate status in society on the off chance I might get some special privilege in the event of an unlikely emergency.

Laura does quote this fab bit from Mary Wollstonecraft (and please note that I believe the term "condescend" had a different meaning in Wollstonecraft's day:

I lament that women are systematically degraded by receiving the trivial attentions, which men think it manly to pay to the sex, when, in fact, they are insultingly supporting their own superiority. It is not condescension to bow to an inferior.

This may be the most pithy take-down of so-called chivalry ever!

[Terrie]

The difference between you and her is that you don't automatically group women as "vulnerable."

[Conuly]

The real question is: Would this have happened before feminism?

And the answer is, unreservedly, "yes". Sure, in slow crashes like the Titanic some men remembered the rule "Women and children first!" and adhered to it (for a certain value of "women" and "children", steerage, of course, didn't count) - but in fast crashes, records show that this did NOT happen.

[kb2]

Given the choice between women and children first and men elbowing their way onto lifeboats, my choice would be c) none of the above. What kind of person would say one was better than the other?

[dairyfreelife]

I think in an emergency, people panic and sometimes people become "every person for themselves." I would like to think I would give children and pregnant women, people who have disabilities, etc. the priority. Though the elderly, yes, but I imagine a lot of elderly folks I know giving me priority because they are older and have lived their life and I haven't. And yes, I do think that's what they would say to me. I could see myself arguing with many of them about this in the event of an emergency where one of us may not live. ;)

The chivalry thing is annoying. I would be royally ticked off at any man who told me to get in the lifevest and boat because I am of child-bearing age. I mean, wtf? Even if I die, the world will not cease to produce plenty of new humans and I may be infertile for all that guy knows so stfu. Said dude should get priority over me in that case as he has a better chance of being fertile than I do. It makes it seem like the only value of a woman is on the ability to have children. Even the hunter-gatherers save women as more valuable. Sick, twisted out-dated logic.

[YPestis]

How is feminism responsible for people pushing their way to the lifeboats during time of emergency? What? Those men felt so threatened by feminist women that they decided to forgo evacuation protocol? That they would be chivalrous if they knew that women were fragile creatures out to stroke their ego and bear children? I don't understand this line of reasoning.....

[CanadianHippie]

The chivalry thing is annoying. I would be royally ticked off at any man who told me to get in the lifevest and boat because I am of child-bearing age. I mean, wtf? Even if I die, the world will not cease to produce plenty of new humans and I may be infertile for all that guy knows so stfu. Said dude should get priority over me in that case as he has a better chance of being fertile than I do. It makes it seem like the only value of a woman is on the ability to have children. Even the hunter-gatherers save women as more valuable. Sick, twisted out-dated logic.

Seems like a perfect situation to shout "I'm infertile" to him and shove him off the sinking ship in a "heroic, life saving act".

[Constance Vigilance]

Given that many upper-class men got on lifeboards off the Titanic while women and children drowned, I'm going to call "bullshit" on the idea that before feminism this wouldn't have happened.

If anything the stinking cowardice of the captain and his officers is an example why men should not be automatically afforded leadership in place of women. The 'lower' crew members ended up organising the evacuation effort when panic broke out, including a couple of FEMALE British entertainment staff in their 20s who were among the last rescued because they were ensuring the safety of others.

[meow139]

At least good ol' E.J. Smith remembered the rule on HIS ship. Not sure that THIS is the example those officers wanted to set...

[Little Miss Alien]

As a slight aside, I wonder in an emergency situation, how one would classify 'the disabled'?

Groups such as 'women', 'children' and 'the elderly' are for the most part, easily classified on sight. I am disabled. I have no visible outward signs of disability. I would be standing on deck waiting for a lifeboat and hoping no one called me out because I look well.

I don't have a certificate to wave in people's faces, so if faced with an every man for himself situation, I'd lose out because I'd be eaten to the lifeboats, and if going into the sea and swimming/treading water until help arrived, then I'd be one of the first to die from exhaustion or exposure.

I don't know about the other feminists out there, but this one would simply hope for some basic human decency in a situation like this, where everyone acted calmly and courteously towards others. I can dream, right?

[bananacat]

There should never be a case where people have to fight for lifeboats. Most feminists are progressive and would therefore want stronger safety restrictions on boats so that everyone has the best chance for survival. Even if there were an age when all men would give up their seats to women and children, I wouldn't want to sacrifice those men because some asshole didn't want to pay for the proper safety equipment. It's a non sequitur. Also, there has never been a time when that would have actually happened. In general, lower classes would have been expected to give up their places for richer people. A rich man would never offer his seat to some working class maid or peasant.

[doggie]

duggie where are your comments???

[O Latin]

Re: Titanic: It's worth noting that because of the "unsinkable!" hype, many, many passengers did not actually believe the ship was going to sink until it was too late and all the lifeboats were gone. There were plenty of women who had the opportunity to get on lifeboats but refused because they thought it was all a bunch of fuss about nothing, so the crew in charge of loading the lifeboats let men on because they had to put somebody on the boats. I'm sure there was plenty of shoving and people only thinking about themselves at the expense of others, but that certainly doesn't describe every man who survived the Titanic. Also, just because it is a major pet peeve of mine, most third class passengers weren't locked down below as in the movie. Many of them had trouble finding their way up to the top deck because of the complicated layout of passageways and/or because they didn't know English and couldn't read the signs telling them which deck they were on.

As for this incident, isn't the official rule on sinking ships, crashing planes, etc. still "women and children first?" If people were shoving each other it was the result of panic and the people in charge not doing their jobs very well, not feminism.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Feminists like me would want:

1. Captains of ships to stick with the assigned route, and not do nautical "shout outs" by going off-course close to an island surrounded by reefs just to show off.

2. Captains and senior crew to take responsibility for sounding the alarm as soon as a problem was known, even if it means admitting that they have a problem that they cannot fix.

3. Captains and senior crew to take PROFESSIONAL responsibility for the safety of those under their care, by searching the ship and ensuring that all are off before leaving the ship themselves. [Gender has nothing to do with it. I'd expect, for example, that daycare staff would escort the children out and have a staff member do a search of the facility in the event of an emergency, and not just bolt for the door while pushing tots out of the way.]

4. High safety standards, so that anyone who couldn't make it to a lifeboat could at least be able to grab a lifejacket and jump.

[mnb357]

Ah, so by this reasoning, I can blame FEMINISM for Joshie letting Anna trek through the airport carrying the bags and the baby while he appeared oblivious. Here I was thinking it's just because he's an ass.

[slickcat79]

I've actually read about several giving and even "chivalrous" acts by various passengers on the ship. A man gave his life jacket to his wife because she couldn't swim and he didn't survive. A young woman gave her sweater to a baby because his parents weren't able to get warm clothes. From everything I've read, there were enough life jackets and enough lifeboats for everyone, so there was no need for anyone to die. It was just a panic situation because:

-The captain fucked up by steering too close to the shore

-He then tried to cover up his fuckup by attempting to maneuver the ship away from shore without calling for help

-He evacuated himself without notifying other people, and without putting proper evacuation procedures into play; had they begun evacuations earlier, there's a chance that more of the lifeboats could have been lowered while they were still able

So far, the only victims that I've heard particulars about were elderly men. One suffered a heart attack from the shock of hitting the water. I certainly wouldn't want a man with a heart condition to push me on to a boat out of some misguided sense of chivalry. I am younger and stronger, and while I'm far from a athlete, there's a very good chance that I could jump in the water and swim to shore, as they were only about 500 ft out. The whole thing is just tragic.

[Austin]

I believe that the vulnerable, who I would define as those who cannot help themselves to the same level as the able-bodied, should be given consideration obviously. Certainly children, the clearly disabled, and the elderly. I think that we could only expect people in an emergency situation to determine disability by what is obvious. I don't say that because those with non-obvious disabilities are less worthy, but how is the group supposed to determine that in an emergency situation where time is of the essence? And I bring that up as the mother of a son with an "invisible" disability. Anyway, people who cannot help themselves should be given consideration.

People who cannot help themselves do not include women, pregnant or not. I would expect no such consideration.

[Avalondaughter]

Cheezey, overhyped movies aside, the whole "women and children first" never works in practice. Over and over again the record has shown that the ones most likely to survive crashes (airplane and boat) are adult males. In other words, the strong survive. The men push their way to safety and feminism has nothing to do with it.

[deborahlynn1979]

Here is a relevant link from Slate about "women and children first:"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ingle.html

[Doomed Harlottt]

Today Laura quotes regular commenter Jesse Powell as follows (with my emphasis added):

Men must take care of women precisely to prevent women from feeling the need to take care of themselves; a woman who feels the need to take care of herself is exactly what a feminist is.

Men sacrificing a seat on a lifeboat on a sinking ship is the most extreme example of the chivalrous principle that the protection and needs of women come first but the chivalrous principle itself is very broad and very important. A man who as a part of his regular day to day identity takes his role as provider and protector seriously will find it natural and obvious that he should protect women in the extreme circumstance of the sinking ship even at cost and sacrifice to himself because part of his fundamental identity as a man is that he is a protector of women. He protects women in mundane and routine ways everyday and so he will protect women to in the most extreme and terrible circumstance of the sinking ship. It is who he is, it is what men do; to do otherwise is unthinkable and shameful.

Chivalry, the man’s duty to provide for and protect women, is a fundamental value necessity for good relations between the sexes. The purpose of promoting chivalry on a sinking ship is not because there is a high social value to large numbers of men dying as long as that means small numbers of women die, the purpose is to promote chivalry overall as a constant value that applies in all circumstances, even in the extreme case of the sinking ship. The men who sacrificed themselves on the Titanic were not merely sacrificing themselves as individual men for the benefit of some individual woman, they were laying down their lives to uphold the societal principle of chivalry; that the protection of women comes first. This principle in turn sets out a moral example for all men to aspire to and it provides a signal of protection that all women can take comfort in and rely upon. Once chivalry is thus reinforced as a bedrock principle of society the social order is then secured.

It just blows my mind that this guy (a) thinks that a woman feeling the need to take care of herself is a bad thing; (b) that traditionalist men's definition of themselves as protectors of women is more important than any interests women might have in self-sufficiency, autonomy, respect, etc. (in other words "it's all about the men"); and © that so-called chivarly (include mundane expressions of chivalry in daily life) somehow makes women feel safer.

I feel pretty safe for reasons having nothing to do with chivalry: (a) I live in a stable, industrialized democracy; (b) anti-violence activists have created a climate in which I am more likely than ever before to be believed and supported if I am ever a victim of domestic violence, sexual harassment, or rape; © feminism has allowed me to be self-sufficient enough that I can walk away if I am ever in abusive situation; (d) I have been encouraged to remain fit (i.e. I'd have no trouble hopping into a life boat and I am a good swimmer); and (e) I have been encouraged to carry myself in a confident way and to protest immediately if my boundaries are breached. I realize that our society isn't perfect and I've been lucky and privileged in many ways. But my experience tells me that feminism is better for inculcating a realistic sense of safety than chivlary.

If anything, chivalry reduces women's safety. I reinforces a societal sense of male superiority that in turn provides cover for men to abuse the women in their lives. It also reinforces a sense of female inferiority and helplessness that discourages women from taking steps to help themselves.

[dawbs]

I did see the transcript of the coast guard yelling at the captain did ask if women and children were aboard...

I do have to wonder, on a practical standpoint, if women and children in separate boats would make logical sense to keep them (in theory--not practice) from being victimized by stronger men on boats?

(I'm not wording that well. I blame the cold meds and the patriarchy. sorry)

[uncreative]

3. Captains and senior crew to take PROFESSIONAL responsibility for the safety of those under their care, by searching the ship and ensuring that all are off before leaving the ship themselves. [Gender has nothing to do with it. I'd expect, for example, that daycare staff would escort the children out and have a staff member do a search of the facility in the event of an emergency, and not just bolt for the door while pushing tots out of the way.]

Yes! I would expect the crew to facilitate an evacuation of ALL passengers. That's part of their job, regardless of their gender or my gender.

[GolightlyGrrl]

Well, according to a "commenter" at the Stinking Lousewife's blog, the captain fucked up because he's Italian.

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/201 ... -reliable/

[Austin]

Well, according to a "commenter" at the Stinking Lousewife's blog, the captain fucked up because he's Italian.

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/201 ... -reliable/

:shock:

Wasn't Christopher Columbus also Italian?

[GolightlyGrrl]

:shock:

Wasn't Christopher Columbus also Italian?

Oh, snap! He was!