Quote from Marx

"Survivors tell of panic as fathers ignore order that women and children should go first and passengers fight to get on boats" - since when was 'women & children first' any kind of law or any contract term agreed by men?

I was thinking similar. By what authority can the ship 'order' men, who are fare paying passengers on a cruise liner, to give way to women? Enlisted sailors on a warship, maybe, but beyond that, no free man should yield to any jumped-up little shit barking orders which have no legitimacy.

Italian drivers..

Did anyone check out the pics on that article? One or two of them caused me some difficulties.. I need to grab some tissues now..

The women should be outraged that they were not treated as equals-damn,I hope they sue for the sexual harrassment against them for not being treated as equals in an equal society that they,themselves,demanded.

Added after 6 minutes:

Seems there are no newer comments for at least the last few hours.

In an age when 'Equality' is legislated, 'Women and children first' is an unlawful order and therefore must be disobeyed.

Quote from outdoors

Seems there are no newer comments for at least the last few hours.

From what I can gather, the Daily Mail moderates replies to stories in batches, which means it can take many hours before it's printed (understaffed or a ploy to quell people getting into flame wars?). Or, as in my case recently, they don't seem to like biting criticism of feminism, so just deny my input despite following the rules.

Quote from Nynrah Ghost

Of the many double standards we have seen, an infamous one was 'women and children first' when the Titanic sank in 1912 (if my memory serves me well).

This week a cruise ship called the Costa Concordia crashed and people had to escape. It seems however that even after one CENTURY - of which five decades have been actively spent screeching about 'equal rights for women' - that people have barely changed when it comes to double standards.

It turns out that male survivors are being blamed of 'ignoring the order of women and children first'. It is nothing to be surprised about to be honest. The blatantly hypocrite theme of women being equal to and more special than men at the same time is a recurring one.

If one would take a glance at the comment section, it will be obvious that besides some semblances of sanity, the attitudes of many people are still severely outdated and outright bigotted. The live of a man is worth less than that of a woman, even when she is 'his equal' (a logical impossibility). Men whom ignore these bigotted orders are subject to shaming.

When a man states or hints that equality brings drawbacks with it as well, he is also shamed and while on the subject, others (women and manginas) immeadiatly rattle up some myths such as the wage gap to retaliate with what is basically trying to say that women's (imaginary) grievances justify bigotry that benefits them and that you should shut the F*CK up.

Personally, I find this 'order' which embodies the notion of male desposability, outrageous. Why would my life, your life or that of any other man be worth less than that of some random woman? It is socially even accepted to e.g. believe a single woman is more importnant than a father in such a situation.

I'd say, the sooner chivalry dies, the better it is. We can't expect women to show mutual respect on their own volition. Therefore it is up to men to take the initiative and to force respect by withdrawing ours where it is undue. Discarding chivalry like this is a part of that proces (although chivalry should be discarded anyway in favour of common courtesy).

Many women bemoan how feminism & co have caused them to lose the special treatment they were given by chivalry. Perhaps it is one of the few incidental good things that have happened in the past decades if that is to be assumed as truth. At the very least, some young men opt to stay with their families rather than playing the idiot fool otherwise called the 'hero'.

Link: Costa Concordia: Sinking cruise ship survivors describe nightmare scenes | Mail Online

"Women and Children First" is nothing but outdated and a bunch of crap. It should "Children, Elderly, and Disabled First", not this "I'm special" bullshit.

Quote from byslexic_danana

My comment:

From now on, I'm going to tell this story to women I date; in particular the conduct of the men who ignored the 'women and children first' 'rule'. If they're disgusted by it, then I'll get up and walk away, immediately; I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'd rather not have anything to do with women who think that their lives are worth more than yours, simply because of their gender. Great future test for me, thank you!

Awesome idea. I've often thought about having an "Are you worthy of dating me?" test. It would definitely include this issue. It would also include the issue of women cutting off men's penises. If the woman doesn't react properly, the date ends immediately.

Am I the only one that is bothered by the idea that children, pregnant women, the handicapped, and the elderly get to board life boats before men and women? Is that the order of value for human beings with men dead last, no pun intended, and women somewhere between children and men?

Why am I as a man less valuable than a child, a pregnant woman, the handicapped, or the elderly? Who's is to say who is worth saving? It's like that stupid theoretical question people ask about having a mixed group of people in a lifeboat and trying to determine who's worth saving. Maybe the child will grow up to be a criminal or a politician? I'm being redundant. Maybe the pregnant woman is a bitch? Maybe the handicapped person abuses animals? Maybe the elderly will die soon anyways? Maybe the woman has no family? Maybe I do? Maybe I hope to? Maybe I just want to live regardless of what the other people are like or have to offer the world? Why does my penis have to sentence me to death?

Why shouldn't it be first come, first serve? Or how about a spot on a lifeboat for everyone? Or if there aren't enough seats, then charge different cruise prices for those who can afford lifeboat insurance and those who can't. People can wear different colored shirts based on whether they are lifeboat passengers or drowning passengers. Of course, it might not sell tickets, which is why cruise lines don't do it. They don't want people to think about drowning.

Nonetheless, a color-coded system would work just great. There would be much less confusion in the event of a sinking. Plus, in the time leading up to the sinking people would get used to their "color". Those with high priority colors could walk about smugly and wantonly abuse the inferior passengers. Those of humbler berth (read: men) could get used to being treated as flotsam and jetsam. In the event of a near sinking, they could be tossed overboard with other jetsam to lighten the load. In the event of an actual sinking, they would know their place and just stay out of the way while superior colored people made their way to their lifeboats.

Alfred Hitchcock presents Lifeboat:
Lifeboat - Part 1 - YouTube

Costa Concordia: Sinking cruise ship survivors describe nightmare scenes | Mail Online

Quote from Duran

It doesn't specify but why use the word fathers if it isn't insinuating that?

Dude, it's worded like that purposedly.

Men that happened to be fathers didn't allow children and women outside of their family to go first.

Fathers desperate to be with their families ignored the order that women and children should go first. There was even fighting between some passengers who tried to get on lifeboats.

Read more: Costa Concordia: Sinking cruise ship survivors describe nightmare scenes | Mail Online

How could they be with their families if they abandoned them?

Added after 12 minutes:

Destroythem, St louis -- It's not feminists saying "equal doesn't mean the same"; the feminists are the ones who think men and women *are* the same, and that all gender is just culturally acquired baggage. This is obviously a load of tripe. I personally have not wrought any gender wars upon society, I did not lobby for equality, I am *not* the same as a man, and I *do* need my husband to be a father and provider to my children - how else could I raise them decently? Frankly, I think things were better off in the world when it was just men who had the vote, too. This is clearly an opinion not frequently heard, so I imagine most people don't agree with me, but I don't see any positive changes occurring in the world of politics since female suffrage took effect. Just remember this: feminists were the ones agitating for equality, but they remained powerless until the MEN gave in to them and allowed this to happen. So blame your forefathers for this mess, not me.
- Nikki, Boise, USA, 16/1/2012 03:46
Click to rate Rating 1


Read more: Costa Concordia: Sinking cruise ship survivors describe nightmare scenes | Mail Online

1. It is men's fault for allowing women to have the vote (even though most men couldn't approve nor deny)

If it were not for men giving women the vote then they'd claim that men were denying them a basic right still...

2. When it suits women claim that women earned the right to vote but in order to blame men she claims it is men's fault for giving in.


AM isn't the reason for my negative attitudes towards women. AM only provides me with confirmation but my reason is women themselves. There are a ton of things we see that we don't mention here because they appear too "small" and it isn't like us (men) to complain about every thing we see. It doesn't matter how much good we do we'll always be blamed.

I, too, can't quite understand why elderly and disabled passengers should get priority; aren't the elderly going to die relatively soon, anyway? Isn't the opposite, i.e. they have longer left to live, the reason why we would let children off first? Pregnant women, to be fair, I understand; they're carrying people-to-be, so for each pregnant woman, it's a case of 'killing two birds with one stone' (or rather, SAVING two lives, for the price of one).

What would be the most efficient way of doing this? If there are only limited a number of places, then surely 'first-come-first-serve' is the most logical way, as the highest number of potential lives are saved, as quickly as possible.

Quote from byslexic_danana

I, too, can't quite understand why elderly and disabled passengers should get priority; aren't the elderly going to die relatively soon, anyway? Isn't the opposite, i.e. they have longer left to live, the reason why we would let children off first? Pregnant women, to be fair, I understand; they're carrying people-to-be, so for each pregnant woman, it's a case of 'killing two birds with one stone' (or rather, SAVING two lives, for the price of one).

What would be the most efficient way of doing this? If there are only limited a number of places, then surely 'first-come-first-serve' is the most logical way, as the highest number of potential lives are saved, as quickly as possible.

But you see, you are fogetting something quite fundimental and dare I say biological...

The big ole meany abusive men will beat up all the womenz, kiddies, and old people and take all the good seats!

See? That's why!

TMOTS

In about 80 years time, they will turn this tragedy into a film, not so much about the ins & outs of how this tragedy came to be - but rather - some invented love story and humping in the back seat of a car on board the boat and how the guy didn't let one of his superiors take his seat on the life-boat.

My next comment (don't think they posted my last one):

This whole "men are stronger" argument doesn't hold much water (no pun intended) with me. I'm strong, but not a strong SWIMMER. Swimming ability is more about experience of swimming, than physical strength, as much as strength will factor into the equation slightly. In my experience, women go swimming more than do men; were one to take a random man and a random woman, I'm not sure that the man would necessarily be much better a swimmer, if at all. In 2012, if women want to be seen as equals, they should stop trying to shame only men into being "gentlemanly" and "honourable"; with equal rights come equal responsibilities.

Oh, and guys: COMMENT, and rate others' comments; things like this make a difference.

Pretty much agree with what has been said on here .
To be fair ,many women on the Mail forum think so too
Who says that women should go 1st ? Children ,the elderly and infirm , even pregnant women should go 1st , but we're equal now ,so women should take their place
Of course , we all know that feminism means "Equality when it suits , favourable treatment all other times
Right on sistas !!!!!!

Children ,the elderly and infirm , even pregnant women should go 1st

Again, why? Why are these people worthy of saving? Why am I, as a man, always worthy of dying? People make these statements without offering any logical reasons. They're supposed to be accepted as a given, meaning a given that men are supposed to lay down and die. In life and in death all of those groups are always put ahead of my group! Children eat free, etc. The elderly get discounts at restaurants. (Meaning the difference is made up by the rest of us.) The handicapped, the elderly and pregnant women get special seats on public transportation. The handicapped and pregnant women get special parking spots. The handicapped get to collect disability. We men, drown-worthy men that is, have to provide for and protect all these people. What thanks do we get? We get to die. Not just any ol' death, either. We get to drown, one of the most horrible deaths there is.

Call me cold-hearted. I don't care. I'm a Villian.

Regarding the future potential of children and the fact that pregnant women count for at least two, I still don't see why that makes them more valuable than me. How much more potential does a ten-year-old boy have over a 20-year-old man? What if the boy in stupid and lazy and the man is a medical student or and brilliant engineer? Or what if the boy will never choose to have kids but the man wants to have 3 or 4? What if the pregnant woman is going to have an abortion anyways? What if she is a feminist and is going to do what feminists do?

How do we measure a person's worth? Age? Sex? Health? Profession? All of this placing of value on life is rather sickening to me, especially since, no matter what the determination, I as a man always wind up going down with the ship. The real answer to how much value your life has is how much you value it. Do you value it so little that you will put up with others telling you you're not worth saving?

There are only three fair ways to determine who gets on a lifeboat:
1) Give the seats to positive contributing members of society: workers, producers, etc. not welfare recipients, thieves, etc.
2) Everyone gets a seat. (Why do cruise ships still not have enough lifeboats for everyone a 100 years after the Titanic? What a crime!)
3) Have two cruise prices: one with a lifeboat seat, one without.