Men being blamed for ignoring the order of 'women and children first'

**Nynrah Ghost** · 15th-January-2012

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section, it will be obvious that besides some semblances of sanity, the attitudes of many people are still severely outdated and outright bigotted.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

**Duran** · 15th-January-2012

Quote from DailyMail

Survivors tell of panic as fathers ignore order that women and children should go first

I seriously hope that isn't true.

**outdoors** · 15th-January-2012

Quote from Duran

I seriously hope that isn't true.

Which part?

**Celtic Druid** · 15th-January-2012

It seems the exact same story, with the same writers, has been posted twice on the the Daily Mail site. Costa Concordia survivors describe nightmare scenes as people fought to escape sinking cruise ship | Mail Online I replied earlier on and it's still awaiting moderation. With NG's link there isn't moderation. Maybe a technical error.

Here's my reply:

I'm amazed in an era of supposed equality, women still have a sexist and arrogant assumption they should evacuate a sinking ship before men. Certainly children (with fathers & mothers), elderly, pregnant and disabled should get priority, but not the able-bodied generation of women who've been shrieking dementedly about equality for decades. No, you can stay behind with the men and demonstrate this much lauded concept of 'I can do anything a man can do'! You can thank feminism for that. If women are using children to get priority on the lifeboats, why should it be any different for fathers protecting their children? I noticed a number of female commenters attempting the tried and tested shame and guilt tactics, as they desperately seek to maintain the best of both worlds. Now that's shameful in itself! Women need to come down from their self-exalted chauvinistic pedestals and start mingling with mortal men.

Also, looking at pictures and tv footage, you have to wonder why on earth this floating town was sailing so close to land.

**Duran** · 15th-January-2012

Quote from outdoors

Which part?

The fathers leaving their families behind to save themselves.

**Nynrah Ghost** · 15th-January-2012

Quote from Duran

The fathers leaving their families behind to save themselves.

It doesn't says they abandon their own families. It says they don't let every other woman and child go first.

**Duran** · 15th-January-2012

Quote from Nynrah Ghost

It doesn't says they abandon their own families. It says they don't let every other woman and child go first.

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

**Nynrah Ghost** · 15th-January-2012

Quote from Duran

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

Well, the article does says early on:

"Fathers desperate to be with their families ignored the order that women and children should go first."

Despite that, it is indeed a wrongly chosen word that insinuates something unjustly.

**Marx** · 15th-January-2012

"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? Feminists have fought long & hard for hard equality... UNTIL there is any kind of problem and 'suddenly' men are expected to be expendable? This is blatant sexism that states clearly that men's lives are worth less compared to womens... some equality! I can't swim - if I had been on there should I be expected to give up the possibility of a life boat for a woman well trained in swimming who could easily save herself? No, men's lives are EQUALLY as important as women's lives - anything less is blatant misandry.

My two cents.

**felixblue** · 15th-January-2012

Women dont put children first when they go to the abortion clinic so why should men treat women as if they have some god given right to be saved?

**christianj** · 15th-January-2012

More male bashing, never let any opportunity go to waste. I am sure that any Father would have wanted to save his own family first, as has always been the case. The fact that they may have ignored the nagging order is solely due to the fact that women have killed chauvinism and now it apparently matters. The ignorance is incomprehensible. The endless demands made over the years regarding women and their endless demands, and the total neglect of men's issues is rearing it's head and it appears to be payback time, if it can be referred to as that, I am not quite certain. But I do believe that sooner than later some recognition has to be given to it's deterioration and death, the only way to restore it would be a comprehensive and ongoing grovel session. I can't see that either..
"You don't know what you got till it's gone" speaks louder here..

**felixblue** · 15th-January-2012

I hope no man took the opportunity to push any feminists under the water prior to saving his own skin.. Now THAT would be something that they could moan about! Though, as we know, if the situation was reversed, it would be a great laugh!!

**byslexic_danana** · 15th-January-2012

I can't understand the argument that, because men may be faster and stronger, they must hold back, to avoid it being mainly men, who get the lifeboats; by holding back, it ensures the opposite, and will therefore be unequal, too. But, hey, we all know 'unequal' is fine, when it benefits women..........

**The Possible Human** · 15th-January-2012

It's par for the course, shaming and vilifying men and FATHERS in the articles and response posts. This is the crap that makes my blood boil, are they insinuating fathers abandonded their kids and wives to save themselves?

Women want Chivalry when it protects them from grevious harm or death, but at the same time hate men for being Chivalrous because they are being Patriarchal. It's a catch 22 with no logic.

I'm ok with children and the elderly/diabled first. The order of "women and children first" is pretty much a relic as far as I am concerned.

**RobYork** · 15th-January-2012

My comment:

Children and parent(s) first, not women just because they are women.

Top comment: (Very pro reality)

I am not surprised that some of the men on the ship ignored the order for women and children to go first. For some men chivalry is not dead, but overall it is taking it's last gasp of breath. Women are the cause of it's sharp decline, not men. Men got fed up with the nasty reactions from women who acted like the men were doing something criminal when they behaved like gentlemen. My husband's boss once observed him opening the door for a woman as they were both entering the building. He approached my husband in the office and told him not to do it again, because if he held the door open for a woman who didn't like it, got angry and made a complaint, my husband could lose his job for sexual harassment. When women demand to be treated identically to men in every respect, they are doing so without considering our size and physical strength differences. When the day comes that there are no men left in a chivalrous mood, guess which gender is going to completely fill up the lifeboats.