The Titanic Anniversary

**Percy** · 3rd-March-2010

It is coming around again next month.

Barbara Kay points to it.

Barbara Kay: How patriarchy ran into its own iceberg
March 02, 2010,

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/02/barbara-kay-how-patriarchy-ran-into-its-own-iceberg.aspx

The Titanic sank in 1912 after hitting an iceberg. Of the 2,200 people on board, 1,517 died. The Lusitania sank in 1915, victim to a German U-boat torpedo. Of the nearly 2,000 people on board, 1,200 died. In addition to carrying about the same numbers of passengers, the demographic composition of the two ships - adults, children, men, women, old, young - was also similar.

Two stark differences distinguish the tragedies. One was the fact that the Lusitania sank very swiftly, only minutes after it was struck, while it took four hours for the Titanic to go under the waves. The other is that on the Titanic, most of the survivors were women and children: 75% of women and almost all the children were saved as against 20% of the men, while on the Lusitania, of the 639 who escaped, it was a question of sauve qui peut. The fittest amongst both men and women aged 16-35 were likeliest to survive.

According to a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the altruism of the Titanic and the length of time it took for the ship to sink are causally linked. Benno Torgler, study author and economics professor at Queensland University of Technology in Australia explains that circumstances dictate levels of altruism. According to the study, since the Titanic passengers had a few hours to consider their options, "there was time for socially determined behavioural patterns to re-emerge."

The time factor in determining selfish or unselfish behaviour strikes one as a reasonable insight. Panic arouses atavistic instincts of blind flight; more time to consider allows the intellect, the emotions and one's sense of -- call it what you will: duty, honour, morality -- to surface and in some cases overwhelm terror.

(P. While it is an interesting and possibly sustainable hypothosis, it is not shown to be a 'causal' relationship. That which 'enables' of 'facilitates' does not necessarily 'cause')

But now let us consider these "socially determined behavioural patterns" that allowed so many women and children on the Titanic to live.
The sinking of the Titanic occurred in 1912, well before the emancipation of women. Indeed, 1912, before the "lights [had] gone out in Europe" with World War One, may be said to be the last moment when the patriarchy held fairly complete sway over the lives of women.

After the war, a dearth of men, coupled with women's adventures in autonomy in the work force and taking charge of their domestic domains, along with the extinction of "honour" as a viable ideal after an honour-based war's senseless horrors, the patriarchy was on its way out, gender equality on its way in. (P. See my comments below)

So these heroes who willingly sacrificed their lives for women and children had been brought up in the very heart of the same robust patriarchy that feminists today use as a shibboleth to frighten young girls with. According to the feminist mystique, these men should have been controlling, egocentric, self-serving bullies, for whom women were nothing more than sexual and domestic conveniences, little better than slaves.

They should all have been candidates for anger management, not a chivalry so breathtakingly selfless that they almost to a man went to watery graves in stoic humility so that total strangers might live, simply because of their sex.

It is precisely in a crisis that we often learn a great deal about what our values actually are. So this example of male heroism in as indisputably existential situation as imagination can conceive, and ideally placed to consider their deepest convictions before acting should, it seems to me, remain in the forefront of our collective consciousness. For these men were the product of a particular culture, one that perceived chivalry and honour and duty as the highest values. And the highest expression of those highest values was the privileging of women and children's lives over their own. And they acted on that perception.

Yes, women were infantilized in many ways in the patriarchy, which a cynic might say was the driving impulse behind the chivalry of the Titanic's men. But so what? At the moment when it mattered most, the notion that men should above all act as protectors of the vulnerable in times of danger to all committed them to death in the service of others. Was there ever a more noble or selfless act?

The study reminds us that the heroism of the Titanic was a willed phenomenon, and one that feminists do not wish to discuss (I have tried).
Instead of fetishizing the victimhood of women at men's hands and the deviance from our cultural norm that Marc Lepine represented with man-bashing dirges across the land every December 6, would it not make more sense - and would it not be more ethically fitting and socially unifying - to celebrate the more representative manliness of men every April 15, the date of the Titanic's sinking? Still six weeks left to plan it.

The sacrifice of those brave and caring men on the Titanic was a total waste. A triumph of masculine altruism that exemplifies adages such as ‘The Good that men do, seldom does them any good’, and ‘Virtue is its own reward’.

Apart from a stone Monument from the Women of America, the rest of the century was a monument to women’s complete stoney disdain.

Soon after the Titanic, the first world war broke out. The marriageable aged men of Britain numbered around nine million. One million died and two million returned maimed and often limbless, wrecks in body and mind. One in three men.

Women were stricken with grief. One in three women found their chances of marriage and someone to work for them reduced to nought. Women had to look after themselves. They had to work for a living instead of being ‘provided for’.

That initial grief was enough to set off a neurotic, blaming, anger that condemned the very men who had suffered so much to protect those women. It has grown and intensified for the last ninety years, turning psychotic after the male sacrifice yet again in WW2.

There is a grieving process. Anger is a late stage of that process. It has to be 'worked through' to recover normality. It has not been. It has eaten away the sensitivity and love of women.

Lest we forget? Our society has forgotten already. It remembered for all of three years then women went mad.

**6ame** · 3rd-March-2010

I commented.

A great article, but a day to celebrate the bravery and honour of men will never happen, for evidence of this, look no further than these comments, the story is clearly about the men's behaviour during the Titanic disaster, yet a feminist has crashed the party and turned it into a discussion about Marc Lepine, I'm aware you mentioned him once in your article, but in typical feminist style, they have ensured that the discussion will be about what they want to talk about, and we all know that certainly isn't going to be men's honour, not when they can change the subject into how women suffer in some way.

Sadly, this is what the people who make decisions have to put up with too, so if any politician ever tries to be pro-male, they'll immediately be bombarded with the problems women face and be told to sort them first.

**shaazam** · 3rd-March-2010

"It has eaten away the sensitivity and love of women."

hmmm this is assuming a lot Percy !

just watch Oprah for a taste of their sensitivity and love; its queer and misandric isn't it ( me myself and I ) and they raise their sons the same way - we see celebrites French kissing and smirking with delight for the cameras - their right to choose etc

wimyn regard us through the Duluth prism and this is legislated into ball breaking statutes agin us me and you included

even during the Titanic sinking wimyn looked after No 1 with the cooperation of the altruistic brainwashed male passengers

wimyn have always looked after No1 and at every opportunity for their personal benefit played men off of a break

Zsa Zsa Gabor - "I believe in house keeping! when I divorce I keep the house"

why !

cause wimyn are natural born narcissists and opportunists - they will tolerate and manipulate a "good" man until such times they find a better dupe; it has been wimyn's survival ploy right through the aeons

the old system kept wimyn under control ( bare foot and pregnat and progressed civilisation look at the botch up In the UK where feminit wimyn Harman and manginas operate the levers of power

in France legislation is being prepared where a man may do 7 years for yelling at his wife

abandon your altruistc notions of wimyn Percy wimyn are conscience less opportunists

the brilliant actor that plays Mrs Everage - the philistine housewife of fifty years age - described wimyn in an article in the Bullitin one as having sponge fingers hiding a mailed fist

I took Barry's comment to hard about 1968 and time has proved him right

**Percy** · 3rd-March-2010

Shazza, I think you are simply proving my point for me. As I said women became first neurotic and then psychotic.

Please don't keep on this track of asking me to throw away an illusion I have not had.

**themanonthestreet** · 3rd-March-2010

And in true fashion, let the historical revisionism begin!

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...,6071974.story

TMOTS

**julie** · 3rd-March-2010

I don't think New Zealand's women became angry because of WWI.

Non feminist women over here say it came through radio and television when people started sharing what was going on in their lives and homes.

From one older feminist whose mother was part of the National women's group, I learnt that the 60's feminists were angry because their mothers spoke of women equality but in the home they still had the boys doing certain things and the girls doing certain things.

Also Pacific Island women speak of this too.

Hey, wasn't the suffragettes (now called first wave feminists) Christian women who wanted to have a say in social things like alcohol and the age of consent for children?

Edit: I'll look this up for myself. NZ has archived all feminist work in a library that is not far from where I live. You can't trust sites to tell the truth, lol. I think (I research too much sometimes.)

**julie** · 3rd-March-2010

Quote from themanonthestreet

And in true fashion, let the historical revisionism begin!

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...,6071974.story

TMOTS

Nice link. Thanks.

**Percy** · 3rd-March-2010

I don't think New Zealand's women became angry because of WWI. Jools

I am pretty sure you are right, Jools. Nor Australian women. But the initial impetus came from Britain - with their American cousins doing their thing too.

It may even have been the Aussie and NZ women's experience that made the 'Mother country' women so jealous. We both had voting women at the turn of the century. But a good sneeze spreads the wheeze. Thereafter it takes on a spreading life of its own.

**julie** · 3rd-March-2010

Quote from Percy

It may even have been the Aussie and NZ women's experience that made the 'Mother country' women so jealous. We both had voting women at the turn of the century. But a good sneeze spreads the wheeze. Thereafter it takes on a spreading life of its own.

That's a good point.

I am just sharing this with you to add some information. I think you are onto something with the British feminists.

The suffrage campaign in New Zealand began as a far-flung branch of a broad late-nineteenth century movement for women's rights that spread through Britain and its colonies, the United States and northern Europe. This movement was shaped by two main themes: equal political rights for women and a determination to use them for the moral reform of society (through, for example, the prohibition of alcohol).

New Zealand's pioneering suffragists were inspired both by the equal-rights arguments of philosopher John Stuart Mill and British feminists, and by the missionary efforts of the American-based Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU).
http://www.elections.org.nz/democrac...for-women.html

Women's Christian Temperance Union

The purpose of the WCTU was to combat the influence of alcohol on families and society. The first president was Annie Wittenmyer. Frances Willard, a noted feminist, was its second president, and made the greatest leaps for the group. They were inspired by the Greek writer Xenophon who defined temperance as "moderation in all things healthful; total abstinence from all things harmful." In other words, should something be good, it should not be indulged in to excess. Should something be bad for you, it should be avoided altogether; thus their attempts to rid their surroundings of what they saw (and still see) as the dangers of alcohol. The WCTU perceived alcoholism as a consequence of larger social problems rather than as a personal weakness or failing.

Thus the WCTU was very interested in a number of social reform issues including: labor, prostitution, public health, sanitation and international peace. As the movement grew in numbers and strength, members of the WCTU also focused on suffrage. The WCTU was instrumental in organizing woman's suffrage leaders and in helping more women become involved in American politics. Local chapters, known as “unions”, were largely autonomous though linked to state and national headquarters. Willard pushed for the "Home Protection" ballot, arguing that women, being the superior sex morally, needed the vote in order to act as "citizen-mothers" and protect their homes and cure society's ills. At a time when suffragists still alienated most American women, who viewed them as radicals, the WCTU offered a more traditionally feminine and appropriate organization for women to join.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%2...mperance_Union

It's interesting that the main group against women voting in New Zealand were breweries.

New Zealand- The liquor industry, which feared that women would support growing demands for the prohibition of alcohol, lobbied sympathetic Members of Parliament and organised their own counter-petitions.

**byslexic_danana** · 3rd-March-2010

75% of women survived, as against 20% of men?

Those poor, oppressed little darlings.......

**shaazam** · 6th-March-2010

"It has eaten away the sensitivity and love of women."

I may have misconstrued the sense of your comment Percy

I read it as a reference "the sensitivity and love of women" that is attributes possessed by wimyn in general - wimyn no doubt have it for dar selves but it is only a little men get of this nowadays - usually as a come-on, a charade, an invitation for a peonage contract;

otherwise the sense could be read as"" " the sensitivity and love of women." by men of wimyn which nowadays is hoping agin hope hahah

neurotic implies half mad psychotic all so ! I think wimyn nowadays are functionally narcissistic by and large and are indocrinated to be so by the feminit system - brainwashing men an wimyn from crafle to grave