No one has ever confused Mr. Ismay with another person who refused to give up her seat on a less expensive form of transportation, Rosa Parks, but one could ask the same question about both: should someone be deprived of their seat -- on a bus, a train, a roller coaster, or even a lifeboat -- simply because of their birth class? I think not, yet Mr. Ismay is widely regarded as a coward while Ms. Parks is properly lionized -- because men belong to the one birth class expected to sacrifice themselves for the other. Even today.
But I digress. The article talked about the "armchair hero" who would sooner sit in judgment of the men who did not lose their lives than applaud the contributions of those who did, and it offered a plausible explanation for why some of the lifeboats on the ship were not filled:
Now, almost 100 years after Titanic, the armchair hero has concocted a new "crisis" that he uses as a yardstick to judge men's actions. He insists that women, and girls, need to be rescued from the scourge of rape just as women and children on Titanic needed to be rescued from the icy grip of the briny deep.
No matter how many men and boys are drowning from rape lies, and no matter how many empty seats there are in the lifeboats, the armchair hero makes it clear that you simply can't be a hero if you rescue men and boys.
Then, as now, the armchair hero is not appeased by the appalling death-roll of men. He asks for more.
Posts
28 comments:
So how do we go about killing this armchair hero?
Anyone who thinks the armchair hero is not alive and well today need only look back to the feminist response following the Marc Lepine shootings.
No, not just, this is evidence of misogyny, male violence, etc.
No, they went further than that.
They blamed the men who had survived his attack, for surviving.
They demanded to know why the men had not given up their own lives to save their female colleagues.
A sickening insight into what feminists truly believe.
Snark, we need to write a piece about the women who blamed the male survivors. That would make a great article. And Snark -- publish it here, not Spearhead or somewhere else. FYI, we had more than 28,000 (not a misprint) unique visitors one day this week -- because of the story about the woman who told a rape lie because the man didn't give her the beer.
This is poetically sad.
"This is poetically sad."
Sorry, Social Worker. This is why most women will never understand men's issues. To describe something so fucking tragic as this - and I mean something REAL, something HUMAN - as 'poetically sad' - unfortunately shows that you don't quite "get it" either. Unless perhaps you would describe, for instance, the slaughter of baby girls in China during the 1990s as "poetically sad."
It's not fucking poetically sad. It's a fucking tragedy, hundreds of lives snuffed out when this could have been avoided. And all for what?
For suffragettes to remark that this was just a 'common duty' worthy of no respect.
Ugh.
That last post was from me, Snark.
We need to brand these armchair heroes as the traitors they are. If women were treating women like this that is exactly how they would handle it.
Male misandry must end or nothing will ever be accomplished.
"So how do we go about killing this armchair hero?
Jul 29, 2010 3:01:00 PM"
We don't kill him. We educate him. We kill his ignorance and thereby destroy his anger and desire to rush to judgment. It is what Pierce et al do here every single day. It is the only thing that will bring about lasting change.
I think the name of Mr. Ismay of the Titanic needs to be reminded to a lot more men - and treated with a good deal more respect. Men who defend themselves and survive should be lauded as examples for the rest of us.
Incidentally, reading a short story of Joseph Conrad's recently that pre-dated the Titanic has a scene where a ship is about to go down. The cry from the captain is 'Youngest First!', even though his own wife is on board.
So if this happened in 1912, when exactly were women second-class citizens in the throes of an evil patriarchy? Or did its magical powers only extend to dry land?
"we had more than 28,000 (not a misprint) unique visitors one day this week"
Then I regret not adding better comments...
Women and children first is the law of the sea.
I think the reason for this is because they are both pretty helpless and it's the men who are the only ones capable of getting them off the ship.
Do you really believe that 2 females each holding a rope could lower a lifeboat full of people safely from the deck to the water? I would have a hard time doing it with another man so I guess it's better to get the helpless off the ship first.
The men would have got off too but there weren't enough lifeboats and the closest rescue ship was too far away to save them before they froze to death in the water.
^^^ agreed.
Being an armchair hero is easy! Everyone can do it! Of course they'd give up your seat in a lifeboat to a woman! Of course they'd throw their body on a grenade! Of course they'd take a bullet for them!
It's a totally different situation when you're actually looking at freezing to death in the middle of the north Atlantic in water that are 32 degrees F (0 degrees C).
It's totally different when you're in a room, and you notice the grenade's been thrown, and you're scrambling to keep from going home in long wooden box.
And it's totally different when you're looking at the wrong end of a fully-loaded firearm in the hands of a madman.
I, along with everyone else, was not there, and therefore I cannot pass the final judgement on them for their actions.
It is often forgotten that the sinking of the Titanic actually set back women gaining the vote by a few years. At the time, people said it was hypocritical for women to be happy for men to die for them but not happy for men to vote for them. President Wilson was intending to meet with suffragettes, but decided to cancel, saying something to the effect of 'after the heroic actions of these men, your cause is diminished'.
To me, the fact that such a debate would not happen today says a lot about how our society has become infected with such lazy, dishonest thinking. Back then, people seemed to instinctively grasp the concept that with rights come responsibilities and with freedom comes risk. People also recognized that women couldn't have it both ways, on the one hand being frail helpless creatures in need of protection and at the same time equal citizens to men. Back then, people were also more honest about the advantages chivalry gave to women. They didn't dress it up or disguise it as some form of social justice designed to help the disadvantaged.
Correction: it appears that Taft was still the President at the time the Titanic sank, not Wilson. So I will have to go back to the drawing board on some of the details of this.
The account I put is based on what I read in a large tome about the Titanic written by a historian. I will do a bit more searching to confirm some details.
Anon at 7:39: Excellent point. How many times have I heard men say "I never knew women could do this!" Well, by standing back, we are enabling the forces that destroy men and boys.
god, even after so many years we are still fighting on the same issues, we dont have money for essentials, but we do have spirit for rediculous, great
@ 7:06, apparently you missed the whole point of this post. There were EMPTY SEATS on the lifeboats because men were so shamed by malicious females that they would rather die for NOTHING than save themselves.
The chivalrous law of the sea is 'women first, THEN children, but not men, never'.
Btw, if you get your hands on a demographic breakdown of men, women and children who survived, you'll see that a higher proportion of women than children survived. That is, seats went to WOMEN before CHILDREN. How can that possibly be justified? Oh, right, we're dealing with people who harvest (unborn) children as a matter of course and compare it to buying furniture.
Anonymous said...
We need to brand these armchair heroes as the traitors they are. If women were treating women like this that is exactly how they would handle it.
Male misandry must end or nothing will ever be accomplished.
Jul 29, 2010 4:42:00 PM
True and correct
Anonymous said...
So if this happened in 1912, when exactly were women second-class citizens in the throes of an evil patriarchy? Or did its magical powers only extend to dry land?
"we had more than 28,000 (not a misprint) unique visitors one day this week"
Then I regret not adding better comments...
Jul 29, 2010 6:57:00 PM
I don't think women were ever treated as lower-class citizen's/ "person's/ human beings except; by women of higher status. A gentlemen of any status (during the golden age of chivalry) was socially obligated to greet any woman/female properly(including tip his hat), even if his wife/girlfriend/fiance' was present. Women of higher status were never under social obligation to even acknowlege a lower class woman's / female's existence ( this still stands even in the golden age of modern day feminism. Double standards existed then as they do today.
Anonymous said...
Being an armchair hero is easy! Everyone can do it! Of course they'd give up your seat in a lifeboat to a woman! Of course they'd throw their body on a grenade! Of course they'd take a bullet for them!
It's a totally different situation when you're actually looking at freezing to death in the middle of the north Atlantic in water that are 32 degrees F (0 degrees C).
It's totally different when you're in a room, and you notice the grenade's been thrown, and you're scrambling to keep from going home in long wooden box.
And it's totally different when you're looking at the wrong end of a fully-loaded firearm in the hands of a madman.
I, along with everyone else, was not there, and therefore I cannot pass the final judgement on them for their actions.
Jul 29, 2010 7:39:00 PM
Imagine not only the U.S. but the world as the Titanic. I don't think I need to spell it out. Feminists consider the whole world a disaster (blamed on males, of course) and men as being obligated to save women, including women they don't know.
Anonymous said...
"Women and children first is the law of the sea".
It is also one of the "laws" of feminism. One only has to listen to how men are blamed for any harm (real or imagined) that women suffer; per VAWA.
"I think the reason for this is because they are both pretty helpless..."
Jul 29, 2010 7:06:00 PM
There is more than likely one or more feminists and/or their ilk that is condeming both you and this "I think the reason for this is because they are both pretty helpless..."
They claim to be so superior and so powerful yet, they still depend on men. Do I dare say hypocrital? Yes.
Archivist said...
Anon at 7:39: Excellent point. How many times have I heard men say "I never knew women could do this!" Well, by standing back, we are enabling the forces that destroy men and boys.
Jul 29, 2010 10:15:00 PM
Yes, we ALL are.
Lifeboat boarding on the Titanic, unfortunately for much of the evacuation, depended on which side of the boats passengers trying to evacuate were on. On the port side, the officer supervising launchings took the "women & children first" order as "women and children only," not allowing men to board, even though lifeboats were being lowered with empty seats. On the starboard side, the officer in charge took the order to mean women and children, then men, offering available seats to male passengers once women and children had already been loaded. About 75% of the survivors of the Titanic were in boats that launched from the starboard side, which was also the side Ismay launched from, after helping to load and launch boats for about 2 hours, actions that were corroborated by others.
I remember reading one account that attributed the negative press toward Ismay to the dislike William Randolph Hearst had toward him. As a consequence of that dislike, the papers controlled by Hearst led the way in tarnishing Ismay's image, and the false impression of him lasts to this day
Consider what 'women and children first' means in practice.
It means grown men stand by and watch adult women take their places in safety, while children wait in danger. I don't know how many men could stand to do or allow this if they were thinking straight. That adult women would do it is appalling.
Children should always get priority. I suspect in saner times they did.
Anonymous said...
Consider what 'women and children first' means in practice.
It means grown men stand by and watch adult women take their places in safety, while children wait in danger. I don't know how many men could stand to do or allow this if they were thinking straight. That adult women would do it is appalling.
Children should always get priority. I suspect in saner times they did.
Jul 30, 2010 8:40:00 PM
well look at who got special protections first ( VAWA ) then look at who got special protections ( Adam Walsh Act, Megan's law,etc. ) There are no special protections for men, except those classed as minorities.
They are protected by hate crime laws/legislation.
"There are no special protections for men, except those classed as minorities."
There don't NEED to be special protections for men - just EQUAL protections.
Which there clearly are not. We are the fucking pinatas of the early 21st century.
Post a Comment