An interesting history of 'women and children first' can be found here.It starts....
The article ends with a standard suggestion that women should be first in order to bear future generations. I have to wonder if men die to save women how exactly is the future generation to be created?"Winston Churchill’s joke in response to a question about why he was traveling on an Italian cruise ship when a British one was available appears to be prescient commentary on the Concordia disaster:There are three things I like about Italian ships. First, their cuisine, which is unsurpassed. Second, their service, which is quite superb. And then, in time of emergency, there is none of this nonsense about women and children first."
By that, men are no more than surplusages, to be dumped in an emergency such as a sinking ship.But that’s no small thing. As science fiction writer Robert Heinlein wrote in his novel Time Enough For Love:All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly, which can — and must — be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
A History of 'Women and Children First'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
All societies were also based on men DOMINATING said women and children, so the "appeal to antiquity" can hardly be a reason to continue the practice.
And, honestly, I have never heard of an actual historical study that documented the origins of that supposed practice. I'm pretty sure there is no word of it in the Bible, or any other ancient law code. (Sounds to me like something the Victorians would invent...)
Justin --
It wasn't 'invented', but it did originate during the Victorian era (during the 'bad old days' of Patriarchy).
Research the history of the sinking of the Britsh troopship, the HMS BIRKENHEAD.
"...To stand and be still
to the 'Birkenhead' drill
is a damned tough bullet to chew."
-- Rudyard Kipling
I take some solace in the fact that the Costa Concordia incident illustrates how men are shucking off the expectation that they sacrifice themselves for unaffiliated/unrelated females.
While related women could probably safely assume some expectation that their man/men will protect them in a contingency/crisis situation, strangers should not.
And that is as it should be, I think.
Another thought: women should be happy about this. For unrelated women are no longer receiving the "services" of men for free, without first committing for it. Thus those women who commit to a man are the ones who get to enjoy his strenth and umbrella of protection. Those that do not, cannot.
During the Viet Nam War, there was an anti-war slogan/joke that went like this: What if they gave a war, and nobody came?
Well, what if women demanded that men keep dying in their place, but men stopped coming?
I think we're about to find out.
Good article, Laura. I thought it was a noble practice, but not necessary now.
As a woman, I'd much rather have equal pay, suffrage, and access to higher education. Who cares if men don't give up their place on a lifeboat. That's fine. Not likely to come up, anyway.
I'm through pouting now.
WHERE'S MY COOKIE?!
@Zorro
:P
The comments on Dalrocks site have expressed many erudite sentiments that do not need repeating here.
It does seem apparent that WACF is the unspoken motto of matriarchical force, administered by the state. Chivalry and sacrifice is noble when voluntary, but obedience when forced.
For example, what happens when the compassionate hands of government run out of other people's money to redistribute?
It will not be pretty for anyone. But it may well be worse for women, dependant on the benevolence of the state for their garnishee supported lifestyles.
Schaudenfreude, indeed. ..
The argument about preserving women because they can have babies is pure silliness. Exactly what percent of the human race is/was ever in a major shipwreck? I only know one calculator (dc) which has enough digits beyond the decimal point to figure it out.
Anonymous age 69
The Costa Concordia incident in which big men pushed and shoved their way to the life boats with no mind to the safety of women and children in their path reminds me of a Seinfeld episode.
George Costanza dates a woman who has a son. She invites him to her son's birthday party. While at the party, a fire breaks out in the kitchen. George screams "FIRE!!!" and knocks down the kids and an old lady as he cowardly tries to make his escape. A clown at the party puts out the fire with his big shoe.
I know that most of you do not care for the women and children first rule. But preferential treatment of the weaker among us when safety is an issue is the mark of a civilized society.
Eat this jennifer ...
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/02/01/its-time-to-nurse-our-grievances/#comment-129379
It is men who foolishly gave women the right to vote and now, as predicted, women demand total legal and social control over men. Lookit: All of these feminazis’ fund-raising marches are for women’s causes. All of their efforts in the schools and social organizations are on behalf of women and girls.
All of their concern for “fairness” is for themselves and their allies against us. They have, at the same time, worked hard to crash the gates and destroy every private space men have. Do you ever see them march for men’s rights, men’s health, boys’ education, etc? Do they express regret that men no longer have their own healthy spaces? Ha! Of course not. Because they simply don’t friggin’ care about men, period.
Women are mostly emotional and self-centered. They fight only for themselves and their favorite child. We have a few of these liberal women in our family who have almost totally wrecked the whole family.
Women have proven what they are capable of since they got the vote:
100 million murdered in senseless wars and utopian schemes, all in the name of peace. Total destruction of the family and childhood innocence, all because they demand “freedom” to be whores. The churches and school are now breeding grounds for communist/multiculti, industrial-strength, dumbed-down stupidity, all in the name of being nice and fair.
It’s unquestionaly obvious that women stink at leadership. Stink? A rabid, putrid funk of a stink, to be precise.
Only men can right the current situation because only men have the ability and only men care more about justice than about “fairness” and being nice. We must fight the feminazis. We must fight and take back our families and our nations. Remember that not all women are stupid beeches, and those who have good sense, those who see what a mess the radical feminists have made, are waiting for us to stand up and fight back.
That has all been said a million times now. So, what the hell is everyone waiting for?
Thanks for sharing another rant from the boys' we-hate-girls club, Rmaxd; I imagine the locker room gets you very fired up. It actually amuses me how much you hate me personally, considering what plenty of other women around here have said to your nihilistic and one-sided rants.
Those evil feminazis, how DARE they not march for those things that have always been bestowed upon men solely by virtue of them being men!!
And yep, never were there millions murdered in senseless wars and utopian schemes prior to women obtaining the right to vote!
Wear it as a badge of honour, Jennifer, that you and you alone possess the ability to have him tilting at windmills all day long.
Thanks anon, but it's true that feminists are selfish and tilted. The difference is, I don't blame women for liberalism alone.
"never were there millions murdered in senseless wars and utopian schemes prior to women obtaining the right to vote!"
Yep.
Still waiting for my damn cookie, little Miss Bait & Switch!
& as usual Jennifer makes no real rational comments, except for some typical feminist backward grunting ...
Whatre you gonna do for an encore?
Scratch your armpits & tell us tampons oppress women or some crap?
Btw im all for traditionalist women & traditional christians
Traditionalist women kick soccer moms ass
Phony traditionalists & christians like Jennifer crack me up ...
Theyre worlds changed, they exist in a hyper-feminist environment, theyre upto their necks in hyper-feminism & they think being a stayathome parasite, & being pro-life makes them traditional
Since when has traditionalism ever been about the amount the of time you spent at home, & infanticide?
Once the children turn 12 & goto school, whatre you gonna do? Turn the washing machine on?
Your arguments are not worth any further response to, as you said yourself that you ludicrously find fault with any women who don't work on farms. Your comments are barely coherent anymore. I wonder what you do to improve things, other than bitch and moan on the computer while sharing your living mate with other men.
@Jennifer
Keep spouting your feminist anti-christian garbage
Your inability to understand basic concepts, or common sense speaks volumes ...
Typical westernised clueless feminist drone ...
LOL If I couldn't understand common sense, I'd be perfect for you, fool.
Post a Comment