There are no feminists on sinking ships

I can't get over this irony. Women want to be treated exactly like men and considered the same, yet you ask the average woman and she will tell you it should be women and children first on a sinking ship. Do they even realize that they are basically equating themselves to children?

 

Leave the average women and talk to real ones. It could be an education!

 

Linguistically speaking a "real woman" would be the representation of the average woman.

 

Are you basing this on actually asking women or is it just an assumption on your part?

 

Women are genetically much more important than men , the way we act is imprinted in our DNA and most men do recognise that to preserve the species females must survive at the cost of males.

 

As I recall, there were several articles about that very issue when the Costa Concordia went down. There were a lot of comparisons with the Titanic, where men calmly waiting on deck while the women and children were loaded on life boats first was considered a civilizational norm. Of course, with the Costa Concordia, it was every man for himself. It's a good think we're so much more advanced than those pinheads from a century ago!

 

The pinhead here would be anyone who'd come up with this nonsensical claim that women would want to be "treated exactly like men and considered the same".

A person who has to make something up in order to detect "irony"
sure doesnt have anything worthwhile to say.

 

This is exactly why I consider the progressive definition of gender equality to be such bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You can't be selectively equal. You're either equal across the board or you're not. If you're only equal when it's convenient, then you're not equal. You're inferior.

 

I don't think so. Where would be the fun in that?

 

Most feminist women I have thrown that scenario to don’t hold to the “women and children” first belief. Children first, sure, but women shouldn’t automatically be given special treatment.

In general I can see some non-sexist reasons for the women and children first scenario. Women, in general, won’t be as strong of swimmers. Women, in general, are smaller so you can fit more of them on a life boat.

But that is just generally speaking. To say there are no feminists on a sinking ship is as stupid as saying there are no atheists in foxholes.

 

That's basically it. Men have developed protective instincts (of women and children) and sacrificial instincts (of themselves). But that also plays into the power structures that have historically developed, and differing rights and responsibilities.

Pretty much. Most feminists don't want real equality, they want equality when they perceive women in a less desirable situation. It's why they take issue with being paid less, not with the fact that men work more hours in more dangerous jobs. It's why they take issue with women not being allowed in combat roles (which has recently changed), not with drafting only men. Feminists are surprisingly inconsiderate.

 

May we see, with citation, the "progressive definition of gender equality"?

 

It's not a written definition. It is one which is observable through consistent behavior.

 

(My bold)

Or perhaps they're elevating children to the value nominally placed upon women. This is the West, after all, & we're supposed to be beyond merely utilitarian concerns. Women of childbearing age are necessary for a society to reproduce itself, but we don't automatically sort out the spinsters, post-menopausal, never-married, nor nuns, etc. from emergency evacuation on the basis of their unproven reproductive prowess.

The case for children is stronger - they are younger, closer to the germ plasm they arose from. Their templates are not yet set, they have more flexibility than we oldsters. We pile our hopes & dreams on their continued life & prosperity & (hoped-for) wisdom. & hope & pray that some of their virtues will trickle down upon us here below. Amen.

 

Men should be protecting their family...wives and children. Its more about the men and their charactor and courage. Women naturally take care of the children and frankly would be less apt to survive being stranded in the ocean. They in general don't have the strength and stamina.

Also...it simply would be rude to not accept a seat on a boat if offered.

 

ok something to makeup; as you go along

 

The myth that men waited for women before they boarded life boats on the Titanic is fun but untrue. While many did, many women chose to stay on board, and many men pushed their way to the front of the line. Of course there were men placed on board life boats to "lead" but were not allowed to be in charge by women who had better ideas. Since the Titanic didn't have enough life boats for the number of passengers hard decisions were made. At the time women were more likely to care for children and thus went with children and thus the adage "women and children first". However today boats are required to have enough life saving equipment for everyone on board so hard choices are not necessary.

The OP is just promoting more silliness of a misunderstand change in society, where women are no longer second to men, it scares some men. It is sad.

 

(My bold)

Bolshoi! If you look @ the g-endurance & general physical criteria, women on average would do better stranded @ sea than men. Less body mass, less water consumption/need, less surface area exposed to elements, more willing to compromise & consider the good of the whole, better pain endurance. Before caesarians & epidurals & so on, women delivered by birth canal, however long it took, however difficult the birth, or they died trying.

We're still here & growing in numbers, so the strength & stamina traits have been selected for over the millennia, even if not particularly needed in the West for the last few generations. The women who couldn't cope didn't reproduce @ all or only in smaller numbers. You're surrounded by the survivors of nature's culling the herd. The weak & helpless didn't make it.

 

They call the police, to report me for attempted murder - because the orgasm I gave them almost killed them.

 

Hm so how many of them were in favor of being eligible for the selective service, now that they have the right to serve in combat?

- - - Updated - - -

Says the guy who's avatar promotes animal abuse. Using mutated giraffes in your avatar promotes cruel genetic experimentation on animals

 

No, it's called observation. Something an objective person is capable of and an agenda-driven person will be blind to. Although your response here is predictable. And it's probably why I have to keep clicking "view post" to read your responses.

 

"progressive definition of gender equality"?


its called making up a definition.

We've noticed that with fundies, the only source of
arguments against science is what they make up.
We'd expect them to be the same on other topics as well.

If you can predict that someone will
notice that you made something up, that is a good start.

Next, quit making things up.

If you arent a fundy, you may be able to achieve this. A fundy is constitutionally unable to.

 

In my opinion it's the reverse

 

Has anyone seen or heard any mentions of the number of women who survived the African-laden ship sinking?

From the numbers of men I saw in the news videos I didn't recognize ANY females.

But they said women and children had originally been aboard.