Feminism: just when you thought you'd seen it all......

Post Reply New Topic

Imagine if someone created a movement called 'childism' which advocated for the rights of children.

At first it would address issues that most people would consider reasonable like child-abuse, but as the movement grows and there is money to be made from childist books and being a chidrens studies professor the more the movement would have to make exaggerated claims to keep the movement going.

The only reason people would suspend their disbelief and put up with the more ridiculous aspect of childism would be because children are valued and cared for.

Imagine if someone created a movement called 'childism' which advocated for the rights of children.

At first it would address issues that most people would consider reasonable like child-abuse, but as the movement grows and there is money to be made from childist books and being a chidrens studies professor the more the movement would have to make exaggerated claims to keep the movement going.

The only reason people would suspend their disbelief and put up with the more ridiculous aspect of childism would be because children are valued and cared for.

The practice of women and children first arose from the chivalrous actions of soldiers during the sinking of the Royal Navy troopship HMS Birkenhead in 1852 after it struck rocks. Captain Robert Salmond RN ordered Colonel Seton to send men to the chain pumps; sixty were directed to this task, sixty more were assigned to the tackles of the lifeboats, and the rest were assembled on the poop deck in order to raise the forward part of the ship.[8] The women and children were placed in the ship's cutter, which lay alongside.[9] The sinking was memorialized in newspapers and paintings of the time, and in poems such as Rudyard Kipling's 1893 "Soldier an' Sailor Too".


RMS Titanic survivors aboard a collapsible lifeboat
The phrase was popularised by its usage on the RMS Titanic.[10][page needed] The Second Officer suggested to Captain Smith, "Hadn't we better get the women and children into the boats, sir?", to which the captain responded: "women and children in and lower away".[11] The First and Second officers interpreted the evacuation order differently; one took it to mean women and children first, while the other took it to mean women and children only. Thus one of the officers lowered lifeboats with empty seats if there were no women and children waiting to board, while the other allowed a limited number of men to board if all the nearby women and children had embarked.[12] As a consequence, 74% of the women and 52% of the children on board were saved, but only 20% of the men.[13] Some officers on the Titanic misinterpreted the order from Captain Smith, and tried to prevent men from boarding the lifeboats.[14][15] It was intended that women and children would board first, with any remaining free spaces for men. Because not all women and children were saved on the Titanic, the few men who survived, like White Star official J. Bruce Ismay, were initially branded as cowards.[16]

There is no legal basis for the protocol of women and children first in international maritime law—according to International Maritime Organization regulations, ships have 30 minutes to load all passengers into lifeboats and maneuver the boats away.[5]

A more recent application of "women and children first" occurred in March 2011, when a floating restaurant in Covington, Kentucky, tore from its moorings, stranding 83 people on the Ohio River. Women were rescued first; there were no casualties of either sex.[17]

Do you have a link to the numbers?

When the titanic sank it was well known that women and children went first on the life boats.
In that era if a man would get on a life boat before a woman he would be shamed into oblivion.

Doesn't the mere existence of 'women and children first' prove they are highly valued?

I bet there are no historical examples of ' men first' ever!

It's either every man and woman for themselves or women and children first, it's never men first.

Men do have a survival advantage when it's everyone for themselves, but no one is throwing women and children to one side to escape a natural disaster, they would be shamed to death.

Doesn't the mere existence of 'women and children first' prove they are highly valued?

I bet there are no historical examples of ' men first' ever!

It's either every man and woman for themselves or women and children first, it's never men first.

Men do have a survival advantage when it's everyone for themselves, but no one is throwing women and children to one side to escape a natural disaster, they would be shamed to death.

No.

If females were so highly valued and cared for, the female survivors of natural and man-made disasters would vastly out-number men.

Turns out, looking at the numbers, it's better to have a penis when sh_t hits the fan. And lots of inane things come out of advocacy movements, not just feminism.

I guess that those of us with weiners save ourselves where there's a natural disaster we're on a sinking ship.

pretty much, yes.

Notice that XFG said natural AND man-made disasters. In situations where casualties are caused by being literally in the wrong place at the wrong time....I'm not all that convinced. But where people need to have the NERVE to do something or end up being killed, that's where men come in.