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

Post Reply New Topic

Heh. That was my first good laugh of the week. Thank you.

Also, I want to point out I'm not judging men. I don't feel I'm entitled to special protection because I was born female.

OK. What in the heck is man - spreading?

I'm just out of the loop over here in Kansas. What is fart rape?

I don't think it's the extra fat on women at all. I think because women fart less then it's the extra air in them that keeps them afloat. Men probably sink more because of beer bellies.

Why do you find that amusing?

Just some of the many factors in play here:

Were the women taught to swim prior to embarking?
Were the women wearing clothes conducive to survival?
What was the physical conditioning of the women?
Were the women above or below deck when the storm hit?
Were the men above or below deck?
What was cause of the disaster? (fire, explosion, storm, etc?)

Remember the data spans 1852-2011 yet only cites 18 "maritime disasters". On what basis were they chosen?

- SS Golden Gate Caught fire. Note that the primary factor in loss of life was in which section of the ship you were berthed.

- HMS Birkenhead Struck a reef. There was plenty of time to bring the women and children up from below deck as there was no immediate danger. It was only upon striking the reef a second time that the women and children were loaded onto a cutter. All of them survived.

- SS Arctic After colliding with another vessel, the captain was unaware of the severity of damage caused and made for land rather than organising withdrawal to the lifeboats. The end result was mass panic when the crew and passengers finally realised they were rapidly sinking. The ensuing stampede meant that only 84 survived despite the 180 person capacity of the lifeboats.

-SS Northfleet The SS Northfleet was rammed by a Spanish steamer and sank incredibly swiftly, in under 30 minutes. Most of the passengers, including all of the women and children, were asleep below deck when they were struck.

These are just the first 4 disasters listed in the data, but an obvious pattern is developing. It seems that the biggest factor in whether or not the women and children survive is actually the amount of time available between start of disaster and sinking of the vessel. Where time is short and panic ensues, order quickly turns to chaos and survival of the fittest becomes the norm.

What is apparent is that, given time for calm reasoning, the women and children are held in higher esteem than the men and (presumably all male) crew.

Because I have a sick sense of humor.

And I'm well aware that the greater survival of men is probably due to the superior strength and speed of males. My point is/was that, given statistics of male and female survival rates, it's apparent that, no, society does not value women more than men.

Oh, and from the study:



Hhmmm....

I feel society values women more in some aspects; men in other aspects.

It depends upon the nature of the society who comes out ahead.

Agreed.

You fiend. We should execute you for thought crimes forthwith.



Statistics tell us that the order "women and children first" has been given on multiple occasions during a maritime disaster. Statistics tell us that the order "men first" has never been given during a maritime disaster.



And yet when you examine the individual instances, in their context as I did, that's demonstrably untrue. The very fact that there exists a societal pressure to grant women and children access to the lifeboats first is proof positive that we value women's safety more highly. It is only when society breaks down, in those instances where threat to the individual causes widespread panic, that individuals place a higher value on their own lives due to the immediacy of their survival instincts.

Protecting women and children with the lives of men is likely just one of many reasons that human beings have come as far as we have. It might be that the concept is steadily being phased out due to societal changes, but it remains a deeply ingrained part of our social psyche.

Yeah women were not allowed to be soldiers for their protection also, because obviously they are seen as higher value.

Anyone with eyes and ears growing up in the West has this taught to them "ladies first" etc.

Nope.

The study found no improvement of women's survival with a slower sinking ship. And even if it wasn't the case, the way people behave when sh_t hits the fan is more indicative of what they actually believe.

And we're not just discussing maritime disasters in this thread. We're discussing disasters in general in which case men survive at a higher rate than women and children.

Yes they are.

In fact, in the U.S., the ban on women in combat roles has recently been lifted.

The ban has been lifted but the fact that there was a ban in the first place indicates higher value.

Women are still exempt from the draft don't forget.

Just out of curiosity what is your opinion of lifting the ban?

no, all it indicates is that the high command didn't have enough interest in sending even more people to die without figuring out a meaningful training regimen. Women have different body structures, different health issues. conversely, men don't have to worry about being raped by someone they're supposed to trust as part of their squad/platoon/whatever.

As I suggested, and having read the reports of all the disasters included in the study, there was something of a cherry-picking of data. Most of the incidents involved ships that were sunk less than 30 minutes after the initial point of disaster.



Here are the first four stages of human behaviour during stages of a disaster according to John Leach's Dynamic Disaster Model:

THREAT STAGE
Threat identified but ignored
Perceived personal risk lower than actual risk
Unknown potential consequences of the disaster
Active reducing of uneasy or uncomfortable feelings
Apathetic behavior

WARNING STAGE
Denial of real threat of loss, injury and death
Ignoring or misperception of warning signals
Feelings of uncertainty and uncomfortableness

IMPACT PHASE
Sensory information too much to comprehend
Disbelief and denial of accidents and casualties
Stunned and bewildered feelings, stress
Reflexive, automatic or mechanical behavior
Specific behaviors:
Overactive, noneffective behavior, out of emotional control (15%)
Apathetic and nervous behavior, lack of initiative (75%)
Calm, with overall picture, vigorously, potential leadership (10%)

RECOIL STAGE
Confusion, denial of the actuality of the disaster
Slow realization of damages, casualties, injuries, losses
Gradual return of awareness, reasoning and recall
Childlike emotional dependency
Increased emotional expression, irrational anger
Increase in activity and simple social behavior

How people react in such situations has nothing to do with what they "believe". High stress situations cause cognitive dysfunction and one cannot predict how any individual will respond. I've highlighted in bold an important aspect of the Recoil Stage which includes the "return of awareness [and] reasoning".

Ever had a meltdown? Are such episodes representative of who you are or what you believe? How about the rest of us? Do you think that people with ASDs who succumb to high levels of anxiety and stress are showing their true colours?



Then survival outcomes of disasters are apparently unrelated to a social imperative to protect women and children that goes back thousands of years. To suggest otherwise would be to ignore decades of anthropological study, as well as countless studies of other social mammals.

I'm sure many people will find the following scenario to be a familiar one:

Woman: Wake up, I heard something.
Man: It's probably just cats fighting.
Woman: Go downstairs and look, I'm scared.
Man: <groans>

Man gets out of bed, grabs whatever is closest to hand and stumbles downstairs in the dark.

http://www.gq.com/long-form/male-military-rape

Turns out they have to worry about it 10 times more than the rest of us.