It reminds me of today's Twitter. Faster way to get relevance is to be a white, rich, western woman. Most people dont like to be reminded of that inconvenient truth so let's leave Bill Burr to say it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVMmiltdp1U . As the famous saying goes: “If you are going to tell people the truth, you better be funny or else they’ll kill you.”
Without knowing how representative the 18 shipwrecks they picked are, it’s hard to know whether their conclusions are widely applicable.
Also, from their research paper, some of the ships they mentioned had been torpedoed or ran aground, SIX collisions, etc. A first guess would be that men sometimes survive more than women and children simply because they were more physically able to overcome the dangerous environment. If a group of average men and average women are thrown into the ocean and left to their own devices, after a few hours more men will be left just because of physical strength. Nothing to do with sexism.
Also, it seems like the authors are going out of their way to say that chivalry actually doesn’t happen much, that men didn’t want to help women, etc, so that makes me think they have an agenda and I’m less likely to believe their conclusions that are counter to my intuition and experience.
> If a group of average men and average women are thrown into the ocean and left to their own devices, after a few hours more men will be left just because of physical strength.
Is that true? I believe women survive longer in cold water, because on average they have a higher body fat proportion.
I didn’t know so I looked it up. Looks like more body fat compared to body size is the key, regardless of gender.
> [1] No significant gender differences in total metabolic heat production normalized for body mass or surface area were found among subjects who completed 90 min of immersion (9 women and 7 men). Nor was there a gender difference in the overall percent contribution ( approximately 60%) of fat oxidation to total heat production.…On the basis of the above findings, we accept the first hypothesis that women and men exhibit similar changes in body cooling and M˙ during cold water immersion at rest when subject responses are corrected for BF and size.
I wish I'd see more of those actual feminists call out against the misandrists that usurp their name.
It's not fair on them, but they need to if they want to stop the growing trend of equaling feminism with misandry.
I'm just a random guy in the internet, living in a country where I don't see much of either, but because of the internet I thought for a long time that modern feminism was indeed hatred of men rather than equality.
Do you think that could be a deliberate push to delegitimize calls for equality? Are large feminist organizations making those misandry statements or are random individuals and fringe organizations making those statements and their voice is being amplified and spread simply because it validates the idea in people’s minds that “this crazy person is what feminism is”. If 1% of women from, say, the US were misandrists, and 1% of those women when on the internet and said crazy things, that is enough for you to have dozens of fresh examples every single day. Much like the “if it bleeds it leads” journalism of the 90s, where people perceived that violence was skyrocketing, while it was in fact falling dramatically, this could be a case of an agenda, or even just a desire for more clicks, skewing your perception.
I think it is a minority who honestly think they are helpful that are delegitimizing the cause. Most women (and men) just want to get on with their lives. Thus they are not a member of any feminist groups, sometimes they notice things that are "not right", but nothing is important enough to get a large voice behind it.
Things can be fixed by protest. However the risk is people get tired of the shouting and ignore you. Most women don't see this as time to shout - don't take that as there are no problems, just that the problems need a different approach.
> Are large feminist organizations making those misandry statements
The official position of NOW on family law and the rights of fathers to have any sort of contact with their children when a divorce happens (much less the idea of fathers getting custody) has generally been pretty abysmal.
I can't find a current public position from them on the topic, so maybe they've gotten better. One can hope.
I mean let’s be honest, the name is kind of saying something else too. When I first heard of feminism as a teenager, I was opposed to it simply because it sounded like sexism. I was quickly told off by the adults in the room, with zero discussion of the subject. You _should_ be a feminist, basically.
In practice feminism seems (to me) to advocate for women, not for equality, which is fine by me, women needed advocating for. I just don't buy this equality argument.
Survival isn’t a feminist issue. Children-first makes sense, but women first is buying into feminine frailty. I say that because, I also think a feminist would support “women and children first,” because survival means a hell of a lot more than a philosophical stance. At the end of the day, what you believe doesn’t matter if you’re dead. Frankly, I can hardly blame a person for taking advantage of a social norm that grants them survival.
According to the resource linked to, third class women had a higher survival rate than first class men. Not that it would necessarily turn out that way now.
> Not that it would necessarily turn out that way now.
I doubt it would, and that is a good thing. The whole “women and children” thing was part of the whole “women are weak creatures that need to be looked after and protected like children” mentality.
I doubt that very many of the women passengers on board the Titanic were objecting to the chauvinism inherent in "women and children first". In time of life-or-death crisis, if you don't have a "women and children first" ethic, you will most likely have an "every man for himself" attitude, in which case you will end up with a very male-favorable survival rate, as bigger and yes physically stronger men shove women and children out of the way to get to the lifeboats.
> if you don't have a "women and children first" ethic, you will most likely have an "every man for himself" attitude
The fact that it has to be women and children to you is exactly what I was talking about. That women were, and I guess to certain extent still are, put into a separate category of lesser capability. “Save the children” is a perfectly valid alternative to “every man for himself”. Or children and them parents first. There are multiple ways we could have been “noble” in the face of tragedy, and part of what shaped the idea we did end up with stemmed from a sexist paternalistic idea about adult women.
Step 2. Don't be poor.
97% of First Class women and 87% of female crew members survived the sinking of the Titanic.
https://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm