The shipwreck of civilization 8

Everything possible should be done to save children and their mothers from a sinking ship.

Feminists though, if they’re to be true to their professed principles … Pause. True to their professed principles? Principles such as freedom from male oppression? Never. Vide their indifference to the subjugation of Muslim women. So let’s say, their clamor… If they’re to be true to their clamor for equality with men, feminists on board a sinking ship insufficiently supplied with lifeboats should be willing to go down with it.

This post is about the sinking of a particular ship, about the captain and most of his men pushing past women and children to save themselves, and how the event is a metaphor for the sinking of Europe – and of  civilization. We view feminism, along with all leftist egalitarian movements, as a cause of our civilization’s decline.   

On what happened when the cruise-ship Costa Concordia hit the rocks and sank, Mark Steyn writes:

There was no orderly evacuation from the Costa Concordia, just chaos punctuated by individual acts of courage from, for example, an Hungarian violinist in the orchestra and a ship’s entertainer in a Spiderman costume, both of whom helped children to safety, the former paying with his life.

The miserable Captain Schettino, by contrast, is presently under house arrest, charged with manslaughter and abandoning ship. His explanation is that, when the vessel listed suddenly, he fell into a lifeboat and was unable to climb out. Seriously. Could happen to anyone, slippery decks and all that. Next thing you know, he was safe on shore, leaving his passengers all at sea. On the other hand, the audio of him being ordered by Coast Guard officers to return to his ship and refusing to do so is not helpful to this version of events.

In the centenary year of the most famous of all maritime disasters, we would do well to consider honestly the tale of the Titanic.

On the Titanic, the male passengers gave their lives for the women and would never have considered doing otherwise. On the Costa Concordia, in the words of a female passenger, “There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboat.” …

The principle that when a ship sinks the women and children should be first in the lifeboats was established, Steyn says, on February 26, 1852, when –

HMS Birkenhead was wrecked off the coast of Cape Town while transporting British troops to South Africa. There were, as on the Titanic, insufficient lifeboats. The women and children were escorted to the ship’s cutter. The men mustered on deck. They were ordered not to dive in the water lest they risk endangering the ladies and their young charges by swamping the boats. So they stood stiffly at their posts as the ship disappeared beneath the waves. As Kipling wrote:

“We’re most of us liars, we’re ‘arf of us thieves, an’ the rest of us rank as can be,

But once in a while we can finish in style (which I ‘ope it won’t ‘appen to me).”

Sixty years later, the men on the Titanic – liars and thieves, wealthy and powerful, poor and obscure – found themselves called upon to “finish in style,” and did so. They had barely an hour to kiss their wives goodbye, watch them clamber into the lifeboats, and sail off without them. They, too, ‘ope’d it wouldn’t ‘appen to them, but, when it did, the social norm of “women and children first” held up under pressure and across all classes.

Today there is no social norm, so it’s every man for himself – operative word “man,” although not many of the chaps on the Titanic would recognize those on the Costa Concordia as “men.” From a grandmother on the latter: “I was standing by the lifeboats and men, big men, were banging into me and knocking the girls.”

Whenever I write about these subjects, I receive a lot of mail from men along the lines of this correspondent:

“The feminists wanted a gender-neutral society. Now they’ve got it. So what are you complaining about?”

We think that’s a pertinent and cogent argument – though a distressing one, since we’re not all feminists.

And it doesn’t exonerate the men.

So the manly virtues (if you’ll forgive a quaint phrase) shrivel away to the so-called “man caves,” those sad little redoubts of beer and premium cable sports networks.

We are beyond social norms these days. A woman can be a soldier. A man can be a woman. A 7-year-old cross-dressing boy can join the Girl Scouts in Colorado because he “identifies” as a girl. It all adds to life’s rich tapestry, no doubt. But I can’t help wondering, when the ship hits the fan, how many of us will still be willing to identify as a man. …

Now to the nub:

The Costa Concordia isn’t merely a metaphor for EU collapse but – here it comes down the slipway – the fragility of civilization. Like every ship, the Concordia had its emergency procedures – the lifeboat drills that all crew and passengers are obliged to go through before sailing. As with the security theater at airports, the rituals give the illusion of security – and then, as the ship tips and the lights fail and the icy black water rushes in, we discover we’re on our own: from dancing and dining, showgirls and saunas, to the inky depths in a matter of moments.

  • dorian juge

    for the love of fucking god, don’t group us leftist egalitarians with those nu-feminist nutjobs.

    • dorian juge:
      One: What fucking god?
      Two: What egalitarianism? How? Why? Examples please (other than all being equal under the law).
      Three: What is a “nu-feminist”?
      Otherwise – glad you think feminists are “nutjobs”, if you do.

  • Harold

    I would assume that a feminist would not expect a woman to go before a man to the lifeboats only due to her gender – and I would be disapointed if someone calling themselves a feminist did so. 

    Children are of course a different matter.  I would hope that children would not be expected to take part in the free-for-all for the lifeboats.  However, this could be viewed as sentimental, as children are the least productive and easiest to replace members of our society, so perhaps they should go last. 

    So what principle should apply to lifeboat priority?  In this case, the shore was quite close, so a good swimmer would have a good chance of rescue.  A reasonable principle wopuld be to try to save the most people.  Non-swimmers should therefore get a chance in the lifeboat.  This principle is also likely to favor children.  Then we should allow whoever is accompanying small children to stay with them – this is likely to favor women as they tend to be carers.  The infirm are also much less likely to survive without a boat, so I think they should go in the boat also.  Following on the argument, the weaker should get the place in the boat not the stronger, and this would also favor women.  It looks as though we could end up with something very like a “women and children first” policy from first principles of maximising survival.  However, the overlap between strong women and weak men is quite large, so after the children, accompanying adults and infirm it is a bit difficult.

    If you have a situation in mid-ocean, where those without a boat will certainly die, this is a different situation.  I would be interested in hearing what principle anyone thinks should apply to who should be saved.  A sort of generic ballon debate.   

    I am not quite sure what you are advocating.  I think you prefer the old system, where the men would remain behind honorably and bravely, without fuss.  This suggests that you would advocate that it is the women and children who should be saved, and the men allowed to die.  If this is the case,  what principle is this based on?

    • George

        In response to Harold :         Hi Harold :

                          In the movie “Titanic ”  , after the ship began to sink , Hollywoood portrayed the women in the movie as wanting to go and rescue the people in the water and the men in charge of the lifeboats  “drawing ” their pistols on them and refusing to go rescue the people in the water. In actuality , according to a few real Titanic survivors , just the opposite was true. The men rowing the boats and in charge wanted to go and try to rescue as many people in the water as possible and the women would scream– ” No , no —they will sink us . We can’t rescue everybody ! ” .
                              You stated that —-”  This is likely to favor women as they tend to be carers ” —– .    That ideology and mindset started out of feminist prejudice . Men have always been carers when men go to war and put their lives on the line and even give their lives for the safety of their families.  Men have risked their lives for the support of their families and yet feminists continue to rant & rave as if they are helpless.  Notice how the feminists in merica are totyally silent regarding sharia , honor killings and the subjugation of women in Islamic countriea and societies.  What’s wrong with this picture ?  Men today work the most dangerous and hardcore & undesireable jobs imaginable and have the lowest life expectancy. The same mentality goes on today by the poverty pimp, race-baiting , race-hustling so-called modern day LIBERAL black civil rights activists.  Feminists claim to want equality ONLY when it’s to their advantage.  
                            The number one targeted group in America by the feminists ( especially the GENDER feminists ) are  actually — [ Heterosexual white males  ] and NOT just  Christians .    The feminists claim to be speaking out against “patriarchy” while all the time promoting “matriarchy” .     They do not want [ equality and fairness ] , they want [ power and control ].   The feministas  [activists]  of today and the ethnic minority activists of today are purely political and are exploiting their own respectful groups and doing more of a disservice than seeking to bring about pragmatic changes for the better.     If we are going to say that swimmers should be last on the boats ——  How are we to know for sure who are actually swimmers and who really aren’t ? I would tend to think that people would LIE in such situations in order to say their a**.  Children should have first priority , and the elderly , and weak .  I must admit since I was raised  believing in “chivalry” I would automatically give up my position for the  women —but that’s just me.  

      On the issue of gender , check out the following two books :

      (1)    The Myth of Male Power — by Dr. Warren Farrell , Ph.D.

      (2)  Naked at Gender  Gap——- by Asa Baber

                        I have both and they are very eye-opening and informative.     Take care Harold.   

      • Harold

        George.  When I said women were more likely to be carers, I did not mean to imply that men care less, but that women were more likely to be in the direct supervisory role of the children.  I do not believe that men necessarily emotionally care less about their children, but they are less likely to be “carers”.

        The treatment of women under sharia is not unnoticed or unmentioned in the West.  There was much noise about it before the invasion of Afganistan, and was definitely part of the justification for invading.  The number of girls attending school was trumpeted as a major acheivement at one time, but I do not know if this will last.

        My analysis of who to allow in the boats was an attempt to arrive at a practical choice given the principle of saving the most people.  It is clearly impossible to select individually on the basis of swimming ability, but if you can identify a group that is much more likely to contain non-swimmers, then it makes sense to pick this group.  In this case it is the children and the frail and infirm. 

        I am interested to know what principle people think should be applied in these cases.  Clearly, a feminist cannot advocate a “women first” policy as this is sexist.

         

        • George

          I agree completely. Feminists can’t have their cake and eat it too.  The feminists claim they  want equality ( meaning all the same or having equity  and the same treatment )  , and yet on the other hand they want special priviledges .   I get your point. They can’t have it both ways.    My point was that if we are suppose to allow those who were skilled swimmers to board the lifeboats last since the ship was close to shore —-how do we know who are truly the swimmers and who aren’t ?  That’s a question.  I would tend to think that people would lie their a** off in order to save their butts , that’s all.  We’re on the same page here and I agree with your assertion  . Oh , by the way if you ever get a chance check out those two books I listed—-as they  are very informative .  Another book I bought and is a great book is titled — ” Who Stole Feminism  ? ” –by Christina Hoff  Sommers.  She’s a feminist but not one of the anti-male gender feminists . Another feminist I admire is Camille Paglia and she also tells it like it is . The anti-male hateful gender  feminists hate these wise , brave  and intelligent women . I still read all three books from time to time as a refresher to what is really going on in our society and how the media has manipulated & influenced the minds of the populace.  I also agree with your statement that –” Clearly , a feminist cannot advocate a “women first” policy as this is sexist” . Feminists know this also but they  have  a dubious agenda and their agenda comes first above all else.

    • Liz

      I think you are on the right track with the principle of favoring the weakest first, which would be children and old people, then women, then men (generally).  Like you point out, that is close to the “women and children” first rule.  That is just common decency by anyone.  We would be appalled just as much at women elbowing out the grandparents and children as we would the men shoving the women aside.
      Personally I also favor keeping women out of combat.  Not just for their own safety’s sake, but for the sake of the men they’re with.  If I were a man in combat, I would certainly prefer another strong man alongside rather than someone physically weaker.  But that gives the feminists what they want, too, at the expense of a weaker military and increased problems of sexual harrassment, etc, among the troops.
      Feminists, like unions, have outlived their usefulness and are have become a negative force in society.

  • Anonymous

    The Titanic sinking occurred at a time when the gender ratio in the USA was at its peak (106M-100F), partly due to immigration patterns, but also because many women still died in childbirth.  The ratio quickly sank thereafter due to life expectancy differentials, reaching its nadir in 1980 (94.5) until illegal immigration patterns started reversing it again:
     http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_gender.html (Fig 2)

    Today, women outlive men by about 8%.  I doubt anyone’s going to seriously suggest that men’s voting strength should be artificially enhanced to reflect the years they give up doing almost all the dangerous jobs to keep women’s live safe.