Options

Women and children first!

1468910

Posts

  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Do you really have to be sex-negative to think a dude treating ladies like notches on a belt is kind of misogynist?

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Does anyone in this thread know what misogyny means? It's not the same as sexism.

    Yes, I do. And they're not synonyms but it's pretty tough to be a misogynist without also being a sexist.

    But very easy to be sexist without being misogynistic.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • Options
    zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Examples include forcing women to tend to all domestic responsibilities, not allowing women to take jobs outside the home, or beating women. Subscribers to one model, the mother/whore dichotomy, hold that women can only be "mothers" or "whores." Another variant is the virgin/whore dichotomy, in which women who do not adhere to a saintly standard of moral purity (Abrahamic) are considered "whores".

    Frequently, the term misogynist is used in a looser sense as a term of derision to describe anyone who holds an unpopular or distasteful view about women as a group. A man who considers himself "a great lover of women," therefore, might somewhat paradoxically be termed a misogynist by those who consider his treatment of women sexist, such as sex-negative feminists. Archetypes of this type of man might be Giacomo Casanova and Don Juan, who were both reputed for their many libertine affairs with women.

    Not necessarily hatred, but traditional social memes.

    Just as a...the more you know. Not arguing that it hasn't been tossed around here.
    Not really a fan of using misogynist to refer to any "unpopular" attitude towards women. And no, someone who treats women as notches in a belt is not misogynist, any more than an equally promiscuous woman hates men.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2009
    zakkiel wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Does anyone in this thread know what misogyny means? It's not the same as sexism.

    Yes, I do. And they're not synonyms but it's pretty tough to be a misogynist without also being a sexist.

    But very easy to be sexist without being misogynistic.

    Sometimes. Other times not so much. Actions have consequences.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2009
    zakkiel wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Examples include forcing women to tend to all domestic responsibilities, not allowing women to take jobs outside the home, or beating women. Subscribers to one model, the mother/whore dichotomy, hold that women can only be "mothers" or "whores." Another variant is the virgin/whore dichotomy, in which women who do not adhere to a saintly standard of moral purity (Abrahamic) are considered "whores".

    Frequently, the term misogynist is used in a looser sense as a term of derision to describe anyone who holds an unpopular or distasteful view about women as a group. A man who considers himself "a great lover of women," therefore, might somewhat paradoxically be termed a misogynist by those who consider his treatment of women sexist, such as sex-negative feminists. Archetypes of this type of man might be Giacomo Casanova and Don Juan, who were both reputed for their many libertine affairs with women.

    Not necessarily hatred, but traditional social memes.

    Just as a...the more you know. Not arguing that it hasn't been tossed around here.
    Not really a fan of using misogynist to refer to any "unpopular" attitude towards women. And no, someone who treats women as notches in a belt is not misogynist, any more than an equally promiscuous woman hates men.

    Do you know what "promiscuous" means? Because it doesn't sound like it.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Also, for a forum filled with a rabid hatred of all things Ayn Rand, there's a lot of objectivists running around here.

    There's a lot more to being an Objectivist than looking out for your own self-interest in a life or death situation.

    Plus there's that whole "agree with everything in Objectivism or nothing" thing.

    KungFu on
    Theft 4 Bread
  • Options
    zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    zakkiel wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Examples include forcing women to tend to all domestic responsibilities, not allowing women to take jobs outside the home, or beating women. Subscribers to one model, the mother/whore dichotomy, hold that women can only be "mothers" or "whores." Another variant is the virgin/whore dichotomy, in which women who do not adhere to a saintly standard of moral purity (Abrahamic) are considered "whores".

    Frequently, the term misogynist is used in a looser sense as a term of derision to describe anyone who holds an unpopular or distasteful view about women as a group. A man who considers himself "a great lover of women," therefore, might somewhat paradoxically be termed a misogynist by those who consider his treatment of women sexist, such as sex-negative feminists. Archetypes of this type of man might be Giacomo Casanova and Don Juan, who were both reputed for their many libertine affairs with women.

    Not necessarily hatred, but traditional social memes.

    Just as a...the more you know. Not arguing that it hasn't been tossed around here.
    Not really a fan of using misogynist to refer to any "unpopular" attitude towards women. And no, someone who treats women as notches in a belt is not misogynist, any more than an equally promiscuous woman hates men.

    Do you know what "promiscuous" means? Because it doesn't sound like it.

    If this gonna be another one of those times where you challenge me on the meaning of a word and turn out not to know what you're talking about?
    Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2009
    zakkiel wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Examples include forcing women to tend to all domestic responsibilities, not allowing women to take jobs outside the home, or beating women. Subscribers to one model, the mother/whore dichotomy, hold that women can only be "mothers" or "whores." Another variant is the virgin/whore dichotomy, in which women who do not adhere to a saintly standard of moral purity (Abrahamic) are considered "whores".

    Frequently, the term misogynist is used in a looser sense as a term of derision to describe anyone who holds an unpopular or distasteful view about women as a group. A man who considers himself "a great lover of women," therefore, might somewhat paradoxically be termed a misogynist by those who consider his treatment of women sexist, such as sex-negative feminists. Archetypes of this type of man might be Giacomo Casanova and Don Juan, who were both reputed for their many libertine affairs with women.

    Not necessarily hatred, but traditional social memes.

    Just as a...the more you know. Not arguing that it hasn't been tossed around here.
    Not really a fan of using misogynist to refer to any "unpopular" attitude towards women. And no, someone who treats women as notches in a belt is not misogynist, any more than an equally promiscuous woman hates men.

    Do you know what "promiscuous" means? Because it doesn't sound like it.

    If this gonna be another one of those times where you challenge me on the meaning of a word and turn out not to know what you're talking about?
    Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.

    Apparently you don't know what "another" means, either. So if you know what promiscuous means why did you deliberately misuse it? To muddy the waters? Or because you didn't know what it meant when you used it and had to look it up when called on it?

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    zakkiel wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Examples include forcing women to tend to all domestic responsibilities, not allowing women to take jobs outside the home, or beating women. Subscribers to one model, the mother/whore dichotomy, hold that women can only be "mothers" or "whores." Another variant is the virgin/whore dichotomy, in which women who do not adhere to a saintly standard of moral purity (Abrahamic) are considered "whores".

    Frequently, the term misogynist is used in a looser sense as a term of derision to describe anyone who holds an unpopular or distasteful view about women as a group. A man who considers himself "a great lover of women," therefore, might somewhat paradoxically be termed a misogynist by those who consider his treatment of women sexist, such as sex-negative feminists. Archetypes of this type of man might be Giacomo Casanova and Don Juan, who were both reputed for their many libertine affairs with women.

    Not necessarily hatred, but traditional social memes.

    Just as a...the more you know. Not arguing that it hasn't been tossed around here.
    Not really a fan of using misogynist to refer to any "unpopular" attitude towards women. And no, someone who treats women as notches in a belt is not misogynist, any more than an equally promiscuous woman hates men.

    Do you know what "promiscuous" means? Because it doesn't sound like it.

    If this gonna be another one of those times where you challenge me on the meaning of a word and turn out not to know what you're talking about?
    Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.

    Apparently you don't know what "another" means, either. So if you know what promiscuous means why did you deliberately misuse it? To muddy the waters? Or because you didn't know what it meant when you used it and had to look it up when called on it?

    My God, you can make the simplest things unbelievably tedious with your childish belief that you're going to somehow catch someone out on a word. Explain why you think I misused promiscuous, and then I will explain as gently as I can why you are an idiot yet again, and then hopefully we can move on.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2009
    zakkiel wrote: »
    My God, you can make the simplest things unbelievably tedious with your childish belief that you're going to somehow catch someone out on a word.

    You mean like this?
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Does anyone in this thread know what misogyny means? It's not the same as sexism.
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Explain why you think I misused promiscuous, and then I will explain as gently as I can why you are an idiot yet again, and then hopefully we can move on.

    Treating women as sex objects and nothing more is not the same thing as having sex with a lot of women. It's not a hard concept. You can easily be promiscuous without being sexist, let alone misogynist. You can't really objectify women and act on said objectification without being both You, by your own admission, deliberately muddled your point.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Treating women as sex objects and nothing more is not the same thing as having sex with a lot of women. It's not a hard concept. You can easily be promiscuous without being sexist, let alone misogynist. You can't really objectify women and act on said objectification without being both You, by your own admission, deliberately muddled your point.

    I don't see how that necessarily follows. The original statement was... "A man who considers himself "a great lover of women," therefore, might somewhat paradoxically be termed a misogynist by those who consider his treatment of women sexist, such as sex-negative feminists." Which doesn't imply any sort of misogyny, although some people might infer that.

    zerg rush on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2009
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Treating women as sex objects and nothing more is not the same thing as having sex with a lot of women. It's not a hard concept. You can easily be promiscuous without being sexist, let alone misogynist. You can't really objectify women and act on said objectification without being both You, by your own admission, deliberately muddled your point.

    I don't see how that necessarily follows. The original statement was... "A man who considers himself "a great lover of women," therefore, might somewhat paradoxically be termed a misogynist by those who consider his treatment of women sexist, such as sex-negative feminists." Which doesn't imply any sort of misogyny, although some people might infer that.

    Conveniently zakkiel provided a much more specific example to work with before going back to muddle it. If he didn't want a pedantic argument he probably shouldn't have based his argument on excessive concern with minor details and rules.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    zakkiel wrote: »
    My God, you can make the simplest things unbelievably tedious with your childish belief that you're going to somehow catch someone out on a word.

    You mean like this?
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Does anyone in this thread know what misogyny means? It's not the same as sexism.
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Explain why you think I misused promiscuous, and then I will explain as gently as I can why you are an idiot yet again, and then hopefully we can move on.

    Treating women as sex objects and nothing more is not the same thing as having sex with a lot of women. It's not a hard concept. You can easily be promiscuous without being sexist, let alone misogynist. You can't really objectify women and act on said objectification without being both You, by your own admission, deliberately muddled your point.

    Except that there is no difference at all to many feminists in general or to the person I was responding to in particular, as you can see if you bother to look at the context of my reply. Here, let me recapitulate for you:
    A man who considers himself "a great lover of women," therefore, might somewhat paradoxically be termed a misogynist by those who consider his treatment of women sexist, such as sex-negative feminists. Archetypes of this type of man might be Giacomo Casanova and Don Juan, who were both reputed for their many libertine affairs with women.

    This led to
    durandal wrote:
    Do you really have to be sex-negative to think a dude treating ladies like notches on a belt is kind of misogynist?

    Notice how to Durandal, the guy I was directing that comment towards, there is no difference between male promiscuity and "dudes treating ladies like notches on a belt?" The one is just a more forceful way of phrasing the other. There are a number of interesting aspects of this belief, not least of which is the way it fully embraces patriarchal ideas about sex differences (a characteristic of a lot of feminist writing). I pass no judgment on the attitude itself here - perhaps it is true, perhaps not. But whether or not it is true, the belief that people "reputed for their many libertine affairs with women" are misogynistic is stupid. This becomes obvious when you consider the opposite case of a woman who has many libertine affairs with men.

    I'm sorry that this has been so difficult for you to follow. Perhaps if you spent some of the energy you put into trying to pull gotchas into understanding what's being said, it wouldn't be so confusing for you.

    Goodnight!

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2009
    zakkiel wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    My God, you can make the simplest things unbelievably tedious with your childish belief that you're going to somehow catch someone out on a word.

    You mean like this?
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Does anyone in this thread know what misogyny means? It's not the same as sexism.
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Explain why you think I misused promiscuous, and then I will explain as gently as I can why you are an idiot yet again, and then hopefully we can move on.

    Treating women as sex objects and nothing more is not the same thing as having sex with a lot of women. It's not a hard concept. You can easily be promiscuous without being sexist, let alone misogynist. You can't really objectify women and act on said objectification without being both You, by your own admission, deliberately muddled your point.

    Except that there is no difference at all to many feminists in general or to the person I was responding to in particular, as you can see if you bother to look at the context of my reply. Here, let me recapitulate for you:
    A man who considers himself "a great lover of women," therefore, might somewhat paradoxically be termed a misogynist by those who consider his treatment of women sexist, such as sex-negative feminists. Archetypes of this type of man might be Giacomo Casanova and Don Juan, who were both reputed for their many libertine affairs with women.

    This led to
    durandal wrote:
    Do you really have to be sex-negative to think a dude treating ladies like notches on a belt is kind of misogynist?

    Notice how to Durandal, the guy I was directing that comment towards, there is no difference between male promiscuity and "dudes treating ladies like notches on a belt?" The one is just a more forceful way of phrasing the other. There are a number of interesting aspects of this belief, not least of which is the way it fully embraces patriarchal ideas about sex differences (a characteristic of a lot of feminist writing). I pass no judgment on the attitude itself here - perhaps it is true, perhaps not. But whether or not it is true, the belief that people "reputed for their many libertine affairs with women" are misogynistic is stupid. This becomes obvious when you consider the opposite case of a woman who has many libertine affairs with men.

    I'm sorry that this has been so difficult for you to follow. Perhaps if you spent some of the energy you put into trying to pull gotchas into understanding what's being said, it wouldn't be so confusing for you.

    Goodnight!

    Hating sex isn't relevant to feminism, it's a separate belief. Nothing you've said has been difficult to follow, tossing up a strawman and then playing the "I'm taking my ball and going home" card doesn't have the persuasive value you seem to think it does. Unpleasant dreams.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Do you really have to be sex-negative to think a dude treating ladies like notches on a belt is kind of misogynist?

    No, you don't. You're right, it is a little more complicated than that.

    However, a lot of people confuse sex-positivism with misogyny (or sex-positivism with feminism) when, as VC says, they are separate beliefs. See: Nice Guy discussions, where people accuse men who engage in consensual casual sex of being womanizers simply for having sex.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    No, you don't. You're right, it is a little more complicated than that.

    However, a lot of people confuse sex-positivism with misogyny (or sex-positivism with feminism) when, as VC says, they are separate beliefs. See: Nice Guy discussions, where people accuse men who engage in consensual casual sex of being womanizers simply for having sex.
    I thought the stereotypical "Nice Guy" scenario was where somebody performs passive-aggressive "nice" acts and thinks that doing so entitles them to sexual access.

    Or are we talking about something else?

    Duffel on
  • Options
    zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Ah, we've come full circle.

    Men who have a lot of sex are misogynists.
    Women who have a lot of sex are sexually liberated from the shackles of the patriarchy.

    Damn the misandrist double standard!

    zerg rush on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2009
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Ah, we've come full circle.

    Men who have a lot of sex are misogynists.
    Women who have a lot of sex are sexually liberated from the shackles of the patriarchy.

    Damn the misandrist double standard!

    I'm not sure where you're getting this from. All of the posts between your last one and this one contain statements directly conflicting with this.

    irt Duffel;
    What you are talking about is a separate aspect of niceguyness, one they justify by telling themselves their love for their chosen target is pure and special.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    It's a joke VC.

    zerg rush on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    No, you don't. You're right, it is a little more complicated than that.

    However, a lot of people confuse sex-positivism with misogyny (or sex-positivism with feminism) when, as VC says, they are separate beliefs. See: Nice Guy discussions, where people accuse men who engage in consensual casual sex of being womanizers simply for having sex.
    I thought the stereotypical "Nice Guy" scenario was where somebody performs passive-aggressive "nice" acts and thinks that doing so entitles them to sexual access.

    Or are we talking about something else?

    Yes, and I've seen that a common corollary to that is to attack men who directly pursue sex as womanizers. After all, if you really respect a girl, you'll treat her like a friend for months and months and months and never ever actually say "Hey, I'm attracted to you, wanna go out on a date?" The guys that do? Oh, they're assholes and they're just using women for sex.

    Note that I don't think the Nice Guy phenomenon is remotely as common as some people seem to think it is.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    No, you don't. You're right, it is a little more complicated than that.

    However, a lot of people confuse sex-positivism with misogyny (or sex-positivism with feminism) when, as VC says, they are separate beliefs. See: Nice Guy discussions, where people accuse men who engage in consensual casual sex of being womanizers simply for having sex.
    I thought the stereotypical "Nice Guy" scenario was where somebody performs passive-aggressive "nice" acts and thinks that doing so entitles them to sexual access.

    Or are we talking about something else?

    Yes, and I've seen that a common corollary to that is to attack men who directly pursue sex as womanizers. After all, if you really respect a girl, you'll treat her like a friend for months and months and months and never ever actually say "Hey, I'm attracted to you, wanna go out on a date?" The guys that do? Oh, they're assholes and they're just using women for sex.

    Note that I don't think the Nice Guy phenomenon is remotely as common as some people seem to think it is.

    Well if it were all that common death-rate would exceed birth-rate.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Note that I don't think the Nice Guy phenomenon is remotely as common as some people seem to think it is.
    People mostly talk about it on the internet. If you're not suffering from it, then you don't post about it on the internet. The internet is pretty good at biasing the sample.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2009
    I'd rather have notches in my belt and die on the Titanic than be a promiscuous child that's chivalrous.

    Doc on
  • Options
    Zombie MonkeyZombie Monkey Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    im still bemused that so many people are saying children first....why? First on a personal level, if its your death or someone else' regardless of how frail or young they are you're still going to die, so choose life.

    Zombie Monkey on
    League of Legends - Enzo III
  • Options
    zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    im still bemused that so many people are saying children first....why? First on a personal level, if its your death or someone else' regardless of how frail or young they are you're still going to die, so choose life.

    If I'm choosing between some guy and a child, I'll try to save the child first generally.
    If I'm choosing between myself and a child, well that child can go fuck himself. Kid was probably a jerk anyway.

    zerg rush on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    zerg rush wrote: »
    im still bemused that so many people are saying children first....why? First on a personal level, if its your death or someone else' regardless of how frail or young they are you're still going to die, so choose life.

    If I'm choosing between some guy and a child, I'll try to save the child first generally.
    If I'm choosing between myself and a child, well that child can go fuck himself. Kid was probably a jerk anyway.

    If you went back in time and were on a lifeboat with baby Hitler and there was only room for one of you, would you step on the butterfly?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    Zombie MonkeyZombie Monkey Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    zerg rush wrote: »
    im still bemused that so many people are saying children first....why? First on a personal level, if its your death or someone else' regardless of how frail or young they are you're still going to die, so choose life.

    If I'm choosing between some guy and a child, I'll try to save the child first generally.
    If I'm choosing between myself and a child, well that child can go fuck himself. Kid was probably a jerk anyway.

    im fine with that, it is my opinion though that anyone who chooses a childs life over their own may feel smug in their self sacrifice for the 5 minutes before they drown but will be cursing the heavens when water consumes them. Life aint the movies guys, Di Caprio died like a chump sacrificing himself for that girl, though sure his warm heart prevented the seas from icing him up...oh wait, no he died and he aint ever coming back.

    Zombie Monkey on
    League of Legends - Enzo III
  • Options
    chaosbearchaosbear Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Well, despite Titanic being a crap movie, Leo died for the woman he loved.

    In a situation where it is my wife or myself, I die, she lives. I don't have to think about it, that is just the way it is. My warm heart may not keep me from freezing, but the thought that the woman I love will live will make the icing up easier to deal with mentally.

    chaosbear on
  • Options
    Zombie MonkeyZombie Monkey Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    bah, they barely knew each other, i refuse to believe their love is as wholesome as its portrayed, it could never work

    Your point brings me to another question, why should she accept her survival? Why shouldnt you live and she die for you? Dont say chivalry because it has been unquestionnably proven in this thread that that is misogynistic. Perhaps you will both die together, that is the only equal way to settle the situation. Personally id be more than a tad offended if i said to my wife "go, ill stay" and she lept at the opportunity, be kind of rad if she died for me though

    Zombie Monkey on
    League of Legends - Enzo III
  • Options
    FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2009
    Demiurge wrote: »
    never die wrote: »
    Demiurge wrote: »
    never die wrote: »
    I think it was more of the fact they were lighting cigarettes under the ladies skirts, endangering everyone. They were self-serving jerks, compared to the father, who sacrificed his own life to save his wife and children.

    No, he saw them into a lifeboat then died like a gentlemen. There's no heroics there.

    Compared to knocking one of the men hiding under the skirts off so he could stay on?

    Why would he stay on? There's a max carrying capacity in those lifeboats and the Titanic didn't have enough for half the passengers, his seat could be filled with a child. Even if he did notice the men (it was night) any kind of ruckus would propably knock the boat over. Its pretty much chivalry, he did what was expected of him by the gentlemen code.

    Actually the Titanic had more lifeboats than the law required.

    There was also many many boats that left at half capacity or almost no people because men refused to get on them. No women or children that actually made it to a boat were denied. Well, sucked for the people in the lower classes though, plenty of women and children died there..

    .. and in a situation like this, I would get women and children on first, and then get on myself. I'm not going down with the ship, they can make another ship.

    I also view it as kind of a practical thing, if the women and children get out first, it'll be easier for men to haul out other men than for women to haul out gigantic men by themselves, just due to weight difference.

    FyreWulff on
  • Options
    chaosbearchaosbear Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    bah, they barely knew each other, i refuse to believe their love is as wholesome as its portrayed, it could never work

    Your point brings me to another question, why should she accept her survival? Why shouldnt you live and she die for you? Dont say chivalry because it has been unquestionnably proven in this thread that that is misogynistic. Perhaps you will both die together, that is the only equal way to settle the situation. Personally id be more than a tad offended if i said to my wife "go, ill stay" and she lept at the opportunity, be kind of rad if she died for me though

    Well, it was a crap movie. As to your second point, she would definitely not go quietly. Call it misogynistic if you wish, but despite her desire for me to live and her to die, she is the one who would live. In all honesty, I believe she would be able to handle my death better than I could handle hers and since we have an 11 year old daughter, she would need to be the one to live. It would definitely be a fight though.

    chaosbear on
  • Options
    Zombie MonkeyZombie Monkey Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    chaosbear wrote: »
    bah, they barely knew each other, i refuse to believe their love is as wholesome as its portrayed, it could never work

    Your point brings me to another question, why should she accept her survival? Why shouldnt you live and she die for you? Dont say chivalry because it has been unquestionnably proven in this thread that that is misogynistic. Perhaps you will both die together, that is the only equal way to settle the situation. Personally id be more than a tad offended if i said to my wife "go, ill stay" and she lept at the opportunity, be kind of rad if she died for me though

    Well, it was a crap movie. As to your second point, she would definitely not go quietly. Call it misogynistic if you wish, but despite her desire for me to live and her to die, she is the one who would live. In all honesty, I believe she would be able to handle my death better than I could handle hers and since we have an 11 year old daughter, she would need to be the one to live. It would definitely be a fight though.

    Ok i agree with this, and in the same situation ditto, having said that it does underline to me at least that society is still far from being equal

    Zombie Monkey on
    League of Legends - Enzo III
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Because in 1912, Chivalry was still alive.

    Today, Chivalry is dead.

    Chivalry was a cruel code of behaviour used to idolise some women while debasing the rest on the basis of birth, and never once did it attempt to treat women as people. Chivalry can fuck right off.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    freelancerbobfreelancerbob UKRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Those old chivalric values were good values. However at the time Men had more power than women, and power OVER women. Women couldn't vote, jobs were different, etc etc. Men were the PROTECTORS of women. Now, we hold men and women equal. If we are all considered truly equal then yes, women and children first shouldn't be an issue.

    I call bullshit. In a lots of people will die scenario, Women and children first, every time, and you men who have a problem with that can just deal. I do not wish to live at the expense of a child and it's mother. That would be no kind of life at all.

    freelancerbob on
    What is this thing that is happening here.
  • Options
    Zombie MonkeyZombie Monkey Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Those old chivalric values were good values. However at the time Men had more power than women, and power OVER women. Women couldn't vote, jobs were different, etc etc. Men were the PROTECTORS of women. Now, we hold men and women equal. If we are all considered truly equal then yes, women and children first shouldn't be an issue.

    I call bullshit. In a lots of people will die scenario, Women and children first, every time, and you men who have a problem with that can just deal. I do not wish to live at the expense of a child and it's mother. That would be no kind of life at all.

    death is no kind of life at all

    I cant fathom how people who say this cant fathom that death is horrible and also final, i can only assume they have some want not to survive, this isnt a movie where the noble hero drowns peacefully, drowning is by all accounts a very very nasty process. And since i dont value my life as having any less worth than anyone else i dont see what reason i have for choosing a horrible death over giving someone else a chance. I know it sounds harsh but i think theres a level of conditioning in people in this thread that there is a certain "decorum" in these situations, when in reality this only exists because of the society we came from and in actuality there is no natural decorum at all.

    If that makes sense, im trying to say the obligation to "save" is short sighted and unnatural

    Zombie Monkey on
    League of Legends - Enzo III
  • Options
    BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Can you explain what you mean by "unnatural," and whether or not you think that is an inherently bad thing?

    Bama on
  • Options
    freelancerbobfreelancerbob UKRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    The time of my death matters not one whit compared to the manner of it. Kicking babies off lifeboats isn't a good trade under any circumstances, not is dragging a chick to freeze instead of me. Unless she's being a bitch about it, and there are no witnesses.

    freelancerbob on
    What is this thing that is happening here.
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    The time of my death matters not one whit compared to the manner of it.
    Why not? I personally like living and would enjoy living longer, possibly even if it is at the expense of another person.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Zombie MonkeyZombie Monkey Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    The time of my death matters not one whit compared to the manner of it. Kicking babies off lifeboats isn't a good trade under any circumstances, not is dragging a chick to freeze instead of me. Unless she's being a bitch about it, and there are no witnesses.

    I think we are more discussing the "if there is one space left" scenario over the "I would kill everyone on board to get a space" scenario

    Zombie Monkey on
    League of Legends - Enzo III
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    zerg rush wrote: »
    im still bemused that so many people are saying children first....why? First on a personal level, if its your death or someone else' regardless of how frail or young they are you're still going to die, so choose life.

    If I'm choosing between some guy and a child, I'll try to save the child first generally.
    If I'm choosing between myself and a child, well that child can go fuck himself. Kid was probably a jerk anyway.

    If you went back in time and were on a lifeboat with baby Hitler and there was only room for one of you, would you step on the butterfly?

    Well-played.
    The time of my death matters not one whit compared to the manner of it. Kicking babies off lifeboats isn't a good trade under any circumstances, not is dragging a chick to freeze instead of me. Unless she's being a bitch about it, and there are no witnesses.

    Suicide; all the cool guys are doing it.

    ViolentChemistry on
Sign In or Register to comment.