The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Women and Children first?

Women and Children first?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
I've just been reading a study by Wayne Hall of UWA, entitled Social Class and Survival on the SS Titanic.

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:152940/HallSSM2261986.pdf

Among 1st class passengers only about 3% of women/children were killed and 67% of the men, while among 3rd class passengers 57.8% of women and children died along with about 84% of the men. 2nd class passengers fell between the other 2 and crew rates were approximately equivalent to second class passengers.

This seems to me to highlight the problem with our modern obsession with gender parity.

In first class the men knew the welfare of their wives and children was their obligation and a very high-level one. Their wives had a concomitant obligation to their husbands, albeit in a much more limited sense.

In second class, or the sort of ticket that mostly middle-class people could afford, the men had a similar sense of obligation, largely based on their aspirations to be just like the upper class. however, they also knew that their wives were strong, capable people who worked hard at their own jobs. If anyone has ever done laundry in a copper they'd understand what I mean.

In third class, both men and women routinely worked at the most arduous of jobs. Women were often pregnant almost constantly and they had to work hard to keep a home going. Further, the culture of working people made little distinction between men and women, other than as to the sort of work they did. Nonetheless, nearly half the 3rd class women and children survived and only about an eighth of the men.

It seems to me that if the Titanic happened today, the result would be even worse for women than the third-class one.

So, here's the question: would you, as a man, make a decision to give up your seat in the lifeboat to a woman? Would you, as a woman, take it? On what grounds?
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 3 October 2011 4:05:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brilliant thread, Anti.
Although it's quite early in the West - and not all of my brain cells are yet engaged...

My first question is exactly what work do you think the women did who were 2nd class passengers? I posit that they were middle-class with aspirations to be upper-middle. Did all the women on the Titanic have an equal access to a lifeboat place - was it more difficult for women the lower their perceived status? Was the upper class better informed as the crisis developed over a number of hours? I posit that there was a lot more confusion and ignorance of the actuality of the crisis in steerage than there was in first class (or the second class areas) areas of the ship,

As to the men in first class choosing the chivalrous option, it's not surprising at all. This was the old warrior class - the class of knights, etc. It's for the same reason that around a third of the British upper class officers/soldiers were killed in the Great War.
(The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy is a good read)
I think the lower orders acted in a chivalrous manner also if they had the opportunity.

One has to remember that this ship was "unsinkable" and that the unfolding of its fate and the eventual realisation of its doom wasn't initially apparent.....people in steerage may have been the last to know and the least likely to be afforded a scarce lifeboat place.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 3 October 2011 7:55:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti,

Just given it a little more thought - and the survival probabilities for women did appear to depend on what class one happened to be. I'm also curious about the psychological aspect of this type of disaster in the period it occurred.

Women at the time were driven forward in a world materially defined by the exploits of men. The whole "Titanic" roadshow (oecanshow?) was constructed by men and operated by them. The fact that it went so terribly wrong was a responsibility that those upper-class men would have borne implicitly. That class had choice - the women and children were to be salvaged "without question"...but, as I mentioned earlier, honour and chivalry were paramount. The upper-class men dismissed any chance of their own survival otherwise they would have taken up the lifeboat places of the lower classes as well.

I posit that if the same thing happened today, men would still put women and children first for rescue.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 3 October 2011 8:43:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, in those days just running a home was arduous. Laundry, cleaning of all types, ironing, cooking, shopping, etc were not tasks that could be done in a few minutes as they are today. I'm sure that some of the 2nd class women came from households with a maid or who sent their laundry out, but I'm also sure that a lot of them did it all themselves.

The study says that there was no systematic bias shown by the crew and in fact one of the 2nd class men who survived said that they thought the situation was worst for them, since they had to accommodate both women from their own class and those from the decks below, while 1st class had no such obligation.

The investigation that was held set the disparity down to the behaviour of the people involved.

I'm not actually interested in that so much though, as I am in the way people today might act. I know there are far fewer people willing to give up their seat in a train to a woman. I'm among them, although I'll make exceptions for pregnant ones and infirm people generally.

I suspect I'd give up my seat in the lifeboat if pressed, mostly because of the children and because I was strongly acculturated that way as a boy. If it came down to a random woman and myself, however, she might find herself having to do more than just ask for it as a right. A few years ago that would not have been the case. What has changed in me is that I've rubbed up against the worst of feminism's creations and that drew my attention to the whole issue of female preferment.

I'm interested in your view as a woman, Poirot. Would you take the seat if offered? Would you simply expect it to be offered? How would you justify that to yourself?
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 3 October 2011 9:09:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the point Anti is driving to.

Strong healthy men should put themselves first and foremost in situations of crisis - the weak, helpless, young, disabled, elderly, pregnant or anyone holding a small child should be left to survive on their own.

Now, who was it who said cockroaches would be sole survivors in the event of an apocalypse?

Well said Poirot, admire your patience. Have a feeling that Antiseptic is working in his shed on a baby incubator. Little Antiseptic clones, oh brave new world.
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 3 October 2011 9:17:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, I suppose if we're looking at things from a purely modern angle, then yes, those things have changed. Standing up for a woman is a thing of the past on public transport - understandably so for the younger generation. But even children are no longer chided to stand for the elderly in most cases I suspect.

Firstly, Anti, I'm of the opinion that the foremost influence on the "equality" of the sexes is our society's voracious consumer appetite. I think this paradigm has produced the perfect conditions for rabid feminism (as opposed to reasonable feminine aspirations)...we seem to have lost sight of the fact that we're in this together. I'm constantly entertained by the sniping between the sexes as we merrily march to the shops, buy up big, and then start sniping again....stoopid humans.

Yes, I'd take a seat, but then I also get a kick when, on the rare occasion these days, a man opens a door for me (?) : )
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 3 October 2011 9:33:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting question, Antiseptic.

>>...would you, as a man, make a decision to give up your seat in the lifeboat to a woman?<<

My answer is yes, I would. In fact, it wouldn't be "giving up my seat", so much as making sure all the women were accommodated first.

In daily life, when not escaping from sinking ships, I regularly give up my seat on the train to women, even those decades younger.

Don't know why, though. I don't think about it, I just do it.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 3 October 2011 9:38:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti

Just had a scary thought, even with eliminating the "weak, helpless, young, disabled, elderly, pregnant or anyone holding a small child", men would still be left with a few strong healthy female survivors.

Darn, didn't think of that.

Will get back to you.

;)
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 3 October 2011 9:42:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The following may be of interest:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/02/titanic-lusitania-women-children-survival

According to the link cited above apparently survival lies
not in who was on the ships but how quickly they went down.
Interestingly researchers compare the two disasters of the
Titanic and the Lusitania. We're told that the Titanic took
about 3 hours to sink, giving at least some of the passengers
time to regain their cool and remember their manners.
While the Lusitania took less then 20 minutes and panic
was the order of the day with the young and fittest pushing
their way onto the lifeboats and staying on them.

As to what I would expect and do under similar circumstances
today? That's a hypothetical question that one can't really
answer honestly until one's faced with such a horrific
situation. Most people would want to hang on for dear life
I should imagine. However, I certainly would not expect
any sort of special treatment simply because of my gender.
I've always stood up in buses, trams, and trains, and
have always given up my seat for other people.

I would therefore trust that I would be brave enough to allow the
young and the helpless to go first regardless of their gender.
Despite the fact that I do have a morbid fear of drowning -
as a result of almost drowning in the Hawkesbury River as a
child.
Posted by Lexi, Monday, 3 October 2011 9:51:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

I too open doors and give up seats to the "the weak, helpless, young, disabled, elderly, pregnant or anyone holding a small child".

Irrespective of gender.

Dunno why either.
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 3 October 2011 9:56:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles and Ammonite,

You're not self-centred.
You think of others before yourself.
And that's so rare these days.

It also has to do with -
doing things - according to one's own values.

People tend to see the world from a viewpoint
of subjectivity - based on personal values and
experiences. We're influenced by our backgrounds,
training, and prior experiences. We don't all
perceive things in exactly the same way.
Especially when it comes to simple things like -
good manners and courtesy. The niceties that
make life much more pleasnant. These seem to be
things of the past for so many.
Posted by Lexi, Monday, 3 October 2011 10:18:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just musing on the type of social conditioning that was obviously a factor in the behaviour of the men on the Titanic. As Pericles has indicated, no thought would have been given to an alternative option. It's a social - and I suspect also, an innate psychological imperative - connected to the instinct of species survival in humans. After all, men have always defended their societies and even now in more traditional societies, women do most of the domestic work while the men look on at ease - but they are ever at the ready to fight and defend their women and children, the survival of the core of the society and its organic source being of paramount consideration.

In a similar situation where children were relying on my actions for their survival, I wouldn't hesitate in attempting to save them first.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 3 October 2011 10:29:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, I'm somewhat with you on the consumer-driven feminist angle. Governments saw an opportunity to tax women's work and companies saw an opportunity to profit from women having more money to spend.

However, that's not what I'm interested in here.

What if the man had to be removed to make room for you? Are you still comfortable in your pre-warmed seat?

Pericles, would you care to have a think about it? I'd be interested in your reasons. The same goes for you, Ammonite.

Lexi, I agree that the children should be accommodated first. As for the "helpless", what does that mean? The ship is going down in waters barely above freezing. Everybody is helpless, including you. Only those in the lifeboats are not victims.

I don't think you've thoght this through very much.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 3 October 2011 10:33:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By "helpless" I mean anyone who looks like they need help. For chrissakes; someone who may be panicking, or can't swim, weighed down by clothes - all encompassing word "helpless".

Maybe you should think about it.

I am courteous to people because that is an intrinsic part of my personality - if I reach a door before someone else I open it for them - I don't check out who they are first. Just greases the wheels which makes the world go round. If and when I do hold a door open for a man and he comments (as has happened) I kindly say that "courtesy goes both ways". Anti, maybe you could try it out instead of setting up straw arguments such as why we save others in a crisis.

On consumerism - which was not what I thought this topic about - but since when was consumerism a feminist issue?

Don't non-feminists buy stuff? What does this have to do with surviving a crisis?
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 3 October 2011 10:50:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

I used the word "helpless" meaning all those who were
unable to help themselves. Such as for example, babies,
young children, pregnant women, disabled, handicapped,
sick, infirmed, and so on. Not the fit and healthy.
I would not consider myself "helpless." Scared. definitely,
but helpless - no.

I trust that clarifies things for you.
Posted by Lexi, Monday, 3 October 2011 10:52:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Everybody not in a lifeboat died. Therefore anybody not in a lifeboat was helpless, including you. Therefore, you need to apply some more thought to your views. At present Ammomnite's responses read like a schoolgirl tantrum and Lexi has adroitly avoided considering the question. I'd also appreciate a genuine effort to analyse why you would do as you claim. Remember, this isn't a case of pretending to stand up for someone else more helpless, everyone is equivalent.

Challenge yourselves.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 3 October 2011 10:59:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti, at it again? your question has Merritt.
But that is not shared by some, the tattooed armed type woman some times found today would have to fight for my seat.
In truth I value manners and would go last,
But some little Princesses of today would tell their man to die without blinking an eye.
Those days are behind us , some good things went with them.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 3 October 2011 11:02:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suppose it could depend how your situation is. If a couple has children, then it would be supposed that a man then (and now?) would save his wife, not only for her survival, but also knowing that she would be there for the kids. Perhaps if there was only the two of you, a couple may wish to die together instead of one surviving without the other.

Anti, I don't think "principal" would overrule the will to survive in this case. If I was offered a seat, I would accept it because I wanted to survive. As I've stated in an earlier post, there are reasons why men automatically put women and children first, even if these reasons are not logically apparent in the first instance.

Ammonite,

Of course, the changing paradigm is pertinent to Anti's original question - and I agree with him regarding consumer society and the shift in gender roles and outlook. Every time a woman enters the "workforce" GDP goes up.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 3 October 2011 11:30:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

>> Every time a woman enters the "workforce" GDP goes up. <<

It does?

What happens when a man enters the workforce?

Does this mean that only women should work and men stay home?

Silly me. I thought excessive consumerism was practised by both sexes and that both sexes could be for capitalism. And, yeah, I can see how this applies to saving others on the Titantic, well, not really. Just thought I'd say that.
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 3 October 2011 11:50:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti why do we have the duopoly of "women and children” and then "men"?

IMO it is an evolutionary trait, we protect the breeders and their offspring, although we can be tribally selective, but the fact is a paternal society has evolved in the majority of cultures because women are in “survivor capable” terms the weaker sex.

Modernity and legislation backed by enforcement has given women the equality they now share. If tomorrow modernity was gone, the rule of law was gone and it was struggle for survival on a daily basis then women would go straight back to square one, totally reliant on the men, they called it the “thatched ceiling” in those days.

About the life boat, I’ve been programmed, women and children first, even Belly’s fat tattooed dykie chic, she is still a fem and I could kill or maim her on a whim today or tomorrow, but she is still the weaker sex, tattoos or not, big mouth or not, and they must survive at the cost of mature males.
Posted by sonofgloin, Monday, 3 October 2011 11:53:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My generation was taught to give up seats to women (if you were a man), to the aged and the disabled. I have done it all my life and I don't think it is a bad thing. It is a recognition of the fact that the person you are giving up your seat is less able than you to navigate the public transport system. My husband still opens my door for me and I put in an effort to cook things he likes etc (that is oversimplifying..I know).

I disagree totally with Anti's assessment of the Titanic. The reason the lowest class passengers failed to survive was they were locked in their berths so the upper classes could get off first. It was a class issue as much as it was gender issue.

Didn't you watch Kate Winslett and Leonardo Di Caprio's Titanic? ;)

Men have always gone off to war to defend and protect, it has been tradition but times do evolve and things change. We now have female police officers, lifeguards and the like. This does not mean women are necessarily stronger but women have always had a strong protective instinct especially in relation to family.

I am of an older generation and as such I am just as influenced by my own upbringing and I like it when men open doors and perform the traditional niceties. I also do the same in return especially if I have gone through a door first (regardless of gender). I don't expect it or demand it, but it is nice when there is still some chivalry to be found. I also don't like it when women emasculate men in public or when men ridicule or belittle women.

It really comes down to common courtesies and respect.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 3 October 2011 12:01:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,

You're being a tad disingenuous (as is your want).

My comment was directed at the modern paradigm of "rampant" consumerism wherein a marked alteration in societal structure and gender participation "now" dictates that women "should" take part in the workforce.
If every woman (or man) paid another person to do the domestic chores now undertaken without pay, the GDP would increase.

Anti was asking the question as to whether the alteration in gender identification (due, in my opinion, to modern consumerist society) would a game-changer in a crisis sutation.

But, by all means, feel free to continue with your stunt.....
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 3 October 2011 12:24:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

>> If every woman (or man) paid another person to do the domestic chores now undertaken without pay, the GDP would increase. <<

Our consumerist society could not afford to pay for domestic chores currently performed for free by women and a few men.

As for crises, we have had several in Australia in recent years. I was present in the Dandenong Ranges at one. I recall there were women and men working alongside each other as ambos, police officers, firefighters and members of the public to save whom and what they could. I do not believe that efforts to save others were divided along either gender or, as was the case of the Titanic, class lines.

You can claim I am disingenuous - I believe it is people who are constantly creating battles and divisions between people for their own selfish reasons who better fit that tag.

However, this is OLO - where "freedom of speech" reigns supreme, doesn't it?
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 3 October 2011 12:34:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

I have answered the question as honestly as I
could. I can't do much about the fact that
you're not satisfied with what I gave you.

I'll try to explain it to you again:

I can't say what I would or wouldn't do for certain
in a crisis,

I have no way of knowing -
whether panic would set in or not. I can't predict
that ahead of time.

All I can say is - based on the way I was raised,
(to put others first), I would hope that my reflexes
and upbringing would kick in, and I would
look to saving the more vunerable first - rather than myself.
So, on the law of averages - no, I wouldn't take the seat
on the life-boat while there were others more vunerable
then myself around. People as I mentioned previously -
like babies, pregnant women, children, ill, disabled,
and so on.

That's the best answer I can give you.
Posted by Lexi, Monday, 3 October 2011 12:49:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,

What is your particular beef?

I'm not trying to construct antipathy between the genders. I like to look at things from an anthropological perspective - to see patterns in society and how they affect the roles of gender.

You deliberately misrepresented my comment about women working and GDP - as if I was stating that it "only goes up when women work"...puerile in the extreme.

My last comment about paying for domestic chores was an example of how GDP is calculated...but I think you knew that.

You seem to strive to take offence, either on behalf of yourself or your principals - so be it.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 3 October 2011 1:05:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi I think you've missed a key point to the question Anti is asking. There are no others more or less vunerable than yourself, anybody in the water dies, those in the boats may survive.

If you are making a choice between yourself and a baby there is a good chance that the baby will die a lot quicker and suffer less. You may also consider that a number of baby's can fit into the lifeboat instead of you. If it's between you and a disabled or ill person you don't know theirs and your chances of survival are not part of the equation.

I agree that it's hard to tell in advance what we'd do in a particular crisis. I know my social conditioning is that I'm supposed to give my life in those situations.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 3 October 2011 1:22:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear RObert,

I understand what you're saying.
But I don't think that when it came
right down to it - I would bother to
analyze things. I would simply
go with what I felt was the right
thing to do at the time - without much
thought for anything else.

I would simply act as I've been
brought up to do.
And that probably means giving up my life
for others.
Posted by Lexi, Monday, 3 October 2011 1:35:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

Not at all offended. I post to draw people out.

:)

It is you who have called me disingenuous - I explained why I thought you wrong.

Robert

Agreed there would be people more helpless than Lexi in the Titantic scenario - which was my point about healthy strong women who can take care of themselves. And was what I experienced in the Black Saturday bush fires a couple of years ago. I would rather a man carry out a child than worry about me, I am very capable, being female does not and did not make me helpless.


Nor does class make such huge distinctions as it did at the time of the Titantic. What happened to the working class people was reprehensible.

We have progressed a little since then, some more than others.
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 3 October 2011 1:55:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic

...My experience in boat roll overs tells me, when the chips are down its every man for himself! So maybe if the titanic rolled over immediately, then a different statistical outcome would have resulted.
But in event of a life boat launch, one would need a tillerman; I'd take that job if I could; naturally, along with my misses and my own kids!
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 3 October 2011 2:35:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,

I beg to differ about huge class distinctions not being as pertinent as they once were. Perhaps they're a little better disguised in ordinary day-to-day activities these days, but they are likely to reveal themselves during a time of crisis.

One only has to cast one's mind back to all the poor black people that were left behind in New Orleans as Katrina wrought her havoc....a similar metaphor for what happened on the Titanic, perhaps.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 3 October 2011 3:01:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite, you have a truly impressive capacity to misunderstand simple English and an even more impressive capacity to misconstrue simple figures. I suggest you ask someone more competent to explain what the thread is about. Mind you, such a Sisyphean task would be a most unkind burden on anyone. Best forget it.

Lexi, your response indicates you would decline a seat if offered. Is that right? I'm not seeing your justification, unless you think "I'd like to hope" is such a thing. What if the donor insisted?

Folks, I'm not asking you to predict what you'd do, necessarily, I'm interested in your reasons for why you think you'd prefer to act in the normative way.

As I said at the start, would you men give up your seat willingly for a woman and would you women accept it or would you even expect it as a normal part of your due? What are your reasons, not just your gut feelings? Are there any you can think of, given that there is ultimately nobody more helpless than anybody else? I'll stipulate that children and possibly women with a baby at the breast should be given first refusal. So what of the rest of you?

dan, I'm asking about the specific sorts of circumstances pertaining to the Titanic. In that case the crew perished at roughly equivalent rates to 2nd class passengers.

So far, we've got all the men saying they'd sacrifice their place and a couple of women who say they'd accept, while a couple of others are dodging and weaving and trying to find some way to feel better about saying they'd accept. SOG posits an evolutionary basis for this situation. Is that the case?
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 3 October 2011 3:09:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In 2011, it is difficult to imagine the socialisation that might lead to people stoically standing back while others hopped into the last lifeboat. Nowdays, the scramble for lifeboats would leave many people physically unable to board lifeboats. The melee amongst journalists and lawyers onshore would be similarly tactless.

In 2011, I also predict that poorer passengers would feel more entitled to lifeboats than the toffs. Furthermore, they now tend to be physically bigger than the rich (in contrast to 1912).
Posted by benk, Monday, 3 October 2011 3:26:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Antiseptic,

People can insist all they want.
I'll basically do what I feel is
right. As others have indicated
they would as well. That's something
you shall have to accept, whether you
like it or not.
Posted by Lexi, Monday, 3 October 2011 4:17:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The way a man or woman treats a baby in the womb gives a pretty good idea as to how they would react in a choice situation.
Posted by runner, Monday, 3 October 2011 4:18:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok, I've thought about it, Antiseptic.

>>Pericles, would you care to have a think about it? I'd be interested in your reasons.<<

And my thoughts are, that his is not really about making an objective assessment of value-to-the-community of male/female, old/young, is it?

If it were, then there would be no question, you'd leave all the old folk behind (or let them stand on the bus, whatever) and trample over them in the rush to save yourself - the young and fit getting the places in the lifeboat. By the rules of survival of the fittest, you would be in the right.

But civilization has, over the years, modified that devil-take-the-hindmost approach, where everyone subscribes to the the "me first, I'm more valuable" approach. Hence civility, politeness, consideration for others, unselfishness.

Of course, this may not be a sustainable stance. We could well regress into the more primitive state, on the basis that to do otherwise would be to deny our descendants the appropriate genetic makeup for their survival.

Nevertheless, on balance, I prefer politeness, and will continue to stand up for women, the elderly and the infirm.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 3 October 2011 4:29:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

You ARE determined to disagree with anything I write aren't you?

I stated: "We have progressed a little since then, some more than others."

You responded with the appalling lack of federal government aid in the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina.

New Orleans is my favourite place in the USA. Louisiana had two marks against it both of them poor and black. I never said there was no more discrimination, merely that we have progressed "a little".

Followed by

"Some more than others."

As amply demonstrated by Anti's constant quest to prove all women are evil/wrong/stupid - whatever.

Anti

You cannot make an cogent argument without resorting to personal insult by making completely unfounded comments regarding my comprehension skills. Such paucity of effort simply delineates your latest discussion thread as another attempt to further your gender war.

No doubt it pains you to know that should I reach a door before you I would hold it open for you.
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 3 October 2011 5:26:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Pericles...

Gentleman extraordinary!
Posted by Lexi, Monday, 3 October 2011 5:28:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic:

...You are right to criticize, I was being deliberately factitious on the subject. I believe the male of our species has GENERALLY a will to put themselves last in a life threatening situation; but must admit to witnessing a male swim away from his girlfriend who was in the process of drowning: That was in spite of protestations of onlookers.

...But my experience has also taught me that women have a surprising ability to remain calm when some of the most masculine of men have descended to panic in a tight situation beside them. I believe this situation relates to experience at sea more than to a gender quirk though.(action in the presence of sharks for example requires nerve) Sea conditions can be terrifying (I am sure Hasbeen would vouch to that); thus the whole deal is very unpredictable. In a situation such as the sinking of the Titanic, my prediction would be that many orders would be issued at the point of a gun. Thats sort of how I would work personally; no choices
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 3 October 2011 7:36:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is certainly an interesting subject, even though I realise that Antiseptic wants all us bad women to say that: "...yes, I would RUN to the lifeboats, pushing all males out of the way, and fling myself onto a lifeboat seat, after asking ALL males to get out, and assisting only other women to join me!"

Sorry Antiseptic, but I truly believe that I could not get onto a lifeboat if there wasn't enough room for everyone, especially my husband. If my whole family couldn't leave, then I would stay.

I think I feel that way now because my daughter is grown up, and basically can manage without me.

If I still had small children to care for on the boat, I would try harder to get onto a lifeboat with them, but not at the expense of other parents.
I just couldn't do it.

I'm of the opinion that the older people on the boat should have given up their place for younger people of both genders.
Maybe I shouldn't feel that way... but I do.
Posted by suzeonline, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 12:06:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your responses folks. No Suze, I'm not interested in "proving" anything. Unlike some of you, I am interested in new ideas and challenging my own perceptions.

Now this is hardly a representative group, consisting as it does of largely middle-class people, most of whom are well past 40 I suspect. However, the responses demonstrate quite clearly that the men see it as their role to defer to women in matters of life and death and as a matter of "courtesy".

I agree with Pericles that this is "nice" and I also prefer politeness on the whole, but what does it mean for gender politics? It seems to me that much of the resentment felt by men about the feminist deological makeover of society is that it seems our good natures are being taken advantage of.

We WANT to give you a fair go. We WANT to help you to be happy in whatever way you choose. We WANT to hold the door for you. We WANT to be polite. We WANT you to do well.

What do you want for us? All we ever get is how violent, how brutal, how exclusivist, how patriarchal, how misogynist, how generally second-class men are. And you wonder why some of us react as though we've been kicked in the groin. It seems that the modern feminist woman sees men as a means to an end and not worthy of either respect or recognition for the good things that we do.

Even Lexi, in her squirming efforts to place herself squarely on the side of the angels never suggested that she'd give her seat up for a man. Ammonite was positively scathing at the idea that a healthy man might survive at the expense of a healthy woman. I'm not sure what her reasoning is, but I doubt she is either.

Any comments?
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 3:45:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All I know is that Julia Gillard & Anna Bligh let me get sucked down in the vortex of their incompetence without blinking an eye, therefore I will not offer any help to save them from going under at the next election.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 7:20:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are many inns and outs. Good topic anti, pity not many are interested in taking it on honestly.

For me, it would depend on whether I thought my camera would survive. If I could first post pictures on facebook or twitter, and whether the slim chance of being a beakonsfield miner, with pics!, would have me fighting with the other narcisissists to NOT have the lifeboat so I could sell 'My Titanic Hell Exclusive'.

'LOL. Boat is sinkin. Epic fail!'

I could not be more proud, and I know the social kudos would be worth dying for.

Nobody talking about peer pressure? Astounding. What if Andrew Bolt was there. Is Alan Jones there? I'd need a chief propagandist to make my decision really.

I like Ammonite. I have for years been kept guessing whether she is duplicitous and disingenous or just really has a 'unique' way of comprehending things. Maybe it's both. Though she does sound like an excellent fire person. All this gallant Fire personing and then there's the acting and most importantly impeccable manners, I'm really in awe.

'But, by all means, feel free to continue with your stunt.....'

:-)

'The way a man or woman treats a baby in the womb gives a pretty good idea as to how they would react in a choice situation.'

What, perform a quick self-c-section and discard the fetus to save weight on the lifeboat?

Nobody here understands the principal of hypotheticals. The object of hypotheticals is to insist on more and more detail, bringing in variables from your wildest imagination, and adding disclaimers to cover each. Not just telling everyone 'I'll decide at the time'. Hey Foxy!

'Ah Pericles... Gentleman extraordinary!'

Yep, go Pericles. Chicks love a mindless self-sacrifice. You'll live on in a wet spot in someone's undies.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 7:55:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'even though I realise that Antiseptic wants all us bad women to say'

That's your female-gender-guilt talking. Get him back by making the next topic about rape and bring on the male-gender-guilt.

I like the tables being turned for a change and watching you chicks squirm.

'All we ever get is how violent, how brutal, how exclusivist, how patriarchal, how misogynist, how generally second-class men are.'

Agreed. But you just proved Ammonite's point. As I comprehend it.

Then again it's not as if anyone was under any illusions. It's a bit like saying Andrew Bolt has a 'secret' agenda.

'in her squirming efforts to place herself squarely on the side of the angels'

Yeah I always get a chuckle out of that. An angel with exquisite manners, that you just don't see so much these days!

But, to the topic. If the lifeboat was not made in an environmentally sustainable way, I would have to reject it. In Poirot's rampant consumerism, oh, baaaaaaaaah. You lot never change! And neither do I. Its enough to send me to the pub at 9AM today.

In fact, one day I might write a whole topic and play all the parts of anti and poirot, and pelican and Foxy. Wait a minute, was that a glitch in the matrix. YOU LOT AREN'T REAL. Real people aren't so predictable. Hang on...
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 8:08:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti,

I'm with sonogloin in that I believe there are good evolutionary and social reasons why men strive to protect women and children.

Modern urban life tends to give us a skewed version of reality. However, all human communities emerged from smaller groupings where the core of the organism was encompassed in its ability to nurture and sustain itself - and also to continue its existence through the procreation and survival of the next generation.

Men, in that situation, were the hinters (for protein) and the protectors. women were the nurtures and domestic workers - the division of labour was well defined. Most of human experience of life on this planet was within that proposition. It's only been in the comparative blink of an eye in an evolutionary sense that humans have constructed the means to go about their business relatively free of the constraints imposed on them in former times.

Ammonite,

The plight of those left behind in New Orleans struck me as quite pertinent to the class aspect of this thread...but I'll add here, since your assume I;m out to disagree with you, that you're the one that came out with all guns blazing in my direction deliberately misconstruing my points and then sarcastically responding to them.

Houellie,

Most refreshing perspective (your inimitable self :)
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 8:28:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq:"Real people aren't so predictable"

Oh yeah? Why do you think this site exists? Graham isn't just a child of the enlightenment, he gets a quid pro quo in the form of what are effectively focus groups in some respects. That allows real people's behaviour to be somewhat predicted.

I'm also a bit disappointed nobody was prepared to think about anything that might show them in a bad light. As you say, hypotheticals are meant to stimulate a broad consideration of the subject. Mind you, that may reflect the strength of the man-as-protector meme.

Poirot, I think it's an evolutionary thing as well. One man may impregnate many women after some form of disaster and all that. So if that's the case, where does it leave the case for social construction of gender roles? Does it have any validity beyond the present time of abundance?
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 8:37:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

You state that "even Lexi did not suggest that she
would give up her seat for a man."

At no time did I differentiate between genders as you're
doing. I don't classify people according to gender.
If you're vulnerable and helpless that was my only concern.
Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 9:53:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi:"If you're vulnerable and helpless that was my only concern."

Everyone is vulnerable and helpless. Now how do you decide?
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 9:56:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haha that reminds me of that episode of The Thick of It when one woman in the focus group was so accurate they sacked all the others and just picked this woman's brains. She WAS mainstream opinion. Then they thought she was a plant/leak from the opposition, and then they abused her for it and found out she wasn't, in the process revealing the secret they thought she had leaked. It's great stuff.

In our democracy the most powerful people in the land are those on focus groups, or the ones rung up by Galaxy. Counts heaps more than voting. I never felt more empowered than the day they rang me to ask my opinions on Keneally. The questioner didn't understand how I liked her, but wouldn't vote for Labor. I was waiting for him to say 'but don't you find her attractive?'

Anyway, I must deny once again that Graham pays me to generate clicks. I am not click bait, I am real.

'One man may impregnate many women after some form of disaster'

Yeah I anticipate using that line; 'Hey babe, we're going to die, how 'bout it? '. Easier than picking off bridesmaids at a wedding;-) I reckon I'd score because I have an irresistable cheeky grin. I can guarantee I'd be thinking about sex as the Titanic went down. Why the hell not. I can objectify women in a crisis! Hey I wonder how many chicks got groped as they were helped onto the lifeboat. New question anti, is it 'fair trade', a grope of a breast for a life? I think that more captures the zeitgeist.

Poirot would like that. Not the grope, the zeitgeist.

You have neglected to discuss is the attractiveness of the ladies that get let on the boat. I reckon the breast size of the chicks on the first boat would be bigger than on the last boat.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 9:56:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

How do I decide who's vulnerable and helpless?

I would get a medical assessment from the nearest
medical practitioner - how else?
Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 10:03:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti

Who's a naughty, naughty boy.

Now you are making complete fabrications of what others have written. You do understand that all the gentle reader has to do is go back to see what I have written regarding healthy men and women?

That I have never even suggested consternation that " a healthy man might survive at the expense of a healthy woman". I did say that healthy men and women are quite capable of taking care of themselves.

But never let the truth get in the way of total distortion, hey?

And Poirot...

You do understand that it is Anti I find so lacking in credibility that my earlier posts to this thread were directed at him? Not you, m'dear.

That I agree New Orleans was an example of class and race discrimination.

That while we have made progress with regard to aiding those most in need (Victorian Bush fires - of which I have direct experience, Queensland floods) rather than according to race, gender or age, we still have a long way to go. (Refer above mentioned).

What a soap opera of a thread.

Looking forward to the next instalment.
Posted by Ammonite, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 10:11:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suppose it's in character for you to be looking for someone to tell you what to think, Lexi. Shame...

Houellie, you're reaching.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 10:12:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Does it have any validity beyond the present time of abundance?'

You crack me up. Why does it matter? It's like in Layer Cake when the dumb gangstar says 'You wouldn't be so tough if you didn't have him behind you!', and 'Him' says, 'Yeah? But he does. Doesn't he.'

Or, as my mates old man used to always say, 'If? If your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle'. Think Alf Stewart.

That said, it is a fine way to pass the time.

'Mind you, that may reflect the strength of the man-as-protector meme.'
Not as strong as the man-as-misogynist-objectifier-and-abuser meme. There's a trade-off for all this Bermuda triangle power of the pussy stuff you're aiming at.

Is it just that the guy dies before getting laid as payment for his gallantry in this instance that you're upset about?

The Bermuda Triangle, map of tassie etc, has tormented many a man, but the trick is to just be an alpha, or a really scary angry looking beta. Free market ideology has moved into the sexual and relationship realm. Winners and losers abound in a free market without all this forced monogamy. I think that's the crux of the angst at the bitter mens brigade. This fear at the destruction of the family is really fear of guaranteed sex.

The losers in the economic stakes used to revolt in strikes and aim at revolution. Now we're going to have losers in the sexual stakes. Perhaps older chicks are happy with their cats and tubs of iccreams and rom-coms, but the single guys are forming fight clubs. Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

Hard not to be smug, so I don't bother to hide it. Soz.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 10:15:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'of which I have direct experience'

Hahaha. That's made my day! I want you to start talking about 'Nam next. Just drop into every post something about that hell hole in Hanoi. How is the acting coming along BTW? Do you think you'll ever meet Cate? If you already have do tell!

'What a soap opera of a thread.

Looking forward to the next instalment.'

No doubt. Especially since the drama was creatd by yourself and designed to revolve around your good self. The trouble is, or not, that you're probably the only one really invested in the whole 'drama'. As a victim of course.

See this sort of stuff makes me doubt you're all real people. It reads like a Keeping Up Appearences script.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 10:37:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti,

In my opinion, the modern Western construction of gender assignment is a response to "the time of abundance" and the relative freedom and safety of our societies.
If it all fell in a heap tomorrow, we'd be straight back to traditional gender roles. So its validity, in my opinion, is predicated on the construct of our societal model.
There are more people currently existing in the world who operate their social systems of gender assignment along traditional lines than those who, like us, have fashioned an alternative.

I'll make the point again that, although all societies consist of individuals, a community could be construed as an "organism' which derives its sustenance and continued validity by optimising its choices regarding gender roles.

Houellie,

You're too deep for me.....
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 10:54:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

Look up the word "facetious,"
and then re-read my previous post.
You may get it eventually.
Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 11:07:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

I'm betting you're a fan of William Golding - that, post-apocalypse, we'd revert to our base reptilian brain. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on who remains and what knowledge is carried with the survivors. I guess I have a more optimistic view of humans than you.

And even reptiles have their affectionate side:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbjO4g4CctE

See, I'm not even giving up on Anti.

:D
Posted by Ammonite, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 11:37:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I haven't read all the posts on this topic but it would seem to me that the survival instinct kicks in first and then dependent on time and circumstances this is followed by an ethical assessment.

I feel a solo ethical assessment would have very different outcomes as compared to an assessment where peer pressure and expectations were involved.

We are after all social animals and have a need to fit in with our particular group.

Supposed cowardice, selfishness or heroism is assessed by the social mores about us and are often far from the actual fact or definition.

Take it easy.

SD
Posted by Shaggy Dog, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 12:15:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear SD,

We all tend to see the world from a viewpoint
of subjectivity - this is influenced by our
backgrounds, education, training, prior experiences,
and so on. We will interpret things and act according
to one's own values. And this will become particularly
acute when it involves issues of deep human and moral
concern. However, having said that I still would
question whether any one of us can really
predict with guaranteed certainty
what our reactions would be under dire circumstances.
There are no "right" or "wrong" actions. No angels or
devils - only human beings.
Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 12:53:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,

"...I guess I have a more optimistic view of humans than you."

Excellent deployment of your debating style. You needle and then you feign offence when someone replies in kind. (shame, coz we usually agree on the fundamentals)

Okay then...I guess I have a more "realistic" view of humans than you.

Are you positing that people who today live a traditional life of subsistence on the land aren't using their mammalian brain and their neoortex? Of course, you aren't, but why then the comment about a reversion to a reptilian brain if civilisation (as we know it) was to fold?
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 1:22:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ok after trying to read [catch up]..on this topic 3 times
and trying to post to it twice..[but bad dodo 'server'.dropped out both times..

i will finally add my thoughts
and as the captain and the upper crust of his crew
sailed off into the iceflows..we all refused to hop on board
with the cowards afraid to die.

we gave up our places
so those who most wanted to 'live'
could live on..in satans realm..

[while we joined in on a delightfull orgy..
of self rightiousnessness][if not fleshy delights]

before proceeding gently..onto the 'blue island'..
where those who 'died'..went to]

http://new-birth.net/booklet/BlueIsland.pdf

why i subscribe to topic
this late in the stage who knows

we live in hope
i guesst
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 2:41:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti: “...would you, as a man, make a decision to give up your seat in the lifeboat to a woman? Would you, as a woman, take it?”

Yep I would take it.

Anti: “On what grounds?”

It was there.
Posted by Jewely, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 2:49:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jewelry,

No one really knows what they would do unless faced with the actual circumstances.

Once the decision is made we have to live with it.

The assessment and justification for ones actions usually occurs some time after the event. Most of us can justify these actions in our favour, it is the way of things. Sadly it is usually some distance from the truth but maybe the truth is not the best option for all concerned.

Better an acceptable fable that lets us sleep at night.

Take it easy.

SD
Posted by Shaggy Dog, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 3:16:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shaggy Dog,
Under the circumstances in which those unfortunate passengers of the Titanic found themselves, I have to wonder how much time would it have taken for the Male population to focus on the situation at hand and realise what had to be done....would this be borne of just tradition or were these males clear thinking enough to act in the best way accorded to them, ie, save the women and children first, and then the gentlemen themselves to follow the women and children. Did they have time to formulate a plan or were they actually acting on instinct alone. The fact that a panicked mine refuses to think clearly could have caused some gentlemen to act instinctively and take a seat in a life boat, in fact I believe that the movie of the Titanic saw one man dressed in womens' clothing, thus taking a seat in a life boat, he was either selfish, panicked or both. This thread has raised some interesting questions.....one wonders what really happened away from the set of the movie.
NSB
Posted by Noisy Scrub Bird, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 3:16:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree NoisyScrubBird, it would be difficult to decide exactly what we would do, especially if we are thinking as people of today's society.

I would suggest that if we had a Titanic situation out in the middle of the ocean today, that it would most likely be an every man/woman for themselves situation unfortunately.

Back in 1912, men and women acted much differently than they do today apparently. Men were the leaders and most women and children did as they were told. I did read though, that quite a few women did refuse to get on the lifeboats unless their husbands could come too.

The thing is though, there were survivors from the Titanic, so we were told their recollections of the event.
Maybe they weren't all truthful about what really happened, but I guess we will never really know.
Posted by suzeonline, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 10:04:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From a purely evolutionary perpective it would make sense to put the youngest people in the boat on the basis that (a) they have not yet had the opportunity to live a long and full life as older people have (b) they are more likely to breed and thus perpetuate the species (c) they are more likely to survive a night or two in a cold and freezing boat with a parent of a very young child or baby also safely within the lifeboat.

If my life was given up to ensure my child a seat in the boat of course most parents I imagine would take that option putting their needs last. Men have been conditioned to put themselves last in those situations and in the past I guess they have also been rewarded the spoils (depending on one's definition of spoils) but so have women too in a different way.

I don't think any of us really know how we would react in a crisis until it happens. Would we be selfless and altruistic and only thinking of others or would it be a case of first past the post to the lifeboat? I was once chased by a lunatic creep at a railway station and the adrenalin rush was extraordinary (not in a good way) and thankfully a very fast running speed got me out of danger. But fear plus that instinct to survive was very strong.

I would not expect a man to give up his seat for me but I am not sure I would refuse it if he did and then probably forever live with the guilt of being alive. Would it make a difference if the man was a father with young children whereas mine were all grown up? It probably would - well I would like to think I could be a bigger person in that situation. What we would do may not always match up with what we like to think about ourselves.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 10:20:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houllie:Why does it matter?"

It matters to me because I have children - one of each sex. This present time of abundance based on mining is going to end by the time they're about the age I am now. I'd like to hope that my daughter hasn't wasted her time doing study for a job that won't exist and that my son hasn't been excluded from opportunities for study or work in the meantime because of his gender. In other words, I'd like to know this is a stable arrangement, but my best guess is that it's no more than a house of cards response to a short-term problem; that of the baby-boomers becoming geriatric. That should end about the smae time as the mining money.

Poirot:"If it all fell in a heap tomorrow, we'd be straight back to traditional gender roles. So its validity, in my opinion, is predicated on the construct of our societal model."

I agree 100%. I'd also say that out social model is unsustainable and that it IS going to fall in a heap. Possibly sooner rather than later, when women wake up to the fact they've been conned and what's more, they've conned themselves.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 4:21:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jewely, nice to see someone without pretence on this. Have a seat.

Shaggy:"Better an acceptable fable that lets us sleep at night."

Ah yes, far better to live in self-deluson than face the facts. Sorry, not something I've much patience with. I've done lots of things over the years that I wish I hadn't. Some of those things occasionally still make me cringe at the recall. However, when those thoughts come, I think them through: if I did something wrong to someone, the least I can do is to acknowledge it. If I acted stupidly, then I've a chance of making sure it doesn't recur. On at least a couple of occasions I've been moved to apologise to people a long time after events have transpired because I had a recollection that inspired some reconsideration of events. If I suppress or fantasise about such things, what does it say about me?

I think though, that you've probably captured the spirit of the game some people play to avoid thinking too hard about their personal views. It's all "I'd like to think I'd act in the nicest possible way because that's the way I like to think of myself". Yeah, right...

NSB, the Titanic example was chosen because people had several hours to sort themselves out. The people who chose to stay on board did so conscientously, although not everyone left aboard chose to do so, I'm sure. As someone mentioned earlier, social and peer pressure, an armed crew (who spent their last minutes alive guarding boats so women and children could escape), as well as what I posit is an instinctive drive among men to protect women was what caused the outcome. The Lusitania, which went down in short order after being torpedoed, saw no such gender disparity in the dead since it was "every man for himself" and vast panic.

Pelican:"the guilt of being alive"

Exactly. How would you justify it to yourself? How did the women who benefitted from such sacrifice?
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 4:44:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houllie:"Not as strong as the man-as-misogynist-objectifier-and-abuser meme."

I disagree. That one has been invented in the past 40 years. The other has evolved over hundreds of thousands, possibly even longer.

It won't last, because it's based on an essential untruth and people generally conform the the rule, "you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but you can't fool everybody all the time".

Those who want to believe will believe, but they will become increasingly marginalised as the essential dishonesty of the view overcomes the tribalism of the mass female response.

My mum and nan used to roar laughing (as did I as a child) at the antics described in ""Mere Male" in the New Idea. If they were true, there are some really hapless blokes out there. However, they weren't being contemptuous of these men, merely expressing their knowledge that men and women are different and that sometimes those differences create preictable problems.

The meme you refer to is very different and is counter-productive. It exists solely to justify special treatment for political-class women and is based on a false dichotomy. It can't last, despite the support of the Mrs Grundys.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 4:54:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

Most of us make a fable out of our actual lives in one way or another. It is no more than our interpretation of events to make our lives acceptable to us. Nothing wrong with that.

Our actions when faced with gut wrenching fear are unknowns and are rarely handled with manners and aplomb. These are applied after the event to make the story sound better.

There are few if any total realists amongst us.

It be the way of things.

Take it easy.

SD
Posted by Shaggy Dog, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 7:56:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So true, Houellebecq, so very true.

>>Yep, go Pericles. Chicks love a mindless self-sacrifice. You'll live on in a wet spot in someone's undies.<<

It is an attitude that has served me extremely well over the years. It has proven time after time to yield better results than the "hey darlin', how about it" approach that is, apparently, what real men do.

Some call it politeness. Others, enlightened self-interest.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 8:18:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lol Pericles! Sounds like you have the right idea :)

Actually Antiseptic, I agree with you on some points.
I too think women have been duped by many of our earlier radical feminists in that we could EVER consider ourselves equal to men.

I would hate to have to lower my standards... :)
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 9:42:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Suze,

Glad to see that you don't lack ambition.
Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 10:29:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lexi,
Isn't it a tragic thing when ambition is so obviously unmatched by ability?
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 11:08:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Antiseptic,

You'd know more about that subject than
any one else on this forum. It's your area
of expertise as your posts clearly indicate.
But never mind - you can always learn and improve.
Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 11:13:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

Seems to me we have lost track as to the question you posed in the original post.

What would I do?

Damned if I know actually as my reactions have been very different every time I have found myself in a position where my well being was at risk or I was in a life threatening situation.

No matter what, viewed in hindsight, that is assuming of course you have that opportunity, the story invariably changes from Fact to Folklore with the passage of time.

I have never been known to let the truth get in the way of a good yarn.

Take it easy

SD
Posted by Shaggy Dog, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 12:57:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why thank you very much sir.

I was wondering if a 1st class male passenger would have offered a 2nd or 3rd class woman a seat or if this gender thing only worked if the males and females were of the same class.

“The meme you refer to is very different and is counter-productive. It exists solely to justify special treatment for political-class women and is based on a false dichotomy. It can't last, despite the support of the Mrs Grundys.”

What? And which evolved over thousands of years and what in the last 40? I missed the whole point of the thread again didn’t I...
Posted by Jewely, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 1:48:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jewely, the 2nd class men stood aside for the 3rd class women. Some misguided members of the crew prevented 2nd and 3rd class passengers getting up to 1st class, meaning some 1st class men got off and some boats left only partially filled.

The meme of "man as protector" is the one that's been around for years. The one of man as misogynist abuser has only been invented recently. Women and children first has been a standard cry for a very long time. It only seems to break down when everybody is scrambling to stay alive with no time to think much about the finer things.

While some men may be violent toward women, I know that the best possible friend such a woman could have is another man. There are very few men who would stand around watching a woman get hurt, although I suspect in today's world the expectation that there would be some official response might stay some people's hands.

But don't worry, that wasn't really the point of the thread. It was just meant to be a little thought experiment.

Shaggy, the best yarns shave the edges of truthfulness in my experience. I don't think it's too healthy to believe your own yarns though.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 2:22:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What would the modern reponse be to a similar Titanic situation. Would there still be the residual expectations of women and children first or in the age of equality would it be children first then parents then perhaps drawing straws or a lottery?

What do you think would be the appropriate response Anti?

There are some good points in among this topic including the fact that feminism has become a tool of capitalism in some ways in pushing the productivity/growth trends as well as the mind numbingly 'working families' meme of the 2007 election. (I had to look meme up so now have to use it somehow)

Anti you really have to accept that women do not think of men as brutalisers. Some men do abuse women but give us some credit as to being able to discern the difference between an individual's actions and men as a whole species.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 3:17:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a woman. This is a very interesting topic. I have and will continue to give up my seat on public transport where needed to someone who needs it more than me. Male or female doesn't matter. If they are pregnant, disabled, elderly, etc, they can have my seat.

My partner would always give up a seat for me, even if he needed it more, it is the way he was brought up. I would generally accept it from him as it genuinely pleases him to do this. Do I expect it from him or any man? Generally no. However, if I were elderly or frail I might, not necessarily from a man, but someone able-bodied.

Would I accept the place in the lifeboat? Wow, when your life is at stake, how do we know what we would do? My man would offer his place in the life-boat to me first (or his Mum, sister) and almost certainly to any other woman as well. Upbringing; that's how he is. Would I accept it and leave him to his fate? I hope not. I don't think I could stand to leave him behind. Would I expect men generally to give up their places to women in this situation, no, not really. I might hope if I was scared enough.

Should men give up their place in a life-boat to a woman? I would say not as a matter of course, no.
Posted by SGCT, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 3:58:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti,

I would have thought detracting from the truth was what yarns were supposed to do.

The truth is rarely palatable subsequent to the actual event. Fables or yarns are the substitute.

Some of the bravest people I have known were rather liberal with the truth. They appeared to have little need to tell it as it actually was. One can assume that bravery, as in the case of the Titanic, was a different journey for every individual involved and the journey for those that did survive could never be told in its actuality.

Society dictates that the brave be stoic not terrified.

Anyway, enough from me. I shall leave it all to wiser heads than mine.

Take it easy.

SD
Posted by Shaggy Dog, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 4:24:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"What do you think would be the appropriate response Anti?"

"Appropriate"? Dunno. I think it's become apparent that the "normal" response is for men to be willing to sacrifice themselves. In terms of preserving the genes this is probably the most successful evolutionary strategy.

I'd go so far as to suggest it's part of the extended phenotype of humanity generally, since it seems to be a very widespread phenomenon. Even in countries where the feminist doctrine is that women are downtrodden, men are prepared to die to protect their women. they demand a pretty hefty quid pro quo, but still the drive exists. We never hear about the male victims of the many wars in Africa, but the fact that 80% of the people in refugee camps from the Sudanese war are women or children is a pretty telling stat.

I'd also suggest that a distorted form of that phenotype is responsible for the way in which powerful men have allowed feminism to flourish and smart feminist women have manipulated that mercilessly to a distorted end (female dominance of politics and business), which may be an expression of another aspect of the extended phenotype. Or it might just be there's lots of such women with CAH...

http://www.livescience.com/16086-sex-hormones-influence-career-choices.html

[cont]
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 6 October 2011 3:32:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"Anti you really have to accept that women do not think of men as brutalisers. "

I think I made that clear. The meme of "man as drunken abuser" was prevalent among some parts of the Irish community and has become a standard part of the way we think of Aborigines. Neither is a fair picture of the community in question. However, it's such a successful morality hook that it's been dragged out by feminists to paint all men with the same brush, except that they don't mention the alcohol factor, just the masculinity. That's been greatly assisted by lawyers who want an easy lever to pry the man away from his rights as a father and property-owner following marital breakdown.

The fact remains that few men hit women. Unfortunately, "alls fair in love and war" means that is forgotten when there's a house and kids to be won. It's also pretty easy to say "he yelled at me and I was scared" and it might even be true, but it only works as a pleading because men have an instinctual protective response to female fear.

It's the way in which feminist dogmatic women have tried to distort that noble sense of obligation that I find most abhorrent.

Apart from anything else it's weak-minded and unethical.

On the original subject, I've been prompted by what I wrote above to consider if perhaps the main driver for male altruism in the Titanic was the fact that there were a lot of very scared women and the whole ship must have reeked with fear. there's been work done that shows oxytocin is able to suppress the fear response. http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20051107221302data_trunc_sys.shtml

Could it be that men is such situations are being driven by their oxytocin levels? Several posters have made the point that they'd give up their seat for a loved one or someone who seemed more helpless. Could they have naturally high levels of oxytocin?
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 6 October 2011 3:41:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The meme of "man as drunken abuser" was prevalent among some parts of the Irish community and has become a standard part of the way we think of Aborigines. Neither is a fair picture of the community in question. "

No it isn't fair, generalisations rarely are even about feminism. Alcohol abuse is typical of disempowered societies particularly among men where they have been defeated (perhaps emasculated) by an overriding force ie. British colonialism. It wasn't an 'act' of feminism that drove those perceptions only the responses as it related to effects on women.

My husband and I discussed this last night and while we both agree in some ways it was easier when there were more defined gender roles this also came with a price. Some people don't fit into stereotypes well and we are not 'massess' but individuals. As long as there are options for variations from the norm for both men and women who might not fit well into a gender strait jacket.

Women who might wish to remain a 'homemaker' and raise children at home are now restricted from doing so due to economic constraints. All the social supports are now fully aimed at returning to work and formal childcare.

In reality the idea of feminism as being about 'choice' was probably a con.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 6 October 2011 7:59:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pelly,

Resolving this kind of ambiguity is part of the challenge of
social and cultural change. I guess that today's pattern is
one in which many alternative lifestyles and roles are
acceptable for both men and women. Our society is
on the whole individualistic and highly open to change and
experimentation, and that's why men and women are exploring
a wide variety of roles. The younger generations today - don't
seem to consider the gender restrictions of the past. To
them all possible options are open and equally acceptable
for both sexes. And that surely can't be a bad thing -
that a person's individual human qualities, rather than his
or her biological sex, is the primary measure of a person's
worth and achievement.
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 6 October 2011 1:43:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi:"The younger generations today - don't
seem to consider the gender restrictions of the past. To
them all possible options are open and equally acceptable
for both sexes."

Except that young men shouldn't think about going to uni - that's female business these days. And young women so inclined shouldn't think about settling down to a life of married bliss, spitting out kids every couple of years, because they have to go to work to pay off their HECS debts.

Sounds idyllic...
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 7 October 2011 2:03:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Back to the topic, it appears that the male protective drive goes even deeper than I realised

http://www.livescience.com/16427-chivalry-crickets-animal-sex.html

"Males chivalrous enough to lay their lives down for their lovers can be found even among crickets, scientists now reveal."

and

"Prior research of cricket mating behavior was mostly conducted in the lab. This had suggested that male crickets guarded females to keep them from mating with rivals and prevent them from removing the sperm the males thrust into the females. Overall, the impression was that males dominated female partners through bullying. "

Does that sound familiar to anyone? Remove the word "cricket" and replace it with "human" and you have what sounds like a perfect Feminist analysis.

More from the article: "Prior research [...] suggested that male crickets guarded females to keep them from mating with rivals and prevent them from removing the sperm the males thrust into the females. Overall, the impression was that males dominated female partners through bullying.

To see what might actually happen in the wild, researchers [...] monitored with 96 infrared cameras and microphones during each spring 24 hours a day, with each cricket bearing a tiny numbered tag glued onto its back to help identify it. This helped the scientists view the everyday dramas the crickets faced — who each partnered with, how long specific males and females spent together, the amount of time each male spent chirping to attract mates, and fights that occurred when a male approached a burrow occupied by another male."

and, the kicker

""Relationships between crickets are rather different from what we'd all assumed," Rodríguez-Muñoz said. "Rather than being bullied by their mates, it seems that females are in fact being protected. We could even describe males as 'chivalrous.'""

Why? Well, Pericles nailed it (if you'll pardon the pun): "The male crickets are rewarded for their risky behavior, as their extended stays with females mean they get to have sex more often. They essentially trade a longer life span for a greater chance to father offspring with each of their partners."

Perhaps Feminists are really frustrated entomologists...
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 7 October 2011 6:02:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All of which leads us to the curious penchant for the female praying mantis to cannibalise her mating partner....apparently a more likely scenario when in captivity.

What do you make of that, Anti?
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 7 October 2011 8:02:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Go, you crickets.

>>Well, Pericles nailed it (if you'll pardon the pun):"The male crickets are rewarded for their risky behavior, as their extended stays with females mean they get to have sex more often. They essentially trade a longer life span for a greater chance to father offspring with each of their partners."<<

Now, if you simply add to that basic cricket-lore a little native human cunning, you can enjoy a long life as well.

How good is that?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 7 October 2011 8:25:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The female redback spider and a few others do the post-coital cannibal thing too, Poirot. Apparently there's an advantage for some in being quick about one's business and getting out of Dodge on the next stage.

It's just not cricket.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 7 October 2011 9:03:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

Generally speaking things have changed for many
in our society. Traditional roles may well have
been functional in pre-industrial societies, but
they make less sense in a modern society where the
daily activities of men and women are far removed
from their simple origins. Two centuries ago, the
average woman had a life expectancy of about 45
years, and she had quite a few children between her
twentieth and fourtieth birthdays. Today, female
life expectancy seems to be given at seventy-eight
to eighty years, and the average woman has two
children during a five year period in her thirties.

Historical roles that kept a woman housebound today
seem increasingly irrelevant when she may live for
half a century after her last child is born.

Also these earlier traditions - say nothing about the strains
placed on modern women who want to play an
"instrumental" role, or on men who would prefer to
play an "expressive" one. Indeed, we shouldn't
overlook the dysfunctions to society of
presenting half the population from participating fully
in economic life. However, looking to the past - only
offers a plausible explanation of how traditional
gender roles and sexual inequalities - arose in the first place.

Under the old system, everyone knew what their roles
were, and most people unquestioningly behaved as they were
supposed to. The system constrained people, but it freed
them from the need to make choices.

There are fewer constraints today, but the individual
now has the liberty - or the burden - to choose his or
her own path to self fulfillment.
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 7 October 2011 10:14:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

As for men no being unable to go to university today?
My children, and those of my family and friends don't
have problems in that area. I guess we can only speak
from our own personal experiences. Of course grades
play a big part in this equation.
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 7 October 2011 10:20:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I take it, Lexi, that you believe the West's current paradigm is part of an ongoing trajectory continuing unobstructed away from all the "old ways".

Most of the rest of human experience in the world at present is still modelled along traditional lines - and we ourselves have only adjusted these roles since the Industrial Revolution, with a huge jump since WWII in our technological advancement.

I wonder if such this alteration in our societal model (something so recent in comparison to the vastness of human experience on this planet) is sustainable beyond current economic exigencies?
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 7 October 2011 10:26:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

New economic roles have brought women greater equality
with men and also many fresh opportunities, particularly
the chance to experience careers and achievement in the
world beyond the home. But working women have not simply
traded their housework for a career: rather, many have
taken on two jobs - one at home, one at work. Also women
who looked forward to having it all are finding that the
rigors of pursuing their careers, maintaining intimate
relationships, and raising children are difficult to
balance.

Changes in women's roles have had an immense impact on the
family. A generation of Australian children are now being
raised by working mothers, who leave them in some form of
day care from an early age.

There are many consequences as a result of the choices
people make - and as I stated in my earlier post -
in today's society both men and women explore a wide
variety of possible roles - and all possible options
seem to be open and equally acceptable for both sexes.
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 7 October 2011 3:50:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi:"all possible options
seem to be open and equally acceptable for both sexes."

Acceptable to whom? What options?

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/16012/

"Using critical discourse analysis, drawing on the work of Fairclough, I analyse the discourses about masculinity informing two recent policy documents: Gender Equity: A Framework for Australian Schools and Education Queensland's Boys Education Strategy. The study found that the Gender Equity Framework was primarily informed by (pro)feminist discourses, although advocates for boys discourses informed the Framework in significant ways as well. The Boys Education Strategy, while primarily framed by advocates for boys' discourses, was largely informed by (pro)feminist discourses at the micro level. "
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 7 October 2011 7:15:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

Much as I appreciate your link dealing
with one particular aspect, my point of
reference was broader - more
to do with gender roles in general today and how
they have helped reshape the workplace, family,
and the relationship of the sexes.

That's why I stated that society today is
individualistic, and highly open to change and
experimentation, and that men and women may
explore a wide variety of possible roles.

True liberation from the restrictions of gneder
would mean that all possible options would be
open and equally acceptable for both sexes.
And as I stated earlier, than a person's
individual human qualities, rather than his or her
biological sex, would be the primary measure of that
person's worth and achievement.

I trust this clarifies things for you.
See you on another thread.
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 7 October 2011 8:07:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy