~ archived since 2018 ~

No feminists on the Titanic -- today is the anniversary of its sinking

[deleted]

April 15, 2009

16 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/04/off-topic-salute-to-men-of-titanic-on.html

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	No feminists on the Titanic -- today is the anniversary of its sinking
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	16
Comments	10
Date	April 15, 2009 4:20 PM UTC (17 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/8cp3n/no_feminists_on_the_titanic_today_is_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/no-feminists-on-the-titanic-today-is-the.1054217 https://theredarchive.com/post/1054217

Comments

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoahSwayne 9 points10 points11 points 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan 6 points7 points8 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BestServedCold 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaosopher -5 points-4 points-3 points 17 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You would do well to actually read the post before you allow some uninformed, knee-jerk overreaction to dictate what you write. The idea that there were no feminists on the Titanic was suggested by the reaction of femininsts almost two decades after the sinking -- when the Titanic Memorial was dedicted to the chivalrous men of Titanic who gave their lives for women and children. The feminists at that time did want to honor, and thereby perpetuate, the chivalry practiced by men on Titanic because they deemed it inconsistent with feminist principles, as do I.

Now if you'd like to have an informed discussion about these matters, without engaging in overconfident prejudgments about things you don't know about, I'd be happy to engage you in civil discourse. Otherwise, why on earth are you even on this thread?

[–]PierceHarlan -2 points-1 points0 points 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaosopher 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan -2 points-1 points0 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"I just don't see what the hell it really has to do with the problems at hand." And "The fact that this sort of thing gets written is why men are still unfairly cast as chauvinists."

You've misconstrued the piece -- likely because you think you've "pegged" my blog as that of a typical MRA. You are, of course, incorrect. You seem to suggest this little piece is an attack on feminism. In fact the point is, men are fighting the same battle they've been fighting for the past 100 years. The problems in family law court, in federal funding for disease that targets one gender or the other, government programs to help the majority gender at the expense of men -- these disparities are fueled more by chivalry than feminism. When I wrote that all those disparities are difficult to square with feminism, it wasn't a knock on the classic feminist ideal of gender equality because no rational man would support those gender disparites. I am partial to the idea that the 1931 feminists espoused -- let's be blunt: too many men, and too few women, died on Titanic because of chivalry. Chivalry is the main problem, and sadly, the vestiges of chivalry still haunt us. But sadder still, modern-day, mainstream feminism tolerates and, in important respects, exploits chivalry, contrary to its stated goals of gender equality, because mainstream feminism has become little more than a lobby to advance the interests of certain women, even when such advancement does not promote classic feminism's gender equality but gives certain women's groups advantages over their male counterparts.

Now, sir or madam, if you are of the belief that this nuanced view -- which parts company with MRAs on the supposed benefits of chivalry as well as the benefits of classic feminism's striving for gender equality -- manifests an "attack nature" of some movement or other, with all due respect, you haven't read very much on the blogosphere.

You also write: "I really wish things that were written would be more constructive, such as things that can be done, or at the very least a way to spread the message." Spend a couple of days and read through my blog and especially read the comments, which are a tip of the iceberg compared to the emails we get from young men or more likely their mothers or fathers or aunts, who are being falsely accused. Some tell us our blog stopped them from killing themselves -- they had no idea that so many other young men are going through the same false rape ordeal. We have achieved small victories in getting sexual assault counselors to acknowlege that, well, maybe the level of false claims is highter than two percent. And for the first time to my knowledge on the issue of false claims, a blog geared with men in mind is shaping some of the discourse on false claims -- feminist blogs routinely are angrily, though ineffectively, responding to assertions we posit.

I'm not going to go "back and forth" with you, because I suspect you have a problem in general with looking out for men's interests. Your original comment "WTF is wrong with you?" bespeaks an immaturity that nothing I say will cure, and it manifests a level of discourse that I generally don't lower myself to participate in.

Sorry that you don't get it.