"Even ignoring male victims of emergencies like in Titanic with "women and children first" is a gendercide"

"Women and Children First" was not always implemented, and it happened because prior to Titanic there were shipwrecks where woman survived less than men!

Summary of the Reply:

  1. Men weren't treated as second class citizens ENOUGH so it doesn't count

  2. Debunking of the Myth that Men survived more and that Women and Children First (WCF) was justifiable and/or didn't happen

  3. "Women and Children First" well established reality in research about Gendercide (ex. the case of men and boys separated from women and children and killed)

  4. Priority to Women in emergencies is happening right now in Wars (priority/exclusivity to women escaping in Ukraine/Russia and priority in saving female ostages in Israel/Palestine)

Let's start!

1.

First of all, there were no cases of "Men and Children First", so the critique to this rule cannot be "but it happened both ways", but has to be seen as simply "androcide didn't happen every time, so it's not enough times".

It's like saying that black people weren't enslaved or lynched "so many times" so blacks weren't oppressed because many times blacks weren't enslaved nor lynched.

So saying men didn't die "enough times" so they are not oppressed sounds very much like this. The point is that "Women First" in emergencies is oppression until "Men First" in emergencies is said as many times. Even just one time is oppression.

2.

In reality the myth of "more women died before Women and Children First" has been debunked. I quote from some comments:

"The reason why men survived more in a case in which there was not Women and Children First rule (SS Vestris) was just for simple luck. Moreover, 35.20% of men died regardless of this (vs 75% of women, but for accident as we will see). In fact:

"Despite the prolonged sinking many passengers perished in the shipwreck because they were unable to reach the boat deck. The single women, in the stern compartments, drowned as the water flooded their beds. The families suffered a similar fate in the amidships compartments. It has been estimated that only two or three families and not a single woman from the steerage made it to the boat deck (Cochkanoff and Chaulk, 2009). The bow compartments on the other hand were not flooded immediately. This gave the single men an advantage as they had more time to escape."

And:

“The captain and the crew started the evacuation of the ship at 10 AM. Records show that women and children were separated from the men and placed in different lifeboats. There are, however, no reports of any explicit order to prioritize women and children. The weather conditions in combination with the heavy list made it difficult to launch these boats. One was damaged and sunk when it reached the surface, whereas the other two were left hanging on the side of the ship when it went down. As a consequence, none of the 12 children, and only 8 of the 33 women survived (the two women of the crew not included) the shipwreck” (SS Vestris, p. 32)

Apart from this, without Women and Children First rule (WCF), women and men survived in similar rates.

In Princess Mafalda, for example, men and women died at similar rates (25.88% and 26.6%)

And it's not-WCF.

Morro Castle, similar rates (23.18% vs 25.38%). Non significant difference, and it's non-WCF.

In Princess Victoria, more men than women died (104 vs 31), but the survival rates appear more in favour of men simply because there were more men than women (passengers were 148 men and 31 women). So, if more men died than women, but women are less in total, the percentages are distorted.

SS Admiral Nakhimov: similar death rates (31% vs 36%).

The main difference was MS Estonia. But:

"The vessel's list and the flooding prevented people in the cabins from ascending to the deck; only those on the upper decks were able to escape" -- Wikipedia

In the middle of night, only the crew on desk and passengers with insomnia had a chance to escape.

Just another study making scientists look stupid.

The Estonia went down very quickly. "One survivor said the ship listed and sank within five minutes. The sinking occurred sometime after midnight."

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-28/news/mn-44019_1_passenger-ferries

Only people as dmb as VD (and that is very, very dmb indeed) would count the Estonia disaster in this study.

" but the main part of the families were already asleep."

"5-10 minutes later the ship was listing so much that the water started to climb above the windows of the 6th floor."

http://www.varsi.net/english/estonia1.shtml

What a horrible tragedy. You have to be really, really stpid AND crel to try and count this tragedy as an example of chivalry being dead."

And:

"Pelle Billing's blog covered this story some years ago, there are some very interesting comments. In Swedish, of course, but I can translate particular comments someone wants it: http://www.pellebilling.se/2012/04/titanic-mer-undantag-an-regel-%E2%80%93-dock-bor-slutsatserna-nyanseras/ I take Ulf T's two comments first, as they are very good: Ulf T writes: 12 april 2012 kl 19:51 I wrote a comment about this on GenusNytt - two comments, actually. I can repeat them here: Very interesting report. It defintively gives Pär Ström right in that the survival chance for women was much higher than for men on the Titanic. Most of all, though, the report becomes a good example of when you need to look past the statistics and examine the raw data. The researchers have acted exemplarily in giving access to lots of information for the readers. When you read the descriptions of the individual disasters, no picture appears that men ensure their survival at women's expense. In some cases attempts were made at privileging women and children, but it went to hell. Other times, the women simply had bad luck. Similarly, in many cases there are logical explanations why the crew did better. In most of the cases the situation was so difficult that only those with great luck, great strength and will to live had any chance of surviving. Of the captains who didn't go down with their ship, many stayed with the ship to the end, but still survived. (Page references are to Appendix A+B in the end of the report): Captain Luce was reported to have stayed with the ship until it sank, but managed to survive on a piece of debris and was picked up two days after the accident. (SS Arctic, p. 10) Despite the prolonged sinking many passengers perished in the shipwreck because they were unable to reach the boat deck. The single women, in the stern compartments, drowned as the water flooded their beds. The families suffered a similar fate in the amidships compartments. It has been estimated that only two or three families and not a single woman from the steerage made it to the boat deck (Cochkanoff and Chaulk, 2009). The bow compartments on the other hand were not flooded immediately. This gave the single men an advantage as they had more time to escape. (RMS Atlantic, p. 17) There are scarce reports on the acting of the passengers and the crew. It is notable that the survival rate of crew members is much higher than the passenger’s. However, the official inquiry speaks of no selfishness or cowardice of the crew; instead this is to be explained by the fact that Captain Kendall ordered ‘all hands on deck’ when he realized that the collision was inevitable. This gave the crew a significant advantage over the sleeping passengers. (RMS Empress of Ireland, p. 22) The captain and the crew started the evacuation of the ship at 10 AM. Records show that women and children were separated from the men and placed in different lifeboats. There are, however, no reports of any explicit order to prioritize women and children. The weather conditions in combination with the heavy list made it difficult to launch these boats. One was damaged and sunk when it reached the surface, whereas the other two were left hanging on the side of the ship when it went down. As a consequence, none of the 12 children, and only 8 of the 33 women survived (the two women of the crew not included) the shipwreck (SS Vestris, p. 32) It appears as if most passengers managed to reach the deck. Several of the survivors were standing on the portside deck. When the ship lurched on its side, they managed to haul themselves over to the ship’s side, an act demanding strength and agility. With the ship’s side serving as floor they could reach the lifeboats that were gathered at the stern (Cameron, 2002). The less fortunate passengers fell off the deck as the list increased. The weather made it difficult to reach people in the water from the lifeboats and they were soon pulled down by the heavy sea or succumbed to hypothermia and drowned. (MV Princess Victoria, p. 37) Ulf T writes: 12 april 2012 kl 19:55 My other comment on this from GenusNytt: The DN-article also makes a point out of that captains save themselves first. The study [...] even shows that captains often leave their ships to save themselves ahead of the passengers. There is little support for that in the stories, but 7 of 16 captains survived. Let's look at what it says about each of them in turn: Captain Luce was reported to have stayed with the ship until it sank, but managed to survive on a piece of debris and was picked up two days after the accident. (SS Arctic, p. 10) The captain survived the disaster. (SS Golden Gate, p. 13) The loss of the Atlantic called into question the actions of the captain. However, according to witness testimonies he had remained calm throughout the disaster; he directed people to move towards the safer bow and instructed them how to overcome hypothermia (Cochkanoff and Chaulk, 2009). He also remained on the wreck and made sure that everybody who was still alive made it to shore. […] He was finally picked up by a boat. (RMS Atlantic, p. 17) The captain survived the disaster (Sebak, 2004) and the prosecution following the disaster granted him for his good seamanship, and especially his ability to keep the passengers calm throughout the evacuation. (SS Norge, p. 22) Captain Kendall survived the disaster. He was thrown off the bridge as the ship capsized but managed to reach a lifeboat. (RMS Empress of Ireland, p. 26) The captain ordered women and children to be saved first. We have however, not found any indications of this order to being enforced. The captain remained on the bridge until the end, but did survive the disaster. (RMS Lusitania) Acting Captain Warms and most of the ship’s officers survived the disaster. They were among the last survivors to leave the ship. (SS Morro Castle, p. 34) Captain Markov survived the disaster and was sentenced to 15 years prison for misconduct. (SS Admiral Nakhimov, p. 40, the ship sank in 7 minutes) So, in one case the captain was a disaster, and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. In one case we know nothing except that the captain survived. In another the captain was thrown overboard, but survived. In the other cases the captain either died or was among the last to leave the ship. In a number of cases the captain did no attempt at saving himself. Again they draw conclusions directly from the statistics instead of looking at the underlying material. (There were apparently 8 surviving captains. When they arrive at 7, they don't count RMS Lusitania, which was the target of earlier research.) Looks like this article is an attempt to shame men (and crew members) for not doing more. And not dying even when they had to cling to debris for two days."

  1. Women and Children First in Emergencies and War is a reality well established in research: I quote:

"Reports also indicate that civilian boys and men are increasingly targeted. An “able-bodied male” becomes a legitimate object of aggression regardless of his civilian status.

Boys and men have been systematically separated from women and children and killed.

Most recent wars display this pattern, including the wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Timor, Rwanda and Chechnya. Across very different local scenarios, two common patterns emerge—increased genderization and targeting of boys/men."

[Øystein Gullvåg Holter. (2002). A Theory of Gendercide. Journal of Genocide Research, 4:1, 11-38.]

  1. It is happening right now, so it is indisputable, like Women and Children First Situations in Ukraine (and Israel-Palestine ostages exchange):

"'Women and children first' policy in place in Kyiv for trains leaving the city as Russian forces approach"

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/t1j35t/women_and_children_first_policy_in_place_in_kyiv/

And in Israel-Palestine War, female ostages for ostages exchange had the priority over male ostages.