Women and Children First

Imagine an 80 years old man getting on a life boat and leaving a young mother behind. Titanic

I think in a time when women were dependent on men by society’s rules (lack of enfranchisement, property ownership, etc.) this may have had some logical reasoning – though one would be hard pressed as to why a thinking man would put child-like property (women) above himself other than affection and chivalry.

In the modern world, where women demand privilege thinly veiled as equality, the practice should be simply ‘children first’ – the rest survive as you are able. Given the misandrist society we live in I don’t think I’d have much of a problem stepping on a woman’s back making my way to the door.

There have been approximately 50,000,000,000 abortions in America since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. “It’s a woman’s right to choose (choose to kill her baby),” has been so oft repeated in various settings, that it’s deeply ingrained in the American psyche on many levels.

Women today should definitely NOT be given special dispensations because of their reproductive potential, since women themselves overwhelmingly recognize their reproductive abilities are of very little value to America. Women just aren’t that essential.

Perhaps when people started saying, “Women and children first,” one brave male passenger should have shouted, “Yea, let a man show you hypocrite, liberated feminists how to go down with the ship!”

The world should rise in praise of Major Butt. That man’s conduct will remain in my memory forever. The American army is honored by him and the way he taught some of the other men how to behave when women and children were suffering that awful mental fear of death

A few of the men, however, were panic-stricken even when the first of the fifty-six foot life-boats was being filled. Fully ten men threw themselves into the boats already crowded with women and children. These men were dragged back and hurled sprawling across the deck. Six of them, screamed with fear, struggled to their feet and made a second attempt to rush to the boats.

About ten shots sounded in quick succession. The six cowardly men were stopped in their tracks, staggered and collapsed one after another. At least two of them vainly attempted to creep toward the boats again. The others lay quite still. This scene of bloodshed served its purpose. In that particular section of the deck there was no further attempt to violate the rule of “women and children first.”

The officers had to assert their authority by force, and three foreigners from the steerage who tried to force their way in among the women and children were shot down without mercy.

Why were men saved? ask: others who seek to make the occasional male survivor a hissing scorn

http://www.logoi.com/notes/titanic/women_children_first.html

When the Titanic sank the main thing that was needed for one to die that night was to be a male. It is more tragic that ALL the women and children could have been saved AND 212 more men had they not been trying so hard to keep men out of the life boats.

More to the point for today. what does it teach our children?

if there is a hostage situation, the first thing done is to try to get the women released, This makes it far more likely that armed intervention will take place since the women are safe… only males will die then. It seems as if this is OK with society,

Bill Clinton was not concerned about Bosnia as long as it was only men and boys being killed. Even now, little is said when boys as young as 10 are taken and and forced to fight but if a girl is harmed, then we want to send in the Marines.

I contend that this will encourage girls to think they are superior and our boys will feel like they are inferior thus they will feel hopeless. This is especially true when we read about the misandry in almost all areas of life. Then when we add laws such as the VAWA and other anti male laws, is there any wonder we see more men and boys killing people in mass murders. After all, what do they have to lose that they have not already lost?

This is a culture where women have been told that they can do what they like to their children, their childrens fathers, their husbands, their boyfriends or their lovers.

It is a culture where women have been told that they can kill their born and unborn children as a personal right.

It is a culture where women have been told they are entitled to kill their husbands, boyfriends, lovers and fathers. That is, if after the fact of killing these men, the women are prepared to alledge that they had been abused by their victim.

This is a culture where women are told that they are entitled to all and any property, income, wealth, resource, pension or credit belonging to their husbands and childrens fathers or even their mere lovers of a short term aquaintance. All dubiously asserted by this stinking society as excused, on the grounds that all relationships or any intercourse resulting in children, should absolve women of the responsibility to honestly earn their own bread and their own rank.

Indeed so rotten and degenerate is the direction of this culture, women are said to be entitled to bastardise, sell off or to even enprostitute their own legitimately born children on divorce or separation with the father. That is, if in so doing, the biological father is then liable to be made to pay the mother even more alimoney and child support, than he would, if he remained a living presence in their life at the family home. What an absurdity !

Having said all this about this womanist obsessed society however, there arises a question that any person of average sense would then ask:

What is it about the nature and character of males and men in such a society that not only allows them to silently endure such abominations to themselves and their sons for generations to come ? And then again allows them, to even themselves, willingly serve as the very tools of proposition, advocacey, policing and enforcement of these most humilliating and lowering of nonsenses and degradations onto themselves and their own gender ?

Because this repulsive mess of a social-model such men have adopted, does not demonstrate a higher civilisation in the classic-liberal sense of the term, but something much more malign and disguisting about them !

“I was saying “relax, relax, women and children first,” said passenger Jeff Kolodjay. “Then the plane was filling with water.”

Someone with courage could have replied loudly: “Children first, men and women are all equals now, remember?”

War is the obvious activity that shows how society values its members. In the US it is illegal to put women on the front lines in a battle. Look at the percentage of casualties compared to the percentage enlisted. It’s startling how great the disparity is.

Many news stories decry that “many civilians were killed, mostly women and children.” I have been on a campaign to point out to news organizations that if the population was evenly distributed re men, women and children [33% each] then it would be just as valid to say “mostly men and children.” This is just a typical example at the pervasiveness insidiousness of valuing women’s lives over men’s.

War is the obvious activity that shows how society values its members. In the US it is illegal to put women on the front lines in a battle. Look at the percentage of casualties compared to the percentage enlisted. It’s startling how great the disparity is.

Many news stories decry that “many civilians were killed, mostly women and children.” I have been on a campaign to point out to news organizations that if the population was evenly distributed re men, women and children [33% each] then it would be just as valid to say “mostly men and children.” This is just a typical example at the pervasive insidiousness of valuing women’s lives over men’s.

@POIUYT

What is it about the nature and character of males and men in such a society that not only allows them to silently endure such abominations to themselves and their sons for generations to come ? And then again allows them, to even themselves, willingly serve as the very tools of proposition, advocacey, policing and enforcement of these most humilliating and lowering of nonsenses and degradations onto themselves and their own gender ?

Because this repulsive mess of a social-model such men have adopted, does not demonstrate a higher civilisation in the classic-liberal sense of the term, but something much more malign and disguisting about them !

Spot on!! I agree 110%

MRAs and the so-called Mens Movement would be far more effective if they pointed their efforts at these men.

Finally I won’t have to feel guilty for living through a disaster. Since we are all equal, and in fact I have a kid, so I am a parent, so step aside lady! Worst case I won’t have to feel guilty for fighting with those selfish life-loving women to be the first out of the door. Children and Parents first, sorry single professional women, you must die. What are you looking at? Your the one who wanted equality!

Lots of work to do to end our female supremacist society.

I am a single father with sole custody. I have had to step on the backs of quite a few women just to let my son play in the park when he was a toddler, no men allowed female only play area. Not in writing yet but the hatred from the mothers was obvious and intentional.

To get him into a decent school when his mother would not agree (to far to drive, 2 miles).

So, yeah guys, if you want to raise children and have 50% physical custody you will have to confront the privileged women every where you go. They could care less that you have a small child, in my experience.

I think the most funny part was, when he was a toddler, the women in the supermarket would never make way for your cart as they did for the mothers with children. I, just like the mothers, needed to shop fast because of the attention span of a 2 year old is short. So I just would barrel down the ailes and watch the carreer women dodge me, my son and my cart full of diapers.

The expression on their faces where priceless but they all moved out of the way because I would have the right of way.

If men just won’t accept woman first, I don’t think that any man is going to shoot you, not today. And there are very few women capable of stopping you. Most men are waking up, I see it in comments men make all the time in places other than MR forums.

Save yourself, your worth it.

Nobody has the right to “filter” the access to escape in case of emergency.
Women and children first????
Why not the elderly first?
Or the handicapped and sick first?
Or blacks first?
Or whites?
Or foreigners?
Or US citizens?
The poor?
The rich?
…..
Maybe we should treat everybody equal?
Or that’s not a good idea?

And today, Wed, one day after this article as if to say, wow, you MRA’s are really out of it, Salon has a piece on the relief efforts in Haite after the earthquake.

It is relief or woman and chilldren only. Salon applauds it and there are no comments yet, how much you want to bet there will be no dissenters.

The same old excuses are brought out, only women contribute to society, blah blah blah. Rebuilding a woman friendly world blah blah.

This is the new world order.

Maybe we shouldn’t donate to relief organizations that are gender specific, like UNICEF.

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2010/01/13/haiti_women_children

And just when I didn’t think it could get worse, in one of the only three letters written so far, the feminists now say that children, woman and animals are the priority.

I guess that makes us less than animals, demons perhaps? Appliances?

They suggest donating to women and children through UNICEF and Animals through this site:

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_international/

Just so you know I’m not making this up.

Perhaps a little off topic, but important nonetheless.

Martha Coakley wants to become a U.S. Senator this coming Tuesday to take Ted Kennedy’s spot. As the article below shows from today’s WSJ, Martha as Massachusetts’ DA is as evil as Nifong was as DA. The below case of the Amiraults in 2001 shows that Martha looked for ways to get the guilty women off and looked for ways to get an innocent man to take the fall instead. Imagine what this vile woman will be able to do to males if she becomes a U.S. Senator. Coakley’s campaign is heavily financed by Emily’s List a powerful radical feminist PAC.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

The story of the Amiraults of Massachusetts, and of the prosecution that had turned the lives of this thriving American family to dust, was well known to the world by the year 2001. It was well known, especially, to District Attorney Martha Coakley, who had by then arrived to take a final, conspicuous, role in a case so notorious as to assure that the Amiraults’ name would be known around the globe.

The Amiraults were a busy, confident trio, grateful in the way of people who have found success after a life of hardship. Violet had reared her son Gerald and daughter Cheryl with help from welfare, and then set out to educate herself. The result was the triumph of her life—the Fells Acres school—whose every detail Violet scrutinized relentlessly. Not for nothing was the pre-school deemed by far the best in the area, with a long waiting list for admission.

All of it would end in 1984, with accusations of sexual assault and an ever-growing list of parents signing their children on to the case. Newspaper and television reports blared a sensational story about a female school principal, in her 60s, who had daily terrorized and sexually assaulted the pupils in her care, using sharp objects as her weapon. So too had Violet’s daughter Cheryl, a 28-year old teacher at the school.

But from the beginning, prosecutors cast Gerald as chief predator—his gender qualifying him, in their view, as the best choice for the role. It was that role, the man in the family, that would determine his sentence, his treatment, and, to the end, his prosecution-inspired image as a pervert too dangerous to go free.

The accusations against the Amiraults might well rank as the most astounding ever to be credited in an American courtroom, but for the fact that roughly the same charges were brought by eager prosecutors chasing a similar headline—making cases all across the country in the 1980s. Those which the Amiraults’ prosecutors brought had nevertheless, unforgettable features: so much testimony, so madly preposterous, and so solemnly put forth by the state. The testimony had been extracted from children, cajoled and led by tireless interrogators.

Gerald, it was alleged, had plunged a wide-blade butcher knife into the rectum of a 4-year-old boy, which he then had trouble removing. When a teacher in the school saw him in action with the knife, she asked him what he was doing, and then told him not to do it again, a child said. On this testimony, Gerald was convicted of a rape which had, miraculously, left no mark or other injury. Violet had tied a boy to a tree in front of the school one bright afternoon, in full view of everyone, and had assaulted him anally with a stick, and then with “a magic wand.” She would be convicted of these charges. Cheryl had cut the leg off a squirrel.

Other than such testimony, the prosecutors had no shred of physical or other proof that could remotely pass as evidence of abuse. But they did have the power of their challenge to jurors: Convict the Amiraults to make sure the battle against child abuse went forward. Convict, so as not to reject the children who had bravely come forward with charges.

Gerald was sent to prison for 30 to 40 years, his mother and sister sentenced to eight to 20 years. The prosecutors celebrated what they called, at the time “a model, multidisciplinary prosecution.” Gerald’s wife, Patricia, and their three children—the family unfailingly devoted to him—went on with their lives. They spoke to him nightly and cherished such hope as they could find, that he would be restored to them.

Hope arrived in 1995, when Judge Robert Barton ordered a new trial for the women. Violet, now 72, and Cheryl had been imprisoned eight years. This toughest of judges, appalled as he came to know the facts of the case, ordered the women released at once. Judge Barton—known as Black Bart for the long sentences he gave criminals—did not thereafter trouble to conceal his contempt for the prosecutors. They would, he warned, do all in their power to hold on to Gerald, a prediction to prove altogether accurate.

No less outraged, Superior Court Judge Isaac Borenstein presided over a widely publicized hearings into the case resulting in findings that all the children’s testimony was tainted. He said that “Every trick in the book had been used to get the children to say what the investigators wanted.” The Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly—which had never in its 27 year history taken an editorial position on a case—published a scathing one directed at the prosecutors “who seemed unwilling to admit they might have sent innocent people to jail for crimes that had never occurred.”

It was clear, when Martha Coakley took over as the new Middlesex County district attorney in 1999, that public opinion was running sharply against the prosecutors in the case. Violet Amirault was now gone. Ill and penniless after her release, she had been hounded to the end by prosecutors who succeeded in getting the Supreme Judicial Court to void the women’s reversals of conviction. She lay waiting all the last days of her life, suitcase packed, for the expected court order to send her back to prison. Violet would die of cancer before any order came in September 1997.

That left Cheryl alone, facing rearrest. In the face of the increasing furor surrounding the case, Ms. Coakley agreed to revise and revoke her sentence to time served—but certain things had to be clear, she told the press. Cheryl’s case, and that of Gerald, she explained, had nothing to do with one another—a startling proposition given the horrific abuse charges, identical in nature, of which all three of the Amiraults had been convicted.

No matter: When women were involved in such cases, the district attorney explained, it was usually because of the presence of “a primary male offender.” According to Ms. Coakley’s scenario, it was Gerald who had dragged his mother and sister along. Every statement she made now about Gerald reflected the same view, and the determination that he never go free. No one better exemplified the mindset and will of the prosecutors who originally had brought this case.

Before agreeing to revise Cheryl’s sentence to time served, Ms. Coakley asked the Amiraults’ attorney, James Sultan, to pledge—in exchange—that he would stop representing Gerald and undertake no further legal action on his behalf. She had evidently concluded that with Sultan gone—Sultan, whose mastery of the case was complete—any further effort by Gerald to win freedom would be doomed. Mr. Sultan, of course, refused.

In 2000, the Massachusetts Governor’s Board of Pardons and Paroles met to consider a commutation of Gerald’s sentence. After nine months of investigation, the board, reputed to be the toughest in the country, voted 5-0, with one abstention, to commute his sentence. Still more newsworthy was an added statement, signed by a majority of the board, which pointed to the lack of evidence against the Amiraults, and the “extraordinary if not bizarre allegations” on which they had been convicted.

Editorials in every major and minor paper in the state applauded the Board’s findings. District Attorney Coakley was not idle either, and quickly set about organizing the parents and children in the case, bringing them to meetings with Acting Gov. Jane Swift, to persuade her to reject the board’s ruling. Ms. Coakley also worked the press, setting up a special interview so that the now adult accusers could tell reporters, once more, of the tortures they had suffered at the hands of the Amiraults, and of their panic at the prospect of Gerald going free.

On Feb. 20, 2002, six months after the Board of Pardons issued its findings, the governor denied Gerald’s commutation.

Gerald Amirault spent nearly two years more in prison before being granted parole in 2004. He would be released, with conditions not quite approximating that of a free man. He was declared a level three sex offender—among the consequences of his refusal, like that of his mother and sister, to “take responsibility” by confessing his crimes. He is required to wear, at all times, an electronic tracking device; to report, in a notebook, each time he leaves the house and returns; to obey a curfew confining him to his home between 11:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. He may not travel at all through certain areas (presumably those where his alleged victims live). He can, under these circumstances, find no regular employment.

The Amirault family is nonetheless grateful that they are together again.

Attorney General Martha Coakley—who had proven so dedicated a representative of the system that had brought the Amirault family to ruin, and who had fought so relentlessly to preserve their case—has recently expressed her view of this episode. Questioned about the Amiraults in the course of her current race for the U.S. Senate, she told reporters of her firm belief that the evidence against the Amiraults was “formidable” and that she was entirely convinced “those children were abused at day care center by the three defendants.”

What does this say about her candidacy? (Ms. Coakley declined to be interviewed.) If the current attorney general of Massachusetts actually believes, as no serious citizen does, the preposterous charges that caused the Amiraults to be thrown into prison—the butcher knife rape with no blood, the public tree-tying episode, the mutilated squirrel and the rest—that is powerful testimony to the mind and capacities of this aspirant to a Senate seat. It is little short of wonderful to hear now of Ms. Coakley’s concern for the rights of terror suspects at Guantanamo—her urgent call for the protection of the right to the presumption of innocence.

If the sound of ghostly laughter is heard in Massachusetts these days as this campaign rolls on, with Martha Coakley self-portrayed as the guardian of justice and civil liberties, there is good reason.

Ms. Rabinowitz, a member of the Journal’s editorial board, is the author of “No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusations, False Witness And Other Terrors Our Times” (Free Press, 2003).

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Women first? Nope.
Children first? Also Nope.
Nothing makes a child’s life worth more than an adult.

Mother, Father & Child in a canoe. Canoe overturns. Men typically say they’d rescue the mother. Women say they’d save the child. I’d say the womenfolk have the skewed response and misplaced priorities.

Parking spots with “Mothers with Children”…sorry, too bad, you’re not special.

Women and children first has no function anymore, it never really did, was just misplaced lack of valuing male lives.

denis: the other nite on oreilly, Ann Coulter, at the end of her speil, made mention that this horrible raging feminist (my description) had conspired to keep an innocent man in prison for years after being proven innocent; but, the big o quickly cut her off.

thanks. it had been bothering me. now i remeber the case. as i recall, something similar happen in england about the same time. hysteria ruled the day. wonder how history will record those lunatic times.
and, if memory serves, the accusations you mentioned were only some of the outlandish things the children said after being prompted by nuts disguised as social workers, psychologists, etc. their methods were later completely discredited as well. but still she persisted. speaks volumes about the character, hatred and mental capacities of all involved. sad how the stinkiest turds keep floating to the top.

daveinga-

they keep rising to the top because too many men have become weak sheep. It’s been going on for decades. Amazing really that the POS (Coakley) was elected. The news about the Amiraults is not new here in MA. O’reilly is a feminized male-an example of the older baby boomer men. They are pathetic and have a lot to answer for. Too bad most of them will be dead from old age before the country wakes up…if it ever does at all.

Here’s what I think (see my post) is in store for America’s future:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/10/on-killing-the-alpha-male/

Thanks for your comment.

@ daveinga

Although Fox may be one of the better networks regarding exposing the liberal agenda, I have found they also show a lot of misandry. They will not bother to get both sides when there is a report on domestic abuse. I have lost confidence in O’Reilly and Geraldo is perhaps one of the most misandric people I have seen on Fox. When he comes on, I turn the channel.

Huckabee is also a huge disappointment. Perhaps the best thing Fox has done recently is to bring Sarah Palin on board.

this is the irony: on the titanic, they didn’t separate pre- from post-menopausal women!!! It was ALL women, even the ones who COULDN’T PROCREATE ANYMORE. So the biology thesis gets thrown out the window!! And men even in their old age can still reproduce, so shouldn’t it be more, “children and women under 50 and men only”???

and that right there shows the fraud of the biology hypothesis. It’s hilarious how society will contradict itself so bluntly. In one case it says, “women are more valuable they reproduce!!” oh yeah? Then let’s forget about the post-menopausal women!! Can you IMAGINE the titanic separating the pre from post-menopausal women or the Hudson river plane doing that?? NO YOU CAN’T, because EVEN post-menopausal women would be considered “more valuable” just because they’re women…..

society can’t keep its story straight