Titanic Day

2010-04-13
By

Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die.
Alfred Lord Tennyson

Every man’s a captain, men know how to drown
Man the lifeboats if there’s room, otherwise go down.
Loudon Wainwright III

Thursday, the 15th of April will mark ninety eight years since the majestic ship Titanic sank somewhere south of Newfoundland, Canada. All but 705 of 2,228 passengers and crew were entombed in the icy waters.

It is an epic story of life and death that has captured the attention of generations since, and continues to be a subject of interest for historians and the fascinated masses. Exactly what happened on the decks of the ill fated ship in its final hours remains the subject of a century old debate.

Many differ on whether that night saw a grand display of chivalry, or simply an lethal round of class warfare, though it seems only plausible that both factors were in play. Either way, the rarely, perhaps never spoken reality is that whatever drove the actions aboard that ship in its waning moments, it was not a valiant rush to preserve life. It was, in all certainty, a grim and depraved battle to sort out the entitled from the doomed.

And despite the ideological struggle to control our historical interpretation of events, the unblinking truth is that the night the Titanic went down was a night of great shame.

Determining whether it was the poor banned from lifeboats for being poor, or the men for being men, does not give us a distinction between classism and something else more noble. Chivalry, like classism and feminism, is just another form of fatal bigotry. It gives privilege, even life, to one person by taking it from another, and it does so by force. We just don’t notice it because chivalry demands we ignore the death of men.

To understand this is to reveal the evil that lies hidden behind the false honor of the chivalrous code, and strip away the thick and antiquated façade of feigned nobility to expose the architecture of a great falsehood.

To whatever extent chivalry played a role in who lived and who died that night, it sent the mammoth liner to its watery grave in disgrace.

We can’t turn back time and relive what happened. We can study the accounts of those who survived, but we have to understand the bias of those chosen not to drown with the others. The best way, the only way to understand it, is by allowing the dead to speak, provided we are able to still the voice of bias in our own minds.

Of the people who met their end in the Atlantic depths that night, the following facts are indisputable.

  • The overall death ratio by sex was 9 men to 1 woman.
  • By percentage, third class women did far better than first class men.
  • The male to female death ration of crew members was 233 to 1.

While there is convincing evidence that men traveling first class received preference over men traveling in second or third class, by and large the dead wore pants, no matter how fine the cut of cloth.

It is symbolic of a time when such sacrifices were the stuff of manhood, and supposedly worthy of our lasting praise. And though the time for that praise has passed, it is a tradition we still embrace as we watch our young men fall in obscenely disproportionate numbers on battlefields overseas. Those that submit we call hero’s, and those that resist we call cowards. Ridicule, for them, can be the least of consequences. There were several reports of men being gunned down by officers on the Titanic as they tried to force their way into life boats.

Those gunshots emanated from the same forces that are alive and well and at play today. They have written laws that provide multiple national offices for women’s health, but not a single one for men, even though it is men on the short end of the gender death gap, and men who suffer more often from fatal disease and suicide than women. It is the driving force behind VAWA, where male victims and female perpetrators of violence simply do not exist.

It is the systematic utilization of men as expendable fodder; the standard of man as an appliance. Tom Golden, LCSW, a psychotherapist who has worked closely with men, put it this way. “People often assume that men’s roles are about power, but really it’s about death and emotional pain.”

And rather than honestly address that role as a culture, we seek through social and legal pressure to enslave men to it. We have institutionalized it, glorified it, wrapped it in false dignity and in doing so have painted targets on the backs of men from the day they are born.

Today we simplify the code into two synonymous words. The first is chivalry, and the other is feminism, which is code speak for a social classism far more pernicious than one rooted in economic status. In the west, you can still choose and earn your economic future. When it comes to sex, you can’t choose how you were born.

Is it really any wonder why an effective response to modern misandry is still the stuff of dreams?

One can only hope that the wisdom we might gain from this particular bit of history is not that men once made honorable sacrifices and that we have simply lost touch with glorifying them for it, but rather we need to learn something else.  The false honor of chivalry is of far less value than a life wasted in its name.

We must come to terms with the fact that no coerced sacrifice is even remotely honorable. It is, quite simply suicide at best, murder at worst.

I do not honor the men who robbed their own wives of a husband and their own children of a father so that the wife or mother of a stranger, or indeed a childless and single woman, could live. And I certainly don’t honor the pathetic, brainwashed enforcers who shot men down for simply trying to survive.

I say look back on April 15th as a day of solemn reflection; a day that fathers will share with their sons, and teach them that their lives are of value; that it is not their role in life to die for the sake of others just because those others are women.  And I hope our sons are taught that this is really much more about how we choose to live than how we choose to die.

It should be an easy enough day to remember. Tax day. The same day the government officially confiscates the income of hard working men and passes on a good piece of it to entitlement scams for women, at the behest of crooked politicians.

If you want to know who Joe Biden is, picture him on the deck of a sinking ship, gun in hand and bloody corpses at his feet.

April 15th, the day that men drowned like rats, should be a reminder of what is happening in family courts, where state functionaries are trampling on whole families, but their first footprints are on the backs of fathers.

April 15th should be a reminder to men of the indisputable wisdom residing on the home page of Angry Harry’s website:

“I don’t know who you are sir, but I can tell you what you are worth. If your partner was to cut off your penis tonight, the world would laugh. What a piece of sh*t man is.”

April 15th should be a day for a new breed of man unashamed to value his own life and his own worth. A day for recognition of the zeta male, or whatever else you choose to call him. He is the man who says no, and who says no more. No more chivalry, no more disposability, no living life as a machine for the benefit of ingrates, leeches and the malignant elites that feed off the sweat and blood of the powerless in the name of caring about women.

I have started a petition, simply for use within the MRM, to support the idea of April 15th being designated as Titanic Day; not in honor of the men who died on that night, but as a pledge to stop that sort of thing from happening in our own lives and the lives of our sons.

The petition won’t go to Washington, or any government agency, but is simply there for the use of men to make the commitment to themselves, their sons, and each other.

Titanic Day Petition

Paul Elam is Editor-in-Chief for Men’s News Daily and publisher of A Voice for Men.

1,300 views

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    I was very proud to sign that petition. Here’s what I wrote about it:

    “On the decks of the Titanic they spoke those famous and bigoted words, “Women and children first”. I hope our sons will not grow up in a world where they are always last just because of their gender. Those men were murdered by the sexist beliefs of those times, not by the frigid waters. So it is on this day, that I proudly support Titanic Day, as a remembrance of why misandry takes its toll in the very lives of our sons and fathers, our husbands and brothers. May future generations learn from this tragedy, and learn to treat men as the equals of women.”

  • bizzman662

    Best article on this topic I have ever read.

    THIS is the discussion our movement needs….

    Well done!

  • http://theantifeminist.com Schopenbecq

    Great work Paul.

    The British government has a similar site which is actually supposed to influence policy if enough people sign up to a particular petition.

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/

    Perhaps we should set one up there? A petition like this is just perfect to highlight our cause.

  • LML

    I challenge you to consider the impacts of the surviving women that lost fiances, husbands, brothers and sons simply because they were women. They lived out the rest of their lives – whether that be 80 more years or just a few more nights in the cold waters – with the scars and perhaps guilt of taking the place of the loved one of someone else because “women and children” first.

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    @ LML

    I have already seen this type of thinking. Hillary Clinton said as much when she said that “women were the real victims of war,” as opposed to men that were killed, maimed, burned, disfigured and psychologically ruined for life.

    This, and your comment, are the heart of misandry. No matter what the suffering of men, you urge us only to consider the plight and struggles of women.

    I have considered all this, and I reject it as immoral and unconscionable.

  • DonnieH

    “where male victims and female perpetrators of violence simply do not exist”

    It has come to my attention that feminists have been successful in having DV shelters and emergency rooms list “male” as the “gender” of female perpetrators of DV, particularly in lesbian relationships, which have a much higher incidence of DV than heterosexual relationships.

  • http://dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com Danny

    LML:
    I challenge you to consider the impacts of the surviving women that lost fiances, husbands, brothers and sons simply because they were women. They lived out the rest of their lives – whether that be 80 more years or just a few more nights in the cold waters – with the scars and perhaps guilt of taking the place of the loved one of someone else because “women and children” first.

    I respond to your challenge by challenging you to consider that the reason such impacts were even felt was becauase of a belief that a man is expected, borderline demanded, that he give up his life for women and children in order to validates his manhood. Would you issue such a challenge to Paul if things were reversed and hundreds of women died instead of men? A lot of people would not because women aren’t expected to just up and die at the drop of a hat for men and you don’t see too many examples of women being ridiculed for NOT giving their lives up for men.

    Its one thing to choose to give one’s life up for another but it is extremely unfair to expect or demand such sacrifice and it is certainly unfair ridicule those who don’t make that “choice”. Shaming the people that don’t make the ultimate sacrifice only insults the memories of those that did. By doing so you basically tell the ones that didn’t that they didn’t have a choice in the matter and dying was something they were supposed to do. But hold up I thought the point of a sacrifice was that you chose to do so. So how is it fair to shame someone for not making that choice?

  • http://dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com Danny

    DonnieH:
    It has come to my attention that feminists have been successful in having DV shelters and emergency rooms list “male” as the “gender” of female perpetrators of DV, particularly in lesbian relationships, which have a much higher incidence of DV than heterosexual relationships.

    And where did you get this breaking news from?

  • Skeptik

    The issue of men being required by social convention, peer pressure and law to forfeit their health, safety and in the case of the military draft their lives is a kind of Roe Vs Wade for men.
    I refuse to take up arms to defend women who won’t do the same for me. As the feminists are so fond of saying that’s a masculine case of

    MY BODY MY CHOICE.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @Skeptic

    The Obama health plan seems to require men to hand over dollars – which should be used for their own health purposes – to provide even more health services to women.

    In essence, the plan says to women that all their health insurance money will go towards their health care, and that they will also be awarded further money from the money paid in by men.

    IOW, despite the fact that men already have fewer health services, and despite having poorer health, women are going to take some 20% of their health money and have it spent on themselves.

    And if you follow this trail, it means that many, many thousands of men every year will be sacrificing their health and their lives so that women, who are already better off, can enjoy even further health advantages over men.

    This is the Titanic, on an enormous, nationwide scale.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    Furthermore, black men, who have the worst health overall, will be subsidising white women who have the best health overall.

  • NorseFire

    @Skeptik

    Think about it as a military commander.

    Do you really want to draft women into the military en-masse? They are biologically weaker. So consider if you had the choice of 100 men to undertake a mission, or 50 men and 50 women? Which group would you choose?

    The armed forces of the west are already under enough strain as it is. Such an idea will not strengthen our crippled war machine. Political ideology, even when it is as fair as this is just not practical.

    Nor will ‘My body my choice’ allow a nation to bond in times of greatest need. Indeed ‘For god and country’ or ‘Semper Fi’ are sayings, even now considered exclusive to men are the essence with which nations survive.

    The strongest weapon men have is not to destroy our civilisation, its social structures and its bright cities (All built by men in the first place). But to understand that civilisation is ours. It’s MANkind for a reason.

  • Bombay

    @NorseFire

    Men “shrugged”. Until submission, I am on strike.

  • Denis

    There are numerous areas in the lives of men where the Titanic can serve as The Metaphor as to how men are treated versus how women are treated. Harry has rightfully pointed out the differences in attention that healthcare is given for men versus women. In that case, women have spoken up for special privileges and have received those privileges largely by men in power. Special legislation, special government funding, even executives at large corporations (such as Women’s Healthcare business units at large pharmaceutical companies but no Men’s Healthcare business unit) devote special attention to women’s healthcare. So the problem again comes down to women acting in their self-interest (with no regard for equality for men) and powerful men, either because of their own chivalry and/or misandry working for the interests of women over men. And when was the last time a powerful female politican could stop thinking about the interests of women only long enough to think about the interests of all citizens-men and women? It never happens. But healthcare is only one area where The Metaphor applies. Hiring and promotion for women versus men. The TARP funds for infrastructure and construction being re-directed to government, education, healthcare jobs that largely benefit women (even though unemployment in this He-cession is far greater for men than for women). Google women’s groups versus men’s groups and you will find thousands of groups working to advantage women and few to advantage men. The daily lives of average men are filled with observations and instances where we see women being advantaged simply for being female. We men all pay. It is long past time that we stop accepting that women get equality when that is to their advantage while also getting special privileges and rights when that also is to their advantage. Half of those left to die on the next Titantic ought to be women.

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    @LML

    “I challenge you to consider the impacts of the surviving women that lost fiances, husbands, brothers and sons simply because they were women. They lived out the rest of their lives – whether that be 80 more years or just a few more nights in the cold waters – with the scars and perhaps guilt of taking the place of the loved one of someone else because “women and children” first.”

    Any women who survived didn’t have to get on a life boat. If they were so incredibly guilt-ridden of taking the places of their male family and friends they would never have gotten on the boats. They could have stayed with their loved ones and consoled them, or fought for their husbands and sons to be allowed on the lifeboats. They didn’t, though. Obviously, their loved ones were not so beloved by them. I would never let my wife or daughter be left for dead, just because of their gender. But I’m not those women, who showed no concern over that ‘ladies first’ declaration. I have no reason to think they lost any sleep over the event. Obviously, they lost no one that truly mattered enough to them to take a stand. Some mothers they were, some wives they were. They got to live, because they were born the only gender that our society cares about. I challenge you imagine what it must been like to a father separated from his daughter and wife, and left to die, with him left watching as they leave him behind. I challenge you to imagine what it must have been like to be brother, left their to watch as his beloved sister ups and leave. Imagine the heartache, and pain of seeing your family leave for dead and make no noise about it.

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    @NorseFire

    “Do you really want to draft women into the military en-masse? They are biologically weaker. So consider if you had the choice of 100 men to undertake a mission, or 50 men and 50 women? Which group would you choose?”

    No, I want both men and women to be free from the draft. Its a shame that men don’t have the right to draft exemption that women have. I think it’s time for men to get equal rights.

    And, so what if women have less strength? Anyone can pull a trigger, This isn’t the age of swords and shields. Strength is not going to kill your target, accuracy is. Also, why would I consciously and purposely choose to have a group of a 100 men fight? Why not just send out a 100 soldiers, and not be concerned over their gender? Even if women incur 5% more casualties on average, why would I purposely make it so 100% of the casualties are male? That’s not equality. That’s gendercide, to use a pop reference.

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    @ Norsefire

    One of the very few luxuries I have as an MRA is that I don’t have to think like a military commander. In short, for me, all areas of male only utility are the problem of those that choose to participate.

    Also, I am totally with MAAN on this one. I would much rather neither sex be forced into selective service or into duty, but as one as men get it, so should women.

    I would happily leave what to do up to the geniuses at the Pentagon who are ever telling us that Jessica Lynch is as capable of ground combat as Pat Tillman.

    In the meantime, empathy with an institution that sacrifices our young men so that oil distributors can make some more money is not at the top of my list. Truth tell, it is not on my list at all.

  • http://shatterdmen.com/ Shatteredmen

    “In essence, the plan says to women that all their health insurance money will go towards their health care, and that they will also be awarded further money from the money paid in by men.”

    Under the new health care plan, women can not be charged any more for their insurance as a man is charged. It does not matter that women use several times the health care dollars which means men will have to pay more to offset what women do not have to pay now.

    My question…why will women be told to pay more for their life insurance so I do not have to pay about a third more than a woman my age would be paying? Remember also that women will be the one to benfit most from men’s life insurance.

  • NorseFire

    @menareangrynow

    It’s not a question of equality, or any other illusion of that sort. It is a simple case of efficiency. To be able to achieve your goals with a minimum of losses. In the case of war men are the more efficient.

    This may not be the age of swords, but to think that strength, and endurance are not needed in war is wrong. Especially if your bullets run out and all you have is a knife. Or you have to travel through miles of Jungle, Desert, or other hostile environment in full gear. Or maybe carry an RPG. Or perhaps the strength that is needed to hold back recoil after firing a gun.

    It makes sense to have men fight wars. Unless you want your armed forces, our nations, our culture and sense of self to submit to a foe that understands common sense.

    @Paul Elam

    “In the meantime, empathy with an institution that sacrifices our young men so that oil distributors can make some more money is not at the top of my list. Truth tell, it is not on my list at all.”

    I prefer to see it as an institution that managed to preserve our freedoms against all those who attempted to strip them away.

    Imagine what would have happened if the armed forces of the allies had given up the moment the Nazi’s stepped on their shores. Or perhaps the amount communism would have spread if not for the efforts of the west.

    This particular institution is far greater than one war for oil. It’s a defender of order and a force that protects both my home and yours.

  • http://dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com Danny

    “Do you really want to draft women into the military en-masse? They are biologically weaker. So consider if you had the choice of 100 men to undertake a mission, or 50 men and 50 women? Which group would you choose?”

    Norse I would want the 100 people that fit the parameters of the mission whether its a 50/50, 20/80, 95/5, or whatever split by gender. Like others have said I would very much like to see the draft be done away with. In addition to that I would say that women should be given the same fair shot in the military as men. If they can meet the standards and pass the tests then by all means suit them up. But none of this nonsense about unfairly raising the standards to keep them out or lowering the standards to make it easier to let them in either.

  • Ken

    Feminism killed chivalry and state protection has taken it’s place. And when the state fails the girls will be on their own.

  • NorseFire

    @Danny

    Whilst your proposals are reasonable, it must be taken into account that the men will see reduced performance from the introduction of women, and how “Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers.”

    All of which can be found at your local Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_participation_in_warfare

  • http://dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com Danny

    “Whilst your proposals are reasonable, it must be taken into account that the men will see reduced performance from the introduction of women, and how “Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers.” ”

    Frankly I think its just a matter of everyone getting used to it. Some men will just have to get used to the idea of more women in combat and some women will have to get used to not getting special treatment because they are women (meaning they will have to step up and be ready to kill said Islamic militants if need be). And I simply put as a man I would not expect my gender to be a factor in whether or not a hostile person will surrender or not.

  • SingleDad

    Well call me an extremist and “just like them” but I believe in fighting fire with fire.

    Therefore, since, for about the last 200 years only men have been on the front lines, I think for the next 200 it should be only women.

    I think my proposal is very fair (tongue planted firmly in cheek).

    And, since the president is a self proclamed ardent feminist, and feminists have been pushing for women in combat, my proposal is a win win.

    Here’s a radical thought, maybe if half or more of the front lines were women, our feminist politicians would more reluctant to get involved in wars that have nothing to do with our national self interest.

    So, in conclusion, I am anti-war (not national defense, I mean war for gain). Therefore I think it is our humanitarian duty to demand women be on the front lines every day.

    I’m pretty sure a female can stop a bullet just as well as a man, despite the difference in size and strength.

    And, as a correlary, since men are so much better at software operation (evidence in the video game arena) men should be relegated to remote drone operation only, safe and out of harms way.
    /sarcasm off

  • Skeptik

    @Norsefire.
    Actually contrary to your statement many Islamic extremists ARE women.
    They make great suicide bombers with all that burka gear to hide bombs under! Even when they’re not the bomber they can shift parts of bombs around often undetected. In Switzerland and Israel all PEOPLE regardless of their particualr sex are conscripted into national service. In the Vietnam war women as well as men fought for the Vietkong with deadly efficiency – and again contrary to your views guess which side won – pushing the other out of Saigon in desperate flee!
    A brief foray into history will show up other examples where women have fought as combatants alongside men with fierce efficiency.
    That’s only set to increase with the use of lightweight cavlar body armor, lazer guided weaponry, real time networked video~linking and intercom and data sharing etc.
    I think to some extent you’re confusing old style set piece armies locked in confrontation type warring with modern day urban guerrilla and cyber warfare which is often cultural warfare where’s there aren’t clear lines to draw between who is a combatant and who isn’t too. That call for allot of psychological warfare (use of many women’s innate ability intuit situations).
    Then there’s the fact pointed out elsewhere on this thread that much of modern warfare is remote and automated. It’s also the case that some research has shown women to be better at lying – a skill very much valued in the modern urban guerilla context.

    There will be cases where one would assign women to a specific combat role and cases where one would assign men, and cases for a mix of both.
    Not that I’m pro-war.
    I agree that if Hillary Clinton were confronted by the fact of women being exposed to danger as much as men she wouldn’t cynically shoot from the lip inane misandric sound bites about women suffering most in wars.
    I think it’s high time we took feminists at their word. They say they want equality. Well it’s time to dismantle the chivalrous BS which renders men second class citizens and ask women to step up. We put them on pedestals (or lifeboats) then wonder why for the last few decades legions of them treated us like shit (duh!) to the point where there’s the need for a Men’s Rights Movement to try and counter further subjugation and oppression under the military-industrial-feminist-chivalric complex.

  • Red0660

    The simple fact of the matter is that women are trying their hardest not to need men. Women call this “independence” “equality” or “liberation”.

    The Hallmark of Feminism is the creation of “independence” from dependency on men,
    to kill off the social code of reciprocal obligation.

    I feel that as women have abandoned their roles and enable themselves “choices” men should reciprocate the lack of mutual need by withdrawing chivalry and any sense of protection or provision of women.

    Men should not feel responsible for female welfare but rather should focus on our own. Women, a now separate socio-political class don’t feel responsible for ours I can assure you of that..

    We should compete with women socially, politically and economically as we would men. Anything less than full “equality” MUTUAL “independence” and “liberation” would be hypocrisy.

    As men are no longer a part of the family it only makes sense not to have any obligation to it. Marriage and Children are simply ways of creating transferable capitalized liabilities for men.

    Women have ownership of their own bodies, the bodies of children and the bodies of men. Women actually control the bodily sovereignty of all human life as property

    SEE: MY Body Her Choice…Her Body Her Choice…A Child’s Body Her Choice

    http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2010/04/my-body-her-choiceher-body-her-choicea.html

    Men are no freer and women no more independent than they ever where, what has changed is the “choices” women have as to how to extract this support from men but also from government.

    We must take what women have said and the laws and policies they’ve enacted seriously. “The personal is political” Do you all remember women rallying by this battle call?

    Women have created themselves as a separate and competing socio-political and economic class with their own class interests to the Federal level through the Council On Women and Girls and of course by the laws and policies they seek to enact.

    You may already know of the diversion of the Stimulus Package to women, hiring and promotion freezes on males so that women may obtain positions for free. “Women first” policies such as Affirmative Action and Title IX and the list of conglomerates, organizations and services for the welfare of women and girls is ASTONISHING!

    I don’t believe that women by nature care for the welfare of men and boys as men and boys have been taught to look after the welfare of women.

    We must compete with them by acting in our OWN SELF INTEREST IMMEDIATELY! Understand that women will not sacrifice for us with valor, honor, duty and chivalry….these are all male qualities.

    Gentlemen, we have no choice now but to make our politics personal in regard to gender. Women have involved the State in our lives personally, politically and economically and we must confront them and compete with them directly.

    I truly believe that the female of the species is truly voracious when it comes to feelings of entitlement to resources, male provision, protection and self sacrifice. I honestly believe and I’m sure you all know deep down that if the human male served no more than as food for her after mating the female would surely consume us whole….

    Her entitlement is now made INTO LAW and the female entitlement ethos institutionalized BY LAW AND POLICY in social culture, economics, judicial system, family law, education and all facets of American life and the lives of men both publicly and privately in courtship, marriage and divorce..

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    @NorseFire

    “I prefer to see it as an institution that managed to preserve our freedoms against all those who attempted to strip them away.”

    You mean that same institution that stripped the freedoms away from young men, by enslaving them and forcing them to fight, via the male-only draft system? The way you ‘prefer’ to look at it doesn’t reflect reality.

  • http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/ menareangrynow

    @NorseFire

    “It’s not a question of equality, or any other illusion of that sort. It is a simple case of efficiency.”

    Equality is an ideal, one that’s achievable, logical, and noble, not an hallucination. Also, how on earth is it efficient for an army that’s spread paper thin across the world, fighting wars on many fronts, as is the case with the modern American armed forces, to purposefully ignore half the population in the military levee? It could double its pool of soldiers, if equality was actually instituted.

  • bizzman662

    While you were sleeping….look at what JUST passed…..

    http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/90185527.html

    Get ready to grab the ol ankles boys…..No wonder the Government is Defunding Education and FUNDING Prisons…..

    We LOSE! Feminist WIN! GAME OVER.

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    @ bizzman662

    Don’t call it yet. This is just the seventh inning, and what they have just done is add more ammunition to the growing call:

    Don’t marry
    Don’t have children
    Don’t practice chivalry

    As bad as that law is, they can still only get men who volunteer for it.

  • NorseFire

    @menareangrynow
    ‘Equality is an ideal, one that’s achievable, logical, and noble, not an hallucination.’

    Equality is an illusion because no matter how hard we try to achieve it we will reach a point where ‘All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others’

    Now equity on the other hand, where people are given what they have earnt.

  • NorseFire

    @Skeptik

    To understand the situation at hand it is important to remove any variables that are present (invoking the ceritus parabus assumption). All variables of tactical advantages, moral, time taken in training e.c.t. must be assumed as equal. So if we take an average man, and an average woman, let them fight, the man will win. Now 100 men and 100 women. Let them fight. The men will win. Give them guns. The men will win. Primarily because of biological differences which are not variable.

    The reason my argument appeared like a chess board is because the moment the chess board is shattered you have an infinite number of variables and an infinite number of variables are too many for our tiny human brains to comprehend. (Variables can include the levels of morale that the Vietnamese had against the invading Americans, along with terrain, and tactics associated with their enviroment).

    Now regarding your next argument, as to the automation of warfare, and whilst it is undeniable that greater automation has been bought onto the battlefield it is not like playing Call of Duty on an X-Box. Endurance and strength is a key feature of standing armies, or troops that are simply fighting for freedom. Indeed, the fact that generals in the armed forces so adamantly have stopped feminism to advance into what is one of the last exclusively male occupations says quite a lot.

  • Skeptik

    @Norsefire.
    I have no argument that a platoon of men on average would prove capable of beating a platoon of women.
    But I think your overlooking the obvious here. Not all men are average and not all woen are average either. I’ve seen plenty of goliath women who’d flatten runt men in my time. You’ve also dismissed without comment the FACTS I put to you about women successfully being combatants for the Vietkong – who kicked America’s ass out of Vietnam, the Israeli and Swiss armies where women routinely to this day do national service in the armed forces. You’ve also in my view belittled the role of automation and advanced communications systems (which are increasing exponentially) Yes, it’s not like x-box yet, but it’s getting there. For example – Only a short while ago the idea of using a drone weapon from a long distance away to seek, find and destroy an enemy was purely a fantasy. Now it’s a reality.
    What I’m saying here is I have no doubt that incrementally and inexorably men as they did with their invention of kitchen appliances, automobiles, electric lighting etc are inventing systems that will replace their labor this time on the battlefield.
    For the time being then your platoon of men would beat someones platoon of women (given equal training time, same weaponry etc).
    However that’s not the point.
    The point entirely though that under current law ALL men of a certain age are deemed eligible for draft. Whereas ALL women of a similar age aren’t.
    Now do you get it?
    Don’t you see the gross stereotyping and misandric sexism in such a system.
    And remember the Vietnamese – physically tiny people compared to the average American! combined their menfolk and their women folk into an armed force which whipped USA’s ass.

  • NorseFire

    @ Skeptik

    The successes of the Vietkong were not because they had introduced women. Their knowledge of the terrain, their fanaticism, tactics, resourcefulness, and ability to adapt ensured their success. All whilst fighting a demoralised American army who were shocked by the atrocities they saw. This allowed them to secure victory.

    Regarding technology: “Cornered in some of the most forbidding terrain on Earth, he and several hundred of his men, the largest concentration of al Qaeda fighters, endured as many as 100 airstrikes a day. One 15,000-pound bomb, so huge it had to be rolled out the back of a C-130 cargo plane, shook the mountains for miles.”

    Indeed as the infamous Osama Bin Laden says so himself, “Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled,”

    I had already stated the assumptions I made. I am quite clear about them, and the reasons they are there are also quite clear. As you can see from the many wars mentioned(including the ones mentioned above), there are many factors in war, but when you consider nothing more than gender differences (as I had done), the answer is very clear.

    But I’ll admit, I can see the ‘gross stereotyping and misandric sexism’, but I can also see that they were made under reasonable assumptions, with no malevolent intentions in their implementation. Whilst such a system is unjust, the goal of war is not necessarily justice. It is about life and death. It is about victory. When the world shrinks and the only goal is survival, equality takes a back seat. Equality only comes after war.

  • Skeptik

    @Norsefire
    You say –
    “The successes of the Vietkong were not because they had introduced women. Their knowledge of the terrain, their fanaticism, tactics, resourcefulness, and ability to adapt ensured their success. All whilst fighting a demoralised American army who were shocked by the atrocities they saw. This allowed them to secure victory”.

    To which I say your right about the low morale, shocked by atrocities etc. But I think here you do the Vietnamese women who were ruthlessly efficient combatants an enormous injustice by not acknowledging they played a vital part in Vietnam’s victory over USA.
    You also entirely sidestep the issue that the Vietnamese MEN also are physically tiny compared to the average American soldier.
    Yet that didn’t stop them being efficient in close quarter combat. It seems with you it’s all about brawn and nothing to do with also using brains.

    You go on to say –
    “Regarding technology: Cornered in some of the most forbidding terrain on Earth, he and several hundred of his men, the largest concentration of al Qaeda fighters, endured as many as 100 air-strikes a day. One 15,000-pound bomb, so huge it had to be rolled out the back of a C-130 cargo plane, shook the mountains for miles.”

    To which I say, yes again your right.
    But your talking about OLD technology now. That was several years ago. Today’s soldier can and often is equipped with much more sophisticated kit than even 10 short years ago – real time networked communication systems sharing video information, lightweight kavlar body armor, improved infra red night vision equipment. Lightweight rifles etc. Today’s drones can travel hundreds of kilometers guided by video cameras to drop their warhead on a handkerchief.

    You said
    “when you consider nothing more than gender differences (as I had done), the answer is very clear”.

    To which I respond – yes, your right again.
    But war is about so much more than just sheer brute strength and the gender differences you want to limit it to for the sake of argument.

    You say
    “But I’ll admit, I can see the ‘gross stereotyping and misandric sexism”

    To which I respond – I’m glad and relieved you do that. Otherwise I was going to say ~ Hey buddy be my guest stay on the Titanic, personally I’m getting on the lifeboat!”

    You conclude –
    “Whilst such a system is unjust, the goal of war is not necessarily justice”.

    To which I respond – that’s laughable. Tell that to the respective combatants! Look up the term ‘Jus ad bellum’ if you’re not familiar with it. Of course war is about justice!
    At least gaining perceived justice! All behavior IS purposive!
    If people perceived no reason to be at war, they wouldn’t do the behavior.Period.

    Bringing this back more to the subject of the thread – the Titanic and parallels with modern day misandry ~ I think if you persist in framing war as you do you are very welcome to stay on our modern day cultural ‘Titanic’.
    Personally I’m on the lifeboat as I’m clear that the vast majority of western women are at war with me and other men.
    In such a climate I don’t devalue myself by sinking into the icy waters of chivalry and dying an agonizing death suffocating underneath already overly privileged feminist womenfolk.

  • http://www.800cart.com Ron Robinson

    I hope some will consider the possibility that there may be a silent audience of men present who feel their primary task is to defend the rights of others.

    I disgree with the concept of this petition – especially that these ‘victim values’ be conveyed to our sons.

    I’m sorry, but my 12 year old son tragically died this past week and I feel certain that he died with his sense of an obligation to protect others intact. Along with a strong sense of irony and compassion felt for men who feel they need others to defend them when there is no physical threat requiring a temporary or permanent alliance.

    I can testify (I use the word advisedly) that there does exist – more than a mere audience – a cadre of men who work silently to empower men through family court battles, etc. and to maintain quietly their core mature masculine values without making a public spectacle of becoming yet another grievance group requiring public attention, effort and validation.

    Consider that many men may silently grieve that they are mistakenly and involuntarily drafted into a new… grievance group.

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    @ Ron Robinson

    Please accept my condolences on the loss of your son. I cannot imagine the magnitude of such a hit in life.

    That being said, I don’t think you are getting the thrust of the petition. I wrote it in the hopes of less of us losing our sons, fathers and brothers to mindless obedience, not to eschew human decency.

    All human beings, I believe, have a duty to protect others. But I find no honor and no dignity in the idea that one deserves more of that protection than the other; that one is less worthy of life.

    That is not a victim mentality, it is justice and the valuing of everyone as much as we can.






Search