With all of the hand wringing about the lack of an official women and children first policy on the wrecked Costa Concordia, one would think that the ordinary men on board had acquitted themselves with selfish cowardice. One Daily Mail article captioned a picture of the wrecked ship with:
Where was the chivalry? Describing the panic on board, one passenger said there were people screaming and women and children weren’t given priority
Where was the chivalry? I would direct them to the story of the man who gave his life to save his wife, but I’m assuming they already know about it since they wrote the article. Perhaps they would be interested in this story from the New York Daily News: Drowned violinist on doomed cruise ship helped children to safety before he was lost.
Yet only two men losing their lives after putting women and children first simply isn’t enough. Another Daily Mail headline shouts: ‘Forget women and children first, it was every man for himself’: Cruise liner survivors describe nightmare scenes as people fought to escape sinking ship. In the article they back up this damning claim:
Fabio Costa, a crewmate, said: ‘We were giving priority to kids and women and trying to leave the men until last, but they were not accepting it because it was their families.’
Men wanted to stay with and protect their families during a disaster. Those bastards.
We also learn of this father:
‘He said, “Take my baby”, Georgia Ananias said, covering her mouth with her hand. ‘I grabbed the baby. But then I was being pushed down. I didn’t want the baby to fall down the stairs. I gave the baby back. I couldn’t hold her.’
Her daughter Valerie whispered: ‘I wonder where they are.’
How many men need to die protecting women and children in a shipwreck before women and white knights will be satisfied? Clearly two isn’t enough. As we’ve seen from commenter Amanda on Sheila’s blog, even the thousand plus men who stepped aside so that women and children could be saved on RMS Titanic didn’t do so with enough courage or honor to suit her tastes.
The message to men is clear:
We expect more from you next time. More death, more sacrifice, more flair.
Please keep this in mind should the ship you are traveling on experience a sudden loss of buoyancy.
In all honesty, women don’t really concern me in a situation like that. Whatever they think is irrelevant. The real problem is the white knights who will try to enforce the “rules”.
I’m truly disgusted. Not a single woman stood aside, helped children and died selflessly and gloriously in aid of those weaker than herself. What craven cowards!
The expectation that Women have that Men must sacrifice themselves for Women [and children] is of course also reflected in divorce via the Family Courts. The Women [and children] must be [financially] protected at all costs to the Man, even to the extent of his financial ruination and servitude. The Mans interests and wellbeing as a result of divorce are null and void as far as most Women are concerned.
Maybe a quick head count to find out which women vacuumed out their children instead of birthing them and send them to the back of the line behind the octogenarians.
The Daily Mail is also known as: The Daily Wail / The Daily Hate
t-shirts are available comparing it to spending time in a mental hospital
http://dailymash.shotdeadinthehead.com/product_view.aspx?pid=940
So, while I agree with all the comments here…you should consider the source; a newspaper designed to give everybody a little something to hate, every day
Dalrock, you might like this.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Time-for-women-to-rise-up-urges-Tutu-20120125-2
Please keep this in mind should the country you are living in experience a sudden loss of buoyancy.
Fixed that for you.
Hey! I thought you’d like this article. An excerpt:
From me:
“Does he beat you? Is he gambling away all your money? Is he verbally abusive to you? Does he whack your children? Is he a philanderer?”
From Cindy:
“No, he’s a gentle man and a hands-on father. I have never been suspicious of him being with other women. He makes a good living, and that has enabled me to stay home with the kids.
“My hate comes from this feeling that I’m missing out on something else.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/iris-krasnow/help-i-hate-my-husband_b_1229627.html
VILE!
“Please keep this in mind should the country you are living in experience a sudden loss of buoyancy.”
That happened in Haiti after the earthquake. Food was distributed to Women [and children] only, but NOT to the Men under the pre-sumption that Men could somehow survive without aid regardless of the fact that much of the infrastructure had been destroyed.
mongo
I’m truly disgusted. Not a single woman stood aside, helped children and died selflessly and gloriously in aid of those weaker than herself. What craven cowards!
All sarcasm aside, women like living like men. They just refuse to die like a man.
@Flavia
That was awesome. You have just described the american marriage.
In Haiti, food was distributed to the women because it was thought that the women would pass it out to their families (including their men), and that it would thus reach the children who need it, rather than going to gangs who would keep the food for their own use only, or turn it into a black market as so often happens in aid situations. This was done after they found young men pushing others out of the way and complaints about food never making it to families. I don’t know whether it worked, and you could certainly argue with the method or its results, but it’s not necessary to completely misconstrue their intent.
Don’t like to nit pik – but I will. It was not HMS Titanic, It was RMS Titanic, (royal mail steamer). The HMS Prefix is reserved for naval war ships only. Even Royal Navy ships that are not war ships (oilers, supply vessels) are not HMS, they are RFA (royal fleet auxilliary).
[D: Thank you. I’ll fix that.]
According to most women men are their inferior and children are glorified chum, so really only women should be on lifeboats, anyway.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/men-behaving-badly-or-speaking-ill-of-the-dead/#comment-29170
Only a woman could post a comment of full of stupid. Whatever their reasoning it was wrong.
@Kai
So they couldn’t have lines for men and women separately? Also please explain how something that costs nothing can form a black market. Also explain for us how it is that children are the only ones needing food in any given situation, while other human beings are denied aid at gunpoint. Your approval of this situation shows you for a bigot and tacit supporter of a hate organisation.
Joshua, I’ll invite you to reread. You’ve missed my meaning, but I’m sure it’s my fault. Thank you for posting a link to my stupid comment.
Thats not a link to your comment Saint Velvet.
sorries for that stupid comment, then.
Women only food aid in Haiti sets a dangerous precedent. So because some Men alledgedly pushed in front of Women in the queues ALL Men are now denied the right to receive food aid. Don’t Men deserve to have food distributed to them too. Clearly not according to the UN. I suspect that it is something that we’ll see repeated in future crisis – Women only food aid. I can see this in the future being used for social engineering and the marginilsation of men.
@ will-” I can see this in the future being used for social engineering and the marginilsation of men.”
Or it is gonna put woman, already in a precarious position due to natural disaster, in even worse situations. They can force men away at gun point at the drop off site but what are they gonna do a couple hundred yards away from there? What are they gonna do when they helicopter used to drop the food leaves and takes the guns with it? Think of the backlash the men will levy upon the woman for their treachery.
@Joshua
I expect the result of Women only food aid will be exactly what you describe. But it allows for more Women Good, Men Bad propaganda in the media. All those Evil [hungry] Men stealing food from the poor defenceless Women!
@ will
Agreed, but it will be another eye opener for men everywhere. Kind of like the current push back of WACF with the Concordia. It would be even greater push back should that happen.
Pingback: Women And Children First Is Both The Name Of A Feminist Bookstore And A Form Of Seppuku » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology
I wonder if it isn’t just a matter of women feeling entitled and unappreciative, it’s also that on some level men have figured out that fewer and fewer women are worth sacrificing for. It isn’t just that women are unappreciative towards men, it’s that women, thanks to 40+ years of sex-positive-career first-you-can-have-it-all feminism have debauched themselves. More and more women display high levels of selfishness, promiscuity, vulgar behavior, drunkenness, etc. If one looks at what passes for the ideal of womanhood these days, there’s little worth fighting for or sacrificing one’s life for.
Yes, Jim. Women in the generality are not worthy of respect any more. I would die for women in my family, but to the average woman, I would say, “You women won’t give up 9 months for an inconvenient baby and you expect me to give up my life for you?”
It’s usually more like 10 months, plus another 9-10 months for recovery time (and really up to 3 years). But who is counting?
I agree though. Of course, many people these days aren’t worth a lot of effort, but I still put forth the effort because I do find a few shining stars of humanity now and again.
But who is counting?
You are. But please keep reminding us why your worth sacrificing for.
Anyone who doubts this is all out war on men …
Transvestite Men being forced into sterilisation in Sweden
“http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/01/25/halle-berry-treating-babydaddy-like-sperm-donor/#comment-128363
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/nov/13/news/mn-33058
a link from a current article on how Sweden will not allow tranvestites to legally change sex without undergoing forced sterilization.
http://motherjones.com/mixed-media/2012/01/sweden-still-forcing-sterilization
Boy feminists seem to hate one group more than men, male to female transexuals. Well Sweden seems to be the leader in that as well.
How tolerant and open minded these “liberals” are.”
Feminist Hater:
“Archbishop” Desmond Tutu has promoted the doctrine of the Enemy on a whole host of issues throughout most of his career. To be fair to the esteemed Nobel Laureate, he could have been speaking of the degradation of womanhood rampant in the Mohammedan world.
“Speaking at a gathering of the world’s political and financial elite…”
That just about says it all.
Woman threatens to file fake assault charges against videographer after he catches her blocking traffic. White knight husband of the woman also gets into the act too:
“Mohammedan world” is unbelievably antiquated. Call it the Muslim world, if you want to paint Muslims with the same brush stroke! That would be like calling North America, Europe and Australia as well as half of Africa “Christendom” as if there were no differences among the people who live in these areas.
It always seemed to me that it was the feminists’ crusade (or jihad) to make Muslims out to be intolerable, barbaric misogynists. I’m from an Arab country that has women serving in the highest ranks of the government and where college, driving, running a business, etc. have been normal activities for women there for decades. Granted it’s still otherwise a very patriarchal culture, but I thought we all agreed that that’s the way it *should* be. This is not to say that feminism hasn’t made quite the impact on both the communities of Muslims living here and those overseas. Many women expect to continue their education up to the highest levels and hold a job, even after marriage and children come into the picture. It is quite common, nowadays, to hear of these women pursuing medical or law school. You are seen as odd if you are not pursuing something SWPL-approved!
Didn’t mean to steer too OT Dalrock, but I did find that reference odd.
It’s usually more like 10 months, plus another 9-10 months for recovery time (and really up to 3 years). But who is counting?
me. especially when it dovetails the theme of the post
back B.C.W.W. (Before the Coming of the White Woman) and the terrible trauma she endures at every turn of life on this dastardly patriarchal planet, aboriginal women would give birth and be back gathering firewood and cooking steaks the next morning, happily chatting w neighbors
too bad they didnt have feminism and the government to tell them what victims they were, else their cultures would have soon corrupted and perished (like this one)
only up to 3 years of caterwauling and guilt tripping? how light the yoke upon western man!
if that’s how women feel about it, I say it’s time to end the “women and children first” policy for good.
children first, maybe, because it’s understandable that we would want to preserve a young and helpless life. but women aren’t helpless
The more freedom that is given to women, the more freedom they shall demand. It’s a never ending circle of destruction. Women will keep up with these societal ‘shit tests’, as it were, until they are told in no uncertain terms to stop. Like a baby with a toy, it eventually needs to be taken away.
I think very few women in Western Society could convincingly argue that they are somehow ‘discriminated’ against. Instead they use shaming language, as that’s all they really ever had and ever shall have. They have been allowed all the ‘freedoms’ men have and now have even more, without the responsibility that seems to be expected from men. Yet, they still want more and more and more. For each new ‘freedom’ given to them, a ‘freedom’ must now be taken from a man. That point needs to be driven home, with rage from men until women understand. Sorry to tell you ladies, but you’re the oppressors and the more you oppress man, the less need there is for a man to help you. Feminists wanted a war with man, they pushed and pushed and pushed. Instead of man caving and giving into a futile war, man loved women enough to give them what they asked for. The outcome, seen on board the cruise ship, is the price paid, a total lack of interest to women’s issues from the oppressed sex that is man.
The truth of the matter is there is now no need for any man to save any woman. That is true equality. Women, you must save yourselves, those are the rules of an equal society. Be proud men, women have more freedoms than you and yet still complain. That says it all really.
Let me say this before ending. A war between the sexes is ‘futile’ for the simply reason that no society can continue with just one sex. It won’t work.
I now consider it proven that, since a man will be vilified either way, he SHOULD trample anyone he needs to trample to survive in an emergency situation. At least he’ll be alive, right?
Except that makes a orderly evacuation impossible.
But, above all, let the women wait their turn. It may be more than they deserve.
Pingback: 26th Jan 2012 « Men's Voices
“tspoon says:
So they couldn’t have lines for men and women separately? Also please explain how something that costs nothing can form a black market. Also explain for us how it is that children are the only ones needing food in any given situation, while other human beings are denied aid at gunpoint. Your approval of this situation shows you for a bigot and tacit supporter of a hate organisation.”
What approval? the only approval I mentioned is approval of getting the facts correct.
I mentioned “I don’t know whether it worked, and you could certainly argue with the method or its results, but it’s not necessary to completely misconstrue their intent.”.
I did not intend to express any approval or disapproval of the action. I merely expressed disapproval of your completely misrepresenting their intent.
Again, the food was not intended to go to only women or to only children. they had seen that at an open distribution, the men got food, and it didn’t make it to women or children. So they decided to try distributing it to the women, who they hoped would be more likely to distribute it to the men and the children. The *idea* was to find a way to get aid to everyone but to ensure that it got to everyone.
I do approve of looking for alternate ways to accomplish a task if the first way doesn’t work. They tried that. I don’t necessarily disapprove of trying what they did, *as long as* it was coupled with studying whether it worked (where ‘worked’ means ‘aid got out to men, women, and children alike’), and another option was tried if that also didn’t work. Separate lines for men and women seems like another decent idea. I don’t know enough to know how that would have worked by comparison.
My opinion is largely that of “i know what they tried to do, but i don’t know whether it worked, so i reserve judgement’. But my approval or disapproval is irrelevant. Even if I completely disapproved, I would still be very opposed to misrepresenting it as a deliberate attempt to feed women and not men. I think it’s entirely reasonable to say “in haiti they decided to give the food to the women, who they thought would distribute it, and then the men didn’t get any, and the organisations failed to look for more ways to ensure that both the men and women had access to aid, thus showing a bias.” this is what i meant in regard to ‘you can argue with the method or its results while admitting the intent’.
I’m not sure what is difficult to understand about the black market, but it is common for aid supplies given freely to be seized by militant groups and turned into a market where the people for whom the goods were intended must pay to access them.
Here is a typical example:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/black-market-takes-somali-food-aid-16036762.html
“Joshua says:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/men-behaving-badly-or-speaking-ill-of-the-dead/#comment-29170
Only a woman could post a comment of full of stupid. Whatever their reasoning it was wrong.”
That’s entirely reasonable. And it’s entirely reasonable to point out that they did something so wrong that their reasoning is irrelevant. And it makes sense to point out that their reasoning was flawed. Any of those comments would not have brought my comment.
But it is ‘full of stupid’ to argue against an action by stating the facts incorrectly. It’s unfortunate that you can’t recognise an appeal for facts because you have a problem with the person suggesting it.
Kai – ”they had seen that at an open distribution, the men got food, and it didn’t make it to women or children.”
This is actually an inaccurate over-simplification.
What they did observe was that (some) men were physically able to push their way ahead of (some) women to get food. This is all that was actually observed.
Beyond that, it was SPECULATED that the food was not getting to women and children. But they do not know if this was actually the case or not, because (and this should have been real obvious) they did not follow each man who picked up food to see where he went and what he did with that food.
Perhaps some men did horde the food, or try to re-sell it/trade it for sex/etc. But, there were also men who had families who were most assuredly taking food home to their families. In a more-or-less free-for-all situation (open distribution) it actually makes far more sense for the man of the family to go as he is better able to NOT get shoved out of place, and would be better able to carry the provisions (which included water, which tends to be heavy).
And, giving food to women only DOES NOT ensure that it doesn’t get hoarded nor sold by those women. And, one issue that quickly arose was that men who had lost their wives in the quake would not be able to get food for their children at all.
It’s was nothing more than gross speculation that woman would be more reliable as a means of delivery to their families and children, with ZERO actual observed evidence.
It was simple naked misandry, and it seems that you bought into it.
“slwerner says:
January 26, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Kai – ”they had seen that at an open distribution, the men got food, and it didn’t make it to women or children.”
This is actually an inaccurate over-simplification.
What they did observe was that (some) men were physically able to push their way ahead of (some) women to get food. This is all that was actually observed.
Beyond that, it was SPECULATED that the food was not getting to women and children. But they do not know if this was actually the case or not, because (and this should have been real obvious) they did not follow each man who picked up food to see where he went and what he did with that food.
Perhaps some men did horde the food, or try to re-sell it/trade it for sex/etc. But, there were also men who had families who were most assuredly taking food home to their families. In a more-or-less free-for-all situation (open distribution) it actually makes far more sense for the man of the family to go as he is better able to NOT get shoved out of place, and would be better able to carry the provisions (which included water, which tends to be heavy).
And, giving food to women only DOES NOT ensure that it doesn’t get hoarded nor sold by those women. And, one issue that quickly arose was that men who had lost their wives in the quake would not be able to get food for their children at all.
It’s was nothing more than gross speculation that woman would be more reliable as a means of delivery to their families and children, with ZERO actual observed evidence.
It was simple naked misandry, and it seems that you bought into it.”
It definitely seems a lot more logical to me, if the concern is about young men pushing up, to start handing it out to a designated ‘head of a family’, whether male or female, rather than just handing out to women and not men.
I agree that it makes more sense that a man would be able to carry and protect the food for his family.
I agree (and had written with the intent of stating) that it was a speculation and a hope that the women would be better distributers.
I definitely think that such a radical policy MUST come with a careful study to see how it works and compare it to other possibilities, and fix the problems, and I suspect that wasn’t done.
I am also working only from news reports, which I suspect tend to have a pro-‘suffering woman trying to feed her children’ and anti-‘evil men rampaging around stealing from innocent women and children’ bias, so I openly admit that my understanding is incomplete.
My original argument was merely to question the poster to explained that the intent was to feed women and starve men as though the men didn’t need aid. I absolutely think that the actions in Haiti are questionable – but I think complaints should be directed to what was actually intended and what was actually done, rather that attacking strawmen.
Kai, radical feminists such as Mary Daly have long proposed that 90% of men are not needed, and therefore the world would be better off if they were dead. Radical feminism as an ideology has a lot of supporters in Non Governmental Organizations (NGO”s) and governments alike. It is also well embedded into such quasi governmental organizations as UNESCO.
It is therefore not at all unreasonable to speculate that the “women only” food distribution in Haiti was at the very least a trial run of the radical feminist ideology, with an unspoken intent to increase deaths by starvation among men.
^That sounds like a much more reasonable suggestion than the way it was presented initially. To me, there seems a difference between questioning someone’s stated motives and simply stating a random motive.
RE: Haiti. It didn’t matter how stupid aid workers were. Locals fixed things a number of ways. Single men would force unrelated single women to stand in line for them and claim to be a family. Women would lie about how many people they were feeding. Bad men, would take what they wanted from women leaving the facility. Good men, (husbands) would wait outside the gates to help wives carry the goods home and protect them.
@Kai
Reiterating the stated hamsterisation (rationalisation) of the so called aid groups, particularly, as you did, in response to criticism of their acts, can only infer approval, or at the least, agreement with their rationalisation. A mere child could see the disparity between posting armed guards to ensure no pushing or theft, and posting armed guards to ensure no male received aid. In that light, any possible rationalisation can only reveal the execreble nature and behaviour of those perpetrating such acts. Your concern that they get a fair hearing seems odd at the very least.
With regards to the black market, maybe you could clue us all in as to why it would be more difficult for militants to sieze food from a female head of family, than from a male.
I do give them the benefit of the doubt in intentions. I am not going to rule out Anonymous’s suggestion, but on balance of probabilities, I suspect they were more likely to be mistaken in thinking that women would get the food out to everyone than that they planned to get food to women in the hopes that men wouldn’t get any and would starve to death.
My original post intended no commendation nor condemnation as to the actions. I also did not criticize the criticism. I merely criticized the misrepresentation of intentions. I was careful to suggest that I think it’s entirely reasonable to question their actions, but that it wasn’t necessary to misrepresent their intentions in the course of criticizing the actions.
As mentioned in regard to anonymous, I think there’s a solid difference between misrepresenting intentions, as was originally done, and questioning the honesty or validity of the stated intentions as did anonymous.
I always favour a fair hearing, but my point here was just that the evidence should be checked before bringing it into the hearing. What value is there in destroying straw men? Especially when there’s a lot to criticize about the actual facts?
As I do not actually care to defend the actions of the agencies, and never intended to voice an opinion beyond ‘how about talking about the actual facts’, I’ll back out of this. It seems to be pretty triggering for some, and I don’t have further information to contribute or an emotional need to be in on the hot discussion.
16 still missing, 16 recovered dead. Out of a total crew/passenger population of 4252. Source is the wikipedia article Dalrock sourced a few posts ago.
Those numbers give us a missing/death rate of .753%. Given a women and children first policy, by the time about 95% of women and children are on board, it’s going to start getting inefficient to find and bring them preferentially to the front to load them on life boats. Even if your only concern is for the children, at that point, it’s more efficient to let all the passengers onto the lifeboats, take an account of the missing, THEN search preferentially for the lost children.
The current whining about “women and children first” makes no sense for 2 reasons. First, because of the very high percentage of people who were able to make it into the lifeboats. No doubt, the Costa Concordia had enough lifeboats for everyone, so women/children first policy introduces inefficiency that RISKS lives of women and children more than it benefits them. Second, there is no reason to expect men in general to respect a “women and children first” policy, even in the case of lifeboat space scarcity. Men want to be with their families to protect them. Young men want to have the opportunity to have children, or to participate in society in other ways.
It’s hypocritical for women of the feminist persuasion to want equality in the workplace, social interactions, and other spheres, yet demand special treatment here. It’s only consistent with the view that women are afforded special treatment in ALL aspects of life…which is what I suspect this is really about.
@Ceer
I can’t help but wonder if it isn’t something far uglier than this. Given the flippant way Christian conservative women discuss how their lives have more worth than men’s, when men should and should not be allowed into a lifeboat, and how men suffering is far preferred to women suffering, there appears to be something to those arguing that this is about female supremacy.
As you point out, there is no rational reason for all of the hand wringing about the lack of a WACF policy. My initial suspicion was that the real reason lacked the dark bigotry of female supremacy, and instead was more an emotional response to feeling cheated out of the whole “Titanic experience”. It strikes me that many of these women complaining felt entitled to feed on the emotional drama of over a thousand men doing their duty and stepping aside in an offer to perish. I still tend to favor the “Titanic experience” explanation, and while less malicious it is certainly more than a little ugly in its implications. However, I would prefer to see someone like Sheila Gregoire actually come out and make it clear that she doesn’t think women’s lives are worth more than men’s. So long as she remains silent on the issue while defending the woman who made the assertion, I’ll have that question in my mind.
You merely criticised ‘the misrepresentation of intentions’. By presenting the misrepresentation offered by those carrying out the acts.
It’s hard to represent the policy of denying aid to human beings, differentiated by sex, at gunpoint, as anything other than what it clearly is.
Even Wills actual statement (which you challenged), that they assumed the males could survive without any food is a somewhat charitable view. Under that scenario, a male asking for assistance could be seen as (self-evidently) not able to survive, and as needing help. In fact, they did not assume the males could survive. The minimum we can assume from the facts is that they did not in fact care whether males survived or not. The use of armed guards to prevent males from accessing help tells us that not only did they not care, they actively did not want males needing help to survive.
So yeah, nothing to see there. Anyone who found that notable must have issues that you just ‘triggered’.
No Dalrock I think you have it right. A woman is able to stand before her fellow humans (women) and state “Look how many devices broken themselves for me! Look how many beasts were sacrificed at MY altar!!! How many have done so for YOU?!” She asks to the nearby crowd of females as the Phillipino attendant serves their Mojitos as they bask in the Spanish sun.
What good is a device if you cannot use it until it breaks?
“Would you die for me” She asked
“I’d die and kill for you” he replied.
Suddenly a knock at the door
“Police open up ma’am we have you surrounded” A shout rattled from outside the apartment.
“Prove you love me” she replied as she handed him the gun. it was the last words he would ever hear.
Kai, this discussion is not occurring in a vacuum or some hypothetical zone. In the 20th century, multiple times you can see regimes using distribution or control of food as a weapon.
* Deportation combined with food confiscation and control of distribution was used to kill hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the period 1915 – 1920 by the Ottoman Turk empire in a case of genocide.
* Food confiscation in combination with travel controls was used to starve millions to death in an action of genocide / democide against the Ukraine under Stalin in the 1920’s and early 1930’s.
* Food confiscation and control of distribution resulted in the death by starvation of millions of Chinese in the late 1950’s under the dictator Mao Tse Tung’s “Great Leap Forward” policy.
* Control of food distribution was used to starve tens of thousands to death in parts of Ethiopia under the Mengetsu dictatorship of the 1970’s – 1980’s as a means of political control of those reagions.
* Control of food distribution in conjunction with forced labor camps was used to kill hundreds of thousands of Cambodians in the 1970’s, in a deliberate attempt to eliminate all literate Cambodians as part of the “Year Zero” campaign by the Khmer Rouge dictatorship.
In all of the above cases, you can find times where people with guns handed out food to some people, and not to others, following the orders of ideologically driven superiors. “Those people get food, these others do not, because we say so, and we have all the guns” is not a subtle way to distribute food, but history shows it can be extremely effective.
Finally, it is not a “trigger” to learn from history. Those who refuse to learn from history may find themselves repeating the mistakes of the past – or suffering from the same.
Dalrock,
Take a look at these photos:
http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2012/01/prime-minister-flees-aborigines.html
B.Bbb…but it was men responsible for the mistreatment of the aboriginals. Why are they made at that rich white lady? Was there no white man nearby that should have been manning-up to accept responsibility for her rights? Shame on white men for not coming to that poor defenseless millionaire white woman and accepting the responsibility on her behalf!
It would make sense that many betas would be expendable, so long as there would be a few alpha males to sire children. I don’t think this is what these women are saying and it would be reading too much into the meaning behind their claims..
pb says: “It would make sense that many betas would be expendable, so long as there would be a few alpha males to sire children.”
That’s how the muslims (or, at least, Mohammed) prefer to work it: one dude who wins the “greater jihad” of mastering his base urges gets four (4) wives while the other three guys do the “lesser” jihad of blowing themselves and few infidels up for the “72 virgins” because they otherwise can’t master anything beside not gettin’ any.
Anyway, forget going on a cruise if you’re a male… they should pay you (or a least give you a serious discount) for your risk then. Free sex might be good, too.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2012/01/25/in-defense-of-divorce/
Directly attacks the main theme of this blog.
I will note that the comm enters main and only concern appears to be the effect on women, particularly abused ones, however their definition of abuse is as wide as possible.
ybm says:
January 26, 2012 at 4:33 pm
“I’ll save you from the horror of prison with gun control.” Bang. Bang. Bang. (Two to the chest and one to the head.)
Did I get it right, ybm?
“Also please explain how something that costs nothing can form a black market”
There is zero chance you are this ignorant. None. There is no way you believe that in a crisis situation, where the existing infrastructure and normal distribution means have collapsed, that there would *not* arise a black market for critically important goods, particularly food. You don’t even have to have read any accounts of foreign aid sent to previous countries being stolen by locals with arms and sold on the black market, to know this; it is self-evident: the demand is astronomical, the supply, though in the long-term relatively limitless, still has effective limits in terms of how fast it can arrive in country, and how rapidly it can be given to the population. There are only two ways that there *wouldn’t* be a black market for food aid: an all-controlling martial law that can immediately quash any attempts at diverting aid to black market channels (and that is itself not tempted to create the black market for its own gains), or for there to be an infinite supply of aid that is immediately available such that the forces attempting to establish the market simply can’t steal it all fast enough. Neither of which are realistic. Aid workers in Haiti made the best decision they could based on the situation on the ground.
No, you aren’t this stupid, you’re a liar. You are rewriting history in order to make a cheap political point (and didn’t Dalrock just show as a commenter doing just this with the Titanic evacuation?). What the hell has happened here? This blog isn’t even 2 years old and it’s already turned into a circle-jerk for commenters to spin ever-more insane theories about women as hilariously cartoonish Cruella De Vil types out to destroy men at every turn (seriously? The food aid effort in Haiti is going be used as justification for the forced starvation of men? What the hell is wrong with you?)
There are grave problems in the relationship between the sexes, and Dalrock has done an excellent job in exposing a lot of the reasons why, but some of you have just lost it. If you believe that women are innately evil – and that men are not – you have a problem. The root issue is that society has, through a variety of mean – some intentional, some accidental – been rearranged to shield women from the immediate consequences of selfish behavior. Humans as a general rule lack future time orientation, the ability to see any potential consequences but the most immediate and obvious (second and third order effects), you know, those things that require discipline, so the current situation should come as no surprise; men would do the same if the shoe was on the other foot (the behavior of alpha cads/thugs/what-have-you is proof positive; *they* are not held responsible for the damage they do, and so they continue wreaking havoc)
What’s sad is that you probably think you’re helping; sounding a clarion call for men to heed the warning. The reality is that you’re just legitimizing claims by feminists like Amanda Marcott, who would call you a misogynist anyway, even if you were being perfectly reasonable, but it’s hard to rebut the charge when you’re spinning fancies about sinister motives behind the distribution of emergency aid. Think about it; you’re making Amanda Marcott look reasonable. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to live in a world where she is reasonable compared to anyone.
uhm, yeah.
sometimes, you guys need to look around and stop accusing women who agree with you about these problems of being the problem. not all men are cads and assholes. not all women are sanctimonious, self-agrandizing, entitled bitches.
to be clear, someone said “9 months for a baby” and I put in that when you put in that pregnancy is 40 weeks (that’s 10 months) plus the recovery time (which is technically considered another 9 months by some authors), and then you look at traditional cultures and child spacing, and then some scientific basis for this (maternal recovery, the child to get the full benefit of lactation for several years, etc), then you are looking at one child equally 20 months (if she doesn’t nurse and doesn’t care for that child) and up to three years in some instances.
It’s not as once and done as people like to think — men and women. It’s a big decision for a woman to have a baby. This doesn’t negate the fact that women behave foolishly (or some women, or perhaps most women) and utterly disregard their duty and responsibility to themselves, the men and children around them.
it was merely a response to the reality of having a child. I have one — I know what I have been through. It doesn’t mean that i think men should “sacrifice themselves” for me, and so on. It just means “this is the reality.”
I am not glib about what men go through; don’t be glib about what women go through.
Sweet As, my basic point was that as soon as women started demanding abortions on demand, they broke part of the social contract.
@nyccine
First a small clarification. “Also please explain how something that costs nothing can form a black market”. Unspoken, but importantly: “How can something that costs nothing AND is freely available form a black market”. I thought that small detail implicit, but clearly not. Also, implicit from my own perspective but not stated: How on earth would stopping ALL males from accessing food aid at distribution points stop Black Markets, when the food is stolen before it even gets to that point. Logically a naughty naughty black marketeer doesn’t need to go to the distribution point, they already have their ill gotten gain. Your wordy and somewhat hypocritically provocative rant fails to address that small logical aspect, among numerous other things.
Hmmm lets get started on the army of strawmen, and perhaps in a subsequent comment I’ll address any other legitimacy I can tease out from your voluminous outpouring. Or not.
Anyways, from the list of things attributed to myself, but which I have not in fact stated (from the top):
1. “No, you aren’t this stupid, you’re a liar” &
1a. “You are rewriting history in order to make a cheap political point.”
No I’m not. Everything I have claimed to have happened has in fact happened.
2. “This blog isn’t even 2 years old and it’s already turned into a circle-jerk for commenters to spin ever-more insane theories about women as hilariously cartoonish Cruella De Vil types out to destroy men at every turn.”
I didn’t do that. Neither did anyone else (in regards to the Haiti issue). I pointed out that all men were prevented at gunpoint from accessing needed food. Another commenter listed other occasions in recent history where similar acts have happened and listed the results of such acts. Women weren’t mentioned.
3. “If you believe that women are innately evil – and that men are not – you have a problem.”
As above, you can quote me directly if you think I said that. Although for the record I think that refusing aid to people based on their sex, particularly when those who donated the aid likely stipulated no such conditions, is evil. Almost as evil is the subsequent self fulfilling pronouncements from those like yourself when those allocated no help inevitably find themselves resorting to less palatable acts and methods of survival out of necessity.
3. “The food aid effort in Haiti is going be used as justification for the forced starvation of men?”
Stopping men at gunpoint from accessing needed food sounds a lot like forced starvation. So actually I’m definitely not denying that. It seems more like you are.
4. “but it’s hard to rebut the charge when you’re spinning fancies about sinister motives behind the distribution of emergency aid”
As before, I merely stated the facts. Males were prevented, at gunpoint from accessing needed food. Regardless of the fact that only a small proportion of males (and as discussed, an even smaller proportion at distribution points) were likely to be involved in any black market or other illicit activity. And regardless of the fact that the female only policy failed to resolve any such problems.
5. “The reality is that you’re just legitimizing claims by feminists like Amanda Marcott”
I can’t adequately rebut this. To do so I’d have to know what on earth you’re talking about. I’d need to know things like how starving all males in a crisis situation could possibly improve anything at all. I’d need to know why all males in Haiti were subject to such draconian measures, when the true fault lay somewhere in the distribution chain of the UN aid organisation, who arguably should be well practised and more than a little professional in it’s approach to such things.
Lastly I should probably end with some comment regarding your ethics,intelligence or whatever else. But I’m not going to bother. It’s self evident.
@nyccine
“The reality is that you’re just legitimizing claims by feminists like Amanda Marcott, who would call you a misogynist anyway,”
Well, why shouldn’t we freely discuss our opinions then?
“even if you were being perfectly reasonable, but it’s hard to rebut the charge when you’re spinning fancies about sinister motives behind the distribution of emergency aid.”
Nobody should care about feminist “charges”. I certainly don’t care when such loonies “charge” me with anything.
“Think about it; you’re making Amanda Marcott look reasonable. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to live in a world where she is reasonable compared to anyone.”
You already do. Read about Mary Daly and the RadFem Club.
@Joshua
“They can force men away at gun point at the drop off site but what are they gonna do a couple hundred yards away from there? What are they gonna do when they helicopter used to drop the food leaves and takes the guns with it?”
That’s actually a good point.
This Haiti issue hits very close to home with me. I was raised in a single father household and for only about 4% of my life have I had a woman available to get me food in a situation like this. This policy would place me and my family on the other side of those machine guns. If this policy isn’t stopped there is a decent chance I will wind up facing it in my lifetime. Food aid has been handed out in my city within the past year. In my mind anyone who offers the slightest support for this policy is scum.
The worst thing is the sheer stupidity of this policy. If I am ever faced with this policy I will have a choice. Starve or become a criminal. Easy choice to make really. I am going to take some womans food and if she resists use violence. That is what is so stupid. It fosters violence at the time when a society is least able to deal with it.
Like the women and children first issue the woman only food aid policy is a great litmus test. It is easy to see who thinks men are full human beings with equal rights to a woman, and who thinks otherwise.
This outrage over men not embracing WACF annoys me. The Bible puts it thusly: “greater love hath no man than this – that he lay down his life for his friends.” This act is the pinnacle of moral achievement, in other words, the greatest thing you can do – but NOT the only good thing one can do.
These women seem to get the notion that they deserve this, which is patently false. They don’t deserve this. Nobody deserves to have someone die for them – this is why the act is the pinnacle of moral achievement. Men don’t deserve it, women don’t deserve it, children don’t deserve it. It is undeserved favor without any expectation of reward.
The idea that falling short of the pinnacle of moral behavior is a horrific moral failure is supreme stupidity. It’s like calling a millionaire evil for giving ten thousand dollars to charity, when he could liquidate all his assets and give ten million dollars.
I see that also history is forgotten.
Women have had the capacity to abort on demand long before the 20th century. It was, simply, more risky because of lack of sanitation. The laws effectively provide sanitary, modern practices ‘on demand’ (within the laws of a given state based on viability).
The most common form of abortion: herbal abortificant. These have been used — from what we can gather — since ancient times. This is no romanticized “The Red Tent” construct, but rather is well recorded by men in ancient times as one of many things within the realm of “women’s healing and midwifery practices.”
St Thomas Acquinas, for example, postulated that the question of morality around abortion is between the woman and God, and that only God would know how to judge. He asserted that, perhaps, the moral import of the act would change after the quickening. But, it seemed entirely clear to him that the ability to get an abortion — on demand — was already well within a woman’s capacity.
Just because a law changed in the US in 1972 does NOT mean that women have not had this capacity for a very long time. Simply, women ensured that specific types of methods would be accessible to them.
According to the Guttmacher INstitute, which compiles all manner of information regarding abortions, abortions are just as common in countries where they are illegal as they are legal, and that the lynchpin is not legality, but “unwanted pregnancy.”
If a woman doesn’t want a pregnancy, legal or not, she will find a way.
Word perfect, Sweet As.
lol sweetas complaining about being glib about men … after your bs on chivalry, when were you ever not glib about men?
The only reason most western women need a protracted time to recover, is the poor backward pregnancy & birthing techniques used in so called modern hospitals
Where theyre success rates are so poor, most births end up as caesareans
Also theres the pitiful nutritionally deficit diets most western women are on throughout their pregnancy
As someone pointed out, most primitive tribes give birth in fields, & then go right back to work
The point is western women are so pampered & backward, theyre biology & health so screwed up, they cant even get something as instinctual as birth right … pathetic really
@Sweet As
The point about abortion, which as usual you missed …
Abortion became socially acceptable & mainly because women wanted to LEGALLY murder their own children before they were born
Women have ALWAYS pushed for insane laws & insane norms, such as promiscuity & abortion
The fact women had access to abortive poisons, doesnt change the fact murdering pre-born children, was never socially accepted, or legal
Also trust Sweet As to leave out the moral implications & dangers of herbal abortives …
Typical really …
@Rmadx
“The point is western women are so pampered & backward, theyre biology & health so screwed up, they cant even get something as instinctual as birth right … pathetic really”
Its so true. Western Women are the most pampered, useless, parasitic, destroyers of wealth and productivity in history. And this coming from me, a guy who has absolutely no love for the rest of the worlds women either beyond base, sexual satisfaction.
But boy do they EVER get abortion right!
By “they” are you referring to Western women or non-Western women?
First time comment on your site Dalrock. I’ve been reading you, Athol and Badger hardcore as of late. Still digesting that red pill.
+++++++++
RealitiCzech says:
January 27, 2012 at 1:56 am
This outrage over men not embracing WACF annoys me. The Bible puts it thusly: “greater love hath no man than this – that he lay down his life for his friends.” This act is the pinnacle of moral achievement, in other words, the greatest thing you can do – but NOT the only good thing one can do.
These women seem to get the notion that they deserve this, which is patently false. They don’t deserve this. Nobody deserves to have someone die for them – this is why the act is the pinnacle of moral achievement. Men don’t deserve it, women don’t deserve it, children don’t deserve it. It is undeserved favor without any expectation of reward.
The idea that falling short of the pinnacle of moral behavior is a horrific moral failure is supreme stupidity. It’s like calling a millionaire evil for giving ten thousand dollars to charity, when he could liquidate all his assets and give ten million dollars.
+++++++
THIS.
I am an atheist.. I have no faith in God. Yet this concept described above , at least to me, feels as tho it is a universal concept. To give up your hopes, dreams, future and very life so that another may be given a chance to live is a terrifying proposition and with usually very precious few moments to make such a decision requires that the recipient of such action be worthy of the gift of life through death. To know your actions will not be squandered and that the life granted will be fully realized.
I wonder how many women would consider doing the same thing for men? Would a single, beyond child bearing years 40+yr old woman embrace the pinnacle and sacrifice herself to save the life of a young 25 yr old father of 3 and is the primary earner? Who’s life holds more value to society? WACF is obsolete in an overpopulated world full of people who care not for their fellow man, hence not worth being on the receiving end of pinnacle of moral behavior.
I was never glib about men sacrificing their lives for others (in war, on boats, or what have you), nor stated that it should be a policy or standard. Instead, I have agreed with Dalrock’s assertions on this matter, and expressed how *I* think about things in certain situations (e.g., flying overseas and knowing there is a mother/child diad on board, when I was a childless woman).
I did speak to the moral implications of abortions — I paraphrased St Thomas Acquinas.
The dangers of herbal abortificants and abortions in general wasn’t relevant to the discussion. But, the risks of abortion are equal to or shared by pregnancy and birth: injury, infertility, death.
Ultimately, my qualm was that the assertion was not comparative. If women choose to keep pregnancies, then they are ‘entitled’ to your protection? I don’t think so. If women choose to have abortions, then they are not? I don’t think so for this either.
Instead, it is up to your discretion and generosity to decide when to help and whom. It is based on your perspective and moral code and what drives you to help and not to help. I have my own ways — and I’ve discussed how *I* see things and how *I* act accordingly.
Sweet As, if you expect the “right” to an abortion, you would get no protection from a man like me. You have lost my sympathy.
I would add to that David, defending anyones “right” to an abortion should garner no protection or sympathy from men who would offer it otherwise.
Out of curiosity, Mr. Collard, you’re a Catholic who lives in Australia, right? Are you a Catholic too, ybm? I was just wondering if you’re pro-life for religious reasons, or if you’re one of the secular/atheist pro-life people–I’ve met a couple and they seemed pretty interesting.
I am an Australian Catholic. WhIch is why I recognise that Sweet As is writing nonsense about Aquinas. She can’t even spell his name.
Traditional Catholic, but I was pro-life before I was devout. In fact even in my punk-rock-goth days I still thought abortion was murder. Its never been much of a debate for me, as I’ve never felt anything but contempt for infanticide in all of its forms. The “Consistent Life Ethic” has always just seemed….intuitive to me.
Ah, I see. Thanks, I was just wondering–Mr. Collard mentioned being Catholic, but in your case I wasn’t sure if you were born Catholic or became one, so I wanted to make sure so as to not offend/misattribute beliefs to you. Thanks!
@Sweet As
Using the argument of YOU seeing things, or YOUR opinion, doesnt work, if the way you see something is obviously wrong
Nobody cares about your entitled opinions, if you have an opinion make sure its correct & of actual use to somebody when you spout them
Stamp your feet all you want, but your opinion isnt worth anything, unless its factually correct, or rooted in reality
A pregnant mother is nothing without a man to protect & teach her how to raise her children
A woman is nothing without a man to build a society around her
Pingback: Slut! | Dalrock