I recall one account of the Titanic, where chivalry went too far; women and children were loaded onto lifeboats, excluding men altogether, the result being that there was essentially no one on board the those boats strong enough to maneuver the craft.

Another example is the Lusitania, which sank just a few years after the Titanic but like the Estonia went down so quickly there was little organized evacuation and few if any life boats launched. The survival rate was considerably higher than on the Estonia (~50% IIRC), however, because there were a number of fishing boats in the immediate vicinity. In any event, the percentages of males and females who survived (or died) was just about the same as their percentages among the passengers. Death was an equal-opportunity thing, you might say.

As far as I'm concerned, the blithe disregard for the lives of men onboard the Titanic was a disgrace. I can see trying to save children at the expense of adults, but _not_ saving Person A over Person B merely because the former is a she rather than a he. I am very happy that the evacuation of airliners via the escape slides is done without any regard to gender. In fact, in some respects it's a reversal of the Titanic situation, as the predominately female flight attendants are expected to leave only after all passengers are off. Nor is there any evidence that women were given any priority in descending the crowded staircases at the World Trade Center.

Peter, I think the women and children first rule, as with all rules of chivalry, is a civilized society's recognition that when push actually does come to shove, men will overwhelm women and children. You teach young men to hold doors for women or let women go first in the hope that in an actual emergency he will instinctively do the same rather than instinctively toss her aside.

An interesting article about the MS Estonia:
http://www.balticsworldwide.com/...s/ msestonia.htm

The feminist that Steve Sailer referred to can be quite simply be demonstrated to have been talking out of an unusual orifice ...

Survival times in the cold north Atlantic waters are only on the order of an hour or so, I believe (sailors on sunken merchantmen in the NA had not much chance of survival during WWII), but it took the first responders something like 5 hours to arrive, I believe ...

The claim for body fat as an advantage in surviving the Titanic disaster reflects total ignorance of the lethality of the waters at that latitude (as well as the actual course of the disaster). People in boats survived (well, four of them died of exposure too), people in the water died.
This is not to say that women don't have some advantages in cold water swimming.

Peter - I hardly think there was 'blithe disregard' for anyone's life on the Titanic. And why do you support children first if not women and children first?

For example:


Some 58 miles from the Titanic, Harold Cottam, the radio operator of a much smaller ship, the Carpathia, had heard the Titanic's distress calls at about 12:25 AM. In a heroic effort, the crew of the Carpathia sped through the icy waters to the site of the Titanic's sinking, arriving there in about 4 hours.


From: The Radio Legacy of the R.M.S. Titanic.

This PDF file Hypothermia in Water suggests that survival time in water at 0C ranges from 1 to two hours ...

Anyone in the water had no chance to survive. Anyone on a crowded life boat would have survived, regardless of sex, if the boat did not capsize.

Hey Peter, life's unfair, and often ruled by biological imperatives as GNXP guys love to point out when they post soft-porn. Being female in fork-in-the-road situations has definitely had its downside too, such as at the gas chambers in concentration camps. It was women&childrenfirst, as a rule.
Not everywhere in the world have men felt this responsibility. A NYT second page article from the mid-90s describing a village massacre (don't recall whether it was religious or ethnic) in India, where the survivors were all men. One of the survivors explained, "we men saw the attackers coming because we were in the fields and could run and get away, but our wives and children were not so fast." A similar scene was described in some African massacre, maybe in Rwanda, where most of the survivors were males over 14.
Even among the Brits, and their land of hope and glory, the Titanic and WWI represented the end of an era, with the high male casualities. One generation later, the offspring of the heroic Titanic Brits were carpet bombing Dresden, torching tens of thousands of civilians (mostly women&children&oldmen). Not since Atilla the Hun did so few waste so many so quickly. Unlike the soldiers, the victims of this barbecue weren't really killing anybody and weren't given a chance to surrender. The blitzkrieg that Germany poured down on Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War pretty much ended any romantic notions about the sacrosanct nature of civilians. In Spain, as in England, children were eventually evacuated, but not the ladies. Civilians (I guess this means both sexes) were the ones who were murdered in the highest numbers in all wars since WWI.
Chilvary has always been quirky and haphazard.
The womenandchildrenfirst rule has rarely meant "only" and is equivalent to giving the less able a running start if needed.

Well said, ziel.

"Being female in fork-in-the-road situations has definitely had its downside too, such as at the gas chambers in concentration camps. It was women&childrenfirst, as a rule."

Translation: if you were female you'd be gassed right away. If you were male you'd be used as slave labor at the verge of starvation for a few weeks, and then gassed. Wow, men were lucky.

"A NYT second page article from the mid-90s describing a village massacre (don't recall whether it was religious or ethnic) in India, where the survivors were all men. One of the survivors explained, "we men saw the attackers coming because we were in the fields and could run and get away, but our wives and children were not so fast." A similar scene was described in some African massacre, maybe in Rwanda, where most of the survivors were males over 14."

Few people know about those events, and (sad to say) not many in the West would particularly care if they did know. The Titanic, in contrast, is a major part of our history, and inspired the most successful movie of all time.


"Even among the Brits, and their land of hope and glory, the Titanic and WWI represented the end of an era, with the high male casualities. One generation later, the offspring of the heroic Titanic Brits were carpet bombing Dresden, torching tens of thousands of civilians (mostly women&children&oldmen)."

Well naturally a war that goes beyond military targets and hits civilians is going to kill a lot of women. The thing is, that's not _purposeful_ killing of a particular gender, as was the abandonment of men to die aboard the Titanic. 9/11 would be a better analogy; the death toll at the World Trade Center was ~75% male (about 65% ex-FDNY), but that's merely because the financial businesses that occupied much of the upper floor space in the towers had predominately male workforces. Males were not deliberated left behind to die. You can't say the same about the Titanic.

As far as I'm concerned, it's tough enough being a man. On average we live seven years less than women in the United States, admitedly that gap's narrowing slightly as more women smoke. Are you aware that almost 85% of nursing home patients are female? And even non-disease causes of death take a much bigger toll among males. Things like car crashes, fires, homicide, suicide, and drownings (>75% of adult drowning victims are male). For Christ's sakes, men account for 80% of the deaths from _lightning strikes_!!!

So I really don't want to hear any crap about the value of "chivalry." As far as I'm concerned the Titanic was one of the most disgraceful episodes in history.

True - body fat would most likely not have helped much in the case of the Titanic, except in marginal situations (rafts, people picked up into lifeboats, etc.) as the evacuation was 'dry'. The most interesting thing about the comparison is perhaps rather the huge bonus to survival rates for females that an organized rescue brings, compared to a free-for-all.

"Peter, I think the women and children first rule, as with all rules of chivalry, is a civilized society's recognition that when push actually does come to shove, men will overwhelm women and children. You teach young men to hold doors for women or let women go first in the hope that in an actual emergency he will instinctively do the same rather than instinctively toss her aside."

But then why don't the safety briefings on airliners say that men should let women go first in the event of an evacuation? Getting out of a burning airliner as the cabin fills with smoke definitely seems like a situation in which the ability to muscle others out of the way improves one's chances of survival.

Incidentially, US and EU safety rules require that a certain percentage of the volunteers used in evacuation drills of new aircraft types be female (also 50+), so I suppose that recognizes that gender is a factor when it comes to safe evacuation.

Peter and Jaye, I think both of you are as guilty as feminists of overreacting to things that are simply facts that have almost no moral import.

dobeln says:


True - body fat would most likely not have helped much in the case of the Titanic, except in marginal situations (rafts, people picked up into lifeboats, etc.) as the evacuation was 'dry'. The most interesting thing about the comparison is perhaps rather the huge bonus to survival rates for females that an organized rescue brings, compared to a free-for-all.


I agree. The organized behavior and an attitude that put women and children first was the only factor, in my mind, for why a disproportionate number of women survived. Even in the marginal situations you mention, given the crowding (there were only something like half as many boats as needed) body fat distribution would have had nothing to do with it, except in a negative sense: A fat woman could have displaced two thin men (or women)!

What is disgusting is the extent to which ideologues will go to deny the obvious. I guess they have to avoid cognitive dissonance at all costs.

Actually, what is amusing about the survival rates on the Titanic is that class and gender had everything to do with it.

If you were female, you were much more likely to survive, and if you were rich, you were more likely to survive ...

Rich females got the best deal ...

Oh well. That's life.

I think it's amusing when feminists bring up these silly things as supposed evidence of female superiority. In how many situations in modern life is an increased percentage of body fat really helpful? Of course, for the first humans, women having a little extra body fat could have meant the difference between life or death for a developing fetus, but in our current age there are a lot more meaningful attributes that influence success.

"Few people know about those events, and (sad to say) not many in the West would particularly care if they did know. The Titanic, in contrast, is a major part of our history, and inspired the most successful movie of all time."
Your point is?
In what way are you different from the feminists (I am not one, or at least I don't think I am) and their lists of gender based lamentations? Your statistics are well known, I am not ignorant or unsympathetic. It must be mens' turn. How long will it go on?
Victims all.
You seem to take the Titanic very personally, just like a feminist might grasp at some poor "sister" done in by gender years ago. But you weren't on the ship. Get over it. You are unlikely to ever be in a similar situation and if you are, you sound like you will be a much needed lesson to everyone around you.

anonymous, stop posting as anonymous. i'll delete future comments (make up a name).

"In what way are you different from the feminists (I am not one, or at least I don't think I am) and their lists of gender based lamentations?"

The more intellectually honest feminists probably deplore the Titanic situation as much as I do, because they have the sense to realize it stands for the proposition that women are helpless victims who need male protection. Needless to say, I sort of suspect that most feminists are less intellectually honest and look upon the Titanic with pride.

"You seem to take the Titanic very personally, just like a feminist might grasp at some poor "sister" done in by gender years ago. But you weren't on the ship. Get over it."

No, I'm not going to "get over it" as you so blithely say. The hundreds of men who were, for all intents and purposes, _murdered_ on that ship do not deserve to be forgotten. If I were a little more religious, I might almost think that the Estonia was God's little way of evening the score.

"anonymous, stop posting as anonymous. i'll delete future comments (make up a name)."

Sorry, that was me, I don't know how my name got deleted from that reply.

"No, I'm not going to "get over it" as you so blithely say. The hundreds of men who were, for all intents and purposes, _murdered_ on that ship do not deserve to be forgotten. If I were a little more religious, I might almost think that the Estonia was God's little way of evening the score."
eeesh. Like I said. Just like the feminists from 1972.

btw, it's good we've had this little chat, Peter. Thanks to your vengeful laments, I now understand how men could laugh at heartfelt feminist fulminations over historical injustices.

Richard, you say "class and gender" as if they were relevant in that order. But almost all the women survived, almost all the men died. Class mattered scarcely if at all.

Everyone, how much attention does an off the cuff remark by one unnamed feminist deserve? Obviously she was talking out of her ass, and obviously femisists will admit innate biological differences exist when it suits them. Ever hear of a feminist asserting that womens' longer life expectancy is proof that life puts more stress on men? Ever hear of feminists insisting there must be some answer as to why there are so many more men than women in prison other than "men commit way more crime"? Is any of this new or surprising to anyone?

Incidentially, US and EU safety rules require that a certain percentage of the volunteers used in evacuation drills of new aircraft types be female (also 50+), so I suppose that recognizes that gender is a factor when it comes to safe evacuation.

The evidence from these drills presumably indicates that a "women and children" first approach is inefficient and unnecessary. It's pretty hard to jump the line in an aisle of a plane. Our real-life experience with airliner evacuations is pretty limited - how many times has there been substantial loss of life among passengers still in a plane waiting to be evacuated while a good percentage of others have already evacuated? (I googled a bit and didn't find any, FWIW.)

"Our real-life experience with airliner evacuations is pretty limited - how many times has there been substantial loss of life among passengers still in a plane waiting to be evacuated while a good percentage of others have already evacuated? (I googled a bit and didn't find any, FWIW.)"

The only one I can think of, not saying it actually turned out that way, was an Air Canada DC-9 that made an emergency landing at Cincinnati and caught fire back in the early 1980's (or thereabouts). Some of the passengers made it out before the aircraft was engulfed in flames. Usually, however, when there's a crash in which some portion of the passengers survive, the deaths result from the impact itself and speed of evacuation isn't really relevant.

US and EU aviation regulations require that the tests of a new aircraft model's evacuation slides be conducted with volunteers of whom at least 40% are female, 35% are over age 50 and 15% are both female and over 50. Children cannot be used because there's some risk of injury. As a not-very-good substitute, some randomly chosen volunteers are given dolls to carry. These tests have been criticized as unrealistic because as well as not using children they seldom if ever use any disabled or extremely obese people, and frequently chose the volunteers from among health club members (and thus select for people with higher-than-average fitness). In addition, most of the over-50 volunteers are _just_ over 50.

ziel said:
Peter, I think the women and children first rule, as with all rules of chivalry, is a civilized society's recognition that when push actually does come to shove, men will overwhelm women and children.

I think it is more a recognition of the fact that women get pregnant and men don't. Since a few men can impregnate many women, your tribe wants to put women before men if it suffers a disaster. I think this explains why cultures came to adopt chivalry. It's not just giving women a running start; it is actually saying that women's lives are more valuable than men's lives (or at least that wombs are more valuable that testes).

Jaye said:
Hey Peter, life's unfair, and often ruled by biological imperatives as GNXP guys love to point out when they post soft-porn.

When confronted with evidence of a disaster, "life's unfair" is a really shitty response. Would you say the same thing about the tragedies in Rwanda?

It's true that chivalry may have come from biological predispositions. Yet they do not justify the practice (that would be an example of the naturalistic fallacy).

Being female in fork-in-the-road situations has definitely had its downside too, such as at the gas chambers in concentration camps. It was women&childrenfirst, as a rule.

Meaning...what, exactly? That two wrongs make a right?

Not everywhere in the world have men felt this responsibility.

True. But we aren't talking about everywhere in the world. We are talking about the Titanic. I do think your point that chivalry can be haphazard is a good one. Yet I hope you will acknowledge that placing the lives of members of one sex over another is morally wrong, and that this is what happened on the Titanic, either through social pressure or through force. Apparently some of the men were stopped from entering the lifeboats at gunpoint: http://nsonline.com/titanic/stories.htm
(see Masabumi Hosono's account)

Jaye said:
In what way are you different from the feminists (I am not one, or at least I don't think I am) and their lists of gender based lamentations? Your statistics are well known, I am not ignorant or unsympathetic.

Your knee-jerk "life's unfair" response to this issue suggests otherwise. So far, you have given no indication that you find men being pressured or forced into giving up their lives for the sake of women to be an injustice. If that is not actually your position, then I invite you to clarify.

You seem to take the Titanic very personally, just like a feminist might grasp at some poor "sister" done in by gender years ago.

I think what he takes personally (or at least what I take personally) is when (a) feminists try to deny it when men give up their lives for women chivalrously, like the quote from the ffeminist that catalyzed this discussion, or (b) when people say that it is justified when men do so, because "life's unfair" or because women get similar treatment in other situations.

Peter said:
If I were a little more religious, I might almost think that the Estonia was God's little way of evening the score.

I was in agreement with you, up until you said this. Earlier, Jaye was being unfair to you, but now what he/she said about you being like a vengeful feminist is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Peter said:"
'If I were a little more religious, I might almost think that the Estonia was God's little way of evening the score.'
"I was in agreement with you, up until you said this. Earlier, Jaye was being unfair to you, but now what he/she said about you being like a vengeful feminist is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy."

I suppose I got a little carried away with that remark. Obviously, it's tragic that so many people died aboard the Estonia, male or female. It just bothers me, a lot, that so many people think of the Titanic in terms of "male honor" and "chivalry" yet fail to see how so many men were in effect condemned to death by society's views of gender.

As for your point about the greater value of "wombs over testes," that is of course true at some primitive level but even by the time of the Titanic we were well beyond that, with the human race in no danger of dying out. Besides, if we still thought that way, there'd be no reason for favoring postmenopausal women over men.

I am still trying to come to terms with all of this. The best I can tell myself is that the Titanic was a long time ago, with even the surviving women dead by now, and that if a similar situation ever did arise in the future we'd be unlikely to see such a gross favoring of one gender over another.

I agree with the poster above that it's hard to view chivalry in the rather low-level context of ship disasters is a bit limited.

Rather, you need to look at chivalry from a larger perspective. While the good ol' days might have been overdone (as with underutilized lifeboats), promoting male respect for and helpfulness towards females is a Very Good Thing (TM), in my humble opinion.

Also, in the narrow disaster rescue scenario, chivalry is heavily dependent on organization if it is to have much benefit. As pointed out above, if you are evacuating an airplane, there really isn't enough time to figure out who should go first - you just go.

"Yet I hope you will acknowledge that placing the lives of members of one sex over another is morally wrong."
Oh, is THAT what you want to read? Yes, it is. Very unjust. I do not condone it.
Frankly I was creeped out by your martyred tone, and equally creeped out by that unknown feminist and her callous denial of the heroism of the Titanic men.
What seems creepy in your case is that you seem to view this as some sort of evil plot by the womenfolk aboard, or Woman in general, as if they held the guns to mens' heads and demanded the life boats. A few of women chose to stay despite being pressured to save themselves. That was pretty awesome too. That was a particular time and place, and the judgments of today cannot be used anymore than we can understand what was going on in some 17th century witch trial. As I said, I understand why men get so defensive in front of feminist accusations--they are often irrational and out of context.

One more time: I mean that "life's unfair" means that it's unfair for everybody, including poor me. You don't know the half of it.
Another thing you seem to really want to know: Do I think it's more unfair for men? Sometimes. Sometimes it's worse for men, sometimes for women. That is the how things have been. Really, to explain my complicated position, I would have to go into tiresome discussions of women/men in history, in religion, in myth, the third world, biology, etc., that doesn't resonate with you the way the Titanic does.

"I think what he takes personally (or at least what I take personally) is when (a) feminists try to deny it when men give up their lives for women chivalrously, like the quote from the ffeminist that catalyzed this discussion, or (b) when people say that it is justified when men do so, because "life's unfair" or because women get similar treatment in other situations"
PaleCast, I do hear that, as I explained above.
If you think men are in such a suffering position, then by all means, seek remedies. But you won't do it crying over the Titanic. Why don't you fight against sending people to war? Why are people still allowing that very gender biased insanity. I am in despair over that one.
And be prepared for some of the same mocking responses the old-line feminists got, because the drift of the dialogue doesn't seem much different.

"I think what he takes personally (or at least what I take personally) is when (a) feminists try to deny it when men give up their lives for women chivalrously, like the quote from the ffeminist that catalyzed this discussion, or (b) when people say that it is justified when men do so, because "life's unfair" or because women get similar treatment in other situations."
Yes, men can be victims of gender biased injustice. Just remember, there are 6 billion other victims out there. They've all suffered and they've all got their stories.

"wombs over testes"

Isn't this like the "males are expendible" argument?

Wasn't it only the "war-age" 16-55 males who were killed in some Balkans atrocities, while the females & children were sent into the countryside? Those mass graves were males graves. Men do seem to be at the muzzles end more often than females. I've seen it termed Genderside.

While the good ol' days might have been overdone (as with underutilized lifeboats), promoting male respect for and helpfulness towards females is a Very Good Thing (TM), in my humble opinion.

Where does this come from, trademarking the phrase "good thing"? A guy on a political discussion forum I used to post on did this constantly, and it was really wierd.

Men do seem to be at the muzzles end more often than females. I've seen it termed Genderside.
They're at both ends of the gun most often dude. Gendercide? You mean Homocide?

Jaye said:
What seems creepy in your case is that you seem to view this as some sort of evil plot by the womenfolk aboard, or Woman in general, as if they held the guns to mens' heads and demanded the life boats.

I'm not sure how that can remotely be read into anything I've said. When men were forced away from the lifeboats at gunpoint, I'm sure it was by other men. The problem here is the cultural practice of chivalry, and I do not blame women as a whole for it.

Another thing you seem to really want to know: Do I think it's more unfair for men? Sometimes. Sometimes it's worse for men, sometimes for women. That is the how things have been.

Sure, I agree.

If you think men are in such a suffering position, then by all means, seek remedies. But you won't do it crying over the Titanic.

It's the principle here that matters. If people widely acknowledged the principle that men being pressured or forced to give up their lives for women is a problem, then I would have no need to talk about it. The reason I talk about the past is that people have not learned the lessons of the past. As Peter pointed out, since the Titanic was such a famous event, it is a perfectly reasonable place to begin a dialogue on the subject of chivalry. Sometimes it's easier to get people to acknowledge past injustices than present ones.

Why don't you fight against sending people to war? Why are people still allowing that very gender biased insanity. I am in despair over that one.

Because, as I said, so many people don't understand why the principle of treating male lives as more disposable is wrong.

And be prepared for some of the same mocking responses the old-line feminists got, because the drift of the dialogue doesn't seem much different.

The problem with feminist rhetoric was not that it pointed out injustice towards women. The problems were that:

- Some feminists tended to employ collective guilt and blame all men for injustices towards women
- Some feminists explicitly or implicitly advocated taking revenge on men collectively for past or present injustices
- Some feminists were actively hostile to examining injustices towards men which were a product of the same system that caused injustices to women
- Some feminist claims of injustice towards women were simply incorrect

So, by pointing out that men suffer sex-based injustice, I believe that I am preserving some of the admirable original principles behind feminism, without engaging in any of their dishonest tactics (note that I never blamed women for what happened on the Titanic, nor do I advocate collective guilt or revenge, nor am I hostile against recognizing injustices towards women, though they are not the subject of the present discussion). I do realize that many men do simply invert feminist dishonesty when talking about injustice towards men (perhaps you've have encountered this before), but I work very hard to avoid this and don't think it is going on in this thread except for the one comment from Peter that I already jumped down his throat about.

Yes, men can be victims of gender biased injustice. Just remember, there are 6 billion other victims out there. They've all suffered and they've all got their stories.

Of course there are many victims with many stories; who would think otherwise? It's unreasonable and unecessary to require that any time someone wants to talk about one injustice towards one group, to require them to add a disclaimer that everyone else suffers injustices also.

This discussion is not about the suffering all victims of injustice; it is about a type of injustice towards men. I find it kind of creepy that you cannot just sit down and discuss this issue on its own without attempting to dismiss or distract from it (to be fair, you do acknowledge that sex-based injustice towards men is wrong, but you immediately have to point out the obvious that many other people can be victims also). It's not as if anyone here is saying that only men suffer any injustices, or that men's suffering is worse than anyone else's.

The victimhood stories of women and minority groups get lots and lots of airtime in our society. Injustices against men do not. That is why I think it's important to be able to discuss them as a stand-alone issue.

"They're at both ends of the gun most often dude. Gendercide? You mean Homocide?"

True. Men do the shooting & are the ones killed, typically.

In the Congo unrest, not only do men kill other men, they also rape them, as well as commiting all kinds of violent sexual abuses against male & female children, infants, women, & the elderly.
The perps of these atrocities are mostly young men aged 11-30. Underaged females are the most frequent rape victims, though, typically being shunned(for life) by their families after an incident.

"While the good ol' days might have been overdone (as with underutilized lifeboats), promoting male respect for and helpfulness towards females is a Very Good Thing (TM), in my humble opinion."

It's almost instinctual for men to feel protective toward women. I can't imagine that anything, feminism included, is going to change such a basic feature of human nature.
Example: it has been shown that teenage boys drive more safely - or less UNsafely! - when they have teenage girls in the cars with them, as opposed to driving alone or, especially, with other teenage boys. And note it doesn't necessarily have to be a girlfriend; even a casual female friend or classmate will have the same effect. Teenage boys look out for the safety of teenage girls, in this case by driving more cautiously, even though most of them probably wouldn't think in terms of traditional gender roles.

Getting away from all this discussion of gender roles to address the original issue, namely the gender difference in Estonia survivors, I've got a theory. I have no idea if it's actually true, and it's based more on supposition than on anything I've actually been able to find out about the disaster.
My theory: many of the male survivors were Estonian workmen on their way to jobs in Sweden, who couldn't afford cabins and therefore were in lounges or other seating areas on the upper decks. Being on the upper decks enabled them to get off the ship even as those in the cabins belowdecks were doomed.
I'd really be interested in knowing if this is actually what happened.

"it has been shown that teenage boys drive more safely"

Peter,

It could also be that males in the company of females are preoccupied with the situation & drive slower without the operation of some kind of some kind of protective instinct. How do you prove that it is a protective instinct that caused the effect?
How large were the effects for this study?
Got link to study?

I've known males who drag-race with cars packed with females. These males were competing for speed despite there being a load of females in each team's auto. It probably always goes on by the High-school near where i reside.

"They're at both ends of the gun most often dude. Gendercide? You mean Homocide?"

Yeh it's like pointing out that blacks and hispanics are disproportionately victims of crime, without pointing out the race of the people commiting the vast majority of those crimes (blacks and hispanics). That doesn't diminish the gross injustice, but how can liberals hope to solve that injustice by ignoring those responsible?

Also, did you know that twice as many men are raped in prison as women are raped outside of prison? Why is rape of women a national tragedy, but rape of men mostly the subject of jokes? Does the non-pc interracial aspect of it, being disproportionately (though probably not mostly) black/hispanic on white (and I feel really bad for what the few asians in bad prison's must go through) prevent the country from fully addressing it? Would the doofy supreme court have ruled the way it did (outlawing prison segregation by race) if white on black/hispanic rape was the more common act?
Disclaimer: I feel just as bad for black/hispanic men raped in prison. The whole thing is a national shame.

Bumbler: "Also, did you know that twice as many men are raped in prison as women are raped outside of prison"

No, i didn't. It's pretty interesting though. We do have a huge prison population here, one in which males are just thrown to the dogs, so to speak.

I guess the idea of this prison system is that as soon as you're convicted of anything, you're just like any other convict & forfeit your right to personal safety.

What agency did you get those stats from, btw?

My question is why men must forfeit their right to personal safety once in prison.

Of course, there are correctional officers & prison officers, but if men are getting raped, something is very wrong with inmate security safety measures.

Btw, i've read that prison rapes are mainly about removing the manhood/male honour of the raped. In other words, disgracing the victim. The rapist has taken your manhood & now feels as manly as & proud ever, despite coercing the homosexual act.

I'd never do anything to get myself tossed into one of those hellholes we call prisons.

Just a point - if the discussion is related to male-female social relations, bringing up (for instance) male-male violence, etc. is probably not that relevant.

Peter:

My theory: many of the male survivors were Estonian workmen on their way to jobs in Sweden, who couldn't afford cabins and therefore were in lounges or other seating areas on the upper decks.

Uh, *no*. The plurality of survivors were Estonian, but that's because most of the crew was Estonian and they had much better chances. (The crew, BTW, had a more equal male:female survival ratio, but still clearly favouring the males.) Taking out the crew, most survivors were Swedish. You're obviously not at all familiar with the kind of traffic that goes on the large Baltic ferries to make these comments.

Being on the upper decks enabled them to get off the ship even as those in the cabins belowdecks were doomed.

Actually there isn't a big difference in survivor numbers by deck. Those in the lower decks had the compensation of being alarmed earlier by the events. That is, in the evacuation there was a window for survival by being awake and alert early/already high enough to be early on the upper decks (no big male/female difference, producing most of the surviving females), followed by a window for possible survival by a quick, tough climb out of a horrendously listing ship where people were already getting killed by debris and falling (a task males are inherently better at). The survivor testimonies have tales of young males trying to help their parents or girlfriends climb out, with the group eventually realizing that the young man is the only one with any chance and screaming for him to go until he did.

And not all chivalry is dead: the captain is still there on the bridge. (Hey, whenever you read about a big ship sinking off the coast of , it usually turns out that the captain was the first person on the lifeboats.)

Damn, screwed up with above, I had written

"off the coast of (smaller than sign)some unnamed southern country mainly praised by leftists for its magnificient culture(greater than sign)"

and it interpreted that as a tag.

Oh, and BTW (spamming some more!), for testing the "females survive cold waters better" idea, it should help to compare the gender ratio in corpses recovered from the sea (assumably people who made it out of the ship but didn't make it in the water) and survivors. Googling up, in identified remains, male bodies/female bodies = 53/42 while male survivors/female survivors = 111/26. That is:

Probability of survival for a female that escaped the ship: 26/(42+26) = 38 %

Probability of survival for a male that escaped the ship: 111/(53+111) = 68 %

(This of course assumes that the corpses of both sexes do not float differently and are equally likely to be recovered...) Hanging on to rafts in stormy seas is tough and lot of people had to handle being injured as well - these factors favour males more significantly than whatever cold water advantage females have.

"The victimhood stories of women and minority groups get lots and lots of airtime in our society. Injustices against men do not. That is why I think it's important to be able to discuss them as a stand-alone issue."
It's not already? Maybe I've been reading more books and internet sites than most people for the past 12 years. I don't pay much attention to mainstream tripe.
One self-observation about feelings of protectiveness:
I usually feel protective of small children, whether I know them or not. I don't even like kids that much, but when they are physically very near me, the sensation of their fragility shivers as a gentle breeze, and I believe I would attempt to protect them if need be. Small animals evoke a similar reaction. Maybe I even have it towards smaller adults (both genders?) but I'm not that big myself, so I can't go there.

Thinking more about gender and evacuations, I note the fact that the building where I work has mandatory fire drills twice a year. These are done according to the protocol for high-rise buildings because the structure is ten stories high (I'm on the third floor). Any building over six stories is treated as a high-rise for evacuation purposes because fire ladders generally cannot reach above six floors.
In any event, there's a standard procedure we must follow, in which we gather at the nearst exit stairway, check with the lobby security desk via the emergency phone at each stairway, and if directed proceed as calmly as possible down the stairway. There is **NOTHING** about giving priority to women. We are expected to go downstairs in order. The only thing mentioned about special treatment is that if possible we are expected to assist any people who might have trouble walking (if you think you might need help you're supposed to register with the floor fire warden in advance). But other than that, no special help for the ladies.
One sort-of-amusing thing: the safety officers who conduct the fire drills tell us that in the event of a real fire you're suppose to evacuate below the fire floor but not actually leave the building unless directed. You can rest assured that absolutely no one will heed that advice any longer!

jaakkeli -
My theory about Estonia survival by gender was just a guess, as I had indicated.
I am somewhat skeptical when you say that males had an advantage when it came to climbing out of the listing ship amid falling debris. It seems to me that accomplishing such a thing depends more on agility and endurance - and pure dumb luck - as opposed to raw strength. Women should be able to perform on an equal footing with men under those circumstances.

"agility and endurance - and pure dumb luck - as opposed to raw strength"

I will certainly agree with the pure dumb luck thing, but I would wager that raw strength, endurance and agility are correlated.

Peter, *sigh*. Surely you don't think you're going to end up with reasonable theories about the survivors, if you don't have much idea about the accident? Many people in this accident had to get out in times measured in *minutes* or die. Even those who were alarmed enough at the earliest time to leave for the open deck, the time available until escaping became virtually impossible was hardly more than 20 minutes - and those were a minority, most had much less than that.

With that time limit, it is obvious that every single, simple obstacle in the way could spell doom. For example, there were survivors saying that they had to break through their cabin door because the list had moved items to block them. If you're not strong enough to break the door or move the stuff away in a few minutes, that's it, you're done in your cabin. Since there were strong survivors saying that they escaped this situation, there are also going to be weak people who were caught in the same situation - and died.

Sure, with dumb luck you left the cabin early and happened to end up on a lucky route with little problems like this in the way. But it's called "luck" precisely because it means you just beat the odds: others won't! There are plenty of potential obstacles in the way that will require strength and not that many potential obstacles that would select based on something in which females have an advantage - more of the males who were lesser on the luck survive. (I don't understand where you pulled this idea that women are in equal footing on "endurance" - why do you think they hold male and female long distance running events separately? Why is quickly walking/crawling up what's effectively a very steep hill different?) And, again, young male survivors testified leaving female or elderly loved ones that ran out of strength, so it definitely happened.

"Sure, with dumb luck you left the cabin early and happened to end up on a lucky route with little problems like this in the way. But it's called "luck" precisely because it means you just beat the odds: others won't! There are plenty of potential obstacles in the way that will require strength and not that many potential obstacles that would select based on something in which females have an advantage - more of the males who were lesser on the luck survive. (I don't understand where you pulled this idea that women are in equal footing on "endurance" - why do you think they hold male and female long distance running events separately? Why is quickly walking/crawling up what's effectively a very steep hill different?) And, again, young male survivors testified leaving female or elderly loved ones that ran out of strength, so it definitely happened."

If I understand your point correctly, it's that for some people extra strength was that factor that gave them enough of an edge to survive and that favored men. I suppose that makes sense. The male edge in survival aboard the Estonia seems much too high to be a mere statistical fluke. So your explanation is probably as good as any.