Lancelot and the gruesome demand for the Full Titanic Experience.

Five years ago this January the cruise ship Costa Concordia ran aground at 11:45 PM with 4,252 souls on board.  The engine compartments were quickly flooded, and the ship eventually capsized and sank.  Miraculously, all but 32 of the souls on board were rescued.  That so many were rescued is astounding given that the ship capsized at night, before the required lifeboat drill had been conducted, and with water temperatures estimated in the mid to upper 50s.  It is even more miraculous given the astoundingly bad decisions the captain made after running aground, including*:

  1. Delaying reporting the collision to the Coast Guard, and concealing the nature of the problem from the Coast Guard when contacted nearly 30 minutes after running aground.
  2. Delaying the order to muster to the lifeboat stations until nearly 45 minutes after the collision, and delaying the abandon ship order until nearly an hour and ten minutes after the collision.

Almost immediately after the shipwreck there were a series of articles complaining that something was missing in the Costa Concordia shipwreck.  That something was the romantic gesture made by men on the Titanic 100 years earlier.  Unlike on the Titanic, men on the Costa Concordia evacuated the ship along with women and children.  This, along with what appear to be three endlessly repeated anecdotal accounts (out of over 4,000 survivors) that some individual men were less than courteous when entering the lifeboats, lead to complaints that the men who survived the shipwreck were collectively a group of brutes and cowards, who had deprived us all of a grand romantic gesture.  As National Review Editor Rich Lowry complained in the opening of Dude, where’s my lifeboat?

When they make the movie about the Costa Concordia, the cruise ship that grounded off the coast of Tuscany, there won’t be romantic tales about its captain.

Lowry’s article was a complaint about the lack of romance accompanying the Concordia disaster.  While on the Titanic men dressed up in preparation for their deaths and the band romantically played on, on Concordia men focused on getting their loved ones to safety.  As Lowry laments in closing, what the Concordia lacked was a romantic “grace note” as the ship went down:

The Titanic went down, they say, to the strains of the hymn “Nearer, My God, to Thee,” as the band courageously played on. It lent a final grace note to the tragedy. Today, we don’t do grace notes. We’ve gone from “Women and children, first,” to “Dude, where’s my lifeboat?” As the women of the Costa Concordia can testify, that’s a long way down.

That grace note that Lowry pines for however would have come at the cost of a much larger loss of life for men, women and children.  Lowry doesn’t come out and say that more deaths would have made Concordia more satisfying to his chivalrous sensibilities, but I see no other way to interpret his gruesome demand for more romance and flair on a shipwreck where it is clear that the vast majority of the men on board handled themselves admirably.  There is simply no way that the average man could have handled himself otherwise and have 99.25% of the lives saved.

What Lowry and many others specifically lamented was the lack of a “Women and Children First” (WACF) evacuation policy.  This is the romantic gesture that made Titanic, with its loss of 1,513 lives, the gold standard of feel-good shipwrecks.  For those who might think I’m being unfair to Lowry and others like him, I should point out that there are no serious arguments that the romantic policy enacted on the Titanic would have saved lives on Concordia.  If the goal is to save lives, the best policy is to carry excess lifeboat capacity and load passengers on the lifeboats as they arrive at the muster stations.  This is the policy that was (belatedly) followed on Concordia, and this is what left Lowry and others feeling so cheated.

In fact, the romantic gesture Lowry and others crave would have created chaos on the dark, sinking Costa Concordia and have cost many lives.  Of course, as far as romantic gestures go more deaths, especially the deaths of more men, would be more satisfying to the spectators.  Yet this gruesome desire to emotionally feast on the deaths of hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of men would come at great cost not just to the men who died, but to the women and children on board as well.  WACF may make sense in some very extreme exceptions, but as a rule it greatly hampers evacuation in a time of danger, stress, and confusion.  The reason is that in times of danger women and children quite understandably:

  1.  Want to ensure the survival of all of their loved ones, including men.
  2.  Don’t want to separate from the men who are protecting them.

WACF greatly slows the process of evacuation, as women tend to refuse to be separated from their men.  In the prototype for WACF, the sinking of the HMS Birkenhead, the women had to be forcibly picked up and dropped into the lifeboats, as the Daily Mail notes:

When the ship foundered, the soldiers’ commander told his men to ‘stand fast!’ and allow women and children to make use of the few lifeboats on the vessel.

Some women did not want to go on their own — they had to be torn away from their husbands, carried over to the bulwark and dropped over the ship’s side. Most of the soldiers and sailors aboard drowned or were eaten by sharks, but all the women and children survived, and the  chivalric ethos became known as the Birkenhead Drill…

The same thing greatly hampered the evacuation on the Titanic, resulting in not all of the lifeboats being launched, and the ones which were launched being sparsely filled.  Chuck Anesi explains.

All 14 lifeboats, the two emergency boats, and two of the Engelhardt boats were launched. These had a capacity of 1,084 passengers. Obviously, many boats were not loaded to full capacity. There were many reasons for this; at first, many women and children were simply unwilling to be lowered 65 feet from the boat deck to the water. Some of the men put in boats were put there simply to show it was safe, and allay the fears of other passengers.

This chaos not only lead to the needless deaths of over five hundred men, but the deaths of 52 children and over 100 women.

…there was enough lifeboat capacity for ALL women and children (534 persons total), AND 550 men as well. (Total capacity of the boats launched was 1,084.) This explains why, especially as the situation became more urgent, more men were put in the boats. Indeed, if the boat crews had loaded one man for each woman or child loaded, they could have expected to save all women and children, plus as many men.

For an example of the anguish and chaos this policy caused, see the example offered in Titanic Wikia of the final life boat to be launched,  Collapsible D:

Collapsible lifeboat D was the ninth and last boat to be lowered from the port side. Second Officer Lightoller had managed to fit the collapsible boat into the now-empty davits of boat 1. He tried to find women to fill it with, but had trouble in finding any. Finally, he said, he managed to fill the boat with 15-20 people…

The Sun on April 23rd, 1912 gave the account of Mrs Hoyt, one of the women who was on board that final life boat.  Like on the Birkenhead, she had to be physically thrown into the lifeboat because she did not want to leave her husband:

Mrs. Hoyt gave a concise account of the tragedy to her father. She did not leave her husband’s side until the last boat was being lowered and then she was torn from him and thrown into a boat.

Fortunately for Mrs. Hoyt (and her husband), Mr. Hoyt made it on board the lifeboat by diving into the icy water and swimming toward the boat:

Frederick Hoyt, who had escorted his wife to the craft and then calculated where the boat would row and thought that if he jumped and swam in that direction, they would pick him up.

The article on Collapsible D notes that there was plenty of extra room on the boat when it was picked up by a responding ship:

There were probably about 20 or 22 (not quite half-filled) in it when he had been picked up.

The foolishness that caused Mrs Hoyt to have to be physically thrown into the lifeboat, and her husband to have to swim to join her on the half empty boat can be traced back to Lancelot and the concept of courtly love.  From the Daily Mail:

Mark Girouad, a great social and architectural historian, in his book on Chivalry In Victorian And Edwardian England, says the ‘chivalric’ treatment of women was part and parcel of the Victorians’ cult of the ‘gentleman’ and the ‘amateur’.

The great heroes of the Edwardian and pre-World War I days, such as Captain Scott, were passionate amateurs, and saw themselves as knights errant, women as damsels in distress.

The sacrifice made by over 1,000 men aboard the Titanic over 100 years ago, was profoundly noble.  The same is true for the hundreds of soldiers and sailers who perished on board the HMS Birkenhead.  But the ghoulish demands by shipwreck spectators for other men to sacrifice themselves is despicable, and something we have yet to come to terms with.  The wicked worship of romantic love and adultery that began in the 12th century has not only devastated our families, but it also poses a very real risk to the safety of men, women, and children in cases of disaster.

*Captain Francesco Schettino’s lawyers claimed that he heroically decided to delay the launch of the lifeboats because he knew the sinking ship would drift back towards land and he wanted to avoid having lifeboats drift away in the night.  However, his decision at the same time to tell the Coast Guard that the rapidly sinking ship merely had an electrical problem makes this argument difficult to take seriously.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Chivalry, Costa Concordia, Courtly Love, National Review, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

112 Responses to Lancelot and the gruesome demand for the Full Titanic Experience.

  1. The Question says:

    Noble sacrifice is only noble when it is necessary, when someone voluntarily gives up their life because it is the only way to save others.

    Your essays on this topic make me wonder if this kind of “romantic” thinking that yearns for the death of men is actually an indirect way of mankind expressing its innate desire for human sacrifice as a form of worship. We find the Aztec’s human sacrifices barbaric, and rightly so, but how is insisting that men, women, and children die needlessly for the sake of romanticism any different? In both instances, there are gods that need to be pleased with the loss of human life.

  2. rugby11 says:

    …Very well written…

  3. Pingback: Lancelot and the gruesome demand for the Full Titanic Experience. | @the_arv

  4. SnapperTrx says:

    This is an astute observation. What better way to continue to sacrifice human blood to the goddess than to mask it under the guise of “romantic chivalry”. It comes off as a noble gesture, but we can see through articles like this one that the goddess DEMANDS blood, and failure to provide the prescribed amount results in complaints from her servants, and the demand for more.

  5. Gunner Q says:

    One thing about the Birkenhead, it was a troopship. What made the “Birkenhead Drill” possible was military discipline, not chivalry, and the purpose for the command was to clear the decks of nonmilitary. Expecting civilian men to follow that kind of self-destructive order in a moment of stressful chaos is stupid.

  6. I loathe romance.

    I see no reason to give a strange woman preference over myself in every-day life, let alone when it comes to living. There is exactly one woman I would risk my life for. She is my mother. No other woman in existence both deserves my risking my life on her behalf, and has personally proved it to me. And, in an evacuation situation like the above, there is no reason for me to risk my life to ensure hers. We both get on the boat.

    Were there white knights trying to rip my family apart to service this horrid schlock, I would feel no compunction against ‘hydrating’ him, so that more people could fill the boats. It would, in fact, be my duty to do so. The question is a matter of skill and capacity to follow up on said duty.

  7. Spike says:

    Did Chelsea ”Sully” Sullenberger, captain of Flight 1549 that belly-landed in the Hudson River 4 years ago, adopt a WACF policy? Apparently not: He sent everyone to the ramps in an ordered fashion along the lines of the much-ignored pre-flight drills. He achieved zero casualties.

    It is amazing under these circumstances how there are NEVER any feminists present to be ”strong and independent”. Rather, women insist on being loaded into the lifeboats first, even when it is proven safe.
    ”The Goddess” requires human sacrifice. She requires men to be thrown to her in vain and chivalric gestures, and she is bloodthirsty for the unborn, still running at about a million per year despite comprehensive sex education ensuring all school age children know the facts.

    ”The Goddess” is evil.

  8. tsotha says:

    WACF might have made sense in 1912, assuming you didn’t have enough boats for everyone or the ship was sinking fast. But the system of sex-based societal roles was upended. around the time I was born. I see no particular reason to surrender my position in a lifeboat unless it’s for someone to whom I’m related.

  9. getalonghome says:

    So very well done.

  10. Ute1967 says:

    In our post chivalry society, we could improve survival rates on distressed ships by simply making it a ship wide protocol to lock all the high maintenance females below deck & order the crew to kill them if dire trouble arose. Consider how this would have played out on the Titantic if the “heroine” Rose ( from the movie) was simply locked in her cabin the moment she boarded.
    http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/happy-birthday-to-kate-winslet-titanic-murderer-still-at-large/

  11. patriarchal landmine says:

    feminists and tradcons are both misandrists who crave male disposability.

    mgtow, who do not have any interest in dying for a woman’s comfort, are in the minority.

  12. CSI says:

    “WACF might have made sense in 1912, assuming you didn’t have enough boats for everyone or the ship was sinking fast.”

    I think it might make sense only when there aren’t enough ships for everyone and the ship is sinking slow enough to try and sort men from women and children.

    Under most circumstances, trying to separate men from women and children would only waste time and contribute to more deaths. As well as the reasons mentioned above, try and imagine the crew responsible for evacuation wasting precious time trying to work out if there are any women left on board, working out where the men should wait, keeping track of the men who haven’t been evacuated yet, etc.

  13. Gunner Q says:

    “I think it might make sense only when there aren’t enough ships for everyone and the ship is sinking slow enough to try and sort men from women and children.”

    It’s still cruel. This is not a Christian point of view, that the lives of men are of less value than women & children. It’s one thing if you decide to give up your seat, another thing for others to decide you give up your seat. Not to mention, why is picking out unsexy/unmarried men for disposal important enough to be the guiding policy for emergency situations? Why not “Keep Calm and Carry On”?

    I get very sick and tired of hearing “men are the disposable sex”. That’s us they’re talking about!

  14. Pingback: Lancelot and the gruesome demand for the Full Titanic Experience. | Reaction Times

  15. Moses says:

    The wailing over lack of WACF on Costa Concordia shows that woman want to be equal except when it comes to privileges.

    George Orwell captured the mindset behind this sentiment with this “Animal Farm” gem: “Some animals are more equal than others.”

  16. Jew613 says:

    Outside of feminist fantasies in dangerous situations women tend to panic. When separated from their men the panic goes to 11. WACF will maximize the death toll for this reason alone. Also women got special treatment a century ago because they had limitations on their behaviors which earned this treatment. Those limitations no longer exist.

  17. Anon says:

    This proves that cuckservative manginas are just as bad as any lefty mangina.

    A few years ago, a few extreme manginas went around saying that 90% of the male gender should be exterminated, simply because men cause all of the evil. No mention, of course, of who will do the exterminating and why THEY should be the ones spared.

    Rich Lowry is no different, and as the head of the NRO, it is safe to say his view is the mainstream GOPe view.

    And while slightly less of a gayface than Wilcucks and Gay-ratty, the trend continues :

  18. Anon says:

    feminists and tradcons are both misandrists who crave male disposability.

    The correct term is ‘cuckservative’. ‘TradCon’ is not descriptive or derogatory enough.

    That is why no man should join the military any more. It just teaches young men to see their own expendability as normal.

  19. Anon says:

    This, along with what appear to be three endlessly repeated anecdotal accounts (out of over 4,000 survivors) that some individual men were less than courteous when entering the lifeboats,

    Only three? I would be delighted if this number was in the hundreds.

    I remember back at this NRO article, the comments were full of cartoonish chivalry. One cuck claimed that he was 310 pounds and only 6% body fat, and that any man that tried to leave before women would be ‘sharkbait’ (i.e. tossed overboard). In reality, I suspect that he was indeed 310 pounds, but closer to 60% bodyfat (plus, gayface). The cartoonish chivalry at a website that actually claims to be on the ‘right’ was a sight to behold…

  20. Anon says:

    Y’all need to channel Boxer and send this article to Rich Lowry’s Twitter :

    https://twitter.com/@richlowry

    Close the loop and provoke the cuck!

  21. Anon says:

    National Review is famous for hosting lengthy, cuckservative cruises :

    http://www.nrcruise.com/

    Will these cucks volunteer to die if the cruise ship springs a leak in water that is 8 feet deep? Or is Rich Lowry only interested in culling other men, not himself?

  22. Rollory says:

    Dalrock:

    Since you’ve been on a tear about courtly love recently, I thought you might want to read up on the Tour de Nesle scandal if you don’t already know about it. Wikipedia has a decent writeup of it (I expect Infogalactic has essentially the same) along with the note that courtly love stories dropped off notably afterwards.

    The short version is that King Philip IV of France (Philippe Le Bel, “the Fair”, also called “The Iron King”) had 3 sons and a daughter; the daughter accused all the daughters-in-law of sleeping around, the Lancelot Juniors were caught and tortured to death in public, two of the three daughters-in-law died without seeing the outside of a dungeon, and the end result of the whole situation was to set in motion the events leading to the Hundred Years’ War.

    Real world consequences proved a bit too grim for the fantasy to endure.

  23. JT says:

    Sorry Dalrock, I don’t really think lifeboat policy really has anything to do with chivalry.

    Men protecting women and children is what all good societies do. Some people may call that chivalry as a shorthand term, but it really isn’t the same as the romantic love chivalry you’ve been describing.

    You can see an example where Jacob goes to meet Esau and puts the women and children in the rear. Sure they have a guard of men too. But the idea is to minimize the risk to them.

  24. Jim says:

    In our post chivalry society, we could improve survival rates on distressed ships by simply making it a ship wide protocol to lock all the high maintenance females below deck & order the crew to kill them if dire trouble arose

    LOL. Agreed. See how they like being viewed as “disposable” for once. Besides men build civilizations not women. It’s women who are disposable if anyone is. Especially now since women don’t die in child birth nearly as much as in the past thanks to technology (men made that possible sweethearts. And you’re welcome). There are more than enough wombs in the world anyway.

    I remember back at this NRO article, the comments were full of cartoonish chivalry. One cuck claimed that he was 310 pounds and only 6% body fat, and that any man that tried to leave before women would be ‘sharkbait’ (i.e. tossed overboard).

    If he tried that white knight shit with me he’d get a bullet in the head faster than he could say “fuck me!”. I’m not saving a few cunts just to drown or worse get eaten by sharks.

  25. Don Quixote says:

    JT says:
    March 27, 2017 at 10:41 pm

    Sorry Dalrock, I don’t really think lifeboat policy really has anything to do with chivalry.

    Men protecting women and children is what all good societies do. Some people may call that chivalry as a shorthand term, but it really isn’t the same as the romantic love chivalry you’ve been describing.

    You can see an example where Jacob goes to meet Esau and puts the women and children in the rear. Sure they have a guard of men too. But the idea is to minimize the risk to them.

    Jacob only put Rachel and Joseph in the rear. Check it out:
    Jacob looked up and there was Esau, coming with his four hundred men; so he divided the children among Leah, Rachel and the two female servants. 2 He put the female servants and their children in front, Leah and her children next, and Rachel and Joseph in the rear. 3 He himself went on ahead and bowed down to the ground seven times as he approached his brother.

    Jacob valued Rachel and Joseph more than the others, this much is clear. When the Israeli army fought their way into the promised land they killed all the men, women and children, they were allowed to keep virgins alive if they wanted them as wives.

    Here’s a bible verse that isn’t often quoted:
    Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

  26. Opus says:

    There is one major difference between the loss of RMS Titanic and the loss of the Costa Concordia: the Titanic’s passengers were British/American, the Concordia’s weren’t. I see little bits of WAFC in ordinary life, indeed I instinctively operate WACF against my better misandrist judgment. Drilled into me by my mother, I, then a five year old always had to give up my seat on the bus to shopping-laden middle-aged women.

    In 1936 the ship that my Mother’s Father, then the Captain of a passenger liner of the Union Castle line returning with passengers from South Africa was holed by a mine left by Republicans in waters off The Canary Islands – Spain of which Las Canarias is part were then you will recall indulging in Civil War. I regret that I do not know what my Grandfather’s views were as to WAFC but in the event he was able to bring his damaged vessel into the Mediterranean and to port in Marseilles and without loss of life. A subsequent Court of Inquiry exonerated him of any wrong-doing.

  27. Anonymous Reader says:

    Article from the MRA / MHRA site “A Voice For Men” that is relevant to the ongoing discussion of the cult of courtly love. It appears to be mostly taken from a 1937 article from a scholarly journal devoted to the Middle Ages. Why such a journal was called “Speculum” is not obvious to me right now.

    https://www.avoiceformen.com/series/unknown-history-of-misandry/eleanor-of-aquitaine-and-her-courts-of-love-2/

  28. anon says:

    “Did Chelsea ”Sully” Sullenberger, captain of Flight 1549 that belly-landed in the Hudson River 4 years ago, adopt a WACF policy? Apparently not: He sent everyone to the ramps in an ordered fashion along the lines of the much-ignored pre-flight drills. He achieved zero casualties.”

    Which is the exact opposite of what the Captain of the Costa Concordia did.

  29. greyghost says:

    Best thing for a man with wife and children is to gather up the children tell the wife we are leaving one time and head to the boats. Get the kids and yourself aboard and see if the wife follows. If she shows up good if not win win.

  30. Roger says:

    Another important difference between the Titanic and the Costa Concordia is that in 1912, more women APPRECIATED men’s sacrifices (in 1931, a group of women had a statue erected memorializing their sacrifice). In today’s world, by contrast, we rarely hear anything but contempt expressed for men, and then when we fail to act with the expected chivalry, they simply heap even more scorn on us (as if they would ever actually appreciate anything we did). Men are capable of extraordinary self-sacrifice if it is appreciated. But should people be surprised if we decide to let man-hating feminists gurgle to the bottom of the ocean?

  31. evilwhitemalempire says:

    People just didn’t want to freeze their ass off sitting in a T-boat while waiting for the Carpathia. That water tight bulkhead tech had been around for about 10 years prior to Titanic so it usually took several hours for a ship to sink. People would typically stay on board a sinking ship until the rescue ship arrived and then the T-boats (transfer boats) would be used to ferry passengers to rescue ship (this is also the reason there weren’t enough lifeboats for everybody. It was general practice to only equip a ship with enough boats to efficiently ferry passengers not to accomodate ALL passengers all at once)
    But the trouble was the Titanic was so much larger than most ships of the period. So when it began to list it was unable to support the weight of its stern above the water line. So the ship started to break in half. When this happened a slow sink suddenly became a fast one with all those people still on board. And that is the reason so many were killed that night.

  32. anon says:

    Just about half of the children on the Titanic died. They were all in steerage. No chivalry for the sweeties in steerage.
    The Captain of the Costa Concordia was criminally inept. This is not a story of heroics and the fact that a plethora of morons speak of chivalry doesn’t turn him into an ipso facto hero. The half-sunk wreckage could be seen from the shore for over a year. Yet another different from the titanic…it didn’t actually sink entirely under, it capsized on its side. The Captain abandoned the vessel early on and let the passengers fight their way to the lifeboats. Please don’t elevate this douche canoe and call the fact that “only” 32 people died “miraculous”. No one should have died at all.

  33. Dalrock says:

    @JT

    Sorry Dalrock, I don’t really think lifeboat policy really has anything to do with chivalry.

    Men protecting women and children is what all good societies do. Some people may call that chivalry as a shorthand term, but it really isn’t the same as the romantic love chivalry you’ve been describing.

    You can see an example where Jacob goes to meet Esau and puts the women and children in the rear. Sure they have a guard of men too. But the idea is to minimize the risk to them.

    You have missed the point entirely. This has nothing to do with men protecting women. Men did protect their women. The complaint from Lowry and others is that men did so without enough romantic flair. He wanted the Full Titanic Experience, and he didn’t get it.

  34. Dalrock says:

    @Anon

    The Captain of the Costa Concordia was criminally inept. This is not a story of heroics and the fact that a plethora of morons speak of chivalry doesn’t turn him into an ipso facto hero. The half-sunk wreckage could be seen from the shore for over a year. Yet another different from the titanic…it didn’t actually sink entirely under, it capsized on its side. The Captain abandoned the vessel early on and let the passengers fight their way to the lifeboats. Please don’t elevate this douche canoe and call the fact that “only” 32 people died “miraculous”. No one should have died at all.

    This isn’t an either/or situation. Yes the Captain was criminally inept. He is, as I recall, serving 16 years as we speak.

    Yes, it was a miracle that a cruise ship with over 4,000 souls on board sank at night with the loss of only 32 lives. It is especially miraculous given that the Captain delayed the evacuation and kept the authorities in the dark about what was really going on. One thing to keep in mind is that cruises tend to be filled with “the newly wed, and the nearly dead”. Getting 4,000 people safely off the ship, at night, after it drifted into the rocks and listed violently, was an amazing feat. If the (average) men on board were really panicking and shoving everyone weaker out of the way it would have been chaos. It clearly wasn’t.

  35. m11nine says:

    A memorial on Lowry’s twitter, this lady was greater than Buckley himself.

  36. m11nine says:

    https://twitter.com/ABC/status/846563774429519873https://twitter.com/ABC/status/846563774429519873

    Ha, just rolling thru the rest of twitter and saw this, three men carry a failed lady runner across the finish line of a Philly half marathon.

  37. m11nine says:

    Sorry bad link, try again:

    Ha, just rolling thru the rest of twitter and saw this, three men carry a failed lady runner across the finish line of a Philly half marathon.

  38. Zippy says:

    This continues to be a very interesting series of posts. One of the interesting things it shows is that the specific problems of feminism were produced by previous generations of men: in general, by men so cowardly that they were unwilling to stand up to bad behavior by women, instead romanticizing that bad behavior. (It may be that men as a mass population are simply incapable of standing up to women qua population, since cowardly men will always white knight in the hope of currying favor with women, which has interesting implications for democracy).

    If this is going to be corrected, it will ultimately have to be men who correct it. Or perhaps – if men don’t do it – it will be corrected by nature and nature’s God acting in the devastated ruins of what was once a civilization.

  39. Dalrock,

    Have you covered the “angel-ization” of women in popular culture and Christianity yet?

    Angels in the Scripture are neither male or female, tend to have masculine characteristics and names (e.g. Gabriel, Michael, etc.), and inspire the ‘fear’ of God when they come.

    Of course, Christians now often romanticize beautiful or talented women as angels from heaven.

  40. Lyn87 says:

    I remember back at this NRO article, the comments were full of cartoonish chivalry. One cuck claimed that he was 310 pounds and only 6% body fat, and that any man that tried to leave before women would be ‘sharkbait’ (i.e. tossed overboard).

    I remember that guy, and I don’t believe it for a moment… I didn’t believe it at the time, either. In fact, I have come to realize that in 99.999% of cases when a guy describes himself as “big” and/or “strong” he’s just a fat-ass who might have been a defensive lineman in high school – 20 years and 100 pounds ago.

    This is a picture of Martyn Ford, who has measurements similar to the anonymous guy who made the claim about turning other men into “sharkbait.” Guys like that are as rare as 20-year-old virgins with 7-to-10 waist-to-hip ratios from good families and theologically conservative churches who have internalized Biblical values and traditional sex roles. In my entire life I have met exactly one woman like that… and I married her. Like Spec Ops soldiers, there are a lot more ripped men and virtuous women in cyberspace than there are in meat-space.

    As for 310 pounds and 6% BF, I have met exactly zero such men, and I’m a gym rat (my avatar is a recent picture of me). I have three gymbros who are alarmingly large men (I’m kind-of small, and all of them are about twice my size), and while they’re all capable of benching more than I can dead-lift (by a lot), none of them has a BF% as low as mine, and although I’m what people used to call gracile, even I’m nowhere near 6% body fat.

    But if one is going to be a white knight in a meat-space emergency – rather than just an internet forum – one has to possess the raw physicality to simultaneously overpower multiple other men who are literally fighting for their lives… hence the bluster about 310/4%, which is certainly a gross exaggeration.

    Maybe that’s what makes guys like Wilcox, Geraghty, and Lowry so comical: unlike the anonymous fat-ass in the NRO article, we know what those guys look like. They’re frumpy, low-T dough-boys who only survive in a society wherein better men protect them and create the safe-zones in which they live and pontificate.

  41. Anon says:

    The lower-case ‘anon’ is a different person from me.

  42. Chad says:

    If I recall the film Titanic didn’t even present men as chivalrous so much as the men managing the lifeboats would shoot men trying to board them. Though they did mention the historically fact that the lifeboats weren’t being filled to capacity. However, Rose jumping off the lifeboat after being loaded into one in a move that indirectly results in Jack’s death highlights your point gloriously.

    If I recall there were no really positive examples of men on the movie except the one’s who readily accepted death. In fact I think we’re supposed to view Rose’s fiance as even more evil for taking a spot on a lifeboat.

  43. Anon says:

    Lyn87,

    As for 310 pounds and 6% BF, I have met exactly zero such men, and I’m a gym rat (my avatar is a recent picture of me).

    Agreed. Even in the WWE, extremely few were of that size (when you take real height/weight, not the ‘billed’ one). He was certainly just another doughy cuckservative (with gayface) engaging in cartoonish chivalry…

    I find it funny that NRO itself hosts lengthy cuckservative cruises. Will these doughy slobs willingly die for the gratification of the small number of women on board, in the event of rocky seas?

  44. Anon says:

    in general, by men so cowardly that they were unwilling to stand up to bad behavior by women, instead romanticizing that bad behavior. (It may be that men as a mass population are simply incapable of standing up to women qua population, since cowardly men will always white knight in the hope of currying favor with women, which has interesting implications for democracy).

    This is precisely why democracy is unviable in the long run,… This episode is just more evidence of this..

  45. imnobody00 says:

    @Zippy

    “It may be that men as a mass population are simply incapable of standing up to women qua population, since cowardly men will always white knight in the hope of currying favor with women, which has interesting implications for democracy.”

    Biologically, women are the most scarce resource. So men are wired to do anything to please women (effect “women are wonderful”, “women and children first”, etc) and to give women advantages over men, who are the disposable sex.

    So, if you put no restrictions to the behavior of men and women, you end up with a matriarchy and a matriarchal family (like in the black ghetto).

    The only way to stop that is a patriarchal religion. If men are told that they have to please God before women, they won’t surrender completely to women. Since the religion is gone, the patriarchy is gone and the matriarchy is coming.

  46. Great post! One of your bets, i’d say.

  47. Michael says:

    “Why such a journal was called “Speculum” is not obvious to me right now.”

    Speculum is essentially Latin for “The Examiner” or “The Observer.”

  48. Tarl says:

    I see little bits of WAFC in ordinary life, indeed I instinctively operate WACF against my better misandrist judgment. Drilled into me by my mother, I, then a five year old always had to give up my seat on the bus to shopping-laden middle-aged women.

    “Offering your seat” is an amusing way to neg women, especially if they’re old enough that they can see the wall approaching. Often as not they’ll wail “oh my God, do I really look that old?” Then you chime in with “no, you don’t look any older than [whatever she looks like plus 5 or 10 years]”.

    This is a picture of Martyn Ford,

    He looks scary as hell WITHOUT the tats!

  49. Toddy Cat says:

    “The great heroes of the Edwardian and pre-World War I days, such as Captain Scott, were passionate amateurs, and saw themselves as knights errant, women as damsels in distress.”

    Of course, it was also the leadership of men of this generation that brought Britain the passionate dramas of the Neuve Chappelle, the Somme, and Passchendele which together cost well over 700,000 dead. Yes, I know, British generalship was not as bad in WWI as is often advertized, but still…

  50. Toddy Cat says:

    And in addition, for Rich Lowrey, of all people, to talk about chivalry! This is the guy who fired John Derbyshire for making a few innocuous remarks about race in another publication, while Mr. Derbyshire was undergoing chemotherapy for cancer(!), all to appease a few loudmouthed leftists. If past performance is any guide, Mr. Lowrey would be kicking aside pregnant women, the sick and aged, puppies, kittens, nuns, and anyone else who happened to get in the way while charging for the first rubber raft. There may have been virtues in the way the men onboard the Titanic acted (there certainly was courage) but Mr. Lowrey is hardly the man to point them out.

  51. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    WACF is an interesting study because there are many factors that influence it.

    Biology and the survival of the species weighs heavy on the subject. Simply put the survival of humanity is best served by preserving women and the next generation. Think of this way if 1 man and 100 women lived alone on remote island the next year there might be 201 humans to carry on the species. Now reverse the sexes and there are 100 men and only one woman. The woman will bear a child from only one man and that man might likely kill any man that would challenge his mating dominance. This explains one reason that men fought wars to protect women and children and why the WACF idea became the norm. Pragmatically speaking a man’s own family would have a better chance of survival if he did not abandon them but stayed with them to protect them against the future challenges that may arise.

    Lowry pines for a type of social contract that has been torn up by the very women he would have others die to comfort. He wants men to sacrifice themselves to demonstrate that men find women more valuable to prove they are not misogynists. Lowry is like the feminists who want equality and privilege, or just men to worship them and do what ever they say. By bashing the men that survived Lowry can earn his merit badge as a man who values women without ever having to sacrifice his own life or comfort. He supports the mandate that other men should be dying so that he can have more of the women’s gratitude for himself.

    He like many churchians look past the biology of survival and social contract theory instead viewing WACF as a moral imperative. They are not sure where this moral imperative is found but they will shame any who challenges the assertion as “unmanly”, “weak”, “selfish” etc. The standard is not the ethics of scripture but chivalry. Dalrock has already wrote much on the churchian pedestalization of women as superior beings more holy than the brutes with a Y chromosome and how the “Y’s” are to serve the “XX’s” and so in their serving lead and in their following the dictates of women become the head.

  52. anglosaxon says:

    It’s easy to tell other people from the safety of dry land to sacrifice themselves for others!

  53. Uncle Maffoo says:

    Is this all just a twist on the Nice Guy syndrome?

    “If I let myself go down with the ship (and take a few of those jerkboys with me!), she’ll finally see what a great guy I am and be my girlfriend!”

  54. Lyn87 says:

    … Martyn Ford,

    He looks scary as hell WITHOUT the tats!

    Yep. Like I said, I’m a gym rat, so I’ve gotten to know some pretty big dudes, and a 300+ guy with mid-single-digit BF% would stand out even among the most buff of them. That is a “Greek God-level” physique, so the anonymous NRO cuckservative was almost certainly greatly exaggerating his level of physical prowess. The ones I know are all genuinely nice guys, and despite the fact that I top out at around 140 pounds (10 stone for the Brits in residence) after a big meal of pizza, they readily accept me as a fellow lifter even though I am literally half their size (not to mention 15 – 25 years older). Men with that sort of strength tend to understand that being strong doesn’t come with a license to throw it around… the one’s who don’t get that tend to be in prison rather than in gyms in middle class neighborhoods.

    The question that interests me is what a fat-ass cuckservative gains by being an internet tough guy, since that’s what is relevant to the discussion here. Granted that he probably thinks of himself as being exceedingly masculine (like Wilcox, Geraghty, and Lowry in their own way), while the rest of see doughy cuckservatives playing at being the AMOG… but what is lacking in their lives that makes them think that screaming “I’m more of a man than all of you!” into the cyber-void is useful?

    I guess it’s that white-knighting impulse. Riding to the rescue of all the m’ladies out there who want to make sure than every single uterus is safe before the first testicle boards a lifeboat… and if a few extra men die in a real emergency… well, they get to be “Rose” from “Titanic,” which is even better than a wedding (the man’s grand romantic gesture of self-sacrifice comes without the lifetime of marriage to a beta, plus they get the drama of being part of a big, tragic, dangerous situation).

    Of course in his own mind he saves all the m’ladies and makes it out alive, to the cheers of all-and-sundry, who will publicly admire his courage and prowess, shame the cowardly and weak men he “bravely” killed, and shower him with attention and admiration (especially of the female sort).

    Never mind… I think I figured it out.

  55. Uncle Maffoo says:

    Toddy Cat:

    If past performance is any guide, Mr. Lowrey would be kicking aside pregnant women, the sick and aged, puppies, kittens, nuns, and anyone else who happened to get in the way while charging for the first rubber raft.

    Couldn’t help but think of this.

  56. Anonymous Reader says:

    Chad
    If I recall the film Titanic

    The 1990’s film was a feminist travesty. The historical inaccuracies in it would fill a book. In fact…it does, the 1955 book A Night to Remember by Walter Lord, an author who contacted and interviewed many survivors of the sinking.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/A_Night_to_Remember_(1958_film)
    https://infogalactic.com/info/A_Night_to_Remember_(book)

    Again, author Lord contacted as many survivors of the Titanic as he could find. It is the most accurate on the disaster anyone has ever written. The movie is therefore the most accurate film that will ever be made. There is minimal feminist territory-marking.

    The 1990’s film is garbage.

  57. Anon says:

    Toddy Cat,

    If past performance is any guide, Mr. Lowrey would be kicking aside pregnant women, the sick and aged, puppies, kittens, nuns, and anyone else who happened to get in the way while charging for the first rubber raft

    Then send that to his Twitter. Otherwise he will never see what you wrote.

  58. Anonymous Reader says:

    Speculum is essentially Latin for “The Examiner” or “The Observer.”

    That makes sense. Thanks.

  59. Anon says:

    Lyn87,

    Like I said, I’m a gym rat, so I’ve gotten to know some pretty big dudes, and a 300+ guy with mid-single-digit BF% would stand out even among the most buff of them.

    Oh, I have no doubt the NRO Cuckservative weighs 310 pounds. But I think he deliberately omitted a zero in his body fat %, so his 310 pounds is at 60% bodyfat, not the 6% he claimed.

    As I said, even the WWE, which actively recruits men of this size, has had hardly anyone who is 300+ and still ripped, in the last 30 years. The ones heavier than that are not ripped, and the ripped ones are smaller than that. For reference, Hulk Hogan was probably, in real life, in his prime, perhaps 6’4″ and 250 lbs, and he was not all that ripped…

    Dolph Lundgren was 6’5″ and 240….

    But hey, nothing should get between a cuckservative and his cartoonish chivalry…

  60. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Regarding the men who carried that women runner, one tweet said: She finished the race in an inspirational way…..on the shoulders of humanity.

    Well, NO. She did not finish on the shoulders of humanity. She finished on the shoulders of men.

    But I guess the tweeter just couldn’t bare crediting men for rescuing a Strong, Independent Woman. It had to be humanity itself (men and women) who did the rescuing.

  61. Lyn87 says:

    Red Pill Latecomer,

    Astute observation. Once you take the red pill it’s hard to not see that sort of thing all the time. I can’t help but notice that any time there is credit to be shared, and even one woman is even remotely involved, any reference is always to “the women and men…”, (Note 1) while any time there is blame to be had, not matter how many women are involved, any reference is to, “the men who…” (Note 2)

    Meanwhile, any time there are victims the reference is, “… primarily women and girls…” even when men and boys are harmed… even in greater numbers. (Note 3)
    ___________________

    Note 1: For example, military successes are always spoken of as the result of “the women and men of the armed forces” even though 99.999% of the credit belongs to men, and whatever was done by a woman could have easily been done by a man, and the presence of women actually hindered the operation.

    Note 2: For example, domestic violence is nearly always presented as a “man problem” even though women initiate it more often than men do.

    Note 3: Just the other day I ran across something about human trafficking and the narrator specifically said, “Primarily women” and then focused exclusively on female victims, although males make up more than 40% of human trafficking victims, and may well constitute the majority.
    __________________

    As far as the world is concerned, we are disposable… little (or nothing) more than sentient commodities to be closely controlled, used when convenient, and then discarded when our perceived usefulness has been expended. If not for the fact that it would require the cooperation of men, we would have something akin to the “Carousel” from Logan’s Run… but only for (non-alpha) men.

    We nearly have that now whenever disaster or war looms: men who fail to die on command (even when such deaths are totally gratuitous) are shamed for failing to do so, as this article shows.

  62. Dalrock says:

    @Anglosaxon

    It’s easy to tell other people from the safety of dry land to sacrifice themselves for others!

    Spot on. But there is an even uglier side of this. Lowry isn’t just egging other men on to sacrifice themselves, but he is using the sacrifice of other men, men who aren’t alive to speak for themselves, to puff himself up.

  63. Toddy Cat says:

    “Then send that to his Twitter. Otherwise he will never see what you wrote”

    That’s true enough. I’m sure that Lowrey doesn’t read this blog – or possibly, anything else.

  64. feministhater says:

    Maybe these men seen no other use for themselves but dying for women and society. Whether the battlefield or the sinking ocean liner, it matters not to them. They see no other use for men other than to sacrifice and eventually, die for women.

    It’s their loss, there is but life to live, death comes soon enough.

  65. CSI says:

    “That water tight bulkhead tech had been around for about 10 years prior to Titanic so it usually took several hours for a ship to sink…It was general practice to only equip a ship with enough boats to efficiently ferry passengers not to accomodate ALL passengers all at once)”

    Except when radio was non-existent or in its infancy, a ship in the open ocean probably wouldn’t be able to find another ship to ferry the passengers to. But then again people in life boats in the open ocean, particularly in bad weather, probably wouldn’t survive all that long anyhow. That is cold and pragmatic. It still seems like bad practice to have carried an insufficient number of lifeboats though.

    “Yes, it was a miracle that a cruise ship with over 4,000 souls on board sank at night with the loss of only 32 lives.”

    Even if the ship didn’t dramatically sink, we still can’t imagine how frightening and chaotic it must have been. If men panicking and trampling over others to get to safety was common then the death toll would have been much higher. Like on the Titanic, it seems this was actually very rare, if it even happened at all. Its just a rumor which has been mindlessly promulgated on the Internet to fit the agenda of Chivalry is Dead or that Men Just Aren’t Men Anymore.

    “Biology and the survival of the species weighs heavy on the subject. Simply put the survival of humanity is best served by preserving women and the next generation.”

    From that perspective though any woman over the age of 45 is going to have the very lowest priority for lifeboat space.

  66. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Interesting to notice how much “conservatives” love to see the Titanic shipwreck as something glorious because the women and children were spared from death, while the men stood in place and got what was coming to them. Rich Lowry did it here with his comparison to the Costa Concordia, but he’s far from the only one who likes to use that scenario as a paragon for “the way things ought to be.” A couple of years before the Concordia disaster, the one and only Al Mohler pulled it out for an even crasser comparison — to the sinking of the Lusitania during World War I.

    Both shipwrecks involved luxury ocean liners with civilian passengers, both took place within only a few years of each other, and both sank due to unforeseen circumstances (Lusitania was torpedoed by a German submarine, Titanic hit that iceberg). But according to Al, Titanic’s male passengers had an honorable finish and the Lusitania’s did not. Why? Because the Lusitania sinking occurred within minutes, while the Titanic took hours — and that extra time on the Titanic allowed the men to remember their place:

    The results told a revealing tale. Aboard the Titanic, children under 16 years old were nearly 31% likelier than the reference group to have survived, but those on the Lusitania were 0.7% less likely. Males ages 16 to 35 on the Titanic had a 6.5% poorer survival rate than the reference group but did 7.9% better on the Lusitania. For females in the 16-to-35 group, the gap was more dramatic: those on the Titanic enjoyed a whopping 48.3% edge; on the Lusitania it was a smaller but still significant 10.4%. The most striking survival disparity — no surprise, given the era — was determined by class. The Titanic’s first-class passengers had a 43.9% greater chance of making it off the ship and into a lifeboat than the reference group; the Lusitania’s, remarkably, were 11.5% less likely.

    What accounts for the difference? The researchers looked at several factors, but settled on one that appeared more obvious as they considered the question — the length of time it took the ship to sink. As the report explains, on the Lusitania “the short-run flight impulse dominated behavior. On the slowly sinking Titanic, there was time for socially determined behavioral patterns to reemerge.”

    Put plainly, on the Lusitania the male passengers demonstrated “selfish rationality.” As TIME explains, this is “a behavior that’s every bit as me-centered as it sounds and that provides an edge to strong, younger males in particular. On the Titanic, the rules concerning gender, class and the gentle treatment of children — in other words, good manners — had a chance to assert themselves.”

    He ignores that on the Lusitania the death percentages were actually pretty “egalitarian”, though the men were still more likely to perish, and women were still more likely to survive. But the disparities in both directions were far greater on the Titanic — and for Rev. Al, that’s something that should be celebrated. Bad men, demonstrating “selfish rationality” in a life-or-death situation! They should have known that resigning themselves to certain death while the females were spared would bring the greater glory to God. And perhaps their country, as well.

    At some point you start to suspect that what the chivalry brigades really want to see isn’t morality or honor, but human sacrifice. These same proud moderns would sneer at the ancient tribal priests who tossed virgins into a volcano in order to bring good fortune to their island’s crops, but after a tragedy like this, they’ll be the first to tally the dead and report back, saying, “Not enough dead males! We should expect this to cost our society greatly in the future.” The chivalry gods must be appeased!

    Al’s piece is here: http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/03/05/women-and-children-first-a-tale-of-two-ships/

  67. Anon says:

    At some point you start to suspect that what the chivalry brigades really want to see isn’t morality or honor, but human sacrifice.

    It is worse than that. They want the ratio of women/men to improve, because they think that will make women settle for them. They are wrong (below a certain attractiveness threshold, women prefer celibacy over settling for proximate omegas), but these cucks just want the ratio to work in a way they believe will rescue them from their bottom-ranking status.

  68. Hugh Mann says:

    You could argue that a sort of chivalry, in the form of the captain showing off to his girlfriend, may have been the prime cause of the Costa Concordia disaster.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Concordia_disaster

    “A further person on the bridge was a Moldovan dancer, Domnica Cemortan, who testified that she was in a romantic relationship with Captain Schettino and had just boarded the ship as a non-paying passenger.”

  69. Gunner Q says:

    Anon @ 9:52 am:
    “I find it funny that NRO itself hosts lengthy cuckservative cruises. Will these doughy slobs willingly die for the gratification of the small number of women on board, in the event of rocky seas?”

    Probably yes. Their problems go much deeper than hypocrisy. But the cruise thing is a good indicator of which demographic is consuming their cucky offerings.

    @ 1:05 pm:
    “But I think he deliberately omitted a zero in his body fat %, so his 310 pounds is at 60% bodyfat, not the 6% he claimed.”

    Perhaps he tracked the Twinkiefat separately.

    Jonadab-the-Rechabite @ 11:46 am:
    “WACF is an interesting study because there are many factors that influence it.

    “Biology and the survival of the species weighs heavy on the subject. Simply put the survival of humanity is best served by preserving women and the next generation.”

    The survival of humanity is best served by getting women and the next generation out of the way of man-business. That was the Birkenhead’s use of WACF. Had the Titanic followed suit, it would have loaded up the male passengers just as quickly. “Women, children and useless men first!”

    This is also the personal experience of most of the men reading this, I daresay. How’s your company doing now that the leadership is 51% female? Don’t worry, WidgetCo doesn’t do anything to protect women and children so it’s disposable just like you. Right? Or is it in women’s best interests to stay home and let you do your job, and maybe they should appreciate widgets more than they do?

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    “That water tight bulkhead tech had been around for about 10 years prior to Titanic so it usually took several hours for a ship to sink…It was general practice to only equip a ship with enough boats to efficiently ferry passengers not to accomodate ALL passengers all at once)”

    Watertight compartments did not extend all the way to the top deck, in order to preserve the very nice first class lounges, dining areas, etc. plus the hull was gashed through in multiple compartmented areas; this led to flooding beyond the design limit. Sister ship Britannic had improvements based on the Titanic disaster but was sunk during WW i by either a single mine or single torpedo. Flooding again exceeded the design limit.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/HMHS_Britannic
    That’s enough rabbit trailing for now.

  71. theasdgamer says:

    Heartiste has a new post about how single white women are political troublemakers, voting opposite to white men and married white women. This suggests “Man up and marry those sluts!” Support for TradCon from Heartiste, lol.

  72. Opus says:

    @m11nine

    The Olympic Games for the year 1908 were held in London and in the Marathon the first to enter the stadium was Italian Dorando Petri. Petri made life difficult for himself by first running the wrong way and then collapsing and doing so more than once. Two officials (both men) went to his aid and he, with their assistance crossed the finishing line first. The man who came in second – John Hayes of The United States of America – protested and Petri was disqualified. America was awarded the Gold Medal.

    It was incidentally because of certain anti-British behaviour by another American athlete Ralph Rose that the distance of the Marathon became set at Twenty Six Miles and Three Hundred and Eighty Five yards, but that is another story.

  73. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Latest oppression against women: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446146/united-airlines-girls-wearing-leggings-banned-pass-travelers

    United Airlines bars “pass travelers” from wearing leggings. A “pass traveler” is an airline employee, or dependent of, who flies for free.

    Women are outrage that, although they fly for free, they must adhere to a dress code to do so.

    Barring women who fly for free from being able to wear leggings has unleashed a Twitter storm of estrogen-fueled outrage.

  74. Anonymous Reader says:

    Back to the OP, those pundits includuing Mohler should lead by example. Find some way to sacrifice their physical lives in order to show us how it is done, or put a sock in it. Standing up in the cheap seats yelling “More sacrifice!” is appropriate to the Roman arena than any modern forum, including electronic. Because true self-sacrifice is not a spectator sport.

    asdgamer
    Heartiste has a new post about how single white women are political troublemakers, voting opposite to white men and married white women.

    Wow, breaking news. Every national election for over a generation a majority of the single women, the unmarried women, the babymommas vote for one party and a majority of married women vote for the other party. Pollsters have known this for 20, 25 years, or longer. It’s been mentioned here a time or five, as part of why the increasing number of unmarried babymommas is a multidimensional problem. But kudos to Heartiste for catching up to the political realities of the 1980’s.

  75. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Wall Street’s “Fearless Girl” statue has been issued a temporary permit, but now it can stay through 2018: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nycs-fearless-girl-statue-can-stay-2018-988911

    No surprise. I predict that “Fearless Girl” (as the statue is now called) become a permanent addition to the bull statue, thus forever ruining an established icon.

  76. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Puma responds to United Airlines’s “Leggingsgate” scandal by offering leggings discounts: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/puma-offers-discounts-leggings-united-airlines-leggingsgate-989500

  77. Hose_B says:

    WACF only makes sense in a group evacuation where the WAC is herded between a lead and rear force. Under evacuation of a village by foot for example, a small force of men would lead the herd leaving the larger group of men to defend and bring up the rear. Fear is allayed my the herd mentality of the collected females.
    This is also militaristic in nature as the lead and rear force are the authority, whether trained or not. In some cultures, this MAY have included women such as Nordic “shield maidens” or out of necessity, but they would have been rare.
    If there is no clear authority, a much better idea would be to stay in family groups.
    If true authority is in place (costa), then the non authority men would be part of the herd with their own wives and children. Keeping men with their wives and children would also make the refugee destination safer.

  78. Hose_B says:

    Clarification

    I in no way intended to imply that Costa Concordia showed good leadership or authority. Only as an example that on Costa, the shop personnel were the true authority and male passengers would be part of the “herd”

  79. Anonymous Reader says:

    United Airlines bars “pass travelers” from wearing leggings. A “pass traveler” is an airline employee, or dependent of, who flies for free.

    United was the first airline to extend benefits to same-sex partners. Now the NRO crew regard them as repressive for having a dress code on their aircraft. This is ironic.

  80. Spike says:

    Hose_B:

    ”If there is no clear authority, a much better idea would be to stay in family groups.
    If true authority is in place (costa), then the non authority men would be part of the herd with their own wives and children. Keeping men with their wives and children would also make the refugee destination safer”.

    -which is exactly what happened in the Costa Concordia evacuation. Men stayed with their families and evacuated with them on the life boats, hence the 99.95% survival rate, even when the captain had abandoned ship.
    It is only the feminists who were bleating at the time about WACF. That a man with a family should sacrifice himself for a fat, lazy, selfish, self-indulgent, ungrateful, perpetual victim – all that feminism produces in women – is beyond them to comprehend.

  81. Lyn87 says:

    Good link Rugby11,

    I left this comment:

    I could write a book without adequately covering everything there is to say about this topic, but I’ll just write this instead:

    Chivalry or equality.

    Pick one.

  82. BillyS says:

    Many airlines have rules on what employees and others travelling on such passes may wear while flying. My time doing that is fairly well in the past, but I recall the same for another well known airline. It also had “domestic partner benefits” at the time I worked there.

  83. Lyn87 says:

    AR,

    Example number 75,395,835,287,428 of why it never pays to kowtow to leftists/feminists/SJWs: no matter how much you ground you cede it will never be enough.

    This case in question is blindingly straightforward: people flying for free as guests of United employees are required to meet the corporate dress code for off-duty flight. Apparently even free tickets aren’t enough: girls and women must never be constrained in any way whatsoever. Even when they voluntarily accept trivial constraints as a condition getting something of significant value, it is somehow sexist to expect them to comply.

    Then again, we don’t hold women to much more serious things they volunteer to do in exchange for significant value (like their wedding vows), and we let encourage them to reneg on them despite the wreckage they cause when they break them, so I suppose it was inevitable that this would happen sooner or later.

    Some companies are trying to capitalize on United’s problem by feigning outrage, but the joke’s on them: the saying “She’s not yours – it’s just your turn” also applies to the wrath of feminists… their gnat-like attention span will find a different target soon enough, and piling on United today offers no protection from becoming their target du jour tomorrow.

  84. Lost Patrol says:

    @Lyn87

    I could write a book without adequately covering everything there is to say about this topic, but I’ll just write this instead:

    Chivalry or equality.

    Pick one

    I read through Rugby’s link myself. Your comment pierces to the heart of the matter. One of our problems – how many people will even understand what you mean?

  85. Anon says:

    But kudos to Heartiste for catching up to the political realities of the 1980’s.

    Heartiste is two often-contradictory blogs in one. For this reason, all the intelligent commenters of the past left (as did all women), with only Stormfront-type incel omega commenters remaining.

    He will, in the same week, say that white feminists deserve what they are about to get, while a couple days later saying that white unity is rising, and white women are about to get on board with white nationalism (hint : will never happen).

    But he is still much better than his commenters.

  86. Anonymous Reader says:

    Rugby, this is Dalrock’s blog, but let me again suggest that you include a bit of context with your tiny URL’s just so people know what they are clicking on.

    As for the link: Quillette? Pfft. Look at the About page:
    http://www.quillette.com/about/

    Ask yourself how much “free thought” is really going to be allowed there.
    I see Lyn87’s comment. It will be interesting to see if it stays up or vaporizes.

  87. feeriker says:

    I find it funny that NRO itself hosts lengthy cuckservative cruises. Will these doughy slobs willingly die for the gratification of the small number of women on board, in the event of rocky seas?

    God forgive me for saying this, but I would love to see them given the opportunity to try. Not that I want to see anyone die (I certainly don’t), but the vision of so much buffoonish, cartoonish, inept chivalry in one place by so many pathetic cucks would be side-splitting if someone were to catch it on video. Even more hilarious is the thought of these guys’ wives and girlfriends insisting that the doughboys board the lifeboats first, with them choosing to stay behind onboard with the bartenders, stewards, and “activities directors.”

  88. Lost Patrol says:

    As for the link: Quillette? Pfft. Look at the About page:

    Man, that’s good advice. ALWAYS look at the about page. Really must make that a habit.

    As the Old Cowboy said: A man will often enough reveal his bad intentions if you listen to him. Or in this case – young woman editor Claire. Cute chick though. You’ve got to give her that.

  89. Ray Manta says:

    Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:
    Think of this way if 1 man and 100 women lived alone on remote island the next year there might be 201 humans to carry on the species

    Bear Grylls did a TV show where men and women lived on separate islands. The men killed and ate vicious animals like a boar and a caiman, built beds and shelter, and were industrious and productive. The women got lost, starved/thirsted, and were almost completely feckless. No, I don’t think 1 man and 100 women on a remote island would be producing 100 children in one year.

  90. A bordo, cazzo says:

    What makes Concordia sinking so loathsome is the captain´s conduct. There´s a recording where someone tells him:” Vade a bordo, cazzo” (Come on board, prick). He left before it was done and the whole problem seems to have arisen because he wanted to boast by taking someone closer to his/her home. Anyone who asks for women first in a situation where there´s enough boats and the shore is close must be uninformed or dumb.

  91. feeriker says:

    No, I don’t think 1 man and 100 women on a remote island would be producing 100 children in one year.

    One man on a remote island, surrounded by that much naggy, panicky, needy estrogen?

    He would probably, after less than a week, either kill all but one or two of them out of sheer exasperation, or would swim out into the ocean as far as he could until exhausted and allow himself to drown or become shark food.

  92. Oh please, Dalrock. Lowry writes his poison pen diatribes for the Tribe. These are no boosters of romance or even of life. The Titanic analogy seems to go over your head. You have to understand these monsters and their gaslighting to understand this “Titanic” meme. On the Titanic, men deferred to women and children. WHITE MEN. Yeah, there you go. If you’ve wondered why our enemies went to such expense to dredge up an old story and make it such a Big Fucking Deal, its the old gaslight of Satan’s children. Make no mistake, its all part of Zardoz and his: “Surrender Dorothy” story of WHITE MALE SACRIFICE. Give us your women and children, White Man, we’ll rape more. Its not a Conspiracy, its an ancient EVIL PLAN.

  93. Q says:

    Ostensibly I’m easy on the eyes, muscular, handsome with a bit of an attitude, and reasonable, you know what women either love or hate… Someone at the gym said you don’t look your age and another person replied “his wife looks much better than him” the guy was a little astonished and said “really”!

    Anyway –

    This chick keeps sending me this – https://youtu.be/Lt6r-k9Bk6o

    I told my wife about it and she said fine as long as she cleans (big house) and does laundry…

    We’ve been best friends since we were kids, although I have had to be myself through the crazy BS, she knows she can be crazy, yet she has defend me from all attacks.

  94. BillyS says:

    Q,

    yet she has defend me from all attacks

    The crazy can be worked through if this is present. Too few women really know how to do this, or even want to do it, unfortunately.

  95. Hazelshade says:

    “Grace notes” before needless death? Reminds me of the “grace notes” my last chair trumpet buddy would rip while the director tried to count off a song. Only not funny.

  96. Tam the Bam says:

    @Lyn87
    “Good link Rugby11,
    I left this comment:”

    You’ll lolzlzl when clap eyes on wee Cherlie.
    He’s 19 (probably 20 now) and an undergrad Philosophy major at Edinburgh. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14226364.display/
    He’s the girlymanchild on the right, and definitely doesn’t weigh 750lbs at minus 3% bodyfat or whatever the other fool was asserting. I’d be surprised if he troubles the Gillette more than once a month.
    I’ll keep an eye out and give him a cheery wave, if I spot him when up the toon. The wee lamb. His mummy must be awful proud.

  97. Lyn87 says:

    Tam,

    I responded to one of the commenters and concluded with this. Is this correct?

    “Throwing a paddy at unarmed and unappreciated men for not queering some knife-wielding wanker’s pitch is a damp squib.”

    When in Rome, etc…

  98. Opus says:

    Totally off any topic to do with this blog but I must share this and it has nothing to do with the fact that today is Brexit Day (wonderful though that is – Article 50 having been triggered):

    I have just discovered the birth name of the Westminster Bridge Terrorist (last week in London). I not only knew the guy and represented him in Court on some wounding charge. I must have impressed for he later asked me to represent him on some other matter but I declined and as a result of that refusal he was in the habit of verbally abusing me and the last time our paths crossed he accused me of sleeping with his wife as a result of which so he said his marriage had broken down and he had lost his house. All black girls look the same to me so I cannot be sure and the same goes for black guys which Is why I could never tell him apart from any others which is how I came to get shouted at and unexpectedly. Could have knocked me down with a feather.

  99. Mark MacIntyre says:

    Bear Grylls did a TV show where men and women lived on separate islands. The men killed and ate vicious animals like a boar and a caiman, built beds and shelter, and were industrious and productive. The women got lost, starved/thirsted, and were almost completely feckless. No, I don’t think 1 man and 100 women on a remote island would be producing 100 children in one year.

    Keep in mind that modern women are quite a bit less useful than women of even a couple generations ago.

    Slight tangent next, triggered by your comment.

    I’ve noticed over the years that women do much better than men on vegetarian and vegan diets. I suspect that this is due to the fact that there would have been generations of women who had to forage for their own food while men were away for extended periods hunting or at war. They’d naturally eat a more vegetarian diet during this time. So I think it’s part of women’s DNA to be able to subsist without meat for long periods.

  100. Pingback: LARPing Lancelot | Dalrock

  101. Opus says:

    Is that a generally accepted literary term? – Grace Note. I had only previously come across the term as translations of two Italian words of slightly different musical import namely Acciaccatura and Appoggiatura. The former is not held to be necessary to the musical line whereas the latter is necessary by reason of temporal duration. Does one require the house band to perform as one is about to drown or is it optional?

  102. SirHamster says:

    @ Opus

    I must have impressed for he later asked me to represent him on some other matter but I declined and as a result of that refusal he was in the habit of verbally abusing me and the last time our paths crossed he accused me of sleeping with his wife as a result of which so he said his marriage had broken down and he had lost his house. All black girls look the same to me so I cannot be sure and the same goes for black guys which Is why I could never tell him apart from any others which is how I came to get shouted at and unexpectedly. Could have knocked me down with a feather.

    If this article is to be believed, his divorced wife is an attractive looking Briton.

    Seems to have remarried to a less attractive wife since, based on this other report.

  103. Ray Manta says:

    Mark MacIntyre says:
    Keep in mind that modern women are quite a bit less useful than women of even a couple generations ago.

    In our Hunter-Gatherer days women would perform tasks like making and breaking camp, foraging for food, and sewing clothing – under the direction of men. So yes, I understand that. But the difference in what the men did vs what the women did was so marked that I simply can’t believe that it’s not biologically rooted.

    I’ve noticed over the years that women do much better than men on vegetarian and vegan diets.

    I’d attribute this primarily to the benefits of a lower metabolism. Female vegans are subject to a whole set of health issues, along with amenorrhea. This by itself tells me that women are actually very poorly suited for such a diet. The same is true for raw foods – people can’t survive on a diet solely consisting of them.

    I suspect that this is due to the fact that there would have been generations of women who had to forage for their own food while men were away for extended periods hunting or at war.

    You mean periods of time where there were no able-bodied men? Any such tribe would be subject to attack by predators or men from other tribes coming in and poaching women. I suspect that they left behind some men at those times. Even a small group of armed teenagers led by an older man would be reason enough for a hungry leopard or bandits to go elsewhere.

  104. Mark MacIntyre says:

    @ Ray Manta:

    Female vegans are subject to a whole set of health issues, along with amenorrhea. This by itself tells me that women are actually very poorly suited for such a diet. The same is true for raw foods – people can’t survive on a diet solely consisting of them.

    I haven’t looked into research on this in a while, but I have observed women who absolutely flourished as vegans for a few months or so. Of course, it depends on the woman and the specific diet. It’s easy to screw up badly on a vegan diet.

    Men, on the other hand, tend to look sickly relatively quickly, unless they supplement heavily. I think this has to do with our hormonal differences.

    You mean periods of time where there were no able-bodied men? Any such tribe would be subject to attack by predators or men from other tribes coming in and poaching women. I suspect that they left behind some men at those times. Even a small group of armed teenagers led by an older man would be reason enough for a hungry leopard or bandits to go elsewhere.

    Right. Periods when meat was scarce and even absent for a short time.

  105. Ray Manta says:

    It’s easy to screw up badly on a vegan diet.

    The short, small guts and energy-hungry brains people have are surely a huge impediment to such a lifestyle.

    Right. Periods when meat was scarce and even absent for a short time.

    All the evidence I’ve seen is that those situations are very unstable and would quicly reduce to the women being predated upon and/or being poached by bands of men. Note the lack of “women-only” enclaves throughout the world.

  106. Q says:

    BillyS,

    Seems no matter what about every 4 months or so crazy happens, it just comes with the territory, hot wife has been sane for quite a while but I get in trouble from others for minding my own business to long, any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

  107. Q says:

    Billys,

    Thank you for your concern and I agree few women do, this last deal she was very helpful, it was the girl I married…I have a daughter in law that can be very helpful, she loves me and wants to do stuff all the time, yet she gave me directions today and I drove 15 minutes in the wrong direction and 15 minutes back then 20 minutes to meet my friend who just got diagnosed with ALS, it was stressful and a good reminder. Any advice is always appreciated.

  108. Q says:

    BillyS, I should probably include the meeting with my friend went better than expected even though I was late, there was a group of us us going and they had a couple of beers by the time I got there…He’s very depressed but working through it. He’s an athlete so this is … and has a wife he’s worried about. This isn’t what I meant by attacks on me…

  109. Opus says:

    @Sir Hamster

    I am not entirely sure what to make of it: As I recall he may have been married when I knew him and to a black girl (who I may have slept with). His 90s wife is however what appears to be a middle class white woman and an entrepeneur at that. Since then he seems to have been married but briefly to a Muslim. If I may say so I would have thought him too stupid to be a terrorist. He (Adrian Ajao) was Mr Angry. I see that the Sun have been talking to Mark Ashdown about him. I think I must have first come across the Ajao via Mark (another of my clients).

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s