You are describing a fantasy which may have applied to a very limited circle of women – white, upper middle class ones. Most of what you said is not true globally. More women die as a result of childbirth+occupational injuries than men from occupational injuries. When there is a shortage of food, women are more often undernourished (60% of the world’s hungry are female). Throughout most of the world and most of history, women are thought of as resilient to mistreatment, capable of hard agricultural labor, or simply disposable. For example, over 70% of adult asylum seekers in the EU in 2014 are male (cite). That means family resources disproportionately went into sponsoring men’s departure seeking a better life. Women and children are left behind to starve. This scenario has played out repeatedly in regions of unrest, war, famine, etc.
Absolutely fascinating. I’ll have to look into this more. As a white female, I understand that my opinion is biased, even if unintentionally so. Thank you for the links.
I would say that we measure a man’s worthiness by how useful he is to society.
We measure a woman’s worthiness by how useful she is to men.
Yes. It has nothing to do with gender roles. (I don’t favor “women first,” for that matter, although I’ll give grudging precedence to children. Cute little buggers are wired to engender sympathy from adults.) It has to do with the fact that I love him so much, I’m really not sure I’d want to continue living without him. No melodrama, just fact. If I could contrive some mechanism short of straight out suicide to predecease him, I’d do it. It’s completely selfish, and he wouldn’t thank me for it at all, but there it is.
Does it not rather mean that men are being forced out as being surplus to requirements?
I’d die for my son. That’s it.
The Birkenhead drill is not a good example, because actually women and children die to a much larger extent than men in maritime disasters.
I don’t know who sacrifices more often for who overall, but ‘Women and children first’ is a chivalrous idea that’s not always followed.
The point is that they are given the opportunity to preferentially survive, not that they actually do.
Women put huge resources into each child, relative or absolute, emotional, energy, strength, life expectancy. They only get so many chances to fulfill the genetic imperative.
There’s something I’ve just remembered: at least in regards to the UK, those who are allowed residence are allowed to bring in dependants. So it makes sense for the (disposable) men to take the risk while the women remain relatively safe.
The countries they are fleeing are experiencing war or famine. How are women safe?
Whenever there is a region of severe economic depression, war, or famine, the men – who tend to be physically stronger and less likely to be responsible for small children – leave. Sometimes the men, once settled and thriving, bring the women they left behind. Sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they die in the process. This report describes various studies showing that men and women die due to armed conflicts in different time frames and for different reasons, but ultimately at similar rates.
They’re not coming from war or famine countries. They’re coming from camps in Turkey, Jordan or Lebanon. And the reason it’s mostly men is that it’s too dangerous for women who have other additional concerns to worry about (rape, being sold into prostitution, etc), also its physical taxing.
Are they given the opportunity? From my link:
It’s not that every ship followed “women and children first” and for some unfortunate reason women and children still died in higher numbers. It’s that “women and children first” wasn’t actually followed in most instances.
I really don’t think that looking only at 18 sinkings represents a decent sample.
No.
I’m certain my wife wouldn’t. Hell, she wouldn’t even save my ass over the kids she watches!
It’s a question I asked of her playfully once:
“Ok, we’re on a boat with T and J”.
“Why?”
“We’re on vacation, and we’re on a lake on a boat”
“No. I don’t like boats.”
“Can you just go long with this. It’s hypothetical.”
“If it’s hypothetical it’s pointless”
“No, I just want to see how much you love me”
“Well, alright. I guess I do love you enough to go out on a boat with you. But only once”
“Well, that’s not not the whole… ok… so’were on a boat with T an J and we all fall overboard”
“THAT’s why I don’t like boats!”
“Well, yeah, ok, so we’re overboard, who do you save first?”
“What do you mean? You can swim! I’ll get T and J back in the boat.”
“ok… uhm we’re actually tied up”
“Why?”
“I don’t know, woman! We just are! Now who you gonna rescue?”
“All of you.”
“No, there’s no time, you have to pick someone”
::no hesitation:: “T and J”.
“WHAT?!”
“They never would have made me go on a boat.”
So seriously, I would rather she not. I would give my life up for our son in a heartbeat, and he needs her.
NO, this means that the men have gone on ahead to the Land of Opportunity (i.e., a Land where there are more Opportunities-not a lot of job openings in Herza and Govina, I suspect; do you have any input on new Syrian job openongs???) to WORK like a slave and bring his loved ones (Women and Children) over.
Never occurred to you, did it?
From the third page of that report:
So, no, women don’t die more often in conflicts; men do. Women die more often after conflicts. Probably because many of the men are already dead and can’t die again.
I like this person.
Here are two historical examples:
Christian Davies pretended to be a man and fought in the army for years and tears so she could look for her lost husband. Her life story is so crazy and melodramatic it should be a movie. They’d have to tone it down to make it more believable.
When she learned her husband died on the Eastern Front, Mariya Oktyabrskaya sold all her possessions, bought a tank, named it “the fighting girlfriend,” and signed up to kill as many Nazis as she could. She won the Hero of the Soviet Union medal in the process. She died while repairing her tank in the field. That should count for something.