My 34 year old daughter seriously doubted today's males would allow the women and children to go first in a similar incident today. I did not have an answer and the Concordia's captain was clearly a rather strong point on her side.
However, I recently heard that during the Islamic attack in Paris 2015, in the Bataclan, several boyfriends covered their girlfriends with their body to protect them from the bullets. So chivalry is still present in some of today's men.
As a side note, what I always found most intriguing was that it is "women and children first" instead of "children and women first"
This article made me think a lot about my own personal reactions to the Hollywood version of the past. I like Titanic, it’s a good film, but what I hate about it (and many other films) is the cartoonish clumsy way it flags the social and sexual divisions of the past. So when I’m watching it, I’m thinking how clunky and facile it is about social issues - Jack saying “that’s so we know where we rank”, Rose bemoaning that her lot is “unfair”. These are exactly the things a MODERN person would say about 1912. And the “villains” are saying ridiculous things that surely no one in 1912 would have thought to say, even if they did look down on the lower orders.
But the article made me rethink a bit. Obviously other people don’t get annoyed like I do. Maybe getting annoyed is missing the point. Maybe it’s fair enough to cartoonishly emphasise the things that are different- maybe that’s the point. It’s a parable. I’m reacting in the wrong register- it’s not a history movie, it’s a story set in the past.
Women and children first maximizes fitness at the group level. A single man can impregnate many women.
There are very few old people up until modern times. Life expectancy in 1912 England was like 50, which would be much higher than most of human existance.
The concept of productivity is a very modern invention. Before the Industrial Revolution everyone is about as productive as anyone else and we are all up against the Malthusian edge no matter what anyway.
Worse in Titanic's economic morality: Rose self-indulgently throws overboard a priceless necklace. If she was really concerned about all those people in steerage this asset could have gone a long way to helping improve some lives.
In April of 1912, the water is very cold, almost freezing. So why do Jack and Rose go about the ship in and out of the water surging in to the ship with no ill effects?
In a situation of survival, doesn't "women and children" make sense? A society's' capacity for reproduction is far more dependent on the number of women (and future adults) than it is on adult males (of whom you only need a relative few). A more rational policy might be, "women of child-bearing age, and children, with a preference for girls over boys", but that seems like a mouthful 🤣
Slave Morality vs Master Morality (male vs female)
1) Before the agricultural revolution, slave morality. The most "natural" morality for Homo Sapiens. Don't believe me. Go see some chimps in the zoo.
2) The agricultural revolution brought us Master Morality.
3) Master Morality was a malthusian adaptation and a malthusian dead end.
4) Slave Morality liberated the 90%+ of society (95%+ of both genders) to participate in meritocracy.
I remember a line from C.S. Lewis. The pilots and mechanics of the Battle of Britain were the "intelligencia of the proletariate". The people who defeated the Kerensky Government were drunk fools.
5) The modern era was a transition period where "christian mercy" was a "marginal revolution".
6) The post war era exposed the "diminishing returns" of extending that mercy from the "contextual underclass" to the "absolute underclass".
> Modern cruise ships got rid of steerage by getting rid of poor passengers altogether!
Aren't ships the wrong reference category, since they are no longer much used for practical transportation of passengers? Probably travel by air, a more common option now, would be more appropriate choice. The price you give for a Titanic ticket is 7 British pounds in 1912; according to https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator that's equivalent to 632.8 pounds today; at the current exchange rate of 1.217 US dollars per British pound, that's equivalent to about $770 in modern US dollars. Meanwhile, http://archive.today/2023.03.14-171806/https://www.travelocity.com/Flights-Search?filters=%5B%7B%22numOfStopFilterValue%22:%7B%22stopInfo%22:%7B%22stopFilterOperation%22:%22EQUAL%22,%22numberOfStops%22:0%7D%7D%7D,%7B%22numOfStopFilterValue%22:%7B%22stopInfo%22:%7B%22stopFilterOperation%22:%22EQUAL%22,%22numberOfStops%22:1%7D%7D%7D,%7B%22numOfStopFilterValue%22:%7B%22stopInfo%22:%7B%22numberOfStops%22:2,%22stopFilterOperation%22:%22GREATER_THAN_EQUAL%22%7D%7D%7D%5D&leg1=from:London%20(LHR-Heathrow),to:New%20York,%20NY%20(NYC-All%20Airports),departure:6/1/2023TANYT&mode=search&options=carrier:*,cabinclass:,maxhops:1,nopenalty:N&passengers=adults:1,children:0,infantinlap:N&sortOrder=INCREASING&sortType=PRICE&trip=oneway lists the minimum price of a plane ticket across the Atlantic as just $443.
Curiously, the heroine, now grown old, does something no woman I’ve ever known would ever do.
My 34 year old daughter seriously doubted today's males would allow the women and children to go first in a similar incident today. I did not have an answer and the Concordia's captain was clearly a rather strong point on her side.
However, I recently heard that during the Islamic attack in Paris 2015, in the Bataclan, several boyfriends covered their girlfriends with their body to protect them from the bullets. So chivalry is still present in some of today's men.
As a side note, what I always found most intriguing was that it is "women and children first" instead of "children and women first"
This article made me think a lot about my own personal reactions to the Hollywood version of the past. I like Titanic, it’s a good film, but what I hate about it (and many other films) is the cartoonish clumsy way it flags the social and sexual divisions of the past. So when I’m watching it, I’m thinking how clunky and facile it is about social issues - Jack saying “that’s so we know where we rank”, Rose bemoaning that her lot is “unfair”. These are exactly the things a MODERN person would say about 1912. And the “villains” are saying ridiculous things that surely no one in 1912 would have thought to say, even if they did look down on the lower orders.
But the article made me rethink a bit. Obviously other people don’t get annoyed like I do. Maybe getting annoyed is missing the point. Maybe it’s fair enough to cartoonishly emphasise the things that are different- maybe that’s the point. It’s a parable. I’m reacting in the wrong register- it’s not a history movie, it’s a story set in the past.
Women and children first maximizes fitness at the group level. A single man can impregnate many women.
There are very few old people up until modern times. Life expectancy in 1912 England was like 50, which would be much higher than most of human existance.
The concept of productivity is a very modern invention. Before the Industrial Revolution everyone is about as productive as anyone else and we are all up against the Malthusian edge no matter what anyway.
Regarding point #12: Would you let your 17 year old (Rose's age in the movie) run off with someone she's known for 2 days?
Worse in Titanic's economic morality: Rose self-indulgently throws overboard a priceless necklace. If she was really concerned about all those people in steerage this asset could have gone a long way to helping improve some lives.
But hey, if you can't put a price on closure...
I'm #TeamCal
In April of 1912, the water is very cold, almost freezing. So why do Jack and Rose go about the ship in and out of the water surging in to the ship with no ill effects?
The libertarian anti-feminist deconstruction of mass media! :)
There is an interesting comparison between Titanic and modern cruise ships here : https://cruisenonstop.com/cruise-tips-and-guides/titanic-compared-to-cruise-ship/
In a situation of survival, doesn't "women and children" make sense? A society's' capacity for reproduction is far more dependent on the number of women (and future adults) than it is on adult males (of whom you only need a relative few). A more rational policy might be, "women of child-bearing age, and children, with a preference for girls over boys", but that seems like a mouthful 🤣
Slave Morality vs Master Morality (male vs female)
1) Before the agricultural revolution, slave morality. The most "natural" morality for Homo Sapiens. Don't believe me. Go see some chimps in the zoo.
2) The agricultural revolution brought us Master Morality.
3) Master Morality was a malthusian adaptation and a malthusian dead end.
4) Slave Morality liberated the 90%+ of society (95%+ of both genders) to participate in meritocracy.
I remember a line from C.S. Lewis. The pilots and mechanics of the Battle of Britain were the "intelligencia of the proletariate". The people who defeated the Kerensky Government were drunk fools.
5) The modern era was a transition period where "christian mercy" was a "marginal revolution".
6) The post war era exposed the "diminishing returns" of extending that mercy from the "contextual underclass" to the "absolute underclass".
https://www.mattball.org/2023/02/sexism-part-1-plus-homophobia-plus.html
https://www.mattball.org/2023/02/sexism-part-2.html
https://www.mattball.org/2023/03/sexism-part-3-insidious-and-unrecognized.html