A few years ago, I was your typical office-worker: stressed out, uneven energy, overweight, and inconsistent complexion. Now I'm just your typical 28-year old urban hunter-gatherer on a quest to be healthy, and having a few adventures along the way. See my full bio.
Which statement do you believe to be true?
Choose.........wisely. I'll give you some space to decide before scrolling down.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
If you answered (C), a man's life and a woman's life are worth equal amounts, then I'm sure you won't have a negative reaction to what happened on the Italian cruise ship that sunk recently.
"Survivors from the Costa Concordia spoke angrily yesterday of the nightmare evacuation from the stricken ship as women and children were left behind. In the terrifying moments after the giant vessel began to list, fights even broke out to get into the lifeboats. Men refused to prioritise women, expectant mothers and children as they pushed themselves forward to escape. Crew ignored their passengers – leaving ‘chefs and waiters’ to help out.
Compare with what happened on the Titanic during that evil era of Victorian patriarchy. From an analysis of Titantic casualties (my highlighting):
"First of all, if you were a man, you were outta luck. The overall survival rate for men was 20%. For women, it was 74%, and for children, 52%. Yes, it was indeed “women and children first.”
But what about class? Well, third class women were 41% more likely to survive than first class men. And third class men were twice as likely to survive as second class men."
Those rich white Victorian men were so sexist that they actually believed a woman's life was worth more than a man's life. What fools.
Good thing we know better.
-------------
The Italian link I got from Vox Populi (You've come a long way, baby). The Titanic link I got from Dalrock (Chivalry on the Titanic).
Comments
New light:
New light: www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/04/sea-disasters
In 8 degree C water, women
In 8 degree C water, women who naturally have higher body fat percentages and higher pain tolerences would likely survive the swim to shore more readily than men and children. Of course men have higher body mass to surface area ratios and thus retain heat somewhat efficiently. It's probably close.
Obviously logic escapes you.
Obviously logic escapes you. (look up logical fallacies and you can make a game in the # you blow through in this post). <br>For instance, everyone would of course say that men and women have equal value, and they would be correct. And in a life or death situation, everyone would say that men should indeed put a women's life ahead of man's (children always come first). Why? Frankly, and this may sound sexist, but as a married father of 2, I would rather make sure my family is taken care of and I would have to fend for myself. Why? Becuase A. that is my job as the father B. I am WAY more likely to survive than either of my kids or my wife if the situation were reversed and C. I could not imagine living with myself is I lived and they died (selfish reason). <br> And that is how men should react normally with women and children involved, but that doesn't happen b/c there are so many selfish and weak people. You can disguise it however you want, but it is selfish and it is weak. And it may sound sexist to believe I am more capable of surviving than my wife and kids, but that is obvious and a fact. So, when I do the math (and that is all I'm really doing) the odds of my entire family coming out intact is that the wife and kids are taken care of before me. So, statistically speaking, take care of the kids first, women second and men (myself) third and that is just plain, hard math. <br> Now, if it comes down to me vs you (man vs man), well, fuck you, I'm taking care of me first and you can go to hell. Why? Because the #1 thing I care about is my family and I am far more important to my family that you are so, see ya at the bottom, I'm taking the life vest.
What about the elderly?
What about the elderly? They're weak. Or people who can't swim? Why isn't the command: "People who can't swim and people who can't swim very well"? That would be the most relevant rule if it were truly about strength and weakness. /// Incidentally, I don't disagree with how you'd behave. I'd behave in the same way. I'm just pointing out that chivalry, as a general rule, is dead.
Of course, it's important to
Of course, it's important to remember that men of the Victorian and Edwardian periods lived by code in shame cultures. They didn't make calculations. In fact, calculation per se would probably have been regarded as shameful under most circumstances regardless of the outcome. I'm not down on shame, just wondering how this post relates to living wild in the modern world, since neither h-g societies nor the modern world conform well to Victorianism. More thinking on how to re-create circumstances for virtuous behavior in books like Dependent Rational Animals by McIntyre.
I'm intrigued by evolved
I'm intrigued by evolved cultural rules and practices. Consider cultures from a Darwinian perspective. Since the Ag Rev, having a larger population was a huge advantage to competing societies. The number of (young) women you have is much more strongly related to the size of the next generation than the number of men. (One man can impregnate multiple women.) Societies that protected women from dangerous jobs would have most likely seen faster population growth and more competitive success. It's about how cultures exploit men and women.
Evolutionary arguments aside,
Evolutionary arguments aside, the reason that *EDWARDIAN* men held to the "women and children first" ideals was that they were convinced that women were helpless and good for nothing but baking tarts and raising children (and that only partially, and those tarts had better not be for anyone important). Simply because some ideals of past generations happen to fit an evolutionary paradigm doesn't mean that those ideals were rationalized by those who adhered to them for evolutionary reasons. In this case, I think it's largely coincidence. A lot of other Edwardian attitudes towards women were completely bizarre from an evolutionary perspective - corsetting, lack of physical exertion, limited education, prudish sexual mores - none of these does anything for reproductive success. In fact the vast majority of upper-class Edwardian habits were very much counterproductive, which is partly why the lower and middle classes were much more successful, reproductively speaking. That's way too simplistic and of course there are socioeconomic factors encouraging higher rates of childbirth in those with fewer financial resources but still - a corset and the strength of an anemic hamster never helped anyone with the baby-making.
Actually, if you look at
Actually, if you look at British history during the industrial revolution, middle and upper class families had more children than lower class ones. I think Robert Fogel wrote about this, or perhaps another economist. // Corsetting accentuates the waist-to-hip ratio in women, a sign of fertility // Higher levels of education drive smaller family size. // Prudish sexual mores doesn't necessarily imply fewer children. We have permissive sexual mores today, but that doesn't mean people have more children.
You're thinking of Gregory
You're thinking of Gregory Clark's A Farewell to Alms I think.
Yes, exactly. Thanks for
Yes, exactly. Thanks for that.
liked the post. very thought
liked the post. very thought provoking. however, choosing C does not mean you agree with men acting like jerks. if men/women are equal a man's superior strength should not guarantee his safety ahead of women and children who are not as strong. that is an amazing story and it makes you wonder which way we are evolving...
liked the post. very thought
liked the post. very thought provoking. however, choosing C does not mean you agree with men acting like jerks. if men/women are equal a man's superior strength should not guarantee his safety ahead of women and children who are not as strong. that is an amazing story and it makes you wonder which way we are evolving...
Here is an example of someone
Here is an example of someone that gave up their lifevest for their wife if you hadn't already seen it.http://www.theblogismine.com/2012/01/17/costa-concordia-disaster-husband...
I did see that, very touching
I did see that, very touching
You're forgetting the order,
You're forgetting the order, John. It's "women and children first," and setting the speculative paleontology aside, I think it has more to do with saving children -- always a priority -- and making sure the ones who care for them go along. Most societies recognize the unique bond between a woman and her child. Imagine a man taking an infant from his wife and stepping into a lifeboat ahead of her. I'm sure it's happened in some shitbag culture somewhere, but none I'd care to be a part of.
I agree on the rationale for
I agree on the rationale for saving children, but the same rationale applies for women -- the future population of a society depends more directly on the number of women, not the number of men. Even if 10% of the adult male population dies in a war, a society can have a full-sized subsequent generation. (It's easy for a limited number of men to produce enough sperm to impregnate many females.) If 10% of the adult female population dies in a war, then that society will likely have a smaller population. So I basically think that cultures which evolved rules to protect women and children won out over cultures that didn't. // As for a unique bond between mother and child, I would say that there is an equally unique (if different) bond between father and child. Look at the social outcomes of children raised by single moms -- not pretty. The mother-child bond is necessary, but not sufficient to raise well-adjusted children.
Those fucking bastards. Men
Those fucking bastards. Men are meant to protect women, not shove them away to save themselves.
Quite right you are. Men
Quite right you are. Men should protect women. Except Sarah. She's on her own.
If you're going to ask about
If you're going to ask about "worth" as you do, define it from the outset as worth in an evolutionary sense. Then of course women are worth more, but who is the strawman that would disagree? I worry that this blog is slipping from paleo and health to glib reactionary sociopolitical commentary. You can obviously do what you want with your blog, but I'd encourage you to consider how and why hunter-gatherer.com developed a strong brand.
I gotta blog about what I'm
I gotta blog about what I'm passionate about, and I'm bored as all hell with diet. A paleo diet gets you 80% of the way there, and then just do whatever works based on experimentation. Now I'm exploring how to come to grips with our evolutionary past in the modern world. This is part of that. Part of my journey.
I have to reject your frame
I have to reject your frame that giving someone priority for lifeboats is equivalent to valuing their life more. I can pick "C" and still be disgusted by selfishness. I also don't see how the selfishness is particularly related to sexism other than that it's actually more sexist, IMO, to presume that women need a lifeboat.As humans, we like to think we give priority in evacuations to people who would be least likely to survive on their own (children and the elderly before young or middle-aged adults, the sick before the healthy, parents before the childless, etc., etc.) but that tends to go out the window when it hits the fan and our maternal/paternal and self-preservation instincts take over. It's possible to suppress those enough to let someone else go in front of you, but it's hardly a given, and I bet that if you wanted to dig you could find similar reports of men shoving past women and children to get to lifeboats on the Titanic.Also, the pure Darwinists would probably say that the highest-value lives are the men and women of child-creating age who are strong enough and healthy enough to swim to shore and/or tread water until help arrives. Or the ones who considered the risks of taking a cruise and decided it wasn't worth it.
If you follow the Titanic
If you follow the Titanic link, you'll find evidence that there were actually many more lifeboat spots than got used, primarily because the women were too afraid to get into them. Even so, the men stayed back and waited, trying to encourage them to get in. // In your list of people less likely to survive, then you'd have to add women, since survival in a sinking ship situation is more physically demanding // As for pure Darwinianism (in terms of group competition, not individual genetic), girls or women still of child-bearing age are the most important to save because the size of the next generation mostly depends on the number of women, not men. Cultures that protected women from danger grew larger and were probably more likely to win in conflicts with other smaller groups.
Hey John,I'm really interestd
Hey John,I'm really interestd in this new direction that you're going in. But just want to throw out a warning -- I used to go to Athol's site along with a few others (inc Hooking Up Smart - by a women, no less!). I had to stop because of 2 reasons: the tone taken by the authors could at times be unfairly negative to woman (making blanket statements such as "all women..."; making snarky but undefendable remarks, etc.); and because a LOT of the comments were extremely misogynist. There were huge flame-ups and the men just seemed to use the Comments section as an excuse to yell and get "tough" with women (the understanding that I have is that they prob wouldn't THINK of using that language or tone in "real life" -- that the Comment because an angry outlet as opposed to a place to reach consensus). So, my warning is to be careful and take firm control of this -- you are being read by strong, powerful PALEO women (not just dudes!). I've seen the other blogs turn into sausage factories because the we girls just couldn't take the bullies and left. I don't want to have to leave another site, esp because it's PALEO! Please stay FAIR and REMEMBER that you are preaching Paleo (which stands for strong and powerful) first -- ladylike and dainty just can't mesh with deadlifts and sprints! Hahaha. The ladies in Paleo are cool chicks that take responsibility. Rather than a "guy vs. girl" thing that tehse debates often devolve to, maybe it's better as a "paleo vs. SAD" thing as it relates to gender dynamics - when I ate SAD, I was a bitch! My husbad was a wuss. We started eating Paleo, and I became calm and awesome (hahaha) and he got some balls. Just some thoughts.
Thanks for the thoughts, I'll
Thanks for the thoughts, I'll try to police and keep it from getting off-putting. I will say that I don't think PALEO stands for strong and powerful, per se, though that's part of it. Ultimately, I think it stands for using our evolutionary biology to make healthier decisions in the modern world. When it comes down to it, my attitude with food is my same attitude with marriage or sex relations: do whatever works.
Why don't we forget about
Why don't we forget about whether a man or a woman's life is more valuable and look at this from a stand point of who is capable of helping someone weaker than themselves in an emergency. This could mean women helping children before they help themselves or men helping women before saving themselves. The value question is irrelevant. The real question should be about strength - mental and physical - in a disaster. Are you strong enough to help yourself and those weaker than you in a disaster? Yes? Ok, WILL you or CAN you help in a disaster? I guess the majority of men on the cruise ship didn't feel they could. But I also suspect the majority of humans on the cruise ship didn't feel they could. How many children were left on their own? This says far more about humans and character than men and women and life value.
There's an evolutionary
There's an evolutionary reason for "women and children first" that I'll go into in a later post. // On the Titantic, it wasn't a matter of strong or weak -- there were only so many spots in the lifeboats.
Same argument as why men are
Same argument as why men are in combat roles preferentially over women (and I'm a woman and ex-Navy, and still agree with this): one man with 7 women left alive can produce 7 children in a 9-month period; one woman with 7 men can, at most (without significant medical assistance) probably produce 2.
Bingo
Bingo
that's the boring
that's the boring evolutionary explanation. Some other posters got it right: it is much likelier that a man survives in the water awaiting a rescue boat than a woman or child. I hope some of those men who pushed women and children out of the way heads got bashed in
Ah ah you got me !Children
Ah ah you got me !Children are another story but yes I believe in the C) statement so in case of real danger I should think about myself more than about a anonymous woman.Hope this will never happen.