iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Juliette Fretté

GET UPDATES FROM Juliette Fretté
 

Women and Children First? The Wishful Thinking of Titanic Dynamics

Posted: 04/22/2012 6:26 pm

With the revitalization of Titanic 3D in theaters recently, we re-inscribe visions of romantic yesteryears -- when women were pretty pets of rich men or otherwise living property. But hey, at least they received preferential treatment in life or death ship disasters!

Yay.

Yet, this is not exactly how it went down -- no pun intended -- even in the context of the celebrated film, as women and children of lower classes are shown trapped or otherwise disregarded inside the ship as it plunges through the depths of the Atlantic.

No, 'women and children first' is not exactly a widespread maritime mandate, but more of an optional act of chivalry perpetuated around the time of Titanic, as such doctrine in fact guided the loading process of the life boats.

But nowadays, the honorable but unofficial rule is not exactly alive and well. In fact, Italian cruise liners pointedly defied preferential treatment as the Costa Concordia sank this past Jan. 13, 2012. Indeed, many men and crew members opted to save themselves in lieu of women and children.

This is bad, isn't it?

Well: maybe not. But it may not be good either.

Either way you look at it, nobody likes the idea of a sinking ship in which women and children are left to die. Still, who would prefer the alternative: that men -- husbands, fathers, brothers -- are left to die either?

If we really want an equal society, we might need to accept that no gender group or socio-economic class be allowed to receive first dibs on being saved. Not women, not men, and especially not the purported first class who can pay for the finest accommodations on board (which is primarily how Titanic chose its survivors). In a climate of 'the 99 percent versus the 1 percent,' many would argue that our distribution of wealth is inherently unequal anyway.

Yes, if we want true equality, we must accept that everyone should have an equal opportunity for survival in disaster scenarios.

Still, there exists one exception that most of us can agree upon: putting children first.

As a group, the young are without question more vulnerable and innocent than adults and thus tug at our heart strings. And though most across the political spectrum can reach a rational consensus to safeguard children above gender, race, and class, does it actually happen? If we diverge from the topic of ship disasters and the like, we actually find that children and young people are still not first even though most of us believe they should be.

As evidenced by U.S. military spending versus education spending, the rising costs of colleges and universities vis à vis student loan debt, the general state of social services for families versus corporate tax breaks, the degraded environment and corresponding pollution our children will inherit, or even how mothers are treated in the workplace as they try to raise and nurture their own families, we can easily deduce that children are definitely not first. Despite the fact that they are the most important creatures in our hearts and minds, our collective political actions speak violently otherwise.

Thus America easily posits itself as a sinking ship. And now we poignantly ask ourselves: are we throwing our own kids overboard?

 

Follow Juliette Fretté on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JulietteFrette

FOLLOW POLITICS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:52 PM on 04/22/2012
“We,” throwing our own kids overboard? Let us get the facts straight. Men are more involved with their kids and the well being of their neighborhoods than ever before. Whether it is by choice or not doesn’t really matter. What does matter is, that he is. Women on the other hand are far less involved, and that is in the majority of cases the woman's own choice. It is women that are throwing their kids overboard by putting their own independence before anything else.
Make no mistake about it. Women get the men they create – the kids too, and independence does cost, doesn’t it?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the concept, for both sexes, but I can’t help but think things were a tad better when women put kids first, and men put women first.
photo
minto
you know what they say about opinions...
02:35 AM on 04/23/2012
I don't think it was better. The trouble was that it was pretend. People had to fit into the roles that society told them to and if they didn't fit that was too bad. Now we are able to be who we are. For instance, my husband is a wonderful cook. He is one of those people who can smell a spice and know what food it goes with. I need a recipe and a smoke detector. A couple of generations ago, I would have had to cook because that was my role and our whole family would have had to suffer.

Now, he cooks because he loves it and I can clean and organize because that is what I am good at. We both have worked and stayed home with kids at different times in our lives so we both have had the chance to experience everything life has to offer and our kids are close to both of their parents. I think it is better now.
08:17 AM on 04/23/2012
Sorry minto, but I disagree. Think it was real back then and pretend now. Love towards kids, or a partner for that matter, is not about giving it when you have a need to give it. It is not about pulling ones load when it suits you. It is not about living your life because you want to experience all what life has to offer. It is about giving love when the other one needs it, and living a life because you have a genuine desire to do what is best for somebody else. Now days it seems to be all about, when I want, when I need, what is best for me. But, to camouflage the fact that we are becoming more and more self-centered, we pretend it is about the other.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying you should think less of yourself than others. I’m not saying you should undermine your own abilities, emotions or needs. I’m simply pointing out that you have the freedom to not think of yourself at all, and put the ones you love in focus, when it suits them, and not you.
07:53 AM on 04/23/2012
While I agree (younger) fathers are more involved in their child's lives than ever it is ridiculous to opine women are less so. In the majority of homes in the US, women are still the primary care givers of children (and spouses) regardless of whether they work or not. This has not changed.

"Women get the men they create – the kids too, and independence does cost, doesn’t it? "

And then there is this precious tidbit where you blame the way men are, on women. smh Women can never win can they?
photo
elbzee
Fear is the mind-killer
08:24 AM on 04/23/2012
Surely not with Mark. Methinks he's got issues.
09:28 AM on 04/23/2012
I’m not disputing the fact that women are the primary caregivers. But, that they still are, does not mean they are doing a better job of it than before. I’m not boiling this down to mathematics either, but if you spend and hour a day getting to and from work and another eight hours working, it is nine hours out of the day one is not at home taking care of business. Thus her contribution at home, all the while she still puts in more hours than him, has changed. Drastically!

Women dominate kindergarten as well as schools, so they still control the upbringing of children. Again, drastically! The point is, that it no longer happens in the private sphere of a neighborhood. It is done collectively, in a paid job, away from home. So, it is not that mom has neglected the responsibility. She still has it. But she has moved out of the home and delegated many of the tasks onto others. It is, among many others, teachers, football coaches, ballet instructors, kindergarten assistants and people connected to their after school activities, that now are forced to do some of the work.

At last, as you might understand from my response above, healthy relationships, be it toward a spouse, kids, friends, family or colleges, is not about winning. It is about doing what is best for others, regardless. You give and receive that, everybody wins. Men, women and kids.
07:34 PM on 04/22/2012
I wish I knew enough about the ins and outs of how universities/colleges determine their financial stuff. As a kinda-sorta libertarian, I don't want more government regulation but in my fantasy world, they would stop the vicious circle of Medicare/Medicaid (no, you cannot charge $16 for a Tylenol). They would not allow schools to charge more than a few bucks for a damn text book ($323-a recent book for my daughter).
In the meantime, everyone is too busy trying to argue why their politics are better than your politics. No time for the children.
07:54 AM on 04/23/2012
"I don't want more government regulation but in my fantasy world, they would stop the vicious circle of Medicare/Medicaid (no, you cannot charge $16 for a Tylenol). "

What does this even mean? Cause hospitals charge egregiously like this. Certainly not Medicare/Medicaid through which people do not pay for OTC meds like Tylenol.
04:22 PM on 04/23/2012
Who pays the hospital when they charge a Medicaid/Medicare patient that amount? The government.