22 January 2012

The Costa Concordia & Equality


Here are my thoughts on the Costa Concordia disaster.  One, I think it's GREAT that men are no longer deferring to women; why should women get first dibs on the lifeboats if we're equal now, hmmm?  Secondly, as the old, Arab proverb says, women want fried ice.  When reading the comments over at the Daily Mail article on the Costa Concordia, this is plainly evident; women want to have their cake and eat it at the same time.  Finally, women are no longer WORTHY of deference, because they have ceased to be ladies.  I shall quote comments from the Daily Mail article about the sinking.

I think that it's GREAT that men are no longer deferring to women in disasters.  Why?  One, women have, for decades, bleated that they can do anything a man can do, and that they can do it better-grrl power, baby!  Well, if you can do anything a man can do and do it better, then it stands to reason that you, as a woman, can die as well as I would have had to in the past.  Why should I sacrifice my life when you can sacrifice yours better?

I think it's great that men are no longer deferring to women, because it shows that men are WAKING UP.  They're waking up to the reality that we're 'equal' now.  They're waking up to the reality that they, as men, are second class citizens.  They're waking up to the reality that their lives are just as valuable as those of women.  They're waking up to the reality that, as human beings, men have just as much a right to life just as much as any woman does.

I think it's great that men are no longer deferring to women, because this will help bring about the end of feminism.  How so?  Ulysses S. Grant once said that the best way to repeal a bad law was to STRINGENTLY ENFORCE it.  The corollary here is that, by stringently enforcing feminism and the equality it promotes, is that we sooner bring about the end of feminism as we've known it.  If we want to put an end to this equality nonsense, then the best way to do that is STUFF it down women's throats till they choke!  What can be better than stringently enforcing equality when it comes to boarding the lifeboats?

My second observation from the Costa Concordia sinking is this: women do indeed want fried ice.  While that's an old, Arab proverb, it states a timeless truth.  When going through the Daily Mail article and its comments, the vast majority of women would, on the one hand, chastise men for being cowards for having the temerity for valuing their own lives and saving themselves; then, these same women would turn around and say that they were equal to men, that they had equal rights, etc.  Here's a quote that typifies the eternal solipsism of the female mind...

The feminists have been crying out for equality - you got it, so stop whining! ---------- Please, sir, do forgive me for wanting to enjoy the same rights as a man. How dare I, a mere woman, be so audacious as to dream of equality. And to all those saying "women want it both ways" - we quite clearly don't, as proved by the fact that not a single woman has commented saying women and children first is the way it should be. Yes, we want equality, and yes, we know what it means - and fyi, you don't have to be a woman or a man-hater to be a feminist. Look up its definition before spouting your ignorant opinions.
- Hellen, North East, 15/1/2012 9:59

When called out on their hypocrisy and inconsistency, these same women will deny saying that they want men to die first.  While they are TECHNICALLY correct (i.e. they didn't explicitly state this), they are not factually correct; they are not factually correct, because these same women are implicitly saying that we, as men, should die first.  Why else would they break out the shaming language?  Why else would they call men cowards for saving themselves?  Why else would these same women bemoan the lack of chivalry?  Is it not because they DO believe that they should get preference for seats on the lifeboats?  Here's a comment that exemplifies this train of thought.

Stronger, more able people, people who are more likely to survive adverse conditions should be the last to leave the boat. And seeing as able bodied men are nearly always stronger than able bodied women - then yep, its this group of men that should go last. It has nothing to do with 'equality' and everything to do with helping those people weaker than yourself. Its called bring a decent human being. Able bodied men that think otherwise are nothing but bitter cowards. Being a fairly small, but single woman, I'd help children and anyone that appeared frail or disabled before expecting to get on a lifeboat first. Thats only fair. But an able bodied man before me on the basis of 'equality'? Absolutely not!
- disgustedoflondon, london, 16/1/2012 7:48

Here's an even MORE blatant example of women wanting it both ways...

Women have already lost the respect and rights to be treated differently from men after claiming that they r equal to men.. In good moments, you want same rights but in bad moments you women become a lady.. Stop this hypocrisy ok ? Mark, Canada I'd like to think I'm a lady in both good and bad moments :) Equality means things like equal pay for equal work and not being prevented from gaining promotion because of one's gender ... no one (apart from you, perhaps!) seriously believes that women are physically the same, and that difference should be respected. If you're just going to shoulder the weaker members of society out of the way when it suits .. well, I can't really find the words. Thank goodness there are still gentlemen as well as ladies out there.
- caroline mayor, rennes, france, 16/1/2012 10:11

What Caroline is saying above is this: I want equality when it suits me, and I want chivalry when it does not. When the paychecks are handed out, I want equality; when the bills come due, I want chivalry. I want to have my cake and eat it-wah! BTW, there's nothing hypocritical and inconsistent about that-at least not in her mind or the minds of most women.  Can anyone deny that women want fried ice?  Can anyone deny the eternal solipsism of the female mind?

Now, I would like to share with you some quotes showing that men are waking up.  I would like to share some evidence that men are wising up to women and their bullshit.  Women wanted equality, so men are starting to give it to them, hehehe... :)

Referring to the headline - women now have equality. Live with it - you cannot cherry pick.
- Slippery Eel, Holt, Norfolk, 15/1/2012 9:05

Welcome to the world of equality.
- Gaz, n/e, 15/1/2012 9:10

Why should women go first? Women fought for equality, so now they should accept the consequences.
- Squire Trelawney, Land of no hope or glory, 15/1/2012 9:09

Sounds like the days of "women and children first" is long gone. - sd, uk, 15/1/2012 10:16 >>> Children - Yes Woman - No as they cry for equality so let them have it, they can't have it both ways.
- Gaz, n/e, 15/1/2012 9:13

The feminists have been crying out for equality - you got it, so stop whining!
- Triton, Berks, 15/1/2012 8:49

Notice how short, concise, and to the POINT these quotes are? Notice how, with one or two sentences, the men just lay out the obvious truth to women? Notice how women cannot understand these simple, obvious truths? Notice how women do not want to face the CONSEQUENCES of what they asked for-indeed, demanded?

Now, I have some longer, more eloquent quotes from men poking holes through women's bullshit...

Only Children and Elderly people should be given priority. Women don't deserve it as men and women are equal. Women are enjoying the same rights and opportunities as men. Women and Men are equally employed everywhere but when it comes to hard work, women most often refuse to do it and instead they ask their men colleagues to do hard jobs even though women get equal pay as men. Women are not physically weak. Women take part in extremely strenuous games like cycling, swimming, wrestling, tennis, racing etc... Everyone gets life only once. Why he should risk losing his life just for a woman ??? Do you women think men are that stupid ? Women talk about true gentlemen but what about true women ??? I have never seen any true woman in my whole life.. Is there any real woman out there? If No, so stop talking about true Gentleman.. OK..
- Mark, Canada, 16/1/2012 12:25

Pete in Sheffield - I agree partially. Children going first, yes. But women? After a century of complaints of male dominance and pleas for equal rights, women shouldn't be able to pick and choose when the feel they are vulnerable. In 2012 everyone should have got off that boat, but there is no reason at all why men should be held up for the sake of women. If we were to stick to ridiculous P.C rulings, there would be many more dead while officials ordered off passengers by vulnerability.....children first, then disabled, then anyone on medication, OAPs, women, ethnic minorities, then finally can the abled man...oh sorry too late.
- Bobby, Manchester uk, 15/1/2012 9:05

I'm not sure where to come down on this one, on a personal level i agree with the policy women and children first as that's just who i am, however, this is also an old policy, and while kids should still be first the women part is debatable as the time this view comes from is long gone. A large number of women tell us quite loudly that they no longer need protecting or looking out for or any kind of special treatment and that this is no longer chilvary but simply offensive to them, yet whenever there's a disaster etc they always moan about the brutishness of men, we just can't win against this ever growing number of warped minded women so perhaps they'd all like to get together and let us know just what they would prefer, would you still like a bit of chilvary or not? It is for men to decide when to apply it, not women, so want it or not is the only choice, likewise for equality, do you want the same jobs at the same pay, or the same pay but with concessions because you're a woman?
- Dave, Birmingham, 16/1/2012 9:08

The women first tradition is an archaic concept left over from a time when the population was small and infant mortality high. In a time when the rightful concept of women's equality has morphed into something resembling a gynocratic supremacist movement such customs appear less than necessary and the privilege of first place should be reserved for the old, disabled and children not healthy adults. I received my lifeboatmans certificate in 1971 from Gravesend sea school at the age of 14 and have done countless lifeboat drills sometimes in heavy seas, the whole thing appears to have been a complete shambles from start to finish on this particular vessel, considering land was only a few meters away there should have been no real need for anyone to even get their feet wet however on the news clips it appears the passengers had taken charge with a lot of shouting and screaming unsurprisingly most of the voices appear to be female.
- Leew, lancashire, 16/1/2012 3:06

I'm amazed in an era of supposed equality, women still have a sexist and arrogant assumption they should evacuate a sinking ship before men. Certainly children (with fathers & mothers), elderly, pregnant and disabled should get priority, but not the able-bodied generation of women who've been shrieking dementedly about equality for decades. No, you can stay behind with the men and demonstrate this much lauded concept of 'I can do anything a man can do'! You can thank feminism for that. If women are using children to get priority on the lifeboats, why should it be any different for fathers protecting their children? I noticed a number of female commenters attempting the tried and tested shame and guilt tactics, as they desperately seek to maintain the best of both worlds. Now that's shameful in itself! Women need to climb down from their self-exalted chauvinistic pedestals and start mingling with mortal men.
- Magnus Carta, The 6th EU Region, UK, 16/1/2012 9:06

"Women and children go first because they're physically weaker than men, its not sexist, just right. - Jam Sandwich, London UK">>>>>>> This isn't true in every case. I'm in my fifties but reasonably healthy/mobile, so I wouldn't expect a frail 70 y.o. man, for instance, to give up his place for me. Perhaps the priority should be "children and the old and/or infirm"? - Helen, Kent, 16/1/2012 12:11 ++++++++++++++++ Just Face it.. ok.. Women claim that men and women are equal.. Women are enjoying the same rights and opportunities as men so why women should be given priority over men ? It does not make any sense. It is totally sexist.. Women have already lost the respect and rights to be treated differently from men after claiming that they r equal to men.. In good moments, you want same rights but in bad moments you women become a lady.. Stop this hypocrisy ok ?
- Mark, Canada, 16/1/2012 8:40

Women can't say they want to be treated no differently than men and then turn around and say actually they would like to be treated like a "woman" on this occasion. The reality is there is no such thing as a "woman" any more. Women are the same as men, that is what our female teachers at school drum into boys heads all through their school years. Besides why can't women use their much fabled "Girl Power" to save themselves and their children?
- Slicer, The Devil's Manor, Hell, 16/1/2012 12:29

Equality means things like equal pay for equal work and not being prevented from gaining promotion because of one's gender ... no one seriously believes that women are physically the same, and that difference should be respected. - caroline mayor, rennes, france, 16/1/2012 15:11 ---- But that's just the problem Caroline, while in some jobs there is no difference in others there are, for example I worked for a contract cleaning company when i was younger that primarily operated in large event centres, a large part of this job was to clean the ceiling fans/duct work, all of the women refused to climb up the ladder and do it "as they were a woman" yet they all got equal pay and we all held the same job and for the life of me i can't see how a man falling 50ft is less likely to injure him than a woman falling 50ft While physical differences should be respected if they prevent someone from doing an aspect of a job they can't then demand the same pay under equality legislation
- Dave, Birmingham, 16/1/2012 10:51

Here's a good comment-from a WOMAN, no less!

Can't believe some women are moaning that men did not give priority to women. You wanted equality? Well here it is, good or bad. I'm a woman and I would not expect any man to put me first in such a situation. Why should he? If my brother or father had been on that ship and drowned, I certainly would not take comfort in knowing that he had sacrificed his life for a woman such as some of those on this board. I'd like to know how some of you have to come to hate men so much. Extremely odd, infact it is almost bordering on obsessive! Some men are very kind, you need to open your eyes. Nine times out of ten when I am crossing the road it is a man that lets me cross - many women would run you over!!
- Amy, London, 16/1/2012 8:17

Ladies, you all wanted OUT of the social contract, remember?  Remember how you said that doing your womanly duties was oppressive?  Remember how you said that you wanted to be LIBERATED from being accountable to men?  Remember how you wanted to be freed from your DUTIES to help and serve men?  Well, you got what you wanted.  However, when you opted out of your end of the social contract, you also released us men from OURS...

Now, here's a short quote that provides a segue into my final point...

Just goes to show men these days have no respect for women and children.
- Martine, London UK, 15/1/2012 12:44

Well, that begs an obvious question, Martine.  Why should men HAVE respect for women these days, hmmm?  Why would I respect someone living the "Sex and the City" lifestyle?  Why would I respect someone who engages in skanky, laddette behavior?  Why would I respect someone who's main aspiration in life is to be on Girls Gone Wild?  Why should I respect someone who's MURDERED their own baby?  Who the hell does that?!  Who, other than an evil woman (redundant?) would murder their own baby?  You know that there have been over forty MILLION abortions in America since Roe v. Wade, right?  Why should I respect a sex that doesn't even oppose this hideous practice?  Why should I respect women again?

In closing, I like what we've seen in the Costa Concordia sinking.  One, it shows that men are wising up and waking up; men are realizing that they too are humans, and therefore have just as much right to live as women do.  Two, it's more proof that women want fried ice, and that they're NOT fit to vote or hold positions of authority.  Finally, there's no good reason to respect women anymore-not when it was THEY who first violated the social compact that had existed between men and women for thousands of years.  Ladies, you want to be released from the 'oppressive' terms of your end of the social contract?  Fine, then we too can be released from our end of the social contract-which was really oppressive when you consider that we had to sacrifice our lives for your sorry asses!  Thankfully, we, as men, are no longer locked into OUR end of the social contract.  That is the REAL lesson of the Costa Concordia, and I think it's about damn time.  Thank you, and good day now...



Anonymous said...

The fact that huge men shoved smaller people out of the way reflects only on themselves. The women were not acting like feminists, shoving men out of the way and grabbing the lifeboats. No one should shove weaker people out of their way, and I highly doubt the men panicking on that ship were thinking, "Ok ladies, you're equal so get OUT of the way!" They were simply panicking, more than the women, who were physically weaker. There's no reason women shouldn't work, vote, and have the responsibilities of both those things, with NO special privileges in work, divorce, or marriage. But most women who do vote and work do not claim to be physically as strong as men, and the idea of men "punishing" them by pushing them out of the way is foolish. I don't expect men to stand behind while women get to safety; I do expect the strong to help the weak, or at least not push them out of the way. And children and the elderly do come before women; a young teen boy I know of proudly says he'd die for women, and I would not allow him to die, still in his childhood, for me just because he's male. I'm an adult and that means I'd insist he get on a lifeboat before me, end of story.

The real lesson of that ship has mainly to do with poorly trained people. Most of those men DID help women and kids out, and feminists as usual twisted the story to make it sound like ALL the men panicked and acted selfishly. I thought they liked selfishness??..How come they didn't call the brave men mean and bigoted for helping women? (Like I said, most women don't claim equal strength to men, but the extreme feminists are another matter).

MarkyMark said...


The men on the Costa Concordia may not have THOUGHT about the social contract, but they didn't feel BOUND by it, either. THAT was my point, which you missed!

Oh, and nice try at the shaming language too, Toots. Sorry, but I no longer care what you chicks think...


Anonymous said...

Reading the comments at the Daily Mail from the females was really sickening. Those women, lots of whom seem to be from England, just wanted men to die. These women actually believe that it is the duty of men to die for them. Entitled, spoiled, pampered women. These women don't value the life of a man at all-Men only exist to serve women, say the women.

What is good about this incident is that men all over the world have been able to see these terrible comments written by females. Maybe some of these men will wake up.

Anonymous said...

No feminists on sinking ships.
Just like there are no aethiests in foxholes.

Ping Jockey said...

The comments on the Daily Mail article from the femborgs really didn't surprise me at all...their attitudes are completely to be expected. Feminists have been a group of coddled, spoilt children who have been living pampered, privileged lives at the taxpayers' expense with the government's approval.
Now this incident has occurred which has knocked them off their pedestals and thrown them on their own, all without any government blue-suited thugs to stand behind them, any White Knights to hide behind, or any simpering manginas to spout shaming language at any men who would listen -- and it has scared the hell out of them.
They are hearing (probably for the first time for many of them) the anger and hostility that many men (whom the feminists have been figuratively spitting and crapping on for all of their lives) have been forced to hold in -- and it is scaring them. The femborgs undoubtedly believe that they will remain attractive and privileged for the rest of their lives, and that it only natural that men would do as their lapdog sympathizers and supporters have always done.
This has shown them something that they hadn't planned on -- that men are fed up with their hypergamy, solopsism and entitlement attitudes, and are becoming more indifferent to them and don't really care about what happens to them. (Witness the recent articles about the concern of some women about the growth of MGTOW and growing male indifference to women. They're getting scared about what could happen when enough "Good Men" become totally indifferent to them and their interests.)
It's been said that women's greatest nightmare is not men's hate, but men's indifference -- because it is only the concern of "Good Men" about women that protects women against the depredations of "Bad Men". When women lose that concern, they have a LOT to fear.

Based upon what has happened in this incident, I have a feeling that the next large accident or disaster where women are thrown upon their own resources without government intervention, protection or assistance is going to be VERY, VERY interesting indeed!

Anonymous said...

You demonstrate good insight in your post. I wish AmeriKKKa was not obsessed with political correctness so more people would be open and able to hear this message since, obviously, the mainstream media would NEVER bring out these points.

You are spot on. Especially regarding abortion. I have always thought the same way. The biggest supporters of abortion are females. Whether they have had abortions themselves or support females who do, they are accomplices to murder. Why should I show chivalry towards murderers?

If a female does not value the life of an unborn baby, why should I value hers? I might be her next victim. After all, she has made it clear that her agenda comes first regardless of whose other life she must crush.

Like you said, females of today are no longer worthy of respect and admiration by the lifestyles and characters they display and support in others.

A female is simply a breathing bundle of irrational contradictions. There is no logic to her thinking that expects rights, rewards, and deference without first paying for them with corresponding responsibilities, behavior, and propriety.

It's an exchange. Payment for goods. Somehow, today's modern, liberated, "equal" female expects to receive the goods without paying for them. In stores, this is called shoplifting. In America, it's "empowerment."

I was surprised to read so many comments by men who realize this. I thought most men were dumb, hormonally-driven dolts, but it appears they are waking up.

This is good because it means men are realizing this on their own. Major news outlets and popular media never reveal the nature of the Predatory Female and the horrors of feminism.

So, if men are waking up to it, that means they are seeing the effects of feminism in their own everyday lives.

Females are shooting themselves in the foot through their equality, bad behavior, immoral lifestyles, unjust laws, broken families, and everything else feminism produces.

When men realize this on an individual level, it means too many females are showing their true, dark, ugly colors.

While the cruise ship has ruined a vacation for many, it has also revealed what today's men are thinking about females and their "equality."

Anonymous said...

The Feminism Steamroller will most likely do its best to legislate male behavior in order to protect those weak, delicate, dainty things in preparation for future disasters.

I can hear it now: "Think of the children! A child needs its mother. Nevermind that most infanticides are caused by the child's own mother. Shhh. Don't mention that. These children need to grow up and become good little drones of the State that enact more feminist legislation.

"Therefore, we need to make men protect women in order to protect the children and so the men will have someone to send the alimony and child payments to."

If it becomes every man for himself instead of "women and children first," then the feminist war machine will seek to pass laws that require men to assist women or else face criminal prosecution.

Passing another unjust law is much easier than expecting females to change their characters, forsake feminism and its so-called equality, and become respectable ladies worthy of protecting. "Let's pass laws that make men change instead! *Tee-hee* "

The fact that men no longer view females as respectable ladies is revealing. Our personal conduct tells others how to treat us, and females have shown how they wish to be treated.

If a feminist insists on berating men, enforcing equality, behaving like a skank, legislating behavior, and crushing men in the name of empowerment, then a female should expect the same mistreatment in return when she needs help.

If you kick a nice, playful, lovable cat enough times, it becomes afraid of you and stays away. It becomes hesitant to approach.

Feminism and its followers have kicked too many men, and now men are shying away.

After all, if you help a female and she does not want help, then you risk a lawsuit or whatnot. Merely opening a door for a female these days can get you called a "male chauvinist pig" at the very least.

So, when a disaster strikes, men still remember the mud that has been heaped upon them over the years and think twice about aiding a female.

Can you blame them? "I might get sued if I help her with her lifejacket and accidentally touch her somewhere she doesn't like. Besides, if women are equal to men, let her get her own lifejacket. Why give up mine? I even said the magic words 'Please' and 'Thank you'. Surely she knows how to do that, right? Oh, wait..."

Anonymous said...

Panicking people don't feel bound by anything, Mark. That was my point. I don't think you scoped the whole situation, or my comments. And actually Anon, most men were brave enough to help; this was the real fault of that article, acting like all the men were cowards (by a feminist who'd probably been preaching for fifty years that women didn't need any help from men). I highly doubt every one of the women on that ship, who were not fighting for lifeboats, were feminists.

Anonymous said...

...a young teen boy I know of proudly says he'd die for women

A statement like this might sound noble on the surface, but this thinking is naive and dangerous for himself and for other men because it enables feminism.

If he is willing to die for women, then he is surely willing to vote for laws in their favor - laws that also punish good men. In his mind, females occupy a place on a pedestal above reproach. He idolizes them.

This thinking automatically assumes that men are guilty whenever something bad happens to a female without taking into account that females are also human beings capable of terrible actions. There is cause and effect.

As the train of thought goes, if it is always assumed to be a man's fault, then we need to pass more laws to restrict men and protect these helpless females. Those who think this way are the ones who enable feminism by enacting even more restrictive laws that further hurt other men.

A dog that has never had his head smashed into the pavement from chasing cars will always chase cars.

The best thing that could happen to our fine young fellow is to get smashed by female reality early.

The life he saves will be his own.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 22 January, 2012 13:38 and follow ups:

So, who says stronger people should not shove weaker ones out of the way? I didn't vote for that.

This concept was part of patriarchal training. Men when they were in charge trained young men to have this attitude.

Feminism is the one that said the evil patriarchy must go. When the evil patriarchy goes, so does all of its axioms and rules for male conduct.

Just as many men have said, you want what you want, and you want it when you want it, even if it is inconsistent with other things you want. Which this is.

Obviously, you do want the part which gives you priority to get on lifeboats, but don't want to compete openly with men for jobs. You want the vote, etc. It is called pick-n-choose equality.

Stop whining and enjoy your new status as truly equal.

Anonymous age 69

Anonymous said...

There was a comment on one of the UK news boards. Women said, and it was repeated in Mark's excerpts, that men should give priority to women, because men are stronger and more able to survive.

A man responded much like this. So, if it is the children who are important (children are not important in any society which allows abortion on demand) then they should not be given to helpless, fragile, inferior women to save. Fathers should be given care and control of kids to get on the lifeboats, increasing their chance of survival.

Likewise, if a husband wishes to give his own wife priority, preferring to die himself, he has that right. He does not have the right to demand it of other men.

Note that at least one older man did indeed give up his live to his own wife. They had one life jacket between them. He told his wife, I can swim, take the life jacket, I will meet you at the shore. He has not been seen since.

Women as a group are totally devoid of any empathy towards men or anything male. That is why after 45 years of misandry and every possible way to destroy all male influence, so bad and so consistent that many men no longer care for women, most of you women are totally and blissfully unaware that men have any reason to be negative about you. When men say things as have been said in these comments, you cannot understand what could possibly motivate men to that level of anger and hatred for you. It must be the man's fault.

I call it, the queen bee is immune to its own sting.

Anonymous age 69

Kathy Farrelly said...

I am sorry Mark but I cannot agree with you in this case. I have read all that I could get my hands on about this tragedy. The accounts of passengers, officials and crew....

Many men did in fact help the passengers..( Remember there were many men on that ship also.) Chefs waiters and bar staff all pitched in to help. The purser an Italian man in his fifties was hailed as a hero. He went into the bowels of the ship seeking to help passengers (male and female) escape the listing vessel before he broke his leg and he himself had to be rescued.

Sure a few men and women panicked , but it was to be expected under the circumstances. No leadership, and staff were not correctly trained in emergency proceedure.

Not only that, there was much confusion chaos and miscommunication because many of the crew could not speak the same language.. Many were from Asia and spoke no English.. Messages which acccording to one passenger were "mixed" came over the PA in 8 different languages.

Now to the Captain who we find out had been drinking wine with some tart(A passenger photographed him shaing a decanter of wine with a woman) He jumped ship and denied he had touched a drop of alcohol.. He refused to go back to the ship as ordered and help his passengers.. (yes I said passengers, male and female) It was his duty. He acted in a most disgraceful manner.. He skylarked around, went too close to shore to show off to a friend then jumped ship when the ship hit a rock.

Many of the crew panicked, Passengers said, because they did not appear to know what they were doing.. Also there was no leader to coordinate the safe evacuation of the ship.

The really sad thing here is that the gutless Captain delayed telling passengers for over forty minutes that they should evacuate the ship. Had he done so earlier according to maritime officials, there would more than likely have been no loss of life as all life boats would have been accessed as the passengers would have been in them and away before the ship listed to one side submerging some of the life boats..

Kathy Farrelly said...

Just one more thing Mark. The problem here is with the feminists who tried to make out that some men were cowards on that ship. Hence the inaccurate reporting from some of them..

Tried to make men look bad. These articles were written mostly by women(the ones that I saw) and were most certainly not the complete truth.

Subsequent commenters, obviously feminist ( and TBH I could not be bothered reading comments from ill informed cretins taking pot shots at men) were ill informed.

The only coward here was the Captain who has been placed under house arrest.

Mass hysteria, chaos, confusion and miscommunication due as I said to lack of leadership and training were the problem here.

Masculist Man said...

Would they have critisized the captain if the captain were a woman?

Alek Novy said...

>I think it's great that
>men are no longer deferring
>to women, because this will
>help bring about the end of >feminism. How so? Ulysses S.
>Grant once said that the best
>way to repeal a bad law was

THIS! I've been saying this for a while, but recently realized it's super important and I am making it my mission to keep noting this everywhere - CALL THEIR BLUFF.

For example, I go on sex-harassment blogs, and I say that I am FULLY in favor in passing a law that forbids any man, anywhere asking a woman out.

See, the trick with sex-harassment laws is that they're a big bluff designed to keep men in a state of giving women a status and power boost.

I HONESTLY would support a full out ban on any man approaching any strange woman anywhere AND a ban on any man asking a woman out anywhere.

You know why? COZ WOMEN will be begging to repeal the law. The whole point of feminism is to do a huge bluff... It's only going some of the way to make the man fight for what's in the WOMAN's best interest.

Men are fighting to keep the right to approach women - when its WOMEN who benefit from it - how asinine is that? :D

I say flip it. Men should fight FOR taking sex-harassment laws and philosophy to its UTTER extreme. Ban men from ever initiating sex, or ever approaching women. Call their freaking bluff.

Before you know it women will be running around begging men for dick.

WooZoo said...

Good post.
I'm with Ping Jockey... scared shitless!

Kathy Farrelly said...

"Would they have critisized the captain if the captain were a woman?"

What a flippant and insensitive comment.. This is serious business. People lost their lives because of it.

The Captain was an arse! Pure and simple.. Who cares about gender. If the Captain had of been female she too would be under house arrest at this very moment!

People died because the Captain abandoned ship. Couldn't give a toss about his passengers.. Male or female!.. Heck it's not like the ship was miles away from land.. This rescue would have been straightforward had the Captain done his job.. and no lives would have been lost.

Ping Jockey said...

Anonymous 18:09 --
"...the feminist war machine will seek to pass laws that require men to assist women or else face criminal prosecution."

They had better be careful if they try to pass laws like that. Women can't 'force' us men to help or assist them, any more than they can 'force' us to love them (they usually have to do that by guile and deception, and by presenting themselves as something they truly are not).

If women try to force us men to help or assist them, they will probably end up with "help" and "assistance" that they are likely to regret and are better off without.

Anonymous said...

Actually women are probably better suited than men to jump into cold water. Women have higher body fat and are built for greater endurance in that sort of situation.

Alek Novy said...

Kathy, I don't believe anyone was defending the captain. They're just pointing out that his gender was another excuse man-haters used to bash all men. Make sense?

MarkyMark said...


I thought that people were making remarks about the captain to make a point about the pussy pass women get...


Kathy Farrelly said...

"They're just pointing out that his gender was another excuse man-haters used to bash all men. Make sense?"

Indeed, Alek.

However this is not a brownie points scoring exercise. The whole thing had nothing to do with feminism.. Not in the least.

You do know that all the people that have thus far perished as a result of the Captain's lack of loyalty to his passengers and his ship are all men, don't you?

What I do not like is the fact that some fools reported and made a big deal out of the fact that a few men panicked and pushed women aside to get to the lifeboats and from this is extrapolated that feminism is responsible for their actions.

I call BS on that one.

It's the subsequent biased reporting and idiotic feminist comments like " women and children first" that has caused a kerfuffle here.

The facts are there for anyone who is really interested to know the truth.

Burton said...

Perhaps we should have an affirmative action lifeboat policy these days, with men and children going first?

They were simply panicking, more than the women, who were physically weaker

And how much of this panic was owing to traditional male values of rationality, leadership and coolness under fire being ripped down by decades of feminist propaganda? If men are to become Sensitive New Age Guys (SNAGs), in touch with their inner female feeeelings, then do not expect them to act according to traditional male standards.

Stronger, more able people, people who are more likely to survive adverse conditions should be the last to leave the boat.

What if it could be demonstrated that women can survive in water better than men, say owing to more buoyancy due to body fat ratios (or whatever)? Then should it be men first into the lifeboats?

And if women are (in general) actually less likely to survive in adverse conditions, does this mean that women should not be allowed to be firemen, soldiers, explorers, or whatever?

No feminists on sinking ships.

Good line!

Burton said...

Alek Novy said: I HONESTLY would support a full out ban on any man approaching any strange woman anywhere AND a ban on any man asking a woman out anywhere.

You know why? COZ WOMEN will be begging to repeal the law. The whole point of feminism is to do a huge bluff... It's only going some of the way to make the man fight for what's in the WOMAN's best interest.

Very good points, and one which ought to be explored more.

In many ways, feminism is one big sh*t test for men. Feminists make ridiculous demands to see what men will do. Consider the feminist foot-stamping over sexual-harassment-date-raype. All the underwear wetting is really predicated on men having to jump over one more hoop to get access to vaginas, to put it crudely but accurately. Thus, men will have to navigate another round of legal barriers before they can get into a position to have sex.

What if men simply said, "Fine, we will no longer approach womyn for dating or sex"? A total male boycott of females. Suddenly, the vagina goes from being a high price item down to being worth nothing. Would that make the feminzais happy? Or would they simply throw another tantrum?

What feminists have done is make womyn in the Western world so repulsive, that men have lost interest in them in vast numbers. Hence, why so many men headed for the lifeboats first.

MarkyMark said...


The captain WAS an ass. If not for his actions, the Costa Concordia would not have RUN aground in the first place...


Anonymous said...

Good and bad in all....some men will push weaker ones out the way, survival is a gut instinct.

I am a male single parent, i would have got myself and my son off that boat first and foremost else my lad would be an orphan. Any female telling me to make way for another female would have been given short shrift and i wouldn't give two hoots.

So we are going against nature's survival of the fittest? In battles in the past, there has been occasions when soldiers have had to flee, leaving the wounded behind. That is a reality, a tough choice and a moral dilemma.

What i have not read on any blog or comment section is how a 'woman' would sacrifice herself for a healthy adult male. That shows, despite the bluster of some, that a physically fit adult male is expendable in their eyes. Well.... i ain't, no man is.

I had a nickname for my ex...hippo-suits....because she was a hypocrite and equality was only when it suited.

Burton said...

Let me add:

Supposing one of the women trying to get on a lifeboat was Crystal Gail Mangum, the female who lied about being raped and tried to railroad the Duke U lacrosse players into jail.

Does anyone here -- man or woman -- think that any guy should give up his place for her? Or even help her into a lifeboat?

Ping Jockey said...

Burton --
I would have 'helped' her over the side, but not necessarily in a lifeboat.

Alek Novy said...

@ Burton who said:

"What if men simply said, "Fine, we will no longer approach womyn for dating or sex"? A total male boycott of females. Suddenly, the vagina goes from being a high price item down to being worth nothing. Would that make the feminzais happy? Or would they simply throw another tantrum?"

They already do that :D I have tested this on many feminist blogs. I HAVE called their bluff...

Guess what? No matter how the suggestion is placed THEY THROW A TANTRUM :D :D :D :D

Even on the infamous schroedinger's rapist piece - that amounted to nothing more than "All men who ever initiate a woman are scum, on any random criteria that a woman invents in any given random moment"

Quite a few guys on that debate said (they weren't challenging, just wondering) if maybe men should then stop approaching or asking out altogether.

The feminists went WILD and beserk and started throwing tantrums like

WHAT YOU STUPID LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSEEEEEEEERS - WE NEVER SAID THAT YOU DONT APPROACH US!!!! YOU FUCKING LOSERS!!!! YOU LITTLE WIMPS!!!!!! (we just want you to BOTH approach us, and reserve the right to treat you like shit coz it gives us an ego boost) :D

Women derive a huge pussy-price inflation through this trick. Getting men to do x, while pretending she dislikes x is an extremely old trick that women use to artificially boost the price of pussy.

Burton said...

I would have 'helped' her over the side, but not necessarily in a lifeboat.

Heh heh heh!

P Ray said...

^ AlekNovy: That's also how women boost their perceived value, by trying their hand at how many men they can string along.
The correct answer to that is to walk away, because love is not a contest, and someone who thinks she has to be "won" ... you start to wonder how many times she chose to give herself away.
If a woman can't value a man until the man passes all her challenges,
maybe her problem is that she loves the challenges over the man.
Because a man she was really attracted to ... she would not be giving challenges to him.

Robert K said...

Brilliant post!!

Anonymous said...

I, for one, am glad for feminism. Feminism is slowly reversing the ‘everywhere you look’ social programming that manipulates and brainwashes people into believing that finding a ‘soul mate’, getting married and having children will miraculously result in completeness and happiness (music, books, TV, movies, etc).
Feminism is slowly eliminating the idea that we have roles in life we must fulfill (good husband, good wife, good parents, good provider, protector, nurturer, etc).
I’m a man and am thankful for the lessons feminism has taught me. Because of feminism, I now see women in a completely different light. I see women the same way I see men. Feminism helped me to lose my ‘white night’ and ‘chivalrous protector’ attitude towards women.
When I pass women on the street, I’m now almost completely indifference to their presence. I no longer see women as potential objects of my affection. I no longer see them as week and in need of my protection should danger arise. Instead, I see them as potential competitors and rivals. Considering what I’ve gone through in past relationships with women, seeing them in this logical way rather than in the old traditional ways has helped me to protect myself from psychological, emotional and financial manipulation.
Over time, thanks to feminism, I’ve learned that I don’t need a girlfriend, wife or family to be happy. Women no longer define me. Because of feminism, I now know what it means to be completely independent, single and happy.
Feminism has lifted a huge social weight off my solders. I no longer have to feel weird because I don’t have a wife or family. Feminism has taught me that emotional, psychological, and financial independence are the true paths to happiness.
I think feminism gets a bad rap and that more men should pay attention to the important life lessons it teaches. People need to wake up and cast off the BS that’s been so carefully programmed into their minds. Women are no better or worse than men and should not be treated any better or worse. Women and men are now competitors and rivals. This new reality cannot and should not be ignored. People need to view their own worth objectively and not by standards created by the opposite sex.
No one’s life, no matter their gender, is more important than my own. I, as a man, have been liberated by feminism and am forever grateful for its existance.

MarkyMark said...


I believe it was the great Zenpriest, a luminary amongst men, who said: feminism freed men far more than it ever freed women. How true it is! Thanks to feminism, we can be happy, single, and free; we can live the lives WE want for a change, amen?