Looking to do a Q&A with a Feminist – Are There Feminists in a Burning House ?

Not paying a woman the same rate as a man  for the same job is fucked up. We should enjoy all the economic, legal, political rights regardless of our race, religious affiliation, gender, age or class. But … 

What about Social Conventions ?

But what about social conventions?  Case and point – women and children first ?

Titanic-lifeboatWomen and children first is a historical code of conduct whereby the lives of women and children were to be saved first in a life-threatening situation (typically abandoning ship, when survival resources such as lifeboats were limited).

According to my research: Masculists characterize this as female privilege and male disposability while feminists characterise it as benevolent sexism and male privilege.” I personally have no freaking idea what this is, which is why I bring the question to you my readers.

I am looking to collaborate with a blogger who is well versed in feminism and women studies to have a conversation. There are a lot of grey areas that puzzle me, and it would be nice to talk to a human being (in particular a female) about these grey areas and get some clear ideas. If you can direct me or make suggestions let me know  contact me mrmarymf.poppins@gmail.com or leave a comment below.

I asked MrsMary

BTW, as always I asked my lady for her opinion and she sent me this video linked below. Please keep in mind that this is a link to a comedian doing his act. If you have a sensitive sense of humor, (you’re still cool in my book) don’t watch. Also this topic was in part inspired by an interesting post by my home girl TarnsZ (the super hero blogger) called: Chivalry Is Dead, Long Live Courtesy.

I’m curious to hear from you. Here’s the video:



  1. It’s simple really. In a nutshell, men’s rights activists complain that the lives of women being held in higher regard is sexist, and they blame women. They think the concept is good for women and bad for men, so women must be responsible and must want it to continue. Feminists agree that its sexist, but they argue that its a ‘privilege’ women didn’t ask for and largely don’t want. Instead its a role that has been forced on them by men, is largely propagated by men, and despite women wanting nothing to do with it is now being used as ‘proof’ that they want to be treated better than men.

    As for the question of whether there are feminists in a burning house, of course there are. If I was waiting to be rescued, do you think I care whether the figure coming up the ladder is male or female? I certainly care that they are strong enough to do the job, but really what does that have to do with gender? I’m a man and I’m not strong enough to be a firefighter. I’m quite sure there are many women who are. Maybe if you look at the whole population there are more men capable of doing the job than women, but what does that matter to the individual as long as they personally can do it?


      • I certainly hope that one day these kinds of things will disappear. Already the world is a much less bigoted place than it used to be, and new generations are growing up with less prejudice than the older ones.

        As for there being two sides to the argument (and this goes into what Tarnished was saying about ‘agreeing with both sides’) I think it’s a bad way to look at it. At the end of the day you either want equality or you don’t, regardless of whether you’re a man or woman. Painting feminists as a ‘side’ that want to place women above men rather than as a movement based around equality is one of the great lies feminists have to struggle against. Many famous feminists have already stated that since equality is the goal the liberation of men from sexism and gender roles is an essential part of feminism.

        So there is common ground between feminists and MRAs. The problem I have with MRAs is that there is an enormous amount of misogyny within the movement, and that they see themselves as ‘opposing’ feminism rather than acting in concert with it. The few examples of activism by MRA I have seen I have generally agreed with, but unfortunately it is buried by a tidal wave of vitriol against women and feminism that ruins the reputation of the movement. In an ideal world the feminists would focus on women’s issues and the MRAs would focus on mens issues and we would both be shooting for equality, but so far the MRA movement seems more interested in trying to hurt women rather than help men. Its for that reason that I identify myself as a feminist ally rather than an MRA despite my interest in men’s issues, simply because so far the evidence shows the feminists are the ones fighting for true equality.


  2. Thanks, MrMary. 🙂

    I’m not a feminist by any stretch of the imagination (nor am I a mascularist), but as an egalitarian I try to read up on both sides equally. I agree with some things that feminists say AND things that Men’s Righters/MGTOW say. So it may sound odd…but I think that “women and children first” is evidence of BOTH male disposability and benevolent sexism. The idea of male disposability states that women are (either inherently or due to social convention) reproductively worth more than men. Obviously I don’t agree with this, because a person’s worth is not tied to their genitals…to me, everyone has equal worth. Benevolent sexism, on the other hand, are misogynist notions/actions that actually do benefit women, but at the cost of treating them like children. Such things as giving them lighter sentencing in court (“oh, she’s sorry for what she’s done, let’s not punish her more than we have to”), physically taking packages from a woman shopper (“this MUST be too heavy for you, I’ll carry it”), and insisting on paying for every date (“listen, I know you make as much as me/more than me, but I want to spoil you”), are all daily cases of benevolent sexism. Less frequently encountered is the Women Don’t Belong In The Military, Women Need A Male Caretaker, Women Shouldn’t Need To Attend College, and of course, Women And Children First.

    Treating men as irrelevant meat shields designed to protect women is just as harmful to the fight for equality as treating women as though they are too frail and weak to go about their daily lives/have a dangerous occupation/need to constantly be protected from Gods know what.

    If this helped, or you want more info on other topics, you know where to reach me. 😉


    • Hola TarnsZ

      Hola a pleasure to see your comment on here.

      I was always a bit hesitant to talk about topics that entrenched sides to them. I find much to agree with with both sides like yourself. I feel like you do that the women and children first can be an example of both, which of course sets up some conflict for me personally because there are many habits I through familial and social indoctrination which now are coming under scrutiny because times have changed like the taking packages from female shoppers, paying on dates when I used to date etc. it is difficult to undo that conditioning and sometimes I wonder how much is it hurting ?

      Ill be shining the TarnsZ symbol and contacting you, got some more questions but got a pile of work and to get ready for some physics tutoring :-/ speak to you soon


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s