CHIVALRY IS DEAD

The Washington Times | 23 April 2003/Pg. A2 | Culture, et cetera section

[Doctor13]

"In the wee hours of April 15, 1912, the great ship (SS Titanic) slipped into the deep waters of the North Atlantic, sending 1,503 passengers and crewmen to a watery grave.

"The vast majority of the dead were men, many of whom stood bravely as they watched lifeboats full of women and children row away from the doomed ship.

"During the U.S. Senate inquiry, First Officer Charles H. Lightoller was asked, "You discriminated entirely in the interest of the passengers -- first women and children -- in filling those lifeboats. Lightoller replied: 'Yes, sir,' to which the senator pressed, 'Why did you do that? Because of the captain's orders, or because of the rule of the sea?'

"Lightoller answered simply 'The rule of human nature.'

"Watching America send some of its daughters to their deaths or capture in Iraq makes one aware of how far we have drifted from the ideal epitomized by the brave men of the Titanic: Women and children first . . .

"What would the men of the Titanic have thought, watching women kiss their toddlers goodbye, slap on a helmet and ship off to the front? They would say we have not only lost our minds, but a good deal of our hearts."

- Robert Knight, writing on "Titanic's Lessons Are Worth Revisiting," in the April 16 issue of Culture and Family Report.

[Doctor13]

Everyone should read this excellent article. I know it affected me emotionally. I remember seeing a black female soldier during the first Gulf War, camouflage uniform, back pack, et al, handing her six weeks old baby to her husband who looked totally confused. This image still sticks in my mind. All I could think of, here was this woman going to another country to protect the children of others when she should have stayed home protecting her own baby.

[Consort]

Maybe it's the burden or the consequences of equality.

[Movemout]

The genie has escaped the bottle. She will not return voluntarily.

[DBtoo]

It struck me too that some of the soldiers were young women with children. It seemed so wrong to me. I agree with the article.

[Doctor13]

I'm looking for this piece that I posted but can't seem to find it. To all who have replied, can you tell me where you read it? I've gone to "cultural," but it is not there.

Confused.

[Consort]

We read it here.

[RushLake]

We live in a society where "men" don't stand up and shake hands when they are introduced to someone new especially a woman. We live in a society where most entry doors at businesses open automatically, so there is no need for a man to hold the door for a lady. We live in a society where "men" make rhyming cRAP talking about bitches and 'hos, and it gets sold to a large segment of that society. We live in a society where "men" enter buildings and leave their hats on, most notably that stupid backward baseball cap look. We live in a society where the young "men" have been denutted by the public schools with the connivance of their parents. Young girls have learned that there is no consequence to unwed motherhood, and let young men use them like whores. They are women hear them "roar".

[Rudder]

We should stop women from volunteering, correct?

[Doctor13]

I guess the question is, where is "here?" Under what forum? I usually post under Foreign Affairs, and after I posted this, it said that I did not subscribe to "cultural," where it belonged, so that is what I did. I subscribed to "cultural/society." However, when I looked under the "cultural," or "society," forum, it is not there.

I'm still confused, but thanks for your help. Feeling somewhat like a maroon!

[jammer]

Outstanding exegesis.

[MikeAtTheShore]

The cultural Taliban are certainly out in force today.

[Consort]

You're on the Free Republic New/Activism Forum.

[ricpic]

Hey. We've all been liberated from standards, doncha know.

[Doctor13]

As it stands right now, women have the option to volunteer or not volunteer for combat. Men do not have that same option.

It depends on what they are volunteering for. There are many positions where women are of great benefit in the military. However, I, as a woman, personally do not believe that they should be in combat. Whenever there is a woman within the ranks, instinctively, men tend to look out for their welfare much to their detriment. In this respect, chivalry is not dead, but it does not help the mission.

No one would want to see the naked bloated body of a woman being dragged through the streets of some God-forsaken place as we saw in Mogadishu. Can you imagine the horror we would have felt if this had happened to Private Jessica Lynch? Most women are capable, but we, as a society, should not subject our mothers, wives and sisters to these circumstances for the sake of equality.

I think the article, "Chivalry is dead," speaks for itself when the author writes: "Watching America send some of its daughters to their deaths or capture in Iraq makes one aware of how far we have drifted from the ideal epitomized by the brave men of the Titanic: Women and children first . . .

"What would the men of the Titanic have thought, watching women kiss their toddlers goodbye, slap on a helmet and ship off to the front? They would say we have not only lost our minds, but a good deal of our hearts."

[Mr. Mojo]

We should stop women from volunteering, correct?

Correct. We should not allow women to volunteer for positions that would send them anywhere near a battlefield.

[Nick Danger]

It always amuses me to come on these threads and hear men saying, "No! We should never let women near combat! They are too important, too precious! It's up to us men to go fight the wars!"

That's OK. But then certain women chime in. They say, "No! We should never be allowed near combat! We are too important, too precious! It's up to you disposable subhumans to go fight wars!"

That's not OK. Women who think that should just shut up. It's hard to be chivalrous when you realize that the object of your affections views you as a chump for doing it.

[Truelove]

If I may add my $.02...it is not an issue of who is more worthy to be protected nor of anyone being subhuman. It is quite simply this, women are weaker, more sensitive and they bear children. If you send them to war in what will eventually be equal numbers, then you will lose much of what keeps this world beautiful and you will have no women left willing or able to carry your children. Women cannot function in combat as well as a man.

I am a former US Marine and I know of whence I speak. "Free a man to fight" was a great idea. "Leave your children and go be raped and killed as a POW" is not a great idea.

There is a difference between men and women; God made it that way. Let it be. Viva La Difference!

[Destructor]

'Bout time! Let's see how long it takes the "feminists" to decide that they want to be treated like ladies again.