Tuesday, January 24, 2012

The Truth about Women & Children First – liberal Victorian statist propaganda

People seem keen to defend the idea of Women & Children First (WCF) on some crypto-survivalist grounds, implying that the idea has ancient roots. The reasoning goes something like this: “WCF is an ancient and natural idea, because without women to bear children, society would have disappeared, and one man can impregnate 100 women, so women are more valuable than men.”

This pseudo-historical crypto-survivalist reasoning is complete hogwash and easily falsified and rejected. In historical fact, the survival of men outweighed just about everything else. The survival of women were a distant second, and the survival of children hardly mattered at all.

The Historical Reality of Female Infanticide

The most obvious counter to the idea of “women as crucial for tribal survival” is the widespread practice (historical and contemporary) of female infanticide. In low-level survivalist societies, females are seen as less than useless, as an actual hindrance to be minimized.

The reasons why women in traditional societies were not valued are readily apparent: they are basically just “another mouth to feed”. Worse, they reproduce, making even more “mouths to feed”. Females in traditional society were luxuries, not necessities.

What is a man with, say, 3 wives and 6 daughters going to do to survive? Compare his situation with the man with 3 brothers and 6 sons. Whether it came to growing or hunting food, or defending territory from aggressors, the man with brothers and sons is at a vast advantage.

The oft-cited example of the “1 man can impregnate 100 women” provides its own reductio ad absurdum:

So, say in a tribal conflict, one tribe follows the logic of WCF, and they escape a battle with only 1 male warrior, but all 100 females. Even assuming he wants to get busy and impregnate them all (to ensure the continuation of the tribe, of course!!!), some problems immediately come to mind:
--who is going to be hunting to feed those 100 women (not to mention current and forthcoming children)? And,
--who is going to defend all those women and children from fierce predators (both the ones with four feet, and the ones with two)?

The Primacy of Men

It is painfully obvious that in primitive conditions, the most important element in tribal existence is the presence of large numbers of warriors. Heck, the lack of women is hardly a problem, since a tribe with lots of warriors can just go TAKE WOMEN from other tribes.

In fact, this is exactly what we see in history: lots of female infanticide and lots of “bride kidnapping”.

The idea that a man should sacrifice himself for the survival of a female is ABSURD and SELF-CONTRADICTORY, since HIS sacrifice would do little more than ensure HER doom.

WCF Invented in liberal Victorian Britain – to SERVE the STATE

That is why NO ONE IN HISTORY ever practiced WCF. The concept was invented whole-cloth in that incubator of modern liberalism: Victorian England. Literally, the idea first appeared in the 1850s, and was made super-famous by the events of the Titanic in 1912.

It is no accident that this was precisely the period corresponding to the height of the British Empire. The Empire needed mobs of young men to sign themselves up for self-sacrifice. The concept of WCF is just an ancillary of that pro-Empire propaganda. According to the logic of Empire, you are a coward and failure if you are not willing to sacrifice your own life for the women and children of the homeland.

In fact, it is only in the conditions of the modern nation state that the “1 man for every 100 women” possibility becomes true. In a homeland of millions, with a secured food supply, extensive welfare programs, and professional police forces, women and children are in no danger from the lack of a husband/father.

We can thereby understand the true serendipity of the invention of the WCF doctrine in Victorian Britain: as a tool for the Liberal welfare-warfare State/Empire, which requires an ideology that can convince young men to be willing to throw away their lives for some abstract reason. God bless the Italians and whoever else rejects the absurd and destructive concept.

11 comments:

Professor Hale said...

I have to agree that WCF as a social policy makes no sense at all.

I don't think that any individual has a duty to the human race that transcends his own life. He may have duties to his family and community and that may include serious risk of death. But other than war, we have not seen anything like this practiced in any modern state.

No single human being thinks that he has to safeguard the women so that the human race will continue, or even so that his own nation of humans will continue. History is full of the various branches of humanity being pruned with no regard to their loss from the genetic pool. Those alive today derive from the survivors. Just as those to survive 100 years from now will be, without regard t whether by own genes are found there.

Jennifer said...

Well, so much for the "men cherished women throughout history" argument. LOL One anti-feminist actually argued this. Either extreme, saying men or women are expendable, is utterly disgusting. Looks like the pendulum has indeed swung to the opposite: now men are seen as expendable.

Professor Hale said...

Undoubtedly, lots of men did in fact cherish lots of women. Mostly though, it was either the women they knew and were obligated to or to women who because of their charm and hooters were women that the men WANTED to be obligated to.

There have always been betas.

Jennifer said...

Yes, there have always been good men, and more civilized societies did tend to protect women, and in some ways honor them (cloaks over puddles, standing up when a lady entered or left).

But God bless the Concordia nothing. Forget WACF; anyone who barrels past people smaller than themselves are cowards, and that's what much of the untrained crew and spineless captain did. Most of the men helped women and others, and I read of two women who helped a hurt man in the Twin Towers. Whatever sex you are, this is the Christian example, and this is what we should emulate.

Jennifer said...

Sure is ironic how the WACF was a flame of liberalism in a general ocean of tight conservatism. But the Empire back then and liberal government now have one common belief: we own all.

Anonymous said...

It is great to see a christian who rejects the nonsensical WCF idea. Otherwise, we would only have the ideas of christian males like bonald to represent christianity.

Proph said...

For myself, whether or not men historically *have* cherished women is immaterial to the central question: that biologically speaking men are disposable to an extent women are not. Insofar as the end in question relates to reproduction, the fact of female infanticide in primitive cultures is only more evidence of this: that women were killed *precisely because* they are valuable from a reproductive standpoint. (We should hesitate to think this is somehow consistent with our natures. Clearly this is an example of a society so deranged by resource scarcity that human nature is unable to shine through and people are reduced to acting like animals.) This is coded in our natures and therefore a thing of significance.

The fact you cite, that men traditionally go off to war, is simply more proof of this. Men do dangerous things in order to acquire reproductive advantage. Roy Baumeister gave a good speech on the topic a few years ago and suggested, evolutionarily, that this is why men are represented both at the highest and lowest strata of society. More men are millionaires but also prisoners, casualties of war, and victims of workplace fatalities. Historically speaking, 80% of women have reproduced but only 40% of men. This is inescapably significant.

A society that sent its women off to war would almost certainly perish, virtually without exception, and not just because women make inferior warriors.

Justin said...

Thanks for the comments, all.

Proph, there is no way women can be considered more biologically important. For men, women are a luxury, an extra burden to be had when times are good.

For women, men are not a luxury, they are an absolute requirement. Without men to protect and provide for them, women rapidly decend to the status of something's food, or someone's property.

Even in today's modern miracle of a civilization, if 99% of women disappeared, things would continue on. If 99% of men disappeared, society would collapse and disintegrate instantly.

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...

No, I don't think things would continue on just like that, Justin. If nothing else, men would go insane. God didn't make either sex to be expendable in the least. If one sex behaves that way, they're going by brutal, limited and humanistic thinking. Hence why the men of those tribes were utter savages.

Proph said...

"For women, men are not a luxury, they are an absolute requirement. Without men to protect and provide for them, women rapidly decend to the status of something's food, or someone's property."

But the fact of dependency generates moral obligation on the part of men and natural rights on the part of women. Pointing to primitive societies in which conditions re: radical resource scarcity overshadowed ethical considerations don't change the nature of the ethical considerations.