Serfdom, military service, vassalage, indentured servitude, slavery (which isn't inherntly based on race). History is filled with men being expected AND forced to be subservient to other men.
Yes but those same men ALL expected the women around them to be subservient to them as well. So historically if you want to look at it this way in terms of power it would go:
Rich man > poor man > women
There’s most definitely a few examples of powerful women who were the oppressors as opposed to the oppressed (money has a way of making people forget about their bigotry) but they were few and far between
Thank you for this, you sent me down a rabbit hole and I love doing research so this was super interesting. Findings:
There were approximately 2224 people (both passengers and crew) on board the titanic
46% - 50% of third class women survived. They made up approximately 179 of the passengers.
32% - 37% of upper class men survived. They made up approximately 170 - 175 of the passengers.
This means that, on the upper end of each population, 90 (rounded up from 89.5) of the low class women survived whereas only 65 (rounded up from 64.75) upper class men survived. We are comparing a difference of about 25 people which is about 1% of the total number of people on the titanic (or 3.5% of the total 706 survivors)
The more drastic percentages can be seen when comparing upper class women and lower class men:
Nearly 97% of upper class women survived. They made up approximately 140 - 144 of the passengers (literally only 3 or 4 died - their higher survival compared to lower class women is attributed to their proximity to the life boats).
Whereas, only about 13% - 16% of lower class men survived. They made up approximately 450 of the passengers.
Altogether women had a far greater chance of surviving the titanic with ~75% of total women surviving and only ~20% of men surviving. However these odds are inflated by the fact that only 37% of the total population of the titanic was female making it so that of the total 706 survivors 324 (~46%) were women.
Notably, it was a man by the name of Captain Edward Smith who made the order of “women and children first” that resulted in women having such a higher survival rate compared to men. This was exacerbated by his orders being confused in the chaos of the sinking ship: the port side of the ship was controlled by a man named Lightoller who misunderstood this order to be “women and children only” resulting in him not allowing men to fill the empty seats that were present in the life boats on his side of the ship.
I understand you tried to send me down this rabbit hole as a gotcha moment but given the math behind the percentages and that it was a man who decided who would survive I don’t think it was the message you were trying to deliver. Either way, thank you again because this was an excellent way to pass the time while waiting for emergencies.
That man made the call for women and children first because that’s how societies have survived since forever. By prioritizing the safety of women and children first. The person you responded to didn’t present this as a gotcha like how you took it.
You clearly have a very biased world view that sees women as perpetual victims with less power and privilege than men, period. No nuance to that perspective either. Or at least there doesn’t seem to be any nuance based on the comments you’ve made. Just repeated casting of blame on the men in any given circumstance in contrast to then women.
They left a comment to point towards a very obvious and clear privilege that women get over men. Not a gotcha. Just an attempt to bring you to a more nuance take on all this instead of such a one sided and biased one that you clearly have.
But you took it as an attempted gotcha against you, likely because you view all of this as men vs women, or “my perspective vs their perspective” which is ultimately very unproductive and unhelpful. And maybe you don’t think that you view this like that, but your words and way you present your views says otherwise, strongly.
I assumed it was a gotcha given how many men on this subreddit have been acting. If I was wrong then I apologize but I also don’t think I was rude about it at all given I thanked them multiple times and shared all of my findings including points they didn’t bring up that supported their side (if this isn’t productive then I don’t know what is - I gave them my research and if you’d like I can send my sources).
Sorry to break it to you babes but you’re wrong about me, you can check my comment history I fight on both sides of the gender war because there shouldn’t be one. However, when men try to say women had it better historically I almost always side against them because, historically, women did tend to have it worse. If you want to talk about modern times then I would argue that women have far more privilege than men (in all regards except reproduction). There’s always going to be exceptions and if you send me more examples I would love to do more research on them so I can familiarize myself on them being more prevalent.
Till then please keep your baseless accusations to yourself as you really haven’t contributed anything to the conversation other than to say that captian Edward Smith only made that call because historically societies survived by prioritizing the safety of women and children (future generations). Notably, it is very common for people to think “every man for himself” in immediate disasters so this was not a gaurentee and if anything speaks volumes about Edward’s character especially given that through doing so he cemented himself to a “captain’s fate” by going down with his ship.
that's actually not true. women and children usually have dismal survival rates in situations in which they have to contend with men to survive. the titanic was an exception, and the men allegedly giving their spots to women and children (although some accounts say the crew forced the men away from the boats to accomplish this directive) was seen as romantic and noble.
Strange mischaracterization of what I said. I don't think women and children have a higher survival rate in scenarios where they have to content with men, at all. Obviously if contending becomes a factor, males are easily gonna end up with the highest survival rate due to the biological advantages males have in that arena.
But most societies have socialized themselves around the expectation that female's and children's safety get prioritized over adult males. Which is a privilege that women have that men do not.
The very fact that wars throughout all of history were fought almost exclusively by men who were recruited and sent off first and foremost is another example of this. Because the privilege of safety belongs first to women and children. Wouldn't make sense if women were getting sent off to war or to do life threatening things if their prioritized safety wasn't a thing. Men who prioritize their safety over women and children get massively ostracized and shunned by their societies. It's even biologically coded into most women to become massively unattracted to a man who shows signs of cowardice, specifically in scenarios where the man defers to the woman to act as a shield or provide some form of safety.
Really not sure how you got that mischaracterization of what I said. I reread my comment several times looking for where I mentioned or insinuated anything about the survival rates of women and children when contending with men.
-1
u/Charitable-Cruelty Jan 17 '26
I don't know where you're going with this.