• money_loo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, yeah. She was still a woman in an oppressively ordered patriarchy. Things have gotten a lot better since then.

    • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      True.

      That said, on that specific night, women were lucky the patriarchy was still in place, as ladies first chivalry, based on the idea that women were objects/property to be cared for rather than individuals who could/should fend for themselves, still applied and well over twice as many women were given seats on lifeboats as men, which would be seen as really patronizing today.

      Everything has a cost, even equality.

      • ivanafterall@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        As a man, I would have fought tooth and nail for a seat, but not out of selfishness.

        “PLEASE UNDERSTAND I’M DOING THIS FOR THE CAUSE OF WOMEN’S EQUALITY!!!”

      • money_loo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        For sure.

        It’s just once they got back home they still weren’t allowed to vote, grow professional careers, get equal access to higher education, own their own property while with a man because of coverture laws, be allowed to play in athletic sports or form leagues, hold any real position of political power, get a divorce easily to escape abusive relationships, allowed to be legally raped by their spouses as much as he wanted while having zero reproductive rights, etc.

        Just some give and take for that one day for some unlucky dudes, as you put it.

        • funkajunk@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Those dudes weren’t just “unlucky”, they fucking died. Stop focusing on genetalia and look at humanity.

          • money_loo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            …it was a tongue-in-cheek reply to the dismissive retort of the person I was responding to…the tone of which was meant to convey the ridiculousness of the statement, which they heavily edited to be far less sexist, to their credit.

            Also how would you like me to not recognize the disparity imparted by their “genitals” in a comment discussing how the people with openings for genitals were allowed special treatment at this time, and less so at later times. It’s literally the entire context.