IN THE discussion of the men who reportedly left the sinking Costa Concordia without helping women and children, Jesse Powell explains why the behavior of men on the Titanic has received so much attention. He writes: 

There’s a reason why the heroic sacrifice of men on the Titanic became legendary and was celebrated far and wide for generations. It was the ultimate exemplar of chivalry; it was the strongest possible signal to womankind that they were safe and would be well cared for under the direction and authority of men.

As Jesse also notes:

Men must take care of women precisely to prevent women from feeling the need to take care of themselves; a woman who feels the need to take care of herself is exactly what a feminist is.

Men sacrificing a seat on a lifeboat on a sinking ship is the most extreme example of the chivalrous principle that the protection and needs of women come first but the chivalrous principle itself is very broad and very important. A man who as a part of his regular day to day identity takes his role as provider and protector seriously will find it natural and obvious that he should protect women in the extreme circumstance of the sinking ship even at cost and sacrifice to himself because part of his fundamental identity as a man is that he is a protector of women. He protects women in mundane and routine ways everyday and so he will protect women to in the most extreme and terrible circumstance of the sinking ship. It is who he is, it is what men do; to do otherwise is unthinkable and shameful.

Chivalry, the man’s duty to provide for and protect women, is a fundamental value necessity for good relations between the sexes. The purpose of promoting chivalry on a sinking ship is not because there is a high social value to large numbers of men dying as long as that means small numbers of women die, the purpose is to promote chivalry overall as a constant value that applies in all circumstances, even in the extreme case of the sinking ship. The men who sacrificed themselves on the Titanic were not merely sacrificing themselves as individual men for the benefit of some individual woman, they were laying down their lives to uphold the societal principle of chivalry; that the protection of women comes first. This principle in turn sets out a moral example for all men to aspire to and it provides a signal of protection that all women can take comfort in and rely upon. Once chivalry is thus reinforced as a bedrock principle of society the social order is then secured.

— Comments —

Jill Farris writes:

Mr. Powell wrote…” a woman who feels the need to take care of herself is exactly what a feminist is.”

I don’t think this statement is correct. I know women who don’t particularly trust men and who have taken on the burden of being the provider of their family but they have retained their femininity and still believe that men and women are different and that men have worth. These women would accept help and protection from chivalrous men because they would recognize their own need for it.

Feminists, on the other hand, have rejected their own female design and loathe men. If approached by a chivalrous man they would probably mock him (although, if they were traveling on the Titanic, I bet they would have scrambled for help from anyone who gave it!).

I continue to be astonished at how many women of my mothers generation were feminists (my mother is 85). While, outwardly, they enjoyed many benefits of a society that protected and provided for men (when my parents divorced my father provided full support in spite of no-fault divorce laws because good men of his generation were expected to do that), inwardly, many of the non-christian women of that era voted differently from their husbands, pushed for abortion laws and supported the movement that gave birth to radical feminism. Both my mother and my mother-in-law thought that Margaret Sanger (the founder of what became Planned Parenthood) was a great humanitarian (!!).

My sister, very naturally, was encouraged to embrace the feminism of the 1960’s by my mother. My sister was stunningly beautiful with long dark hair when she was young. I still remember the men who eagerly held doors open for her as she spat out, “Male chauvinist PIG!” at them for doing so.

Manly men should continue to act chivalrous in spite of rejection and ridicule by some (not all) women because it is the right thing to do.

Laura writes:

I don’t think Mrs. Farris is really disagreeing with Mr. Powell’s statement. Mr. Powell said,  …” a woman who feels the need to take care of herself is exactly what a feminist is.” The key phrase is, “feels the need.” The women Mrs. Farris describes may be taking care of themselves but their identity doesn’t revolve around that autonomy, as Mr. Powell’s phrase suggests.

I agree with Mrs. Farris other point. The Greatest Generation wasn’t so great. They stood by and let the cultural revolution happen. They approved of it.

John E. writes:

Thanks to Jesse Powell for his thoughtful and metaphysical explanation of masculine chivalry. I want to live in a society where men, including myself, as a rule would willingly lay down their lives for women. To that end, Mr. Powell rightly points out that chivalry is enduring because it is in a man’s nature and has nothing to do with the value of one kind of human over another. As a practical matter, I think that most men who are in agreement with the egalitarian claims that chivalry is unnecessary would find the admonition to begin again to practice chivalry because their lives are less valuable than women’s to be highly unmotivating. The idea that chivalry is part of his nature is, even if nothing else, at least inspiring.

Laura writes:

Chivalry is part of man’s nature. But so is selfishness. A man chooses to emulate God when he is chivalrous and may receive nothing concrete, not even heroic feelings, in return.

Alissa writes:

My first introduction to the Titanic was the 1997 movie with Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio when I was a child. I disliked the rebellious girl theme ending up with her ‘true love’ and being ‘free’ but I loved the portrayal of the sinking of the Titanic ship. That what was made the film worthwhile for me. The captain sinking with his ship was another highlight. Jack dying didn’t give me a lot of sentiment but that was because I disliked their pairing.

Please follow and like us: