Girls are fragile creatures (bull), we bare the children (true..) and most importantly, we are obviously the weaker sex (fuck off).

I always think that I sound like some crazy man-hating feminist when I start to write any of these articles, but then I realized, oh wait, I shave my legs……(no offence meant by this comment-jokes are meant to incite laughter, not rage).

I recently watched a sketch comedy short about how this guy felt duped by the whole, women and children require saving first. His comedy was rather harsh so I felt like he was just a big arsehole and was prepared to fume at his ignorance, when I considered his point for a moment.

If we strive for equality, then why are men’s lives valued less than a woman’s? Sure women have children and are revered for housing the miracle of life, but isn’t that a two way street? Aren’t men needed in that process too (at least their man-juice anyway..)

The whole women and children requirement isn’t actually a legal obligation, it’s just something that society has always believed. The idea stems from Hollywood who often portrays dramatic rescue scenes with women and children being sent off to safety while the strapping young male hero sacrifices his life for the greater good.

Hollywood, why must you do this to us? Mainstream movies depict women as emotion wrecks who can’t save themselves and yet men get put in danger more often in order to save said women.

In order to equalize the playing field, men’s lives need to be at the same value as a woman’s, and women need to be portrayed saving their own damn butts. Because, contrary to what Hollywood says, female characters can shoot em’ up as well as the boys; we aren’t afraid to break a nail.


About Mighty Damsels

I am a sick and tired nerd. Male characters have dominated the action/sci-fi/fantasy genres for far too long. No more will women be in distress, cast as the "girlfriend" or made to wear tight leather pants. Ladies! Raise up your swords, M16's, phaser guns and pens!

One response »

  1. Levy says:

    Actually, female embryonic stem cells have been used to make sperm cells, so men may not really be required in the future. Of course, it will be easier, and probably cheaper, just to have sex, but the possibility is out there.

    But yeah, I do agree that the inequality of a person’s life is equated to their gender is a bad thing. But in a movie like Titanic, they were just trying to depict what things were like at the time. (Or at least that’s what I thought you meant when you mentioned the movie bit.) Rose was also in an arranged marriage in that movie and had little elsewhere to turn. If she didn’t marry Cal, her mother and herself would fall into poverty, if she did, then she would be unhappy. 1912 was a rough time. Also, the women and children first thing, I thought anyway, was more for procreation. A single man can procreate many times in 9 months time, while a woman is limited to just once every 9 months, two if twins are involved. I think that’s where the idea of “women and children first” came about, as genetically, men are expendable in tragic circumstances. It’s really something that shouldn’t be considered now, since we have over 7 billion people on the planet already. We got enough babies to deal with.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s