Women in sinking scenes of camerons film and miniseries

Harry Peach

Member
Jun 26, 2005
10
0
71
Hi there Im new to this forum but one issue id like to discuss is the number of women seen in the sinking scenes of these two movies as I dont think anyones pointed this out yet. As we all know a vast magority of the victims of titanic where men and approximately 9 men died to every 1 women or child that did, in fact in some crews accounts they mention scanning the decks and not spotting any women about, whilst In the above two adaptations there everywhere - in fact they seem to have evened the number of men/women out (probably for more dramatic effect) to a ratio of almost 50/50- if u look at all the people running about/clinging to rails/in water - anyone else got any thoughts on the matter
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,587
376
283
Easley South Carolina
>>As we all know a vast magority of the victims of titanic where men and approximately 9 men died to every 1 women or child that did<<

*Nine* to one? You might want to click on This Article By Lester Mitcham. The final gross tally looks closer to 3 to 1, at least among the passengers. (See the paragraph at the bottom of the page.)

As to who was on deck and the gender breakdown of same in the actual event, I don't really think there's any way to know.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,480
3
166
Male Passengers Lost 662; W&C 155; so just [fractionally] over 4.25 men for each woman or child.

Total men lost 1,338; W&C 158; so just [fractionally] under 8.5 to 1.
 

Michael lowe

Member
Apr 2, 2006
61
0
76
I saw that a lot of the women were 3rd class, and 3rd class were kept locked in the bottom of the ship until quite near the end so not all of them got in a boat. That's why there were quite a lot

Take her to sea Mr Murdoch-Let's stretch her legs
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Michael well it wasnt just cause they were or were not locked below it was cause most couldnt speak english and couldnt understand the signs posted around the different corridors, then they didnt know much about how first and second class was laid out so in theory there wouldnt be many third class women on deck but there would be a good number on the stern in his movie i think there were a few too many women, it seems like during the sinking the passenger manifest had quite a few women onboard
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,587
376
283
Easley South Carolina
Actually, the part about being locked below is very problematic from the standpoint of real history, and looks to be more the stuff of legend then reality, but the confusing maze that made up the below decks couldn't have been helpful. There were a lot of dead ends down there.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
I dont really belive they were locked below deck, it is kind of hard to disprove that the deck entrances were locked (the climbable gate from the well deck stairs to the foreward part of B deck)
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,587
376
283
Easley South Carolina
>>I dont really belive they were locked below deck,<<

Nor do I. The much vaunted Bostwick Gates are only shown in two places on the deck plans. With one being located in the forward steerage accomadation...an area that was flooded early on...and the other in a crews working space back aft, neither looks to be in a position to be a factor. I think more then anything, the big problem was nothing more then simple miscommunication. The 3rd class just never "Got the word" that there was a problem much less what to do.

You might be amazed at how often that happens in a crisis. Especially when there's no plan to deal with surprises to begin with.
 

Don Tweed

Member
Mar 30, 2006
590
1
86
I'm not sure if it was a crewman or maybe even
August Wennerstrom, who stated seeing 3rd class passengers in the 3rd class general room who made no effort to reach the boat deck. They simply accepted their fate and resigned them selves to prayer.
I remember some reference that after so many years of servitude to the upper classes and being watched over and cared for by these people, that they would do the same in this situation. They had no idea that the Edwardian mind set had failed completely.
Thinking out loud, Don
 
S

sharon rutman

Guest
In general, women fare very badly in Titanic movies. Rose's idiot Mom Ruth is wondering if the lifeboats will be seated according to class. Then there's Anne Archer in Raise the Titanic. No need to elaborate on that, I think. There's Old Rose spitefully tossing a multi-million dollar diamond back into the ocean like one would casually toss a pebble into a pond. Barbara Stanwyck hysterically shrieks for Norman when the kid leaves the lifeboat to be with the father who spurned him so callously. (is dying with dad better than being shackled to Mom forever)? No, we women just can't catch a break, can we?
 
May 3, 2005
2,192
170
133
Sharon, sorry about that-

>> No, we women just can't catch a break, can we?<<

Daisy Cashmore in the "Titanic Adventure Out Of Time" CD-ROM Game doesn't fare any better. :)
 
Nov 26, 2005
671
1
88
LOL Robert. Neither does Lady Georgia depending on when you choose to rescue her. I waited until the last minute just to see what would happen and she ended up next to me on the stern. Poor girl.
 
S

sharon rutman

Guest
Here it is nearly the end of 2006 and women still trapped in that way too tight Edwardian corset. This also applies to female Titanic researchers, not just to characters in Titanic movies. We're meant to "retire" whilst the guys take refuge with their brandy and cigars to their very own enclave to discuss monumental Titanic guy stuff. If you don't believe me just check out the Titanic 95th website. Only one woman is going to lecture in Halifax??? That corset pinches a little too tight at times.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
4,952
204
193
My next project is a movie about an Edwardian feminist. It will star Jemima Dean. The working title is Rebel Without a Corset.
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
34
208
quote:

This also applies to female Titanic researchers, not just to characters in Titanic movies. We're meant to "retire" whilst the guys take refuge with their brandy and cigars to their very own enclave to discuss monumental Titanic guy stuff.
We are? Guess someone neglected to send me the "no admission to women" memo re the smoking room, because I've never felt any such exclusion. I've delivered papers on the subject whenever I've cared to do so, and even though it's not my primary area of research, I enjoy an excellent working relationship and personal friendship with those on the technical side of matters such as Parks Stephenson and Mark Chirnside, exchanging ideas and material.

I don't think I'm an exception, either - there are many highly experienced and talented female researchers.

Is there the odd troglodyte lumbering around the research landscape who believes women don't belong in this field? Yes - but they're the exception (and they have their female counterparts as well - still mired in outmoded ways of thinking).

I defy anyone to accuse me of wearing a corset - pyschological or otherwise.​
 
S

sharon rutman

Guest
I'm not so sure about that and if you don't believe me pop any of your Titanic documentaries into your VCR or DVD player. With the exception of the occasional female Titanic survivor only male researchers are present and accounted for from everything from voice overs to expounding on their expertise. Sorry, we're still on the outside looking in.
 
S

sharon rutman

Guest
I'm not laughing. But you're also proving my point about how women are marginalized brilliantly. Bravo.
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
34
208
quote:

I'm not laughing. But you're also proving my point about how women are marginalized brilliantly. Bravo.
No, you're not laughing - you just wish to appear that you are by an affectation of insouciance. The follow up dismissive sarcasm - in substitute for an argument - illustrates how weak your position in this matter is.

You assume that because there are more male researchers in this field it is the result of exclusion of females, deliberate or otherwise. This is poor methodology - it would be the same as assuming that a field with a higher percentage of women researchers is actively discriminating against men. There can be many reasons why the field may not appeal to as many women, but you jump to the conclusion that it's a deliberate policy of restriction, i.e. corseting.

Your remarks are tremendously insulting to the large numbers of women who are actively involved in not only researching this subject, but also in presenting their findings - many of whom participate on this board.

In defiance of your reductive, insulting generality, I'll present you with a case study - myself. I have not been hindered by anyone - male or female - from participating or contributing in any form I choose. I have provided material to documentary makers, been interviewed in the electronic and print media, published articles in journals for three different Titanic societies. When I have shared information with male or female researchers, it has been formally acknowledged in their publications. I regularly participate in gatherings of researchers with a variety of interests, including technical. Far from tolerance or condescension (and yes, I am sensitive to these things), all I have encountered is interest in what I have to contribute. This is what I, as a feminist and as a human strive for - to be taken judged on my own merits, my own abilities. It is particularly gratifying that this has been the case - with, as I noted above, rare exceptions that are noticeable because they are rare exceptions.

So go on - you tell me. How am I corseted in my contribution? How am I restricted? I challenge you to tell me that.

If you feel restricted or excluded, I think you should look at other reasons rather than concluding that there's a patriarchal conspiracy to confine you. If you're seeing barriers, you might want to determine if you put them there. Because I certainly haven't encountered any such deep seated resistance, and neither, to my knowledge, have the many women I have collaborated with in the field.​
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,587
376
283
Easley South Carolina
You all know something: The "I'm-So-Persecuted" activism is really wearing thin here.

I can think of a number of women who have been involved in Titanic research who have not been marginalized in any way. Inger for one, Cathy Akers-Jordan, Susan Wels, Karen Kamuda, Suzzanne Stormer, Stephanie Barczewski, Lori Johnston, Judith Geller, Mary Ann Whitley, Denise Hunyadi, and of course Shelley Dziedzic just to name a few. And Sharon, let's not forget some of your own contributions. (You co-wrote a book on the subject.)

While these people are sometimes controversial, (Let's face it, it goes with the territory) I haven't seen any of them marginalized because of their gender and I dare anyone with anything less then a bona fide death wish to try and get any one of them in a corset for anything beyond a costume party. Better make sure your will is up to date before you try it!

If you don't see a representative cross section of the population invovled, one might want to consider that it's a lack of interest rather then anything else. You can't force anyone to a party if they don't want to attend. For those who do, any judgements I make are based on the substance of what I see and what's offered to back it up and I'm not the only one.

Gender is irrelevant.