Gendering Human Responsibility


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The portion of the Steven Biel reading that was particularly interesting to me was his description of the ways in which different narratives developed regarding “male chivalry” after the Titanic’s sinking. This discussion relates directly to my research on the various portrayals of male heroism as a result of the Titanic for my final paper.  My research has led me to read various newspaper articles from the days and weeks after the Titanic sinking, most of which exuberantly praise the men who died on the ship as a result of the “women and children first” philosophy.

Biel’s discussion makes is obvious that the narrative of “male chivalry” was by no means uncontested. The ways in which the same narrative regarding male heroism were manipulated after the disaster of the Titanic is what makes the study of gender relations during this time period so interesting. The perspective from the Progressive Women’s magazine is particularly interesting as it makes no attempt to negate the male’s “chivalrous” end, but instead points out the absence of male chivalry in life (Biel 104-105). This narrative calls out the concept of human responsibility in disaster, which we have discussed repetitively in class. However, this narrative takes the additional step of gendering the term, and instead of blaming human error, it specifically targets male error as the cause of the disaster. These women’s interpretation of the male sex’s guilt in the Titanic is related to Molly’s previous post about the ways in which the people in charge are primarily responsible for the disaster.