• Women and Children first
    300 replies, posted
[QUOTE=archangel125;34213222]I think it's justified. It's not necessarily sexist so much as an honor principle. And it has practical applications. Children need to be protected first and foremost - I don't think that point is being debated. Furthermore, men are (for the most part) far stronger physically than women are (They are socially expected to be, and they are better genetically equipped to gain muscle mass) and so, as the last evacuees, will be better able to provide assistance necessary to save more lives until they're allowed to evacuate.[/QUOTE] And what about the men who are weaker than average or the women who are stronger than average? Wouldn't it be better to just treat everyone equally in this manner than just operate on the assumption that all people in trouble will correspond to averages? And honour principle or not, it's still based on sexism, the idea that men's lives and women's lives are not equal.
I understand the children part, but I disagree that letting women on first should be a rule so much as a choice. If I'm on a sinking ship, I don't give a fuck what my genitals look like. I want to live.
I don't like the idea of Chivalry, at least not in the sense that you should be kind and noble to women, because I think it makes a lot more sense to be kind and noble to everyone regardless of gender, and that nobody should get special treatment because of what they have in their pants.
I'd consider it honourable to let the women on first (obviously after the children). That's just how I've been raised, still following the old ways to a degree. Honourable, as in putting women before myself.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34212951]what if there aren't enough boats for everyone? Than it does become a social issue.[/QUOTE] Too bad.
I don't like the way that people just go "lol it's honorable and ~tradition~ plus I guess I just got raised in the old ways" like tradition is an automatic pass, it's actually a good thing, and you can't change the way you think
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;34215149]I don't like the way that people just go "lol it's honorable and ~tradition~ plus I guess I just got raised in the old ways" like tradition is an automatic pass, it's actually a good thing, and you can't change the way you think[/QUOTE] It's an idiotic way of thinking. Why should men have to sacrifice their lives just because "it's tradition lol" Maybe that's how you were taught to think, but then again that's how many homophobics are taught to think.
Actually now that i think about it. 300 people left in the world 150 each female and male lifeboats only hold up to 151 people total if 150 females and 1 male get on the race can survive if 150 males and 1 female get on then it can survive but same genes and eventually we all become retarded
I think it makes more sense to say "Civilians first" instead of "Woman and children first." It would be less sexist, since in such a situation, women may be serving as police/firefighters/soldiers.
[QUOTE=IMoo;34215570]Actually now that i think about it. 300 people left in the world 150 each female and male lifeboats only hold up to 151 people total if 150 females and 1 male get on the race can survive if 150 males and 1 female get on then it can survive but same genes and eventually we all become retarded[/QUOTE] Or split it into 75 of each gender and then the race can survive while being more or less equal. Actually choosing one gender to become dominant and only one of the other gender is quite possibly the dumbest thing you could do in that situation. You're facing a world where civilization no longer exists. You're facing disease and constant danger. If that one person dies, well then everyone is fucked.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;34215585]Or split it into 75 of each gender and then the race can survive while being more or less equal.[/QUOTE] ^
Children first is fine (although I wouldn't give my spot to a kid if it meant my death), but enforcing the women part is stupid [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] how is a random woman any more or less deserving than a random man
It's not entirely sexist, but it is. Children can be male or female.
[QUOTE=HorizoN;34215054]Too bad.[/QUOTE] too bad? That still doesn't solve the issue. Should everyone run towards boats, and whoever gets there first gets it? "Too Bad" isn't even an answer.
I have not exhaustingly thought the issue through, but is it possible that women and children are perhaps favored over men due to their lesser body weight, therefore enabling a greater amount of them to fit on a single craft?
[QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;34216579]I have not exhaustingly thought the issue through, but is it possible that women and children are perhaps favored over men due to their lesser body weight, therefore enabling a greater amount of them to fit on a single craft?[/QUOTE] So fat women and children should be left behind in such a situation?
I'd hate to broach this, but I think this is the perfect subject. Where are all of the feminists that should be in this thread denouncing this practice? I thought feminism was "promoting the equality of both sexes," so shouldn't this be something feminism should be trying to stop? Wouldn't this also somehow count as yet another undesirable artifact of an oppressive patriarchy?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34215993]too bad? That still doesn't solve the issue. Should everyone run towards boats, and whoever gets there first gets it? "Too Bad" isn't even an answer.[/QUOTE] Survival of the fittest.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34215993]too bad? That still doesn't solve the issue. Should everyone run towards boats, and whoever gets there first gets it? "Too Bad" isn't even an answer.[/QUOTE] Whoever gets there first. Too bad for the poor suckers who don't.
I think Children and wounded first myself
Children should be first, since they are literally the next generation. But women should be valued just as much as men. Women trying to save men, men trying to save women.
[QUOTE=HorizoN;34218450]Whoever gets there first. Too bad for the poor suckers who don't.[/QUOTE] okay, at least that is an actual answer, unlike your previous post. But it's still a horrible idea. Evacuation should be orderly, not "running for the hills". And why is it that so many people in this thread don't care about other humans? [editline]14th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=gk99;34218298]Survival of the fittest.[/QUOTE] this is an evacuation, not evolution. [editline]14th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Zezibesh;34215657]Children first is fine (although I wouldn't give my spot to a kid if it meant my death)[/QUOTE] "Children First, unless it affects me."
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34218982]okay, at least that is an actual answer, unlike your previous post. But it's still a horrible idea. Evacuation should be orderly, not "running for the hills". And why is it that so many people in this thread don't care about other humans?[/QUOTE] Because of self preservation. There's no reason to paint people like murderers for putting their own life before others's. It's only natural. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34218982]"Children First, unless it affects me."[/QUOTE] More like the rule makes sense, but we wouldn't want to follow it should it come into play because of, again, self preservation. If I am facing death I'm most likely not going to care about any of the women or children standing between me and this hypothetical life boat.
The way I see it is women and children should go first in a disaster cause the kids need to be kept safe, and because I fully expect everyone near the disaster who has a dong should be working together to save as many people as they can and THEN getting the fuck out of Dodge.
Do you really expect women to swim for their lives? Their dresses would make it very difficult: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Harrods_1909.jpg[/img]
Well, obviously women and children first because they're going to procreate.
[QUOTE=Bobv2;34217860]I'd hate to broach this, but I think this is the perfect subject. Where are all of the feminists that should be in this thread denouncing this practice? I thought feminism was "promoting the equality of both sexes," so shouldn't this be something feminism should be trying to stop? Wouldn't this also somehow count as yet another undesirable artifact of an oppressive patriarchy?[/QUOTE] Most of the "feminists" believe that isn't "sexism" or against feminism. They want more rights for women. But that doesn't mean the real feminists think this would be bullshit as well. Personally, if the boat was sinking, I may stay on the boat till everyone is safe, I don't really have much to live for, and it would be a sacrifice in a way(heroic, or mostly senseless). But, I think I might try to say fuck this and get on the lifeboat before I die.
If you want to sacrifice your life, go right ahead then because ours are apparently worth more to you guys. It STILL shouldn't be a rule though.
Has no place in today's world imo.
[QUOTE=Otsegolation;34221091]Well, obviously women and children first because they're going to procreate.[/QUOTE] Not sure if serious. This argument would make sense if there weren't, y'know, 7 billion people in the world who are going to do that regardless of whether a (relative) few die.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.