Women and Children first - General

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;34213977]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.[/QUOTE] This basically, and I am a girl so it's not like I am bitter over girls getting special treatment. I just think it's unfair to give someone special treatment because of their gender. [QUOTE=CommunistCookie;34221418]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.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Continuing the population isn't exactly an issue these days when there's so many of us in the world. I personally understand saving the children but I don't think it's fair to value the life of a woman because of old fashioned beliefs and make men seem expendable. [QUOTE=ForcedDj;34221363]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. [/QUOTE] Are they really feminists? I thought feminism was about women having equal rights to men not about having more rights and putting men down.

[QUOTE=xXDictatorXx;34221472]This basically, and I am a girl so it's not like I am bitter over girls getting special treatment. I just think it's unfair to give someone special treatment because of their gender. Exactly. Continuing the population isn't exactly an issue these days when there's so many of us in the world. I personally understand saving the children but I don't think it's fair to value the life of a woman because of old fashioned beliefs and make men seem expendable. Are they really feminists? I thought feminism was about women having equal rights to men not about having more rights and putting men down.[/QUOTE] Cannot agree more on this.

Children first? Definitely, no question. Women? Eh. Split on it. Part of me says sure, the other part says no.

Now days, there should have been enough lifeboats for everyone.

An able woman is just as capable at looking after herself on a sinking ship as an able man is, therefore "women first" is wrong. Children, elderly and infirm first is reasonable though, as they are less able to look after themselves and would probably just get in the way.

Hey im still a kid so i got no problem with this

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34210062]because men are traditionally considered to be braver? That they are willing to die if it means saving women? I don't know why, but I don't see why it's a problem. (and is it really sexism if men came up with it?) [editline]14th January 2012[/editline] and because chivalry isn't dead.[/QUOTE] Maybe the man should have a choice if he wants to be brave. Life is about choices and you should be able to choose life or death

If you are only willing to give your life up for someone if they're a woman you're a tit.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34210062](and is it really sexism if men came up with it?)[/QUOTE] a male dictator says "all men should be rounded up and shot" as per his orders, all men are rounded up and shot, just for the crime of being men by your logic this is not sexism [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=CrispexOps;34210045]It's out of respect for the women. A man is supposed to lay down his life for the women he loves, it's been that way for years.[/QUOTE] Placing women on a pedestal and barring them from getting off it isn't good, and it isn't truly respectful. It's treating women as something different because of their sex, and it's viewing them as women first and second as complex human beings with their own feelings and emotions. It's even worse for the men, who are too being seen as their sex first and their personality second, but are also expected to die for it. It's stupid, out of date, and has no logical reason. [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34210658]Because traditionally that is what men do. I'm not saying it should be like a rule, but to me seems like common sense.[/QUOTE] potentially accepting your death for no logical reason is "common sense" right [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] [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] that's not how genetics work - a bunch of people all with the same father are going to be just as genetically similar as a bunch of people all with the same mother [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] I do like how no one in the thread has come up with a reason for this existing other than "it's tradition / chivalry / common sense"

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34222853]If you are only willing to give your life up for someone if they're a woman you're a tit.[/QUOTE] And she has to be a hot woman too! If she's fat and ugly then she can be left behind though.

The "rule" needs to go. If we want true gender equality and no pre-defined gender roles, this has to go too. Saving children is normal and should be done since they're the future, but saving one gender over another is wrong. Men deserve to live just as much as women and whoever thinks otherwise is a discriminating idiot. I say you should have the choice to sacrifice yourself for whatever but never to be forced to do so.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;34224736]The "rule" needs to go. If we want true gender equality and no pre-defined gender roles, this has to go too. Saving children is normal and should be done since they're the future, but saving one gender over another is wrong. Men deserve to live just as much as women and whoever thinks otherwise is a discriminating idiot. I say you should have the choice to sacrifice yourself for whatever but never to be forced to do so.[/QUOTE] Wise words.

I think the only fair way is to dispose of the lifeboats straight away and allow everyone to die. It's only right.

[QUOTE=Negrul1;34224229]a male dictator says "all men should be rounded up and shot" as per his orders, all men are rounded up and shot, just for the crime of being men by your logic this is not sexism [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] Placing women on a pedestal and barring them from getting off it isn't good, and it isn't truly respectful. It's treating women as something different because of their sex, and it's viewing them as women first and second as complex human beings with their own feelings and emotions. It's even worse for the men, who are too being seen as their sex first and their personality second, but are also expected to die for it. It's stupid, out of date, and has no logical reason. [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] potentially accepting your death for no logical reason is "common sense" right [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] that's not how genetics work - a bunch of people all with the same father are going to be just as genetically similar as a bunch of people all with the same mother [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] I do like how no one in the thread has come up with a reason for this existing other than "it's tradition / chivalry / common sense"[/QUOTE] No, that is sexism. I meant is it sexism if men decide to lay down their lives for women? and no, it's "common sense" to put others before you. [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Thoughtless;34222269]Now days, there should have been enough lifeboats for everyone.[/QUOTE] agreed. I really don't understand how this problem even comes about.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34225293]No, that is sexism. I meant is it sexism if men decide to lay down their lives for women? and no, it's "common sense" to put others before you.[/quote] No one's denying anyone the right to, if they want to, let someone else get on the lifeboat first people are arguing against the fact that it is expected, and in some cases required, for men to wait for women to get on the lifeboats before they can themselves

In a way this is a biological survival trait which is still pretty deep within us. A population to survive tends to need far less men than it does women due to how sex works. - Aka 1 male can have multiple children at one moment. This drastically reduces the need for many men. While it is still usefull to have many for more genetic variety, it tends to stabilise over time. And this is a very deeply encoded instinct with us. It's a lot less severe than it was a century or so ago, but keep in mind that this equal society shift has really been going on for only roughly 60, 50 years or so. While you had a number of rights for women they were not seen as equal before. And it is certainly hard to overcome our biology in only two generations or so. Essentially in a way you're getting a couple of mental conflicts. Your knowledge tells you that it isn't important who lives and who dies as there's still more people. Which conflicts with your biology which screams women should be protected more and then compounds with the pretty common belief that a kid with just a mother is better off than a kid with just a father. It's a fairly complex problem overall.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;34226092]In a way this is a biological survival trait which is still pretty deep within us[/QUOTE] Prove it.

It's called Chivalry and each man should have it.

[QUOTE=Bobv2;34217860] Where are all of the feminists that should be in this thread denouncing this practice?[/QUOTE] Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Simply put, there are very few women on Facepunch. [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] Also the OP makes it sound like only men wanted to get on the boats but I'm willing to be the women and children wanted the father to come with. Ideally it would be families with children first.

[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 is an automatic pass why the hell should you bash tradition for people being selfless? the rule was put in place because men are stronger than women and children therefore if they had it their way it'd be lifeboats full of men and a drowning ship of women and children

[QUOTE=Paravin;34226638]It's called Chivalry and each man should have it.[/QUOTE] Certainly not. It's an outdated practice that perpetuates inequality. [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=TBFundy;34227752]it is an automatic pass why the hell should you bash tradition for people being selfless? the rule was put in place because men are stronger than women and children therefore if they had it their way it'd be lifeboats full of men and a drowning ship of women and children[/QUOTE] And you as a man are completely within your free will to let a woman on your lifeboat before you just because she is a woman, but don't try to inhibit other men from getting on them or try to justify the idea that men [I]should be forced[/I] to wait.

I swear the people defending this idiotic "tradition" don't have any better reasons for it.

[QUOTE=TBFundy;34227752]it is an automatic pass why the hell should you bash tradition for people being selfless? the rule was put in place because men are stronger than women and children therefore if they had it their way it'd be lifeboats full of men and a drowning ship of women and children[/QUOTE] Well it's not entirely the case. But apparently survivor demographics do depend a lot on the speed of the cataclysm. If it's something very fast men, irregardless of their social position tend to be more likely to survive. Whereas women have a slight higher chance of being among the dead. But the longer the crisis goes on. - Longer than just a few minutes of terror, the chance of women surviving rises a whole lot and men are more likely to die. Social standing tends to act more as well. Apparently it has something to do with adrenaline based personal survival being replaced with group survival once people calm down at least a tiny bit. [QUOTE=Negrul1;34226490]Prove it.[/QUOTE] Not an anthropologist so can't directly. But there's enough empirical evidence to suggest it. This italian catastrophe just one more. It also does make sense from a purely biological standpoint. On top of that the female<>children connection does not happen only in times of crisis. Just take a look at divorce cases. Who almost always gets the children. It's virtually always the woman, even at times when the man might have been a better choice. Keep in mind, we're discussing why this thing still happens. Not if it's right or wrong.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34227846]Certainly not. It's an outdated practice that perpetuates inequality. [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] And you as a man are completely within your free will to let a woman on your lifeboat before you just because she is a woman, but don't try to inhibit other men from getting on them or try to justify the idea that men [I]should be forced[/I] to wait.[/QUOTE] it's not fair to the women and children they do not have the physical strength to contest the men for the safety if there were no "women and children only" rule, every woman and child would die because they aren't strong enough to push their way (or keep their seats if they are boarded already) to safety you SHOULD be forced to wait because you are given an unequal advantage

[QUOTE=TBFundy;34228016]it's not fair to the women and children they do not have the physical strength to contest the men for the safety if there were no "women and children only" rule, every woman and child would die because they aren't strong enough to push their way (or keep their seats if they are boarded already) to safety you SHOULD be forced to wait because you are given an unequal advantage[/QUOTE] but women AREN'T that much less capable yes women gain muscle at a slower rate, but they aren't all simpering fucking weaklings while all men are manly macho bodybuilders. By your logic a physically fit 20 year old woman is going to be less capable at getting on a boat than a 75 year old man with a zimmerframe and a heart condition, which is obviously bullshit. [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] or hey, how about we just say it's impolite to barge everyone else out of your way while trying to board the lifeboat, then which sex is supposedly better at barging is completely irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Negrul1;34228090]but women AREN'T that much less capable yes women gain muscle at a slower rate, but they aren't all simpering fucking weaklings while all men are manly macho bodybuilders. By your logic a physically fit 20 year old woman is going to be less capable at getting on a boat than a 75 year old man with a zimmerframe and a heart condition, which is obviously bullshit. [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] or hey, how about we just say it's impolite to barge everyone else out of your way while trying to board the lifeboat, then which sex is supposedly better at barging is completely irrelevant.[/QUOTE] no but all the abled bodied men from like, 18-55 are going to be able to get on the boats before anyone else if a ship is sinking it's not a SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST FUCKING BULLDOZE TO THE LIFEBOATS situation think about this if a boat was full of a bunch of football players and a bunch of facepunchers, would it be fair that pretty much all of the facepunchers die because they are weaker? there is really no way to fairly dole out a chance at live, but I would assume that "whomever is stronger" would be one of the least fair ways to do it it's honestly an irrelevant discussion because the last cruise ship I went on had enough space in the lifeboats for the passengers and crew 1.5 times over i just personally think it's dumb is the out of all the traditions people can pick apart, the one that says to be kind to women and children is the one they choose

[QUOTE=HorizoN;34227977]I swear the people defending this idiotic "tradition" don't have any better reasons for it.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't call it idiotic, while it is misguided it is at least altruistic and quite frankly I'd rather they at least followed chivalry rather than acting on self interest.

[QUOTE=xXDictatorXx;34221472]This basically, and I am a girl so it's not like I am bitter over girls getting special treatment. I just think it's unfair to give someone special treatment because of their gender. Exactly. Continuing the population isn't exactly an issue these days when there's so many of us in the world. I personally understand saving the children but I don't think it's fair to value the life of a woman because of old fashioned beliefs and make men seem expendable. Are they really feminists? I thought feminism was about women having equal rights to men not about having more rights and putting men down.[/QUOTE] That is why I put the "" on those "feminists." The real feminists do want equal rights, the crazy ones or women saying that there should be more rights for women and less for the other, they are sexist morons. So no, they are more of the a different version of them. But again, half of me says let them get off first, besides, it would be in a way, honorable and selfless. The other half of me says, fuck it and get on the lifeboat ASAP.

[QUOTE=TBFundy;34228016]it's not fair to the women and children they do not have the physical strength to contest the men for the safety if there were no "women and children only" rule, every woman and child would die because they aren't strong enough to push their way (or keep their seats if they are boarded already) to safety you SHOULD be forced to wait because you are given an unequal advantage[/QUOTE] That's like saying Asian people should be evacuated first because they're less physically able to defend themselves. Also my girlfriend is probably stronger than me, being a cheerleader.

[QUOTE=TBFundy;34228441]the one that says to be kind to women and children is the one they choose[/QUOTE] it also says men should die because they are men do you not see what's wrong with this it also brings us back to the gender roles; not all men are buff and not all women are complete weaklings