Women and Children first - General

Men are typically stronger than women and children and have a higher chance at survival. I don't see the problem with this? If my wife and I were on a sinking boat, I would let her get on the raft first. Even though I'm not very fit. Just out of chivalry.

[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;34228963]Men are typically stronger than women and children and have a higher chance at survival. I don't see the problem with this?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Upgrade123;34228832] Also my girlfriend is probably stronger than me[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Upgrade123;34228989][/QUOTE] Well than stop being a weakling and get stronger. Nothing to lose.

[QUOTE=Upgrade123;34228832]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] what? what do asians have to do with anything? i'm saying there is no fair way to do it but the LEAST fair way would be to let people revert to primal instincts and fight for the seat on the lifeboat and you and your girlfriend are most certainly the exception, not the rule

[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;34229050]Well than stop being a weakling and get stronger. Nothing to lose.[/QUOTE] I think you missed his point there.

[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] *facefuckingpalm* Alright, I'm leaving this debate, not like it matters. You guys want to sacrifice your lives for us? Go right ahead you twats.

[QUOTE=Paravin;34226638]It's called Chivalry and each man should have it.[/QUOTE] The point of this debate is: what logical sense does it make to give up your life for someone just because they are a woman? I have yet to see any real reasons other than "but..but.. but.. tradition!" presented by the other side of the argument. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;34226931]Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.[/quote] Trying not to get too off topic here, but [url="http://oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html"]that is actually false[/url]

[QUOTE=HorizoN;34230359]*facefuckingpalm* Alright, I'm leaving this debate, not like it matters. You guys want to sacrifice your lives for us? Go right ahead you twats.[/QUOTE] I'm sure you would be very thankful in the case that there would be only one seat left in a lifeboat and you are there as well as a male; and rather than him barging in to take the seat from you he offers it for you instead. [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Noble;34230553]The point of this debate is: what logical sense does it make to give up your life for someone just because they are a woman? I have yet to see any real reasons other than "but..but.. but.. tradition!" presented by the other side of the argument.[/QUOTE] Because it's a nice thing to do, as women have gone through some fucked up shit throughout history and this is almost like tradition apologising for that.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;34230603]Because it's a nice thing to do, as women have gone through some fucked up shit throughout history and this is almost like tradition apologising for that.[/QUOTE] Explain to me how perpetuating the inequalities of history in any why makes up for them? You're missing the point: the "fucked up shit" that "women have gone through" boils down to them being treated differently based on their sex and nothing else. [i]This[/i] is treating women differently based on their sex and nothing else. It doesn't make up for the wrongs of the past, it brings them into the present. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that jazz. [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] we don't need to apologize for the wrongs of the past, we need to stop them happening again and this is not doing that

[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;34228963]Men are typically stronger than women and children and have a higher chance at survival. I don't see the problem with this? If my wife and I were on a sinking boat, I would let her get on the raft first. Even though I'm not very fit. Just out of chivalry.[/QUOTE] Just because you would do it for your wife, why should I give up my life for a woman I don't even know simply because she is a woman?

[QUOTE=Antdawg;34230603] Because it's a nice thing to do, as women have gone through some fucked up shit throughout history and this is almost like tradition apologising for that.[/QUOTE] When it comes to situations about giving your life for someone you need better reasons than "its a nice thing to do".

[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;34229050]Well than stop being a weakling and get stronger. Nothing to lose.[/QUOTE] Yes, I'm surely he'll be glad to hear that while the boat sinks. "Sorry, you could've gotten on if only you were a woman."

[QUOTE=Negrul1;34230924]Explain to me how perpetuating the inequalities of history in any why makes up for them? You're missing the point: the "fucked up shit" that "women have gone through" boils down to them being treated differently based on their sex and nothing else. [i]This[/i] is treating women differently based on their sex and nothing else. It doesn't make up for the wrongs of the past, it brings them into the present. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that jazz. [editline]15th January 2012[/editline] we don't need to apologize for the wrongs of the past, we need to stop them happening again and this is not doing that[/QUOTE] Are you seriously comparing acts of chivalry with the degrees of sexism women have suffered for nearly the entire history of humanity? They aren't comparable. On one side, you have men treating women like a lesser species. On the other, you have men treating women with a bit more respect that what a man would treat another man. [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Noble;34231066]When it comes to situations about giving your life for someone you need better reasons than "its a nice thing to do".[/QUOTE] Sorry, I'm not a selfish asshole. I'd even give my position to a weaker male as well if there were no women.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;34231187]Are you seriously comparing acts of chivalry with the degrees of sexism women have suffered for nearly the entire history of humanity? They aren't comparable. On one side, you have men treating women like a lesser species. On the other, you have men treating women with a bit more respect that what a man would treat another man. [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] Sorry, I'm not a selfish asshole. I'd even give my position to a weaker male as well if there were no women.[/QUOTE] Regardless of [I]what you would do personally,[/I] whether you let people in before you or not, no one should be enforcing this policy of women going before men.

[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] Who said that it would be a scrap to get in. I am talking about an ORDERLY evacuation. Also, in the scenario of the Italian ship listing meant it took ages to getthe lifeboat off and men did die because of the rule they had ti wait)

Humans are a coomunal species, it stems back to ,at its most basic level, Children first to ensure the future of the species, women first as they are likely to be able to produce more children in the future, it's basically survival off the species dressed up in human cultural habits.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;34231734]Humans are a coomunal species, it stems back to ,at its most basic level, Children first to ensure the future of the species, women first as they are likely to be able to produce more children in the future, it's basically survival off the species dressed up in human cultural habits.[/QUOTE] Well the survival of the species is no longer in jeopardy by women or men dying on sinking ship, so this policy has outlived its usefulness, if it every truly had a use.

[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;34228963]Men are typically stronger than women and children and have a higher chance at survival. I don't see the problem with this? If my wife and I were on a sinking boat, I would let her get on the raft first. Even though I'm not very fit. Just out of chivalry.[/QUOTE] Although yes, scientifically women are naturally weaker, it's stereotyping and I'm sure that there are many women stronger than me.

Here's my solution: Pack enough lifeboats so everyone gets back to shore safely. Problem solved.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;34231187] Sorry, I'm not a selfish asshole. I'd even give my position to a weaker male as well if there were no women.[/QUOTE] But we're discussing a situation that is life or death here, not a situation of providing a minor convenience to someone out of chivalry. I have a hard time believing that when you're staring death in the face, you're going to simply turn over your way out for some (for example here) 300 pound lard-bag of a woman, who is maybe 45 years old, just because she's a woman. And regardless of what you would do, why is it something that should actually be enforced on everyone else?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34231817]Well the survival of the species is no longer in jeopardy by women or men dying on sinking ship, so this policy has outlived its usefulness, if it every truly had a use.[/QUOTE] As long as we're alive as a species, it has a purpose, maybe not needed for the time being, but it's part of who we are, it's ingrained into us, layered with the trappings of society maybe, but deeply ingrained nonetheless. [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34231950]Here's my solution: Pack enough lifeboats so everyone gets back to shore safely. Problem solved.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure nowadays its a time issue, rather than a capacity one.

[QUOTE=Noble;34216840]So fat women and children should be left behind in such a situation?[/QUOTE] no man, the sharks will get too fat imagine shark week with fat sharks, not cool

[QUOTE=Antdawg;34231187]Are you seriously comparing acts of chivalry with the degrees of sexism women have suffered for nearly the entire history of humanity? They aren't comparable. On one side, you have men treating women like a lesser species. On the other, you have men treating women with a bit more respect that what a man would treat another man. [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] Sorry, I'm not a selfish asshole. I'd even give my position to a weaker male as well if there were no women.[/QUOTE] Technically speaking I doubt that women and children first qualifies as a gentlemany act or even as a chivalrous act. And as others have said. When it comes to survival chances you need deeper stronger reasons than [I]It's just nice.[/I] If that is the only reason you can think of and this seems to be the case for a lot of people, one can assume that there is a different stronger reason. So if cannot think of a logical reason why many do this and do this willingly it's best to focus on what might be the source of this action. The answer in the long term is biology. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;34231817]Well the survival of the species is no longer in jeopardy by women or men dying on sinking ship, so this policy has outlived its usefulness, if it every truly had a use.[/QUOTE] Sure but it's a trait we evolved. Why do people eat so many sugary foods even if they know it's wrong? Because sugary food are biologically sound. And a slew of other things.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34213421]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.[/QUOTE] This may have already been answered, but in case not: ALL rules are based on averages and generalizations. Men are on average stronger than women, men are on average less emotional than women (the part of a man's brain responsible for controlling emotion isn't as large in a male as it is in a female). Those two little facts combined make men the prime candidate for staying behind and trying to survive on their own. While I believe a child obviously benefits from having both a mother and a father, if one had to be chosen to look after a child and the other had to, unfortunately be left behind to die I'd chose the mother (in most cases) to take care of the child, and the father to die. Mothers are more nurturing (thanks to their better ability to experience emotions and emphasize) than fathers are (again, in general - this can change on an individual level, but moreover women beat us men in that category).

[QUOTE=TBFundy;34229145]what? what do asians have to do with anything? i'm saying there is no fair way to do it but the LEAST fair way would be to let people revert to primal instincts and fight for the seat on the lifeboat and you and your girlfriend are most certainly the exception, not the rule[/QUOTE] Making an exception for a gender because of a perceived difference in physical ability is absolutely no different than making the same exception for an ethnic group or race.

[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] Women don't only gain muscle mass slower, they also have less muscle mass than males on average (as a raw measurement of mass), AND they have less muscle per kilogram of body mass than males. Men are between 40% and 50% stronger than women in upper-body strength, and 20% to 30% stronger in lower body strength. Males DO have a fairly large advantage in terms of strength over women.

[QUOTE=sltungle;34234187]Women don't only gain muscle mass slower, they also have less muscle mass than males on average (as a raw measurement of mass), AND they have less muscle per kilogram of body mass than males. Men are between 40% and 50% stronger than women in upper-body strength, and 20% to 30% stronger in lower body strength. Males DO have a fairly large advantage in terms of strength over women.[/QUOTE] I still don't understand how this applies to getting on to lifeboats.

[QUOTE=Hobo4President;34235465]I still don't understand how this applies to getting on to lifeboats.[/QUOTE] If a man has to cling for dear life onto a railing as a boat capsizes there's a greater chance that he'll be able to keep himself on the railing than a woman in his position.

[QUOTE=sltungle;34235672]If a man has to cling for dear life onto a railing as a boat capsizes there's a greater chance that he'll be able to keep himself on the railing than a woman in his position.[/QUOTE] How is clinging onto the railing of say a sinking cruise ship going to save your life? If anything it will kill you. This is an outdated tradition that has no place in todays society. If a man wants to sacrafice himself just to be chivalrous then let him, but don't force those that still want to live to also stay behind just because they happen to be a man.

As far as I am concerned it's not a rule. Just a tradition, or a "thing you expect to do".