Women and Children first - General

Fuck the women. I'd only put a child before me, not a woman.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;34230603]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. [/QUOTE] I can't say I wouldn't be happy to get the final seat on a life raft but at the same time I also picture the terror I would feel if I were the man in that exact same situation who is left to die. Selfishly I would like to survive but that man would feel the same horror and suffering I would and I don't see why my life would be more valuable than his. I'm not a mother, most likely I never will be, I have no dependables, why am I more valuable than him? [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] Yes but the man would still have to be pretty strong, an average man would probably fall to his death just like an average woman.

[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] Not all men are massive body builders you know, a lot I'd assume are probably fairly weak.

In theory the best thing to do would be to put people on the boats in order of weakest to strongest swimmers, but seen as that is impractical in order of arrival, with priority to children. I think one parent should go with the child though. Also, on the boat everyone was assigned a seat on a boat but the combination of a late abandon ship order and the listing meant there was not enough time to launch the boats. The Captain blames the ship, the owner of the ship blames the captain. It is a game of pass the blame parcel. [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] Also, On the BBC there is a little bit about it here: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16576289[/url] [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;34241165]Not all men are massive body builders you know, a lot I'd assume are probably fairly weak.[/QUOTE] I am weaker than most girls I know. I am also a weak swimmer. I make up for it in intelligence. Yet I would stay on the ship and my friend ellie (assuming we didn't count as children, which we do) would be put on a life boat despite the fact she does swimming 3-5 times a week and I haven't swam in a while. [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] Sorry for the constant edits. Ellie IS a strong swimmer. Just wanted to make that clear.

Being a strong swimmer doesn't make a difference in the middle of the ocean.

have everyone pile onto each other. Problem solved though you get a few crushed ones :v:

Females and Children are more important for any communities long term survival due to breeding. A higher ratio of females to males results in less inbreeding, which is better for the community. For this reason, since ancient times, women and children are the vulnerable part of any tribe/community/town/whatever. This is what resulted in chivalry and all that crap, protect the women etc. With todays vast population size, the principle is much less important since there's so many women that it doesn't matter as much on a global or even countrywide scale. The concept of women and children first has no real practical value anymore, but it's kept because we're creatures of habit. It's good to keep these kinds of things because if something does happen to humanity, it'll be important that these concepts remain for our survival, even if the survivors don't understand why women and children are valuable, they'll still protect them out of habit.

[QUOTE=ForcedDj;34221363] Personally, if the boat was sinking, I may stay on the boat till everyone is safe, [B]I don't really have much to live for[/B], 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.[/QUOTE] Offtopic I suppose but why would you say that. Seeing as how you are on this forum, chances are you aren't 40 and married. So that means that you most likely have most of your life ahead of you.

Because women are naturally superior in just about everything. Male children should still be left behind IMO.

[QUOTE=Cuntsman;34246975]Because women are naturally superior in just about everything. Male children should still be left behind IMO.[/QUOTE] *facefuckingdesk*

[QUOTE=Upgrade123;34234174]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] you do realize that mean are more physically capable than women 9/10, right? it's not something to be ashamed of/sexist, it's fucking nature I mean, I just want the other side to give me a way to properly dole out the seats on the boats and I'll shut up but there isn't a proper way to dole the seats out so the women and children just get priority don't like it, don't get on a fucking cruise problem solved

[QUOTE=TBFundy;34252783]you do realize that mean are more physically capable than women 9/10, right? it's not something to be ashamed of/sexist, it's fucking nature I mean, I just want the other side to give me a way to properly dole out the seats on the boats and I'll shut up but there isn't a proper way to dole the seats out so the women and children just get priority don't like it, don't get on a fucking cruise problem solved[/QUOTE] Due to higher body fat percentage women are more likely to survive once in the water. Plus, on the swimmers thing these guys were >200m from the shore. Also,should fat people have to wait? I mean, we complain about them taking up 2/3 places on a train or bus, surely you should let 4 children / 2 average adults on.

[QUOTE=xXDictatorXx;34238422]Yes but the man would still have to be pretty strong, an average man would probably fall to his death just like an average woman.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;34241165]Not all men are massive body builders you know, a lot I'd assume are probably fairly weak.[/QUOTE] Yeah, both of these points are fairly true, but from a completely unbiased, probabilistic point of view more men than women would survive in such a situation. And if you've gotta put a rule into place to save people the most 'fair' rule is the one that saves the most lives as possible - therefore it makes more sense to get the weaker people (the women and children) off first.

[QUOTE=TBFundy;34252783]you do realize that mean are more physically capable than women 9/10, right? it's not something to be ashamed of/sexist, it's fucking nature I mean, I just want the other side to give me a way to properly dole out the seats on the boats and I'll shut up but there isn't a proper way to dole the seats out so the women and children just get priority don't like it, don't get on a fucking cruise problem solved[/QUOTE] By similar statistics, Asians tend to have less muscle mass than Blacks.

[QUOTE=sltungle;34255081]Yeah, both of these points are fairly true, but from a completely unbiased, probabilistic point of view more men than women would survive in such a situation. And if you've gotta put a rule into place to save people the most 'fair' rule is the one that saves the most lives as possible - therefore it makes more sense to get the weaker people (the women and children) off first.[/QUOTE] Not saying I want to die or that I am brave enough to give my life for another, but I think I am a lot less important than say a father of three kids so it seems unfair logically that I would be put before him. I am not sure how in a chaotic situation one could fairly give away the spaces to make sure the weaker ones were not simply shoved out of the way but I can't help feeling it's harsh to make men seem like they are so unimportant just because they are male. Sure men may naturally be stronger than most women but there are some situations where simply nobody would survive if left there no matter how strong they are.

[QUOTE=xXDictatorXx;34256889]Not saying I want to die or that I am brave enough to give my life for another, but I think I am a lot less important than say a father of three kids so it seems unfair logically that I would be put before him. I am not sure how in a chaotic situation one could fairly give away the spaces to make sure the weaker ones were not simply shoved out of the way but I can't help feeling it's harsh to make men seem like they are so unimportant just because they are male. Sure men may naturally be stronger than most women but there are some situations where simply nobody would survive if left there no matter how strong they are.[/QUOTE] These rules are generalized and based on facts and statistics, though. While ideally the rules would change from case to case, realistically there simply isn't enough time in a crisis to accurately assess the situation entirely and come up with/choose the set of rules that apply to those specific circumstances. Thus we simply default back to the generalised rules - we know put in situations of physical perseverance men are more likely to survive than women (and certainly more likely to survive than children), thus it makes most sense in MOST (but not all) cases to think of them last. It's not a perfect way of doing things, but it's the most realistic way which results in the least deaths in the long run.

Many people are pointing to men's superior strength as an advantage. Women have greater body fat percentage (naturally and on average) thus in cold water would be the better choice to leave behind. Also, if this rule is in force what happens to gay couples/single fathers? I would like to adapt my previous idea for a better order. Children (U18), a parent, infirm*/disabled*/elderly*, other parent, adults and non essential crew (entertainers or chefs for instance), crew, captain. *If the evacuation has to be extra quick these should be put behind the other parents. On the Italian ship, the order appeared to be: Captain, children, women (and a few male parents), crew, the rest. One of the last people on board was a dancer, and she did a better job of evacuating people than most of the crew it seems. [B]Edit[/B] Sorry about the double post on the body fat. The first was just before I went to bed and I was tired. Totally forgot I posted it

[QUOTE=Upgrade123;34255392]By similar statistics, Asians tend to have less muscle mass than Blacks.[/QUOTE] and since when was muscle mass any sort of measurement of self worth?

[QUOTE=TBFundy;34259200]and since when was muscle mass any sort of measurement of self worth?[/QUOTE] People Have been saying that Men should stay on the boat because they have a greater muscle mass and supposedly would be more likely to survive so that they should get on last. The point of this argument is that by the same token you could make black people, who on average have a greater muscle mass, wait for the Asians. However, at this point you would be classed as racist, yet the argument for males is apparently not sexist.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;34259495]People Have been saying that Men should stay on the boat because they have a greater muscle mass and supposedly would be more likely to survive so that they should get on last. The point of this argument is that by the same token you could make black people, who on average have a greater muscle mass, wait for the Asians. However, at this point you would be classed as racist, yet the argument for males is apparently not sexist.[/QUOTE] I never said they are more likely to survive, they are more likely (if they wanted) to be able to physically force their ways onto the boats not hang on for dear life btw I've never heard of any statistic that says blacks are stronger than asians, and if any do it's probably some 1950's bullshit to say that black athletes have an unfair advantage he's probably looking at black athletes at his school and asian students and saying "well, blacks must be stronger" however men are almost always physically stronger than females, not always but naturally yes men are stronger doesn't mean they are more athletic, just stronger

I support children first, but not women. Double Standards like this are why we can't have true gender equality.

[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] Actually, you probably would be able to rebuild the human race with 1 male and 150 females, I think there would be enough genetic variation that a little inbreeding wouldn't have adverse affects.

[QUOTE=Cuntsman;34246975]Because women are naturally superior in just about everything. Male children should still be left behind IMO.[/QUOTE] no, your opinion is wrong

Stepping back from the moral arguments and looking at it from an objective standpoint, I think men on average may have a higher degree of survivability in dangerous emergency situations than women on average, albeit that depends on the particular circumstances. Rules of thumb such "as women and children first" came from a time of both sexism and the chivalry that could go along with it... its not to say women are less capable overall than men, but with both a smaller bone structure, less upper body strength and naturally impeding appendages (boobies) I think women may have a bit of a skewed difficulty curve in times of peril, especially if they are required to take drastic physical action to survive a dangerous situation; such as a ship sinking close to shore... or really any disastrous situation that offers [I]some[/I] degree of survivability. Trying to remain purely objective, I think women also tend to be better caretakers of children and babies than men, so [B]women and children[/B] tends to be a better combo than [B]men and children[/B]... take for instance the fact that a father has no way to feed a baby unless he has a jar of formula and a bottle laying around, you'd be sort of fucked if you ditched the baby's mother back on the ship and a baby was screaming for food as you're floating around in a dingy in the middle of nowhere. Though with that said, it may come down to "who has more people relying on them" some young guy (or girl) with no kids may seem a better prospect than a father or mother to stay behind in a situation of limited escape opportunities since by leaving parents behind you're not just dooming the parent.. [editline]18th January 2012[/editline] ALSO, these rules aren't necessarily set in stone, but whats more important than morals is the practicality of situations. Only some may be able to leave, and some must be left behind. It may be better to default to a cultural standard than to fight fruitlessly for survival rights and in turn, impede your practical survival. May just need to suck in your gut and take the short end of the stick, regardless of gender and a cultural standard can be a system to default to.

Children and families should be evacuated first.

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;34271875]Children and families should be evacuated first.[/QUOTE] That I can agree with. The idea that men should give up their lives because there is some cultural construct and they cannot argue to save their lives because it impedes survival is ridiculous. Also, that is why the debate happens here, so next time a ship is going down they have better rules. Finally, this rule assumes 'woman' is synonymous with 'mother' which it is not.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;34215585]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] You can't deny that if one gender had to have the majority, it should be females.

[QUOTE=elowin;34276180]You can't deny that if one gender had to have the majority, it should be females.[/QUOTE] While that is true, we're not in an end-of-civilization scenario on a daily basis.

Children>Wounded>Adults>Elderly I think the elderly should be the last to go aboard because well they're elder.They already lived through what any of the people who entered the lifeboat before him,makes sense that the younger ones get to live and the old ones die (Badly worded sentence)

[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 you could just have 50% of each group and avoid incest