Women and Children first - General

[QUOTE=Matrix374;34287940]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] Or how about: everybody goes to their evacuation points (determined by their cabin's position in the ship), the first to get there are the first aboard. On any modern ship there will be plenty of room in the lifeboats, so there shouldn't be any need to decide who survives and who doesn't. Part of the problem on the Costa Concordia, was that a lot of people didn't know their evacuation plan. The crash happened so early in the cruise, that there were some people who hadn't been given their safety briefings. "Women and children first" isn't a rule at all, it's just an antiquated phrase, but there is a law that states that you must have the means to evacuate everybody. The phrase originated (according to wikipedia) from two shipwrecks where there weren't enough lifeboats to rescue everybody and so the crew got the women and children onto the lifeboats first, out of chivalry. At that time a man would be considered a coward if he put his life before that of a helpless person such as a child or a woman, it was just the way things were.

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;34288748]Or how about: everybody goes to their evacuation points (determined by their cabin's position in the ship), the first to get there are the first aboard. On any modern ship there will be plenty of room in the lifeboats, so there shouldn't be any need to decide who survives and who doesn't. Part of the problem on the Costa Concordia, was that a lot of people didn't know their evacuation plan. The crash happened so early in the cruise, that there were some people who hadn't been given their safety briefings. "Women and children first" isn't a rule at all, it's just an antiquated phrase, but there is a law that states that you must have the means to evacuate everybody. The phrase originated (according to wikipedia) from two shipwrecks where there weren't enough lifeboats to rescue everybody and so the crew got the women and children onto the lifeboats first, out of chivalry. At that time a man would be considered a coward if he put his life before that of a helpless person such as a child or a woman, it was just the way things were.[/QUOTE] It was a naval ship. The reason the women and children were evacuated was that they were the wives/children of the commanding officers,who enforce this rule with their swords. Also, this assumes that there is not enough time to get everyone on, or not certain to be enough time. If there is enough time: Children>1 parent>disabled/elderly/injured>Other parent>rest of passengers>crew>captain If there is not enough time/space, leave the disabled, elderly or injured because they will take a whole lot more time. Also, if the current trend continues around 1/3 of american children and similar numbers in the UK will become obese. If 33% use up 2 seats on a 1000 person boat (with 125% capacity life boats) you will need 133% capacity life boats. What is the solution? Leave them behind? increase capacity? Let them go in the water because they have higher body fat thus higher resistance to the cold?

All, I know is, if I'm on a ship that's sinking, it's going to be every motherfucker for himself.

[QUOTE=Murkat;34288159]or you could just have 50% of each group and avoid incest[/QUOTE] If you have two groups with distance to each other (so that they can't attack themselves for a decade or so), the one that had more females in it will probably end up becoming the dominant group in the area because they will have a faster population growth. So yes it is a group survival mechanism. Which isn't all that usefull today, but it still exists.

[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] And I expect a mother to do the same. I don't see a reason why a womens life is more important then a mans.

[QUOTE=Matrix374;34287940]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] I'd say wounded before children since they need to get medical attention

The wounded, then the younger people. Like that quote, "a father shouldn't have to bury his son". I don't think there should be an order involving genders, only age.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;34312593]And I expect a mother to do the same. I don't see a reason why a womens life is more important then a mans.[/QUOTE] Exactly this.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;34312593]And I expect a mother to do the same. I don't see a reason why a womens life is more important then a mans.[/QUOTE] ^

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34312696]I'd say wounded before children since they need to get medical attention[/QUOTE] If there is lots of time, then yes, if there isn't get the children and adults on first because it will take longer to get someone injured on board.

Fuck that, I'm putting myself ahead of anybody I don't know or isn't my family. It's really just a thing that got started from the titanic and doesn't actually mean much.

[QUOTE=Megadick;34322593]Fuck that, I'm putting myself ahead of anybody I don't know or isn't my family. It's really just a thing that got started from the titanic and doesn't actually mean much.[/QUOTE] I think it's been going a little longer than since the titanic. Also putting yourself ahead of others is a pretty nob head thing to do.

This is quite interesting: [url]http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/women-and-children-first/[/url] A little discussion on the history of the phrase.

[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] Just because it was made by men, doesn't mean it's not sexist. Lots of feminists make up rules that actually suppress women, because they think that women can't handle certain things. A girl can call a guy a "skank, pig, dick, asshole" but when a guy calls that girl a bitch, he's automatically a horrible person. It's double standard. Most feminists are only feminists when it benefits them in the situation. Accordingly, as soon as they still want the benefits that they used to get as being housewives, they go back to acting like they can't handle things, and stop embracing equality. They say they want equality, but then when they're allowed to make fun of men, men aren't allowed to make fun of them because all of a sudden them become apparently sensitive, which ruins the whole point of them supposedly striving for equality anyways, because they want the benefits of being equal without the drawbacks. In my opinion, if you're going to get the benefit of something, you should be able to handle the negative side to it, especially when it effects other. Not all feminists are like this, but some are and it's ridiculous. I can agree with the feminism that just wants plain equality for women, but they already have that.

[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] What if you're not willing to give up your life for anyone? I mean that's what self defense is based on isn't it, defending your life even if it means taking another. What happens if everyone has this ideology anyway, nobody would want to be the first saved?

[QUOTE=Callius;34325931]What if you're not willing to give up your life for anyone? I mean that's what self defense is based on isn't it, defending your life even if it means taking another. What happens if everyone has this ideology anyway, nobody would want to be the first saved?[/QUOTE] Defending yourself from someone actively attacking you and putting yourself ahead of others during a disaster are two very different things. As for the second part, if someone offers to let you go ahead of them then by all means, but forcing your way past others and disregarding others for the sake of yourself is just plain wrong.

It's simple: the women and children = future generations. Men = possibilities for future but they can't do it alone. Usually the guy can survive a lot tougher times than a pregnant woman so it's only reasonable that you evacuate the more vulnerable ones first. Children, pregnant, non-pregnant and last the men. At least that makes sense to me, since a few men are bound to survive. You need both for sure, but you also have to prioritize a bit.

Isn't it children and seniors first these days?

I don't think it should be an obligation. Ideally men would still prioritise a child though.

[QUOTE='[Green];34344773']It's simple: the women and children = future generations. Men = possibilities for future but they can't do it alone. Usually the guy can survive a lot tougher times than a pregnant woman so it's only reasonable that you evacuate the more vulnerable ones first. Children, pregnant, non-pregnant and last the men. At least that makes sense to me, since a few men are bound to survive. You need both for sure, but you also have to prioritize a bit.[/QUOTE] if we had anything close to a population problem... which we don't

I would put my life ahead of anyone else's. I think we all are obligated to.

[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34350317]I would put my life ahead of anyone else's. I think we all are obligated to.[/QUOTE] no, no one is

[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] Uh.. what. Just go half men half women.. In both scenarios the offspring will have high probability of defects.

[QUOTE=Errorproxy;34350893]Uh.. what. Just go half men half women.. In both scenarios the offspring will have high probability of defects.[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. Why can't you have an equal amount of each instead of having to put 150 women and 1 man into a lifeboat or vice versa?

Why are you guys analyzing the survival aspect of this.. I'm guessing the OP wants us to discuss the social side of this. and how is this a debate..

[QUOTE='[Green];34344773']It's simple: the women and children = future generations. Men = possibilities for future but they can't do it alone. Usually the guy can survive a lot tougher times than a pregnant woman so it's only reasonable that you evacuate the more vulnerable ones first. Children, pregnant, non-pregnant and last the men. At least that makes sense to me, since a few men are bound to survive. You need both for sure, but you also have to prioritize a bit.[/QUOTE] Might be valid reasoning if humans were on the brink of extinction and were in desperate need of people able to repopulate the Earth. But...since we're not in that situation, how about we err on the side of equality? Surely, let the children, disabled (included pregnant women), and treat both men and non-pregnant women the same?

It's more simple to get a boat,put people in it and move them,then repeat. Not this ethical sexist stereotype bullhorsedogshit.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;34471600]I think it should be families first. No child or wife should have to live on without their dad or husband they loved so much.[/QUOTE] What about the family members of single people? They would have to live on without their son/daughter/uncle that they loved so much, who died because of some completely arbitrary rule.

This was in the Feminism and Chivalry thread: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vp8tToFv-bA[/url] It makes quite a few of the points I think I have tried to make but much better.

women have the babies and children are the future they are more important