Women and Children first - General

In the situation of lifeboats on a sinking ship, why does it matter who gets on first anyway? It's not a case of "first on, first to safety". Nobody is safe until the boat is launched and at a safe distance from the ship, so spending time working out who gets on first just puts everybody in danger. I suppose a better scenario would be a sci-fi space hotel, with emergency teleporters back to earth. I don't think it should be an enforced rule, but I hope that people would let families in front of them in a queue. [QUOTE=Lol-Nade;34508604]I guess it's because women can give birth to future generations of children, and children can grow up to fulfil any purpose they might have. I'd say it's half instinct, half moral.[/QUOTE] I think it's entirely because most people thought like Rad McCool back in the early 20th century: This is a man: [img]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrvahXXm6XWMxrzcjTlNhO7DtHHxN9UqK-n30rWqIpUi4D7SQ1Mg[/img] He is strong, capable and able to keep his head in an emergency. This is a woman: [img]http://brontehoroine.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/fainting2.jpg[/img] Oh dear, she's fainted again (luckily there's a man standing by in this case). When she isn't fainting, she's probably looking after her children and/or panicing hysterically. Back then, in the event of an emergency, a man is required to help those less capable than himself (i.e. women and children). Only a coward would flee rather than help somebody completely unable to help themselves (i.e. women and children). A good example is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bruce_Ismay]J. Bruce Ismay[/url] who helped a number of women and children escape and then [b]COWARDLY[/b] got into a lifeboat himself.

[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34498112]If you're a man and you don't agree with "women and children first" then you are nothing more than a [B]coward[/B]. It has nothing to do with what's best for the species. A single accident won't affect humanity at all. It's about being a man. Your duty is to protect the weak. Don't be fucking cowards.[/QUOTE] So women are weak and needs to be protected by strong and powerful men like yourself? You're a moron.

I would let a woman and a child go before me, but I guess thats because im an old fashioned gentleman.

It's like chivalry Like how a gentleman would lay down his coat for the lady to step on to avoid a puddle

[QUOTE=Lol-Nade;34509493]It's like chivalry Like how a gentleman would lay down his coat for the lady to step on to avoid a puddle[/QUOTE] No it's not. Please explain how a rule forcing a man to die for some woman he doesn't even know is "like chivalry".

I think the idea of women and children first should really be parents and children first because children are the future and they need a parent. And if you say "oh they can just get foster parents" then you're just a heartless bastard.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;34347926]Isn't it children and seniors first these days?[/QUOTE] Seniors? I can understand that seniors generally won't stand any chance if they try to swim for their lives, but i'd have thought that their lives are less valued over those in the 30s mainly because they've got a short-lived life ahead of them.

[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;34510803]I think the idea of women and children first should really be parents and children first because children are the future and they need a parent. And if you say "oh they can just get foster parents" then you're just a heartless bastard.[/QUOTE] BUt then why cant you take you father with you instead of your mother? And what about single father should they be treated differently? I think its just an antiquated and sexist manner.

[QUOTE=Lol-Nade;34508604]I guess it's because women can give birth to future generations of children, and children can grow up to fulfil any purpose they might have. I'd say it's half instinct, half moral.[/QUOTE] This has been covered many times. A disaster like a big ship sinking would not destroy the entire population so continuing the population is not an issue, also in present day there are not many women who'd agree to let one guy fuck a bunch of them for the good of re-population.

I kinda find the whole "women and children first" dealio a tiresome piece of archaic presumption, revolving around maleocracy and whatnot. I could get behind the "children first" bit, since they've logically got more of their lives ahead of them (the adult used up more sand than the child, being older and all), but women aren't as weak as has been assumed; the stereotypes are what are weak, not the ladies.

[QUOTE=xXDictatorXx;34515108]This has been covered many times. A disaster like a big ship sinking would not destroy the entire population so continuing the population is not an issue, also in present day there are not many women who'd agree to let one guy fuck a bunch of them for the good of re-population.[/QUOTE] yes, but it is kinda sub-conscious really, and changing it would only cause more confusion as most people already know/ use this

[QUOTE=Eltro102;34516096]yes, but it is kinda sub-conscious really[/QUOTE] Hardly, there are plenty of people who don't think this way.

-snarp- because FP doesn't accept my edits wtf.

[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34498112]If you're a man and you don't agree with "women and children first" then you are nothing more than a [B]coward[/B]. It has nothing to do with what's best for the species. A single accident won't affect humanity at all. It's about being a man. Your duty is to protect the weak. Don't be fucking cowards.[/QUOTE] I would give my life for another person, regardless of sex, yet I do not agree with women first, does that still make me a coward?

No, not at all.

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;34508713] I the event of an emergency, a [B]human being[/B] is required to help [B]other human beings[/B]. Only a coward would flee rather than help somebody [b](i.e. other human beings)[/b].[/QUOTE] Fixed that for you.

[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34500030] In a perfect world, we would all share this quality.[/QUOTE] Wait, question, if everyone wants to sacrifice themselves for others then wouldn't it be a bitch to get people on the lifeboat everyone would be like "NO I WANT TO HELP"

[QUOTE=Eltro102;34516096]yes, but it is kinda sub-conscious really, and changing it would only cause more confusion as most people already know/ use this[/QUOTE] It's a bad system though in modern society though, again I am a young 20-something girl who has no dependables and has no desire to ever reproduce even but according to this I am more valuable than a father of three kids who shares half of the parenting with his wife and helps to support the family. Again, I sure as hell would want to live, I just think it's unfair to give one gender a bonus over old fashioned principles. It's sad we have to place value on life at all, the ideal solution would be having enough life boats for everyone.

[QUOTE=Upgrade123;34521052]Fixed that for you.[/QUOTE] I was talking about the attitude in the 1900's. I added bit to make it more obvious

Any other humans first. I don't care if I die, I'll be dead. I do care if others die.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;34522300]Wait, question, if everyone wants to sacrifice themselves for others then wouldn't it be a bitch to get people on the lifeboat everyone would be like "NO I WANT TO HELP"[/QUOTE] Then women and children first would be the perfect rule to enforce.

[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34524573]Then women and children first would be the perfect rule to enforce.[/QUOTE] What about: "form an orderly queue"?

[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34524573]Then women and children first would be the perfect rule to enforce.[/QUOTE] Why women, what is so special about women?

[QUOTE=sp00ks;34508789]So women are weak and needs to be protected by strong and powerful men like yourself? You're a moron.[/QUOTE] Men have been naturally protective of women for a while, its instinctive. Nothing is ever going to change that.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34525121]Why women, what is so special about women?[/QUOTE] It's the y-chromosome in action. We have a natural instinct / obligation to take care of women. It's not because women are weaker than us. It's because their lives have greater value than ours. It's just how our brains are wired. [QUOTE=Jetblack357;34525322]Men have been naturally protective of women for a while, its instinctive. Nothing is ever going to change that.[/QUOTE] Thank. You.

[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34525519]It's the y-chromosome in action. We have a natural instinct / obligation to take care of women. It's not because women are weaker than us. It's because their lives have greater value than ours. It's just how our brains are wired. Thank. You.[/QUOTE] We are also naturally wired to react violently to certain situations that do not call for it. Should we just give into that as well?

No, that's stupid.

[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34526290]No, that's stupid.[/QUOTE] But wasting time in an emergency by sorting people into gender groups isn't?

[I]If[/I] time was a real factor, then I think there would be fewer casualties if all the men focused on gathering the women and the children before saving themselves, instead of just every person on its own. If time isn't a factor, but there is a limited number of people who can be saved, then prioritize the children, and then the women. They are worth more. If time isn't a factor, and there's room for everyone to be saved, then of course it doesn't matter and there's no point in prioritize any group.

[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34525519]It's the y-chromosome in action. We have a natural instinct / obligation to take care of women. It's not because women are weaker than us. It's because their lives have greater value than ours. It's just how our brains are wired. Thank. You.[/QUOTE] The y chromosome doesn't automatically make the person into a massive super strong manly man.