Do the lives of the young and the female hold more value than the life of the male?

I know this plays on the tender sensibilties of many, but no, I'm not trying to start an argument or be a point whore, but....

I see a lot of this relativism going on comparing the loss of life of women and children to the loss of male life. We're talking about innocents, here. Just people who are minding their own business and happen to get dead just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But what really is the point? What is the value of life in total when we constantly put the value of one over another on the basis of age or gender? It's the 21st century now, and I see no need to discriminate in this fashion. Death itself doesn't discriminate, does it? I thought not.

This 'women and children first' idea certainly is nice and polite and in line with common societal morality, but it doesn't really follow any logic or reason. In times past, women and children weren't really getting things done like men were, so why squander the production value of a male for the mere chivalry of the jesture?

I don't mean to come off as someone who has a dead, black heart, but my point is that there are those in the media and politics who would simply use this common bias to enflame the emotions of others to project an agenda, when it is apparent that they care very little to the lives of the women and children compared to the agenda. That is all.

I think it's just a reflection of the human instinct to defend those in the group who are least able to defend themselves. And of course, adult males are more more expendable for a "selfish gene" standpoint. The females and children represent the gene's ability to pass itself on.

Ok, a biological stantpoint on the issue. At least that makes some logical sense. I'm just tired of the dead women and children being used time and time again to get people pissed at something that isn't the real issue.

Not at all, ask any Mother who has lost a son and she will tell you he was the most precious person in her life. All are precious to someone.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
This 'women and children first' idea certainly is nice and polite and in line with common societal morality,

Not really. You don't give up a seat on public transport for women and children, but defer to the aged and infirm, or sometimes pregnant. You don't cede your job for a woman.

Chivalry is dead, or it needs to be for gender equity to exist. Although there are people of various genders who would have it both ways, to their own advantage.

This is coming from an animal behaviorialist p.o.v.- First the primal reproductive roles of man and woman. Man: If he is strong and healthy male, it is his job to spread their seed as far as possible to carry on their specific lineage. Women: Bear and protect their offspring.
Imagine this scenario without analyzing it at all:
Disclaimer: You can not save both.
If you are a man:
You are married and have two children and a wife. One night while you are sleeping the house catches on fire. Who do you save? Your wife, or your children?
Male answer: The wife- Why? It's because she has already proved herself to be fertile and can bear more children.

If you are a woman:
You are married and have two children and a husband. One night while you are sleeping the house catches on fire. Who do you save? Your husband, or your children?
Female answer: The children. Why? It's because a woman's instinct is to protect/save her children.

Test this theory out, you may be surprised to find that it works. Remember: It has to be right off the top of your head, if you think on it results will differ.