The ''Women and Children'' First Rule - What's Your Take on That?

Its very old and sexist in my opinion and it should be not allowed just kidding.
I think its always been the best thing to do....especially for the children.

Originally posted by inanna1234
reply to post by Jinglelord

 

Great to know you would push four year old children out of the way so you could give your daughter water 30 minutes earlier then everyone else... Your an amazing man... Your mother would be proud

Putting your own children before everyone else's is kinda the way it works. I called my mother she agrees. Sorry I must come from a long line of degenerates who actually value our children.

If its a matter of impatience I would of course wait 30 minutes, if supplies are dwindling i will get what I need for my family.

Woman and children first no matter what, no questions asked...

1> If you don't understand why well you don't deserve to live anyways...

2> If your single and have no one well.... what do you have to lose??? This kid have a father... that woman has a husband... if they have a chance as minimal as it is to be reunited why not give them a chance... you have nothing to lose anyways...

3> If your not single... You will be survived by the ones you saved...

Yes I say
Women and Children first
throw out what ever is nessessary to lighten the airplane so it can clear the mountain range.
life boats should be tested by the less important FIRST, before the the important get in
No sense leaving a sinking ship for a sinking ship....

Also in the story that inspired Robison Crusoe some INSANE shipwrecked wretches were found floating around in a life boat still clutching the bones of their dead friends which they were gnawing on for the food and moisture...
When they tried to take the morsels away from the gnawers, it pretty much became a fight to the death...

so, stock the life boat BEFORE you get in

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
reply to post by inanna1234

 

I agree with your point that it's cowardly for a man to push women and children out of the way in order to save themselves. However, I just wonder would the thought "my children need me" ever go through the heads of some of the men (fathers) who agree with the "women and children first" rule. Would you think about the fact that your children would have to cope with losing their father if you sacrificed yourself? This is why I agree with the "families with children first" rule the most.

My four are grown now.. But when they were growing up I taught them to be able to think and fend for themselves along with martial arts, gardening, fishing, medicine (am a physician and over the years have assisted in war zones and disaster areas - during school hols my children would assist me in safer areas two are now physicians themselves) calligraphy and an appreciation of art. I raised them the traditional way same as I was raised. If I wasnt around they were quite capable and able to take care of things themselves. So yes even having a family I still stick to my beliefs in all situations and will continue to put the safety of those around me above my own and help those in need..

most people here jump in (no pun intended) and say women and children first. but pause a moment. a percentage of those women will be poor contributors to society. especially in this late age we live in. some men will be far better morally than some of the women. how to judge? some women will be quite selfish. some men will be excellent hunters or endowed with excellent wisdom. a definite plus in society. and consider the following example.

a whaling boat sights 2 whales, a male and a female. which do they shoot first and why?

they'll shoot the female first and the male will hang around wondering whats wrong with his mate and ----bang, he's gone too. that's 2 whales!

shoot the male first and the female regards the male as of no further use and clears out. result, only 1 whale.

so which gender is the most selfish? don't get sucked in.

personally, i'd play it by ear at the time.

Originally posted by korathin
But if you want to be treated like a perpetual child then you have to accept the limitations of rights that goes along with that. Other wise it leads to a situation of mass social unfairness, which in turn leads to social collapse/dark age.

It appears that more, of both genders, are choosing a state of elogated childhood. I am reading The Vindication of Rights for Women by Mary Wollenstonecraft. She is somewhat and correctly, critical of our sex at that time (late 1700s), but just as correctly points out that women are rewarded for this behaviour and encouraged in this behaviour, they can therefore not entirely be blamed for their own ignorance. It seems to me, that much of the advice that she gave to alleviate this situation, in order to turn the female mind to reason and useful endeavours, has instead been ignored and applied wholesale to the cultivation of men of a similar dependency.

We're a few hundred or thousand years out-of-date if the ''women and children first'' rule is based on survival.
While it may have been valid in small, isolated tribes of people with little technological development, this argument has no bearing nowadays. A few hundred people dieing in a disaster out of a population of 6.7 billion, is nothing but a drop in the ocean in our gene-pool.

In a Titanic type situation, the priority should be to be let those who are less capable of looking after themselves off first, such as children, the disabled and the elderly. The problem being that in this type of scenario, you are unlikely to have the time to calmly draw up a fair list as to what order the passengers should evacuate the ship, onto the lifeboats.

Considering the fact that women aren't as physically strong as men, then it seems reasonable to me that - in a life or death situation where you have to make a quick decision - they should be allowed to leave the ship following the children, disabled and the elderly.


As for holding doors open for women, or giving up your seat for a woman on public transport, then that is just really obsequious and wussy-like behaviour; like a little lap-dog eager to please and impress.

If there's someone walking closely behind me when I'm opening a door, then I'll hold it open for them, regardless of who it is. The only time I go out of my way to open a door for someone, or give up a seat on public transport, is when it's someone elderly or disabled, or if it's a pregnant woman or someone with a pushchair. An able-bodied woman is perfectly capable of opening a door or standing on a bus.

Originally posted by orangutang
most people here jump in (no pun intended) and say women and children first. but pause a moment. a percentage of those women will be poor contributors to society. especially in this late age we live in. some men will be far better morally than some of the women. how to judge? some women will be quite selfish. some men will be excellent hunters or endowed with excellent wisdom. a definite plus in society. and consider the following example.

So because they might not be adequate "contributors" to a society that question whether or not to not let woman and children first leave a sinking ship in first place, should be weighted in against them in a matter of
life and death???

a whaling boat sights 2 whales, a male and a female. which do they shoot first and why?

they'll shoot the female first and the male will hang around wondering whats wrong with his mate and ----bang, he's gone too. that's 2 whales!

shoot the male first and the female regards the male as of no further use and clears out. result, only 1 whale.

so which gender is the most selfish? don't get sucked in.

Yes exactly... the male sticks around to defend his mate for as long as he can. The female run away soon as the male is dead as its instinct.. she must protect her babies and fleeing is a good option when your out of protection... Its all about continuity of life...

Sad to say that sometimes even whales makes more sense than humans...


Said it before, will say it again.. this planet needs an asteroid in the face...

Where are you Nibiru... sigh...

They're the first to go into my belly should cannibalism become the only way to survive.

The ''Women and Children'' First Rule - What's Your Take on That?

I don't think it applies today in most situations, maybe at one time and in certain situations it might of.

Specify the scenario I would have to say? If its a sinking ship scenario type of thing, I am afraid even then it would not apply, because those with families and children would put them first, and those without would not. They would not have no reason to, or urge to drive them to voluntarily doom themselves to death, over a strangers kid and some woman they probably never met before, and never will again no matter the outcome.


That rule was made way back in history as a way to help your genetics and tribe survive in a cataclysm scenario mostly having to do with nature and the nature of humans such as genocides and wars, back when we were still tribes and colonies that is, but now a days it just does not work because the way our world and civilization is set up. So it's more like everybody for themselves and theres, instead of women and children first. I think it's mostly just Romanticism and if it actually would happen in whatever situation, it would not be a orderly thing like the movies depict it would be hepatic and chaotic, if it was serious life or death situation that is, and it would depend on the situation. Because the situation dictates the outcomes of the actions.

I think it's perfectly fine. Certain moral aspects of humanity must remain. I greatly dislike it when I see examples of people ignoring that code.

If I did not follow the code, or watched someone else ignore it during a tragedy, the guilt I'd have would be life long.

reply to post by korathin


I am a female and it doesn't bother me one bit that females are physically weaker than males. I can't even fathom why this fact would bother some women. If the rule was "every man for himself", the male survival rate would vastly outweigh the female survival rate...that is, assuming the chivalrous men are all gone. It has nothing to do with equating women with children. It's just a biological fact. Also, women have never been treated like children quite like they are today. Feminism encourages women to behave like helpless children and remain in constant victim-mode. Women today are largely never expected to take responsibility for their own actions. With the feminists, all their failures and short-comings are blamed on men. They act as if they are too mentally incompetent to have any responsibility over their own actions and choices. THAT is what's asking to be treated like a perpetual child. I find it insulting.

Also, I think the whole notion of 'equality' is completely asinine. I don't want to be equal to a man. I adore all the masculine traits- the things that separate men from women. Trying to enforce unnatural 'equality' between the sexes is what plays a huge role in the dwindling of a society. It turns the male/female relationship into that of power struggle and competition. Men and women are complementary and not made to compete with each other. The most devastating consequence is of course, the breakdown of the family. A society can not withstand such a thing.

Imo a man is someone who will treat a woman as his equal while still being there to protect her if need be. Conversely, a woman should treat a man as her equal and be there to protect him if need be. Gender roles aside, both sexes become weak, frightened, and vulnerable from time to time.

Also, equally for both men and women, protecting children should come first.

I also don't believe that a man necessarily needs to hold true to the rule of "women and children first." Why should he have to? It isn't like the world is in dire need of women and children, same goes for men for that matter. So the argument that "women are the child bearers" while true, is a piece of logic that doesn't have any real foundation on which to stand in an argument.

I mean seriously, what's more important, saving a random and horribly ugly woman who looks like a male hunchback, or saving your own flesh and blood male brother? It really does make me wonder just what someone who lives by that rule really would do. Does the woman have to have a certain level of physical attractiveness in order for her priority to be saved to be greater than a flesh and blood male relative, or is it really anything goes, even the cycloptic hunchback females?

reply to post by inanna1234


Well said at playing into the hand of stereotyped gender roles, and as much as I agree with you, I have to ask you -why- it has to be this way? Something tells me that you never really contemplated this rule on any deep level, you probably just accepted it as the way things should be.

im sorry but it depends on the situation kids allways first but when it comes to women normaly i would say yes ofcorse but if the women got u into the problem in the first place then we might have to look at the whole equal rights situation and if its not going to help the big picture then no.

married or not if the last ship leaving earth before it explodes has room for 1 more you better beleive ill punch my wife in head and climb aboard

Life or death situation, survival versus imminent death. I die so that the offspring of strangers get to live. Get serious. I have a wife and children of my own that depend on me. My bloodline would continue. The strangers and their children will die.

I think this thinking comes from very long ago when populations where much smaller and protecting women and children where very important for your tribe for obvious reasons, evolutionary baggage if you will that has stuck around.

Today it's not very important our "tribes" numbers in the millions even if a city full of women and children were nuked it wouldn't threaten our "tribe". So the value they once had is now gone at least until Armageddon or whatever.

If people have to die wouldn't it be better if the ones we save are more likely to contribute to society? I mean imagine if Einstein died in his early years so some hooker could get on a lifeboat or whatever, doesn't sound right to me.

Edit: come to think of it back then it was the women and children who were more likely to contribute to society.

reply to post by TheLoneArcher


I think I like you! Thank you for your comments. I wish there were more men that thought this way.