Survival situations in the post-feminist world

Cork boy 55

Now that we live a world of equals and all that.
What is the new etiquette for Survival situations?
In the olden days it was women and children first, but now in the post-feminist world why should this apply?

for example
A boat is sinking
10 men 10 women 10 kids
20 places on liferaft

I assume the kids get the 10 places still.
But what about the other 10
Is it still women first are will there be allocated on drawing straws.

LenaClaire

10 children go in lifeboat. 10 strongest adult swimmers get life jackets and tie themselves to boat to keep group together and 10 weakest swimmers get in boat with children.

MissFlitworth

Kids are floatier than adults. Ladies & Gents in the boat, kiddies tied on a rope behind. Possibly an adult dangling on the rope behind as well if we need an extra seat to stash the booze & food from the boat.

On a serious note, what Jujibee said. Or drawing straws if there's no swimming level differences

Morag

Children, infirm and pregnant women in the boat.
The it's a case of ability.

Ickle Magoo

In 2011, how likely is it that a boat is going to have 30 people on it and the life-rafts only fit 20...and surely if they fit 20 adults and 10 of the 30 were kids, the life rafts could cope with everyone anyway?

LenaClaire

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

In 2011, how likely is it that a boat is going to have 30 people on it and the life-rafts only fit 20...and surely if they fit 20 adults and 10 of the 30 were kids, the life rafts could cope with everyone anyway?

I think legally boats over a certain size are required to have sufficient spots on life boats for all passengers. If the boat is too small to have life-rafts, then they are required to have as many life preservers as they do passengers.

Cork boy 55

OK

example number two

Small plane is crashing
One parachute
Two pilots aged 23(no kids for either)
one man one woman (work collegues)
every thing is equal

Who gets the chute???????

Ickle Magoo

And presumably they also have a radio and epirb for calling in the coastguard rescue craft as well? I think the days of hanging around for hours to drown because the nearest boat didn't hear the distress call as the wireless operator was asleep are well and truly over as well. :pac:

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

OK

example number two

Small plane is crashing
One parachute
Two pilots aged 23(no kids for either)
one man one woman (work collegues)
every thing is equal

Who gets the chute???????

Putting the question of why two pilots would get in a plane with only one chute between them to one side...Unless they were already wearing the chute, a small plane crashing wouldn't give either sufficient time to fight over a chute...if they could glide for long enough to argue then they'd have a chance of landing.

LenaClaire

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

OK

example number two

Small plane is crashing
One parachute
Two pilots aged 23(no kids for either)
one man one woman (work collegues)
every thing is equal

Who gets the chute???????

Who has sky diving training?

And most small planes do not have parachutes anyway unless it is a plane for a sky diving school.

Monty Burnz

Sharrow wrote: »

Children, infirm and pregnant women in the boat.

Without wanting to drag us into dodgy waters, I'm surprised you would give a pregnant woman priority on the boat as (unless it's close to term) the baby isn't really considered a 'life' as such?

Just to put my cards on the table, I'd agree with your position, but I'm just not entirely sure how you arrived at your view.

MissFlitworth

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Without wanting to drag us into dodgy waters, I'm surprised you would give a pregnant woman priority on the boat as (unless it's close to term) the baby isn't really considered a 'life' as such?

Because pregnant women would be more likely to have difficulties swimming & have less energy than women who aren't pregnant I assume. (no offence to any fit preggers ladies out there swimming the legs off themselves!)

Malari

Ickle, with your logical replies and incredulity at such hypothetical survival situations, you are clearly vexing the OP, who seems to be searching for the "save the woman" reply which will give him his AHA! moment upon which he can point out our hypocrasy at being feminists

LenaClaire

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Without wanting to drag us into dodgy waters, I'm surprised you would give a pregnant woman priority on the boat as (unless it's close to term) the baby isn't really considered a 'life' as such?

Just to put my cards on the table, I'd agree with your position, but I'm just not entirely sure how you arrived at your view.

Well, pregnant women get tired a lot faster than non-pregnant women. They probably would not be up to treading water very long for their own life regardless of if you consider the fetus "life."

LittleBook

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

In 2011, how likely is it that a boat is going to have 30 people on it and the life-rafts only fit 20...and surely if they fit 20 adults and 10 of the 30 were kids, the life rafts could cope with everyone anyway?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Putting the question of why two pilots would get in a plane with only one chute between them to one side...Unless they were already wearing the chute, a small plane crashing wouldn't give either sufficient time to fight over a chute...if they could glide for long enough to argue then they'd have a chance of landing.

I have a sneaking suspicion the OP will keep thinking of more examples until SOMEone says "women first of course! men should be chivalrous! blah, blah, blah!!"

Monty Burnz

MissFlitworth wrote: »

Because pregnant women would be more likely to have difficulties swimming & have less energy than women who aren't pregnant I assume. (no offence to any fit preggers ladies out there swimming the legs off themselves!)

I'd imagine that pregnant women would actually be more buoyant (assuming their body fat increases, which I think is typical). God knows I used to sink like a stone when I tried to swim as a skeletal (but energetic) child.

Acoshla

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Without wanting to drag us into dodgy waters, I'm surprised you would give a pregnant woman priority on the boat as (unless it's close to term) the baby isn't really considered a 'life' as such?

Maybe it's more to do with it being tougher for them to swim than a non pregnant person?

Ickle Magoo

Malari wrote: »

Ickle, with your logical replies and incredulity at such hypothetical survival situations, you are clearly vexing the OP, who seems to be searching for the "save the woman" reply which will give him his AHA! moment upon which he can point out our hypocrasy at being feminists

Ah, silly me for not conforming to all those anti-feminist assumptions.

Acoshla wrote: »

Maybe it's more to do with it being tougher for them to swim than a non pregnant person?

I'd think so. Presumably they don't have pee-on-a-sticks handy for entry to the life rafts so it would be women who are visibly pregnant? Who are possibly suffering from sore joints, reduced lung capacity and anaemia?

LenaClaire

Oh, I see... silly me, we are looking for an over-reaction

How does this work for the crazy femi-nazi reaction...

On the boat - children and men get in the boat and the women tow them to shore by dragging the boat in with their teeth cause women rock like that.

On the plane - the better pilot should stay with the plane to make sure it lands in an area that will cause the least mayhem on the ground.. so obviously the man gets the parachute.

Cork boy 55

Honest question
In the post-feminist world in a extreme survival situtaion where life and death
decisions have to be made is a womans life worth the same as a mans?

Can anyone think of some real life examples in last few years?

Monty Burnz

As much as I appreciate everyone answering my question, the person whose logic I asked an explanation for is thanking posts here without addressing it...

Never mind. It's not a big deal.

Ickle Magoo

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Honest question
In the post-feminist world in a extreme survival situtaion where life and death
decisions have to be made is a womans life worth the same as a mans?

Can anyone think of some real life examples in last few years?

In a survivalist situation, surely gender doesn't come into it. If a plane is burning after crashing or a boat sinking then the strongest and fittest survive - if it's a question of choosing someone to survive because we're in a desert island like situation then I want the person with the best survival skills, I don't care what gender they are.

You seem to be fishing for someone to say one gender is intrinsically worth more than the other but barring extremists, I don't know anyone who thinks that day to day...never mind in the panic of trying to survive a disaster.

MissFlitworth

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Honest question
In the post-feminist world in a extreme survival situtaion where life and death
decisions have to be made is a womans life worth the same as a mans?

All lives are equal.

Can anyone think of some real life examples in last few years?

No, but as you're hugely interested in this it could be something for you to look up yourself maybe

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You seem to be fishing for someone to say one gender is intrinsically worth more than the other but barring extremists, I don't know anyone who thinks that day to day...never mind in the panic of trying to survive a disaster.

I suspect that many men would still be inclined to sacrifice themselves to save women's lives, just as many men would not or do not defend themselves when attacked by women. It's a pretty deeply embedded thing. Exactly why that is still so today, I could only guess.

Morag

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Honest question
In the post-feminist world in a extreme survival situtaion where life and death
decisions have to be made is a womans life worth the same as a mans?

Can anyone think of some real life examples in last few years?

Can you?

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I suspect that many men would still be inclined to sacrifice themselves to save women's lives, just as many men would not or do not defend themselves when attacked by women. It's a pretty deeply embedded thing. Exactly why that is still so today, I could only guess.

I don't know what situation you are thinking of but if a plane has crashed and flames and smoke are everywhere, martyrdom in order to save the wimmins is not a common phenomena...ifaik inaction due to shock is the biggest killer in disasters.

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't know what situation you are thinking of but if a plane has crashed and flames and smoke are everywhere, martyrdom in order to save the wimmins is not a common phenomena...ifaik inaction due to shock is the biggest killer in disasters.

I'm thinking of men running into burning buildings, jumping into canals, that sort of thing. I imagine in the shock and panic of a plane crash, few people would get beyond their own survival instinct (and it's hard to see how you could act in a self-sacrificing way after such a disaster).

Edit: In a piece of cunning research that may invite unflattering comparisons to Ali G's 'Ice Cream Gloves', I just did a quick Google of the phrases 'man dies rescuing' and 'woman dies rescuing'. One of the searches had nearly 4 times as many hits as the other.

LenaClaire

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Edit: In a piece of cunning research that may invite unflattering comparisons to Ali G's 'Ice Cream Gloves', I just did a quick Google of the phrases 'man dies rescuing' and 'woman dies rescuing'. One of the searches had nearly 4 times as many hits as the other.

Continuing that theme - I googled man rescued vs. woman rescued and got 1.5 times more men rescued. So maybe they are rescuing other men?

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm thinking of men running into burning buildings, jumping into canals, that sort of thing. I imagine in the shock and panic of a plane crash, few people would get beyond their own survival instinct (and it's hard to see how you could act in a self-sacrificing way after such a disaster).

You mean nothing to do with the kind of thing the OP was referring to...so nothing that I was referring to either...

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Edit: In a piece of cunning research that may invite unflattering comparisons to Ali G's 'Ice Cream Gloves', I just did a quick Google of the phrases 'man dies rescuing' and 'woman dies rescuing'. One of the searches had nearly 4 times as many hits as the other.

Ah the auld plea to google's hits fallacy ...even if that were to be the case, I would think that there are other obvious considerations; such the ability of a man to rescue both women and other men compared with your average woman, combined with men being bigger risk takers and more likely to put themselves in the position of requiring rescue and the majority of official rescue personnel being male.

Morag

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm thinking of men running into burning buildings, jumping into canals, that sort of thing.

Women do this too, even professionally.

Monty Burnz

Sharrow wrote: »

Women do this too, even professionally.

Undoubtedly.

Morag

Monty Burnz wrote: »

As much as I appreciate everyone answering my question, the person whose logic I asked an explanation for is thanking posts here without addressing it...

Never mind. It's not a big deal.

Dude I thank the post of the person who gave the explanation you were looking for.

Alkers

jujibee wrote: »

10 children go in lifeboat. 10 strongest adult swimmers get life jackets and tie themselves to boat to keep group together and 10 weakest swimmers get in boat with children.

If there are life-jackets then swimming doesn't come into the equation - it should actually be the ten fattest people get into the water as they have the most resistance to hypothermia. Added benefit of you maybe fitting more of the skinny people into the life-raft.

As an aside if you are in a survival situation like the above DO NOT try and swim, you will die of hypothermia before you come anywhere near drowning. Even if you can't get out of the water, stay in a motionless ball and move as little as possible.

Silverfish

I believe the women and children first thing came from something to do with population.

A man can impregnate as many women as needs be, with no time constraints.
However, a woman can only become pregnant once a year or so on average.

So it made sense (?) in a way to save more women, to have babies and raise children and the like.

I think that's where it came from anyway, I don't think it really applies any more and any survival situation is more everyone for themselves, and rescue others if you can, gender irrelevant.

WindSock

Anyone else waiting for the op to spring up a cannibalism scenario?

I'd say the woman would lose out there as her bottom is most likely to be meaty.

Catari Jaguar

Ah OP, trying to win an argument against women. Priceless.

Sauve

Outsmarted nicely there OP.....

Logical Fallacy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Edit: In a piece of cunning research that may invite unflattering comparisons to Ali G's 'Ice Cream Gloves', I just did a quick Google of the phrases 'man dies rescuing' and 'woman dies rescuing'. One of the searches had nearly 4 times as many hits as the other.

This could simply mean that women are better at not dying while rescuing people.

Wolfe Tone

Women of childbearing age and children first in my book...

dsmythy

MissFlitworth wrote: »

Because pregnant women would be more likely to have difficulties swimming & have less energy than women who aren't pregnant I assume. (no offence to any fit preggers ladies out there swimming the legs off themselves!)

But perhaps the average man will have a greater chance of survival in the water than the average women on account of physicality? Or will there be swimming and strength tests to see who ends up threading water. I'm going with women and children first still, though perhaps the baser instinct to survive would overwhelm me in such a situation putting paid to said ideal.

Alkers

dsmythy wrote: »

But perhaps the average man will have a greater chance of survival in the water than the average women on account of physicality? Or will there be swimming and strength tests to see who ends up threading water. I'm going with women and children first still, though perhaps the baser instinct to survive would overwhelm me in such a situation putting paid to said ideal.

Swimming = die faster

Cork boy 55

"First of all, if you were a man, you were outta luck. The overall survival rate for men was 20%. For women, it was 74%, and for children, 52%. Yes, it was indeed "women and children first."

The titanic sinking was a sad chapter in gender equality
It was a Androcide.
http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm


Would that happen today is the question?
Would the lifeboats be loaded with women and children first?

Monty Burnz

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Would that happen today is the question?
Would the lifeboats be loaded with women and children first?

To be fair, I think the question has been addressed. And we're not living in 1912 anymore.

Dudess

Ah, I'm all over the place here - do I say our repressive enemy, men, should lay down their lives for women, or would that be too chivalrous and thus chauvinism? I really don't know what the best feminazi assessment is...

Malari wrote: »

Ickle, with your logical replies and incredulity at such hypothetical survival situations, you are clearly vexing the OP, who seems to be searching for the "save the woman" reply which will give him his AHA! moment upon which he can point out our hypocrasy at being feminists

Yep. And of course ALL women who post in The Ladies' Lounge are automatically "the feministzzzzzzzzzz".

Monty Burnz wrote: »

As much as I appreciate everyone answering my question, the person whose logic I asked an explanation for is thanking posts here without addressing it...

Never mind. It's not a big deal.

To be fair, indeed it isn't, because it was already answered so she didn't need to.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I suspect that many men would still be inclined to sacrifice themselves to save women's lives, just as many men would not or do not defend themselves when attacked by women. It's a pretty deeply embedded thing. Exactly why that is still so today, I could only guess.

Well that stems from an age-old chivalry tradition (which I personally think is a good, nice thing, but men shouldn't feel forced into it either), it isn't a result of the eeeevil feminism (not directing that at you).

Ickle Magoo

Post deleted

FetchTheGin banned for a week - please acquaint yourself with the forum charter before posting here again.

Alopex

Surely the term "post-feminist" is nonsensical. Looked liek thread was implying feminism has been and gone, and now we're back to men at work whilst women make babies.

In answer to the question. Massive rock-paper-scissors contest. In the name of equality the kids have to play too. Bloody ageism

iguana

If the waters are shark infested I want all of the women who are having or are due for their period on a lifeboat. I'll happily don a life jacket and swim alongside the boat, but not if one of my companions is sending tasty-treats-r-here signals out into the water.

MissFlitworth

iguana wrote: »

If the waters are shark infested I want all of the women who are having or are due for their period on a lifeboat. I'll happily don a life jacket and swim alongside the boat, but not if one of my companions is sending tasty-treats-r-here signals out into the water.

I think 'I'm on me shark magnets' or 'I'm on me tasty treats' is going to be my new 'I'm on the rag'

Silverfish

Alopex wrote: »

Surely the term "post-feminist" is nonsensical. Looked liek thread was implying feminism has been and gone, and now we're back to men at work whilst women make babies.

In answer to the question. Massive rock-paper-scissors contest. In the name of equality the kids have to play too. Bloody ageism

Okay, so I'm just going to pick rock and punch everyone in the face screaming 'OH SORRY, I THOUGHT YOUR PAPER / SCISSORS WOULD PROTECT YOU' then grab the parachute or whatever.

LeixlipRed

I think the OP is seriously mistaken in believing we're in a post-feminist society. But then again, that's not really the point of this thread is it? :pac:

More about sharks please...

Silverfish

LeixlipRed wrote: »

I think the OP is seriously mistaken in believing we're in a post-feminist society. But then again, that's not really the point of this thread is it? :pac:

More about sharks please...

Apparently if you swim underneath the shark, it thinks you're just another large fish and will leave you alone.
Or if you curl into a ball, it won't be able to get at you very easily.

Most likely these are good ways to drown instead of being eaten, I think.


Kinda like the plane crash survival myths.

Monty Burnz

Alopex wrote: »

Surely the term "post-feminist" is nonsensical. Looked liek thread was implying feminism has been and gone, and now we're back to men at work whilst women make babies.

Sorry, I missed this. In my head the term 'post feminist' usefully denotes that we now live in a world where nobody with a brain disputes that men and women should have equal status in society. The argument has been won.