Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Women and Children First?

Options
  • 03-03-2010 11:49pm
    #1
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭


    So, on a sinking ship, would you put yourself last, and women and children first (assuming you're a man)? Would you expect men to put you first (assuming you're a woman)?

    According to an article published in New Scientist, "the answer, it seems, depends on how long the sinking takes. If there's enough time, you can switch from adrenalin-driven self-preservation to conscience-driven self-sacrifice."

    It's an interesting read, and it raises several interesting questions about our modern, feminist, equality based society.

    (link)


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    seanybiker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,898 ✭✭✭✭seanybiker


    Im not sexist, I would hop on straight away


  • Options
    #3
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    Children first.
    After that it's fair game.


  • Options
    #4
    FoxInATreehouse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26 ✭FoxInATreehouse


    I'd like to think I would help children first. But seeing as I'm currently sitting in a chair in front of a laptop, and have never been on a sinking vessel, I don't know how I'd actually react.


  • Options
    #5
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Pygmalion wrote: »
    Children first.
    After that it's fair game.

    :o I came over here after reading several threads on After Hours, and I read that completely wrong.


  • Options
    #6
    ToniTuddle
    Registered Users Posts: 8,964 ✭✭✭ToniTuddle


    I don't believe a womans life is anymore important than a mans.

    Safely say I would end up dead as I'd be trying to save folks esp the children-those folks always end up dead -.-
    God it would be terrible though...who do you save, who do you not save.
    Then your own survival kicks in and I'd definitely be trying to get on the lifeboat!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    lil_lisa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭lil_lisa


    Thinking outside the box here, I believe the only situation where women would get heads up to go first would be if the whole race was in jeopardy. We have sperm banks all over the world so we can repopulate the planet (slowly but surely!) however, they haven't created a fake womb yet so men would be quite useless on their own.

    Now, back to real life, its completely equal. The only reason I can think of that this women and children thing ever began (centuries ago, I'm sure) was because men would have been seen to be stronger emotionally to allow other people to go before them. I'm not saying thats the case just maybe thats the way it was seen. Who's up for testing it in the 21st century?


  • Options
    #8
    ToniTuddle
    Registered Users Posts: 8,964 ✭✭✭ToniTuddle


    lil_lisa wrote: »
    Thinking outside the box here, I believe the only situation where women would get heads up to go first would be if the whole race was in jeopardy. We have sperm banks all over the world so we can repopulate the planet (slowly but surely!) however, they haven't created a fake womb yet so men would be quite useless on their own.

    Damn...never thought of it like that :eek:
    Now, back to real life, its completely equal. The only reason I can think of that this women and children thing ever began (centuries ago, I'm sure) was because men would have been seen to be stronger emotionally to allow other people to go before them. I'm not saying thats the case just maybe thats the way it was seen. Who's up for testing it in the 21st century?


    Well when that plane crashed into the Hudson river in (New York?)....America, did they let women and children off first or just filed the passengers out as they came along?

    Makes more sense to file them all along as by getting all the women and children organised it would waste precious seconds/minutes that would have been better spent saving everybody.


  • Options
    #9
    sweetswing
    Registered Users Posts: 619 ✭✭✭sweetswing


    a friend of mine who was a sailor said they done away with women and children first because back in the day they were finding life boats full of dead women and children after ships went down , the more men per lifeboat the better the chances of survival "supposedly"
    personaly i would save my self first then try to help if i could.


  • Options
    #10
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Men and women aged between 16 and 35 should be first into the lifeboats as they are the ones currently most likely to continue procreating. Children may not survive until adulthood so they're too much of a variable =p


  • Options
    #11
    unreggd
    Registered Users Posts: 3,835 ✭✭✭unreggd


    The news is worse for this

    X amount of women and children dead


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Men and women aged between 16 and 35 should be first into the lifeboats as they are the ones currently most likely to continue procreating.
    Why is ability to procreate a factor?


  • Options
    #13
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    lil_lisa wrote: »
    however, they haven't created a fake womb yet so men would be quite useless on their own.
    Necessity is the mother of invention.


  • Options
    #14
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    Herbal Deity wrote: »
    Why is ability to procreate a factor?

    He seems to be thinking of an apocalyptic end of the world scenario, in which the survivors will be the only ones left on the planet, in which case choosing wisely means a lot.

    I took the question to mean a boat sinking or the like, where in the grand scheme of things who lives and dies probably won't have any direct effect on the world.


  • Options
    #15
    Necrodermis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭Necrodermis


    Children first, always.

    I'd do everything in my power to save anyone that may be struggling around me (kids first), and I would like to think that someone (male or female) would assist me when I can do no more and am on the edge of death. I could think of no better death than one whereby I had saved the life of one or more children. I'd like to think that I could see the others who are having an impact, and that I would help them (after the kids that is).

    Asking whether we save males or females is idiotic. We all should save whoever around us that is saving the most.


  • Options
    #16
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Herbal Deity wrote: »
    Why is ability to procreate a factor?

    What is it that you'd trying to save exactly if not the continuum of life? The only reason that a child's life is more valuable than an adult's is based on an ethic and moral


  • Options
    #17
    Inari
    Registered Users Posts: 3,152 ✭✭✭Inari


    Women and Children first, based on biology. We can all agree that there's no sense in a terminal patient taking up a place in the life boat. Thus we can similarly conclude that there is no point in an 85 year old taking a 17 year old's place in said life boat. If we are to say this, it means we're saying that the people who deserve the places on the life boats are those who will get the most time. Since women live longer than men, and children have more time than adults...it's easy to come to the logical conclusion of "Women & Children"

    However, logic is often stripped from peoples minds in times of tragedy


  • Options
    #18
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    My name is URL wrote: »
    What is it that you'd trying to save exactly if not the continuum of life?
    The individuals involved.

    The continuum of life isn't important IMO, it's merely a side effect of our existence.
    Inari wrote: »
    Women and Children first, based on biology. We can all agree that there's no sense in a terminal patient taking up a place in the life boat. Thus we can similarly conclude that there is no point in an 85 year old taking a 17 year old's place in said life boat. If we are to say this, it means we're saying that the people who deserve the places on the life boats are those who will get the most time. Since women live longer than men, and children have more time than adults...it's easy to come to the logical conclusion of "Women & Children"
    "whoever has the most years left" is a flawed metric in this case.

    You would save a 17 year old over an 85 years old because the 85 year old has experienced 85 years of life, as opposed to 17. It's not about how many years are left in either of their lives, it's about fairness, giving those who haven't experienced as much of life as others a chance to do so.


  • Options
    #19
    Inari
    Registered Users Posts: 3,152 ✭✭✭Inari


    I disagree with it being about fairness. There's no sense in someone who's got less time to live taking up space on a lifeboat when someone with much more time is being left behind. I do see your point though, that the older person would/could say "I've had my time, now it's yours" but my argument is that the ones with greater life potential deserve the spaces, hence the women and children argument.


  • Options
    #20
    lil_lisa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭lil_lisa


    Inari wrote: »
    Women and Children first, based on biology. We can all agree that there's no sense in a terminal patient taking up a place in the life boat. Thus we can similarly conclude that there is no point in an 85 year old taking a 17 year old's place in said life boat. If we are to say this, it means we're saying that the people who deserve the places on the life boats are those who will get the most time. Since women live longer than men, and children have more time than adults...it's easy to come to the logical conclusion of "Women & Children"

    However, logic is often stripped from peoples minds in times of tragedy

    Ha ha, from this I understood that men are like terminal patients.

    The whole women and children thing started years ago when women were deemed almost 100% dependent on men. Nowadays women are entitled to everything a man is (well almost). There's no logic in it, it was just traditional. And IMHO, very few traditions have logic!


  • Options
    #21
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    Inari wrote: »
    I disagree with it being about fairness. There's no sense in someone who's got less time to live taking up space on a lifeboat when someone with much more time is being left behind. I do see your point though, that the older person would/could say "I've had my time, now it's yours" but my argument is that the ones with greater life potential deserve the spaces, hence the women and children argument.
    Who would you save out of the following two people:

    A terminally ill 17 year old with 6 months left to live.
    A 70 year old in reasonably good health with 5-10 years left to live?

    I would save the 17 year old, personally.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Herbal Deity wrote: »
    Who would you save out of the following two people:

    A terminally ill 17 year old with 6 months left to live.
    A 70 year old in reasonably good health with 5-10 years left to live?

    I would save the 17 year old, personally.

    Who is going to get more out of life if they live though? Just because the 70yo is older doesn't mean that the 17yo is going to have a better life after been 'saved'..

    Is it really that much fairer to put a value on life based on age alone?


  • Options
    #23
    Inari
    Registered Users Posts: 3,152 ✭✭✭Inari


    I concede the point about quality over quantity. But the odds of quality with quantity are increased.

    Women and Children was quite traditional, but most traditions do have quite a lot of logic behind them. The old one of men giving women their seat on the bus; anatomically speaking men have a greater muscle mass than women, due to having the hormones to build muscle. Therefore it's reasonable to conclude that it was easier for the man to stand. Obviously not always true, but the logic was there behind it...even if it was masked in the whole males believing all women to be weaker, which just isn't true


  • Options
    #24
    james finn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭james finn


    id say the times wer in now the lads would run for the boats first,

    its kinda like saying would you eat your friend if you had noting to eat, you have food now so you say no i wouldnt eat my friend.

    but if it happens you would do it.


  • Options
    #25
    lil_lisa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭lil_lisa


    james finn wrote: »
    id say the times wer in now the lads would run for the boats first,

    its kinda like saying would you eat your friend if you had noting to eat, you have food now so you say no i wouldnt eat my friend.

    but if it happens you would do it.

    Dude, that's kinda messed up!


  • Options
    #26
    james finn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭james finn


    DID YOU SEE THE FILM ( ALIVE )

    ITS FACT, IF YOU ASKED THOSE PEOPLE BEFORE THE CRASH WOULD THEY EAT ANOTHER HUMAN THEY WOULD HAVE SAID NO,

    THEY ATE ALL AROUND THEM WHEN THEY HAD NO CHOICE.


  • Options
    #27
    lil_lisa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭lil_lisa


    Yeah but to eat your friend? I would rather die I think.

    Anyway, back on topic, you are right, no one can know what they would do in a life threatening situation, adrenaline and panic hit, anything could happen.


  • Options
    #28
    james finn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭james finn


    YES ITS FUNNY TO HEAR ALL THE GREAT LADS SAYING ID DO THIS ID DO THAT BUT SHOULD IT HAPPEN IT WOULD BE OUT THE WINDOW,

    JUST LOOK AT 9/11, WOULD YOU JUMP OUT A WINDOW, NO


  • Options
    #29
    bigeasyeah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭bigeasyeah


    They would be no room on the boat after I fill it with food,drink and valuables.
    Equality rules.


  • Options
    #30
    Chuchoter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Chuchoter


    Maybe its just the feminazi in me, but I always found putting women and children on a par with each other demeaning, as if we were incapable of being as guilty as men. As if we were too stupid to make decisions, like the way a child who steals is innocent just because they didn't know any better.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    cantankerous
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭cantankerous


    crayolastereo wrote: »
    Maybe its just the feminazi in me, but I always found putting women and children on a par with each other demeaning, as if we were incapable of being as guilty as men. As if we were too stupid to make decisions, like the way a child who steals is innocent just because they didn't know any better.

    I thought a feminazi would want women and children first..... The whole women deserve equal rights+ special treatment because they are better than men attitude.

    The whole thing is obviously a hangover from a time when men and women weren't viewed as equal. The fact that people are still defending it today just shows to me how blindly (and desperately) some people will cling to tradition, coming up with whatever justifications they can for the case at hand instead of questioning "traditional wisdom" and thinking about things for themselves. This is imo haveing a negative impact on progress in the world.


Advertisement