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
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    lil_lisa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭lil_lisa


    Equal rights + special treatment? Slightly contradicting. But by wanting equal rights it means being treated fairly and the same as men. By saving women before men it means they're not being treated the same.


  • Options
    #33
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    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.

    That's not being a feminazi, that's wanting equal rights, generally when people use the word "feminazi" they refer to the man-hating women who think they should be treated better for being women.


  • Options
    #34
    StormWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭StormWarrior


    I'd find it very charming and chivalrous if men in that situation offered me the chance to be saved instead of them. But if my father/husband/brother/son were there and would have to be left behind to die, I couldn't bring myself to get on the boat and leave them behind.


  • Options
    #35
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,872 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    submitted as evidence:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuP9YClyPRY


  • Options
    #36
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    It would be MY woman and children first, then me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Coriolanus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    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.
    But it's not as simple as that, is it?

    A 25 year old man has longer to live than a 35 year old woman, going by average age of death.

    So it'd be children first then women under 25 and men under twenty, then women under 30 and men under 25 etc etc.

    That just sounds messy.

    Anyway, as for myself, I'd echo the thoughts above that "my" women and children would be going first, followed by me since I flatter myself in presuming that if I were with them their hope of survival goes up.


  • Options
    #38
    Andrew33
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭Andrew33


    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. Children may not survive until adulthood so they're too much of a variable =p

    Who said the world needs more procreators:eek:


  • Options
    #39
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    I think another thing to be taken into consideration that no one seems to have mentioned is that men, in general are physically stronger, better stanima etc than women or children so they would have a better chance of surviving most of these situations....boat sinking (in general men are stronger swimmers), building on fire(men can climb better), village under attack(men are better fighters).....so it just makes sense to get the women and children to safety first.

    This of course only applies in a situation where there is some possibility of getting to safety second, so to speak, but I always thought the above was the obvious rationale for the "women and children first" thing.


  • Options
    #40
    tihkyld nic
    Registered Users Posts: 1 ✭tihkyld nic


    Children first. Then women, cos being stuck on a lifeboat in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of kids would be a fate worse than death, so it's all yours girls. :eek:

    I don't know. it should be equal, but extreme situations taps into that evolutionary instinct. You can imagine a kid who's saved along with their mother respecting her mother the rest of her life, but it's hard to imagine they wouldn't blame and be ashamed of their father in the opposite scenario. Some might say that in a truly enlightened society that wouldn't be the case, but even if that's true (which I don't think it is) that's not where we're at.

    I would like to make the sacrifice if it came to it, I really would, but I kind of doubt I could. If the choice could be made before the situation happened, I'd totally do it. But not in the heat of it, hopefully I'd just freeze in fear until it was too late to get in drag convincingly (ship'd need to sinking pretty slowly tbf).


  • Options
    #41
    discus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,049 ✭✭✭discus


    amacachi wrote: »
    It would be MY woman and children first, then me.

    Indeed. If only for the fact that I'd want to set a good example for the children. A memory of a fathers whose example of selfless commitment to his family and his compassion and welfare for others would probably serve them better throughout life then my actual fathering skills!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Fluorescence
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 8,490 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fluorescence


    lil_lisa wrote: »
    Yeah but to eat your friend? I would rather die I think.

    Swap legs :pac:

    Regarding the debate, I always thought it was children first (for obvious reasons - it's the duty of society to protect and rear children), and their mothers to mind and protect them. That probably just became women in general as women are motherly figures that a bunch of terrified kids are likely to look up to in those circumstances. I'm not sure how well this argument holds water (:pac:) though, as any adult (male or female) in this situation would be an obvious guardian to the kids until they got to safety.

    EDIT to add: In an apocalyptic situation, I think it's women and children first because you need fewer men to impregnate a lot of women to get the population back up again :P. Like the way a farmer might have a herd of cattle and just one bull ;)


  • Options
    #43
    d4v1d
    Registered Users Posts: 134 ✭✭d4v1d


    in my view preservation of genetics would kick in first. if, in a hypothetical situation, my family is on a sinking ship and there was a limited space on a lifeboat, i'd have no problem in sacrificing someone elses children in order to save my own first. i'd never have any guilt for doing anything to save the lives of my children.

    once my children are safe then in reality self preservation would kick in. i'd probaby do everything possible to save myself before my wife or any other women/children. of course if i were in my 60's/70's then i may have a more altruistic way of dealing with the ordeal, but not right now. me, me, me!


  • Options
    #44
    chickenbutt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 594 ✭✭✭chickenbutt


    Children first is great and optimistic and all, but I disagree. It's like when a plane is going down and the air masks pop out, do you put yours on or your childs? You put yours on first because if you didn't, who's to say you won't pass out who will then take care of the child? I'm not saying jump ship and leave the kids behind, but you can't just throw the kids in a boat and hope they make it. They'll need adults.. so, women and children first, or men and children, either way... Otherwise it could be a whole other Lord of the Flies scenario and no one needs that!


  • Options
    #45
    Arpa
    Registered Users Posts: 442 ✭✭Arpa


    d4v1d wrote: »
    in my view preservation of genetics would kick in first. if, in a hypothetical situation, my family is on a sinking ship and there was a limited space on a lifeboat, i'd have no problem in sacrificing someone elses children in order to save my own first. i'd never have any guilt for doing anything to save the lives of my children.

    once my children are safe then in reality self preservation would kick in. i'd probaby do everything possible to save myself before my wife or any other women/children. of course if i were in my 60's/70's then i may have a more altruistic way of dealing with the ordeal, but not right now. me, me, me!

    Jesus, hate to be on that boat with you. Sacrificing someone elses children? Jumping in before your wife and other women and children? I know it's a life and death situation, but your exactly the type of person who shouldn't get in the boat, because you're all panicked. You'd kill everyone on the life boat for the last packet of Tayto. ;)

    I'm not sayin' I'd be Mr. Cool and let everyone ahead of me, but I am certain that acting through shock I'd probably become helpful in saving others, not because I value my life less, but because I think every man should be noble in crisis situations and...well...be a man. It's inherent, respected and required. Too many wussy men jumping in lifeboats.

    Save the women and children first because it is the honourable thing to do. Women are beautiful creatures as they carry and introduce life, men are beautiful creatures because they have the power to preserve that life.

    I'm sure that a look into the animal kingdom would present arguments to suggest that the male sacrifices himself to preserve the continuation of the species. Analogies can be drawn.


  • Options
    #46
    Pollythene Pam
    Registered Users Posts: 258 ✭✭Pollythene Pam


    Pam first.
    Humanity last.


  • Options
    #47
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    I remember being taught that the first human instinct was to save others. I would have thought the first instinct would be to save yourself. I mean, if your sofa caught fire and you felt excruciating pain in your arse - your first instinct woudn't be to save the person next to you, would it?


  • Options
    #48
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    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.

    70 years of wisdom and at least 5 years to dispense it, against a spotty, hormonal teenager with six months left to live, no contest!
    What on earth would the teenager have to offer?
    We are weird in this country when it comes to respecting the experience and wisdom of our elders.


  • Options
    #49
    InReality
    Registered Users Posts: 1,374 ✭✭✭InReality


    I think in the panic it would be me me me in my thoughts!

    I was in a white water rafting thing , and when the boat leader said help x in , I was kinda frozen in panic , didn't move for fear I would fall in myself.

    The hudson ( I think) it was people who were a bit infirm etc that got helped along first.

    Some people def let others ahead of them , and died as a result.


  • Options
    #50
    Daniel S
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭Daniel S


    Should be done on how good looking you are....




    Eh, wait.. no that's a bad idea.... :D


  • Options
    #51
    sheesh
    Registered Users Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭sheesh


    What about Families First option if you can get family units together and put them on first if you have the time then its everyone for themselves.

    *kicks solo travelling Grandmother out of his way to get on last life boat.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    You could make up new family units out of all the good looking people, put them in the leaky boats and tell them life just isn't fair :D


  • Options
    #53
    FueledByAisling
    Registered Users Posts: 498 ✭✭FueledByAisling


    I'd save a child if they needed it, but that's just basic humanity right? I never understood the whole 'women first' thing though. I guess it is just down to the idea of being a gentlemen but to be honest with you if I'm walking to a door (and so is a man) who opens and holds it for me I always insist they walk through first. After all they got there first so why do I deserve priority?

    Same applies for buses etc


  • Options
    #54
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    FueledByAisling wrote: »
    I'd save a child if they needed it, but that's just basic humanity right? I never understood the whole 'women first' thing though. I guess it is just down to the idea of being a gentlemen but to be honest with you if I'm walking to a door (and so is a man) who opens and holds it for me I always insist they walk through first. After all they got there first so why do I deserve priority?

    Same applies for buses etc
    It's a question of looking at bottoms :D


  • Options
    #55
    Simtech
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭Simtech


    amacachi wrote: »
    It would be MY woman and children first, then me.

    Well said!


  • Options
    #56
    Full.Duck
    Registered Users Posts: 315 ✭✭Full.Duck


    If the boat is going down, there is no way id be thinking logically and asking everyone their age and lifestyle and do they have any terminally ill teenagers on board. Id be running and screaming kicking every woman and kid out of my way.


  • Options
    #57
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    Full.Duck wrote: »
    If the boat is going down, there is no way id be thinking logically and asking everyone their age and lifestyle and do they have any terminally ill teenagers on board. Id be running and screaming kicking every woman and kid out of my way.
    I'll bet you wouldn't.
    The people who claim all sorts of altruism would be the most selfish and vice versa.


  • Options
    #58
    kenya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭kenya


    I think the children should be first. Then I can't image if I can be calm enough to let the women go first. All lives are equal.


  • Options
    #59
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    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.

    Why should I care about the earth being repopulated?


Advertisement