"Women and Children First" is a ridiculous idea that is barely ever put into practice (Titanic is a weird one). Imagine the chaos it would cause if the crew of a ship had to order the people going into lifeboats? Telling someone that they can't get on because someone else might arrive soon and may need their place, that shit wouldn't fly.
Poll: Do you believe in "women and children first"?
- Thread starter Goofguy
- Start date
No, of course not. And can such a thing even be considered even a benefit to women at all when it obviously comes from chivalrous thought?
I can understand pregnant women. And definitely children. But please, women aren't dainty things that need to be protected, and men's lives aren't expendable.
I can understand pregnant women. And definitely children. But please, women aren't dainty things that need to be protected, and men's lives aren't expendable.
I believe in people who need help should receive it, but it has no gender / race / age limit.
And I've come across "you should give women your seat" bullshit many times, I'll give you my seat if you have a hard time standing otherwise don't ever try to cash in on my good will.
And I've come across "you should give women your seat" bullshit many times, I'll give you my seat if you have a hard time standing otherwise don't ever try to cash in on my good will.
As a manly man, I'll have to say women and children first.
As a squishy mammal, I'll have to say... get outta my way.
Which one I'll be when the s*** hits the fan, I can't say. I've faced danger before, but nowhere near as dire as a ship sinking. I'd like it to be a manly man, but then again, I'd also like to have a Lamborghini...
As a squishy mammal, I'll have to say... get outta my way.
Which one I'll be when the s*** hits the fan, I can't say. I've faced danger before, but nowhere near as dire as a ship sinking. I'd like it to be a manly man, but then again, I'd also like to have a Lamborghini...
While I sort of believe in it but to a certain extent (the child is more important than the women). Obviously if the child has a single father or any alternative to a mother than of course they also have the right to survive. I still view saving a child life is important since they have not fully experience the gift of life due to their age.
I can sort of understand the children thing seeing as they're weaker and need more help, but there's no reason women should get preference. Although the whole idea of giving anyone preference seems like it would just eat up time which could be used escaping, and in an age where there's (hopefully) an appropriate number of lifeboats on any given ship, people shouldn't need to be given preference.
To a very, very small point in the survival of the species.Liquidacid23 said:
One that's fairly moot in an overpopulated world.
Uh, no. Granted, if there are ten humans left and I have to repopulate the planet, I'll take one man and nine women. But in any other situation, reproductive capability doesn't have any bearing on how "expendable" someone is, even as far as our species' survival is concerned.Liquidacid23 said:
Its not about women and children first its about weakest before strongest. (i am totally not making any gender specific accusations!) what i am saying is that rather than saying well you are a woman so you should automatically go before all the men i think a situational judgment needs to be made. if there is a wounded "person" incapable of movement with out help then they should go in front of those not wounded. the same counts for general ability to look after ones self in the given situation. but this is all IMO.
Children should be first, but families should stay with their children, so in practicality I believe in however gets there first gets the spot. In my opinion it's morally (not that morality should be considered as much as logic in these situations) and logically the right answer, not because i think "hey fuck everyone that isn't me especially children since I find them annoying" because in my opinion thats immature, shallow and selfish.
I remember reading that the whole "men and children" first principle came after the HMS Birkenhead, a ship carrying both civilian passengers and soldiers sunk around the Cape of Good Hope at the turn of the 20th century. Due to the limited amount of lifeboats, the soldiers prioritised the civilians (being mostly women and children) first. Their actions were widely commended and the principle stuck. It's never been supported by maritime law which is just as well because that would be rather sexist.
Of course i don't know how i would act in the event of a being on a sinking ship. I'd think i would give away my first or second offer of a place to women or children (or indeed farthers should they wish to be with their family) but i wouldn't wait around put it that way.
Of course i don't know how i would act in the event of a being on a sinking ship. I'd think i would give away my first or second offer of a place to women or children (or indeed farthers should they wish to be with their family) but i wouldn't wait around put it that way.
Apparently, they've changed it to children and families with children first now, so that way families won't be broken up.
I'd let kids get to safety over my safety other than that it's first in best dressed. I'm not really a plane/boat/train fan anyway.
Children first, but mostly because I'm still a child. Though for younger children, there isn't much of a point to it if the family has to stay behind.