1. Post #241
    Gold Member
    Lol-Nade's Avatar
    September 2008
    3,740 Posts
    I guess it's because women can give birth to future generations of children, and children can grow up to fulfil any purpose they might have.

    I'd say it's half instinct, half moral.

  2. Post #242
    Ask me about my .gif fetish
    st0rmforce's Avatar
    February 2008
    3,594 Posts
    In the situation of lifeboats on a sinking ship, why does it matter who gets on first anyway? It's not a case of "first on, first to safety". Nobody is safe until the boat is launched and at a safe distance from the ship, so spending time working out who gets on first just puts everybody in danger.

    I suppose a better scenario would be a sci-fi space hotel, with emergency teleporters back to earth. I don't think it should be an enforced rule, but I hope that people would let families in front of them in a queue.

    I guess it's because women can give birth to future generations of children, and children can grow up to fulfil any purpose they might have.

    I'd say it's half instinct, half moral.
    I think it's entirely because most people thought like Rad McCool back in the early 20th century:
    This is a man:

    He is strong, capable and able to keep his head in an emergency.

    This is a woman:

    Oh dear, she's fainted again (luckily there's a man standing by in this case). When she isn't fainting, she's probably looking after her children and/or panicing hysterically.

    Back then, in the event of an emergency, a man is required to help those less capable than himself (i.e. women and children). Only a coward would flee rather than help somebody completely unable to help themselves (i.e. women and children).
    A good example is J. Bruce Ismay who helped a number of women and children escape and then COWARDLY got into a lifeboat himself.

  3. Post #243
    Gold Member
    sp00ks's Avatar
    January 2008
    12,058 Posts
    If you're a man and you don't agree with "women and children first" then you are nothing more than a coward. It has nothing to do with what's best for the species. A single accident won't affect humanity at all. It's about being a man. Your duty is to protect the weak. Don't be fucking cowards.
    So women are weak and needs to be protected by strong and powerful men like yourself?
    You're a moron.

  4. Post #244
    P1X3L N1NJA's Avatar
    December 2009
    4,846 Posts
    I would let a woman and a child go before me, but I guess thats because im an old fashioned gentleman.

  5. Post #245
    Gold Member
    Lol-Nade's Avatar
    September 2008
    3,740 Posts
    It's like chivalry

    Like how a gentleman would lay down his coat for the lady to step on to avoid a puddle

  6. Post #246
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    It's like chivalry

    Like how a gentleman would lay down his coat for the lady to step on to avoid a puddle
    No it's not.

    Please explain how a rule forcing a man to die for some woman he doesn't even know is "like chivalry".

  7. Post #247
    P1X3L N1NJA's Avatar
    December 2009
    4,846 Posts
    I think the idea of women and children first should really be parents and children first because children are the future and they need a parent. And if you say "oh they can just get foster parents" then you're just a heartless bastard.

  8. Post #248
    Hoboharry's Avatar
    January 2010
    6,544 Posts
    Isn't it children and seniors first these days?
    Seniors?
    I can understand that seniors generally won't stand any chance if they try to swim for their lives, but i'd have thought that their lives are less valued over those in the 30s mainly because they've got a short-lived life ahead of them.

  9. Post #249

    February 2012
    1 Posts
    I think the idea of women and children first should really be parents and children first because children are the future and they need a parent. And if you say "oh they can just get foster parents" then you're just a heartless bastard.
    BUt then why cant you take you father with you instead of your mother?
    And what about single father should they be treated differently?

    I think its just an antiquated and sexist manner.

  10. Post #250
    Gold Member
    xXDictatorXx's Avatar
    December 2007
    1,609 Posts
    I guess it's because women can give birth to future generations of children, and children can grow up to fulfil any purpose they might have.

    I'd say it's half instinct, half moral.
    This has been covered many times. A disaster like a big ship sinking would not destroy the entire population so continuing the population is not an issue, also in present day there are not many women who'd agree to let one guy fuck a bunch of them for the good of re-population.

  11. Post #251
    What's brevity?
    ironman17's Avatar
    June 2006
    19,362 Posts
    I kinda find the whole "women and children first" dealio a tiresome piece of archaic presumption, revolving around maleocracy and whatnot. I could get behind the "children first" bit, since they've logically got more of their lives ahead of them (the adult used up more sand than the child, being older and all), but women aren't as weak as has been assumed; the stereotypes are what are weak, not the ladies.

  12. Post #252
    Gold Member
    Eltro102's Avatar
    February 2008
    10,962 Posts
    This has been covered many times. A disaster like a big ship sinking would not destroy the entire population so continuing the population is not an issue, also in present day there are not many women who'd agree to let one guy fuck a bunch of them for the good of re-population.
    yes, but it is kinda sub-conscious really, and changing it would only cause more confusion as most people already know/ use this

  13. Post #253
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    yes, but it is kinda sub-conscious really
    Hardly, there are plenty of people who don't think this way.

  14. Post #254
    Head over heels in love with Pudding~
    Dennab
    January 2012
    5,547 Posts
    -snarp- because FP doesn't accept my edits wtf.

  15. Post #255
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,062 Posts
    If you're a man and you don't agree with "women and children first" then you are nothing more than a coward. It has nothing to do with what's best for the species. A single accident won't affect humanity at all. It's about being a man. Your duty is to protect the weak. Don't be fucking cowards.
    I would give my life for another person, regardless of sex, yet I do not agree with women first, does that still make me a coward?

  16. Post #256
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    No, not at all.

  17. Post #257
    Gold Member
    Upgrade123's Avatar
    January 2008
    5,478 Posts
    I the event of an emergency, a human being is required to help other human beings. Only a coward would flee rather than help somebody (i.e. other human beings).
    Fixed that for you.

  18. Post #258
    In a perfect world, we would all share this quality.
    Wait, question, if everyone wants to sacrifice themselves for others then wouldn't it be a bitch to get people on the lifeboat
    everyone would be like "NO I WANT TO HELP"

  19. Post #259
    Gold Member
    xXDictatorXx's Avatar
    December 2007
    1,609 Posts
    yes, but it is kinda sub-conscious really, and changing it would only cause more confusion as most people already know/ use this
    It's a bad system though in modern society though, again I am a young 20-something girl who has no dependables and has no desire to ever reproduce even but according to this I am more valuable than a father of three kids who shares half of the parenting with his wife and helps to support the family. Again, I sure as hell would want to live, I just think it's unfair to give one gender a bonus over old fashioned principles.

    It's sad we have to place value on life at all, the ideal solution would be having enough life boats for everyone.

  20. Post #260
    Ask me about my .gif fetish
    st0rmforce's Avatar
    February 2008
    3,594 Posts
    Fixed that for you.
    I was talking about the attitude in the 1900's. I added bit to make it more obvious

  21. Post #261
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    Any other humans first. I don't care if I die, I'll be dead. I do care if others die.

  22. Post #262
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    Wait, question, if everyone wants to sacrifice themselves for others then wouldn't it be a bitch to get people on the lifeboat
    everyone would be like "NO I WANT TO HELP"
    Then women and children first would be the perfect rule to enforce.

  23. Post #263
    Ask me about my .gif fetish
    st0rmforce's Avatar
    February 2008
    3,594 Posts
    Then women and children first would be the perfect rule to enforce.
    What about: "form an orderly queue"?

  24. Post #264
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,062 Posts
    Then women and children first would be the perfect rule to enforce.
    Why women, what is so special about women?

  25. Post #265
    I'd buy that for a dollar
    Dennab
    September 2008
    5,876 Posts
    So women are weak and needs to be protected by strong and powerful men like yourself?
    You're a moron.
    Men have been naturally protective of women for a while, its instinctive. Nothing is ever going to change that.

  26. Post #266
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    Why women, what is so special about women?
    It's the y-chromosome in action. We have a natural instinct / obligation to take care of women.
    It's not because women are weaker than us. It's because their lives have greater value than ours.

    It's just how our brains are wired.
    Men have been naturally protective of women for a while, its instinctive. Nothing is ever going to change that.
    Thank. You.

  27. Post #267
    Gold Member
    Goberfish's Avatar
    February 2007
    585 Posts
    It's the y-chromosome in action. We have a natural instinct / obligation to take care of women.
    It's not because women are weaker than us. It's because their lives have greater value than ours.

    It's just how our brains are wired.

    Thank. You.
    We are also naturally wired to react violently to certain situations that do not call for it. Should we just give into that as well?

  28. Post #268
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    No, that's stupid.

  29. Post #269
    Ask me about my .gif fetish
    st0rmforce's Avatar
    February 2008
    3,594 Posts
    No, that's stupid.
    But wasting time in an emergency by sorting people into gender groups isn't?

  30. Post #270
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    If time was a real factor, then I think there would be fewer casualties if all the men focused on gathering the women and the children before saving themselves, instead of just every person on its own.

    If time isn't a factor, but there is a limited number of people who can be saved, then prioritize the children, and then the women. They are worth more.

    If time isn't a factor, and there's room for everyone to be saved, then of course it doesn't matter and there's no point in prioritize any group.

  31. Post #271
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,062 Posts
    It's the y-chromosome in action. We have a natural instinct / obligation to take care of women.
    It's not because women are weaker than us. It's because their lives have greater value than ours.

    It's just how our brains are wired.

    Thank. You.
    The y chromosome doesn't automatically make the person into a massive super strong manly man.

  32. Post #272
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    Like I've tried to explain several times before: it has nothing to do with physical strength or other superficial masculine traits.

  33. Post #273
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    If time isn't a factor, but there is a limited number of people who can be saved, then prioritize the children, and then the women. They are worth more.
    What exactly leads you to this conclusion though?

  34. Post #274
    Ask me about my .gif fetish
    st0rmforce's Avatar
    February 2008
    3,594 Posts
    If time was a real factor, then I think there would be fewer casualties if all the men focused on gathering the women and the children before saving themselves, instead of just every person on its own.

    If time isn't a factor, but there is a limited number of people who can be saved, then prioritize the children, and then the women. They are worth more.

    If time isn't a factor, and there's room for everyone to be saved, then of course it doesn't matter and there's no point in prioritize any group.
    Case 1: Women are capable of organising themselves, why do they need men to gather them up? In this case people just need to pull together, help each other and not panic.

    Case 2: Everybody is important to someone. I kind of agree with you about children, but I disagree that some people are worth more than others. You can talk about instincts if you like, but we are capable of disregarding our instincts. Women are not worth more than men.

  35. Post #275
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    Well... if you feel that way, then you feel that way.

  36. Post #276
    NeonpieDFTBA's Avatar
    January 2012
    954 Posts
    If time was a real factor, then I think there would be fewer casualties if all the men focused on gathering the women and the children before saving themselves, instead of just every person on its own.

    If time isn't a factor, but there is a limited number of people who can be saved, then prioritize the children, and then the women. They are worth more.

    If time isn't a factor, and there's room for everyone to be saved, then of course it doesn't matter and there's no point in prioritize any group.
    Or, what about:

    If time was a real factor, get as many people on as possible on, with children and <B>PARENTS</B> given allowance to skip through queues. Then able bodied people on next. Maximises survival.

    If time isn't a factor, but their is a limited number of people who can be saved, then prioritize children, parents and then able bodied people in order youngest to oldest.

    Also, if current trends continue, 1/3 of people will be obese. If they use up 2 seats each, current guidelines of 125% capacity will not be enough. Increase capacity or leave them behind?

    Edit:

    All adults could give up their place assuming capacity or time was short. It would be VOLUNTARY.

  37. Post #277
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    kk you win, I was wrong.

  38. Post #278
    NeonpieDFTBA's Avatar
    January 2012
    954 Posts
    kk you win, I was wrong.
    I detect sarcasm.

  39. Post #279
    I'd buy that for a dollar
    Dennab
    September 2008
    5,876 Posts
    We are also naturally wired to react violently to certain situations that do not call for it. Should we just give into that as well?

    That's stupid, the only relation that has to women is that its instinctive. Are you suggesting that if someone were to have a girlfriend they brutally murder the living shit out of anyone nearby?

  40. Post #280
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,062 Posts
    That's stupid, the only relation that has to women is that its instinctive. Are you suggesting that if someone were to have a girlfriend they brutally murder the living shit out of anyone nearby?
    Instinctively if someone was trying to chat up their girlfriend they would react violently. Of course we're beyond such animalistic behavior now (at least some of us are any way)