1. Post #41
    Head over heels in love with Pudding~
    Dennab
    January 2012
    5,547 Posts
    Or split it into 75 of each gender and then the race can survive while being more or less equal.
    ^

  2. Post #42
    Gold Member
    Zezibesh's Avatar
    May 2008
    19,010 Posts
    Children first is fine (although I wouldn't give my spot to a kid if it meant my death), but enforcing the women part is stupid

    Edited:

    how is a random woman any more or less deserving than a random man

  3. Post #43
    SK17a
    garychencool's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,729 Posts
    It's not entirely sexist, but it is. Children can be male or female.

  4. Post #44
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    Too bad.
    too bad? That still doesn't solve the issue. Should everyone run towards boats, and whoever gets there first gets it? "Too Bad" isn't even an answer.

  5. Post #45
    God's Pimp Hand's Avatar
    May 2010
    1,385 Posts
    I have not exhaustingly thought the issue through, but is it possible that women and children are perhaps favored over men due to their lesser body weight, therefore enabling a greater amount of them to fit on a single craft?

  6. Post #46
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    I have not exhaustingly thought the issue through, but is it possible that women and children are perhaps favored over men due to their lesser body weight, therefore enabling a greater amount of them to fit on a single craft?
    So fat women and children should be left behind in such a situation?

  7. Post #47
    Bobv2's Avatar
    January 2010
    962 Posts
    I'd hate to broach this, but I think this is the perfect subject.

    Where are all of the feminists that should be in this thread denouncing this practice? I thought feminism was "promoting the equality of both sexes," so shouldn't this be something feminism should be trying to stop? Wouldn't this also somehow count as yet another undesirable artifact of an oppressive patriarchy?

  8. Post #48
    Killed postal with a fart once.
    gk99's Avatar
    December 2007
    7,786 Posts
    too bad? That still doesn't solve the issue. Should everyone run towards boats, and whoever gets there first gets it? "Too Bad" isn't even an answer.
    Survival of the fittest.

  9. Post #49
    Head over heels in love with Pudding~
    Dennab
    January 2012
    5,547 Posts
    too bad? That still doesn't solve the issue. Should everyone run towards boats, and whoever gets there first gets it? "Too Bad" isn't even an answer.
    Whoever gets there first. Too bad for the poor suckers who don't.

  10. Post #50
    Absolute tosser, manchild, and belligerent douche-nozzle.
    download's Avatar
    July 2006
    6,801 Posts
    I think Children and wounded first myself

  11. Post #51
    Gold Member
    Upgrade123's Avatar
    January 2008
    5,478 Posts
    Children should be first, since they are literally the next generation.
    But women should be valued just as much as men. Women trying to save men, men trying to save women.

  12. Post #52
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    Whoever gets there first. Too bad for the poor suckers who don't.
    okay, at least that is an actual answer, unlike your previous post. But it's still a horrible idea. Evacuation should be orderly, not "running for the hills". And why is it that so many people in this thread don't care about other humans?

    Edited:

    Survival of the fittest.
    this is an evacuation, not evolution.

    Edited:

    Children first is fine (although I wouldn't give my spot to a kid if it meant my death)
    "Children First, unless it affects me."

  13. Post #53
    Gold Member
    CommunistCookie's Avatar
    July 2010
    793 Posts
    okay, at least that is an actual answer, unlike your previous post. But it's still a horrible idea. Evacuation should be orderly, not "running for the hills". And why is it that so many people in this thread don't care about other humans?
    Because of self preservation. There's no reason to paint people like murderers for putting their own life before others's. It's only natural.

    "Children First, unless it affects me."
    More like the rule makes sense, but we wouldn't want to follow it should it come into play because of, again, self preservation. If I am facing death I'm most likely not going to care about any of the women or children standing between me and this hypothetical life boat.

  14. Post #54
    Dennab
    December 2011
    5,623 Posts
    The way I see it is women and children should go first in a disaster cause the kids need to be kept safe, and because I fully expect everyone near the disaster who has a dong should be working together to save as many people as they can and THEN getting the fuck out of Dodge.

  15. Post #55
    Ask me about my .gif fetish
    st0rmforce's Avatar
    February 2008
    3,594 Posts
    Do you really expect women to swim for their lives? Their dresses would make it very difficult:

  16. Post #56
    Well, obviously women and children first because they're going to procreate.

  17. Post #57
    Gold Member
    ForcedDj's Avatar
    May 2007
    2,332 Posts
    I'd hate to broach this, but I think this is the perfect subject.

    Where are all of the feminists that should be in this thread denouncing this practice? I thought feminism was "promoting the equality of both sexes," so shouldn't this be something feminism should be trying to stop? Wouldn't this also somehow count as yet another undesirable artifact of an oppressive patriarchy?
    Most of the "feminists" believe that isn't "sexism" or against feminism. They want more rights for women. But that doesn't mean the real feminists think this would be bullshit as well.

    Personally, if the boat was sinking, I may stay on the boat till everyone is safe, I don't really have much to live for, and it would be a sacrifice in a way(heroic, or mostly senseless). But, I think I might try to say fuck this and get on the lifeboat before I die.

  18. Post #58
    Head over heels in love with Pudding~
    Dennab
    January 2012
    5,547 Posts
    If you want to sacrifice your life, go right ahead then because ours are apparently worth more to you guys. It STILL shouldn't be a rule though.

  19. Post #59
    Gold Member
    aydin690's Avatar
    April 2007
    9,881 Posts
    Has no place in today's world imo.

  20. Post #60
    Gold Member
    CommunistCookie's Avatar
    July 2010
    793 Posts
    Well, obviously women and children first because they're going to procreate.
    Not sure if serious.

    This argument would make sense if there weren't, y'know, 7 billion people in the world who are going to do that regardless of whether a (relative) few die.

  21. Post #61
    Gold Member
    xXDictatorXx's Avatar
    December 2007
    1,609 Posts
    I don't like the idea of Chivalry, at least not in the sense that you should be kind and noble to women, because I think it makes a lot more sense to be kind and noble to everyone regardless of gender, and that nobody should get special treatment because of what they have in their pants.
    This basically, and I am a girl so it's not like I am bitter over girls getting special treatment. I just think it's unfair to give someone special treatment because of their gender.

    Not sure if serious.

    This argument would make sense if there weren't, y'know, 7 billion people in the world who are going to do that regardless of whether a (relative) few die.
    Exactly. Continuing the population isn't exactly an issue these days when there's so many of us in the world. I personally understand saving the children but I don't think it's fair to value the life of a woman because of old fashioned beliefs and make men seem expendable.

    Most of the "feminists" believe that isn't "sexism" or against feminism. They want more rights for women. But that doesn't mean the real feminists think this would be bullshit as well.
    Are they really feminists? I thought feminism was about women having equal rights to men not about having more rights and putting men down.

  22. Post #62
    Head over heels in love with Pudding~
    Dennab
    January 2012
    5,547 Posts
    This basically, and I am a girl so it's not like I am bitter over girls getting special treatment. I just think it's unfair to give someone special treatment because of their gender.



    Exactly. Continuing the population isn't exactly an issue these days when there's so many of us in the world. I personally understand saving the children but I don't think it's fair to value the life of a woman because of old fashioned beliefs and make men seem expendable.



    Are they really feminists? I thought feminism was about women having equal rights to men not about having more rights and putting men down.
    Cannot agree more on this.

  23. Post #63
    Gold Member
    Raidyr's Avatar
    February 2007
    23,766 Posts
    Children first? Definitely, no question.

    Women? Eh. Split on it. Part of me says sure, the other part says no.

  24. Post #64
    Thoughtless's Avatar
    September 2011
    689 Posts
    Now days, there should have been enough lifeboats for everyone.

  25. Post #65
    Gold Member
    Negrul1's Avatar
    November 2007
    5,326 Posts
    An able woman is just as capable at looking after herself on a sinking ship as an able man is, therefore "women first" is wrong. Children, elderly and infirm first is reasonable though, as they are less able to look after themselves and would probably just get in the way.

  26. Post #66
    Face Melter's Avatar
    February 2010
    1,015 Posts
    Hey im still a kid so i got no problem with this

  27. Post #67

    October 2011
    1 Posts
    because men are traditionally considered to be braver? That they are willing to die if it means saving women? I don't know why, but I don't see why it's a problem. (and is it really sexism if men came up with it?)

    Edited:

    and because chivalry isn't dead.
    Maybe the man should have a choice if he wants to be brave. Life is about choices and you should be able to choose life or death

  28. Post #68
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,124 Posts
    If you are only willing to give your life up for someone if they're a woman you're a tit.

  29. Post #69
    Gold Member
    Negrul1's Avatar
    November 2007
    5,326 Posts
    (and is it really sexism if men came up with it?)
    a male dictator says "all men should be rounded up and shot"
    as per his orders, all men are rounded up and shot, just for the crime of being men
    by your logic this is not sexism

    Edited:

    It's out of respect for the women. A man is supposed to lay down his life for the women he loves, it's been that way for years.
    Placing women on a pedestal and barring them from getting off it isn't good, and it isn't truly respectful. It's treating women as something different because of their sex, and it's viewing them as women first and second as complex human beings with their own feelings and emotions. It's even worse for the men, who are too being seen as their sex first and their personality second, but are also expected to die for it. It's stupid, out of date, and has no logical reason.

    Edited:

    Because traditionally that is what men do. I'm not saying it should be like a rule, but to me seems like common sense.
    potentially accepting your death for no logical reason is "common sense"
    right

    Edited:

    Actually now that i think about it.
    300 people left in the world
    150 each female and male
    lifeboats only hold up to 151 people total
    if 150 females and 1 male get on the race can survive
    if 150 males and 1 female get on then it can survive but same genes and eventually we all become retarded
    that's not how genetics work - a bunch of people all with the same father are going to be just as genetically similar as a bunch of people all with the same mother

    Edited:

    I do like how no one in the thread has come up with a reason for this existing other than "it's tradition / chivalry / common sense"

  30. Post #70
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    If you are only willing to give your life up for someone if they're a woman you're a tit.
    And she has to be a hot woman too! If she's fat and ugly then she can be left behind though.

  31. Post #71
    The "rule" needs to go. If we want true gender equality and no pre-defined gender roles, this has to go too.
    Saving children is normal and should be done since they're the future, but saving one gender over another is wrong.
    Men deserve to live just as much as women and whoever thinks otherwise is a discriminating idiot.
    I say you should have the choice to sacrifice yourself for whatever but never to be forced to do so.

  32. Post #72
    Head over heels in love with Pudding~
    Dennab
    January 2012
    5,547 Posts
    The "rule" needs to go. If we want true gender equality and no pre-defined gender roles, this has to go too.
    Saving children is normal and should be done since they're the future, but saving one gender over another is wrong.
    Men deserve to live just as much as women and whoever thinks otherwise is a discriminating idiot.
    I say you should have the choice to sacrifice yourself for whatever but never to be forced to do so.
    Wise words.

  33. Post #73
    Gold Member
    blubafoon's Avatar
    June 2005
    1,373 Posts
    I think the only fair way is to dispose of the lifeboats straight away and allow everyone to die.

    It's only right.

  34. Post #74
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    a male dictator says "all men should be rounded up and shot"
    as per his orders, all men are rounded up and shot, just for the crime of being men
    by your logic this is not sexism

    Edited:



    Placing women on a pedestal and barring them from getting off it isn't good, and it isn't truly respectful. It's treating women as something different because of their sex, and it's viewing them as women first and second as complex human beings with their own feelings and emotions. It's even worse for the men, who are too being seen as their sex first and their personality second, but are also expected to die for it. It's stupid, out of date, and has no logical reason.

    Edited:



    potentially accepting your death for no logical reason is "common sense"
    right

    Edited:



    that's not how genetics work - a bunch of people all with the same father are going to be just as genetically similar as a bunch of people all with the same mother

    Edited:

    I do like how no one in the thread has come up with a reason for this existing other than "it's tradition / chivalry / common sense"
    No, that is sexism. I meant is it sexism if men decide to lay down their lives for women? and no, it's "common sense" to put others before you.

    Edited:

    Now days, there should have been enough lifeboats for everyone.
    agreed. I really don't understand how this problem even comes about.

  35. Post #75
    Gold Member
    Negrul1's Avatar
    November 2007
    5,326 Posts
    No, that is sexism. I meant is it sexism if men decide to lay down their lives for women? and no, it's "common sense" to put others before you.
    No one's denying anyone the right to, if they want to, let someone else get on the lifeboat first
    people are arguing against the fact that it is expected, and in some cases required, for men to wait for women to get on the lifeboats before they can themselves

  36. Post #76
    Gold Member
    wraithcat's Avatar
    December 2007
    12,973 Posts
    In a way this is a biological survival trait which is still pretty deep within us. A population to survive tends to need far less men than it does women due to how sex works. - Aka 1 male can have multiple children at one moment.

    This drastically reduces the need for many men. While it is still usefull to have many for more genetic variety, it tends to stabilise over time.

    And this is a very deeply encoded instinct with us. It's a lot less severe than it was a century or so ago, but keep in mind that this equal society shift has really been going on for only roughly 60, 50 years or so. While you had a number of rights for women they were not seen as equal before.

    And it is certainly hard to overcome our biology in only two generations or so.

    Essentially in a way you're getting a couple of mental conflicts.

    Your knowledge tells you that it isn't important who lives and who dies as there's still more people.
    Which conflicts with your biology which screams women should be protected more and then compounds with the pretty common belief that a kid with just a mother is better off than a kid with just a father.

    It's a fairly complex problem overall.

  37. Post #77
    Gold Member
    Negrul1's Avatar
    November 2007
    5,326 Posts
    In a way this is a biological survival trait which is still pretty deep within us
    Prove it.

  38. Post #78
    Gold Member
    Paravin's Avatar
    November 2007
    9,167 Posts
    It's called Chivalry and each man should have it.

  39. Post #79
    Gold Member
    Venezuelan's Avatar
    September 2011
    12,192 Posts
    Where are all of the feminists that should be in this thread denouncing this practice?
    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Simply put, there are very few women on Facepunch.

    Edited:

    Also the OP makes it sound like only men wanted to get on the boats but I'm willing to be the women and children wanted the father to come with. Ideally it would be families with children first.

  40. Post #80

    June 2011
    593 Posts
    I don't like the way that people just go "lol it's honorable and ~tradition~ plus I guess I just got raised in the old ways"
    like tradition is an automatic pass, it's actually a good thing, and you can't change the way you think
    it is an automatic pass

    why the hell should you bash tradition for people being selfless?

    the rule was put in place because men are stronger than women and children therefore if they had it their way it'd be lifeboats full of men and a drowning ship of women and children