Register
Events
Popular
More-
-
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
-
It's not entirely sexist, but it is. Children can be male or female.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
Survival of the fittest.
-
Whoever gets there first. Too bad for the poor suckers who don't.
-
I think Children and wounded first myself
-
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.
-
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:
this is an evacuation, not evolution.
Edited:
"Children First, unless it affects me."
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
Do you really expect women to swim for their lives? Their dresses would make it very difficult:
-
Well, obviously women and children first because they're going to procreate.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Has no place in today's world imo.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Children first? Definitely, no question.
Women? Eh. Split on it. Part of me says sure, the other part says no.
-
Now days, there should have been enough lifeboats for everyone.
-
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.
-
Hey im still a kid so i got no problem with this
-
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
-
If you are only willing to give your life up for someone if they're a woman you're a tit.
-
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"
-
And she has to be a hot woman too! If she's fat and ugly then she can be left behind though.
-
1k+ yrs ago loving children was normal and even encouraged in some cultures. Our current culture finds it horrible, that's why people in the current culture find it horrible.
October 2011
5,902 PostsThe "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.
-
I think the only fair way is to dispose of the lifeboats straight away and allow everyone to die.
It's only right.
-
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:
agreed. I really don't understand how this problem even comes about.
-
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
-
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.
-
Prove it.
-
It's called Chivalry and each man should have it.
-
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.
-
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
Post #41
