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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
If you are only willing to give your life up for someone if they're a woman you're a tit.
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
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"
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.
I think the only fair way is to dispose of the lifeboats straight away and allow everyone to die.
It's only right.
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.
It's called Chivalry and each man should have it.
Simply put, there are very few women on Facepunch.
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.
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