Do you believe in "women and children first"?
Yes
21% (109)
21% (109)
No
27.5% (143)
27.5% (143)
Only in "children first"
46% (239)
46% (239)
Other (please specify)
4.8% (25)
4.8% (25)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Do you believe in "women and children first"?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

So with a lot of focus on the Titanic tragedy's centennial this past week, I've been reading some news articles about the ship's evacuation debacle. As a result of the lifeboat shortage and the priority thus given to women and children, approximately 80% of the men on board perished. In such a time when the men were the breadwinners, this left a lot of the surviving wives and children destitute.

Now, the "women and children" principle has never been law but rather a chivalrous principle to follow and even then, it's been relatively rare in execution. Nonetheless, Hollywood has done quite the job of romanticizing the notion of the husband remaining behind while the wife and children are led to safety almost to a point where anything less would seem immoral.

So I ask you, do you believe the "women and children first" to be appropriate in this day and age?

What about the single parent father? Or the adopted child's gay parents? Should they be told to stay aboard because they are men?

How about the feminist? If she wants equal social rights, should she not cede her seat on the lifeboat to one of the aforementioned men? Or is a mother always the more important parent than the father?

I am by no means trying to start a gender war but rather, see what people think about a potentially outdated principle.

Ultimately there's really no "Anybody goes first". No life has any objective value or another, or really any objective value at all.

I'm just gonna go with children first, because I like kids more than adults. There's no real reasoning behind it other than my own irrationality.

I believe in chance. No one should have value over anyone else.

I believe in "me first." As long as I'm safe, the rest doesn't matter. All life is equal in that it is not equal to mine.

Anyway, if I'm not on said boat, then I think whoever gets to the raft first should get it.

Yes to both. Honestly, since everything seems to be sexist in some way nowadays, I've decided to emulate St. Alphonsus de Liguori, in that I will follow my conscience first instead of trying to rationalize my theoretical actions and do something I would be uncomfortable with.

Kids first, period

No. The orny little shits are not my responsibility, they are their parent's. As such I have no obligation to do a damn thing for them, and most likely won't since I hate kids. Women are perfectly capable of helping themselves, after all they don't need me doing anything for them simply because they've got tits, so I'm under no obligation to help them first either.

The only exception to this is if my better half is the one in danger. But she's a special case in that she matters to me more than life itself. Anyone else is on their own.

TestECull:
No. The orny little shits are not my responsibility, they are their parent's.

Wow... your kind of a prick. I won't put a woman's life over a mans, but I will put a childs life over my own. I don't think one life has more value over another, but I think a younger child deserves to know what it feels like to be an adult more than an adult has the right to know what it is to be elderly.

afroebob:

TestECull:
No. The orny little shits are not my responsibility, they are their parent's.

Wow... your kind of a prick. I won't put a woman's life over a mans, but I will put a childs life over my own. I don't think one life has more value over another, but I think a younger child deserves to know what it feels like to be an adult more than an adult has the right to know what it is to be elderly.

Let's see here.

Kids are:

1: Whiny
2: Loud
3: Stupid
4: Annoying
5: demanding
6: they have no filter
7: They don't care about your feelings
8: They don't know how to shut the fuck up and act rationally when they're not in danger. You honestly think they'll be any better when they are?
9: They're far more likely to panic. Adults are panickey enough as it is.
10: Picking them up in an attempt to save their stupid, annoying little asses is just as likely to get you sued to hell and back by their stupid, annoying fuckhead parents as it is to get you thanked. You have a 50/50 shot of being the town hero and being sued so hard you never drive anything nicer than a '91 Geo Metro ever again because every cent you make goes to the fuckhead parents who's annoying little sod you went out of your way to rescue. Neither option is even remotely appealing to me, so I'd rather not play the lottery. Kthnxbai.
11:And did I mention they're fucking annoying?

If they didn't come from my loins, or their parents didn't explicitly put me in charge of them, they aren't my problem. These are the only two conditions upon which I would act to save a child, nothing more. There is a slim chance I might do something if I'm not in any danger, say the idiot wandered out into a public street I happen to be trundling down. I might stop in the lane to keep them from getting hit and usher them off the road. But the hypothetical here is that everyone is in the same situation, for example a cruise liner sinking, so that doesn't apply to this thread.

So yeah. Kids that I'm not in charge of aren't my responsibility and I'm not going to go out of my way to save them if we're all in the same situation. Their parents are there for a reason, as are rescue authorities and any surviving crewmembers of whatever public transit vehicle I happened to be on when the shit hit the fan. If that doesn't agree with you that's your problem.

I'd live to regret it but I'd probably save myself in preference to someone I don't know a thing about, man, woman or child.

Since the situation in which "Women and Children First" would be relevant is generally one of intense physical stress, I'd adjust it to "The weakest go first", as the strong have a better chance of surviving as the situation worsens. Due to biology, this tends to naturally manifest as women and children first. However, should we have some physically powerful women and/or excessively brave and herculean kids, they shouldn't be among the first.

I think Children and disabled people first. They need help being saved, but I do think Women should go with them in some cases as the child needs at least one parent, and in most cases the Woman is the one who raises the child and can cope better as a single parent.

Physically fit people have more chance of survival if saving themselves so should try and help other people who cannot do that (i.e Toddler or wheelchair user).

You save yourself and If you can save anyone else, do that, but you NEVER take a chance on you're own life.

Goofguy:
So with a lot of focus on the Titanic tragedy's centennial this past week, I've been reading some news articles about the ship's evacuation debacle. As a result of the lifeboat shortage and the priority thus given to women and children, approximately 80% of the men on board perished. In such a time when the men were the breadwinners, this left a lot of the surviving wives and children destitute.

I'm not sure that's true, actually. As I understand it, it was rich women and children, then rich men, and then other people.

If you were a rich man, you weren't worse off than a rich woman, you just made a show of how much of a gentleman you are before abandoning the poor people, who are fucked whatever their gender.

IMHO, that's how "women and children first" tends to work. You can make a big deal of being chivalrous, but as long as it doesn't actually put you in danger.

They did airline crash experiments and found that the plane evacuation was orderly with women and children first.

Then they offered a cash prize for the first 'survivors' off the plane. The result was males under 25 have a MUCH better chance of 'surviving' a plane crash.

Consider that when you are deciding who gets saved.

The Titanic demonstrates a moral code (of chivalry) that is no longer any where as dominant as it once was. In some ways it is sad to see that respect disappear, but was required to facilitate equality of the sexes.

Personally, I was taught to help a woman or child in distress, even at personal cost (although I have not yet been asked to give up my place in a lifeboat...).

Goofguy:
As a result of the lifeboat shortage and the priority thus given to women and children, approximately 80% of the men on board perished. In such a time when the men were the breadwinners, this left a lot of the surviving wives and children destitute.

With that in mind you might do well to have something like "children and parents" first or "families" first. Children are the future and all that. Can't succeed as a species if the older generation places themselves above the younger.

OT: Actually starting to enjoy the captchas: "describe this brand with any word(s)"

I don't think any sentient life is greater than any other. It come down to chance, fate if you believe in it and I don't think you should force people to sacrifice themselves to save others. It is like the train track thing switch the track and kill one guy and save four people. I would not do it because I do not have the right to decide whether that person dies or not, only they do. If you want to sacrifice your safety to try to save other people then that is your choice but I don't think it should be forced especially based on something like sex.

EDIT: if you're a parent you should try saving your child first as they are your responsibility for deciding to have children just as it is your responsibility to feed them etc. That's it I think.

TizzytheTormentor:
You save yourself and If you can save anyone else, do that, but you NEVER take a chance on you're own life.

Agreed. It somehow seems ungrateful to throw yourself away for the sake of a stranger: is their life really worth more than yours?

Personally, I take the First Aid approach to life - ensure your own safety before you consider the safety of others. You can't help anyone when you're dead.

Yes.

Id like to think Id do the brave thing and protect those weaker than me, even if it is from something like drowning where strength doesnt mean much.

I know it doesnt make sense in this world where women and men are equal but I just feel that way. Kids are a no brainer though, you save the kids first.

objectively I'd have to say I can see why children should go first... technically since they have more of life ahead of them they possess the most potential so are the most valuable...

but if I personally was there you bet your life I'd be pushing those little fuckers over the side to get to the life boat

"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.

I don't think it should be women, children, nor men first. I think it's best to try and help everyone out. Help the most defenseless/weakest first (even children can try to help, say push the elders who cannot walk on their own to safety) while women can help men get people settled.

Seriously, if we try saving groups first then we are not looking at the bigger picture. Everyone has a better chance if they put others before themselves, even if it doesn't turn out well for them at first (cause if it's a major disaster, people will sadly die.. or hopefully many will just be injured, can't wish for any more then that.) Still, people won't think that way in a dire situation. They'll be concerned with just their family or friends, strangers are a 2nd concern. Maybe I shall be tested one day and to see if I keep my word years from now.

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.

Not really.

I believe in everyone first. I really have no regard for my own life. That's not a cry of suicide by the way. I'm just saying, in a life threatening situation I will stay at the back, out of the way.

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.

LilithSlave:
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.

actually men are technically more expendable than women to a point... a woman can only have roughly one child a year and only even do that for a relatively small portion of their life while men can have as man as they can find women to have them with for most of their life... so as far as our species is concerned men are much much more expendable than women

also children have more potential since they have much more life ahead of them than an adult so much more chance to achieve things and contribute thus they are technically more valuable

old people are last because well their life is pretty much over and thus pretty much all they can contribute to the society and species is already done and gone... so they are the most expendable

just saying... old people to the back of the line!

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...

in a disaster will having women survive over men affect humanities survival. doubtful, we have enough people on earth atm.

is a women and more valuable than a man? any weaker?

children are more valuable and imo deserve to get to safety first.

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.

Whoever can beat me to safety obviously went first.

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.

Liquidacid23:
actually men are technically more expendable than women to a point...

To a very, very small point in the survival of the species.

One that's fairly moot in an overpopulated world.

Liquidacid23:

actually men are technically more expendable than women to a point... a woman can only have roughly one child a year and only even do that for a relatively small portion of their life while men can have as man as they can find women to have them with for most of their life... so as far as our species is concerned men are much much more expendable than women.

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.

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.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked