The ''Women and Children'' First Rule - What's Your Take on That?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Hello ATS,

As you probably know, there are some controversial rules around. One of the most controversial ones, and probably one of the most pervasive, is definitely the ''women and children first'' rule. What do you think about it? Do you think this rule is sensible or has become a nuisance, something no longer viable in modern society?

Cheers



+38 more 
posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Are you married with children?

For those of use that are, the answer is pretty simple.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
haha if you were a father and a husband you would have no problem with this. but if youre a single guy like me you wouldnt give a shiz if someone elses kid is in danger as long as you get out of there first right? wrong.


+40 more 
posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by aboveandbeyond
 

Good question. Being old school and ex-military, I think the rule still holds good. Children are our future and women are the child bearers. We can survive with fewer men than we can women too.

I still open doors and give my seat up for women and would protect women and children with my life if need be.

Peace to you all and S&F Brethen All.


+10 more 
posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I still think it makes sense and isn't very controversial to me. Save the women first because they're the ones that reproduce and take care of the kids(traditionally). Children are children, they shouldn't be left to fend for themselves. A man's responsibility is to take care of his woman and kids(traditionally).


+4 more 
posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
[color=dodgerblue] You're kidding...

Right?
edit on 30-4-2011 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I didn't realize this needed "re-assessment".



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
yeah but hes probably thinking along this scenario: hes on the titanic and he came aboard alone and there r more single males there and the rest of the passengers r families, the ship hits the iceberg, the ship is starting to sink and the rule being women and children first hes being forced to wait against his will for the women and children to get in the lifeboats, hes not married , he doesnt have children, he would love to get on a lifeboat but other males r making him stay and respect the rule, so it isnt really a matter of being married with children, its a matter of being forced to yield to the rule



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
What about hermaphrodites?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by aboveandbeyond
 


Women and children first everytime. Always has been, always will be for any decent human being. Peace.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLoneArcher
 


Amen brother...semper fi



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watts
I didn't realize this needed "re-assessment".


This is ATS, and it is my understanding everything can be broken down and analyzed if needed be. I am not talking about changing anything, obviously a few opinions are not going to change anything. Curiosity (mostly) does not hurt



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
No one heard of the rule "free for all" let Darwin theory play out


+5 more 
posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by aboveATS
 


Its called being a man. In doing so you accept certain unwritten responsibilities, to protect and defend those that cannot. Of course self preservation is important, but If I can die saving others or, I'll opt for honor.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by crkking
 


I hear that Brother.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
No children, only ,nubile women and no other men. Just Comrade Che-Dolf and all the hot women. And throw in a couple cases of champagne while your at it cabin boy will you?. The rest of you stiff upper lip and all that rot. Sing us off, will you? Deutchland uber alles if you. Please!



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by aboveATS
yeah but hes probably thinking along this scenario: hes on the titanic and he came aboard alone and there r more single males there and the rest of the passengers r families, the ship hits the iceberg, the ship is starting to sink and the rule being women and children first hes being forced to wait against his will for the women and children to get in the lifeboats, hes not married , he doesnt have children, he would love to get on a lifeboat but other males r making him stay and respect the rule, so it isnt really a matter of being married with children, its a matter of being forced to yield to the rule



That's the idea, exactly.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond

Originally posted by aboveATS
yeah but hes probably thinking along this scenario: hes on the titanic and he came aboard alone and there r more single males there and the rest of the passengers r families, the ship hits the iceberg, the ship is starting to sink and the rule being women and children first hes being forced to wait against his will for the women and children to get in the lifeboats, hes not married , he doesnt have children, he would love to get on a lifeboat but other males r making him stay and respect the rule, so it isnt really a matter of being married with children, its a matter of being forced to yield to the rule



That's the idea, exactly.


Okay so if you are single, you would rather kick a small child or a vulnerable female into the icy cold sea? Grow a pair and accept it is the rule.
edit on 30/4/11 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)


+17 more 
posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I don't agree with it, though only with our current environment variables. If women want to be treated as equals, then they should be treated as equals, period. This means that all of the "perks" go away, along with all of the bad things. However, we have kind of a double standard in western society. For instance, women want to get equal pay, yet societal norms still dictate that the man be the head of the house-hold. Men are also required by law to act as head of household through the family courts. Women also demand to be hired equally, yet they want the standards to be dropped to accommodate them. Now I know it's not all women, but it is enough of them to where it remains acceptable for these double standards.

Also, it is still the societal norm that men have to initiate procreative relationships with women, yet we can be imprisoned or sued for doing so. Men are literally walking on egg-shells around women, when it is human nature to find the opposite sex attractive.

Women are demanding to be treated equal (and rightly so), yet they are demanding to retain all of the good things about traditional gender roles. You can't have it both ways or at least you shouldn't.

Retaining my southern charm, I have the habit of always opening doors for women and like courtesies, though in this day in age, I can be sued for so. However, if I don't then I'm seen as rude and can even be sued for not doing so. It's a lose-lose for us. I guess this is why many men, even successful and good looking men, are looking to Asia and Eastern Europe for women.


--airspoon



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


The problem here is no matter how much we try, there will always be the ones that just don't give a sh@t. Chivalry is almost a thing of the past. I live by it, my kids will learn it, my wife respects it, and I will be that way until the day I die. Whether that day is a long time from now, or sacrificing for the greater good.





top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join