Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by spacebot
But where is the OP?
He is been missing since page 2 on this thread!
Nice data gathering thread I recon...
Are we having more of these soon?

Anything else interesting as to the why of this type of thread that anyone else might want to share with us?

edit on 1-5-2011 by spacebot because: (no reason given)


I had that feeling from the beginning. Wonder why someone is gathering this kind of data?


The OPs decided none here are worth saving so closed the bunker doors awhile back...

hey...whats that in the sky?




posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
It's easy to say you would put your life on the line for others. Doing it on the other hand, is hard work.

Would I save another person? Not if it would mean sacrificing my life to do so. I would however, try to save as many people as possible. Of course, the appeal to emotion crowd will probably flame me for this, but that's to be expected. So no, I wouldn't put my life on the line for others. Is it right? No, but it isn't wrong either.

As for the argument that women bear children, that's really not a strong point at all. It's not like the world isn't populated enough as it is. Besides, infertile women and old women can't give birth, so I really don't get the point of that argument. The point about them being weaker is a valid point which I really don't have any problem with.
edit on 1-5-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TiberianPurifier
 


You're a real chivalrous man Tiberian, thanks



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
LOL, i totally agree with the whole women and children first, if the boats going down then get them off and let the men get on with fixing the problem!!!!

Im not really a sexist, however i do believe political correctness is crazy with all this equal rights BS, women are for the most part built as the weaker half of the species, however us males are easily manipulated by women, so if they want something heavy lifting - they can use there natural gift to get us to use ours...

But i am a father of 5 little girls, and i would definatly make sure they and my wife were safe long before i thought of myself. Not just saying it, have been in a situation in the past where lives were on the line (house fire) and i made sure they were all out before i got out
edit on 1-5-2011 by bluwindRD because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Totally depends on the situation.

Example:

2 seater plane is going down for a crash landing. It only has one parachute. There are 3 people on the plane... Chuck Norris (Flying it ovbs.), A Fat Bitch (his fat bitch) and their baby...

K two people have to die here so regardless of ethical rules, Chuck Norris is probably going to bitch slap that women, karate kick the child, save his ass, swim a random island and find another fat bitch to have kids with.

Morale of the story:

Sometimes Man > Women+Child
edit on 1/5/2011 by legitbrah because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I agree with the women and children first rule, but I think an exception should be made for Bear Grylls.

Always let him go first so he can teach the women and children survival skills.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
kids and mums go first without question thay are weaker and can`t save thereself. women want to be equals so then thay wait with the men.....fares fare



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I'd also note that.

I'd save a scientist before I saved anybody.[Except myself, I just mean over women and children, and other men]



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by aboveandbeyond
 


Problem I have is who's women and children go first? If the elite women and children go first then all bets are off. My wife and child would be first and then me. Too many times in history the elite women and children go first. Well, that isn't going to fly with me in this day and age. If my kids don't get the same chance as their kids then all bets are off.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluwindRD
LOL, i totally agree with the whole women and children first, if the boats going down then get them off and let the men get on with fixing the problem!!!!

Im not really a sexist, however i do believe political correctness is crazy with all this equal rights BS, women are for the most part built as the weaker half of the species, however us males are easily manipulated by women, so if they want something heavy lifting - they can use there natural gift to get us to use ours...

But i am a father of 5 little girls, and i would definatly make sure they and my wife were safe long before i thought of myself. Not just saying it, have been in a situation in the past where lives were on the line (house fire) and i made sure they were all out before i got out
edit on 1-5-2011 by bluwindRD because: (no reason given)


ok. cool. i'm sure most would do that to save their own family. but would you die so that someone else's family name could survive? yes...if my house were on fire i would save my wife and kids but if OUR boat was on fire, i would save MY ass.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ksorum
reply to post by TiberianPurifier
 


It makes the most sense, considering all adults are supposed to have equal rights


As in the right to compete for your life? If only children were allowed to get in the lifeboats first, men and women would have to compete for the rest of the open spots. I think we all know which sex would end up with the higher survival rate. But thankfully, there is still a great number of chivalrous men who would give their lives for women. If not for the chivalry factor, women would largely be pushed aside and left to die.
edit on 1-5-2011 by HarmonicNights because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ICEKOHLD
 


aye i see what you mean, to be honest i dont know.. forward planning, i am thinking me and the family first and screw everyone else. But sadly all it would take is one crying child, or a panicking women and im giving my space away without even realising what im doing....



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Just the whole concept of women and children first doesn't make sense.

I can't see a boat load of women and children surviving very long without some men on it. So who are these men that will get on the boat with the women and children? Ships crew? They should be the last one's to leave.

It will be the Elite men that get on these boats. If that is the case then all bets are null and void at that point.


RMS Titanic survivors.

First class: 60.6 %
Second class: 41.8 %
Third class: 23.8%

Six of the seven children in first class survived, all of the children in second class survived, whereas less than half were saved in third class. 96 percent of the women in first class survived, 86 percent of the women survived in second class and less than half survived in third class.

RMS Titanic Survivors


If I'm riding 3rd class then all bets are off if I see 1st and 2nd class women and children getting off and my wife and kid can't.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Okay guys, it really isn't rocket science.

If women want to be saved before men, they are going to have to give up equal rights.

It's not a difficult concept. Please use some brain power. Equal actually means Equal.
edit on 1-5-2011 by Ksorum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Here is another thing that would probably bug me about women and children first.

I bet if I take the most die hard feminist on the planet and tell her she can go first.....i bet she would hop on that life boat thanking god she was a lady instead of a man. I just don't think she would sit there and claim sexism when it suits her needs.

Same with a handicap person. Not saying they would be glad to be handicap but I bet at that moment they won't mind being handicap.

I don't know now. I can see kids being first but everyone else should be every person for themselves and their own family.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Originally posted by bastet11

Buttering up the guys into sacrificing themselves for your sake. Not nice, but smart I suppose.

Are you at least consistent and provide them with the dutiful obedience, free access to your body, home cooked meals on demand and quiet unquestioning support they USED to receive as payment for their willingness to sacrifice?


Why shouldn't one be thankful for a man who works hard to provide for his family? Why be bitter and jealous towards such men? Merely preparing a meal for your husband to eat when he comes home hungry from a long, stressful day of work is not even close to some form of slavery or "dutiful obedience". The fact that anyone would suggest so makes them look like some sort of lazy weakling who compares cooking a meal to slavery. I guess you would see it better fit to pick up fattening fastfood for the family to eat in order to refrain from doing all that exhausting, back-breaking cooking.

You also take the stance that all men are demanding slave-drivers who are incapable of being thankful for their wives' role in the family. I'm guessing you have had a lousy experience with the men in your family or just in your life in general. Growing up in an old-fashioned family, I've never had an encounter with the type of man you describe.

It's funny you equated "free access to your body" with the old-fashioned type women. That's completely backwards. Most of the traditional type women largely require that a man love and respect her before she will sleep with him. Feminists are the ones who applaud "sexual liberation" (promiscuity).



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Ksorum
 


I just thought of something along those lines. I agree. If they want to be equal then it should be every man and woman for themselves. If a woman actually accepts getting on a lifeboat because of the women first rule then that woman can never ever ask to be treated the same way as men.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by LosLobos
 


It's the children that need to go first and a parent has to go with them and that is usually the mother. Women are just as capable of surviving as men are and thats a bit egotistical of you to think we would all die any way with out a man to save us. lol that really cracked me up!!



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by BadPenny
Originally posted by inanna1234

So, for you, femininity is about being weak?


Females generally being the physically weaker sex is simply a fact of nature. There's no reason to have a chip on your shoulder about it. Some women go out of their way to build up their strength in order to be as strong as men. It's ridiculous.


Do you believe that leadership or superiority should be decided upon by a test of physical prowess?


You're the only one suggesting physical strength and superiority go hand in hand. If two things are different, that doesn't mean one must be inferior to the other.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIrvy
 


I agree with everything you said!





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join