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

page: 14
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
One last thing that would bug me.

Let's say you go up to your wife of 30 or 40 years and say women can go first.

She looks at you then says, "See ya!"

I would hope for a Rose and Jack moment aka Titanic Movie. But she says, "See ya!"

Most "movies" i see lately the woman refuses to leave her husbands side. But she says "see ya!" Sorry guys but that would bug me.




posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by LosLobos
 


I'm sure that some disabled people wouldn't mind being handicapped at that time, just the same way as some able-bodied women and older children wouldn't mind their status at the time, either.

To mention handicapped people in your post in a similar context to your comments about hypocritical feminists, is a very poor show.



Disabled people, sadly, by definition, aren't as fortunate as the rest of us, so they should be evacuated just after the children in a disaster scenario.

The priority should be to save as many lives as possible, therefore leaving those of who are the most able to look after themselves in adverse conditions, to be the last to be evacuated.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Ksorum
 


Lol this rule is there for the people who want to live by it. It isn't like it's set in law and up for negotiation. It's there for the people who are "selfless" and want to help others, not because they're lonely old scrooges who are bitter that women are equal to men and want to take that equality away from women.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


Your son sounds like a really great man. I'm a young mom myself (my sons almost 2), thats why I feel so strongly about protecting children. I would die to protect my son or other children.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I'm only going to help myself. Call it selfish if you will but it's not like I care. I am not going to risk my life just so a few random strangers can get out alive... My life takes priority over anyone else's. I only have 1 life ya know...

And the people saying it's "the rule", GET REAL. There is no rule set in stone about this kind of thing. And everyone has a different perspective on what the "moral/right thing to do is". If I'm in a burning building the "moral" thing to do for me would be to get the hell out of there. Let the hating begin
edit on 1-5-2011 by CoSMiC_ChAoS because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Because most females think males are expendable. If your mother had to save the son or daughter, I'll tell you now that she'll pick the girl.

Just how the female brain is sadly. Men can like women of any height while most women are mindess animals still lusting over the tall muscular badboys. Women are the true shallow devils society protects.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LosLobos
 


I would think that would depend on whether or not you guys have kids. If it were me and I didn't have kids I would stay with my husband but if we had kids I would have no choice but to go with them. Once you have children they are the most important thing.
edit on 1-5-2011 by ucantcme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by CoSMiC_ChAoS
 


It doesn't really matter if someone calls you selfish or not, the kind of action that you described about saving yourself, that is selfishness. But then again it is also selfish for a person who wants to help others, because that is what the person wants to do. Basically, anything anybody does is selfish if the person wants to do it.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
What did those women and children ever do for me that I should give up my chance for survival?

NOTHING.

Ergo, me first.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
As a mother, if i ever saw a grown man or women, harm a child in shtf scenario... let god help them. I would have some crazy mother bear testosterone and there mistake of harming a child would be the biggest mistake they ever made



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks

Personally, speaking as a woman - I would gladly give my place to a couple of kids. But as an older woman who has already lived, given birth and seen my grandchildren into the world, I would also give my place to a younger man.

This isn't about manners or chivalry - I have given life and would die to preserve it! That is my birthright as a woman. It is the choice I claim for myself.

So thank you guys - I love love love you all for your gallantry - but you serve my purposes and values best if you survive to bring children into the world. Love them and protect them as men are meant to do.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS


Well said

As a woman, I totally appreciate it when someone opens a door for me, I make sure that no matter how I feel, I smile and thank them for the courtesey. that being said,

I think as a general rule the "women and children first". Serves it purpose in some circumstances, but I think nowadays men are equally involved with the care and nurturing of their children, it is not just left to the women anymore. Actually I know a number of men that are a better parent then the women, so perhaps that rule should be changed to

Families with children under a certain age first. After that it's everyone for themselves.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
As a woman, when it comes to manners I have held doors open for men if I got to them first. I have paid my way on dates or paid the whole bill especially if I was the one who did the inviting or if the guy was tapped out between paychecks. And when a man acts like a gentleman to me I always smile and say thank you. I'm never offended to be treated like a lady but I admit in this day and age I am always pleasantly surprised when I am. I certainly no longer expect chivalry as my due as a lady but it is always welcome when freely offered.

In a SHTF scenario I am pragmatic. My husband is bigger, stronger, faster, and smarter than I am by a good bit. He is also better educated and has always been able to earn more than I could in the workforce. Therefore that makes ME the expendable parent. If it were a Titanic scenario I'd shove his big butt onto that lifeboat along with our child and kill myself as fast as I could before he could try to switch our places, if only one of us could go on it. Because a lifeboat with him in it has a better chance of making it to safety than one with me in it. But my husband is an old school gentleman. He argues with me every time we talk about something like this. And the reality is that the lady that I am loves and admires and respects him for that. I would be very disappointed in him if he weren't that selfless. But I still am going to shove his butt onto the lifeboat. He is stronger and faster but I am sneakier!

If it was between me and some man I didn't know competing for a space I guess it would depend on the circumstances. I'm a decent person. I'd like to think I'd recognize the right thing to do and do it.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by inanna1234
 


so then...if you're capable enough to attack a grown man...why are you not capable enough to fend for yourself? by your statement you obviously feel as though you can not only equal a man's might, but also defeat it.

again people...women only scream equality when it suits their purpose. this, of course, is a blanket statement that will offend some, but there are plenty of women who will also agree that women turn the equality switch on and off at their discretion. so yeah...if you think you can mustar up enough testosterone to take me down...well then my fair lady...you can mustar up enough testoerone to swim.

thanks for keeping my spot warm, though.



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


I love that you would kill a young women and small child to save yourself. Its so sad that there are so many people like you.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond
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


Women - because they bear the next generation.
Children- because they are the next generation.

I guess if you believe (like many TPTB elite do) that there are so many 'worthless eaters' that we can sacrifice the weaker ones because of population growth...go ahead. Nietzsche would be proud.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Chivalry - at it's core, is slowly slipping away. I partly blame it on those members of society that are treated with respect, but fail to acknowledge.

The amount of times I will stand to the side, and hold open a door for someone, to not even have them meet my eyes and smile, is disenchanting.

If someone holds open a door, SMILE and say THANK YOU! Hopefully, we can then hold on to some of the fundamental, basic humanity which seems to be slipping away ...



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ICEKOHLD
reply to post by inanna1234
 


so then...if you're capable enough to attack a grown man...why are you not capable enough to fend for yourself? by your statement you obviously feel as though you can not only equal a man's might, but also defeat it.

again people...women only scream equality when it suits their purpose. this, of course, is a blanket statement that will offend some, but there are plenty of women who will also agree that women turn the equality switch on and off at their discretion. so yeah...if you think you can mustar up enough testosterone to take me down...well then my fair lady...you can mustar up enough testoerone to swim.

thanks for keeping my spot warm, though.


You equate equality with muscle. Everything you wrote is as mature as a two year old. Nature specializes, and everyone is equal, or would you like a world of self replicating male rice farmers and nothing else? The tests here are hard, and they're about growing up.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratus9
Women - because they bear the next generation.


This is completely illogical.

There are nearly 3.5 billion women in the world, and even at the most conservative of estimates, we could reasonably assume that at least 2 billion of them are capable of bearing children.

Why on earth would a woman's biological capability to have children have any relevance in a disaster that may only involve a few hundred or thousand people ?


Considering the fact that if 10 women survived from a disaster, they could only bear 10 children for the next 9 months ( excluding multiple births ), yet if 10 men survived, then they could create 1,000s of children in the same time period.

If we're still using an antiquated and outmoded idea of group survival to guide our actions, then it makes much more sense to let the men off first.

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



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Ya, I'm growing up and learning that most humans are disgusting and have no problems killing children aslong as there O.K..... How do they sleep at night?| So many psychopaths who have no empathy
edit on 1-5-2011 by inanna1234 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join