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

page: 15
11
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Considering 99.985% of people will never encounter this situation, it's mostly moot.

But what a ridiculous question. In these situations, this just plays out. Only the most cowardly men get ahead of the woman and children. You'd take the last lifeboat ahead of a 9 year old child. SERIOUSLY?




posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


I know I dont understand how someone could do that... it makes me so sick how many people said they wouldn't even think twice about hurting a child in these situations... I knew there would be a few but I didn't think there would be so many...



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Most children are usless these days, women are ok. Not much use to recreate a society. Id rather create a clone army



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Depends on my age. In my family I don't get a seat because I'm female. I'd get the seat because we have younger children who may not make it on their own, and my DH would believe that was the right thing to do. He'd also want it to be me because he knows that there are lots of people who would try to undo this decision and he would believe that it was up to him to make sure that they didn't win.

Were I under the impression that some of these guys on this thread were on the same boat with my children, and I didn't feel like I could deal with them when they went snaky I'd insist my DH go. (mind you, he might refuse. He's stronger, but I'm way meaner and far more vicious.)

It isn't because I'm female. It is because I'm Mom.

If I were older, or my children were almost adults, the equation would change. I'd probably do the same and make sure our children had what they needed, and I'd help him fight if need be.

Were I pre-children, well I'd have probably given my seat to a guardian with children.

Oh, and I am a feminist. A big bad feminist. In my family tree I have one of the Famous Five even. A slathering egalitarian.

I'd like to congratulate myself. All the guys I respect (maybe not agree with) and thought would make good husbands and whom I find I read because I find that respect "attractive"....I was right. To all the boys who hate women on here, and think its all about looks and power. I can spot a good man through a monitor. Nothing is more attractive than a clear headed man with values.
edit on 2011/5/1 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Good topic to raise, i know not everyone would feel the same. But I would like to pose an intersting question: If you were a woman (had to bear children, had to deal with discrimination, and had to deal with cowardous men as many do in their life time) wouldn't you think you should be put in higher regard? As a man speaking, I feel the challenges women face, not only physically within their own cycle, but mentally as well, they deserve our just respects.

And any man that wouldn't sacrifice for a child, isn't much of a man in my opinion. Just fearful.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by inanna1234
 


I wouldn't worry about it. Those who do wrong have a way of being weeded out. I know you think I am one of those and if that is truly the case I too will be weeded out.

The universe / God / Karma whatever you call it is very proficient at keeping a balance and if a man using his born strength he was given to protect abuses it to destroy this balance will be rectified...



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by aboveandbeyond
 


What this issue comes down to for me is the people who are most useful should be put first. Children are children and have potential but some adults should be put before others based on how useful they are to society. In the titanic scenario I'd prefer to see a male medic and a male hunter (or fisherman as we're talking boats) saved before a couple of women who have some kids. The first two could assist with the survival of the rest of the group.
So, women and children coming first. Some women (just like some men) do not warrant 'saving' and some do. How do you make the choice about which members of the group are worth more than others, and who makes the choice, is where it gets hairy.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by 00bil
 


In a disaster scenario, there isn't time to evaluate everyone. Though it would be important for someone to be on the lifeboat who knows where the he11 they're going.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
Though it would be important for someone to be on the lifeboat who knows where the he11 they're going.


In other words: a man.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by HarmonicNights
 


Good point. I always think of it as getting the children out first and then assessing which of the adults is best placed to ensure the survival of said children. But there often wouldn't be time for that I suppose. The more I think on this, the evaluation process has to vary from disaster to disaster. In the titanic example if you have a group of say 1000, and you can save 500, then you can make your choices about survival based on the chance of getting to land safely etc. If the disaster involved the planet's entire population and only 500 could be saved, you might base your choice on who would be best placed to 'repopulate'



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 00bil
 


Good point. I'm sure the children would want their own parents to be the adults chosen to be saved. I think it's important for at least one parent to be with them.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
My fear of knowing, and living with, the notion that I pushed aside women and child to probable death, far outweighs my fear of dying. it really makes me sad to see so many selfish and insignificant people willing to forgo making there lives actually meaningful by helping others, so they can return to there meaningless lives. Women and child first, at least all decent human beings would agree. This is beyond debate to everyone save for the meaningless...



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
As far as everyday manners and what not, I am polite and courteous to everyone, I hold the door for men and women alike, treat everyone the same. Will gladly give up a seat for someone, go out of my way to help someone in need. I am one of the most easy going people you'll ever meet. I truly care about the good of mankind and everyone in the world equally, no exceptions. Don't care if you're a man/woman/black/white/asian/gay/bi whatever.

But in a SHTF situation, as far as women and children before men goes.... I'm not having it.

IF I had a wife and kids,I would do what I had to do to ensure my wife and kids survive, but I want to survive WITH them. If that means I gotta steal food from you your wife and your kids, or throw you into davy jones locker, so be it. But I don't have them, so my priority is numero uno. Yes, maybe that makes me selfish, a coward, whatever.... sorry but I'm a survivor, I'm going to do what it takes in a true SHTF situation.

If that means I have to take you, your kids or wife out, so be it. There needs to be some men to help ensure survival as well, and I certainly won't go down without a fight. I could not possibly care LESS about you and yours in that situation. If someone tries to put their wives and children in front of me, you best believe I will be jacking somebodies jaw with the quickness. Call me selfish, you're just as selfish as I am for trying to secure safety for your offspring.

Why should I care about your wife and kids more than myself? I have developed myself into a survival machine over the years, Physically and mentally, I have all the traits anyone would need to survive... Strength, stamina, agility, guile... I worked hard to keep myself in top physical condition, and i'll be damned if I don't reap the benefits of my hard work because I did the "right thing" by letting some women and children go first. While most of you are stuffing your faces and watching American Idol or whatever idiocy is on the tv these days, I'm out pushing my body to the limits and would be more than capable of holding out in a castastrophy. And I'm not talking about just going for a little jaunt around the neighborhood, i'm talking about stuff that would give most people heart attacks.

This world is over populated as it is, last thing we need is more children. I'm so sick of this child worship bs. And unless I have some sort of bond with the woman like a mother or wife, I could honestly care less in a SHTF situation. If anything the kids and handicapped should be the first to go, because they can't reproduce yet, and are too weak to be of much help and will only make survival harder on the able bodied. You can always make more kids once you get settled. That being said, I would, if i knew my survival was in tact, try to help a "damsel in distress" if you will being a single guy, provided she was healthy.

Good to know all these guys would just willingly give up their own lives in a situation like this, just means more women availible for me after the storm clears. I bet most of these guys are suffering from "nice guy syndrome" as well haha. Same types of guys that hand their paychecks over to their wives every week right on payday. Sorry not buying it, it's an ancient relic from our past behavior that may have been instrumental in our survival many many years ago but it is no longer the case.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
From a farmers financial view point the cow and calves are where the money is. Only one bull needed.
Sometimes multiple farmers share one bull. The bulls are violent and fight, creating damage and injuries.
It takes only one man to repopulate Europe, according to a satistic I once read. Obviously mature women are needed to repopulate, and children are our precious hopes for the future.

I also remember my sister in law's mother eliminating a bull who broke the bone in his privates, He became hamburger. I know I am in a sarcastic mood. As many people as possible should always be saved. Everyone is special.
edit on 1-5-2011 by frugal because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-5-2011 by frugal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by HarmonicNights
 


one parent though. if you save 250 children, 125 parents (assuming no children are siblings) are 'auto-saved'. You then only have another 125 'seats'. A better option might be to have just a dozen or so adults who have experience of dealing with children. It would be about getting the right number of adults to deal with the children, provide for and protect the whole group, and (in the ultimate disaster scenario) renew the population. Difficult balance to strike



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by HomeBrew
 


Agreed one hundred percent. It honestly really makes me sad to see how many sick people are out there. And its funny that I get attacked for saying that children should come before everyone else. I get attacked because I think its wrong to kill children? So sick and sad



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dacvspecial
 


Yadda yada yada. Try that crap with Aeons or her kids and she will drop kick your toned muscular butt to the back of the line.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SheeplFlavoredAgain
 


“I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him.”

Twain. Such a smart guy.


edit on 2011/5/1 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I really don't understand the obsequious, wussy like ''men'' who say that they'd let a woman go first, just because she's a woman. She'll be floating away on that lifeboat, thinking ''there's one born every minute''...

It makes no sense whatsoever for a ''man'' to die in a wussy-like state, full in the knowledge that his widow may shack up with some random guy who treats her badly, and who is a harmful influence on his children.


A real man would barge his way through the entire crowd to protect his wife and children, and to make sure that all of them got to safety first.

It's as simple as that, I'm afraid.

Political Correctness need not apply !

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





top topics
 
11
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join