The ''Women and Children'' First Rule - What's Your Take on That?, page 15


Pages: <<  12    13    14    15    16    17    18  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times


reply posted on 1-5-2011 @ 08:36 PM by inanna1234
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...


reply posted on 1-5-2011 @ 08:42 PM by Aeons
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)



reply posted on 1-5-2011 @ 08:45 PM by Jinglelord
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...


reply posted on 1-5-2011 @ 08:52 PM by 00bil
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.


reply posted on 1-5-2011 @ 08:56 PM by HarmonicNights
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.


reply posted on 1-5-2011 @ 09:02 PM by 00bil
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'


reply posted on 1-5-2011 @ 09:07 PM by HarmonicNights
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.



reply posted on 1-5-2011 @ 09:09 PM by dacvspecial
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.


reply posted on 1-5-2011 @ 09:23 PM by 00bil
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


reply posted on 1-5-2011 @ 09:31 PM by inanna1234
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


reply posted on 1-5-2011 @ 09:36 PM by SheeplFlavoredAgain
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.


reply posted on 1-5-2011 @ 10:27 PM by Aeons
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)

Pages: <<  12    13    14    15    16    17    18  >>    ^^TOP^^



Attention ATS, This Is Important
  Posted 9 days ago with 33 member flags
Labor Day Has Been Canceled
  Posted 8 days ago with 21 member flags
Nine Myths About \'Socialism\' In The United States.
  Posted 7 days ago with 20 member flags
Asking for help around here......
  Posted 16 days ago with 19 member flags
Are You All Deranged?! Women Want Rape? o_O
  Posted 19 days ago with 15 member flags
I am tired.
  Posted 11 days ago with 12 member flags
Namaste = pretentious
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags
Gays have the right to marry and always have
  Posted 4 days ago with 10 member flags