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

reply to post by ICEKOHLD


My babies are in their 30's and I now have a grand daughter.

Word of warning.............I remember the very first time they put my first newborn son in my arms.

You think you know love? Think again. Once you hold that precious little bundle that shared your body for 9 months you will feel a love like no other........ever.

You will gladly die for that little being.

Talk of well maybe let him/her die...............I still when I look at my big six footer sons and my skinny almost as tall as me grand daughter would kill anyone trying to harm them.

You have no conception of how much love you can feel until you hold your firstborn in your arms and look down into that little face.......................and I guarantee you the last thought in your mind will be "well maybe let them die and start again".

I guarantee you - your only thought will be, I will protect and take care of this little precious one no matter what until I breathe my last breath and if I cross over and can still do something beyond the grave I will.

You have no idea at all of the love a mother (or father) has for that precious little one they now are responsible for and that includes adopted kids.

If there was a nuclear holocaust and I came across any child that was alone, cold, hungry and scared, they would become a part of me - I would protect and take them under my wing.

Sorry got a soft spot in my heart for kids, dogs and cats...............My maternal instinct is still strongly engrained even though I am approaching my sixth decade of life.

It's what makes some of us human and some of us non human.

Ponder that last sentence.

Originally posted 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.

Perfect example of the mentality that has created and perpetuates the problems of western society - and why western society is collapsing.
No regard for ones fellow human beings. Having compassion for others makes us human.
Without compassion one is less than human and lower than even an animal. Its by working together and having compassion that people and civilisation survive.
But guess most westerners will never understand that..

Originally posted by legitbrah
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)

like i said, this is based mostly on an american point of view with a lot of reference to movie stars

real life wont be a joke and chuck norris is some old guy who can barely run let alone karate kick

Originally posted 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.

this is the reason that there was atleast 1 sailor in every life boat.

Originally posted by Ksorum
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)

aaannnd when you say equal you mean you can punch 10 women if you have to, just to run away like a little girl ??

Equal rights I think in this time in our culture should mean what it says, equal rights to live in a location of one's choosing and to work at an occupation for which one is qualified at a fair wage. Period. All that nonsense about women snarling at men for holding a door open for them should be left in the 1970's period of zealotry where it belongs. In any type of rights movement there are always going to be the very militant vocal fighters who take things a wee bit too far beyond what is reasonable and sensible. That is only human nature. The problem is when we hang onto those old over reactions out of spite and let that prevent us from doing what is right and decent and sensible in the present.

A lot of what we now call chivalry was designed to acknowledge that on average, women are not on a level playing field with men physically. We still acknowledge this distinction in sports, which is why we still keep the genders separate in most types of sports. So I see nothing unfair about maintaining rules of conduct that allow a man to use any greater strength to help a lady out with a heavy door or giving up his seat to a pregnant one. I would think such an exercise of manners and good grace a fair trade in exchange for the gift of greater physical strength endowed to a lucky man by nature. But not all men are well and strong. So again, common sense and decency should prevail and help and protection and aid should be rendered by any able person regardless of gender to any in need, regardless of gender.

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
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.

If the sole extent of your ambitions are to take care of 'your man' and children, then I do imagine that you find fulfillment in that role. You probably never dreamed of being anything else. You are clearly only speaking for yourself, many women do need more intellectual and physical stimulation than domestic work supplies, and though fully capable of running a home and family would not seek for that to be their 'life' and only role in life, not because they don't think it is important but because they have the same desires for personal growth and development that men do. And certainly, historically, marriage has been a form of slavery, literally often, for women, it works for you, for others, not so much.

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
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.

Again, you acknowledge that you have very limited life experience, not every woman is like you. Some of us want more, some of us get less, and marriage has, traditionally, permitted many abuses against women.

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
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).

I do realise that you have probably led a very sheltered life and been raised to be a good wife and mother, but the point that IAG was clearly trying to make, is that until fairly recently, it was quite within the law for a man to demand his conjugal rights, rape in practice was legal under the institution of marriage. You seem to completely misunderstand IAG's point, promiscuity had nothing to with it. The reason that women now do possess some rights within marriage, or even at all, is because some of those that were mistreated fought for those rights. Your husband is now not allowed to beat you or the children, just as he is nolonger allowed to rape you. You enjoy rights and privileges that others made sacrifices to afford you. Simply because you have never had it hard is no reason to ignore that others that went before you, or live alongside you in the world do not.

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
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.

You have, seemingly, a very narrow view of the world. There is a vast diversity amongst our species and to say that all men are by nature, physically stronger than all women, is frankly, naive.

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
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.

No I wasn't. In response to the false proposition that inequity of physical strength was a barrier to social equality presented by another poster, I posed a rhetorical question to demonstrate how silly that proposition was My primary point remains, that being a man does not automatically make you more physically able than a woman, besides physical diversity, mental aptitude plays a large part too. Some men, in a life or death situation, would be as useless as some women.

Originally posted by BadPenny
Originally posted by HarmonicNights

If the sole extent of your ambitions are to take care of 'your man' and children, then I do imagine that you find fulfillment in that role. You probably never dreamed of being anything else. You are clearly only speaking for yourself, many women do need more intellectual and physical stimulation than domestic work supplies, and though fully capable of running a home and family would not seek for that to be their 'life' and only role in life, not because they don't think it is important but because they have the same desires for personal growth and development that men do. And certainly, historically, marriage has been a form of slavery, literally often, for women, it works for you, for others, not so much.

A traditional marriage is a kind of mutual exchange- the man provides income for the family while the woman provides household duties such as cooking and cleaning. They're complementary roles. Raising your children is THE most significant duty in life- not just for the children, but for society as a whole. Nurturing, disciplining, and shaping the minds of the FUTURE is not something that can be written off as meaningless and insignificant. The fact that you feel you need a career in order to feel your intellect is somehow being fed only speaks of your insecurity. The need to have a career in order to feel adequate and experience "personal growth and development" is saddening to say the least. I'm not sure how you can experience "physical stimulation" by sitting in an office, which is what most career women end up doing. It's men do all the back-breaking physical jobs. I think you know as well as I do that most feminists only seek to work in order to earn money. They can't get enough of it. I'm sure if they could be paid to stay at home, they would do it in a heartbeat. Traditional marriage is not in any way a form of slavery and it's a slap in the face to actual slaves to spout out such an insult. Feminists are slaves to the almighty dollar. Money is everything to them and they can't find fullfillment in life without it.

Again, you acknowledge that you have very limited life experience, not every woman is like you. Some of us want more, some of us get less, and marriage has, traditionally, permitted many abuses against women.

I'm not irrational enough to become a stingy, man-hating feminist just because of a few bad experiences (or even ALL bad experiences) with men. If you don't want to get married, then don't. But don't try to demonize the entire institution of marriage and develop an irrational disdain for it as well as men.

The reason that women now do possess some rights within marriage, or even at all, is because some of those that were mistreated fought for those rights. Your husband is now not allowed to beat you or the children, just as he is nolonger allowed to rape you. You enjoy rights and privileges that others made sacrifices to afford you. Simply because you have never had it hard is no reason to ignore that others that went before you, or live alongside you in the world do not.

The law has never been perfect and the rape within marriage issue is one of those oddities that arose. There's not some conspiracy against women. Just because you may have suffered at the hands of men doesn't mean you should irrationally view all men as abusers or predators. That's no reason to ignore the majority of men who are good.

There is a vast diversity amongst our species and to say that all men are by nature, physically stronger than all women, is frankly, naive.

It was a general statement. And it's a fact. hon. Men naturally have more physical strength than women. Women sometimes build up their strength to match men's. I can't even understand why this biological difference would bother some women. Obviously it's because of insecurity issues.

reply to post by HarmonicNights


Harmonic Nights...

Will you marry me ?

reply to post by dacvspecial

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.

This kind of attitude is all over the survival threads, and its not even close to cutting survival. Long term communities would weed out any families that did this.

We might live in a world that has opposite values because of the monied groups that run it, but not in grass roots groups, in those groups cooperation is the norm.

this thread is going off topic i feel

i dont mind if women get equal rights but i will still help as many as i can even if it means i lose my life. this does not make me traditionally nor does it make me politically correct. im not traditional in any way (i dont even believe in god) nor would i expect (or force) my wife to be when i get married. but i would still help.

any man who leaves behind women and children, EVEN those who have no direct relation to him and claims that we have ''equal rights'' is just a scary girl !!!

and men are naturally stronger than women but this comes at a price, like men have to go to bloody wars and work in mines. and if men claim that we have equal rights then i bet that it would be men who would get away rather than women, always !!

Thank you all for participating in this thread. Your opinions will be properly utilized.

Cheers

Originally posted by TiberianPurifier

Originally posted by Ksorum
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)

aaannnd when you say equal you mean you can punch 10 women if you have to, just to run away like a little girl ??

My little girls are way better than that.

I think there are situations where the rule would not apply. For instance, you are at home one night, you hear rattling, bumping noises outside. Could be a robber/killer/doer of no good outside. You wouldn't send your wife or child out first to check on the situation.

Are you married with children?

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

Couldn't have said it better myself...

There are certain principles that should NEVER be "outdated". I'm still the kind of guy who gets a chair or opens a door for a lady, etc. Maybe that makes me old-fashioned, but I don't care, it's how I was raised, and occasionally, its even appreciated, so it's its own reward.

Yes, in a disaster, I'd certainly make every effort to aid women and children first. If I didn't, I wouldn't be the man my wife married.

So according to most threads it comes down to everybody saving there family and them first, if they have any family and kids that is. And who knows maybe they do but there just not there, so who knows maybe they have kids at home depending on them coming back alive, so the situation is not as black and white as people make it out to be.

But an interesting bunch of responses. And everybody has different opinions on who they would save if it came down to it, and the way they would go about it is different depending on there individuality and circumstance.
Some with rationale, some with cunning, some with a sword, and some with honey.

Luckily for us all if were lucky we wont have to actually see how our theories actually would play out if we actually had to stick to our rules that we make up and say we would follow, in a sinking ship or shtf scenario. Because me thinks it will be chaotic at best.

think of it like this...
so you saved yourself, as you look back at the floating bodies of beautiful innocent helpless little kids and babies..how are you going to feel?
Sick and sad and on your way to a life of shame or depression. Or relieved it wasn't you? Are you humane or a psychopath?
Humanity beseeches you to help...will you ignore your humanity?

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by TiberianPurifier

Originally posted by Ksorum
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)

aaannnd when you say equal you mean you can punch 10 women if you have to, just to run away like a little girl ??

My little girls are way better than that.

thats kind of what i am trying to say, men who act tough and use excuses like ''we have equal rights so women can eat my dust'' to run away are not better than actual little girls.

if a man looks after only his family then he is atleast a wee bit better but if he decides that he will look after only his wife and child and will not think of any other women or children at all, IF it meant he would have to give his life then that is not good. unthinkable on my part. we humans should view our race as a whole not as tiny fragmented divided pieces of shattered glass.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Harmonic Nights...

Will you marry me ?

Most definitely

If I'm going to die anyways if I passively accept going down with the ship or whatever the situation may be, I'm going to take the proactive approach and at least do what I can to survive with my wife and/or kids, even if it gets ugly. I may or may not be successful, but I'll be damned if I just passively accept death so someone else can come along and possibly do her or my kids harm because of some "rule" I was supposed to adhere to. Some BS "honor" crap, give me a break. Some people live in fantasy land a little too much I suspect, and I also would be willing to wager that a lot of these "white knights" would do the same if it really came down to it, but I guess it doesn't sound as nice now does it? When the SHTF, I don't owe anybody anything except those closest to me, and to hell with the rest of you.

I think this whole "women and children first" rule is something created way back when populations were scarce, so that if a situation like so occurred, there would be plenty of women for the "elites" to breed with after the "good, honorable" men went down. This way of thinking just kinda stuck I suppose, maybe it's ingrained in our DNA perhaps, and some men can't think past it? Also, some people are saying maybe letting certain men like pediatricians or scientists survive.... I think that is downright absurd as well. What good is a pediatrician going to do on a deserted island with no supplies??? What is a scientist going to do??? And it's not like we don't have enough of these in the world either where the world would be hugely affected by a lost of a few of these. I can understand farmers, people with hunting, building skills because these would come in handy in a situation like being stranded on a deserted island.

I'm a young man still trying to make my mark in this world, still evolving, still trying to reach my potential, and I'm not going to give it up easily, because I was supposed to follow some dated moral code of conduct. I'm not going to give it up so your wife and your kids can go back to a "normal" life of hours of television a day, and if not the television, facebook, video games and all other forms of mindless consumption that seem to pervade an alarming amount of people these days. Who are you to tell me that their lives are more valuable than mine?

Maybe if I was older, and did all I wanted to do, and felt like I accomplished a great deal, and maybe If I had kids and knew I did my job as a father long enough to ensure they will turn out ok... I would feel different. I can kind of understand where some of you are coming from, at least to a point. Maybe I am selfish, maybe my sense of morals have been eroded, I don't know. It's a cold world we live in, and I guess having a cold heart makes it easier. I don't have the highest opinion of women these days, simply because I am too painfully aware of the dynamics within the way women and men interact, and relationships now. Kids don't really get me all gooey inside either. In fact, chances are your kids annoy me to no end, and I don't care how special you think your kids are, they aren't. Once In a while, i'll deal with a child who seems years beyond his/her age and I'll smile to myself and think that this child will probably turn out to be a great person in whatever way, but most of the time I just find them to be intolerable. So yeah... I don't really rate women, kids, or men for that matter too highly. I've lost faith in humanity so in turn, I've turned my back on it.