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

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond

Originally posted by aboveATS
yeah but hes probably thinking along this scenario: hes on the titanic and he came aboard alone and there r more single males there and the rest of the passengers r families, the ship hits the iceberg, the ship is starting to sink and the rule being women and children first hes being forced to wait against his will for the women and children to get in the lifeboats, hes not married , he doesnt have children, he would love to get on a lifeboat but other males r making him stay and respect the rule, so it isnt really a matter of being married with children, its a matter of being forced to yield to the rule

That's the idea, exactly.

Okay so if you are single, you would rather kick a small child or a vulnerable female into the icy cold sea? Grow a pair and accept it is the rule.

edit on 30/4/11 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)

Judgmental, aren't we? You don't even know what my gender is. Asking questions doesn't hurt I

me personally, i'm not gonna let someone with a wife and 7 kids keep his DNA alive while i drown on the boat. one of those kids is gonna get thrown over board and i'm gonna float to a longer life. this is of course, under the titanic mindset.

i myse;f don't have a wife and kids, specifically because i don't want that responsibility. putting women and kids first isn't the MANLY thing to do...it's the FATHERLY thing to do. there's nothing wrong with being selfish as long as you only have yourself to worry about. so no one's life (be it women or child) is worth more than mine, in my eyes. i think that's the guilt thrown upon us by some long standing tradition of ages ago. do you know how many effing kids there are now? too many. everyone i see at walmart has more kids in their carts than groceries. so yeah...let a few drowned. maybe then my kids will have better schools. again in the titanic mindset.

reply to post by crkking


Absolutely friend. I could not care less that some people look at the equality issues, it is good manners and the right thing to do. Now I am guessing this question has been posed by someone who is relatively young and maybe just trying to stir things up a little, but surely they have heard the saying manners maketh man. It's true, they do. It's one of the things that seperates us from the animals.

WOW! I was raised that women and children are first in everything, even eating. After the age of 6, the only person who fixed their plate after me was my grandfather, since it was his rule. Nobody enters a door directly behind me, I fix my plate last, and the same order is applied to the rest of my life.

This is something that must be taught, but one must also make it a lifelong standard. My children live by this rule, but most kids today have no concept of manners and what is right. Just like the young man in Penney's who pushed my wife out of the way, and then accidentally fell into a clothing rack. Karma.

reply to post by airspoon


So if you are walking out of the office getting ready to get in your car to head home for the night, and you see a woman getting beat around by some douche bag guy, your just gonna turn around and go the other way because it was her decision to demand equal rights? Because in today's day and age, this economy dictates most married families with children need both parents to work.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but really? I don't care if women in general lobby to become head of household, I care about doing what is right. If you think you should "hop on the boat" before that women and her baby daughter, you go right ahead. I'm sure someone will be there to throw you off.

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond

Originally posted by aboveATS
yeah but hes probably thinking along this scenario: hes on the titanic and he came aboard alone and there r more single males there and the rest of the passengers r families, the ship hits the iceberg, the ship is starting to sink and the rule being women and children first hes being forced to wait against his will for the women and children to get in the lifeboats, hes not married , he doesnt have children, he would love to get on a lifeboat but other males r making him stay and respect the rule, so it isnt really a matter of being married with children, its a matter of being forced to yield to the rule

That's the idea, exactly.

Okay so if you are single, you would rather kick a small child or a vulnerable female into the icy cold sea? Grow a pair and accept it is the rule.

edit on 30/4/11 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)

Judgmental, aren't we? You don't even know what my gender is. Asking questions doesn't hurt

I

Yes apologies. I should engage my brains before letting my fingers do the talking. That was rude of me, where are my manners?

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond

Originally posted by aboveATS
yeah but hes probably thinking along this scenario: hes on the titanic and he came aboard alone and there r more single males there and the rest of the passengers r families, the ship hits the iceberg, the ship is starting to sink and the rule being women and children first hes being forced to wait against his will for the women and children to get in the lifeboats, hes not married , he doesnt have children, he would love to get on a lifeboat but other males r making him stay and respect the rule, so it isnt really a matter of being married with children, its a matter of being forced to yield to the rule

That's the idea, exactly.

Okay so if you are single, you would rather kick a small child or a vulnerable female into the icy cold sea? Grow a pair and accept it is the rule.

edit on 30/4/11 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)

Judgmental, aren't we? You don't even know what my gender is. Asking questions doesn't hurt

I

Yes apologies. I should engage my brains before letting my fingers do the talking. That was rude of me, where are my manners?

You don't have to apologize. Your reaction is - alas - quite common. I expected as much Yes, one can stir to discombobulate but this isn't the only reason, after all.

For me, equality or honour have nothing to do with it. I believe it to be the right thing to do. Generally, women and children are weaker than myself or any able bodied adult male. I swore to protect the those unable to protect themselves, I intend to do just that.

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher
For me, equality or honour have nothing to do with it. I believe it to be the right thing to do. Generally, women and children are weaker than myself or any able bodied adult male. I swore to protect the those unable to protect themselves, I intend to do just that.

Spoken like a true gentleman sir.

I believe it is everyone's duty to protect the vulnerable as they are sometimes incapable of doing so for themselves.

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond

Originally posted by aboveATS
yeah but hes probably thinking along this scenario: hes on the titanic and he came aboard alone and there r more single males there and the rest of the passengers r families, the ship hits the iceberg, the ship is starting to sink and the rule being women and children first hes being forced to wait against his will for the women and children to get in the lifeboats, hes not married , he doesnt have children, he would love to get on a lifeboat but other males r making him stay and respect the rule, so it isnt really a matter of being married with children, its a matter of being forced to yield to the rule

That's the idea, exactly.

Okay so if you are single, you would rather kick a small child or a vulnerable female into the icy cold sea? Grow a pair and accept it is the rule.

edit on 30/4/11 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)

Judgmental, aren't we? You don't even know what my gender is. Asking questions doesn't hurt

I

Yes apologies. I should engage my brains before letting my fingers do the talking. That was rude of me, where are my manners?

You don't have to apologize. Your reaction is - alas - quite common. I expected as much

Yes, one can stir to discombobulate but this isn't the only reason, after all.

I didn't need to apologise, but it was the right thing to do. I concur with your final sentence. Peace.

reply to post by TheLoneArcher


As far as I'm concerned, your statement there is enough to close this thread. It could not have been said any better than that.

It would seem that there are enough gentlemen here to ensure that no woman or child be left unprotected. To you good sirs, I salute you.

For you ladies out there, I accept your rights, but please lets us do the right thing by you.

Those who think this is stupid and not worth investigating are missing the point. It is worth investigating I think.

I personally will always open the car door and house door for women and get any kids in cars and houses first... unless of course there is a perceived danger then I go in first.

If there is danger the kids and women get out first. This IS up for debate for women but not children.

Protection should happen in the following order for maximizing civilization: Pregnant women, Children, Women / Men accompanying / protecting children, Elderly (not fully mobile adults), young adults (20s or younger), Women, Men.

The wisdom here is getting people out of danger according to the general capacity to handle said danger. This will maximize survival. In your 20s you may be more physically able, but as any emergency worker will tell you some kid in their 20s will need the help of the older ones to be really safe.

Either way it isn't about men and women and children, it is about being able to handle highly stressful emergency situations.

Originally posted by Jinglelord
Either way it isn't about men and women and children, it is about being able to handle highly stressful emergency situations.

Well said

Originally posted by moogins

What about hermaphrodites?

Hermaphrodites get to choose sides.

this is not a matter of choice, the problem here (titanic scenario) is the majority forcing the rule on the minority
2nd

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond
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

The rule is based on nature.

Women reproduce more slowly, so a society of one woman and 20 men would likely die out or be out competed by another society.

A society of 20 women and one man, on the other hand, would reproduce at a much faster rate, and has a better chance of survival.

Men choosing their children to live over them may or may not make sense. If the whole society depends on the outcome of a battle for their survival, it makes sense for a man who already has offspring to fight that battle and perhaps die himself.

If the problem is famine, then it might make less sense to spare the children. (And in fact, in many real scenarios of this sort, children are left to die.) This is because the adults of the group have more value to the group in terms of their ability to find and provide food. And, babies can be replaced after the famine.

In a world such as ours, maintaining the population so that the group survives really isnt as big a deal. There are more than enough of us. Its less important that we ensure a lot of women survive any one disaster. In a scenario in which the whole species was at risk, then yes, saving more women than men would be to our benefit as a species. Whether or not it was as wise to save the children would depend on the situation.

reply to post by airspoon


Fair enough...

Then just be man enough to admit that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about when it comes to the opposite sex.

Originally posted by ICEKOHLD
me personally, i'm not gonna let someone with a wife and 7 kids keep his DNA alive while i drown on the boat. one of those kids is gonna get thrown over board and i'm gonna float to a longer life. this is of course, under the titanic mindset.

Lol while your comment is likely not going to be popular, you are making the right decision. A man who expects you to die so all 7 of his children and wife survive is dooming your genetic line to extinction while selfishly flooding the world with his own.

He is not a nicer guy than you because he looks chivalrous and you dont, he is being incredibly selfish.

It does matter whether the man in question has reproduced yet or not.

I don't think it has anything to do with equal rights. Men in general are stronger than woman and children. But than if you are a scrawny little guy I guess you can be counted in the ranks of woman and children.
But most men would throw the woman and children together because most men (mine included) go crazy if left too long with little ones.
It is called caring for those weaker. Love is the only reason. If you are self centered in your thoughts and have no one to love or have no love to give, I truly am sorry for you. Without love you live a life of endless pointless consumption and no growth. Self centered is not the same as loving ones self.