Totally depends on the situation, in my opinion.
Unless there is some sort extinction level event or something, blindly following this rule has absolutely no effect whatsoever on society, other than
to make the ladies feel better and the men to feel like gentlemen. Just like elections don't actually do anything, they just make the masses feel
better for thinking they have the ability to effect policy.
I think in any situation the children or youngest people should be saved first. They (in theory) have the most life left to live.
And as I said previously, in some sort of ELE saving women instead of men makes perfect sense as a woman can only have one child every 9 months, where
as a man can make a child every 9 minutes. Maintaining a ratio of many more women, to a smaller number of men is a must if the existence of our
species becomes an issue.
But considering in modern history there has not been a single ELE or anything else that has threatened our species as a whole, to the effect that
saving women over men would accomplish anything. I just don't see the reason women are more important than men, unless as I said the survival of the
species is threatened.
People in staunch support of this rule seem to be mixing situations and emotions and have not put fourth any reasoning other than women are
defenseless little victims that us big strong men have to take care of. I'm surprised there aren't any posts from women offended by that idea, but
considering they see that their odds of survival are higher in any given situation simply because men are willing to throw away their lives makes them
happy, so they keep their lips sealed. EDIT: I see the previous poster proved me wrong!
By the admission of many posters here that claim the superiority of men in defending others, one could argue saving men and children first would be a
better idea, because a man would actually be able to defend a child, where as a woman would not.
Now before everyone's emotions get the best of them and start making up scenarios where I am killing women and children and putting words in my mouth
I will say the following, even though it is completely unrelated to the subject at hand, but other people seem to think it's relevant so I'll chime in
too. I always hold doors open and help out women. But you know what? I do the same thing for men, too. Helping out your fellow humans, regardless of
gender is a much more important trait in my opinion than that of egocentric male dominance. So a guy holds open a door for a woman, so what? I do the
same thing, but not because she is a woman, but because she is a fellow human being and it's polite to do so regardless of gender.
Other people are using the Titanic example, which I will too since it's easy. Could you describe how saving women over men accomplishes anything,
other than to say that a woman's life is more important than a man's? The titanic sinking did nothing to threaten our species, nor did it even come
close to threatening western civilization or society. So why elevate the life a woman over that of a man?
I'll repeat myself again because I have already seen people in this thread gloss over and ignore parts of some people's posts in order to attack them:
In a survival of the species scenario women and children should absolutely be saved first, no question about it. In a non survival of the species
scenario, I don't feel a woman's life should be elevated any higher than that of a man's, nor should a man's life be elevated over that of a woman's.
In a non survival of the species situation, people should survive by first come first serve, or by who is the most prepared, not survive based on
gender. That is my view on the matter, and I await to see how people will twist my words or just make them up completely and claim them as
edit on 30-4-2011 by James1982 because: (no reason given)