Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by crkking
 


You honestly read that from my post? Are you serious or just kidding? Maybe you have my post mixed with someone else's? I think that if you would have read my post, you'd see where it clearly states that due to my Southern upbringing, I still give all the proper traditional courtesies to women, This includes opening doors, giving up my seat and allowing women and children first. However, doing these same things at work can get me in a lot of trouble, possibly even sued. That still doesn't detract me from doing it.

How on Earth you got from that, that I would do nothing as some poor women is beat, is beyond me.


--airspoon



+2 more 
posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ICEKOHLD
 


Your post in this thread seems to nullify your quote from this thread in which you said:


...i feel as though i am Christ. not to the extent that like i am Jesus, the man, but that the spirit of Christ is the building block for my DNA. i have self-imagry of Christ always playing in my head. feel as though i was put here to help people. help them find peace and usher in a new tme.


One of these posts in one of these threads is b.s. then ... Which one would it be?




posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


GOOD one!!!
)

"God/jesus/spaghetti monster" is a selfish prick though right?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


so then, would giving up my life for 7 kids and a mom to survive be the best way for me to serve my purpose? what if one of those kids should give up their life so that i could live to spread the message. you're operating under the assumption that you know what is right and wrong, in every situation, and that i have to let one of 7 diabetic, jersey shore addicted, middle school drop out survive to do my part to help? please.

no human can asign value to any life other than their own. no one can tell me who's life is more important than my own. becuase i'm quite sure that the guy with 7 kids thinks it's more important that all 7 of his kids make it than me, the guy he doesn't know that could have the cure for AIDS in his shirt pocket. again...you're assigning value to lives that you don't even know, ergo, this is all a simulated situation. you have to account for variables. think fast...your life could depend on it one day.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by aboveandbeyond
 


Children first, then whoever can get to a lifeboat (or whatever) first keeps it. If we were in the 40's, I'd feel differently. But women wanted equal rights, so they now get the right to fight me over a seat on that last lifeboat.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ICEKOHLD
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


so then, would giving up my life for 7 kids and a mom to survive be the best way for me to serve my purpose? what if one of those kids should give up their life so that i could live to spread the message.


You're hubris is a shining example, please do keep it up as it is testament to your inner self, I've no doubt.


you're operating under the assumption that you know what is right and wrong, in every situation, and that i have to let one of 7 diabetic, jersey shore addicted, middle school drop out survive to do my part to help? please.


I'm not operating under any assumption, simply underscoring your words:


...one of those kids is gonna get thrown over board and i'm gonna float to a longer life...



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
The people in the Titannic did not think things thru clearly enough. The mentality that men are expendable is just plain wrong!

The first thing that happened is the first class woman and children got into lifeboats. Since it was unthinkable that they should mingle with lower classes - those lifeboats were mostly empty. Also there was an insufficient number of men to man the oars. The first priority was to get the lifeboats away from the ship.

Most men would give their lives for their woman and children - out of love, not chivalry.

Personally, speaking as a woman - I would gladly give my place to a couple of kids. But as an older woman who has already lived, given birth and seen my grandchildren into the world, I would also give my place to a younger man.

This isn't about manners or chivalry - I have given life and would die to preserve it! That is my birthright as a woman. It is the choice I claim for myself.

So thank you guys - I love love love you all for your gallantry - but you serve my purposes and values best if you survive to bring children into the world. Love them and protect them as men are meant to do.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
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 mine.
edit on 30-4-2011 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by James1982
.
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.


Well, Im female, and I did point out that in a highly populated world there is no real reason to prioritize women over men.

The thing is that humans beings dont use reason to make decisions. Nature didnt really have to wire us that way. Its much more effective to "compel" us to do things. Like have sex, like emotional responses like love and bonding, or "fight or flight." Reason takes time, you have to think it all through and then choose. For life or death things, its much more efficient to use emotion. It comes on instantly, and compels you to do what works best for the species.

And that was all good until we populated the planet to the brink of our own extinction. Now, our "instincts" are what is creating trouble for us. But, evolution doesnt work as fast as we have gotten ourselves into trouble.

In short, there is no point reasoning with those who just blindly follow the rule. They are doing exactly what millions of years of natural selection has selected for them to do. But, if you CAN use reason, you can look at the "rule" figure out WHY it was important, and then choose for yourself.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by aboveandbeyond
 


In terms of women and children first... my take is that I would give my right arm for my mother and kid sisters, but also my dad and grandad... I'd take a bullet for any of them. My serious 2c on this...



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
As a woman I think this rule needs to be thrown out the _ Seriously. Ever go to walmart and see a terrible 'ignoring her childrens behavior' mother with 3+ screaming horribly behaved children? Yea- she deserves to be saved over a man.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by crkking
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


The problem here is no matter how much we try, there will always be the ones that just don't give a sh@t. Chivalry is almost a thing of the past. I live by it, my kids will learn it, my wife respects it, and I will be that way until the day I die. Whether that day is a long time from now, or sacrificing for the greater good.


Absolutely agree with you.

Manners cost nothing. My daughter WILL expect a man to hold the door open and she WILL thank him. Respect is never given but only earned. That is the problem with the younger crowd. They were never taught to show repect to their elders and now that they are older, they also do not teach their children.

Thank you 60's drug culture!

not.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
ok. let's talk survival of the group:

if thig guy made 7 kids in 10 years, obviously it's not that hard to make kids. so, let all the kids die off, let the healthy, strong 20 and 30 somethings pull through the cataclysmic event and then make kids. in an ultimate SHTF scenerio, children are liabilities that keep people from making reasonable decisions.

the desire for your kids to live on over my life is your ego. you value your dna over mine. whereas the pack could very well be more greatly benefited by only the strong surviving, then repopulating.

parents don't think rationaly. you're not supposed to. you're supposed to be super crazy control freak over their future and do everything you can to make sure your seed survives. it's what we're genetically programmed to do. in essence, survival of the fittest. everyone's racing to get their dna to survive. it's not a personal race between certain strains of dna, per se, it's more like healthy competition.

so yeah...i think it's BS that all these parents would expect me to die so their kids could live. that doesn't sounds like a greater good view...that sounds like a survivalists view, in the truest, deepest form, and there's nothing wrong with that. me personally...i'm not gonna surrender my life cuz the jack next to me cant keep his pecker in his pants. hell...chances are i help support one or more of his kids as it is...



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by xynephadyn
As a woman I think this rule needs to be thrown out the _ Seriously. Ever go to walmart and see a terrible 'ignoring her childrens behavior' mother with 3+ screaming horribly behaved children? Yea- she deserves to be saved over a man.


thank you. this is the argument i've already raised. kids are easy to make! think i'm wrong? just go to freakin walmart and look around. 20-30 somethings who aren't dependant on starbucks, twinkies, xbox, facebook, prozac and insulin on the other hand...we're in short supply. i can make babies...just let me live this one out.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
The people in the Titannic did not think things thru clearly enough. The mentality that men are expendable is just plain wrong!

The first thing that happened is the first class woman and children got into lifeboats. Since it was unthinkable that they should mingle with lower classes - those lifeboats were mostly empty. Also there was an insufficient number of men to man the oars. The first priority was to get the lifeboats away from the ship.

Most men would give their lives for their woman and children - out of love, not chivalry.

Personally, speaking as a woman - I would gladly give my place to a couple of kids. But as an older woman who has already lived, given birth and seen my grandchildren into the world, I would also give my place to a younger man.

This isn't about manners or chivalry - I have given life and would die to preserve it! That is my birthright as a woman. It is the choice I claim for myself.

So thank you guys - I love love love you all for your gallantry - but you serve my purposes and values best if you survive to bring children into the world. Love them and protect them as men are meant to do.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS


God bless you dear Lady. YOU are a TRUE feminist...just like my wonderful bride of 20 years.

As you seem to feel for men, I also feel the same for the "gentler" sex. Gentler...but no less ferocious!


As far as chivalry and love, I dont really think the two can be parted. When I hold the door for a lady or offer my seat, its out of respect and love. I do so in the hopes that someone will do the same for my mother, wife, or daughter. That doesnt sound quite right but you hopefully understand.

Our wifes and daughters (and in respect to others, theirs) are very important to us.

I also completely understand giving your place to a younger man. Female chivalry? Not sure what the term would be. The lines must continue past ourselves.

Thank you though for not seeing men as "second" class though.
edit on 30/4/11 by felonius because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Am a follower of the old bushido code and buddhist. As such Ive a responsibility to protect those unable to protect themselves - the elderly, infirm, women and children. So yes the women and children first rule is still valid today.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by aboveandbeyond
 


It's out dated tradition. If I were a girl, I'd feel disrespected if someone thought I should have the right of way simply due to my sex. It makes me think "Here. You are a woman, and thus weaker. I should, being the stronger man, let you go first."

I also do not agree with men paying 100% of the bill. Split it on a date!

As far as children, it depends on the situation. If I'm leaving a movie theater, it's first-to-get-to-the-door-first-to-leave. If there's a fire or something, well they'd better run. Seriously, though, I'd help as much as possible.

Different situations call for different rules. I do not always care for tradition, and this is certainly one of them.

I'd like to see for once a woman play the 'stronger role' and let a man go first. That would be funny.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I am impressed by some of the reply's, and disturbed by others. I am a woman, and I see it as an issue of respect and the quality of the person willing to sacrifice their life for others. I do not see it as a who is weaker than whom issue. A man willing to sacrifice them self for the sake of women and children shows that he has respect for them. In return he has earned respect that will live on even though he is gone. In my eyes they are true men. They way I see it, Men who do this or even the men who make it a point to open doors for women, are the least likely to be wife or child beaters. Men who just don't care are more capable of doing so. Not say that they are, just that it's more likely.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I still think most of you are missing the point here...

Chivalry, gallantry, blah blah blah... As most people who have seen my posts know I despise mindless tradition.

The goal is for EVERYONE to survive. To do this the strong and able help those less able to safety first. On average women are weaker than men. This isn't sexist and there are many exceptions, but the average woman doesn't have the same amount of physical training as a man (I suppose this has changed with the Xbox though).

Those who can help themselves stay behind until everyone who can't is out of harms way. All the big strong weenies can go row the life rafts, they would do no good staying behind to help anyway with all the blubbering and panicking...



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by aboveandbeyond
 


I will drop kick a baby into shark infested waters before i go down with a ship LOL just kidding of course let um go first. Unless you are a feminist women remember you wanted equality here it is. And if i know your a feminist i will pull your ass out of line with the women and children so you stick to your belief system that we are equal. Im not going to risk my life for someone who will go back home and bash all men when we made sure your ass was safe and warm sorry.
edit on 30-4-2011 by pcrobotwolf because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join