posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:55 AM
We're a few hundred or thousand years out-of-date if the ''women and children first'' rule is based on survival.
While it may have been valid in small, isolated tribes of people with little technological development, this argument has no bearing nowadays. A few
hundred people dieing in a disaster out of a population of 6.7 billion, is nothing but a drop in the ocean in our gene-pool.
In a Titanic type situation, the priority should be to be let those who are less capable of looking after themselves off first, such as
children, the disabled and the elderly. The problem being that in this type of scenario, you are unlikely to have the time to calmly draw up a fair
list as to what order the passengers should evacuate the ship, onto the lifeboats.
Considering the fact that women aren't as physically strong as men, then it seems reasonable to me that - in a life or death situation where you have
to make a quick decision - they should be allowed to leave the ship following the children, disabled and the elderly.
As for holding doors open for women, or giving up your seat for a woman on public transport, then that is just really obsequious and wussy-like
behaviour; like a little lap-dog eager to please and impress.
If there's someone walking closely behind me when I'm opening a door, then I'll hold it open for them, regardless of who it is. The only time I go
out of my way to open a door for someone, or give up a seat on public transport, is when it's someone elderly or disabled, or if it's a pregnant
woman or someone with a pushchair. An able-bodied woman is perfectly capable of opening a door or standing on a bus.