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

While I can see the children first, I cannot always see justifying women first. Some would say they are more vulnerable, but I can attest to seeing some damn strong and manipulitative women.

While I for the most part would say women and children first, If it comes down to me and some welfare case who can't keep her legs shut... I am going to be visiting my family for christmas.

reply to post by HarmonicNights


feminism, and the breakdown of the family, will, you are correct, lead to the destruction/collapse of society. and this is by design. the rothschild/zionists are behind this to achieve that end.

Originally posted by orangutang
reply to post by HarmonicNights

 

feminism, and the breakdown of the family, will, you are correct, lead to the destruction/collapse of society. and this is by design. the rothschild/zionists are behind this to achieve that end.

How is the Feminist attitude any too different from your own? Do we not criticise Feminism for claiming that ALL women require recompense from men for their servitude, and automatically place womandom in a state of victimhood? How is blaming the Rothschilds or the Zionists any different from this mentality of victimhood and helplessness? If the Zionists are the bad-guys? Who do you deem to be the good-guys who will save you from these foul beasts? You cannot criticise one group for their helplessness and then assume the same position yourself, that would be hypocrisy.

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
I am a female and it doesn't bother me one bit that females are physically weaker than males. I can't even fathom why this fact would bother some women. If the rule was "every man for himself", the male survival rate would vastly outweigh the female survival rate...that is, assuming the chivalrous men are all gone. It has nothing to do with equating women with children. It's just a biological fact. Also, women have never been treated like children quite like they are today. Feminism encourages women to behave like helpless children and remain in constant victim-mode. Women today are largely never expected to take responsibility for their own actions. With the feminists, all their failures and short-comings are blamed on men. They act as if they are too mentally incompetent to have any responsibility over their own actions and choices. THAT is what's asking to be treated like a perpetual child. I find it insulting.

Also, I think the whole notion of 'equality' is completely asinine. I don't want to be equal to a man. I adore all the masculine traits- the things that separate men from women. Trying to enforce unnatural 'equality' between the sexes is what plays a huge role in the dwindling of a society. It turns the male/female relationship into that of power struggle and competition. Men and women are complementary and not made to compete with each other. The most devastating consequence is of course, the breakdown of the family. A society can not withstand such a thing.

Quoted in full for its accuracy and eloquence.

It is abundantly clear that feminism is not only based on anti-male hatred, but feminists are also the enemy of women. Feminists are after two things: control and ''getting their own back'' at men. Other women are just used as pawns in their power moves.

However, I don't think that feminism is as much of a danger to society as some people make it out to be. Most women aren't feminists, nor influenced by their vitriolic diatribe.

reply to post by airspoon


So...you'll hold a door open for me but if my children and I were in a life threatening situation I should not expect any help from you because I fight to be accepted as an equal in my male-dominated career? Pardon my side-eye...

Think of it this way, if I'm in a dangerous situation with my children, I have to make sure I keep myself alive and keep them alive, it's not just me 'MacGyvering' my own way out of a pickle. You have to stifle your own instincts of self-preservation and make sure they are safe.

Believe me, if it was me on my own, I'd not expect help (nor would I expect it even if my children were with me) and make sure that those who were unable to take care of themselves were aided, regardless of gender.

What a useless thread ..."women and children first" is not a rule .. is normal human behaviour

The women and children first ideal, stands with men who have honor. If you lose all of your women, then you cannot have more children. It has nothing to do with women being the weaker sex, as women in the past have gone to battle next to their men.

Originally posted by xavi1000
What a useless thread ..."women and children first" is not a rule .. is normal human behaviour

Nope. As a young girl I watched feds shoot at women and children on the reservation in the 70's. There are men who have no respect or regard for a woman at all. And I don't really want to get into how my ancestors that were women and children that were gunned down at Wounded Knee, including pregnant women.

reply to post by canuckistanian


Women *must* learn to fight and be brave. You must know how to shoot a gun and kill an animal, and feed your family. I'm all for men defending their women but we too have to be extremely strong if we are to get through whatever could come. But a true man will fight, kill, or die for his woman. Any man of honor would do this for a woman not his wife.

reply to post by Thunder heart woman


You miss understood me ... i will die for my wife and children

Originally posted by 547000
They're the first to go into my belly should cannibalism become the only way to survive.

Not unless my gun or blade found you first!
Bet you won't count on that lol

Originally posted by Thunder heart woman
The women and children first ideal, stands with men who have honor. If you lose all of your women, then you cannot have more children. It has nothing to do with women being the weaker sex, as women in the past have gone to battle next to their men.

I consider it to be a more modern adaptation than that, when women are only valued or value themselves, upon their appeal to men or on their appearance in general, rather than on their usefulness to the wider group, it is inevitable that some will fail to develop any other skills than those that are rewarded through an ease of effort. Women, and men, with little skill other than those required for dress and entertainment, seldom have any pruposefulness in a push-comes-to-shove scenario, and are best left with the children, and others unable to defend themselves. Women of the past, who went into battle alongside men, did not trouble themselves with such inconsequentials as a co-ordinated wardrobe or the latest gossip, and therefore developed skills that enabled them to defend themselves and their families rather than be a burden upon them.

reply to post by Thunder heart woman


I know how women must fight, through the experiences of my mother and grandmother. I'd do anything for my sons, I just don't know why people are so quick to use feminism as an excuse not to help another person, let alone another woman.

It's fair that I should get paid for the same work that a man does, in my field women take longer to promote, get less pay on average and have to fight stereotypes in order to be taken seriously. Granted, I have not gone through great suffering in my life, so I cannot gripe too harshly.

Men make mention of women-hating men and holding doors open for us, seriously? If I go through a door and there's someone a few seconds behind me I hold it open, without looking at who they are. I take people as they come, it's a lesson learned when the people you think you should be there for you, just simply are not.

Well, if any man should sacrifice himself for any woman if conditions would arise that would not permit for everyone to survive, it follows that the only reason non-adult males are lumped in together in the same group with females and given the privilege to live is so that they can sacrifice themselves for females later in their lives if circumstances would again become dramatic.

So, the rule is not really ''Women and children first'', but ''Females first.'' This was no doubt cleaned up in this manner to hide its extreme sexism.

As some have pointed out this ''rule'' was devised and enforced because the reason for its existence was grounded in biology.

There most certainly isn't a reason for it to be enforced at present. Given the current state of the world's population, unless the females threatened by imminent demise possess some kryptonian genes that desperately need to be passed on, there's no value in giving them preference over males because of their gender. And any rational person would agree that women are not naturally more virtuous than men, so more deserving of survival.

Regarding chivalry, I think it would be the decent thing to do to, say, give up your seat on a bus to a woman if she were advanced in age and visibly tired, just as it would be the decent thing to do to offer your seat to a tired old man. Or to extend the same offer to a person with a visible handicap, regardless if that person is male or female.

Now, to expect a man to suffer un-comfort to ease the existence of a woman who suffers from no apparent handicap just because of her gender is idiotic.
As someone has pointed out already, in the USA, more (most?) people expecting this idiotic behavior from men tend to be from the South. I think it's interesting that most on the innovations in technology, medicine, etc. have come from the North-eastern and Western United States, were these views are less prevalent.

Just one more matter to discuss...

Originally posted by calstorm
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.

I'm curious of why you stopped at that? I'm sure you could have thought up more gruesome things that you think these guys are capable of...

Doesn't matter if I'm married or not, women and children first.

I can't even imagine pushing a kid out the way to get to something lol


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by inanna1234
Of course! Women and children first always! Men that don't agree are cowards and lacking testostorone... whether they have children or not

actually...it's quite the opposite. they've proven that men with a wife and family have lower testosterone. quit talking out of your heart and use your head.

rules and "traditions" aer for people too stupid to think for themselves.