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

Well I think that this women children first thing is just a tradition because when we we're weaker as a species, it was a needed to survive to protect women and children first.

Nowadays, the women outnumber the men slightly, mainly because the male is weaker in the womb than the woman, not "heroic" acts to keep them alive.

So I would say that is an outdated tradition because all the women and children you've ever seen in your lives could die right now and life would go on.

Now I always open the door for a woman and all that good stuff, but I would never give my life for any stranger and their children.

Sorry, survival of the fittest.

rules and "traditions" are for those too stupid to think for themselves.

no one's child's life is more important than my own. what makes your dna sooo special that it should survive over mine? what? cuz you mated first? eff off! i've been smart enough to keep my pecker in my pants. maybe you should try the same.

hell...i'm probably already paying for one or more of your kids through the welfare program as it is. so now i have to help feed, cloth and school your kid and then surrender MY life so that this kid can go on playing xbox, eating icecream and grow up to live on starbucks and facebook. again...eff off. i am a mid-to-late 20 something who is in great physical condition and can outrun most fathers and probably outmaneuver most people. so yeah...i think my dna is better than yours. so now how do we choose?

well...while y'all are busy formulating lists, deciding who should live and die (wait...this already sounds a lot like the governemnt) and drawing straws, i'm gonna drop kick one of your kids, maybe even fat wives out of the boat and stretch out on the life boat. i mean hey...i'll probably be the only male on the life boat cuz the rest of y'all are too stupid to save yourselves. who knows...i might just be your kids future step-dad. hope your wife knows how to make waffles cuz i hate pancakes!!!

Originally posted by Thunder heart woman
Any man of honor would do this for a woman not his wife.

You're not seriously suggesting that a man should kill, fight, or die, for some random, unrelated woman, just because she's a woman ?

That makes no logical sense whatsoever.

This rule definitely needs to change. The rule should be children first. Women and men are considered equals. It is demeaning and sexist to treat women as helpless creatures.

it's funny, to me, to watch how some women turn on/off the equality switch.

a lot of women want to be equals when it comes to pay, rights, voting, say so but when it comes to survival, providing, taking care of themselves...they want to turn into "but i'm a girl/woman" mode. if you're equals...your'e equals. if you're not...you're not. the end.

so you're either equal right on surviving or equal right on getting thrown the eff of the boat and into the sharks mouth. your call.

Originally posted by airspoon
I don't agree with it, though only with our current environment variables. If women want to be treated as equals, then they should be treated as equals, period. This means that all of the "perks" go away, along with all of the bad things. However, we have kind of a double standard in western society. For instance, women want to get equal pay, yet societal norms still dictate that the man be the head of the house-hold. Men are also required by law to act as head of household through the family courts. Women also demand to be hired equally, yet they want the standards to be dropped to accommodate them. Now I know it's not all women, but it is enough of them to where it remains acceptable for these double standards.

Also, it is still the societal norm that men have to initiate procreative relationships with women, yet we can be imprisoned or sued for doing so. Men are literally walking on egg-shells around women, when it is human nature to find the opposite sex attractive.

Women are demanding to be treated equal (and rightly so), yet they are demanding to retain all of the good things about traditional gender roles. You can't have it both ways or at least you shouldn't.

Retaining my southern charm, I have the habit of always opening doors for women and like courtesies, though in this day in age, I can be sued for so. However, if I don't then I'm seen as rude and can even be sued for not doing so. It's a lose-lose for us. I guess this is why many men, even successful and good looking men, are looking to Asia and Eastern Europe for women.


--airspoon

Yer mixing metaphors,.,, this has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with continuation of the family line.

the process of natural selection ensure survival of the fittest.

or is it the other way around?

either way...it really does come down to survival of the fittest. think i'm wrong? better hope yu and your family aren't on the same sinking ship as me or i'll prove to you it is...

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Yer mixing metaphors,.,, this has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with continuation of the family line.

Not really. That only applies to saving the children.

If you want to save your family line, then it makes no sense to preserve the children's mother at the expense of the children's father, or vice versa.

The man's genetic material isn't going to passed on when his widow has a child by another man.

Originally posted by crkking
Are you married with children?

For those of use that are, the answer is pretty simple.

Get real, I go first, sorry dear and sorry kids, 1 life, it's so easy to say women and children first, an old English gentleman thing but in reality I go first, after years in the army, I can say this with confidence.

Originally posted by ICEKOHLD
it's funny, to me, to watch how some women turn on/off the equality switch.

a lot of women want to be equals when it comes to pay, rights, voting, say so but when it comes to survival, providing, taking care of themselves...they want to turn into "but i'm a girl/woman" mode. if you're equals...your'e equals. if you're not...you're not. the end.

so you're either equal right on surviving or equal right on getting thrown the eff of the boat and into the sharks mouth. your call.

Perfect wording, equal is equal, other wise

get in line

reply to post by aboveandbeyond


I'm a women with three sons and a granddaughter.

All children first
Women that are pregnant next
Men and women of child bearing age next EQUALLY (Women, you wanted equality, this is equality)
Old people last.............and I would be in this category. I'm not afraid of death, I've had a good life, have known true love and would not leave my husbands side no matter what anyway.

Why would a person out there consider their 35 year old daughter more valuable than my 35 year old son?

Again, women wanted equality............well than it should be equality all the way, war (draft front lines), custody, life boats, etc.

Those that answer otherwise are sexist.

I believe a certain amount of rethinking is perhaps healthy.

Firstly, I disagree with one of the early posters who commented on how as a single man, his priorities would automatically be different. I think that demonstrates one of the cracks in our culture. This "me first" attitude I see so often now is part of what keeps us apart, keeps us alone. A child's life is no less worth my saving just because it's not my child.

However, I do believe a change is wise. In a SHTF situation, the important thing is to get those who are not capable of dealing with the situation out and to safety. That's where the women and children bit comes from. However, in today's mixed up world, there's plenty of men nowadays who won't step out their front door for fear of mussing their hair or breaking a fingernail, and you want them in the first lifeboat got out of your way. At the same time, in a situation like that where you need clear, capable hands and minds running the show, I could rhyme off a list of women I know personally who I wouldn't be ushering off and into the first lifeboat, I'd want them staying on to help give the other scared, scurrying people a chance of surviving.

i reckon it goes back to our ancestors time, when the men did all the hunting and were physically stronger therefore protected the women and children.

But still, I have a kid and a woman, but even if I saw anoither kid going to die, I would give up my life for them. Kids need protecting, they are the future orcourse

reply to post by HarmonicNights


I agree with you 100 percent! Women and men are not equal and never will be or should be. Women are physically weaker on average. It doesn't mean that men are better then women, it just means their a lot stronger! You're right, if everyone thought every man for himself there would be no more humans!

I'm a women and enjoy being feminine, society is trying to masculate us.

reply to post by dlld7


How is it that women and children contribute less to society. A women once bore Einstien in her womb and raised him into the good man that he became. Einstien was once a child was he not? I really don't see how women and children are poor contributors to society?

This is an interesting question and I was going to post on it when it first came out, but I chickened out because everyone was all gung-ho about the rule, saying it was right to keep it and I didn't want to be blasted!

I disagree. In this day and age, I don't see any reason for the women to go first:

There are plenty of people in the world
Procreation isn't really a problem.
Men can take care of kids just as well as women can.

I think the children should go first, but the adults are equal and should behave as such.

So, blast me!

reply to post by ICEKOHLD


Good post! Equal is equal.

As stated before children first...............including a woman obviously with child.

Other than that, well I'm a tough old bird, I can't swim fast but can swim a long long long time, pretty thin now so the sharks probably wouldn't consider me worth the effort and go for the more heartier meals.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/288e37928296.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by thedarktower
i reckon it goes back to our ancestors time, when the men did all the hunting and were physically stronger therefore protected the women and children.

But still, I have a kid and a woman, but even if I saw anoither kid going to die, I would give up my life for them. Kids need protecting, they are the future orcourse

It would probably suck if (assuming theres an afterlife) you look down on earth and see the kid you sacrificed yourself for ended up being one of those WoW addicts who did nothing useful with his life

... that would probably be my luck at least.

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 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.

Yes, but you have to realize that those who would gain their life at the expense of another, have lost, those who attempt to go to the front of the lineup, end up at the back. Jesus would never have analyzed his worth and the need of his message, then tossed the most likely to be not productive child out the boat to save his own life. Do you understand?

Originally posted by inanna1234
I agree with you 100 percent! Women and men are not equal and never will be or should be. Women are physically weaker on average. It doesn't mean that men are better then women, it just means their a lot stronger! You're right, if everyone thought every man for himself there would be no more humans!

I'm a women and enjoy being feminine, society is trying to masculate us.

So, for you, femininity is about being weak? If I can take care of myself, lift heavy boxes, open jars, I am therefore not feminine by your surmise? Equality is nothing to do with physical strength, we all contribute different things, I am much stronger than some men, I am much weaker than others, likewise with women. Do you believe that leadership or superiority should be decided upon by a test of physical prowess?

Originally posted by inanna1234
How is it that women and children contribute less to society. A women once bore Einstien in her womb and raised him into the good man that he became. Einstien was once a child was he not? I really don't see how women and children are poor contributors to society?

I am sure that while Einstein was glad to have been born that he would have liked to recieve some of the credit for his accomplishments, after all, he was very well grown by the time he made them. (Almost) Any idiot afterall, can bear a child, and frequently they do. It is no accomplishment to fulfill that most basic of biological functions. To be a 'good' mother is certainly a worthy aspiration, but so is being a good father, and as I understand it Einstein had one of those too, as most of us do. Which had the most influence on his education and development, mother or father, beyond the initial biological function and therefore contributed most to Einstein is perhaps more pertinent.