Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #1
This thread is about the idea of women and children being evacuated first in a disaster. I was reading an article on the cruise ship that capsized off the coast of Italy and the crew said that they tried to get Women and children on lifeboats first but that the Men wanted to get on too to 'stay as a family'. Apparently this caused confusion.
What I wonder is: in an apparently non-sexist society, why this rule still applies. I support the children part, but this is an area in which a women's life is being valued over that of a man, which is sexist.
Edit:
07/02/2012
I think a better scenario is you have enough time but not enough capacity.
-
-
It's out of respect for the women. A man is supposed to lay down his life for the women he loves, it's been that way for years.
Also, care to post a link to the article?
-
Oh i thought this was about the Van Halen album...
-
because men are traditionally considered to be braver? That they are willing to die if it means saving women? I don't know why, but I don't see why it's a problem. (and is it really sexism if men came up with it?)
Edited:
and because chivalry isn't dead.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16561382
Also, I am not saying that men should be allowed to give their place, but to have it engraved in the rules is sexist.
In the article "He said children and women were given priority when it came to allocating places on lifeboats, but the system proved to be difficult to implement because many men "weren't accepting this" because they wanted to remain together as a family, prompting "huge confusion"."
-
see. If they accepted it, the "huge confusion" could have been avoided.
-
I can't blame them for not just laying down their lives. They have as much of a right to life as anyone else.
-
If a matter of social standing gets in way of your family and or your life you shouldn't simply "accept" it. Issues like these should be under-minded and erased from a modern society.
-
well seeing as only 3 people died, "laying their lives down" is an overstatement.
Edited:
but then what should be the system for this? first people to the boats get them?
-
Firstly, that incident was simply an example of a wider issue. At the time I doubt they knew if they were going to survive. Also, 3 is the current death toll but 70 are unnaccounted for. Not all of them are likely dead but I would be surprised if it didn't rise.
-
still, what would be the right way for handling this? and I never said they had less of a right to life, but it's just the right thing to do.
-
It should simply be Children first, then elderly/injured/infirm, then adults.
-
why? Anyone has the same claim to life. ANYONE.
Though i do understand children first, women, i do not.
-
Right and wrong are very debatable words. Honor to some can mean dishonor to others, the order in which people get onto life boats shouldn't ever come up as a social issue.
-
Personally, if there was a boat going down and there was only one lifeboat left and it was only me in a group with alot of women and children left, i would bulldoze the FUCK out of anyone to get on that lifeboat/something.
-
that makes a lot of sense. I would be surprised if this isn't done, actually.
Edited:
Because traditionally that is what men do. I'm not saying it should be like a rule, but to me seems like common sense.
Edited:
how is it not a social issue?
-
I would say that is a little extreme. I would not value your right on that boat over that of the women, although seen as you have a better chance of survival without the boat the children should take precedence, although there should be a few adults on board for obvious reasons.
-
It isn't a social issue in that it is a simple matter of getting on a boat to preserve yourself, it doesn't or shouldn't matter which order people board the boat.
-
Gender roles and it's stupid.
-
I see it as yet another idiotic gender role. Nobody should be asked to lay down their lives in favor of others just because the others have a vagina.
Just because men are traditionally considered braver doesn't mean they are. If they're willing to die, let them, but don't make the men who don't want to die do it too.
-
I would let the women on first, but I was raised in an older family and I guess that's why I think like that. My dad went to school with most of my friends Grandparents. So maybe my thoughts are just old, but I would let a women go in my stead, and try and help as many people as I could in the process of getting off the vessel.
-
If I was in a situation such as that I would say fuck that, because I'm not about to die for the sake of being chivalrous. There is no reason women should have more of a priority than men.
-
Can't say I'd be happy about giving up my seat on a life boat to a girl who's first instinct is to post on facebook about the ship sinking.
-
What happened to equal rights?
Wouldn't the term and action of "Women and children first" be sexism?
-
Chivalry indeed. That's the only thing I can think of I guess. Something in my male brain makes me go "But of course! We must save the women and children." But the egocentric coward within me says "Fuck that!" So I'm a bit torn on this.
-
A great man once said; If you are a dick, People shall mess with your title
January 2011
3,595 Posts
It is a gentlemanly thing dating back to way back, it is the same thing as putting your coat on a puddle for a woman or a more modern example; paying for her dinner.
-
Well if a person wishes to give their life for another, whether man or woman, that's their decision, but it shouldn't be the standard policy for this kind of thing.
-
what if there aren't enough boats for everyone? Than it does become a social issue.
-
It shouldn't be a requirement, it's just chivalry.
-
I think it's justified. It's not necessarily sexist so much as an honor principle. And it has practical applications. Children need to be protected first and foremost - I don't think that point is being debated. Furthermore, men are (for the most part) far stronger physically than women are (They are socially expected to be, and they are better genetically equipped to gain muscle mass) and so, as the last evacuees, will be better able to provide assistance necessary to save more lives until they're allowed to evacuate.
-
And what about the men who are weaker than average or the women who are stronger than average? Wouldn't it be better to just treat everyone equally in this manner than just operate on the assumption that all people in trouble will correspond to averages?
And honour principle or not, it's still based on sexism, the idea that men's lives and women's lives are not equal.
-
I understand the children part, but I disagree that letting women on first should be a rule so much as a choice. If I'm on a sinking ship, I don't give a fuck what my genitals look like. I want to live.
-
I don't like the idea of Chivalry, at least not in the sense that you should be kind and noble to women, because I think it makes a lot more sense to be kind and noble to everyone regardless of gender, and that nobody should get special treatment because of what they have in their pants.
-
I'd consider it honourable to let the women on first (obviously after the children). That's just how I've been raised, still following the old ways to a degree.
Honourable, as in putting women before myself.
-
Too bad.
-
I don't like the way that people just go "lol it's honorable and ~tradition~ plus I guess I just got raised in the old ways"
like tradition is an automatic pass, it's actually a good thing, and you can't change the way you think
-
It's an idiotic way of thinking. Why should men have to sacrifice their lives just because "it's tradition lol"
Maybe that's how you were taught to think, but then again that's how many homophobics are taught to think.
-
Actually now that i think about it.
300 people left in the world
150 each female and male
lifeboats only hold up to 151 people total
if 150 females and 1 male get on the race can survive
if 150 males and 1 female get on then it can survive but same genes and eventually we all become retarded
-
I think it makes more sense to say "Civilians first" instead of "Woman and children first."
It would be less sexist, since in such a situation, women may be serving as police/firefighters/soldiers.
-
Or split it into 75 of each gender and then the race can survive while being more or less equal.
Actually choosing one gender to become dominant and only one of the other gender is quite possibly the dumbest thing you could do in that situation. You're facing a world where civilization no longer exists. You're facing disease and constant danger. If that one person dies, well then everyone is fucked.
