Do you agree? Women and children first?

If you think about it, do you really agree with the whole save women and children first?

Sure, I agree, but only if it's MY woman and MY children. But if it's strangers.... screw that, I'm saving myself first.

If you actually look at the bigger picture, what are the odds the woman or child you sacrificed your life for will actually have a positive impact on the world? I mean, if you believe you will do good for the world, then by all means save yourself. If you are just a bum who unfortunately ended up in a situation like that, maybe it's best for you to sacrifice yourself. lol. But for me, I have big plans in life.

But don't get me wrong, I'm willing to sacrifice myself for my friends and family though if it ever came down to it.

So what if women can reproduce? As a man, I can reproduce with many many other women. There isn't a scarcity of man. Not by a long shot. With one man, you can have 100 babies in 9 months. With one woman, you can only have 1 baby every 9 months. lol.

I guess you can call me selfish for wanting to save myself instead of total strangers. I'm sure many people think like this too though.

Yeah you are selfish and illogical too. Yes I agree women and children first, you don't even have to justify it, its just chivalry.

So if you were a bum then you would think you should die but someone who has big plans should live. So you think bums are bums because they want to be or because they don't have "big plans" and you think just because you have "big plans' that that guarantees success or means that your life is any more valuable than someone else's.

I would imagine that if there were a bunch of people who think like you at the end, you guys would all run away and save yourselves and let the women and children die then we'll see how you reproduce. Thats assuming your family isn't there, if they are and you save them alone, then good luck with the inbreeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idealistic

So what if women can reproduce? As a man, I can reproduce with many many other women. There isn't a scarcity of man. Not by a long shot. With one man, you can have 100 babies in 9 months. With one woman, you can only have 1 baby every 9 months. lol.

---

This is just stupid and there is a reason they don't say women first or women and girls first. Its women and children. Just to say, if it came down to me, I would ensure that people like you don't survive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abdula

asdf

---

Well I sort of meant the whole bum thing as a joke, but I didn't really imply it as a joke I guess.

Ok, you save women and children first. What if the children are all girls and then there are no men? We'll see how much they reproduce then too. Have fun having scissor sex for the rest of their lifes.

Inbreeding? They'll eventually turn out normal... Look at how we all turned out and we all started from Adam and Eve. If you believe in that story that is. Hah.

Who's to say guys like me wouldn't be able to run right over you? We might be the one to push you out the way and you'll fall into the ocean or something and die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idealistic

Who's to say guys like me wouldn't be able to run right over you? We might be the one to push you out the way and you'll fall into the ocean or something and die.

---

Bum reaction isn't it?

I guess that those who think they are special because they would have some big plans with their lives, worth saving them could be considered bums in the situation you describe.

Anyways, it's all pure speculation, cause no one know how they will react when facing such difficult moments. I was near that once (whole village circled by forest in flames) but hopefully no one was hurt and there wasn't such choice to make.

I would guess that 90% (at least) people would just run just for themselves.
It would turn 100% if there's fire nearing them, just because fire is just awfully painful and people prefer dying on the spot (or running over anything/anyone) than staying in the flames...

If we're judging this on how much impact said individuals would make in the aftermath, I'd still save the women and children first. That's probably only because I don't have a lot of self-worth and honestly, I haven't and probably will never make a huge difference or impact in society.

And even if the people I'm saving don't either, I'd still go out of my way to save them. Especially children, because if I wasn't willing to trade my nineteen years to ensure that some six year old lives on, I'd feel guilty the rest of my life.

I think the only exception is if some really fat chick needed me to save her. I'm not talking chubby... I'm talking enormous and shit. I'd be like, "Screw that, I'm outta here!"

I would never let a bitch go before me. That's just what we need, more women sitting on their fat asses doing nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idealistic

Inbreeding? They'll eventually turn out normal... Look at how we all turned out and we all started from Adam and Eve. If you believe in that story that is. Hah.

---

I believe God created more people after Adam and Eve?


But anyway, I agree. Well, if I was a guy, I'd agree anyway. It's mostly because children have their whole lives ahead of them still...

Actually, Abdula's post just sums the whole damn thing up.

But why is women btw? Is it because they're natural nurturers(sp?) and can take care of children? or is it because they can reproduce? OR...maybe...it's because they're a bit physically weaker than men?

I always wanted to know how women felt about that. Yeah for all those reasons among others most importantly the fact that men feel superior and thusly think its their responsibility to take care of and protect the women. I think that is the most important reason and most people in those situations would usually rely on instinct rather than logic and most men's instinct would be to protect the women and children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junior

I believe God created more people after Adam and Eve?

---

I was going to mention that and I was also going to mention the fact that at the time Adam and Eve were created they weren't the only "people" on the earth but then I remembered its Idealistic so I didn't bother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idealistic

So what if women can reproduce? As a man, I can reproduce with many many other women. There isn't a scarcity of man. Not by a long shot. With one man, you can have 100 babies in 9 months. With one woman, you can only have 1 baby every 9 months. lol.

---

That's a poor rationale. If anything, we need less men in the world, because the ability to repopulate is bottlenecked by the number of women available. Haven't you ever seen the movie, Dr. Strangelove?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abdula

I always wanted to know how women felt about that. Yeah for all those reasons among others most importantly the fact that men feel superior and thusly think its their responsibility to take care of and protect the women. I think that is the most important reason and most people in those situations would usually rely on instinct rather than logic and most men's instinct would be to protect the women and children.

I was going to mention that and I was also going to mention the fact that at the time Adam and Eve were created they weren't the only "people" on the earth but then I remembered its Idealistic so I didn't bother.

---

Hey, that makes sense. Because normally, when you're in a crisis or situation, you tend to rely on your instincts. You're really clever. ^^;
I think this is just another reason why women love men. XD;

XD If Adam and Eve were the only ones, I think we'd all look a bit off since it'd be inbreeding. Serious inbreeding.

Quote:

---

That's a poor rationale. If anything, we need less men in the world, because the ability to repopulate is bottlenecked by the number of women available. Haven't you ever seen the movie, Dr. Strangelove?

---

Dr. Strangelove? What's it about?

ya, its women and children first cuz of chivalry and such, which comes from the natural instinct of men to be the protectors and such...perhaps not as applicable now, but its hardwired into out genes, so its tough to ignore.

However, my one quibble with the women and children first issue, is the feminist movement. logically speaking, the benefit of a child surviving outweigh the benefits of and average man surviving. However, with the sexual equality movement and the hordes of pmsing 40 something women whining about how they deserve to be treated as equals, and how they dont need a man take care of them, im all for removing the 'women' part from 'women and children first'.

....atleast where the feminists are concerned.

Wow Assassin I don't know whether to laugh or to get upset, nice one.

Feminists tend to blur the line between "equality" and "special treatment" anyway.

Personally I'd try to protect anyone I care about, but as for people I don't know at all, I really can't say how I'd react. I like to think I'd be helpful and selfless, but the self-preservation instinct has to kick in some time.

Quote:

---

XD If Adam and Eve were the only ones, I think we'd all look a bit off since it'd be inbreeding. Serious inbreeding.

---

I remember this article that el_boss posted a long while ago that claimed humans were natural polygamists, and I guess to some degree that would imply a fair amount of "in breeding".

I thought Chivalry started around the 11th century due to the Templar Knights. :/

Saving women and children first is not logical in the slightest. As any person knows, the instinct to save oneself is the most powerful force in the world. :P

BY saving women and children first, we basically override that instinct within ourselves. Self preservation has and always will be a part of man and woman before that illogical statement of save women and children first. Scientifically it holds no truth to it. Genetically, 0 proof that such a thing even happens where we as humans will want to stand idly by for 5 minutes while women and children are saved. Self preservation kicks in. Judging by today's world as well, women (judging from all the women who want to spend less time with their own children, Which is quite high), they obviously do not feel the need to want to jump in a fire to save their own flesh and blood, since well... they stand their crying for "Help." Who saves that child? A man, that's who. So it's not so much a genetic error, more like, the situtation of today's world. Doing so, proves you're a man and a hero.

However, 1000 years ago, a man would have been knighted and given a kingdom to rule over had he killed women and children and everyone would have praised said man and thrown a banquet in his name. It's all society and what is accepted.

Personally, I say if you're fast enough and strong enough to carry an extra person or 2, First one to the exit wins! :) <3

Why dawdle around and stand their idly by while a 90 y.o grandmother takes 5 minutes to move? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Skill

women (judging from all the women who want to spend less time with their own children, Which is quite high), they obviously do not feel the need to want to jump in a fire to save their own flesh and blood, since well... they stand their crying for "Help." Who saves that child? A man, that's who.

---

Keep in mind, that only applies to women who don't spend any time with their children at all. Any woman who's even a slightly less negligible mother than, say, Brittany Spears, thinks of the safety of their children before anything at all. I'd go so far as to say they act completely irrationally for the sake of their child's safety. I've witnessed this in real life, as I'm sure a lot of you have.

Edit: But I guess you do have a point about women often being "worriers" rather than men, who are "actors". I won't deny that.

Ya, women nowadays do not act like our mothers did, 20 years ago or 30 years ago.

I agree that yes there are women out there who put the safety of children first. :) <3

no, you can't protect anyone if you are dead/injured.

I'm not sexist, nor am I a pedophile.

Therefore I save myself first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David75

Bum reaction isn't it?

---

Umm.... I'd just rather save myself over a bunch of strangers. Doesn't automatically make me a bad person though I will tell you that.

I would save the women and children first, because I have faith and confidence in my ability to save myself once everyone else is ok. I'd even stick around to save other guys who needed help. In giving of myself to save these others, karma and the cosmos would do their parts to make sure I got out ok too.

Though I always say, us nice guys finish last.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Animeniax

I would save the women and children first, because I have faith and confidence in my ability to save myself once everyone else is ok. I'd even stick around to save other guys who needed help. In giving of myself to save these others, karma and the cosmos would do their parts to make sure I got out ok too.

Though I always say, us nice guys finish last.

---

What about a situation like the Titanic? It was women and children first, and they didn't have enough lifeboats... So, if you give up all the available spots... are you still confident enough to survive a sinking ship?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SamuraiOdin

What about a situation like the Titanic? It was women and children first, and they didn't have enough lifeboats... So, if you give up all the available spots... are you still confident enough to survive a sinking ship?

---

Sure why not. I'd jump on a piece of wood or deck chair or into a bathtub and float to safety, probably more comfortably than those in the lifeboats. Karma would guide me to shore. I might have a case of the chills and maybe some frostbite, but I'd also have the peace of mind that I did the right thing. If nothing else, I'd do a backstroke to return to civilization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Animeniax

Sure why not. I'd jump on a piece of wood or deck chair or into a bathtub and float to safety, probably more comfortably than those in the lifeboats. Karma would guide me to shore. I might have a case of the chills and maybe some frostbite, but I'd also have the peace of mind that I did the right thing. If nothing else, I'd do a backstroke to return to civilization.

---

How about a lava pit, and the platform can only hold so many while waiting for a rescue chopper to arrive.

Dun dun dun!

Maybe we also have to highlight some facts:
We are speaking theoretically. I guess no one had to face such events.

There are two main streams of ideas:
Chivalry
Survival of mankind.

Honestly, in our lives the probability of being in a situation where you have to choose beetween saving your life or other ones is extremely low.

Probability for one where you have to worry about the survival of mankind is even lower.

So mentionning the fact that you have to save children and women because and be careful to have enough males for reproduction is a tad extreme, isn't it?

So I guess we can focus on the dire situation where you have to choose beetween yourself and others.

Keeping in mind you probably don't know about your own instincts regarding such situations.

Yeah. The whole discussion is purely speculative for most of us. I reckon nobody of us has been aboard of a sinking ship. And even if someone had been, these days they have plenty of lifeboats and rafts. And in theory they should also have plenty of staff trained to use them and thus customers of either sex aren't necessary to stand there organising stuff until the ship sinks. So, it would be even meaningful for every man to try to save his own skin. However, I also deem it somewhat likely most of us would risk it to help some lost child separated from her parents when running to the deck and the lifeboats, simply because if you had been in a similar situation, you'd have wanted to be saved.

One interesting thing about the men's instinct is that it has been used as an explanation (or excuse?) of why women in the past were prevented from serving in the military in combat roles. It was said it would endanger operations because the men would go out of their way to save or protect female comrades, taking unnecessary risks.

I view the sentence in a diffrent way.

in a sinking boat, men have an adventage becuase of thier physice', and it can cause a situation of 'everyone to himself", which would lead to men pushing over the women and children.
point is, that men, as the stronger group in that situation, should take special means to ensure the safety of the weaker groups, since if things turn to worse (water level rises, a fire breakes out), men still have the better chance at survival than the women.

Chevilary towards women is bullshit, it happens only becuase men believe that all women share information about potentiel spouses. so that whenever a guy helps an ugly woman, he's actually trying to score with her hot friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Death BOO Z

I view the sentence in a diffrent way.

in a sinking boat, men have an adventage becuase of thier physice', and it can cause a situation of 'everyone to himself", which would lead to men pushing over the women and children.
point is, that men, as the stronger group in that situation, should take special means to ensure the safety of the weaker groups, since if things turn to worse (water level rises, a fire breakes out), men still have the better chance at survival than the women.

Chevilary towards women is bullshit, it happens only becuase men believe that all women share information about potentiel spouses. so that whenever a guy helps an ugly woman, he's actually trying to score with her hot friend.

---

unfortunately, women have a better chance of surviving in cold water than men.
You can google a bit for more details ;)

When I see men being non chivalrous towards women, I go out of my way to make them pay for it. If we were on the theoretical sinking ship and I saw a man pushing women and children out of his way to save himself, he'd be dead meat. I'd chuck a harpoon at his head. If for nothing else, who would want to be the lone coward of a man on a lifeboat full of women and children?

@David75: I imagine its because of women's higher body fat percentage that makes them able to survive longer in cold temps. I saw some science show where a fat guy and a skinny guy sat in a freezer locker and they measured their body temps. The skinny guy shivered more and had a lower body temp and had to leave sooner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Animeniax

@David75: I imagine its because of women's higher body fat percentage that makes them able to survive longer in cold temps. I saw some science show where a fat guy and a skinny guy sat in a freezer locker and they measured their body temps. The skinny guy shivered more and had a lower body temp and had to leave sooner.

---

Correct. Fat percentage, and also how the fat is placed in the body are two of the main points explaining why women tend to have better resistance.
It seems they are also better equiped towards pain, be it strong and short, or moderate but for a longer time.

For example it seems that some women are top rank in endurance swiming in cold water (typically swiming for very long distance/time in the ocean or similar type of events.)

So I guess there's only chivalry left ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Assassin

ya, its women and children first cuz of chivalry and such, which comes from the natural instinct of men to be the protectors and such...perhaps not as applicable now, but its hardwired into out genes, so its tough to ignore.

However, my one quibble with the women and children first issue, is the feminist movement. logically speaking, the benefit of a child surviving outweigh the benefits of and average man surviving. However, with the sexual equality movement and the hordes of pmsing 40 something women whining about how they deserve to be treated as equals, and how they dont need a man take care of them, im all for removing the 'women' part from 'women and children first'.

....atleast where the feminists are concerned.

---

I actually thought about the feminist thing. XD

Can someone explain...chivalry to me? I googled it but wikipedia was a bit confusing.

1. qualities of ideal knight: the combination of qualities expected of the ideal medieval knight, especially courage, honor, loyalty, and consideration for others, especially women

2. chivalrous behavior: considerate and courteous behavior, especially shown by a man toward women

3. medieval knighthood: the medieval concept of knighthood, and the customs, practices, social system, and religious and personal ideals associated with knights and their way of life

I agree with David and Ani especially this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Animeniax

When I see men being non chivalrous towards women, I go out of my way to make them pay for it. If we were on the theoretical sinking ship and I saw a man pushing women and children out of his way to save himself, he'd be dead meat. I'd chuck a harpoon at his head. If for nothing else, who would want to be the lone coward of a man on a lifeboat full of women and children?

---

Apparently unlike most of you I have been in situations like these on multiple occasions but maybe I've just had an exciting life and I grew up around people who are willing to and often sacrifice themselves for others but that is just me.

To you guys who are so worried about dying, death isn't that scary and you will die someday and sometimes losing your life is worth the sacrifice. If you die trying to save someone its just the price you pay. I could never disrespect someone who gives their life for someone else.

Really all you guys going on and on about self preservation are just a bunch of cowards.

That's pretty presumptuous of you, Abdula.

I think I agree with Kraco's answer:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraco

Yeah. The whole discussion is purely speculative for most of us. I reckon nobody of us has been aboard of a sinking ship. And even if someone had been, these days they have plenty of lifeboats and rafts. And in theory they should also have plenty of staff trained to use them and thus customers of either sex aren't necessary to stand there organising stuff until the ship sinks. So, it would be even meaningful for every man to try to save his own skin. However, I also deem it somewhat likely most of us would risk it to help some lost child separated from her parents when running to the deck and the lifeboats, simply because if you had been in a similar situation, you'd have wanted to be saved.

---

Most of this is speculation. In the sinking ship scenario, if you don't have a reason to sacrifice yourself, then you shouldn't. There's always the fact that you will be able to help more people if you are alive, rather than being irrational and throwing your life away for an ideal. I'm not saying people wouldn't help and not be selfless (because I know I would, or at least would like to be), but you'd really have to take every factor into account here.

Edit: Animeniax also has a pretty reasonable answer. If you feel confident in your ability to save yourself, then go ahead and help everyone else. lol bathtub.

Wow, Xan accusing me of being reasonable. That's a first.

Unfortunately it's probably overconfidence in my ability to save myself that would spell my doom. For instance, I doubt I could seriously backstroke to safety. I'm not that strong a swimmer.

@Idealistic: is this volcano in Japan? Cause I'd sacrifice myself to save some Japanese chicks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Animeniax

Wow, Xan accusing me of being reasonable. That's a first.

---

I decided to ignore your suggestion that you could backstroke your way home because hey why not?

Also the idea of you floating around the mid-Atlantic in a bathtub for several days made me laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XanBcoo

That's pretty presumptuous of you, Abdula.

I think I agree with Kraco's answer:

There's always the fact that you will be able to help more people if you are alive, rather than being irrational and throwing your life away for an ideal.

---

Thats what I said, thats def. the smartest thing to do.
Its also the reason why in those disaster instruction vids on planes they tell you to put your own mask on first, same with boats and life jackets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abdula

Apparently unlike most of you I have been in situations like these on multiple occasions but maybe I've just had an exciting life and I grew up around people who are willing to and often sacrifice themselves for others but that is just me.

To you guys who are so worried about dying, death isn't that scary and you will die someday and sometimes losing your life is worth the sacrifice. If you die trying to save someone its just the price you pay. I could never disrespect someone who gives their life for someone else.

Really all you guys going on and on about self preservation are just a bunch of cowards.

---

you've been in multiple life threatening situations like fires, sinking ships, bank robberies etc? care to give us some details?

And you hardly have the right to call anyone a coward for following the most basic of human instincts. If you really feel that wanting to save your life instead of sacrificing it for someone else is cowardly, feel free to fly to darfur or some other war torn country and gie your life for a family. I'll even pay for your ticket.

As for chivalry, even though its described as the being very 'knight like', the vast majority of medieval knights were fairly brutal and unchivalrous. They had power and status, and with no one to tell them otherwise, they could pretty much do anything they liked to anyone of a lower status.

Yeah I have, actually I thought most people have been but I guess not. No I don't care to give any details. As for calling people cowards its well within my rights but I just felt like some of the comments were just cowardly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XanBcoo

rather than being irrational and throwing your life away for an ideal.

---

I said nothing of the sort.

I can't swim. If the boat is sinking and nobody saves me because I'm a guy, I'd be pretty pissed and for good reason.

Lol, that would be pretty funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XanBcoo

You can just hop in Animeniax's bathtub.

He can be the captain and you will be his first mate. I guess you can fashion some sort of flag out of the clothes of dead children or something.

---

Wow just imagine that. I don't think the tub would be able to contain that much nerd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abdula

I said nothing of the sort.

---

I was getting that vibe. Unless you're at the point of knocking over women and children to get yourself to safety, I'm going defend self-preservation. There's nothing cowardly about it and it doesn't imply selfishness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Board of Command

I can't swim. If the boat is sinking and nobody saves me because I'm a guy, I'd be pretty pissed and for good reason.

---

You can just hop in Animeniax's bathtub.

He can be the captain and you will be his first mate. I guess you can fashion some sort of flag out of the clothes of dead children or something. I really don't know how that fits in with the whole Chivalry thing.

I need to take one baby with me to plug up the bathtub drain with.

If it's a situation where you are trying to save as many people out of a group, you need to make the escape groups as likely to survive as possible.

if you make all the children get into the lifeboat, you really think they'll be able to guide it to shore? or use the flares/tools onboard? You send enough capable men first with the children to protect them.

You don't send all the doctors out on the first train, because do you think the scientists in escape train #2 can patch wounds up if they're hit by enemy fire? You distribute the doctors equally to each.

You don't send only women in an escape pod, because what if it's the only one to survive while the rest of humanity is wiped out?

If it's a situation where you're defending from an opposing threat:
Consolidate all those who can defend themselves to defeat the threat. In a cornered situation, this means getting the babies, invalids, and old geezers out of the way so they won't be distractions. You give no preference based on gender unless it is also a 'humanity wipeout' situation. Focus on defeating the threat.

It's all chaos anyway.
So look out for number one. then find number two, etc.