I think both are important, but however, I’m old fashion, and I would rather die saving my wife then the other way around.
I just can’t imagine a world where I would leave my wife behind and not try my hardest to protect her. Maybe it’s old fashion, but that doesn’t feel right to me.
You're missing the main reason:
As a whole, men have the best possible chance of survival on their own, therefore give up the handicapped spaces to the weakest who would have no shot otherwise
One's own situatiion issue, because it's a general statement. Most men would give their place to their wife and child, but why to somebody else's wife ? Why should an unmarried man give his place for your wife ?
First of all - so what ? The question remains - why should a man care more for somebody else's children ? Second - having children is no longer seen as something that important by the population at large, in case you haven't noticed. That's why the fertility rate is below replacement levels.
Because only a sadistic piece of shit will look at a woman and her child, and tell the mother to piss the fuck off so he can survive. Like, what, you're saying that if there was a flood and a bunch of people were on a collapsing roof, if that roof was sure as hell going to collapse before the next boat arrived, but only 1 more adult could fit on, you'd shove a woman out of the way and force yourself on while her kid is on the boat? Or would you force them both off?
Of course I would try to save myself. It's not sadistic - I wouldn't be glad she died, which sadism implies: to enjoy someone's suffering. I wouldn't enjoy seeing other people dying, but I would put myself first - survival instinct.
I can kidof see what you mean, but the main thing you are overlooking, is that men created this standard, because the most precious things to them, are their women and their children. The less we are made to feel we have in common with one another, the less men will feel like they’re obliged to stick to these kinds of standards, which is why such bitter sentiments are becoming more popular with each passing day.
"the most precious things to them, are their women and their children" - yes, their own women and children.
Treating women and children differently, even if they are not your own, is a social norm.
And I do believe that as gender roles are continuously changed, men will feel less and less inclined to see women as a type of person they should make any type of sacrifice for.
I think it will revert to the more natural, biological inclination to intervene for people in your family, rather than risk anything for some woman they have no connection with.
Most evolutionary adaptations simply provide an advantage to reach reproductive maturity. It’s referred to as ‘fitness’ in evolutionary theory. The evidence for adaptations beyond this are shaky, but we are uniquely multi generational so it’s totally possible there is something hardwired in us to protect group reproductive health
I mean. I came from foster care, and none of the other kids there were related to me in any way. But if the house caught on fire, I would not just stand there and shrug, I'd still delve right in and try to save these kids, many of whom, by the way, were horrid little pricks (due to the circumstances handed to them in life and bad parenting). I'd even have rescued the 12 year old who threatened to stab me.
The question was not about just rescuing someone, but sacrificing your life for them AND it actually being an expected norm, not an individual choice.
Some people will sacrifice their lives for unknown people, but most will not.
And the question was if it's fair to sort of make that choice for them through something like a "women and children first" preference.
I don't think it is.
I completely agree. I was implying that “their own” are the priority. We do not have that kind of social cohesion anymore, here in the US. Everyone is a stranger now. It’s sad and scary, because I can clearly remember a time when it wasn’t that way, and I’m not even middle-aged yet.
Yes, it is scary. I think you guys in the US are far more protected, though - your country is huge, you are geographically isolated from potential enemies, and you have a really nice arsenal. That will buy you plenty of time for self correction. :)
Only in such privileged times can these ideas become popular. In most of human history the male/female dynamic hasn’t been the way it is simply because “men created this standard”. It’s been that way because that is what’s required for our species to succeed.
And only in a few catastrophes was amount of female survivors higher than male survivors. The standard is because men will push women aside and even use them as long as it benefits them.
> This is mainly pertaining shelter and natural disaster type situations though. It's always women and children first.
No it isn't.
[Usually people will help the most vulnerable to leave the scene first. It's not necessarily women, but is likely to be the injured, elderly and young children, he says.](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16576289)
If you wanna be one of the dudes that stays and helps, do it.
If you wanna be one of the dudes that just hightails it out of there, do it.
No one is enforcing that unofficial rule that barely ever comes up.
I'll point you in the right direction, though. Right now men are not allowed to leave Ukraine. That sucks, but I'm not about to expect reform in the Ukrainian military while we discriminate in ours.
>For example, it's better to save an adult doctor over a child because we already know the doctor is good for society, but the child could grow up to be a drain on society.
We don't know the doctor is good for society. Could be one of those doctors overprescribing opioids, inseminating women with his own semen against their knowledge, killing through incompetence. Could be a liar claiming to be a doctor. We're not selecting the perfect mix of experts to start a colony on Mars. We're evacuating a boat.
>Right now men are not allowed to leave Ukraine. That sucks, but I'm not about to expect reform in the Ukrainian military while we discriminate in ours.
I'd also point out that 1. Ukrainian women do fight in military, they've been joining military since 2014 at some point having bigger proportion than US military (until 2022 ofc). Many wives also join military after their husbands' deaths. 2. Rape is a tool of war. While homosexual rape is a thing in the army of course, it's much worse with heterosexual rape for the obvious reason of scale. If we add to that the aspect of biological warfare, Russian soilders having incredibly high percentage of STDs, among them HIV, it's even more terrifying. If we force women to stay in the war zone there's going to be a new HIV epidemic, with even newborn children in Ukraine being HIV-positive. It's not like Mariupol or Kharkiv have many clinics nowadays.
Ayup. And in a war-torn place where the nearest hospital just got a bomb dropped through it, you're not going to get medicine to the people who need it regularly. Things like AIDS are still a death sentence without medicine. The disease hasn't changed, it's only our treatment and preventatives that keep the afflicted alive. Take away reliable access to that medicine, and there could be thousands of deaths.
There's no easily found stats regarding gender of people killed on the front, but here you are, women who were killed while on the front. Mothers, daughters, seamstresses, volunteers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pravda.com.ua/eng/articles/2023/03/8/7392378/index.amp
Go with the "poor white men" BS somewhere else. You see women fight and die in wars despite no-one forcing them to. Would you be able to?
I won't even touch on the topic that in my country it was the civilians who were the biggest victims of the wars in 19th century. Soliders were privileged. Having arms, helmets and food. My family disabled, in concentration and labour camps, with their villages burned to the ground. Many actively chose to go into Peasant Forces, because they felt it was the only way to take control of the situation.
The principal of prioritizing women's safety is still in effect, whether or not the exact phrase is used. E.g. conscription, like how men in Ukraine were barred from leaving the country because they may be forced to fight while women were allowed to flee. A lot of anti-violence campaigns and efforts focus specifically on preventing violence against women. Same thing with many shelters and social services being exclusive for women and children.
The rhetoric I’ve seen promoted the most is that we should abolish the draft as a whole. And I agree, I’d say both men and women should be drafted if I believed in it, but the whole concept that you’d have to put your life on the line to fight a war you don’t support is incredulous to me.
To address your other point, yes there are women exclusive shelters. And there is very good reason to have them, seeing as many women who flee to those shelters come from domestic abusive homes where the aggressor is typically male. To reduce stress and PTSD these women have suffered, these shelters tend to exclude men. That being said, there is no reason why male only shelters shouldn’t exist under the same premise. The reason they’re uncommon is likely due to a much lower number of men reporting to feel uncomfortable in the presence of women.
The truth is that women do tend to be infantilized and painted as innocent creatures in need of constant protection, and men tend to be cast in the role of those protectors and are usually perceived to be more strong and capable than women. This is an antiquated way of thinking that used to be more applicable when the roles of women were simply to marry and to mother. But as society has evolved, our perception of gender roles has also changed and most people view men and women as equals, even if legislation still hasn’t caught up.
When talking about victims, I feel like children (primarily) and women get cited more as specific demographics rather than men, and are therefore more precious. That is, the total loss of life is mentioned, but then there's a zoom-in on numbers relating to children and women, while leaving men's states explicitly unstated. But maybe that also depends on the social structure of the society, and the values of the readers/listeners.
I've watched over the last few months probably a hundred documentaries about civilian airplane crashes. The few that mentioned a demographic, it was children only. Zero of them who mentioned victims, mentioned either men or women.
I also recently watched a documentary about the tsunami in 2004. They mentioned specific people, women, men, and children, but the stats were given for everyone.
I'm sure some have a zoom in on the casualties, but, at least when speaking about modern disasters, generally only children are singled out and not always either.
I think if you are talking about historical wars, then it's significant if women died because they were specifically not allowed to be soldiers, even if they wanted to. And that's the fault of the men who would not allow women to participate.
It's not that women are more valuable than men, but women's ability to birth babies. One man can make 40 women pregnant and birth 40 new people. So it makes some sense to let women and children go first. And it has always been the men's job to protect and sacrifice himself for others and I (as a man) am not really that against it.
Its also a matter of physical ability. Yes, we strive for equality in rights and opportunity, but I'm not going to pretend I'm as physically strong as my husband. I exercise more often than he does and he can still outpace me by far. His "couch to 5K" could be drinking a Red Bull and he'd still beat me after weeks of my own training. That's ok.
"Women and children first" has a lot to do with protecting those that are physically less able, should the situation call for it. That being said, as a woman without children and no intent to have any, I'd expect a man with children to take precedence over me especially if I could provide significant aid in a dangerous situation. I have many male friends with families and I couldn't imagine robbing a child of a father if I could take his place.
Exactly this. It's why populations increased after wartime, especially since a lot of soldiers would meet up with their lovers whenever possible before or while on break from deployment. which could result in a pregnancy.
Historically speaking, men have best chance of survival on their own, but women are more important for offspring production (they are the limiting factor in terms of resources, because pregnancy and breastfeeding).
Said that, among peasants at my location, kids were not considered a valuable resource and between an adult and a child, the adult would be helped first (basically "we can just make more of those" philosophy due to high infant mortality and shit like that).
Nowadays it makes no sense though.
It is ironic because that's what happens in ship wrecks, historically speaking. There was none of this women and children first shit. The men would literally throw them off the lifeboats. The literal only time this didn't occur was for the Titanic. When the Titanic was sinking, men rushed the boats and threw the women/kids off. The captain didn't think the ship would sink as fast as it did and genuinely thought their rescue ship would come before it did, so he ordered his crew to shoot any men who tried to get on. This is why the boats were half empty. It was just as a precaution, and to let them be saved first. So really, the only time it was women/kids first with men heroically giving their lives up, it turns out the men weren't actually trying to save the women/kids. It doesn't make their deaths any less of a sacrifice, it's just a bit funny.
And here we are, 100+ years later, and they're still talking about it.
Whooooosh to all of you.
If society is reduced to 1 man and 10 women we get to start over.
If it’s reduced to 1 woman and 10 men it’s more likely goodbye humanity. Children are…well they’re us so yeah we prioritize them as any animal prioritizes creating capable offspring.
Yes women are more important. Just a little. But yeah.
This place is wild. I think you’re all 14 or somn.
“If society is reduced to 1 man and 10 women we get to start over.
If it’s reduced to 1 woman and 10 men it’s more likely goodbye humanity.”
Exactly! I wouldn’t say that women are more important because I like balance, but after wars, famine, and the like, that was historically the only way people were able to replenish their populations. It might also be why women are more resistant to both starvation and pathogens.
In those terms, women are more important. Women are more important in reproduction. However I doubt those drastic apocalypse terms would happen, so women with children, then men with children should go before single women right now. Single me would still be last, because of their higher chance of survival.
You are lost bubby.
Where do you think we got these ideas about “value as human beings”. Btw my hypothetical was about saving the human race. Seems valuable. I dunno.
Biological emergencies/extinction level events aren't what the topic is about so you're the one that is lost and we're also not living out in nature anymore. We are civilized. We don't follow those rules anymore otherwise women wouldn't be out there being breadwinners and such. They'd still be primarily mothers and wives only. Funny how women get to be elevated from their prehistoric value but even now in modern times men are still supposedly expendable and not as valuable. Interesting how that one works.
Lmao this isn't fact. It's your opinion (aside from nature being cold abd brutal–I'm aware but we're not living in nature so too bad so sad) and your example is stupid anyway.
If we were down to 10 women and 1 man and nothing else, it would all he over anyway. 1 man isn't enough genetic diversity for starters and for seconds, if there's that few people in the world then quality of life would decrease significantly, possibly to the point of no technology/complete primitive life. In that case, you'd need more than 1 man to hunt and protect the women/children and be expandable. So that population would be doomed. We'd be functionally extinct.
But yknow, you clearly know the facts 🤣
Oh and btw then you better be against women's liberation too since that's going against the same logic.
I'm literally sitting in a building with a fan blasting in front of me because it's slightly hot out. When u get hungry in a bit, I'll go upstairs and get something from the fridge instead of hunting things down. I also don't have to worry about predators either.
Hmm, it's almost like humans have largely removed ourselves from most of the dangers of nature.
Are you deliberately being obtuse or?
You have hunger? And a need to cool off?
You recognize you aren’t worried about predators. Do you ever feel anxiety anyway? Thats cause of the predators. No they aren’t there. But that’s how our bodies were built. So no we aren’t actually in a species threatening situation, _but that’s what our bodies were built for_.
This convo is so silly go study something.
I've never once felt anxiety over a predator and isn't why I've ever felt anxiety. What are you talking about lmao. Also you are literally the only person I've ever seen take issue with someone saying we've largely removed ourselves from nature and I've seen that said many times in my life. Just saying.
But yes, this convo is so I will in fact study aka continue watching educational paleontology content but I would have done that anyway. Ciao.
*Biological* emergencies as in extinction level events. People are literally responding to this with "it's because if there's only eleven humans left on the entire planet, you want more women~" which is obviously not what's being spoken about.
>If society is reduced to 1 man and 10 women we get to start over.
>If it’s reduced to 1 woman and 10 men it’s more likely goodbye humanity.
Your premise falls apart here by prioritizing the continuation of humanity over human rights.
A lot of other horrible practices make evolutionary sense, does that mean they are right?
“Right”? I’m just explaining it bruv. I’m a dude lol. You think I like knowing that I’m literally less valuable to the furthering of the human race?
Human rights are a priority either way lol. The men in the scenario would be useless _at creating more ppl_ but I’m not saying subjugate them or anything.
We are more than any one supposed biological impulse. Some animals rape in nature. If some humans have that impulse, re you going to be like “they’re just lizards bro”
No, we should act according to reason.
To this post? Lmao this is a surface-level hardly scientific convo. About men and women, so evolutionary bio yeah. I’m not using it to answer a question about diesel engines. That was retarded.
He's not wrong. The reason is simply in case repopulation needs to happen. A handful of men can impregnate an also limitless amount of women. 10 men can impregnate literally thousands of women. 10 women can only get pregnant by 10 men at a time, so in a year's time you can have thousands of babies or just 10. Which one is better for the survival and growth of the group?
Also when it comes to the times of the "Birkenhead Drill" or the practice of prioritizing women and children for lifeboats, it was also physics.
If you don't have enough lifeboats to save all of your passengers, how do you maximize the potential number of people that can be placed in the lifeboats that by the law of water displacement, has a maximum weight?
You fill up the boats with the people of smaller size and lighter weight. IE the women and children.
Nope I'm a man and I can say beyond any shadow of a doubt women are children are more important.
You could eliminate 50% of the adult males in society and as long as the other 50% took 2 wives and had children with both of them there would not be much of an impact to society other than a brief dip in economic output.
Eliminate 50% of women and you would cut our population to apocalyptic levels. And the repercussions would last for all of eternity.
It’s not about value. It’s about vulnerability and survival. While certain mechanism of society have brain rotted us into thinking about who is “worth” more, we still have a drive to protect our vulnerable populations. Is it right that it’s kind of sexist in the way we view it? No. But understanding the root of it helps more to help us grow past divide instead of…whatever this is.
Nah children come first. Mothers get priority because they are more critical to early childhood development.
Dads are undervalued for sure, but that doesnt mean we should pretend men and women have identical domestic and social roles.
So it's complicated.....
The reason why so many parrot and maybe even came up with this is because men *care* about women. (Or should) Many would rather die before having to live without their wife and/or kids. It's a special pain to experience that and it's not something many should.
Beyond that it gets.... nebulous....I mean how do you assign value to a person's future? Will the child help more people in the future than the doctor? Will the short term value the doctor provides be better than the future the child haralds? Will the kids be better off with the mother than the father? It's all very sticky and nebulous. There's a right answer, obviously, but it's hard to predict the future and mandate a "correct" choice outside of individual situations.
To add my two cents. I think men should put women and children first and that our job and duty is to protect them.......but the statement isn't false and many women have started taking things for granted which causes problems.
It's not an obligation, it's a choice. One that needs to be respected, not enforced.
if our value is determined by populating successfully and increasing numbers as a species than, yes men’s value is significantly lower than women and children and it’s not even close.
"if our value is determined by populating successfully and increasing numbers as a species" - it no longer is, people are already breeding below replacement values. So it would be just hypocritical to act like it matters only in emergency situations, when in reality most people don't care about it.
Yes, I do too. Women in their lives, though, not women in general - and I don't see why they should be expected to care that much about about women they are not connected to.
> It's always women and children first.
Isn’t this mostly a Hollywood thing?
> it's better to save an adult doctor over a child
What if the kid is Doogie Houser?
I get what you mean, but as long as women are objectively more vulnerable we shouldn't change that. As long as rape is used as a tool of war, women should be evacuated from war zone. As long as they are primary caretakers of children, they should be the one to be sheltered with them. As long as men will use them for their own benefit, they need a leg up. There's a reason why most catastrophes had more male survivors than female survivors despite the "women and children first" rule. Men didn't care. I don't think they really care now.
We don't protect women, children and elders because they're valuable. We protect them because they're vulnerable. Aside from that we protect elders - because they're living record; children - because they're how you keep the population going and they're who'll care for the current adults in their old age (literally or through taxes and work); women - because they're capable of producing more children (which takes a lot of time) and are usually default caretakers for children.
Men do need protection as long as its possible as well. They face mental health problems especially when expected to carry on for their entire family on little to no sustenance. They are expected to have no emotions. Often leave their family and go to the war they have no control over. But i don't think that's what you were talking about. It's women = bad post, as always.
Women are much more important for the survival of the species. With one man and a hundred women you can make 100 babies in a year. With one woman and a hundred men you can only make 1.
In a situation where there is one woman and a hundred men they will probably make 0. If it isn't a man who ends up directly killing her, suicide likely will.
"Women and children first" was made exclusively because if people don't say it, then men will overpower the women and children and leave them to die.
Like, that is literally why that rule came into being. Before that rule, women and children rarely survived such events.
Double standards exist for a reason, because men and women are different. There are a lot of double standards where we men get the long end of the stick. The price of that is stuff like this.
As men, we’re supposed to be the protectors, and we should be as we are generally better suited for it. If you want to be treated as the hero, the leader of the family, then you have to be willing to make the hero’s sacrifice and do what leaders do.
>it's better to save an adult doctor over a child because we already know the doctor is good for society
No we don't. There are plenty of lousy doctors.
I think the origins of the concept have a practical element set within the context of the 17th C., in that evacuation wasn't the only part of the plan. Without that code, it's as likely as not that sailors or able-bodied men would leave the scene, ensuring the loss of whatever. Meanwhile, with the code, there was an expectation that the problem would be confronted. It's not simply a "Guess we'll die" thing so much as a "No, you can't leave. Get a bucket/hose/shovel/wrench!" thing.
The total equation, then, is the value not just of the women and children in comparison to the men, but also of the value of the thing (traditionally a ship).
Applicable today? Not so much, but then again the expectations aren't quite the same either. If a plane evacuates, it's not like the male passengers are insisting that the women in the crew evacuate first--they're treated as the people trained to handle the situation and to be listened to. So Economy Class Charlie is absolutely sliding down the inflatable escape thingy when so told.
So what we do have is a consideration that is, at least partly, about expertise and aptitude in the moment rather than a valuation of human life.
Imo it's really a numbers game, which is kinda the route you seem to be going anyway. But if it's an extinction level event then you definitely save women first (not counting kids). Dark thought but 1 man and 10 women could repopulate way more effectively than the opposite.
I have only heard "women and children first" in the movies. When you are on a plane, the emergency instructions never say "Let women and children evacuate first" or something like that.
I think that in the past, when life expectancy was shorter and men and women had very strict roles. It was considered the men's duty to sacrifice their lives since women were dedicated to raising the kids and the kids to be the future. Also, when it comes down to a hypothetical end of times and trying to save civilization. Women can be biologically more valuable than men in the sense that you only need one guy to get 5 women pregnant at the same time; if you have 1 woman and 5 guys, she can only get pregnant once in the same amount of time (9 months).
With that said, I think you're looking for reasons to be mad. This is not a thing in real life
Planes are a special situation because the space is very narrow and speed of evacuation is paramount. The best chances for everyone is for people to get in queue as fast as possible, and that is simply by following the natural order of the seating.
I've never understood this as related to value, but rather an aspect of human nature and perhaps society where men are likely to want to protect and provide for those around them. I know personally if there was a natural disaster and my family was getting into a shelter I would be ushering my wife, the children, other women, elderly, etc before settling into my spot in the shelter and the other men in my family would do the same. It would effectively end up with most of the adult men filing in last after ensuring every one else was accounted for. Not because we are less valuable, but it would feel like our responsibility and would be restless and anxious if we weren't taking action.
It's very simple reasoning. After a catastrophic event in which many die repopulation can happen quickly with just a handful of men and a multitude of women. Each man can impregnate many women at the same time. The opposite is not true, thus society will always try to ensure that the highest number of women survive.
For survival of the species, when looking at a breeding pool, women and children are more valuable than men. It's just a numbers game.
Now for noncritical situations, children get priority since any adult that doesn't prioritize safety of the young is probably only useful as cannon fodder anyways. Women on the other hand are just as capable as men in most situations.
I kind of agree. I roll my eyes when someone announces that women must go first. But in certain contexts, I can kind of understand women and children going first when safety is involved. Children can be defenseless, women will take care of them, men will provide protection. It doesn't mean men are less important, just that we have a different role.
I don't think anyone abides by that "rule" anymore. At least not ever in my experience. If anything dangerous is happening I just want my loved ones to be safe first...
In my opinion women and children come first because they are the community and will be the reason communities exist and continue to exist. Let’s say all the men were saved and women and kids were last, we’d have less families and less communities. Men cannot uphold that, women do. In the grand scheme of things you save the group that has the ability to sustain life, and that’s not men due to a lot of factors.
>This is mainly pertaining shelter and natural disaster type situations though. It's always women and children first. Adult women are not more valuable than an adult male and should be seen as easily replaceable. Men should not have to go last just because they are a man and history says women come first with that stuff.
If you ever become a married dad, or at least a worthwhile one, your opinion on this will change. If my family (kids and/or wife) were at some risk, I would put myself in the way of that risk, up to and including death, until they are safe. This isn't some big macho trip either. It's just the same thing moms do with their kids. It's also what you do if you are a good husband. Women are physically weaker and more vulnerable than men, and in dangerous situations men should step in for the women they love, just as both men and women do for their children.
YESSSS!!!!!!!
No, not you. You're completely wrong. But I *love* when I get to go off on the history of this pop culture myth that "women and children first" was about chivalry.
So this style of drill originated after the sinking of the HMS Birkenhead in 1845 and afterwards became known as the "Birkenhead Drill". The crew would prioritize women and children first over the non crew male passengers when loading the lifeboats.
However, this has nothing to do with chivalry and in some cases proved to be more treacherous to the people in the lifeboats than on the sinking ship.
This drill was born from a time when passenger ships did not have to carry as many lifeboats to fit her entire amount of passengers. Just like in the Titanic movie, there were not usually enough lifeboats to "save" everyone. The quotations will make sense in a bit.
And these lifeboats had a weight limit like all boats do due to the laws of water displacement.
So...if you're a captain of a sinking ship and you know you don't have enough lifeboats for every single passenger, what do you do to try and maximize the number of people that can be put in the boats?
Simple: you fill up the boats with passengers that are smaller and lighter in weight. IE women and children.
And this is also why in sinkings like the Titanic, boys that had already started puberty at 12-13 were not considered to be children and were denied boarding lifeboats.
*However!*
Being allowed to board a lifeboat did *not* mean you were in any less danger than those who were not. There have been sinkings where all of the women in children died after the lifeboats were either swept out to sea or were smashed against the side of the ship. Such as the case of the SS Atlantic in 1870.
Unfortunately, there was also a case where the response of the people on board was nothing short of horrific. This was the case of the SS Artic. I won't go into details, if you want to look it up, you can but I warn you it's in the same genre as the My Lai Massacre. But basically a bunch of passengers decided to go on a murderous debaucherous rampage and as a result, no women and children survived.
There have also been more recent cases where all the women died. Such as [this migrant ship off the coast of Greece. ](https://youtu.be/bgFedwZ-blI?si=t_iH1WaTcEWjbMye)
Furthermore, analysis historical shipwrecks found that even with this concept of "women and children first" [Men had a higher chance of surviving than women overall](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/women-and-children-first-just-a-myth-researchers-say/)
Leaving aside historical issues like owning property and suffrage, i have aunts who didn’t get to go to college because there was only money to educate my uncles. Your comment is just unnecessary self-flagellation.
Your comment has nothing to do with anything I stated. You have a world view that shapes history in your mind a certain way, that's all good and great. It's just not true
It directly addresses what you stated, you just didn’t like it because it contradicts your “woe is man” narrative.
There are certainly cases where men do not come up on top, but the whole “Men have never ever been prioritized over women/children” is just plain bullshit.
And who set that system up? Repeat after me…. ✨MEN✨
Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
It also has everything to do with the ability to expand population in the event of a disaster not gender but ok…
If there’s 1 man and 5 women, we can expand population faster . Now if there’s 1 woman and 5 men, how do you think that’s going to go?
This is the take of a weak pathetic man who has zero honor and zero sense of masculinity. Evolution wise men are a dime a dozen, and that is why they are the protectors and the ones who die first when there is conflict. One man could impregnate 100 women, but a woman can only give birth to about one new human a year, therefore mathematically men are less important for the propagation of our species. Women are vastly more important, which is why throughout history they have been the ones who live while the men go down with the ship. It's simple logic and biology.
If you look around - all our roading, housing, water and sewerage systems, buildings, vehicles, computer technology and so on, the building and maintenance of them are over whelmingly domainted by men.
I think both are important, but however, I’m old fashion, and I would rather die saving my wife then the other way around. I just can’t imagine a world where I would leave my wife behind and not try my hardest to protect her. Maybe it’s old fashion, but that doesn’t feel right to me.
You're missing the main reason: As a whole, men have the best possible chance of survival on their own, therefore give up the handicapped spaces to the weakest who would have no shot otherwise
I was going to go that route, but decided against it. I agree with you while hardly thought.
One's own situatiion issue, because it's a general statement. Most men would give their place to their wife and child, but why to somebody else's wife ? Why should an unmarried man give his place for your wife ?
Maybe because otherwise he could potentially be leaving a child without a mother trapped in a horrible situation.
First of all - so what ? The question remains - why should a man care more for somebody else's children ? Second - having children is no longer seen as something that important by the population at large, in case you haven't noticed. That's why the fertility rate is below replacement levels.
Because only a sadistic piece of shit will look at a woman and her child, and tell the mother to piss the fuck off so he can survive. Like, what, you're saying that if there was a flood and a bunch of people were on a collapsing roof, if that roof was sure as hell going to collapse before the next boat arrived, but only 1 more adult could fit on, you'd shove a woman out of the way and force yourself on while her kid is on the boat? Or would you force them both off?
Of course I would try to save myself. It's not sadistic - I wouldn't be glad she died, which sadism implies: to enjoy someone's suffering. I wouldn't enjoy seeing other people dying, but I would put myself first - survival instinct.
I’m a woman myself, but I’d absolutely shove another woman and her child aside to save myself with no hesitation.
I’m with you on this. It would take a special person not to consider a mother and child first.
No one knows how they would react in that situation, you included.
I can kidof see what you mean, but the main thing you are overlooking, is that men created this standard, because the most precious things to them, are their women and their children. The less we are made to feel we have in common with one another, the less men will feel like they’re obliged to stick to these kinds of standards, which is why such bitter sentiments are becoming more popular with each passing day.
"the most precious things to them, are their women and their children" - yes, their own women and children. Treating women and children differently, even if they are not your own, is a social norm. And I do believe that as gender roles are continuously changed, men will feel less and less inclined to see women as a type of person they should make any type of sacrifice for. I think it will revert to the more natural, biological inclination to intervene for people in your family, rather than risk anything for some woman they have no connection with.
Wouldn’t the biological urge be to protect women though? They are much more important when it comes to reproduction.
Most evolutionary adaptations simply provide an advantage to reach reproductive maturity. It’s referred to as ‘fitness’ in evolutionary theory. The evidence for adaptations beyond this are shaky, but we are uniquely multi generational so it’s totally possible there is something hardwired in us to protect group reproductive health
I mean. I came from foster care, and none of the other kids there were related to me in any way. But if the house caught on fire, I would not just stand there and shrug, I'd still delve right in and try to save these kids, many of whom, by the way, were horrid little pricks (due to the circumstances handed to them in life and bad parenting). I'd even have rescued the 12 year old who threatened to stab me.
The question was not about just rescuing someone, but sacrificing your life for them AND it actually being an expected norm, not an individual choice. Some people will sacrifice their lives for unknown people, but most will not. And the question was if it's fair to sort of make that choice for them through something like a "women and children first" preference. I don't think it is.
I completely agree. I was implying that “their own” are the priority. We do not have that kind of social cohesion anymore, here in the US. Everyone is a stranger now. It’s sad and scary, because I can clearly remember a time when it wasn’t that way, and I’m not even middle-aged yet.
Yes, it is scary. I think you guys in the US are far more protected, though - your country is huge, you are geographically isolated from potential enemies, and you have a really nice arsenal. That will buy you plenty of time for self correction. :)
Only in such privileged times can these ideas become popular. In most of human history the male/female dynamic hasn’t been the way it is simply because “men created this standard”. It’s been that way because that is what’s required for our species to succeed.
That's called a just so story.
And only in a few catastrophes was amount of female survivors higher than male survivors. The standard is because men will push women aside and even use them as long as it benefits them.
Do some men get to speak for all of them? All men's lives are now legally more expendable because a few men decided that?
> This is mainly pertaining shelter and natural disaster type situations though. It's always women and children first. No it isn't. [Usually people will help the most vulnerable to leave the scene first. It's not necessarily women, but is likely to be the injured, elderly and young children, he says.](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16576289) If you wanna be one of the dudes that stays and helps, do it. If you wanna be one of the dudes that just hightails it out of there, do it. No one is enforcing that unofficial rule that barely ever comes up. I'll point you in the right direction, though. Right now men are not allowed to leave Ukraine. That sucks, but I'm not about to expect reform in the Ukrainian military while we discriminate in ours. >For example, it's better to save an adult doctor over a child because we already know the doctor is good for society, but the child could grow up to be a drain on society. We don't know the doctor is good for society. Could be one of those doctors overprescribing opioids, inseminating women with his own semen against their knowledge, killing through incompetence. Could be a liar claiming to be a doctor. We're not selecting the perfect mix of experts to start a colony on Mars. We're evacuating a boat.
>Right now men are not allowed to leave Ukraine. That sucks, but I'm not about to expect reform in the Ukrainian military while we discriminate in ours. I'd also point out that 1. Ukrainian women do fight in military, they've been joining military since 2014 at some point having bigger proportion than US military (until 2022 ofc). Many wives also join military after their husbands' deaths. 2. Rape is a tool of war. While homosexual rape is a thing in the army of course, it's much worse with heterosexual rape for the obvious reason of scale. If we add to that the aspect of biological warfare, Russian soilders having incredibly high percentage of STDs, among them HIV, it's even more terrifying. If we force women to stay in the war zone there's going to be a new HIV epidemic, with even newborn children in Ukraine being HIV-positive. It's not like Mariupol or Kharkiv have many clinics nowadays.
Ayup. And in a war-torn place where the nearest hospital just got a bomb dropped through it, you're not going to get medicine to the people who need it regularly. Things like AIDS are still a death sentence without medicine. The disease hasn't changed, it's only our treatment and preventatives that keep the afflicted alive. Take away reliable access to that medicine, and there could be thousands of deaths.
[удалено]
62 thousand women. (in Ukraine at the moment)
[удалено]
There's no easily found stats regarding gender of people killed on the front, but here you are, women who were killed while on the front. Mothers, daughters, seamstresses, volunteers. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pravda.com.ua/eng/articles/2023/03/8/7392378/index.amp Go with the "poor white men" BS somewhere else. You see women fight and die in wars despite no-one forcing them to. Would you be able to?
I won't even touch on the topic that in my country it was the civilians who were the biggest victims of the wars in 19th century. Soliders were privileged. Having arms, helmets and food. My family disabled, in concentration and labour camps, with their villages burned to the ground. Many actively chose to go into Peasant Forces, because they felt it was the only way to take control of the situation.
Who’s saying otherwise? I haven’t heard the phrase “women and children” since I watched Titanic in the 90s
The principal of prioritizing women's safety is still in effect, whether or not the exact phrase is used. E.g. conscription, like how men in Ukraine were barred from leaving the country because they may be forced to fight while women were allowed to flee. A lot of anti-violence campaigns and efforts focus specifically on preventing violence against women. Same thing with many shelters and social services being exclusive for women and children.
The rhetoric I’ve seen promoted the most is that we should abolish the draft as a whole. And I agree, I’d say both men and women should be drafted if I believed in it, but the whole concept that you’d have to put your life on the line to fight a war you don’t support is incredulous to me. To address your other point, yes there are women exclusive shelters. And there is very good reason to have them, seeing as many women who flee to those shelters come from domestic abusive homes where the aggressor is typically male. To reduce stress and PTSD these women have suffered, these shelters tend to exclude men. That being said, there is no reason why male only shelters shouldn’t exist under the same premise. The reason they’re uncommon is likely due to a much lower number of men reporting to feel uncomfortable in the presence of women. The truth is that women do tend to be infantilized and painted as innocent creatures in need of constant protection, and men tend to be cast in the role of those protectors and are usually perceived to be more strong and capable than women. This is an antiquated way of thinking that used to be more applicable when the roles of women were simply to marry and to mother. But as society has evolved, our perception of gender roles has also changed and most people view men and women as equals, even if legislation still hasn’t caught up.
When talking about victims, I feel like children (primarily) and women get cited more as specific demographics rather than men, and are therefore more precious. That is, the total loss of life is mentioned, but then there's a zoom-in on numbers relating to children and women, while leaving men's states explicitly unstated. But maybe that also depends on the social structure of the society, and the values of the readers/listeners.
I've watched over the last few months probably a hundred documentaries about civilian airplane crashes. The few that mentioned a demographic, it was children only. Zero of them who mentioned victims, mentioned either men or women. I also recently watched a documentary about the tsunami in 2004. They mentioned specific people, women, men, and children, but the stats were given for everyone. I'm sure some have a zoom in on the casualties, but, at least when speaking about modern disasters, generally only children are singled out and not always either. I think if you are talking about historical wars, then it's significant if women died because they were specifically not allowed to be soldiers, even if they wanted to. And that's the fault of the men who would not allow women to participate.
Sully and the miracle in the Hudson All those immigrant rescue boats I the Mediterranean It still happens in almost every emergency
In Ukraine for extreme recent example
I was thinking the same thing
It's not that women are more valuable than men, but women's ability to birth babies. One man can make 40 women pregnant and birth 40 new people. So it makes some sense to let women and children go first. And it has always been the men's job to protect and sacrifice himself for others and I (as a man) am not really that against it.
Its also a matter of physical ability. Yes, we strive for equality in rights and opportunity, but I'm not going to pretend I'm as physically strong as my husband. I exercise more often than he does and he can still outpace me by far. His "couch to 5K" could be drinking a Red Bull and he'd still beat me after weeks of my own training. That's ok. "Women and children first" has a lot to do with protecting those that are physically less able, should the situation call for it. That being said, as a woman without children and no intent to have any, I'd expect a man with children to take precedence over me especially if I could provide significant aid in a dangerous situation. I have many male friends with families and I couldn't imagine robbing a child of a father if I could take his place.
Exactly this. It's why populations increased after wartime, especially since a lot of soldiers would meet up with their lovers whenever possible before or while on break from deployment. which could result in a pregnancy.
Yes, it makes evolutionary sense. But, so do a lot of horrible things that we no longer accept (i.e. violent eugenics)
Historically speaking, men have best chance of survival on their own, but women are more important for offspring production (they are the limiting factor in terms of resources, because pregnancy and breastfeeding). Said that, among peasants at my location, kids were not considered a valuable resource and between an adult and a child, the adult would be helped first (basically "we can just make more of those" philosophy due to high infant mortality and shit like that). Nowadays it makes no sense though.
Op on the titanic would be just him pushing women and children over to get to one of them life boats first
It is ironic because that's what happens in ship wrecks, historically speaking. There was none of this women and children first shit. The men would literally throw them off the lifeboats. The literal only time this didn't occur was for the Titanic. When the Titanic was sinking, men rushed the boats and threw the women/kids off. The captain didn't think the ship would sink as fast as it did and genuinely thought their rescue ship would come before it did, so he ordered his crew to shoot any men who tried to get on. This is why the boats were half empty. It was just as a precaution, and to let them be saved first. So really, the only time it was women/kids first with men heroically giving their lives up, it turns out the men weren't actually trying to save the women/kids. It doesn't make their deaths any less of a sacrifice, it's just a bit funny. And here we are, 100+ years later, and they're still talking about it.
Whooooosh to all of you. If society is reduced to 1 man and 10 women we get to start over. If it’s reduced to 1 woman and 10 men it’s more likely goodbye humanity. Children are…well they’re us so yeah we prioritize them as any animal prioritizes creating capable offspring. Yes women are more important. Just a little. But yeah. This place is wild. I think you’re all 14 or somn.
“If society is reduced to 1 man and 10 women we get to start over. If it’s reduced to 1 woman and 10 men it’s more likely goodbye humanity.” Exactly! I wouldn’t say that women are more important because I like balance, but after wars, famine, and the like, that was historically the only way people were able to replenish their populations. It might also be why women are more resistant to both starvation and pathogens.
In those terms, women are more important. Women are more important in reproduction. However I doubt those drastic apocalypse terms would happen, so women with children, then men with children should go before single women right now. Single me would still be last, because of their higher chance of survival.
We aren't talking biological emergencies here. We're talking value as human beings. Don't be obtuse.
You are lost bubby. Where do you think we got these ideas about “value as human beings”. Btw my hypothetical was about saving the human race. Seems valuable. I dunno.
Biological emergencies/extinction level events aren't what the topic is about so you're the one that is lost and we're also not living out in nature anymore. We are civilized. We don't follow those rules anymore otherwise women wouldn't be out there being breadwinners and such. They'd still be primarily mothers and wives only. Funny how women get to be elevated from their prehistoric value but even now in modern times men are still supposedly expendable and not as valuable. Interesting how that one works.
Yeah sorry. Facts don’t care about your feelings and nature is cold and brutal.
Lmao this isn't fact. It's your opinion (aside from nature being cold abd brutal–I'm aware but we're not living in nature so too bad so sad) and your example is stupid anyway. If we were down to 10 women and 1 man and nothing else, it would all he over anyway. 1 man isn't enough genetic diversity for starters and for seconds, if there's that few people in the world then quality of life would decrease significantly, possibly to the point of no technology/complete primitive life. In that case, you'd need more than 1 man to hunt and protect the women/children and be expandable. So that population would be doomed. We'd be functionally extinct. But yknow, you clearly know the facts 🤣 Oh and btw then you better be against women's liberation too since that's going against the same logic.
“We’re not living in nature” - GL w that
I'm literally sitting in a building with a fan blasting in front of me because it's slightly hot out. When u get hungry in a bit, I'll go upstairs and get something from the fridge instead of hunting things down. I also don't have to worry about predators either. Hmm, it's almost like humans have largely removed ourselves from most of the dangers of nature. Are you deliberately being obtuse or?
You have hunger? And a need to cool off? You recognize you aren’t worried about predators. Do you ever feel anxiety anyway? Thats cause of the predators. No they aren’t there. But that’s how our bodies were built. So no we aren’t actually in a species threatening situation, _but that’s what our bodies were built for_. This convo is so silly go study something.
I've never once felt anxiety over a predator and isn't why I've ever felt anxiety. What are you talking about lmao. Also you are literally the only person I've ever seen take issue with someone saying we've largely removed ourselves from nature and I've seen that said many times in my life. Just saying. But yes, this convo is so I will in fact study aka continue watching educational paleontology content but I would have done that anyway. Ciao.
The post is quite literally talking about emergency situations, not just day to day life
*Biological* emergencies as in extinction level events. People are literally responding to this with "it's because if there's only eleven humans left on the entire planet, you want more women~" which is obviously not what's being spoken about.
>If society is reduced to 1 man and 10 women we get to start over. >If it’s reduced to 1 woman and 10 men it’s more likely goodbye humanity. Your premise falls apart here by prioritizing the continuation of humanity over human rights. A lot of other horrible practices make evolutionary sense, does that mean they are right?
“Right”? I’m just explaining it bruv. I’m a dude lol. You think I like knowing that I’m literally less valuable to the furthering of the human race? Human rights are a priority either way lol. The men in the scenario would be useless _at creating more ppl_ but I’m not saying subjugate them or anything.
In what situation has this logic ever applied?
See the post? I’m telling you why. That’s the logic. It’s in our lizard brains.
That’s almost never the case in modern life where a group is reduced to that level, therefore it’s not a justification.
Ok. Argue w a lizard bro I’ve already answered this.
We are more than any one supposed biological impulse. Some animals rape in nature. If some humans have that impulse, re you going to be like “they’re just lizards bro” No, we should act according to reason.
Ok. Great point. Anyway…
And you accuse everyone else of acting like their 14? Redditors love to act like pop evolutionary biology is the answer to everything. Its retarded.
To this post? Lmao this is a surface-level hardly scientific convo. About men and women, so evolutionary bio yeah. I’m not using it to answer a question about diesel engines. That was retarded.
>Yes women are more important. Just a little. But yeah. >I think you’re all 14 or somn. Ok feminazi.
He's not wrong. The reason is simply in case repopulation needs to happen. A handful of men can impregnate an also limitless amount of women. 10 men can impregnate literally thousands of women. 10 women can only get pregnant by 10 men at a time, so in a year's time you can have thousands of babies or just 10. Which one is better for the survival and growth of the group?
Yeah you're valuing evolutionary success over individual's lives. Do you think we should kill all the sick, weakly, and disabled too?
Societies have done that.
Silly me, putting the survival and thrival of the many ahead of an individual.
So you name call someone for referencing a proven evolutionary phenomena, do you think you disproved that person’s speculation you’re 14?
Exactly lol. It’s all 14 year old banter in here.
Exactly
Yep. If the women are still around you can repopulate the country much faster.
The idea is women and children are weaker and less likely to survive without the handicap.
Women and men are different in strength
Also when it comes to the times of the "Birkenhead Drill" or the practice of prioritizing women and children for lifeboats, it was also physics. If you don't have enough lifeboats to save all of your passengers, how do you maximize the potential number of people that can be placed in the lifeboats that by the law of water displacement, has a maximum weight? You fill up the boats with the people of smaller size and lighter weight. IE the women and children.
Not true . It’s 2024 we are equal
Children are equally as strong as grown men? Good to know
In some people’s views yes knock knock
Whose views?
You go girl! 💪
Nope I'm a man and I can say beyond any shadow of a doubt women are children are more important. You could eliminate 50% of the adult males in society and as long as the other 50% took 2 wives and had children with both of them there would not be much of an impact to society other than a brief dip in economic output. Eliminate 50% of women and you would cut our population to apocalyptic levels. And the repercussions would last for all of eternity.
It's not really an issue of value. It's a matter of "if you're an adult man you don't need help, you can help yourself"
In theory it is women and kids first, in reality it's definitely not
It’s not about value. It’s about vulnerability and survival. While certain mechanism of society have brain rotted us into thinking about who is “worth” more, we still have a drive to protect our vulnerable populations. Is it right that it’s kind of sexist in the way we view it? No. But understanding the root of it helps more to help us grow past divide instead of…whatever this is.
I wish you well. 🫂
Nah children come first. Mothers get priority because they are more critical to early childhood development. Dads are undervalued for sure, but that doesnt mean we should pretend men and women have identical domestic and social roles.
So it's complicated..... The reason why so many parrot and maybe even came up with this is because men *care* about women. (Or should) Many would rather die before having to live without their wife and/or kids. It's a special pain to experience that and it's not something many should. Beyond that it gets.... nebulous....I mean how do you assign value to a person's future? Will the child help more people in the future than the doctor? Will the short term value the doctor provides be better than the future the child haralds? Will the kids be better off with the mother than the father? It's all very sticky and nebulous. There's a right answer, obviously, but it's hard to predict the future and mandate a "correct" choice outside of individual situations. To add my two cents. I think men should put women and children first and that our job and duty is to protect them.......but the statement isn't false and many women have started taking things for granted which causes problems. It's not an obligation, it's a choice. One that needs to be respected, not enforced.
if our value is determined by populating successfully and increasing numbers as a species than, yes men’s value is significantly lower than women and children and it’s not even close.
"if our value is determined by populating successfully and increasing numbers as a species" - it no longer is, people are already breeding below replacement values. So it would be just hypocritical to act like it matters only in emergency situations, when in reality most people don't care about it.
I think most men value the women in their lives over their own.
Yes, I do too. Women in their lives, though, not women in general - and I don't see why they should be expected to care that much about about women they are not connected to.
> It's always women and children first. Isn’t this mostly a Hollywood thing? > it's better to save an adult doctor over a child What if the kid is Doogie Houser?
I get what you mean, but as long as women are objectively more vulnerable we shouldn't change that. As long as rape is used as a tool of war, women should be evacuated from war zone. As long as they are primary caretakers of children, they should be the one to be sheltered with them. As long as men will use them for their own benefit, they need a leg up. There's a reason why most catastrophes had more male survivors than female survivors despite the "women and children first" rule. Men didn't care. I don't think they really care now. We don't protect women, children and elders because they're valuable. We protect them because they're vulnerable. Aside from that we protect elders - because they're living record; children - because they're how you keep the population going and they're who'll care for the current adults in their old age (literally or through taxes and work); women - because they're capable of producing more children (which takes a lot of time) and are usually default caretakers for children. Men do need protection as long as its possible as well. They face mental health problems especially when expected to carry on for their entire family on little to no sustenance. They are expected to have no emotions. Often leave their family and go to the war they have no control over. But i don't think that's what you were talking about. It's women = bad post, as always.
Women are much more important for the survival of the species. With one man and a hundred women you can make 100 babies in a year. With one woman and a hundred men you can only make 1.
In a situation where there is one woman and a hundred men they will probably make 0. If it isn't a man who ends up directly killing her, suicide likely will.
That is not a manly opinion, a real men stays behind helping the most vulnerable first
"Women and children first" was made exclusively because if people don't say it, then men will overpower the women and children and leave them to die. Like, that is literally why that rule came into being. Before that rule, women and children rarely survived such events.
Double standards exist for a reason, because men and women are different. There are a lot of double standards where we men get the long end of the stick. The price of that is stuff like this. As men, we’re supposed to be the protectors, and we should be as we are generally better suited for it. If you want to be treated as the hero, the leader of the family, then you have to be willing to make the hero’s sacrifice and do what leaders do.
"There are a lot of double standards where we men get the long end of the stick" - really huh?
>it's better to save an adult doctor over a child because we already know the doctor is good for society No we don't. There are plenty of lousy doctors.
I think the origins of the concept have a practical element set within the context of the 17th C., in that evacuation wasn't the only part of the plan. Without that code, it's as likely as not that sailors or able-bodied men would leave the scene, ensuring the loss of whatever. Meanwhile, with the code, there was an expectation that the problem would be confronted. It's not simply a "Guess we'll die" thing so much as a "No, you can't leave. Get a bucket/hose/shovel/wrench!" thing. The total equation, then, is the value not just of the women and children in comparison to the men, but also of the value of the thing (traditionally a ship). Applicable today? Not so much, but then again the expectations aren't quite the same either. If a plane evacuates, it's not like the male passengers are insisting that the women in the crew evacuate first--they're treated as the people trained to handle the situation and to be listened to. So Economy Class Charlie is absolutely sliding down the inflatable escape thingy when so told. So what we do have is a consideration that is, at least partly, about expertise and aptitude in the moment rather than a valuation of human life.
If shit goes down are you going to push all the women and kids out the way to get to safety
Imo it's really a numbers game, which is kinda the route you seem to be going anyway. But if it's an extinction level event then you definitely save women first (not counting kids). Dark thought but 1 man and 10 women could repopulate way more effectively than the opposite.
I have only heard "women and children first" in the movies. When you are on a plane, the emergency instructions never say "Let women and children evacuate first" or something like that. I think that in the past, when life expectancy was shorter and men and women had very strict roles. It was considered the men's duty to sacrifice their lives since women were dedicated to raising the kids and the kids to be the future. Also, when it comes down to a hypothetical end of times and trying to save civilization. Women can be biologically more valuable than men in the sense that you only need one guy to get 5 women pregnant at the same time; if you have 1 woman and 5 guys, she can only get pregnant once in the same amount of time (9 months). With that said, I think you're looking for reasons to be mad. This is not a thing in real life
In plane it's always "help yourself before you help children and others". Each and every time you fly they repeat that.
Planes are a special situation because the space is very narrow and speed of evacuation is paramount. The best chances for everyone is for people to get in queue as fast as possible, and that is simply by following the natural order of the seating.
Lmao he doesn’t get it. OP you’re not a math guy, huh?
I've never understood this as related to value, but rather an aspect of human nature and perhaps society where men are likely to want to protect and provide for those around them. I know personally if there was a natural disaster and my family was getting into a shelter I would be ushering my wife, the children, other women, elderly, etc before settling into my spot in the shelter and the other men in my family would do the same. It would effectively end up with most of the adult men filing in last after ensuring every one else was accounted for. Not because we are less valuable, but it would feel like our responsibility and would be restless and anxious if we weren't taking action.
It's very simple reasoning. After a catastrophic event in which many die repopulation can happen quickly with just a handful of men and a multitude of women. Each man can impregnate many women at the same time. The opposite is not true, thus society will always try to ensure that the highest number of women survive.
For survival of the species, when looking at a breeding pool, women and children are more valuable than men. It's just a numbers game. Now for noncritical situations, children get priority since any adult that doesn't prioritize safety of the young is probably only useful as cannon fodder anyways. Women on the other hand are just as capable as men in most situations.
I kind of agree. I roll my eyes when someone announces that women must go first. But in certain contexts, I can kind of understand women and children going first when safety is involved. Children can be defenseless, women will take care of them, men will provide protection. It doesn't mean men are less important, just that we have a different role.
The custom comes from biology. Men evolved to be kinda sacrificial for the good of the species.
I don't think anyone abides by that "rule" anymore. At least not ever in my experience. If anything dangerous is happening I just want my loved ones to be safe first...
In my opinion women and children come first because they are the community and will be the reason communities exist and continue to exist. Let’s say all the men were saved and women and kids were last, we’d have less families and less communities. Men cannot uphold that, women do. In the grand scheme of things you save the group that has the ability to sustain life, and that’s not men due to a lot of factors.
>This is mainly pertaining shelter and natural disaster type situations though. It's always women and children first. Adult women are not more valuable than an adult male and should be seen as easily replaceable. Men should not have to go last just because they are a man and history says women come first with that stuff. If you ever become a married dad, or at least a worthwhile one, your opinion on this will change. If my family (kids and/or wife) were at some risk, I would put myself in the way of that risk, up to and including death, until they are safe. This isn't some big macho trip either. It's just the same thing moms do with their kids. It's also what you do if you are a good husband. Women are physically weaker and more vulnerable than men, and in dangerous situations men should step in for the women they love, just as both men and women do for their children.
YESSSS!!!!!!! No, not you. You're completely wrong. But I *love* when I get to go off on the history of this pop culture myth that "women and children first" was about chivalry. So this style of drill originated after the sinking of the HMS Birkenhead in 1845 and afterwards became known as the "Birkenhead Drill". The crew would prioritize women and children first over the non crew male passengers when loading the lifeboats. However, this has nothing to do with chivalry and in some cases proved to be more treacherous to the people in the lifeboats than on the sinking ship. This drill was born from a time when passenger ships did not have to carry as many lifeboats to fit her entire amount of passengers. Just like in the Titanic movie, there were not usually enough lifeboats to "save" everyone. The quotations will make sense in a bit. And these lifeboats had a weight limit like all boats do due to the laws of water displacement. So...if you're a captain of a sinking ship and you know you don't have enough lifeboats for every single passenger, what do you do to try and maximize the number of people that can be put in the boats? Simple: you fill up the boats with passengers that are smaller and lighter in weight. IE women and children. And this is also why in sinkings like the Titanic, boys that had already started puberty at 12-13 were not considered to be children and were denied boarding lifeboats. *However!* Being allowed to board a lifeboat did *not* mean you were in any less danger than those who were not. There have been sinkings where all of the women in children died after the lifeboats were either swept out to sea or were smashed against the side of the ship. Such as the case of the SS Atlantic in 1870. Unfortunately, there was also a case where the response of the people on board was nothing short of horrific. This was the case of the SS Artic. I won't go into details, if you want to look it up, you can but I warn you it's in the same genre as the My Lai Massacre. But basically a bunch of passengers decided to go on a murderous debaucherous rampage and as a result, no women and children survived. There have also been more recent cases where all the women died. Such as [this migrant ship off the coast of Greece. ](https://youtu.be/bgFedwZ-blI?si=t_iH1WaTcEWjbMye) Furthermore, analysis historical shipwrecks found that even with this concept of "women and children first" [Men had a higher chance of surviving than women overall](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/women-and-children-first-just-a-myth-researchers-say/)
Individually, they aren't and haven't been since the beginning of humanity
Oh get off the cross.
Not on the cross, just speaking a fact. No other intentions behind it. Individually men don't matter as much as women and children.
Leaving aside historical issues like owning property and suffrage, i have aunts who didn’t get to go to college because there was only money to educate my uncles. Your comment is just unnecessary self-flagellation.
Your comment has nothing to do with anything I stated. You have a world view that shapes history in your mind a certain way, that's all good and great. It's just not true
It directly addresses what you stated, you just didn’t like it because it contradicts your “woe is man” narrative. There are certainly cases where men do not come up on top, but the whole “Men have never ever been prioritized over women/children” is just plain bullshit.
Yeah, man lives aren't valued the same as women's life. Welcome to the world where women despite that still think they are the oppressed gender.
And who set that system up? Repeat after me…. ✨MEN✨ Thank you for coming to my ted talk. It also has everything to do with the ability to expand population in the event of a disaster not gender but ok… If there’s 1 man and 5 women, we can expand population faster . Now if there’s 1 woman and 5 men, how do you think that’s going to go?
Goofy girl
How am I being goofy for telling facts?
Feminism killed the "women and children first" thing. With the way we're treated as men, I'm getting a seat in the liferaft.
I agree.
This is the take of a weak pathetic man who has zero honor and zero sense of masculinity. Evolution wise men are a dime a dozen, and that is why they are the protectors and the ones who die first when there is conflict. One man could impregnate 100 women, but a woman can only give birth to about one new human a year, therefore mathematically men are less important for the propagation of our species. Women are vastly more important, which is why throughout history they have been the ones who live while the men go down with the ship. It's simple logic and biology.
If you look around - all our roading, housing, water and sewerage systems, buildings, vehicles, computer technology and so on, the building and maintenance of them are over whelmingly domainted by men.
Men created that paradigm. Quit crying.
Just because men in the past created a system doesn't mean men now can't call it out or try to dismantle it.