oldblueeyez 15475 Report post Posted June 19, 2015 Whatever happened to women and children first? "One of the features of the disaster that has provoked a great deal of comment is the stream of reports from angry survivors of how, in the chaos, men refused to put women and children first, and instead pushed themselves forward to escape" So, why should women go first? lol No, really, why should women escape disaster ahead of men? Valid reasons welcome. Hello? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoyfulC 132299 Report post Posted June 19, 2015 Exactly. You've pulled the curtain back on yet another noble, but hardly truthful, platitude. In disasters, you can damned well bet wealthy men got their butts to safety well before any women or children in steerage! But too, there were probably many women who refused a seat in a lifeboat, if it meant leaving behind a husband. Many of us would rather stand by our partners' sides and perish together than face a life without them. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest *Ste***cque** Report post Posted June 19, 2015 I'm stepping outside my comfort zone but I'll share my own opinion. LOL Genetically, we are not much different than man was 30 000 years ago. If you could go back 30 000 years and take a new born to this century and raise and educate it you might not be able to notice a difference. My thinking being that our primitive urges still remain with us(even after 30 000 years) and so we still have urges to "protect" women, show aggression, etc. Evolution is a slow process but societal culture works on us much faster, showing us how to behave within a large society. Although we still maintain a strong survival instinct it may have been influenced by culture in certain cases, in the form of "women and children first". That culture is changing and with a movement towards gender equality, some things are gained and some are lost. I hope our more noble urges remain with us. Other opinions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mikeyboy 27133 Report post Posted June 19, 2015 Whatever happened to women and children first? "One of the features of the disaster that has provoked a great deal of comment is the stream of reports from angry survivors of how, in the chaos, men refused to put women and children first, and instead pushed themselves forward to escape" So, why should women go first? lol No, really, why should women escape disaster ahead of men? Valid reasons welcome. Hello? There are 2 different and related questions here: 1. Why protect children at all costs? Our most basic instincts include that of procreation, and that of protecting the next generation. Our very survival as a species has depended on it since the very beginning. It's the reason the sound of a crying baby is so hard to ignore. It's the reason people will jump out into traffic to save a child in danger. It's one of the few reasons I have any faith in humanity. 2. Why women first? Okay this one is trickier. I think it is partially based on the fact that they traditionally have been the main caregivers to the children, whom without them might not survive. (see answer to question 1). It is also wrapped up in what are often looked at as outdated notions of us big strong men being the protector and provider for the "weaker" sex. There is chivalry and nobility in it. Heroism has always been seen as a desirable male trait, while cowardice is definitely not. While the reasons why may be outdated, I have a lot of respect for those who put others before themselves, and zero respect for anyone who would push a woman, child, or anyone for that matter out of the way to save themselves. Call me old fashioned........ 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest *Ste***cque** Report post Posted June 19, 2015 There are 2 different and related questions here: 1. Why protect children at all costs? Our most basic instincts include that of procreation, and that of protecting the next generation. Our very survival as a species has depended on it since the very beginning. It's the reason the sound of a crying baby is so hard to ignore. It's the reason people will jump out into traffic to save a child in danger. It's one of the few reasons I have any faith in humanity. 2. Why women first? Okay this one is trickier. I think it is partially based on the fact that they traditionally have been the main caregivers to the children, whom without them might not survive. (see answer to question 1). It is also wrapped up in what are often looked at as outdated notions of us big strong men being the protector and provider for the "weaker" sex. There is chivalry and nobility in it. Heroism has always been seen as a desirable male trait, while cowardice is definitely not. While the reasons why may be outdated, I have a lot of respect for those who put others before themselves, and zero respect for anyone who would push a woman, child, or anyone for that matter out of the way to save themselves. Call me old fashioned........ I'd like to change my answer to what Mikeyboy said. Lol in case no one noticed, I've been reading a book on genetics. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MightyPen 67414 Report post Posted June 19, 2015 Yup. Put simply, men are the present. Women and the children they've traditionally cared for are the future. A species whose behaviour favours the future, survive. Those whose behaviour favoured the present, are all extinct. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldblueeyez 15475 Report post Posted June 21, 2015 While the reasons why may be outdated, I have a lot of respect for those who put others before themselves, and zero respect for anyone who would push a woman, child, or anyone for that matter out of the way to save themselves. Call me old fashioned........ I would hand the kids forward. As for men and women weaker than me, boot to the head! ;-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Bardot 99339 Report post Posted June 22, 2015 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MightyPen 67414 Report post Posted June 22, 2015 Spiderman is awesome! I can't believe they're planning yet another reboot. And Spiderman is supposed to appear in Captain America: Civil War, finally appearing alongside his Marvel Universe companions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Bardot 99339 Report post Posted June 22, 2015 Whaaaat! Oh, that's exciting news! I wonder who they'll cast for Spidey. The eternal question: Mary Jane or Gwen? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeeRichards 177238 Report post Posted June 22, 2015 Whatever happened to women and children first? "One of the features of the disaster that has provoked a great deal of comment is the stream of reports from angry survivors of how, in the chaos, men refused to put women and children first, and instead pushed themselves forward to escape" So, why should women go first? lol No, really, why should women escape disaster ahead of men? Valid reasons welcome. Hello? Well I imagine that there will be legislation passed that it should be a 50/50 split for females and males that go first. If it is an odd number then .......rock, paper scissors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted June 23, 2015 Spiderman is awesome! I can't believe they're planning yet another reboot. And Spiderman is supposed to appear in Captain America: Civil War, finally appearing alongside his Marvel Universe companions. i did not know he was even part of that team. i also did not know they were going to do another SM, seriously, is it part 3 of 2.0 or is it part 1 of 3.0 version? i still don't know what was wrong with SM 1.0 Additional Comments: Well I imagine that there will be legislation passed that it should be a 50/50 split for females and males that go first. If it is an odd number then .......rock, paper scissors. i think Trudeau announced 50/50 split, not sure how he plans to accomplish it. First you need willing candidates, then go from there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MightyPen 67414 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 i did not know he was even part of that team. i also did not know they were going to do another SM, seriously, is it part 3 of 2.0 or is it part 1 of 3.0 version? i still don't know what was wrong with SM 1.0 He's not part of the Avengers but he's part of the Marvel universe, so he fits "canonically" alongside those guys in New York. I agree, Tobey Maguire is kind of imprinted as "my" Spider-man. Saw no need for the recent Andrew Garfield reboot (was 1.0 really that long ago? Really??). Nevertheless, yeah, the new movie will be 3.0. I do NOT understand. That said, it will be interesting to see him stick his head into the Marvel Universe films, just to see Spidey in a new context. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldblueeyez 15475 Report post Posted June 24, 2015 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
