I would always put "woman and children" before me. The reason for that is, i cant bare seeing a girl in danger, and i believe without women, there will be no reproduction. Children of course because well it doesnt need explaining really!
children and old people first.......I shouldnt be expected to have lower chance of survival then someone cause they have a minge!!
although In real life I'd cave in and be more likely to save a "poor girl" then a man...tis biological
SquishyAnt
I would always put "woman and children" before me. The reason for that is, i cant bare seeing a girl in danger, and i believe without women, there will be no reproduction. Children of course because well it doesnt need explaining really!
that is retarded reasoning your not saving humanity were talking about one person and also without men reproduction would stop (not saying that men do an equal role just that their both neccessary)
You'd never see most "feminists" fighting against stuff like this because they only argue about stuff that doesn't suit them, that's what really irritates me. However, there are some feminists who want actual equality and they I respect.
No, me first: If I had a family and I'm the only one who works, then I doubt any kids I let off the Titanic are going to front up the money to keep my family fed with a roof over there heads.
Yes, kids first: If I had no family to feed and keep clothed.
"Women" are only included in "women and children first" because it's seen as a noble thing to do. To be honest, all nobiltiy would go out of the window if I was on a boat that was sinking. Most people would think "every man for himself" and over-fill the lifeboats so that they sink anyway.
Who would look after the children, then? The old people?
well thats an entirely different argument....those people would not be saved due to their perceived vulnerability but for the good of the vulnerable people
It would probably be legally wrong but I think any man who calls himself a man would put women and children before him. It's in our instict to protect women and children, after all.
Someone said old people first and though I want to agree... I dunno... They have already had their lives, they are old... The young have their whole lives ahead of them... Sounds harsh I know.
that is retarded reasoning your not saving humanity were talking about one person and also without men reproduction would stop (not saying that men do an equal role just that their both neccessary)
Logic fail, one man can produce hundreds and hundreds of children whereas women can't, therefore you need more women.
And in a life and death situation if physical strength was beneficial I would like to be put before a big strong man, but I don't think it's that relevant in today's society really.