This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should it still be women and children first ?

Reply 180

Simplicity

17

I say it should be maths ability first. Then, maybe children.

Reply 181

miss_opinionated

janetisntreal

Women first so you can check them out from behind :sexface:

In all honesty, I think it should be as many people out of danger fast, but children first.

Your sig: that doesn't look cruel at all....

Reply 182

Royal666

depends if its a tall building throw them out first for a soft landing when u jump (Joke)

a hard question to answer you need some strong people to help drag them into life boats
row the boats etc kids on there own would be no better of or indeed some women but in essence yes if it actually improves there chances

Reply 183

BeckyDay

Onyx.

Are you saying this because you pity the disabled? I'm interested to know why... As for the elderly, I'm wondering why you think an old person's life takes priority over a potential life to be lived... I don't like putting a price on or comparing the value of another's life but in a Titanic like situation is a 68 grandfather > 21 year old grandson?

I think children first should always stand and possibly mothers as well for the sake their children. Anyway, after that every person for themselves. The elderly should go last. I know if I was an old person my children and grandchildren would always, always be the priority.

That's a judgement call for the people involved. That's very deep and questions the value of life, quality vs. quantity etc. I will just admit that in those situations I just don't know but I would leave it up to the people affected.

Fusion

Why?

Because I don't think it should be strictly women before men but let's face there are situations where a woman would not be able to physically cope but a man can. (I'm not going to pretend that an adult man is not stronger physically me). Therefore, it is not women before men but rather weaker to stronger. A child is physically weaker than an adult hence (IMO) child first etc. If a woman could cope but a man could not then the woman should let the man go first.

Reply 184

BencherBoy

men and children first obviously u can buy a dishwasher at any major shop and without the " day of the month " excuse.

Reply 185

chocolat321

16

Children first, yes. Old people as well.

Reply 186

letsdothetimewarpagain

19

I'd say yes. Purely because if you get all the children out but leave both their parents behind then they potentially will lose both parents, so in effect I mean children and their mums. It's also not practical to try and get everyone out at once, so someone needs to go first. I'd also get old people away ASAP.

Reply 187

Dr_Zaius

To avoid arguments we should all stay on the boat. Wait, thats a bad idea, we should all get OFF the boat!

Reply 188

69Crazyfists

13

PerigeeApogee

Atheists and intelligent people first.

Let the religious and the morons die.

But that statement was moronic and atheist...
What happens to you?

Reply 189

Captain_Sl0w

5

BOSSMANBIRDIE

If there was a situation like the Titanic sinking would it still be women and child first ? Would this be right ?

yes, absolutely

chocolat321

Children first, yes. Old people as well.

what a waste, screw old people. Leave them to last, they have the least to live for

Reply 190

Free force

I wouldnt die for the sake of a women living. That is stupid and a waste of precious life.

And saying women go first basically is saying that there lives are more precious, which is ballocks!

Agree with dishwasher comment

Reply 191

x-pixie-lottie-x

14

i think still the same...
children are the future..
and men have this male pride stuff... plus if their holding the doors open for women they have to go last dont they... they cant hold a door and get on at the same time... lol
x

Reply 192

69Crazyfists

13

Just get enough life boats for everyone. Then there would be no need for an order because everyone has a place. It's a cruise ship so why not?
If not however - children - they've got the most to live for.

Reply 193

Markh1000

12

Ok...A 50yr old male paediatric heart surgeon or a child (or children)?

I joke, obviously such distictions could never be made in this situation, however people saying that women/children are always more useful than men is wrong.

IMO - children first then equality for the rest :yep:

Nerds first.

Ladipidoo

Who would look after the children, then? The old people? :lolwut:

lads are capable of looking after kids... as hard as it may be to beleve they do as well if not better than a single mother!

Reply 196

Sorani

16

Don't overly have an opinion, but won myself a personal bet knowing that it would only take a few posts for someone to start spouting their opinions on feminists.

Reply 197

Aphotic Cosmos

17

Children first only.

My life isn't worth less than a female of the same age, intelligence and with a similar skillset. It's not worth more either.

All modern cruise ships can comfortably accommodate the entirety of their guest roster and crew though.

Reply 198

xoxAngel_Kxox

21

I say yes, 'cause I am a woman :biggrin:

But I have a feeling it wouldn't be the same, thanks to woman campaigning for equality.

Reply 199

missygeorgia

18

OMGWTFBBQ

I have a problem with most feminists... in fact, all feminists who sign up to your way of thinking. That has been my whole point all along.

I respect those who fight for true equality. Not those who fight for 'equality' only on matters on which they are disadvantaged.

I'm speaking of Britain because the Titanic (and therefore the ship alluded to in this thread) sailed from Britain, was boarded by British people and explored British attitudes to gender. Modern Britain is applicable here and my point is a fair comment.

Right, so when you said 'feminists are hypocrites and I hate them' (or something) you were actually just referring to the feminists on the Titanic...? I don't get it. You gave a massive rant about feminism in general- you didn't say 'feminists who only campaign for issues in Britain and live in areas where there is very little sexism'. We live in a global community, or at the very least a multicultural society. I don't understand how people can have such a limited view, in that if something doesn't affect them directly then we shouldn't have principles against it. Where do you draw the line? 'there's no sexism in my school so feminism is useless and crap'? Just because in your limited community there's little sexism, does that mean you should brand feminism in general as hypocritical? Do you see how that's short sighted?

Even on TSR there are people who live abroad. There are people from various religions who live in various places, there are people who travel, who have moved from different countries, who have relatives in countries oppressive to women. So to brand feminism as stupid on here based solely on your own, small community- well, it's just silly.

Should it still be women and children first ?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you