The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
deathbeforeimmortality
Yes. Women and children first.

/thread.

\thread
explain why
Reply 21
Broderss
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.


It's women's instinct to be mothers and stay at home to nurture their kid and stuff, so by your logic they shouldn't get a job, right?
Reply 22
Considering I'm now technically classed as a 'man', I'm gonna say no :biggrin:
Reply 23
It should depend on how much you paid for your room tbh, just like the Titanic. If I paid £5,000 per person for my cabin with a balcony, I'm not letting some cow who only paid £900 per person for an F deck inside twin get off before I do. And old people should get off last, they've had their lives.

Seriously though, screw the rules, I'm saving myself at whatever price. I'll thank the feminists and say that letting women or children off before me is discrimination.
easter_bunny
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.

I know that.....I was just saying that the way he worded it "without woman reproduction is impossible" I was just being pedantic that wasnt my point I would have said anything if he said "to grow a population you need more women"

my main point was I was basically pointing out that his justification is pointless because no-one assesses everyone on their reproductive merit to see who they should save in emergency situations
Tefhel
It should depend on how much you paid for your room tbh, just like the Titanic. If I paid £5,000 per person for my cabin with a balcony, I'm not letting some cow who only paid £900 per person for an F deck inside twin get off before I do. And old people should get off last, they've had their lives.

Seriously though, screw the rules, I'm saving myself at whatever price. I'll thank the feminists and say that letting women or children off before me is discrimination.


lmfao ahahahahha :rofl2:
I think anyone less able, children and the elderley.
I think anyone less able, children and the elderley.
Reply 28
No, it shouldn't be. Maybe children first, I suppose.

This all being said, if I were on a sinking ship and people were rushing to put me on the lifeboats first, I probably wouldn't be complaining. But I doubt anyone would!
Reply 29
Tefhel
It should depend on how much you paid for your room tbh, just like the Titanic. If I paid £5,000 per person for my cabin with a balcony, I'm not letting some cow who only paid £900 per person for an F deck inside twin get off before I do. And old people should get off last, they've had their lives.

Seriously though, screw the rules, I'm saving myself at whatever price. I'll thank the feminists and say that letting women or children off before me is discrimination.


I agree with all of this :yep:
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.
Nah. Men deserve a chance to live too.
Reply 32
think about it this way, would you be comfortable as a man to leave women and children on the sinking boat/plane/whatever and get to safety before them? I wouldn't.
Ladipidoo
Who would look after the children, then? The old people? :lolwut:

Or who would look after the old ppl? The children?
Reply 34
Swayum
It's women's instinct to be mothers and stay at home to nurture their kid and stuff, so by your logic they shouldn't get a job, right?


My opinion is they should be given equal opportunities as men but not pressured to live their lives in one particular way or another. So I think they should be encouraged to take opportunities but just as much not discouraged from staying at home and looking after the kids.
Why old people? If we were in a Titanic situation, the old people would probably not survive the cold as well as a younger woman/man would and also they have lived their life, so kind of unfair to the younger adults.

Anyway, it should be women along with their children first then Men with their children. Unfortunately, on my cruise ship doomed to crash into an iceberg people who haven't reproduced (having their children on the ship with them, of course, we'd get some liars otherwise) get last dibs on life boats.
Perhaps this is slightly harsh... but y'know.

:rolleyes:
Reply 36
obviouslystudying
Or who would look after the old ppl? The children?


Nature should take care of them.
Reply 37
Broderss
My opinion is they should be given equal opportunities as men but not pressured to live their lives in one particular way or another.


Right so why is it a man's duty to protect them?
Reply 38
Swayum
Right so why is it a man's duty to protect them?


It's how it is.
Reply 39
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!


Whereas without men, women can get on with the reproduction on their own, without all the hassle of sex! :p:

Latest

Trending

Trending