Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

a true feminist would never use the "women and children" first rule watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by booraad)
    Boohoo! Knocking old ladies out the way to get to the seat on the end and eat chicken flavoured crisps. Sitting there crunching away ignorant to everyone they've stepped on. I feel like punching them with my metro. Not sure how that would work, but it's something I'd like to do.
    There is a difference between the old and women. I would expect a guy to stand for an old guy or an old gal. However I would not expect a guy to stand for another girl of the same age. Unless of course she was pregnant.

    You can't have both chivalry and equality. It simply does not work.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I would expect a young woman to stand up for someone who was elderly, isn't that just common decency? It really has nothing to do with gender.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samz)
    yeh in theory, but i bet a tonne of them would jump in those lifeboats! it's kinda what got me about the whole suffragette thing... there was all this uproar about whether it was fair to put the women in jail, but if a man had commited the same crime they would've been slung in without a second thought.

    hence why i'm not really a feminist, too much double standards! not too mention the crazy radicals :/ oh &, i think children should be saved first
    You don't seem to understand the feminist movement much at all.

    If you don't approve of the feminist movement then never vote, go be a housewife, and don't bother with uni.
    There are double standards that still exist and date back from when women were oppressed - and these affect both men and women. If you object to them (as I do) then maybe you should think that maybe, just maybe, the remnants of gender stereotyping that we can't seem to shake are in fact bad and actually we have a hell of a lot to thank feminists for as they were the ones that reduced (and still do reduce) the gap between how men and women are perceived.

    Oh, and the 'crazy radicals' are few and far between and have been used by the far right to undermine any kind of suggestion that women and men can have equal status in society. Don't just accept everything you hear.

    From the original post:
    If your a feminist and a man and a woman were both there (no family, importance or anything to say whos more important) would you say she should be saved first?
    No of course not. You're just looking for trouble where there is none. I haven't read the article properly, I just skimmed it, but from what I can see there's no suggestion that the woman they're talking about is a feminist at all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RollerBall)
    There is a difference between the old and women. I would expect a guy to stand for an old guy or an old gal. However I would not expect a guy to stand for another girl of the same age. Unless of course she was pregnant.

    You can't have both chivalry and equality. It simply does not work.
    I don't expect chivalry. I just happen to be attracted to it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not a feminist as such - I believe in equality. And equality works both ways imo. So if it were a choice between me getting saved and a man, I would try and find a way for us both to be saved, if not you have to think of the situation. If my children were there, I'd want to be with them. If they weren't and his were, I'd make him go. If neither would go, it's whoever gives in first, and tbh men are physically superior by genetics, so he could probably force me to safety before I could force him, if you get me
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Feminists are often mistaken for advocates of equal rights. They're not. They're advocates of women's rights. This means getting the best deal possible for women. Hence why feminists never complain about the important issues where women have the upper hand.

    Fair enough though, there was a time when women needed to fight for rights. Not as much now. I just wish people would take men's rights seriously. But if you belong to a group who were oppressors in the past, you're assumes to still have the best deal.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Wow.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by weirdwakkidolli)
    I'm not a feminist as such - I believe in equality.
    I'm a feminist and so do I. What's different about you and me?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    well it's not just that **** loads of women and a handful of blokes could re populate

    a **** load of men and a handful of women wouldn't work the same - you know with the whole 9 month gestation thing.

    Survival of the race and all that jazz
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    or ladies first..
    maybe women and men should give way... and the first one to pass by can be deemed sexist
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Goose)
    well it's not just that **** loads of women and a handful of blokes could re populate

    a **** load of men and a handful of women wouldn't work the same - you know with the whole 9 month gestation thing.

    Survival of the race and all that jazz
    this isn't really relevant to things that actually happen though, yeah like the haiti earthquake could wipe out the whole human race :rolleyes: think about it, a very bad disaster may kill 100's of thousands of people which may seem like a lot of people (which it is), but on the grand scheme of things it isn't since theres 6 billion people, so this whole "women are need to repopulate" would only really apply if like the whole planet was affected, and the last time anything like that happened was when the dinosaurs got killed (I think). if a ship sinks how many people are at risk? 200? therefore it doesn't apply. If a huge meteor stuck and killed 95% of the population then this would apply, but it hasn't for many many years.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Women and men make an equal role in society. A lot of the arguments that women should go first is because they are the child bearers and only people capable of looking after the children. Though that argument is just as insulting as saying men should go first because they have the strength to carry out manual work and make money more than women. Both ideas are insulting to both genders and are based on massive generalisations.

    I think children should be saved first then it should go man, woman, man, woman, man, woman. It is callous to be putting one gender above the over when it comes to saving people's lives.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm but a fragile and innocent young girl, the men can handle themselves.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Goose)
    well it's not just that **** loads of women and a handful of blokes could re populate

    a **** load of men and a handful of women wouldn't work the same - you know with the whole 9 month gestation thing.

    Survival of the race and all that jazz
    Please accept my condolences on the loss of your Miffy.
    He looked so cute.
    Offline

    10
    I imagine this is because men can be conscripted in a besieged city or whatever to fight, whereas women and children are more of a liability that need to be evacuated?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vampyrcorn)
    You don't seem to understand the feminist movement much at all.

    If you don't approve of the feminist movement then never vote, go be a housewife, and don't bother with uni.
    There are double standards that still exist and date back from when women were oppressed - and these affect both men and women. If you object to them (as I do) then maybe you should think that maybe, just maybe, the remnants of gender stereotyping that we can't seem to shake are in fact bad and actually we have a hell of a lot to thank feminists for as they were the ones that reduced (and still do reduce) the gap between how men and women are perceived.

    Oh, and the 'crazy radicals' are few and far between and have been used by the far right to undermine any kind of suggestion that women and men can have equal status in society. Don't just accept everything you hear.

    From the original post:


    No of course not. You're just looking for trouble where there is none. I haven't read the article properly, I just skimmed it, but from what I can see there's no suggestion that the woman they're talking about is a feminist at all.
    You sound mean, but your Barker's worse than your bite.

    ahah. ha. ha.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Feminists are feminists when it suits them, everybody knows that?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Why not just do what is most practical?

    Men, in most cases, are going to have a better chance of saving themselves. Children, in most cases, are going to benefit more from emotional support from their mothers rather than their fathers.

    Sure, I believe in equal status, that neither is "superior" to the other - but it seems rather obvious that the natural differences in men and women often make it more practical to treat men and women differently in certain situations.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Natasharox)
    It's difficult to talk about a 'true feminist', as there are so many different branches - it's simply an academic discipline that pays a lot of attention to gender.

    But, back to topic, I consider myself a feminist, and I think that whoever is most in need should be saved first, regardless of gender. Although, as with those above, I think children should be a definite priority.
    Yeah this. You can't have your cake and eat it too. So in saying that, I think the children should definitely come first!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I almost agree with the title. A true feminist would probably say "children first".
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 16, 2010
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.