Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Ship sinking: is "women first" moral/LEGAL?

Scroll to see replies

TO be honest though instead of this stupid women first thing i'd instead do an order of "youngest first" and work way up from there (with exception of parents who have a child younger than say 15 who can go with there children)
Purely because a younger person is more likely to have a longer life to lose plus more likely to reproduce while someone whos 70 plus for instance will unlikely reproduce or have as long to live.

Reply 461

Craig_D

Original post by someguy113

That's some bool**** right there. The men, even on the Titanic say, could've easily ganged up together and overturned the "women, children" first policy, so it was honourable for them to stay behind. Now whether this is an anachronistic rule and feminism should mean equality in everything, is a fair discussion.

The point of the post was to look at the principle of being told that your life comes second, and the morals of a person who would demand such a thing; in regards to that, the fact of whether you could force your way out of it or not is irrelevant.

Reply 462

cakefish

Well as there are currently 7 billion people on this here planet I think we need not be concerned over survival of our species. Therefore all suggestions of saving the most reproductively fertile of passengers are completely irrelevant.

I would say children, elderly and disabled all go first. Followed by everyone else (nomatter the gender). Simples.

My sympathies go out to the families of those unlucky few who lost their lives that day.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 463

GunnerBill

Original post by Adam1993

you missed out red ed miliband

He's over 18 so he must be... a woman? :eek:

Reply 464

truffle_girl

Well then they are doing it in the name of a warped view of Feminism, Feminism is about the equality of the sexes, not the advancement of one over the other or seeking to settle old scores based on past injustices. Don't brand an entire cause based on a few outspoken individuals.

All the feminists I've spoken to, pretty much, support feminists such as Harriet Harman and Germaine Greer.

That is of course true, families and children have to worked around and different solutions to the issues found but it shouldn't be only women that have to make that trade off, it should be shared.

The fact of the matter is, men and women, in relationships, CHOOSE their arrangements. Most women who do so are happier to be the ones to sacrifice career, for child-raising. Men make a sacrifice, too, in terms of having to put career over family. And you are perhaps thinking too much in terms of DESIRABLE, LUCRATIVE careers. What about men who are working in dirty, dangerous, tedious etc jobs? Are you saying that they have a better deal than their partners who look after their kids full-time, too? Not EVERY person is going to forge a rewarding career, not even close. It's one thing to prefer a GOOD job, over looking after kids, but the reality is that many people are stuck in jobs they hate; this is why so many, shall we say, 'working class' girls choose kids as a 'career'; as their prospects are rather dull, being without qualifications etc. Men in this class don't have this option. Besides, in a RELATIONSHIP, a man and woman benefit equally from what is JOINT income; if I quit my job, my husband would suffer the lack of income, too; if my husband gets a promotion, I benefit from the extra income, too.

I was never suggesting that men should do all the house work and childcare, but that should do half of it and that both man and woman should pull their weight fairly.

If a couple are both working EQUAL hours, then both should pull their weight, yes. However, the whole picture involves more than just typical housework, with typical 'manly' work, such as decorating, gardening, fixing things, taking the rubbish out etc, too. Men perhaps tend to do slightly less HOUSEWORK, but then, I can't say I've ever seen my mum up a ladder, and I freely admit to being only too happy to let men take the rubbish out. If this means I do slightly more HOUSEwork than men around me, so be it. Both genders have their 'lazy' areas.

In the animal kingdom most males have nothing at all to do with their offspring beyond mating, they don't help to provide food for it or to protect it, are you advocating that we follow that model?

I thought that lions did protect their pride etc?

And many animals do split responsibilities, most birds of prey for example both hunt for their chicks and protect it, wolves do the same. Add to that, male seahorses take sole responsibility for their eggs once they are produced by the female (he carries them on his belly till they are ready to hatch) and look at male emperor penguins.

I thought you just said that most males have nothing to do with their offspring, beyond mating?

Your suggestion that traditional human gender roles are a reflection of the animal kigdom is a false one.

And anyway, we aren't animals, we are human.

We still have animal instincts, and similarities. Gender exists. Looking beyond them to an extent, is GOOD; denying NATURAL differences ISN'T.

Then why did you suggest earlier being a mother and housewife was 'women being women'? That suggests that you see women = stay at home mother.

I don't see being a woman as JUST about that, obviously. I just think that full-time parenthood is something that women yearn NATURALLY for, that bit more than men, and, above all, is something to CHERISH, not see as below a career.

And I find it fundamentally offensive that there are certain standards of behaviour that women should be expected to uphold in order to be judged 'feminine', we should be judged on our own terms and not by an arrbitrary label.

In the same way that men should be expected to uphold certain standards of behaviour, to be judged 'masculine', you mean? I hear the term "man up" a lot more than I do "woman up". Yeah, of course we've all had the odd occasion, on which we've been chastised for being "unladylike" etc, but I can honestly say I've witnessed men being held to gender-based standards far more; the fact that men are being criticised for not letting women off this ship first, is but an example of this. Whether or not some women may not be totally free of criticism for whatever choice she makes regarding the career-children balance, the fact still remains that there are women who look after their kids full-time, part-time, and those who still work full-time. With men, however, albeit for extremely limited exception, they work full-time. So which gender, really, has the most choice?

You should also understand that many Feminists see the concept of 'Femininity' as an oppressive idea designed to restrict women into certainr roles in order to be socially acceptable. I don't think this is the case but I can understand the arguments made.

Which is a prime example of why I hate feminism. Girls and boys show differences as babies, even. I'm female, I love kids, I love pink, I love shoes, I love shopping, I wear make-up, and so on and so forth. This isn't because I'm oppressed; it's because it's what I naturally want to do. I know my own mind. Many feminists seem to want to look like men with breasts. This is why I say feminism is anti-men, more than it is pro-women; forcing women to act like men is NOT empowering. Women being forced into certain roles ended years ago. Men and women are now making their own CHOICES, which is why, as far as I'm concerned, feminism should be an obsolete concept. A good thing, back in the day, yes, but it is fighting a won battle, nowadays. Egalitarianism is a much better concept.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 465

Emaemmaemily

Original post by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher

As you say, no one's life is more valuable, and children aren't put on lifeboats first because they're more valuable but because they're less likely to be able to swim/survive in the water. If we look at it this way we're expecting everyone to survive so whether the children are temporarily split from their parents is irrelevant. It's not fair that someone should be able to escape first because they chose to have children.

Children can't be left on a lifeboat to their own devices. It would defeat the point of trying to save those less likely to survive (they would be scared, do silly things, etc); they need their parents with them during such a scary time... These people aren't be saved "because they chose to have children", it's because the children are in far more danger without them around.
It only makes sense.

Reply 466

gearoid94

thought this was interesting

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/women-and-children-first/

Reply 467

-Invidious-

If you think anyone else's life is more important in a life or death situation than yours (barring family), then you're an idiot.

EDIT - Forgot to add that I would not let some fat, chain smoking, on the dole, waste of space woman in front of me just because of her gender. Skulls will be cracked if I was forced to stay behind to make way for a beast like that.