Gneisenau Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Would you volunteer to be the person that gives up their place. I'd be pretty uncomfortable forcing someone to do something that I maybe wouldn't do myself. No, but I'm not one of those women and children first people. But if you are uncomfortable forcing people to follow the women and children first doctrine, then the doctrine is really just a personal choice (not that there is anything wrong with that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaguya Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Kids? Of course. Women? PFFT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The BlackBear Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Kids? Of course. Women? PFFT! Have you tried speaking to children though? They are annoying as fuck. Two minutes in a lifeboat with them and I'd be ready to sink it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparrowyn Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Have you tried speaking to children though? They are annoying as fuck. Two minutes in a lifeboat with them and I'd be ready to sink it. Yeah but if things don't go well and your lifeboat is adrift with little hope of rescue, and you resort to cannibalism... children are good eat'n... or used as bait to catch fish. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuitableTr​ain8 Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 saw the thread title and was going to say it was a little bit of a let down after VH2 but did have a few really solid tracks like the title track, everybody wants some and take your whiskey home. But then I saw it was who should get off the sinking ship 1st and was let down. as for the true question the strong survive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The BlackBear Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 I'd say pound for pound they've got more bone compared to an adult. They'd be more tender yeah, but less meat overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elder Sister Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Have you tried speaking to children though? They are annoying as fuck. Two minutes in a lifeboat with them and I'd be ready to sink it. They are, but so are whiny men, old people, and crusty jugglers. I'm thinking women first, and everyone else after that. The crusty jugglers can take care of the chilluns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddington Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 All that salt water, everyone is going to get a bit crusty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlefingers In The Air Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 I can maybe get behind women before everyone, provided they're fertile and willing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elder Sister Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 I can maybe get behind women before everyone, provided they're fertile and willing. Dude, you are missing the point. You will be hanging out with the crusty jugglers and the chilluns. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlefingers In The Air Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Dude, you are missing the point. You will be hanging out with the crusty jugglers and the chilluns. :D :lol: I'm not on the boat, I'm on the rescue team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athias Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 No, I don't agree. The notion of women and children first reflects a rather daunting perception of male usefulness and human existentialism. It's a perversion of reproductive economics. A woman is born with one million eggs--300,000 of which are useful by the time she reaches puberty. She only has one womb and can gestate from anywhere between 37-42 weeks at a time with an additional 6 week period of recommended abstinence. (This may inform the reason why women tend to be restrictive when selecting male partners.) On the other hand, her male counterpart can produce millions of sperm cells a day. Unlike his female counterpart, it doesn't take up to 42 weeks to inseminate; he can do it again shortly after his first ejaculation. In the mate market, the male's ability to reproduce is defined by abundance, and is therefore considered less valuable. The female's ability to reproduce is defined by limitation and scarcity, and therefore considered more valuable. I mean, if a male is killed, another male can replace him and conceive many children with a number of women available. If a woman is killed, the species is deprived of an able gestator. Add to that fact, that even if there are many males around, she can only be fertilized by one of them, essentially, once a year. Thus, the life of a female by virtue of her biology has been deemed and implicity--and sometimes explicity--accepted as more valuable to the survival of the species. *Side Note* This in my opinion is why Patriarchy Theory is completely invalid. If anything, women have been "victims" of overprotection, not undervaluation. For a male to cope and embrace his disposability, he had to believe that there was greater meaning to risking his life. Duty, honor, obligation, power, status, authority, etc., were all contructs developed to grant him a positive male identity. I mean, would men have risked their lives in incredibly harsh envrionments if they thought they were individually worthless in comparison to women and their children? Regardless of the honors that man has supplemented onto the existence of males and how they've evolved throughout the years, the subtext is the same: the male is not worth as much. It's prevalent in economics, politics (particularly with third-wave feminism,) mores and folkways, customs and norms. To agree, or even indulge, the notion of women and children first, is to extend the misconception that men are categorically dispensible members of the human species. Therfore, I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaguya Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Have you tried speaking to children though? They are annoying as fuck. Two minutes in a lifeboat with them and I'd be ready to sink it. Ha. "Men and Women first....Children stay behind" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drowned Crow Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Why Children? Surely young adults should be saved preferentally. They've had far more resources invested in them (all the money it takes to raise someone to adulthood and educate them) and are poised to offer a return on that investment. Young children represent a lower investment and should die before young adults. Babies cost essentially nothing and can be considered disposable. Given the number of abortions being carried out, there is clearly a greater supply than the market can bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaguya Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Why Children? Surely young adults should be saved preferentally. They've had far more resources invested in them (all the money it takes to raise someone to adulthood and educate them) and are poised to offer a return on that investment. Young children represent a lower investment and should die before young adults. Babies cost essentially nothing and can be considered disposable. Given the number of abortions being carried out, there is clearly a greater supply than the market can bear. Because Children literally have a horrible chance of surviving in those situations compared to healthy teens and adults (male or female) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Howell Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Plus many parents do in fact love their children and would rather die themselves or even kill another person than let their baby die. I have grown up around mothers who will regularly profess and reassure their children of the love they hold for them by telling them they would gladly kill a person or die themselves if it meant protecting their child. And I have never doubted they would. In the case of a sinking ship or some other "Women and Children First" scenario, you may have people perfectly willing to overlook the "Women" part of that. But children? Every parent on that ship or in that room would fight tooth and nail to keep that part of the code of honor in affect if they truly loved their children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.