We've reached a very strange point in human history, where the rules which helped us survive to this point are no longer as relevant.
Our instincts are 20,000 years old. Back then, there were only around 100,000 humans in the entire world, maybe less, maybe a bit more. Of course, who knows. But the Ice Age fucked us pretty good.
We survived to this point because women are the key to maintaining and growing population. 1 male can easily impregnate hundreds of women in a year. 1 woman can only produce 1 offspring per 9 months. That means if you have 100 people, 50 are men, and 50 are women; to maximize population growth, the women are integral.
Say 40 of the men die off. Okay, no big deal. 10 men can impregnate 50 women easy. Hell, 1 very happy man could do the job, himself. Say they all get pregnant. That's 50 children every 9 months, easy. Say 40 women die off. Bad things. That's only 10 children per 9 months.
Put plainly, it was the woman's role to die in childbirth; and, it was the man's role to die out in the field. Rather equal. Both men and women have largely been saved from the roles which killed us. So when you start thinking about how unfair life is, just think back to what our ancestors endured 10,000 years ago. Life is suffering. We are profoundly lucky.
My advice. Accept it and find a way to simply live your life in the best way you can while learning about negatives and finding countermeasures for them. It's not something that can be fought against. Not without a lot of science and tech specifically aimed at that purpose. But, if human population is decimated again, we'll still need that instinct, for human survival.
To answer your question, no, men shouldn't be *expected* to give up their lives for women. But this world is not about what should be. It is about what is. As the Buddhists say, life is suffering. Nature is cruel and unusual. To women, as well.
Yeah I agree with you. Society doesn't think we have equal value, because women can create life while we can't. This is a very primitive way to think, especially in a world where we have enough (perhaps excessive) resources and population. If we really wanted to live by the rules of nature, men would take control while women take care of the house and get extra seats on the lifeboat. That's absurd. We're at a point in time where these natural states no longer apply to us and therefore all our lives should be equal in value.
If it was dangerous situation but your life isn't in threat then okay. But other than that save yourself first before saving others.
No every bodies life is as equally as important as the next
Opinion
3Opinion
In a life threatening situation, you help others if you aren't in as much danger. If you're in a situation where it's either you or them, it's your choice, saving yourself doesn't make you a murderer, in my opinion.
Nope, feminist you drown..
This ain’t the 1800s bitch
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions