Do you believe in the tradition of women and children first when it comes to an emergency to rescue and survival?

Question

IceCreamSandwich · Accepted Answer

I think ideally it should go by family. It's noble to want to stay and help other people's families get out but, go with your own and you have one family out in one peice. Put the families with the most and the youngest children out first. The older kids and childless adults help until it's their turn. Really if we're trying to help the weakest, why save a single woman before saving a father of 3 toddlers? Kids need parents. It's not numbers of kids and women and men, it's specific groups of all three.

But if we're just going by get everyone out as fast as possible, then most of the time the physically strongest will be the ones running things and the physically weakest will get out first cause they can't really help others. These are the cases where it's not just getting out, but manual work to get out, like working ropes and lifeboats or carrying people out of the building. Most of the time this is the case and so you can't use the ideal way because it would slow the escape process down, and much less people would be able to get out. Even in that case though, it should be by strength and composure, not *really* by gender.

MelvinGeek · Accepted Answer

I chose A.

Men are, by their nature, ready and more willing to sacrifice themselves for the survival of their family. This is the reason men are often the first act, and why they are risk takers.

Women are like the second defense. They are not as willing to sacrifice themselves if it isn't necessary, because her first instinct and priority is to **never leave the child alone.**

Option C sounds reasonable until you realize that it suggests the child be placed in the upmost priority, even if it means separating them from not just the father, but also their mother... who is their one last chance for a healthy childhood.

The thing is, children ARE top priority... But they NEED their mother. Hence, why women are included.

BlueScorpio · Accepted Answer

Everyone needs to try to make sure the kids gets to safety first and have at least two adults aboard to watch over them. If the men don't want this tradition anymore, I just hope they will look over the babies/small kids and keep them safe.

dustybiker · Accepted Answer

No. Always hated that idea. All the loved men lost. Forced to allow others to pass. I’m fair minded. First come first rescued.. unless someone freaks out and is risk of sinking the ‘rescue boat’. They can float themselves.

ObscuredBeyond · Answer

The trick here is that the most vulnerable should be protected the most. However, the problem is that some misinterpret it to mean screw the grown men.

Which is very shortsighted. Women, children, and the especially workforce-skilled might be better. The lesser-skilled could be saved for last, perhaps. But shouldn't ideally ever simply be abandoned.

Any unnecessary sacrifice of life should be frowned upon.

Sandeeppingping · Answer

Makes sense, if we were the last 20 people on earth 10 women 5 men and 5 children we have much better odds of survival than 15 men 3 children and 2 women for example, one man can take care of a group of people and impregnate 15 women so if 4 can't reproduce that's still not a problem, 2 women that's shitty ass odds

andreasderjuengere · Answer

''Women and children'' once were the most vulnerable persons of a group.

In this spirit it's still valid to me.

But -today- in extreme situations I would not object if a woman offers her helpful (and perhaps dangerous) contributions as well.

As for kids - I don't think that they have a capability to do so.

Snakeyes7 · Answer

It made more sense at the time of the titanic because even then, humans were still fighting against nature and if women were in danger, the entire society is in danger because the future depended on them.

Nowadays, survival (at least due to nature) wasn't something we had to think about for decades and iirc, women slightly outnumber men in the world population or at least in the west. Such measures aren't really as necessary anymore.

In my experience, fathers make far better caretakers but it far more depends on the individual. Women are just as capable of corruption as men are. People are more likely to believe women make better caretakers, at least in part due to the women are wonderful effect.

Iron_Man · Answer

It depends how you look at it are you gonna help your father first If he’s there hanging on the side of a cliff or you gonna help your girlfriend if she’s hanging on a cliff first right next to your father? It depends who’s more important to you. You will already know at that point. You decide that in your heart

RosieMelts · Answer

Only children. Could be easier to see them and also too much division would take up time from actually escaping. Children should be priority because it’s just too crushing to see them in any kind of disaster.

Sixgunsound · Answer

Human history and societal survival are built on male sacrifice and death. “Should” is a bit subjective, “is” can be backed up empirically as in your example of a sinking ship.

AviatorTom · Answer

It made sense centuries again, and still makes sense today. The idea is that women and children continue the family name, ethnicity and species, and that's important.

ArtemisSilver · Answer

Yeah obviously. It's your job as a man to protect them, particularly if they're your family.

Nobody is hurting my wife or kid's while I still draw breath, and I'm a pretty formidable guy as far as civilians go.

OneManOnly01 · Answer

That depends. If women can also help and be useful in the situation then keep them around.

Anonymous · Answer

For me, no I put myself and my kids before anyone else. I know it's selfish of me, but I don't what you think.

Anonymous · Answer

I'm torn on this. Kids, yes of course. But while I'm compelled to say women as well by my upbringing. Say in the case of a sinking ship, while I want women to go first I don't want to offend them by being sexist. 🤣

WhitneySnow · Answer

Children first. It’s sexist for women to always go first. Course if I was on a sinking ship I might change my mind lol.

CaptainSmartass · Answer

Personally, I'd say it should be families first. Children need their parents. Both of them. Simples...

WhiteBoyChill · Answer

You can bet your ass I’m going to fight for those most in need of protection and saving. Why wouldn’t I?

007kingifrit · Answer

not in this day and age. i'm not rewarded enough for being a man, why would i take another disadvantage?

Anonymous · Answer

It is man who will defend the family.

LimitedBenefits101 · Answer

Children and elderly people first.

Lee1515 · Answer

me is C

JesseJayNeak · Answer

Only children

Do you believe in the tradition of women and children first when it comes to an emergency to rescue and survival?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Do you believe in the tradition of women and children first when it comes to an emergency to rescue and survival?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.