Is the notion of "women & children first" the ultimate in shaming?

[MatureDJ]

I've been reading an article about the Italian cruise ship accident, in which the author discusses the etiquette about abandoning a shipwreck.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...hat_s_the_etiquette_for_abandoning_ship_.html

It seems to me the the chivalrous notion of "women & children first" is really just the ultimate in shaming. The way I see it, as a man, I owe no strange women or child any special treatment in saving my own azz in such a situation. I guess that means that I have a bad attitude.

 

[speed dawg]

I personally would lay down my life for my wife and children.

After that, I cannot say without looking people in the eyes in the middle of that situation. My own religious beliefs say that blessed is a man who would lay down his life for others.....so, take from that what you will.

If it was mad chaos, I think I'd do what I had to do to make sure my family survived. If it was an orderly exit attempt and I had to choose between myself and a child, the child would go. A woman of my age? Who knows.

 

[Warrior74]

I won't get religious as I don't believe in it. But I do believe it's an evolutionary hold over.

A tribe that lost most of it's men can still regroup as they have women and children who can repopulate the tribe and carry on.

A tribe that loses all of its women and children have to go and try to subdue another tribe and take it's women. A large task for people who just got their asses kicked so bad they lost all of their women and children.

So it's just our animal nature to protect the weakest of the tribe so the tribe can survive. These days with over a billion humans its a bit antiquated. But we still feel that the rule applies. I don't think it's shaming, its just a hold over of evolution.

Let's see what robert hienlien has to say about it (he can be a pvssy begger at times, but he has a point).

All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly, which can — and must — be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly — and no doubt will keep on trying.

Men are expendable; women and children are not. A tribe or a nation can lose a high percentage of its men and still pick up the pieces and go on ... as long as the women and children are saved. But if you fail to save the women and children, you've had it, you're done, you're through! You join Tyrannosaurus Rex, one more breed that bilged its final test.

Robert Heinlein.

 

[st_99]

Children, yes. Women? uhmm, no comment.

 

[mrRuckus]

We can make more children. We can make more women. I cannot make more me.

And I don't care about the survival of society. I won't be able to care when I am dead and nothing. We're well past not being able to keep up with breeding anyway.

 

[Atom Smasher]

Leadership is about protection. A leader is granted leadership by the led largely because they understand that the leader will provide for them and look out for their well-being. Hence, they submit to him.

For 40 years a very sick, contrived society has been teaching women to usurp male authority, and shaming manhood in the process. Since women no longer accept male authority, there are lots of things I used to do for women that I won't do any more.

Back in the day I would stop at the side of a road to help a woman with a flat tire. I stopped doing that, but now of course they have their cell phones to summon some chump to do it for them.

I am by nature a leader (as all you guys should be grooming yourselves to be), and therefore I would not look at it as "women and children first", but rather "children first, other people second, me third". I would make no differentiation whatsover between a man and a woman. If it came down to saving either a man or a woman who were in equal distress, I would absolutely save the man, unless he worked for the IRS.

 

[Burroughs]

Women and Children first = Men Last

In today's age, this mentality has unfortunately found it's way into every facet of our lives, right down to the family court system.

It is so pervasive that there are attempts at blocking men from paternity tests on their alleged children, so as not to disrupt and destroy the family unit should he find out he has been cuckolded.

Another example of such thinking comes down to men paying support for children that are not their own, again as pushed byt he court system.
..

I think it should be a requirement for all men considering marriage to visit the local family court for a few weeks...school himself on the cases..and see what happens to men when they are drawn through the 'system'

It would be sobering

through this experience, never-married men would get a real sense of what 'marriage' is in our post-feminist harridan age.
_______________

warrior nice article: a quote from the comments

Essentially, all the whines about the death of Chivalry boil down to the same: Civilization hinges on your disposability!

And when you ask what’s in it for you, you get scorn and shaming for being selfish.

If that’s all I’m going to get, then excuse me but I have a boat to take; and to hell with Civilization really.

And they will continue to whine and cringe, and wring their hands in despair at the death of Chivalry and the lack of real, disposable men; but all will be for naught, because we no longer care.

 

[Warrior74]

Apparently women and children first is the old order.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/01/18/lifeboat-feminism-in-practical-application/

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/01/17/will-women-and-children-have-to-wait-in-line-now/

 

[ilikecharlene]

Hmm... So women and children hold more of a right to life than others? Who perchance determines this?

 

[ilikecharlene]

I won't get religious as I don't believe in it. But I do believe it's an evolutionary hold over.

A tribe that lost most of it's men can still regroup as they have women and children who can repopulate the tribe and carry on.

A tribe that loses all of its women and children have to go and try to subdue another tribe and take it's women. A large task for people who just got their asses kicked so bad they lost all of their women and children.

So it's just our animal nature to protect the weakest of the tribe so the tribe can survive. These days with over a billion humans its a bit antiquated. But we still feel that the rule applies. I don't think it's shaming, its just a hold over of evolution.

Let's see what robert hienlien has to say about it (he can be a pvssy begger at times, but he has a point).






Robert Heinlein.

Our society these days is based on equality. who then is to say one warrants more rights than others? If I earn $300,000 a year, am I inherently superior to somebody who earns $30,000? If not, why not?

 

[Jitterbug]

My children, yes.

Other people's children? They can go find their daddies. If daddies ain't there, they can blame their feminist mothers.

As for the women, well, fish can swim, so bicycles are gonna need the lifeboats.

 

[Mike32ct]

I'm ok with WOMEN WITH CHILDREN. Are you going to send a child into a life boat without his/her mom? Of course not, space permitting.

But women on the cruise without kids shouldn't have any special rights.

 

[backbreaker]

I won't get religious as I don't believe in it. But I do believe it's an evolutionary hold over.

A tribe that lost most of it's men can still regroup as they have women and children who can repopulate the tribe and carry on.

A tribe that loses all of its women and children have to go and try to subdue another tribe and take it's women. A large task for people who just got their asses kicked so bad they lost all of their women and children.

So it's just our animal nature to protect the weakest of the tribe so the tribe can survive. These days with over a billion humans its a bit antiquated. But we still feel that the rule applies. I don't think it's shaming, its just a hold over of evolution.

Let's see what robert hienlien has to say about it (he can be a pvssy begger at times, but he has a point).






Robert Heinlein.

due lol

i was just going to post this damn near verbatim

it's the same reason that your avg female race horse is worth tons more than your avg male race horse. a female can have 1 baby a year. 1 male can have 100 kids a year.

 

[Nutz]

Help those in need. Women are no more in need of help than men...unless you really do view them as oversized children. And that case why are you letting them vote and have other rights of adulthood. Either they are equal or we roll back their rights and treat them like juveniles and be responsible for them again.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear MDJ,
As one who feels infinitely superior to the vast majority of Women,then I would show Christian Charity to them in the case of Shipwreck,as I would to any inferior being,even a Dog,anyones dog...My Dad went down with three ships in the last Great War,in two of them The "Old Man" went down with his Ship,in one case Dad told me the Captain even though the last one away,deliberately chose death rather than face a Court Martial and his personal sorrow at having made a massive blunder in over ruling his second in command to take evasive action against a flight of German Bombers which the Captain insisted were friendly....looking at this Italian shambles,I am amazed how easily this Love Boat tipped over.

 

[Atom Smasher]

Wow, I will have to remember to avoid going sailing with most of you guys. Wouldn't any of you stay on board and try to get others out?

 

[backbreaker]

Wow, I will have to remember to avoid going sailing with most of you guys. Wouldn't any of you stay on board and try to get others out?

hell no lol. just being honest.


funny this story came up. i had never been on a cruise in my life. I'm petrifed of the sea. I just know im' gonna die. I can go snorkeling and fishing in reatlistivly deep water, couple of hundred feet that is not a hell of that far away fromm the shore, but you talking about 2-3 thousand feet deep in the middle of no where, i'm out on that. anyway, my wife had been campagining to go on a cruise for my birthday this coming year. my mom even sent me some pictures from her cruise she goen like 2 year. i was in subway yesterday when I saw the story on CNN. right back at square one lol. that's just some **** i'm not doing.

 

[mrRuckus]

I'm ok with WOMEN WITH CHILDREN. Are you going to send a child into a life boat without his/her mom? Of course not, space permitting.

Yes. I'm sure mothers are nice and all, but they are not needed for survival in modern society. I'm unconcerned with emotional turmoil when it comes to survival. That kid will survive just fine without being tethered to his mother.

 

[Burroughs]

..unless you really do view them as oversized children. And that case why are you letting them vote and have other rights of adulthood. Either they are equal or we roll back their rights and treat them like juveniles and be responsible for them again.

eventually their rights will have to be rolled back...the current system is unsustainable.

"But then again, there are no feminists on a sinking boat."

Agreed... Then why are feminists allowed on dry land

 

[MaddXMan]

That captian was a coward with a snatch between his legs. Duty and responsibility. Not running away like a ***** and a coward. If he wants to act like a woman now he will be treated like a woman while getting banged or getting the ol' pig roast skewer treatment while in prison. A strong man would have helped as many people as possible - men, women, children - and still saved his own ass. Or would go down trying. What are people saying -that it would have been ok to rip a life jacket off a woman or child, or shove past women to get a seat on a life boat? I just don't see that as ok.