There should probably be a general preference for children, elderly, and FAMILIES, rather than just men or women. "Women and children first" is an outdated notion. But honestly, there should be enough time and lifeboats to accommodate EVERYBODY in this day and age.

Some knuckle-draggers in here seem not to understand this very basic point. Most days humanity is barely tolerable as an intelligent species and reading through some of these responses is truly an intellectual embarrassment.

Formula:

1. Post opinion without justification.

2. Claim anyone who disagrees is [insert nonsense: e.g. not a real man, inhumane, stupid, etc]

This shit wouldn't fly in any acadmic institution on the entire planet, yet these blockheads think this is a sufficient response?

I'm honestly confused by how people think there's a definite response to this question.

People are acting as though they'll be consciously thinking about who's who, what gender they're are, how much men/women there are, the proportion of men to women, etc etc.

Ridiculous. I'm sure that in the Titanic, people helped each other. Those who made it made it, and those who didn't died.

Do I have this right, there are 100 men, 100 women, and 100 children? I assume this since it says in the old days all the women and children would get the boats and 100 men would be left to drown.

Anyway, the children get on for sure. Next, would be a parent of these children (woman or man). Finally, the only way I can see others surviving is if by pairs the rest hang on to the life boats on each side to balance out (50 boats) until rescue is found.

I vote to let people fight for survival, no rules, only brawn.
I think is immoral to ask anyone to give his life for another's, the only moral choice is to let nature be decider and the ones that deserve survive.

In the end there can be only one, or ..... perhaps 100.

Just an FYI when you're wrapping your "point" in 2 insults about intelligence it's probably best to make sure you don't typo something like that.

As for your point tho, some people hold their beliefs so strongly that they can't imagine anything else being true, say there was a thread titled "should I punch babies?" hopefully most of the replies in it would simply be "No" it doesn't need further explanation why people think that, because in their minds it shouldn't require explaning, the same thing is true of those who say that "real men would let the women live" and leave it at that, they might not feel the need to expand on it because it is as basic to them as not punching a baby.

Besides John2290 isn't asking people for a Acadmic style report with examples and references provided, this is an internet forum for knuckle-dragging blockheads!

Feminsm implies social and economical equality, not biological equality because there is none. The biological rules of men dont apply to women unless they have an insane amount of testosterone, nuts and a penis and vice versa for men. Yes, some women can account for a massive amount of testosterone but not nuts and a penis nor vice versa. Outside of that its gender association which is in the mind and also is affected by hormones.

In the days of the titanic is was women and childrens protection first. After WII women had been working in the workforce doing strenuous labor and they economy gained a large section of workers. Today Women are competing more than ever in the market with men. It wasnt those who made it made it and those who died, died. We've always had biological rules. People consider biological rules sexist even though they are quite sound.

How is this related to my above post?

Of course in todays world most ships have rafts for almost all of the peole on the ship (if not more), maintaining quality and equality at the same time. No need for women and children. That is the cure. What say you.....if the ship tipped like the Titanic (in the movie) and half the rafts were left? Again, this is a hypothetical. You're far away from the mainland, half of the people will have to swim and you're only close to an island. What would be your approach?