I'm confident now you've hit reply to the wrong post originally. If not I'm afraid I don't follow your train of thought enough to want to board it!

I always like feminist saying men and women are equal or should be equal... unless in all the aspects they think women are better than men.

I think it should be survival of the fittest.

Whenever you say men are better at something because of genetic or any other reason they will call you mysognistic or that the reason is because women didn't had the support through history to do that and it's a social construction.

They them will say both genders are equal.

And then will list several things woman are better because of reasons... like if the world were run by women it would be better, women don't kill, women aren't violent and several other thins.

TL;DR -> Men and Women are equal unless in aspects women is superior, which equates to in all aspects (in feminazi narrative)

Slightly off topic, but I read a long aticle about females during nazi times, and how they were considered to be innocent victims of the brutal, male leaders. In reality, they were just as bad. Lots of stories and records showing how "evil deeds" had nothing to do with gender, despite what most people seem to think.

I'm not trying to start anything :P I just thought it was an interesting, and brave article (written and researched by a woman, in fact!)

I will try to elaborate and clarify, but I do believe it's a complex topic, I don't have a black & white position, and I'd like you to understand this complexity.

1 - Inside my family I would apply "women and children first", no doubt about that, I'd die for them, and I proved myself a few times that I'm not afraid to die.

But this priority I have, that's my choice in my case, it's not an absolute truth, it's the fact that I value their lives more than mine, and that I would not accept to separate them. Who is supposed to choose, from what point of view, and what is a right choice ? A son that dies, even if he's a lot too old from my point of view to be a child, that's also quite a thing for his mother. A mother can chose to value her son more than herself. Should a husband priotize his alcoholic wife that beats their children ? Does an old son have to beat her mom to make her survive him ? Also, in my case, I am faster and stronger than my wife and could protect my baby better. Without a father, with most of our revenue gone, without my guidance (I have a degree in science, speak 3 languages, lived in 2 countries)  I don't think my daughter will get the independant modern girl life she deserves. It's not as simple as "She is with her mother, all's well that ends well", it's a big deal for my family if I die. Am I in charge of the decision, does my wife have a say on the matter ? Or is someone else in charge of the decision, based on his morality ?

2 - IMO, "women and children first" as a background morality is good, as a man I would try to apply it, and could try to force someone to comply in some cases. We have to help each other, keep a morale behavior, it's unacceptable to push the kids and women to take their place, if you can you have to try to help a woman struggling, don't let die the pregnant girl, etc. So, for example, if there are 2 seats, we are me and a woman I don't know, I think I should help her before I take a seat myself... So let's improve chance of survival of women and children by not behaving like coward, if someone have strenght to share, share it !

So, in brief, the survival rate of women is not high enough, there is something wrong with it. Let's not be beasts.

3 - But I would not follow "women and children first" as an absolute rule. And I believed it's impossible to solve any single morale dilemn with a single sentence.

First, how far do we have to apply it ? What are we talking about ? Are men required to wait in line in case a woman shows, and die in vain ? Is a woman required to abandon her disabled boyfriend for any girl that requires help ? I can tell you I know for sure that my wife would not accept that easily that I just have to give my seat to a women we've never met before, die and abandon my family. Am I required to punch my wife if she resists ?

Second, about morality, "women and children" is based on a sexist and outdated reality, so it's not as much as a truth as it used to be. The women are all mother or mother to be, weak and to be assisted, a child can't survive without her mother, every man have or will have a wife so it's in his best interest to follow this rule, we need more kids and women to feed the wars and work in the field, think about the nation, that's what it was about.
Nowadays, some women are lesbian, some strong and tall as a man, some will never want a kid, some are 90 years old, women don't have to provide a constant flow of children to fight against a high mortality rate. And that's great, but then, why give them priority over a father, a doctor, a son ? Why should a lesbian couple survive entirely, and a gay couple die entirely ?

Third, I would not give priority to someone I have low esteem for, be it a woman. I saw once a 8 month pregnant drinking a pint of beer in a pub, heavy make up, I would not die for her. There are bad women, I don't give them priority over good men. If a rule give absolute priority for a crack addict woman that left her kids to a doctor that saved life, the rule have flaws.

Wow, I wrote quite a lot.

(Slow, approving clap)

Pray tell...what do you mean by this? Feminism implies social and economical equality. It doesnt mean biological because there is no equality in that context. We're not the same, but we should be allowed to do similar things granted we have the ability.

Good way of thinking

And that's a fundamental problem that anyone even remotely familiar with philosophical discourse would admonish. The positions one takes for granted as prima facie true are exactly the types of positions which are easily either exploited for personal gain or completely disassembled by extremely basic prodding.

When we're discussing veridical matters, it's not about mere belief but justified belief. Absent an argument in favor of one's opinions, the opinions are not justified and can be completely ignored by anyone and ought be ignored by everyone.

Failure or inability to comprehend the aforementioned simply proves my point. One need only read through the thread to find the bankruptcy involved in the common man's (or woman's) thinking.

Completely devoid of typographical errors simply to annoy you.