| attaboy said: If you're on a sinking ship, do we still save women and children first? I mean, I can understand saving little badass children because they haven't begun to live yet. That's fine, I guess, but why should I sink on the ship to save some random person simply because they don't have a penis? Aren't we considered equal these days? A woman can do anything a man can do. That includes sinking to the bottom of the ocean, right? |
I heard an interesting biological/evolution explanation for this. I have no idea how true it is, but it makes a lot of sense.
Basically, it's a lot easier to ensure that your population keeps growing if you have a lot of women around, and keep the children alive. A few men can make a whole lot of babies, provided there are lots of women around. But with fewer women, you'll have a hard time making sure that the next generation is big enough. And keeping children alive obviously plays into the same line of thought; protecting the future of your society.
Also, a random fact that may or may not actually be true. We're descended from twice as many women as men. A lot of men apparently died without having children, whereas the best and toughest men had lots of children (Genghis Khan). So now you can go brag that you're the descendant of the best men history has seen!
That said, I'd let pretty much everyone go first. Not because I have no value for my life, but because I don't want to see anyone else hurt if I could help them.
