Shit. I'm turning 215 next week.

i was going to say i would let the women on first, but then i was thinking, what if it were me and my brothers on that ship? i would certainly let my brothers on the life boat before any woman and im sure they would make sure i was with them. why let my brothers die so i can safe a random women because "those are the ways"?

Damn, right, bitch, You are not old enough until your 229 like I am about to be on VGC. On the matter, I think women and children first idea came partly from them being percieved as the weaker sex. Since it is not generally thought this way by good hearted gentlemen like yourself anymore I presume survival is now on equal footing.

You will understand one day young one.

if it is an apocaliptic thing then it's okay for the percentage of saved women to be higher than man's.

every other situation: children may have some priority, women NO.

if she is a feminist then first come first serve, if not then she can go first


of course children come before

Children should be obvious enough and for women, they are biologically more valuable than men. No, really.

Women sire issue one or two at a time and take a long time to do so while men can impregnate multiple females at a time. It's much easier for a population to thrive with excess females than excess males. Take into account non-monogamous mammals, with a functioning breeding hierarchy, the chances you are less important as a male, statistically speaking, are higher.

You could also argue those who made these rules were male themselves and perhaps unconsciously saw it as a way of curbing competition while preserving all these valuable females. Either way, the shadow of nature and evolutionary biology is still there.

Looking at some of the responses here its easy to see why the world is going to hell.
F everybody else I only care about me.
Yes I am sure you would appreciate that mentality when its your wife or child being shot in cold blood so another man could be safe.
Children get to go first over adults because they have not yet had a chance to live. Anyone too heartless to understand that basic concept doesn't even deserve to breathe. Mothers or fathers should be next as long as the child has one parent.
Also lets not pretend everyone going into the water will die. Men often claim they are superior so they have a better chance of survival, if this mentality is true at all.
Hopefully one day when you all have kids, something like this doesn't happen and a man doesn't slaughter your kids to save himself and you have to think back to this conversation and live with the consequences of that conversation for the rest of your life.

a sinking ship is no threat to the humanity total population.

Spoken like a true fascist.

First of all, it's easy to see that a lot of the people with the "fuck everyone" mentality aren't giving this a genuine consideration. Nothing wrong with that. They don't have to; and they're not hurting the conversation, so you have no right to call them out so aggressively.

Secondly, the question was: whom do you save first. It was not whom do you let go in the water first or whatever. So what you said regarding that is irrelevant. Men claim that they're physically superior, because they are (on average) with respect to strength and endurance. That's a fact. Why do you think the genders are kept separate in professional sports? But, like mentioned before, it's easier for a woman to float up for longer, due to the higher percentage of body fat. Likewise, a fully developed male also probably has a higher body density than a prepubescent child. So, by your "better chance to survive argument", should women and children be thrown overboard first?

Thirdly, your morbid description for what you hope doesn't happen is, well, morbid. And what consequences are you talking about? We're not pushing for a bill or anything. This is just a conversation. Take it easy. Relax.

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.