By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Woman and children first off a sinking ship. Gender equality...?

 

Should the case be...

Let the 100 women get the... 90 24.13%
 
Let the 100 men get the l... 31 8.31%
 
Split the lifeboats 50/50 between the adults. 168 45.04%
 
Let everyone drown because I can't decide. 84 22.52%
 
Total:373
teigaga on 23 November 2015
Aielyn said:

There is actually a good reason for prioritising women over men, and it's less about gender roles and more about biology.

Men are naturally stronger swimmers, etc, and tend to be physically larger. As such, putting the women on the boats would, conceptually, maximise the chances of the most people surviving - the women take up less space on the boat, and the men are more likely to survive "going down with the ship" than the women would be.

That being said, the absolute "women and children first" attitude isn't how it should be taken nowadays. It should be focused primarily on saving the largest number of lives. If it's a choice between an obese woman who is over 6 foot tall and a guy who is 5 foot tall with a slender build, the slender man should take priority, unless there is good reason to prioritise the woman.

Of course, I'm describing it in a very simplistic manner - it should be more nuanced than that, of course. And before anyone suggests it, no, I'm not suggesting that obese children be left off the boats. Children are a different case entirely - they don't have the choice to not board the boat, they have much more of their life left to live, and thus children should always be prioritised over adults.

EDIT: To put it even more simply - gender itself shouldn't factor into the question - not "50 men and 50 women" - that's not gender equality, that's factoring gender into the choice of who survives. Gender equality would be considering gender to not matter in deciding who gets onto the boat.

Agree with your wider point but a lazy google search suggests its typically easier for women to stay afloat in water then men due to none density, size and fat distribution ;)



Around the Network
SuperNova on 23 November 2015
teigaga said:
Aielyn said:

There is actually a good reason for prioritising women over men, and it's less about gender roles and more about biology.

Men are naturally stronger swimmers, etc, and tend to be physically larger. As such, putting the women on the boats would, conceptually, maximise the chances of the most people surviving - the women take up less space on the boat, and the men are more likely to survive "going down with the ship" than the women would be.

That being said, the absolute "women and children first" attitude isn't how it should be taken nowadays. It should be focused primarily on saving the largest number of lives. If it's a choice between an obese woman who is over 6 foot tall and a guy who is 5 foot tall with a slender build, the slender man should take priority, unless there is good reason to prioritise the woman.

Of course, I'm describing it in a very simplistic manner - it should be more nuanced than that, of course. And before anyone suggests it, no, I'm not suggesting that obese children be left off the boats. Children are a different case entirely - they don't have the choice to not board the boat, they have much more of their life left to live, and thus children should always be prioritised over adults.

EDIT: To put it even more simply - gender itself shouldn't factor into the question - not "50 men and 50 women" - that's not gender equality, that's factoring gender into the choice of who survives. Gender equality would be considering gender to not matter in deciding who gets onto the boat.

Agree with your wider point but a lazy google search suggests its typically easier for women to stay afloat in water then men due to none density, size and fat distribution ;)

That is interesting. Never knew that. I had a similar point in my post, saying that men have the edge becuase of better upper body strength and heat preservation. Women tend to freeze faster despite more fat reserves. Maybe the women stay afloat better, but freeze to death inspite of being afloat? Now I wonder how survial chances in water actually balance out between men and women.

Anyways I think it should be familys first and then all others. You could try to filter dor younger/older/sickly/healthy people but it would likely cost too much precious time.



setsunatenshi on 23 November 2015

me and my loved ones first, the rest can argue about the remaining seats, no discussion, just action :)



S.T.A.G.E. on 23 November 2015
teigaga said:
Aielyn said:

There is actually a good reason for prioritising women over men, and it's less about gender roles and more about biology.

Men are naturally stronger swimmers, etc, and tend to be physically larger. As such, putting the women on the boats would, conceptually, maximise the chances of the most people surviving - the women take up less space on the boat, and the men are more likely to survive "going down with the ship" than the women would be.

That being said, the absolute "women and children first" attitude isn't how it should be taken nowadays. It should be focused primarily on saving the largest number of lives. If it's a choice between an obese woman who is over 6 foot tall and a guy who is 5 foot tall with a slender build, the slender man should take priority, unless there is good reason to prioritise the woman.

Of course, I'm describing it in a very simplistic manner - it should be more nuanced than that, of course. And before anyone suggests it, no, I'm not suggesting that obese children be left off the boats. Children are a different case entirely - they don't have the choice to not board the boat, they have much more of their life left to live, and thus children should always be prioritised over adults.

EDIT: To put it even more simply - gender itself shouldn't factor into the question - not "50 men and 50 women" - that's not gender equality, that's factoring gender into the choice of who survives. Gender equality would be considering gender to not matter in deciding who gets onto the boat.

Agree with your wider point but a lazy google search suggests its typically easier for women to stay afloat in water then men due to none density, size and fat distribution ;)


This is true but men hold their body heat in better. 



CosmicSex on 23 November 2015

Save the woman and kids. Obviously.



Around the Network
HoloDust on 23 November 2015



Rob5VGC on 23 November 2015

I believe in equality, so if you're not pregnant nor a kid(because the children are our future cliche), we're gonna have to discuss this what-if scenario. lol



loy310 on 23 November 2015

6 billion people on the planet more that half of them are female.
With that in consideration it's fair to say 50/50, women don't need anymore privilege because of their Biology or because we need more women than men for the race to survive. We are beyond survival.
Maybe if there were only 1 million people left in the planet we can revert back to Stone Age standards but for right now I can give 2 shits about a female on a sinking ship, if one female drowns their are literally billions more to fill her spot, same for men.
First come first serve. Better to be alive than dead.



Metroid33slayer on 23 November 2015
John2290 said:

Im sure many of the people who frequent these forums are of the mind not to pay attention to the feminist radicals, feminazi's as some call them, so Im sure this post won't blow into discrimination of a certain gender. 

Here goes. There's 300 people on a sinking ship and 100 lifeboats that seat just one person and a child. In days past the women and children would get the life boats and the 100 men would be left to drown. 

So, by today's standards do we put 50 men and 50 women on the boats along with the children or do the women and children first, as has always been the case?

Of course that is just a completely ludicrous situation but what say you?

Thoughts? 

Firefighters will always save the women first in the event of a fire. In hostage situations you always hear the phrase " at least let the women and children go" and young men have been sent to die on battlefields for centuries. Men have always been disposable and whlie up untill recently men have had more freedoms and oppurtunities, the lives  of men have always been valued less than the lives of women. This is one of the reasons why our species has been successful because the baby makers have been protected. You don't need many men to repopulate the species but you will always need lots of women.



Zkuq on 23 November 2015
Lawlight said:
Zkuq said:
Lawlight said:
hollabackenny said:
Why are arguments against feminism always such ridiculous scenarios?

If you can't stay on topic, don't post.

 

Feminists today is really not about equality, it is about power over the other gender and personal benefit.

You don't respond to a counter-argument by saying it's not on topic, then state an opinion. That's not how it works.

And just for the record, I'm all for equality and I largely despise modern feminism. I'd also split the places if I had to choose one of the options in the poll.

It's not an opinion.

It's an opinion or simply a lie until you back it up with facts. And if you find the facts to back you up, then you're off-topic yourself and need another thread for it. A thread for which I have no interest in but maybe someone else has.

Also, you completely ignored my point.