Why are women and children saved first?

[chound]

(Atleast I think) that women and children are saved first during a disaster, Why?

And also when there is a massacre or some large scale killing, arson ,etc. The newpapers carry that line "blah!blah!more than 200 people were killed...including women".

 

[mattmns]

It is because women are special, and without them we men would be lost. *Maybe that will help cancel out some of my other comments*

 

[arildno]

Quite simple:
Women:
You need only one male to fertilize many women, so you can make do with fewer men than women in building up the population
Children:
The more children who are saved, the less do men need to fertilize women, and hence, they have more time to play among themselves instead..

 

[Smurf]

Women and children were also deemed less capable of self-survival. Which if the only alternative is death, isn't incredibly logical.

Personally I think men are being discriminated against

Stop Oppressing the white male minority! !

 

[arildno]

Women and children were also deemed less capable of self-survival. Which if the only alternative is death, isn't incredibly logical.

Personally I think men are being discriminated against

Stop Oppressing the white male minority! !

Besides, women have an unhealthy effect upon the men they've snared:
In just a couple of years into their marriages, the females have reduced their men into burping, farting sacs of fat whose sole happiness in life is to watch sports.

 

[LURCH]

I think it's just because, at the time this "rule" was established, men were making all the rules. Without speculating to the cause of this phenominon, I think we can all agree that humans have a natural tendency toward altruism. self-sacrifice for the good of others is recognised as morally admirable by every peolpe-group known to exist. So, somewhat ironically, those with the most authority, who make the decissions regarding whom to save first, can seldom bring themselves to say, "ME! Save ME first!".

That's how we end up with men (who were in charge of society) staying on a sinking ship while women and children get on the lifeboats. It's the same principle as the Captain (the guy with the most authority) going down with the ship. I'm sure that if women were in power and men had little or no pull when decissions like these are made, men and children would go first.

It's really rather encouraging, when you think about it.

 

[arildno]

I think it's just because, at the time this "rule" was established, men were making all the rules. Without speculating to the cause of this phenominon, I think we can all agree that humans have a natural tendency toward altruism. self-sacrifice for the good of others is recognised as morally admirable by every peolpe-group known to exist. So, somewhat ironically, those with the most authority, who make the decissions regarding whom to save first, can seldom bring themselves to say, "ME! Save ME first!".

That's how we end up with men (who were in charge of society) staying on a sinking ship while women and children get on the lifeboats. It's the same principle as the Captain (the guy with the most authority) going down with the ship. I'm sure that if women were in power and men had little or no pull when decissions like these are made, men and children would go first.

It's really rather encouraging, when you think about it.

How boorish; I'll stick to my own explanation.

 

[Pengwuino]

(Atleast I think) that women and children are saved first during a disaster, Why?

Good question. Where are those femanists now with their equality crap

 

[Pengwuino]

I think it's just because, at the time this "rule" was established

Was this at one of the geneva conventions or something? "Ok guys, for our next order of business let's decide who is saved first in every situation that involves a hint of danger and force it on everyone else."

 

[arildno]

Good question. Where are those femanists now with their equality crap

How deep!
Because females are to be saved first during disasters, that legitimizes that men should rule when there aren't disasters around.

 

[Kerrie]

(Atleast I think) that women and children are saved first during a disaster, Why?

And also when there is a massacre or some large scale killing, arson ,etc. The newpapers carry that line "blah!blah!more than 200 people were killed...including women".

Because it's the gentlemen thing to do But don't be so biased about this scenario...the elderly (whether they are men or women) are also bunched into being "saved first". It boils down to men are considered stronger and those who can save the more vulnerable. Would you rather have a woman or child save you being male? Not sure that speaks a whole lot about your own survival skills.

 

[hypatia]

I always thought it was because that when men got done with all the hero stuff they needed someone to cook them a hot meal and wash there cloths.
And of course saving your children would ensure that your blood line would remain intact.

 

[BobG]

It's not always the case.

Anyone old enough to remeber disaster drills at elementary schools in the early 60's will probably remember lining up in school hallways with the boys hunkered down against the lockers and the girls shielding them with their bodies.

Makes you wonder how long they expected a war with the USSR to last - or at least wonder what kind of armies they were planning on assembling in the aftermath of nuclear warfare.

 

[Astronuc]

Because females are to be saved first during disasters, that legitimizes that men should rule when there aren't disasters around.

Isn't it usually, if not always, a man who causes the disaster in the first place?! The all men have to bear the responsibility.

 

[arildno]

Isn't it usually, if not always, a man who causes the disaster in the first place?!

Cherchez la femme..

The all men have to bear the responsibility.

Blamez la femme..

 

[Kerrie]

I always thought it was because that when men got done with all the hero stuff they needed someone to cook them a hot meal and wash there cloths.
And of course saving your children would ensure that your blood line would remain intact.

great answer

 

[hypatia]

It's not always the case.

Anyone old enough to remeber disaster drills at elementary schools in the early 60's will probably remember lining up in school hallways with the boys hunkered down against the lockers and the girls shielding them with their bodies.

Makes you wonder how long they expected a war with the USSR to last - or at least wonder what kind of armies they were planning on assembling in the aftermath of nuclear warfare.

We didn't do that here, but I do recall, "Bert the Turtle" who showed us how to "duck and cover" to protect themselves during an nuclear event.
For tornado drills, the girls ran out to the hallway, while the boys ran to open windows{i guess so they wouldn't be blown out?}. We had to kneel in a long row with our hands over our heads, low to the ground.

 

[Evo]

It's not always the case.

Anyone old enough to remeber disaster drills at elementary schools in the early 60's will probably remember lining up in school hallways with the boys hunkered down against the lockers and the girls shielding them with their bodies.

That was so in the case of an atomic explosion the boys wouldn't catch a glimpse under the girl's skirt, so the girls were behind the boys so they couldn't peak. Before you say that's dumb, these were people that thought crouching in the hallway would somehow save us from an atomic blast.

 

[BobG]

Isn't it usually, if not always, a man who causes the disaster in the first place?! The all men have to bear the responsibility.

Wait a minute ... who was it that opened Pandora's box?

And who was the hussy that ran off to Troy with her lover, resulting in a 1000 ships sailing off to war?

And who was it that insisted that Rasputin be an advisor in government just because he could ease her son's suffering? Okay, that's kind of borderline since Rasputin's a male and caused all sorts of trouble, but who did he do most of his sinning with?

In fact, which gender is the cause of most male's fights?

 

[Smurf]

I think it's just because, at the time this "rule" was established, men were making all the rules. Without speculating to the cause of this phenominon, I think we can all agree that humans have a natural tendency toward altruism. self-sacrifice for the good of others is recognised as morally admirable by every peolpe-group known to exist. So, somewhat ironically, those with the most authority, who make the decissions regarding whom to save first, can seldom bring themselves to say, "ME! Save ME first!".

Nonsense, you'll notice that when the titanic sank all the richies got away safe and all the poor went down with the ship, some were even locked in the lower areas of the ship so they wouldn't have a chance of escaping.

That's how we end up with men (who were in charge of society) staying on a sinking ship while women and children get on the lifeboats. It's the same principle as the Captain (the guy with the most authority) going down with the ship. I'm sure that if women were in power and men had little or no pull when decissions like these are made, men and children would go first.

I think that's a load of garbage, there's nothing to back it up.

i still like my answer best

 

[Smurf]

Good question. Where are those femanists now with their equality crap

That's what I always say when someone say's "Don't hit women". Come on, do you want to be equal or do you want to be specially protected, you can't have both - so either stay on the boat with me or GET ME MY DINNER WENCH!

 

[Smurf]

Wait a minute ... who was it that opened Pandora's box?

And who was the hussy that ran off to Troy with her lover, resulting in a 1000 ships sailing off to war?

And who was it that insisted that Rasputin be an advisor in government just because he could ease her son's suffering? Okay, that's kind of borderline since Rasputin's a male and caused all sorts of trouble, but who did he do most of his sinning with?

In fact, which gender is the cause of most male's fights?

Let's not forget who tricked adam into eating an apple that started all this suffering in the first place. (okay, undefined fruit, whatever)

 

[mattmns]

Woah, woah! Saving the elderly first? I would personally save the elderly last, if at all. They have had their chance to live, children, however, have not.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Anyone old enough to remeber disaster drills at elementary schools in the early 60's will probably remember lining up in school hallways with the boys hunkered down against the lockers and the girls shielding them with their bodies.

I wish we had drills like that when I was in High School.

 

[Moonbear]

I don't think there's any rule about saving women first anymore. It's still expected that people will help out the children, because they can't help themselves, but women are more than capable. That rule is pretty old, from times when they thought women couldn't take care of themselves, so the men had to help the women out first, then save themselves. Though, if you're going to save the children, someone needs to go with them. You can't exactly have a lifeboat full of nothing but children and think they'll have any hope of survival. The men probably thought over what it would be like to be on a boat full of children and decided the women should go with them.

 

[Learning Curve]

let the women survive, so if I do as well, I have a larger selection to pick from

 

[Pengwuino]

That's what I always say when someone say's "Don't hit women". Come on, do you want to be equal or do you want to be specially protected, you can't have both - so either stay on the boat with me or GET ME MY DINNER WENCH!

This one guy (maddox if you know him) had this thing on his website where someone sent him this "25 things a guy should do to make him look cute" or something. He goes...

11. React so cutely when you hit him and it actually hurts.
See, this is what pisses me off about women: they expect special treatment at their discretion. They want equal rights, equal pay, and equal treatment for everything EXCEPT when it comes to **** like this, then they want you to "react cutely" instead of, say, putting them in a head lock and making them eat ants and/or spiders while you give them carpet burn. Why don't women react "cutely" when men hit them for a change? Oops, I forgot, that's domestic abuse.

Heres the whole thing lol

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=26_things

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why are women and children saved first?

Any married guy can tell you: Because otherwise we'd never hear the end of it.

 

[stickythighs]

I think it's just because, at the time this "rule" was established, men were making all the rules. Without speculating to the cause of this phenominon, I think we can all agree that humans have a natural tendency toward altruism.

Rubbish; People exploit nice guys. Nice guys finish last.

 

[Werg22]

I don't about women, but it seems to me that anyone would save a child rather than an adult first.

 

[WarPhalange]

 

[lisab]

...another brain-eating undead thread...

 

[moose]

Rubbish; People exploit nice guys. Nice guys finish last.

There's a difference between passive aggressive door mats and confident nice guys.

 

[DaveC426913]

(Atleast I think) that women and children are saved first during a disaster, Why?

Aside from the obvious chivalry, consider it as an efficiency in division of labour.

Assumed premise: Women, children and elderly, whether due to size, knowledge, or strength have been (at least historically) slower and weaker than men in situations requiring speed and strength and good decision-making (perhapsd merely due to training or previous experience).

Scenario 1 (every man or woman for him- or herself):

1a] Disaster strikes.
1b] All the men rush onto the life boats.
1c] The eoment, children and elderly, make poorer decisions, freeze, act too slowly are are simply incapable of garnering the strength to get to the lifeboats
1d] meanwhile the men stand around on the lifeboat, reading the paper, saying "Look, this boat is leaving in ten minutes whether you're in it or not!" They are wasted as a resource.

This scenario has theoretically no limit on how long it could take to get everyone in the lifeboats, because the goal is only reached once the slowest person gets to the finish line.


Scenario 2 (which should be fairly obvious by now):
2a] Disaster strikes.
2b] The men stick around to organize the elderly, women and children, which, indepedent of anything else, will get things moving along.
2c] Any sitution that cannot be handled by a given person (due to strength speed or intelligence) will be taken over by someone who is faster and/or stronger.
2d] The last ones off the boat are the ones most capable of getting off under their own power under worsening conditions.

In this scenario, the time elapsed is minimized.



If you accept the premise, the rest follows automatically.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ah fer Pete's sake...

the OP's been safe on shore for two years now, mourning the loss of his wife and children...

Really, we need a thing that says "resurrected thread"!

 

[BobG]

Ah fer Pete's sake...

the OP's been safe on shore for two years now, mourning the loss of his wife and children...

Really, we need a thing that says "resurrected thread"!

Either that or sitting on a deserted island talking to a volleyball.

 

[stickythighs]

There's a difference between passive aggressive door mats and confident nice guys.

What's your point? Do you disagree with the maxim that nice guys finish last?

 

[turbo]

What's your point? Do you disagree with the maxim that nice guys finish last?

I certainly do. Nice guys can get burned and be taken advantage of, but in the end, they are generally well-respected and highly valued by those who value ethics, loyalty, and a sense of fairness. If you think that the person who dies with the most toys wins, I am sorry for you. If you have ever attended a funeral/memorial service for someone that is packed with people alternately crying and smiling over remembrances of the departed, you know that a more reliable evaluation of a person's worth is the sense of loss that the community feels at his/her passing.

 

[lisab]

I certainly do. Nice guys can get burned and be taken advantage of, but in the end, they are generally well-respected and highly valued by those who value ethics, loyalty, and a sense of fairness. If you think that the person who dies with the most toys wins, I am sorry for you. If you have ever attended a funeral/memorial service for someone that is packed with people alternately crying and smiling over remembrances of the departed, you know that a more reliable evaluation of a person's worth is the sense of loss that the community feels at his/her passing.

I agree with turbo. In the workplace, your career will suffer if you're a jerk.

Note that "nice guy" doesn't mean you'll let people walk all over you, btw. You have to have a spine in life.

Here's a book about jerks in the workplace, and what they cost the company:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0446526568/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Moonbear]

I certainly do. Nice guys can get burned and be taken advantage of, but in the end, they are generally well-respected and highly valued by those who value ethics, loyalty, and a sense of fairness. If you think that the person who dies with the most toys wins, I am sorry for you. If you have ever attended a funeral/memorial service for someone that is packed with people alternately crying and smiling over remembrances of the departed, you know that a more reliable evaluation of a person's worth is the sense of loss that the community feels at his/her passing.

I agree with turbo. In the workplace, your career will suffer if you're a jerk.

Note that "nice guy" doesn't mean you'll let people walk all over you, btw. You have to have a spine in life.

Here's a book about jerks in the workplace, and what they cost the company:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0446526568/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Agreed and agreed. Why is it so hard for people to understand the difference between nice and doormat? Actually, someone can be a pretty obnoxious doormat too. Nobody likes to work in a hostile workplace.

 

[Evo]

Something no one's brought up (actually, I haven't bothered to look) is that the children are the future, you want your children to survive, the mother through history is the one that raises the child, so she goes along as part of the package. So that's one reason.

Others are that men are seen as the protectors of their families and have asumed this role (with exceptions), so it's always been expected of them.

The elderly, well it just wouldn't look right to throw Grandma overboard.

 

[Cyrus]

I heard in japan they save grandma and grandpa first and then go back for the kids because they are older. In a way, it makes more sense.

 

[WarPhalange]

You can always have more kids.
It's fun, too!

 

[moose]

In my mind, it should be (well...is) kids, moms, women, elders, men. Protecting the kids is in our DNA. They are the future. Moms to take care of those kids. Women to have kids in the future. Elderly because we owe them for what they've done for us. Men last because there needs to be someone last. Also men are usually stronger and can outlast the people from other categories, and somebody needed to be placed last. Also having men in numbers isn't as important biologically.

I think I may have just repeated Evo...

 

[Cyrus]

A babies life isn't worth more than that of an elderly person. An old person has been around for a long time, has wisdom and advice.

You can always have another baby.

 

[rootX]

A babies life isn't worth more than that of an elderly person. An old person has been around for a long time, has wisdom and advice.

You can always have another baby.

There's some uncertainty maybe P = 0.01.
What if the losing baby would be future Einstein .. ?

Elderly person is useless with probability of 0.9.

 

[Cyrus]

There's some uncertainty maybe P = 0.01.
What if the losing baby would be future Einstein .. ?

Elderly person is useless with probability of 0.9.

What do I care what it could be? It could be a drug addict.

What I DO know is that the elderly person has more wisdom and experience to share.

 

[WarPhalange]

What I DO know is that the elderly person has more wisdom and experience to share.

Which old person? The one crapping his pants because he doesn't know where he is?

Most people are stupid. Most old people aren't any different. Age =/= Wisdom. Just look at the largest voting demographic and look at who they picked for president.

QED.

 

[Cyrus]

Which old person? The one crapping his pants because he doesn't know where he is?

Most people are stupid. Most old people aren't any different. Age =/= Wisdom. Just look at the largest voting demographic and look at who they picked for president.

QED.

....are you 12?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Most people are stupid.

You don't happen to know a guy named Pengwuino, do you?