RE: Women and Children first?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Women and Children first?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Women and Children first?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 2:07:34 PM

egern

Posts: 537
Joined: 1/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: naughtynick81

Exactly this..."The feminists wanted a gender-neutral society. Now they've got it"

If feminism is truly about equality, that does not include womenfirstism.

Men as a sex can't have abandoned "women and children first" because women demanded equality.

If the driving factor in the change had been women's demand of equality, the notion would now be "children first" and that's clearly not the case from how people have acted in the last couple of disasters.

Seems the old rules are outdated and there aren't any new ones = chaos.

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 2:16:18 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: naughtynick81

Your argument still isn't making any sense.

In other words, you're making a baseless female chauvinist stance that somehow women generally care about kids more than men because men are generally cold hearted bastards with inferior morals.

Her argument makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is thinking anybody will believe you can read her mind.

K.

(in reply to naughtynick81)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 2:16:19 PM

PeonForHer

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

FR

I don't know if it makes much difference, but I read somewhere that women are a) likely to last fractionally longer in freezing water than men and b) float belly up and with their faces out of the water if they go unconscious - whereas men float face-down and are therefore more likely to drown. Can one of the (ex) lifeguards here advise whether this is true, or is in fact bollocks?

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com

(in reply to egern)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 2:32:58 PM

Powergamz1

Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

Purely a spelling error. Didn't you get the memo?

'Women and children first' was discarded as inefficient a while back, with the understanding that Men would of course, grab the children and take them along to safety, while a handful of attractive women could get on the lifeboats at the last instant, in order to replace any lost children later (and resume other domestic duties).

Sadly, the print shop used was a union shop, and delivered a shoddy product, causing the new catchphrase ("Men First") to be rendered as "Me First", thus sendiing the world as it should have been, spinning wildly into the general chaos and disrespect for natural law that we see around us today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

Men as a sex can't have abandoned "women and children first" because women demanded equality.

If the driving factor in the change had been women's demand of equality, the notion would now be "children first" and that's clearly not the case from how people have acted in the last couple of disasters.

_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 4:58:07 PM

LafayetteLady

Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline

~Fast Reply~

Costa Concordia aside, since they didn't perform the proper drills so neither the passengers or crew (many of which were new, common on cruise lines), knew the procedure for abandoning ship.

On modern cruises, much thanks to the Titanic disaster, all cruise ships have more than enough boats to accommodate all passengers and crew in case of emergency. Passenger must attend a drill before the ship even leaves the dock, and crew have regular drills instructing them in the procedures. Modern lifeboats are covered to protect from the elements, and equipped with motors, so there is no rowing.

All employees on the ship, including entertainment staff are required to attend the drills.

(in reply to Powergamz1)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 5:02:42 PM

ScarlettSlut

Posts: 3
Joined: 4/1/2013
Status: offline

Personally I think it has nothing to do with feminism. I think back in those days most men were men! The women and the children were saved first because the children were the next generation, and the women mostly looked after the children.

Personally I think It doesn't matter man, women, child or she-devil if there is a national emergency people will panic and now days its everyone for themselves.

(in reply to egern)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 7:41:42 PM

Aylee

Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern

When a ship goes down, in earlier times it has been the rule that women and children get in the life boats first - Titanic (minus the poor, of course), and Birkenhead.

Later disasters have shown (most of the) crew to leave first and (quite a few if not most) men elbowing their way to the boats in the general panic.

There is an article about this: Mark Steyn: No more ‘women and children first' that got my attention elsewhere. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ship-336602-titanic-concordia.html

On the Titanic, the male passengers gave their lives for the women and would never have considered doing otherwise. On the Costa Concordia, in the words of a female passenger, "There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboat." After similar scenes on the MV Estonia a few years ago, Roger Kohen of the International Maritime Organization told Time magazine: "There is no law that says women and children first. That is something from the age of chivalry."

Whenever I write about these subjects, I receive a lot of mail from men along the lines of this correspondent:

"The feminists wanted a gender-neutral society. Now they've got it. So what are you complaining about?"

From a grandmother on the latter: "I was standing by the lifeboats and men, big men, were banging into me and knocking the girls."

What do you think?

I think that you should also take a look at the Aurora, CO movie theater shooting and how many males were killed or injured because they were protecting their wives/girlfriends/dates.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to egern)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/5/2013 9:14:43 PM

njlauren

Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

I don't think it has anything to do with women's equality at all, to me that is a strawman argument at best. The ideal of women and children first sounds great on paper and I am sure some people would still do that, but quite frankly, we live more and more in a society that is saying 'every man for himself'. Ayn Rand has come creeping up from the coffin, and we now see political discourse based around those who are well off claiming that they are special people, that they pay too much in taxes, and that if someone is poor it is because they are lazy and don't want to work hard. People live in themselves now, community is defined by a bunch of pictures on facebook walls, and it is all about me, myself and I.

Someone cited Aurora, and yes, a number of men were hurt or killed defending loved ones, but it is because they were loved ones, though I also bet there were men there who ran for the exits or otherwise panicked, too..and I bet there were moms in the audience who grabbed their kids and tried to protect them, as i have seen moms do, and I have seen wives try to protect their husbands as well, there have been women who literally were raped by an intruder in their home to try and protect their husband and kids.....On the titanic isadora straus stayed with her husband, she didn't want him facing his fate alone.

The biggest omission of the Titanic story is something someone mentioned, and that is that that women and children first wasn't universal. More first class men made it off the titanic than 2nd and 3rd class women and children, and there were first class men who got into the lifeboats and survived, and first class women and children who didn't get on the boats and perished...so some men must have taken spots from women and children. If men were so chivalrous about women and children, they wouldn't have let 2nd and 3rd class women and children drown, but they did (and yes, class played a role in that, but it doesn't exactly mean they were very chivalrous, either, if they looked at those women and children as unworthy).

I also think you have to be careful about one incident to prove something. That cruise ship was a clusterfuck, they hadn't done drills, and the crew were a bunch of people who wouldn't be able to work at McDonald's too easily. On the Titanic from what I can tell the crews were trained, they were serious sea crews with a lot of experience (the fact that the Titanic didn't have enough lifeboats was another story), these days with the explosion of cruise ships and lax law inspection, you have a lot of badly run ships. I saw enough during 9/11 to make me think that when it gets ugly, a lot of people do show caring for others, and concern, and I think that cruise ship may be more of an anomoly. I am still the cynic that looks around and sees a lot of people only caring about themselves, but I also think there is a lot of good out there, too, that doesn't always show. Hopefully the vast majority of the people will recognize the Ayn Rand views of things for what it is, self centered narcissism justifying greed and avarice, and will still care for others.

(in reply to Aylee)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/7/2013 10:43:03 AM

egern

Posts: 537
Joined: 1/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

~Fast Reply~

Costa Concordia aside, since they didn't perform the proper drills so neither the passengers or crew (many of which were new, common on cruise lines), knew the procedure for abandoning ship.

On modern cruises, much thanks to the Titanic disaster, all cruise ships have more than enough boats to accommodate all passengers and crew in case of emergency. Passenger must attend a drill before the ship even leaves the dock, and crew have regular drills instructing them in the procedures. Modern lifeboats are covered to protect from the elements, and equipped with motors, so there is no rowing.

All employees on the ship, including entertainment staff are required to attend the drills.

Modern cruise ships still do not have enough boats - hence the problem.

(in reply to LafayetteLady)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/7/2013 10:59:02 AM

egern

Posts: 537
Joined: 1/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ScarlettSlut

Personally I think it has nothing to do with feminism. I think back in those days most men were men! The women and the children were saved first because the children were the next generation, and the women mostly looked after the children.

Personally I think It doesn't matter man, women, child or she-devil if there is a national emergency people will panic and now days its everyone for themselves.

There is a pessimistic view that this is so, probably because of the increasingly harsh economical climate during the last 10 years or so. But maybe it is isn't so bad.

Research in behaviour during disasters seems to say otherwise:

"During the Cold War American government was keen to find out how the population would react in the country were stricken by a nuclear attack. They couldn’t simulate a nuclear explosion on their own citizens so their point of departure was to see how people behaved during natural disasters.

Some 16,000 interviews were carried out in connection with 144 natural catastrophes and the results surprised scientists. People didn’t become lawless, but rather they behaved rationally and kindly.
Rune Slettebak. (Photo: NTNU)

“On the short term natural catastrophes contribute to community spirit and altruism among those who are stricken. This feeling of community can help lower the risk of conflicts,” says Slettebak.

http://sciencenordic.com/natural-disasters-ease-conflicts

(in reply to ScarlettSlut)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/7/2013 2:37:04 PM

LafayetteLady

Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

~Fast Reply~

Costa Concordia aside, since they didn't perform the proper drills so neither the passengers or crew (many of which were new, common on cruise lines), knew the procedure for abandoning ship.

On modern cruises, much thanks to the Titanic disaster, all cruise ships have more than enough boats to accommodate all passengers and crew in case of emergency. Passenger must attend a drill before the ship even leaves the dock, and crew have regular drills instructing them in the procedures. Modern lifeboats are covered to protect from the elements, and equipped with motors, so there is no rowing.

All employees on the ship, including entertainment staff are required to attend the drills.

Modern cruise ships still do not have enough boats - hence the problem.

Uh, yes they do. After the Titanic disaster, that was the thing that caused it to become law that ships have enough lifeboats for all souls on board.

I'm not really sure why you think otherwise.

(in reply to egern)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/7/2013 2:40:16 PM

LafayetteLady

Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern

“On the short term natural catastrophes contribute to community spirit and altruism among those who are stricken. This feeling of community can help lower the risk of conflicts,” says Slettebak.

http://sciencenordic.com/natural-disasters-ease-conflicts

Right. That's why there was so much shooting and looting after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. And after Sandy, certain NJ neighborhoods had National Guardsmen at the entrances because so many people had looted.

Yes, people eventually come together, but in both cases, the people were initially not.

(in reply to egern)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/7/2013 3:19:16 PM

Powergamz1

Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

All employees on the ship, including entertainment staff are required to attend the drills.

Forget that, those bigger instrument cases will float for days, they're on their own.

_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to LafayetteLady)

Profile

Post #: 33

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/7/2013 3:20:45 PM

PeonForHer

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

There's a story about a couple of members of the ship's crew on the Lusitania rushing the lifeboats in drag, is there not?

Really? I didn't know there were any Aussies on board.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com

(in reply to Moonhead)

Profile

Post #: 34

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/8/2013 3:06:15 PM

egern

Posts: 537
Joined: 1/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: naughtynick81

Exactly this..."The feminists wanted a gender-neutral society. Now they've got it"

If feminism is truly about equality, that does not include womenfirstism.

Men as a sex can't have abandoned "women and children first" because women demanded equality.

If the driving factor in the change had been women's demand of equality, the notion would now be "children first" and that's clearly not the case from how people have acted in the last couple of disasters.

You are right

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

Profile

Post #: 35

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/8/2013 3:10:31 PM

egern

Posts: 537
Joined: 1/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

What you're saying is that it comes down to "because women are currently granted more rights than men, and men are routinely emasculated by legislation, education, and women".

That's not the same as "because women demanded equal rights".

Ahhh......

Women demanded it, women got it, and now the piper is being paid.

I do not understand this. Is this a kind of pay back for women wanting equal pay and the right to inherit and own land, for instance?

And what did the children do?

(in reply to Yachtie)

Profile

Post #: 36

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/8/2013 3:17:51 PM

egern

Posts: 537
Joined: 1/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
For the middle and lower classes, not so sure that children first, or women and children first makes as much sense. A child cannot survive on their own. A mother can look after her child but will require resources to do so.

In many piss poor societies women have to fend for themselves, children or no children.

quote:

Third, again taking a societal perspective, it should be obvious that all older people (over retirement age) should stay on the boat. Yes. It is utterly selfish for older people who have already lived and experienced so much, to try to take the spots of younger people, period. The world doesn't function on retirees. The future is in the children, and those who enable them - and I don't quite see how the elderly fit into that.

What a piece of ageism! Do you think no older people have anything to offer society? Politicians, doctors, scientists, just good grand parents?

quote:

If I were an older grandmother, I would volunteer my spot for a child (anyone's child).

So what about your own grand children?

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)

Profile

Post #: 37

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/8/2013 3:19:30 PM

egern

Posts: 537
Joined: 1/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

I don't know if it makes much difference, but I read somewhere that women are a) likely to last fractionally longer in freezing water than men and b) float belly up and with their faces out of the water if they go unconscious - whereas men float face-down and are therefore more likely to drown. Can one of the (ex) lifeguards here advise whether this is true, or is in fact bollocks?

bollocks

(in reply to PeonForHer)

Profile

Post #: 38

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/8/2013 3:20:41 PM

egern

Posts: 537
Joined: 1/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressxBanks

Female here, one of those who wants equality.

If not getting off a boat first is the price I have to pay to be educated, to vote, and not be be given fewer rights due to the accident of my birth, I would pay it gladly and throw in a tip of not-having-a-man-buy-me-dinner.

The age of chivalry sounds nice and makes for a wonderful film or book, but in reality not everyone can be trusted to act chivalrously; it was also a time in which women had no protection from domestic abuse, couldn't go to university, marital rape was not recognised and rape outside of marriage meant the woman was ruined. Neither did she have a voice in politics to change any of these things.

As a woman, I couldn't be happier that I was born in modern times.

Well said. Chivalry comes with a price, and it is paid even if all are not chivalrous.

(in reply to MistressxBanks)

Profile

Post #: 39

RE: Women and Children first? - 4/8/2013 4:36:50 PM

PeonForHer

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

I don't know if it makes much difference, but I read somewhere that women are a) likely to last fractionally longer in freezing water than men and b) float belly up and with their faces out of the water if they go unconscious - whereas men float face-down and are therefore more likely to drown. Can one of the (ex) lifeguards here advise whether this is true, or is in fact bollocks?

bollocks