• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sexism in Emergency Situations

IS there any truth to sexism in Emergency Situations?

  • Total voters
    15
Bodi

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
124,389
Reaction score
28,381
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Why is it we hear about equal rights all the time but when it comes to getting off the sinking ship we hear, "Women and children first" as the man sits there telling the kids that will live that everything is going to be ok? Why when there is a bank robbery do we hear the negotiator say to the bad guy, "hey, give me a hostage so we can negotiate a safe ending, how about a woman or child?" Why is the man's life worth less?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Why is it we hear about equal rights all the time but when it comes to getting off the sinking ship we hear, "Women and children first" as the man sits there telling the kids that will live that everything is going to be ok? Why when there is a bank robbery do we hear the negotiator say to the bad guy, "hey, give me a hostage so we can negotiate a safe ending, how about a woman or child?" Why is the man's life worth less?
Click to expand...

You gotta take this in the wider context that many want to have women continue to be treated as the lessor sex when it gets them advantages but as equals when the gets them a better deal.....there is no logic or sense here, all there is is "Women come before men".

I understand why women want, what I dont understand is men not sticking up for themselves, not valuing themselves, enough to stand up to womens wants.
 
Do they actually do that in modern real life?
 
“Women and children first” isn’t sexist, its male chivalry. Being chivalrous is a masculine trait. The pathetic MRA movement is actually drowing in the feminist narrative without realizing it. I like being a male and thank God as much as possible that He created me male and not female. Part of being male is the nobility and bravery.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
It never was an all the time rule, so it would seem the thread premise is flawed:

Study of sea disasters show men have a much better survival rate when ships go down | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

That information is flawed... at least the way your argument is presented.

5 times the captain gave the order for women and children first?

How many times was the order given for men first? I bet zero...

28% of the time women and children first. 0% of the time men first.

Sounds like my argument has merit after all....
 
Cherub786 said:
“Women and children first” isn’t sexist, its male chivalry. Being chivalrous is a masculine trait. The pathetic MRA movement is actually drowing in the feminist narrative without realizing it. I like being a male and thank God as much as possible that He created me male and not female. Part of being male is the nobility and bravery.
Click to expand...

As much as I agree with you what do you think society thinks of a man that just saves himself?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Why would you expect someone with such an antiquated concept of masculinity to be aware of modern life?
Click to expand...

Instead of takign the question and simply defeating it we see the classic failed tactic of attacking the person instead of the premise... :lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
As much as I agree with you what do you think society thinks of a man that just saves himself?
Click to expand...

If you mean a man who takes a seat on a lifeboat from a sinking ship that could have been given to a woman or a child, I think such a man is cowardly and not masculine, and the worst thing for a man is to be considered cowardly by society. I’d rather risk drowning than living with the reputation of being cowardly. For me honor is more important than anything else.
 
Cherub786 said:
“Women and children first” isn’t sexist, its male chivalry. Being chivalrous is a masculine trait. The pathetic MRA movement is actually drowing in the feminist narrative without realizing it. I like being a male and thank God as much as possible that He created me male and not female. Part of being male is the nobility and bravery.
Click to expand...

Chivalry is sexism as much as segregating woman sports.
 
Cherub786 said:

If you mean a man who takes a seat on a lifeboat from a sinking ship that could have been given to a woman or a child, I think such a man is cowardly and not masculine, and the worst thing for a man is to be considered cowardly by society. I’d rather risk drowning than living with the reputation of being cowardly. For me honor is more important than anything else.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't just take that seat and live and then move from said society and live a nice life somewhere else?
 
joG said:
Chivalry is sexism as much as segregating woman sports.
Click to expand...

Sexism implies a hostile, malicious intent based on prejudice. Chivalry can therefore never be considered sexist. Likewise, segregating women and men in public is not ‘sexist’ because it is not done with the intention of hatred toward women, unlike racial segregation and racial apartheid. I find it hard to believe whenever feminists claim that men are being ‘sexist’ etc. How can we men be sexist when we have mothers, sisters, wives, daughters? Sexism is an artificial thing created for a political purpose, unlike racism which is a genuine problem in society.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You wouldn't just take that seat and live and then move from said society and live a nice life somewhere else?
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn’t be able to live with such a thing, my conscience is too strong and I have a strong code of personal honor. That’s what being a male is really all about. My religion and culture inform my sense of honor too
 
I really don't know. I've never been on a sinking ship or in a burning building.

When I worked with first responders (LE, fire-rescue, EMTs etc) we had female cops, medics, and so on; they did their jobs and we just looked at them as another first-responder. I never dealt with situation where we had a mass of people in danger and had to sort who to move or treat first, but my best guess would be we'd treat whoever was worst injured first, and move whoever could get going the fastest. People who seemed unable to fend for themselves or clearly needed help (handicapped, elderly, very pregnant women, sick people etc) would get help in the order we could get to them, I expect.

Gender just isn't something I pay that much attention to in this context. In an emergency/survival situation, if I mentally divide people into groups it would go something like this:

1. Those who are able to help others
2. Those who are able to fend for themselves
3. Those who need help.

The priority would be to organize group 1 and get them taking care of group 3, while getting out of group 2's way.

Gender wouldn't really be a deciding factor there, not in and of itself. About the only time it would really matter is for a woman who is pregnant and far enough along that it puts her in Category 3.

If I need a heavy weight moved, a person carried, or something like that then yeah I'm going to look first for a big/strong man to do that, as males tend to have more upper body strength. Otherwise it's a lot less important than just what category a person happens to fall into.



Now if we get into some kind of weird thing where you ask me, Random Dude 1 and Random Chick 1 are both about to die, you don't know either, which one do you save? Well absent any other information I'd probably save Random Chick 1. As for why, well honestly, deeply ingrained cultural baggage that says I should, which probably also has a biological component since women's ability to produce babies makes them inherently more valuable from a biological viewpoint. I have a deep-seated aversion to seeing any woman come to harm... and mostly, I'm ok with that.
 
I find this interesting:
In her book Women and Children First: 19th-Century Sea Narratives and American Identity, English professor Robin Miskolcze chronicled the origins of our maritime evacuation priorities. Until the second half of the 18th century, it was widely believed in England and America that God decided who would survive a shipwreck, so no one criticized men for climbing over whoever stood between them and safety. However, as Enlightenment thinkers began to emphasize human agency, and women came to be viewed as the holy protectors of the family, news reports grew critical of men who survived shipwrecks that killed female passengers.
Click to expand...
Costa Concordia Sinking: What’s the etiquette for abandoning ship?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Why is it we hear about equal rights all the time but when it comes to getting off the sinking ship we hear, "Women and children first" as the man sits there telling the kids that will live that everything is going to be ok? Why when there is a bank robbery do we hear the negotiator say to the bad guy, "hey, give me a hostage so we can negotiate a safe ending, how about a woman or child?" Why is the man's life worth less?
Click to expand...

You are confusing being a gentleman with equal rights.
 
Mammals tend to do this generally--i.e. women and children first. Evolutionary psychologists will point out that, biologically speaking, women are worth more than men. To produce ten new human beings in one year, you need ten women, but only one man. You wouldn't need more than one man until there's a need to produce more than about 90 children in a year. The idea is that this is an instinct that kicks in when there's a crisis because, for many millennia, a local crisis was an existential threat to a village, a clan, a tribe. Groups that survived evolved men who rushed forward while the women and children ran away. Maybe only a quarter of the men survive, but that's enough to keep the group going. On the other hand, given the facts of human reproduction, if three-quarters of the women die, that might well be the end for that group.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Mammals tend to do this generally--i.e. women and children first. Evolutionary psychologists will point out that, biologically speaking, women are worth more than men. To produce ten new human beings in one year, you need ten women, but only one man. You wouldn't need more than one man until there's a need to produce more than about 90 children in a year. The idea is that this is an instinct that kicks in when there's a crisis because, for many millennia, a local crisis was an existential threat to a village, a clan, a tribe. Groups that survived evolved men who rushed forward while the women and children ran away. Maybe only a quarter of the men survive, but that's enough to keep the group going. On the other hand, given the facts of human reproduction, if three-quarters of the women die, that might well be the end for that group.
Click to expand...

Whatever the underlying biological reasons, it’s still chivalrous and honorable to give preference to women, even an older woman past the age of giving birth. Honor is everything.
 
Bodhisattva said:
That information is flawed... at least the way your argument is presented.

5 times the captain gave the order for women and children first?

How many times was the order given for men first? I bet zero...

28% of the time women and children first. 0% of the time men first.

Sounds like my argument has merit after all....
Click to expand...

You believe your life is more valuable than your kids ? :shock:
 
Bodhisattva said:
Why is it we hear about equal rights all the time but when it comes to getting off the sinking ship we hear, "Women and children first" as the man sits there telling the kids that will live that everything is going to be ok? Why when there is a bank robbery do we hear the negotiator say to the bad guy, "hey, give me a hostage so we can negotiate a safe ending, how about a woman or child?" Why is the man's life worth less?
Click to expand...

You seem to have some problems with women!
 
Bodhisattva said:
That information is flawed... at least the way your argument is presented.

5 times the captain gave the order for women and children first?

How many times was the order given for men first? I bet zero...

28% of the time women and children first. 0% of the time men first.

Sounds like my argument has merit after all....
Click to expand...

Yes, well men are more valuable than women or children. Right? It must be sexism against the poor men. My heart literally bleeds for you, sacrificing yourself for lesser human beings, because of your innate penis values!
 
Cherub786 said:
No, I wouldn’t be able to live with such a thing, my conscience is too strong and I have a strong code of personal honor. That’s what being a male is really all about. My religion and culture inform my sense of honor too
Click to expand...

Being male is not about a code of honor. Being human is...
 
DiAnna said:
Yes, well men are more valuable than women or children. Right? It must be sexism against the poor men. My heart literally bleeds for you, sacrificing yourself for lesser human beings, because of your innate penis values!
Click to expand...

I feel really sorry for any person that lacks self worth and engages in self loathing to the level where the mere mention of the sex's having different perceptions in contextual situations IMMEDIATELY leads a person to cry sexism. It is really pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom