Or sometimes they’re a hero. It’s a two way street.
Not to worry men. You are justified 
Another ancient custom of letting women enter a room first came from the tradition of letting women enter a cave first. If there is a wild bear, it will eat the useless woman, not the valuable man.
All I can say is…
What the fuck…?!?
Yeah, maybe in a society where only men are taught how to fix things. But not in the society we’re living in now. Unless your actually suggesting men inherently know how to do stuff and women don’t…in which case I would suggest you are a disgrace to your chromosomes (both Xs).
I think the women and children first thing is, in fact, based on the idea the women (like children) are in greater need of help. Which is why I think the “gentlemanly” thing to do (for women to do to) is to help those who need help, for whatever reason.
Woeg, would you really step over a guy in a wheelchair to help a perfectly capable women into the life raft? What does gender have to do with it?
Men are better capable to focus intensely on a particular task – something that enables them to function better performing under pressure. Because of the way their brains are compartmentalized and specialized, they are more apt to have the aptitude and interest for mechanical and technological skills. That’s not to say that it’s not possible for women to develop these kinds of skills, but that women tend to dabble in a little bit of everything, where as men focus on one particular task at a time.
There are exceptions to every rule, and I in no way implied that men “inherently know how to do stuff and women don’t”, but it’s a fact that men are more inclined towards learning certain skills that women aren’t, and vice versa.
It will make a difference for the survival of that group, if they end up on an island, say.
Skelji, I have been in situations where I put the safety and lives of others before my own, and have been injured (and thankfully recovered) because of it. I very much take insult at you refering to my belief in chivalry as “crap”, and your implication that I would not act on those beliefs. Just because you might not be inclined to help others in such situations, do not assume that others would also not be inclined to.
That said, I agree that in situations of danger, chaos rules, and no, I am not going to deny someone a chance of saving their lives while looking for “woman and children”, an issue of details I will address below…
Betenoir, no, I would not step over any invalid to assist an able bodied person into a vessel. I think the problem of thinking here comes down to description of details for a situation, or lack thereof, and I am as much at fault as anyone else here in this matter.
My belief of “woman and children first” stems on issues that can vary with every situation. Let’s take the OP scenario, for example.
If a ferry/boat/ship is going down, and there is time to evacuate said ship in a timely manner, and the passengers of said vessel are all able-bodied, then yes, willing woman and children go first.
If same vessel is going down, evacuation is possible in a timely manner, but the passengers lists consists of women, children, elderly or invalid, and men, then the children (and mothers with small children) and elderly/invalid would be boarded first, followed by willing able body woman, then able bodied men.
Next situation, same vessel, same passangers as the first situation, but where time is of the essence (rapidly sinking ship), then I would help all willing woman and children in the immediate area on to the rafts, followed by any willing men who were in the immediate area and wished to board. If possible, I would try to find other survivors before boarding myself.
In a situation where the ship is going down quickly enough to be an issue of losing a chance of escape for all if action isn’t quick enough, then I would toss everyone I could into the rafts, and jump in one myself if it were clear I could help no one else.
That’s just the way I am. Again, all that stated, I would not refuse the help of a woman who did not wish to board, but instead wished to help others; indeed, I would be happy to see it, and would respect their decision. Just because I believe in woman and children first doesn’t mean I feel woman can’t help or do the same.
It isn’t true.
Cite?
There is a difference in how the genders react to stressful or emergency situations—men typically engage in “fight or flight” behaviors, while women react with “tend and befriend” behaviors.
Basically, this means men the problem or get the hell out of dodge, women will look to protecting young by interacting with others (usually other women) to best do that.
well, I submitted that before I finished, but basically my point was going to be that gender differences in reactions to stress aren’t so much because men are more capable of/suited to certain tasks, but rather because–from an evolutionary standpoint–men and women have very different priorities when it comes down to staring disaster in the face.
According to Drs. Ruben and Raquel Gur (neuroscience team at the University of Pennsylvania) quoted in this article :
My point was mainly to illustrate that in a scenario where it would be possible to “fix” whatever was wrong, say the engines on the ship were flooded but repairable, a crisis scenario but with the possibility of being fixed, it would be easier for a male brain to ‘filter out’ the chaos and focus on the task at hand, whereas women would be concerned with every detail going on. In instances like this, it may have been out of necessity that men stayed behind.
That’s not to say that this would be a huge factor in why women and children would be saved first, but just an underlying motivator to think about.
First of all, don’t say that I “might not be inclined to help others in such situations”, because in the example I gave, I am. Maybe you just skimmed it…go back and check for yourself. While I have never been in a disaster such as a plane or ship wreck, I too have helped others in a situation that was dangerous to myself.
Second, my point was not that anyone’s belief in chivalry is “crap”. You say you were in a situation, and you reacted the way you did. You most certainly have a right to state an opinion, because you know how you would react - you’ve already been tested.
The point is that many people say they would do something, but they’ve never been in a situation to actually know how they would react. Some people may be heroes, but many will panic. It’s fine to say what you may think you would do, but you really don’t know how you will react until your own ass is on the line.
There was a study done (and no, I don’t have a cite…Google it yourself) where it was found that you can’t predict how someone will react in an emergency. A take-charge CEO of a big company may panic, a $5.00 an hour janitor may be a hero. You just don’t know.
I wouldn’t look favorably upon the person who stepped over an invalid or a fallen child to save themselves, but just because someone isn’t hero material and tries to save themselves doesn’t make them a horrible person. People can talk all they want about preservation of the species, but without the instinct of self-preservation, we wouldn’t even be a species.
Good point about not leaving childrens’ mothers behind, belladonna.
I hadn’t thought of that.
I haven’t read the rest of the responses yet, but has anyone actually witnessed or heard of a scenario in which women were, in fact, elbowed out? There are some disgustingly chauvanistic countries and societies out there, if media and preconceived notions be believed, so in a place where women are treated like dirt, would they be left to drown? Or is the urge to save them more of a collective human unconscious thing, regardless of the sociopolitical climate?
Skelji, I am very sorry. I misread, and mistook your intent. When it comes to my personal honor, I am overly defensive, and I should have read more clearly. I hope you will accept my humblest and most sincere apology.
Not really. If anything, wouldn’t a lot of helpless/useless babies and kids hinder them from making coconut radios and bamboo huts? Seriously, though, why exactly do they need to propogate the species and all that? What if none of them feels like having babies (particularly if it’s with annoying or unknown fellow survivors?) It’s not going to help the species as a whole survive, since there are plenty of people having sex/giving birth on the mainland, right?
Is this gereral idea linked to the idea of no women in combat?
Generally societies keep women from war. Of course there are exceptions and when war comes to a particular town everybody tends to join in the fight. (women and children)
Men used to enjoy a large number of advantages over women. From the right to work or own property to the right to vote. I think the men go to war and the save the women and children first is part of the trade off for those bonuses for having a penis.
Being a first class woman was by far the best class and sex to be, but third class women has the same gender privelege. From this website:
The BBC
[quotes the same figures]
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/76159.stm). Children and parents with young children deserve prority, but women have no greater right to survive than anyone else. Chivalry should have ended with the nineteenth century. This is meant to be the age of equality, so the last thing we should want is people living or dying based solely on their sex.
Cite?
No problem, Woeg. I can understand where you’re coming from, and if I were you, I probably would have responded the same way to my post.
By the way, even though I don’t know the circumstances of the situations you were in, I’d like to commend you anyway. If I’m ever in a crash, I hope there are a few people like you around.
Maybe I should rethink flying to Vancouver and then taking a cruise to Alaska.
People are people, IMO. I don’t think anyone can say one is more ‘worthy’ of being saved than another.
It’s not as if you have the time to assess people’s ‘worthiness’ in a traumatic situation. That man is worth the same as that woman, that invalid, that child, that criminal. If we could take the time to quiz them, then yes, I personally would choose to save an average man over a man who participated in mass genocide, for example, but you just don’t get that luxury, you save who you can and hopefully that includes yourself.
Yes, I’d think of someone as a hero if they helped those less able than themselves, but I don’t think anyone is more ‘worthy’ of living than anyone else.
I don’t disagree with you. I think it’s possible to say, broadly that men a nd women think differently. I’ve found it a very interesting fact that, as a whole, women have larger corpus collusums (SP?) then men do (that being the network of nerver that lets one hemesphere of the brain “talk” to the other one.) Women’s brains are in fact more interconnected. Maybe this has something to do with the percieved differences in male and female thinking.
However I have a hard time translating that broad generalization to any random sampling of humans on any random sinking ship. In any given sample it may be a woman who can filter out the chaos or it may be a man whose hung up on details.
For that matter there may be emergency situations where interconnected thinking is just the thing.
Yeah, I could go with “underlying motivator to think about” but not a practical thing to bring up in an emergency.
(Oh, and sorry about the “disgrace to your chromosomes” crack )