Well, yes, that’s what Flymaster said and what we were discussing.
Regardless, the specific example of swimming is just a tangent. The point was that the stronger people should help the weaker people, and the stronger people usually are the men, professional female swimmers aside.
Why people should/would behave in this altruistic fashion is, I believe, a result of societal conditioning moreso than evolutionarily developed instinct. It would be interesting to see how many men would chose to save a woman and/or a child over themselves if no one was looking. I don’t mean to cast broad dispersions against the character of men, but one wonders if chivalrous behavior would be reduced for a lack of witnesses.
It would also be interesting to know if this idea of women and children first exists cross-culturally. If it doesn’t, that would seem to suggest against evolutionary origin.
With more than a quarter-billion people in the US alone and over 6.2 billion worldwide, we need not worry about public policy as a tool of ensuring “the propagation of the species,” especially in regard to a few random disasters each year.
Remember as far as the Titanic goes, women & children first was true, starting with first class. The majority of first class women survived the majority of 3rd class women died.
BUT - Would I be able to look my son in the eye and say, “Yeah, I’m here, but I had to elbow that lady over the side first.”
Maybe. He needs me, too, and it’s pretty likely his mother ain’t gonna be where I am.
My uncle worked at Cape Canaveral, and on rare occasions, a rocket went up for just a little ways before heading right back down. He said (since there were no children there) all of the women got a head start to run to the bunker first. He also said the slow ones had footprints on their backs.
Sure, I’ll help the ladies get out. But they’d better hurry.
He needs me, too, and it’s pretty likely his mother ain’t gonna be where I am.