Today, if you are on a cruise ship and it starts to sink does the rule of "women and children first" in the lifeboat still apply.
Isn't it sexist to imply that a man has a better chance or more bravery than a woman?
And a 13 year old may have a better chance treading water than a sixty year old.
I don't think most people know what they would do. I just curious about this custom and if it still prevails.
2006-09-29 17:17:54 · 12 answers · asked by San Diego Art Nut 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Etiquette
I think I would have a hard time taking letting others drown to save myself.
2006-09-29 19:06:35 · update #1
In times of crisis, I believe that we see bravery exercised by both men and women.
However, I think it is admirable and wonderful that many men find a very natural desire to protect the women and children in a desperate situation, even to the point where they risk their very lives.
In most species, humans included, the best males are strong, brave, and completely willing to face extreme danger when necessary. It's their loving and brave contribution to life.
In the instance that any human life is lost, a tradgedy has occured. A brave man is an honorable creature. His actions in the face of danger will separate him from the weak and cowardly.
2006-09-29 18:21:48 · answer #1 · answered by HyperBeauty 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, but like someone said earlier...money talks. So, if you're Donald Trump, or Pam Anderson with a brand new set of silicones...expect a spot on the lifeboat.
I personally think husbands and fathers should have just as much right to get on the boat as the women and children do.
2006-09-29 19:35:19 · answer #2 · answered by Tara & Chris R 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As much as I don't admire myself for this, I think that I would very much want to be on a lifeboat. The will to live is very strong, and in this case, I may not be at my very best. In my opinion it isn't sexist but heart warming to think that some may put others above themselves.
2006-09-29 19:56:09 · answer #3 · answered by Bibi B 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
its not sexist its called chivalry and its old world. since women have demanded equal rights i guess we can stay behind on a sinking ship just as much as a man, but children always come first. young children have more life to live, whereas old people have had their chance at life, so that why the young come before the old
2006-09-29 17:26:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
It's an Anglo-Saxon concept of good manners and chivalry. Europeans find it shocking - to them, you should save families first and leave single men and women to fend for themselves. The idea of leaving widows and orphans by letting husbands and fathers drown is abhorrent to them.
2006-09-29 17:26:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the custom still applies, but you should understand that the reasons for it were NOT that they thought men were braver or had a better chance, it's that they felt women and children were more precious and required protection from danger first.
2006-09-29 17:21:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Curtisy can only last so long. Save as many as u can without killin yourself. Just my thought.
2006-09-29 17:28:21 · answer #7 · answered by Skeeter 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's women and children first...unless you're George Costanza.
2006-09-29 21:57:43 · answer #8 · answered by Sudy Nim 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
First come first serve though some heroics might occur.
2006-09-29 18:07:57 · answer #9 · answered by leviathia 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Money talks and Bullshit walks!!!! If you have the money....you'll get onto a life boat!!! Thats the way it is with the world now days!
2006-09-29 18:12:14 · answer #10 · answered by Easter Bunny 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋