this is the sort of quote i tend to hear quite a lot on the news, but sometimes it upsets me. i can understand it can be worse for children than adults to die (as they have their whole lives ahead of them), but why is it better that men die instead of women? doesnt this just devalue mens' lives? i think the root of this is that men are physically stronger than women, but in the majority of situations where this sort of statement is applied (for example in a terrorist attack or war), it doesnt really matter whether youre physically strong or not - if you get shot you still die. i just want to know peoples opinions of this - any men that agree with me? any women who think this sort of statement is ok/ good? all answers welcome. thanks
PS please dont take this as an attack on women, its not!
2006-12-22 00:28:41 · 8 answers · asked by john9999999 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Well to some extent you are right. In the pecking order of being saved it is women and children first as the men have a better chance of overcoming the impending doom than a woman or a child. I am talking in the Physical sense. The other point is that men cannot give birth and repopulate the species. I know that women cannot do it on their own but quite often a man may have many wives. In those terms I guess a man is more expendable than a woman. We men are still better than you though. Just joking.
2006-12-22 00:35:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is because women are seen as the raisers of the next generation. If the man dies his family can be given money to sustain them in the future. If the woman dies , money doesn't help so much as the man of the family is perceived as still being the bread winner not the carer.
2006-12-22 08:43:25 · answer #2 · answered by Christine H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question there is no answer to it though only opinions and they can be polarised don't let it upset you be strong. If i were in a life or death situation i would let the children depart first then the sick then the women then it's every man for himself.
2006-12-22 08:47:12 · answer #3 · answered by mrhoppy22 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It sofen blow, if wer 800 mens is hole batallion, but plenty easy make more childern much fun two, ant only neet 4 o 5 womens in horehaus keep hole nbatallion hapy. that wy is done in mi cuntery, mint ewe stat radio lie allt time, we haf shell explod, kill all batallion, radio say 2 mens haf slite injury, well is true but 650 ded ant bout 2 hunderd blint or lose leg or harm, dey no tel,l trut hole trut an noting trut but do day
2006-12-22 09:30:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Statistically, safest place to be in war is in the army. Eg Vietnamese women fed babies on rice water cos too malnourished to give milk: effects of direct aggressions, and indirect consequences re. access to food, clean water, health care; sanitation, control of opportunistic diseases due to poor nutrition and living conditions etc.
2006-12-22 10:51:24 · answer #5 · answered by eyvind 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I think it should be fair but of course the children should get out first because there the future.
2006-12-22 08:38:49 · answer #6 · answered by The Answer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Be a man! Seems to be a lesser chance of getting killed.
2006-12-22 08:30:24 · answer #7 · answered by Dirk Diggler 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i know what you mean hunni, i suppose it goes back to the old days when chivalry was still around a lot more
2006-12-22 08:30:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋