I think that being a gentleman and saving the lives of women and children is the right thing to do. And if given that situation today, I would certainly offer refuge to a woman before I would selfishly seek my own safety.
2007-03-17 23:16:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by C J 6
·
5⤊
4⤋
That is instinctive behavior. We may make a mockery out of it, but in extreme life or death circumstances, this behavior can be noticed.
I do not doubt that some guys would not save their children or their dearest, but would save themselves rather. Diversities (read: genetic mutations) are blessed in human evolution.
This instinctive behavior comes from our evolution. The man, the outer core of family or society, is "expendable." Man is closer to the "one use force." In war situations, there are more male than females born. War is a situation where giving one's life for the benefit of saving the life of your dearest, can be seen.
To answer your question, perhaps you should not "expect" that, but that could happen by itself.
The passengers of Titanic did not agree as much as they were forced into it by the armed sailors...
2007-03-18 00:31:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree and I have asked this question before. Funny, during this time men worked and the women stayed home to care for the children. So with all these dead men, you have a bunch of homeless, poor women and children with no way to care for themselves. Today, I think it is chivalrous. Women have a much better chance of caring for themselves and their children than before. I would like to think that chivalry is not dead and that my husband would give his life for me and the kids, but, I would give my life for them so, I guess this is not really the answer you were looking for. It is just what I think.
2007-03-18 02:39:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by redwinegirl 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think it's up to the individual to make the decision. So, no, I don't believe there's any cultural, traditional reason where a man SHOULD sacrifice his life for anyone. "Save the women & children" may seem a lovely idealistic concept (to women & children) but bottom line, it's a personal choice. How sad it would be, if a man gave up his life for whatever societial "norms" if it weren't in his heart?
2007-03-18 06:38:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by Valac Gypsy 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
nicely, stepping more beneficial back, it made more beneficial experience to guard the lives of the girls human beings and little ones above adult men. the youngsters have teens on their area, and in the journey that they stay, they can make contributions more beneficial in the destiny than a guy, whose existence is likely about 1/2 over. the girls human beings can bear more beneficial little ones and could provide you the necessary concentration on raising those they have. In that respect, her contribution, too, is larger. yet now, the planet is boiling over with human beings. generating a lot of youthful ones, increasing the style of human beings available to artwork, spreading out and colonizing, and so on, at the prompt are no longer best aims. that's no longer mandatory. Been there, finished that. Going off of that idea, our lives are exceedingly a lot of equivalent worth now. the jobs we play have a lot less impression on the man import of our lives with regards to the gang. So now that's all and numerous's sport, truly, and it comes all the way down to who's keen to be a martyr - or in a lot less non violent situations, who's the finest objective. who's prepared to bypass down with the deliver to allow others a chance at survival?
2016-12-02 04:14:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I totaly agree that all childer should be safely put on lifeboats first.. but not i don;t believe women have any more right to live than men... it should be an idividual basis. if a man chooses to give his life for a woman he loves then that is his perogative..it is not... nor should be a social norm. vice versa a woman could choose to do the same. women can die as heroicaly as men
2007-03-17 23:05:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋
All the children should have a right to live. As far as men and women, that's sexist.
2007-03-17 23:00:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by 9987 4
·
5⤊
2⤋
Of course not. I wouldn't give up my seat on a lifeboat to an adult woman stranger. That's insane!
2007-03-17 23:08:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
it wud b a pain to live after losing ur dear ones, men also incl.
2007-03-18 01:13:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by purna 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's just an out-dated Victorian idea of "chivalry" or some such nonsense. With equal rights today it would be every man...and woman...for him or herself!
2007-03-17 23:09:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by The Man In The Box 6
·
4⤊
2⤋