2007-09-03 07:07:49 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Hahaha..that's a good one..you won't get too many feminist opposition, when it come to survival their real selves will come out, they will claw their way to the rescue boat stepping on people...LOL...
2007-09-03 12:02:48 · answer #1 · answered by gannoway 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Well the fact that regulations for cruise ships require that there be more than enough life boats for every single passenger and crew member, the point is moot because there would be no need to play favorites. I for one would be calmly walking to my designated life raft as to not cause a panic and have others trampled on. And you may say, oh this is what you think you would do, but no it is what I have done, although it was a false alarm, at the time I thought it was real and so did others, and I never heard anyone cry, "women and children first" its a non-issue and I think the only reason you ask this question is to suggest that feminists are selfish, well news break here ALL human beings are selfish, its called survival, everyone is looking out for number one.
2007-09-03 08:11:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
Feminists also forget about equality when the evening news announced that the USA has declared war and that all men must register. Why aren't the feminists marching in front of The White House demanding that all women be required to register for the draft? We know the answer ... feminists don't want equality.
2016-05-20 03:24:56 · answer #3 · answered by tamera 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since I've had a lot of rescue training and can swim, I'd help children, the elderly, and anyone who needed assistance. I've been in crisis situations before, and I usually don't panic. I would not go first or second, etc. I would only go if it looked like there wasn't anyone I could help.
I would assume that men and women who could swim or give first aid would help those around them first, hopefully feminists and non-feminists alike.
2007-09-03 07:41:08 · answer #4 · answered by edith clarke 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
You have to understand why this first came into being. Women and children are in danger of being trampled by bigger, stronger men in the rush for the boats. Which is why men were ordered to stand back.
Anyway, you get very few men today who will stand up on a train for a pregnant women, so I doubt very much that men nowadays would stand back for a physically weaker and smaller woman on a sinking boat.
2007-09-03 07:35:40 · answer #5 · answered by True Blue Brit 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
None from me. I'd send the parents and children first. I can stay afloat until the rescue boats come.
2007-09-03 07:18:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
I would surely oppose it. I want to be treated at an equal-no better, no worse.
Cassius-Willingly? Yeah right. It was more like forced.
Sexism sickens me. The whole 'ladies first' thing sickens me. It also sickens me that we're stooped down to the level of children..
2007-09-03 07:19:31 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I know one thing, if I were on a sinking ship with my husband, there is no way in hell I would leave him.
2007-09-03 08:38:55 · answer #8 · answered by wendy g 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
i would also send parents and children first if i wasn't in a state of hysteria cause i would jump off first
2007-09-03 07:20:52 · answer #9 · answered by orly? 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
This is when your physically strong advantage as a man comes in and I will allow you to be the strong man that you are and strive to be. I'm only your ideal housewife of never having been exposed to the outside world or learned any survival techniques, so please continue to hold my hand while I'm getting on the boat. I trust you to be able to swim right behind the boat, while feeling the ultimate strength as a man :)
2007-09-03 07:19:10 · answer #10 · answered by Lioness 6 · 5⤊ 5⤋