2007-09-07 17:33:41 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
It may appear sexist or positive discrimination but wise in a disaster for reasons of reproduction. Women are the reproductive vehicles and to ensure continued reproductive success there must be fertile woman and of course the children can grow to reproduce. So a few men are needed to ensure survival of human species but many woman are needed to undergo fertilisation and reproductive success.
2007-09-07 17:43:30 · answer #1 · answered by Dim Witt 2 · 3⤊ 7⤋
I don't know very many men who would actually let women and children go first in an emergency. I am a feminist and I think that yes children should go first with their parent or parents and with the children the elderly and handicapped. After that it should all be fair as to who goes. If everyone acted like adults and worked together then everyone would get out.
2007-09-08 02:14:51 · answer #2 · answered by Vikki 4 · 5⤊ 3⤋
it's not really a rule...it WAS more of a moral code, or just proper ettiquette. Nowadays, (as we can see from the male responses above) men generally aren't as chivalrous, courteous, and considerate as they were in the past. Still, your question is what do feminists think of it, and they probably feel that men and women should be treated equally in every situation, therefore they would most likely oppose this idea of women and children first. If they didn't, they would be sound hypocritical to me.
2007-09-08 01:09:14 · answer #3 · answered by sO.:.iN.:.LOvE 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
It should be changed to just children first. I have not actually heard this expression since the time of the Titanic and doubt whether it is still used. Is this not an anachronism from a different era?
2007-09-08 08:35:09 · answer #4 · answered by Deirdre O 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
children always should be first. Women and men should go at the same time.
2007-09-08 08:52:54 · answer #5 · answered by ♥ Gabbie ♥ 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I can understand putting children first. But there's no reason for either men or women to get into the boats first. Can't we just go back to first come, first saved?
2007-09-08 11:54:12 · answer #6 · answered by Rio Madeira 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I know this rule was employed when the Titanic was sinking. However, there were reports of women who refused to leave their husbands and went down on the ship, too.
2007-09-08 04:08:54 · answer #7 · answered by RoVale 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I despise it. I want to be an equal. I don't want to be allowed to go first just because I'm a woman-nor do I want to be stooped down to the level of children.
And, it should be irrelevant on a sinking ship, since I believe they're required to have enough life boats for everyone.. Are they not?
2007-09-08 08:51:14 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Chivalry is dead. If I was on the Titanic I would stick my finger up at any guy woman that told me to go last because I am male.
Sorry for answering as I am not a feminist but I would love to see a question about how men feel about it.
Cheers
2007-09-08 00:44:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
It never works. The people who produce figures for accidents point out the irony of how many survivors of serious public transport accidents are men. They advise anybody who is nervous of air accidents, to either sit near the exit or be male. The accellerating strength of a panicking man in an emergency, means nobody gets near the exit but him. Same on boats and coaches I'd guess.
2007-09-08 04:57:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
If the situation is life or death (ie Titanic), the goal is to save the kids so that the next generation will continue. Yes, women of childbearing age and children should be saved first. People with kids might understand this point more.
If the situation is not life or death (ie Crowded elevator), then no. First come, first served.
ADDED: I repeat... People with kids might understand my point more. Most parents would die for their kids.
2007-09-08 01:11:47 · answer #11 · answered by bikerchickjill 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋