Amazon.com Widgets

In disasters, should women and children be saved first?

  • Protect the next generation

    Children should be the first to be saved because they are the future. Women should be second because they are the primary caregivers to the children. Men go last because we aren't that important. This may sound old fashioned, but If I am in a life and death situation, I will kill any man who puts himself before a child.

  • Women and children should be saved first in diseasters

    I agree that women and children should be saved first in disasters. They are the most vulnerable and emotionally distraught when disasters hit them. Men can usually take care of themselves for the most part and are physically stronger for the most part. I'm not stereotyping, the fact is that women and children are more vulnerable and they do need immediate attention in harsh times.

  • Dguyduyadgaadsygdaysu adsdsaisddoasdsaisadi dasdh

    I s s ss s ss s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s ss s s s s s s s s ss s s s s s s ss s s s ss s s s s s s s s s

  • Dguyduyadgaadsygdaysu adsdsaisddoasdsaisadi dasdh

    I s s ss s ss s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s ss s s s s s s s s ss s s s s s s ss s s s ss s s s s s s s s s

  • Be a Gentleman

    It shows your true character if you put someone else ahead of yourself, and it is just generally considered the gentlemanly thing to do for a man to save a woman. Yes, everyone is equal, but I still believe that men should be the head and protector of the family and should protect their family (or another's family- wife and children) first.

  • Might be illogical now, but it wasn't when it started.

    Back in ye olden caveman days of yore, women and children would huddle together in the deepest cave/ sturdiest building. Small nomadic groups of people would find themselves completely screwed if no women survived, and if the kids got eaten by snow leopards, they were even worse off. If things got that desperate, and all the men died, or a vast majority of them, you could theoretically repopulate the group partially with just women and children. Can't live without 'em.

  • Depends on the context.

    In a burning building, for example, you wouldnt make sure no more women or children were left inside before aiding the man who collapsed in front of the door. However, all things being equal, you should help the young and those with a disability, then any woman, and then any of the other men who are still left. Its not so much for me a case of women being more vulnerable, or more emotionally distraught, or any other nonsense like that. I just consider it to be the proper manner in which a gentleman ought to behave.

  • Women are not the weaker of the species.

    Children should be saved, we can all agree on that. But why women before men? This male idea of women being the weaker of the species, the most vulnerable is not just sexist and an idea of a century ago, it also puts men in a position where they are the creatures not worthy of saving. Men, women, middlesex are all equal. In our good and in our evil.

  • Outdated and sexist

    This type of thinking is so far in the past it's ridiculous. It makes so little sense today. Why would you make a child and orphan because they have a single father. Why would you instead, save a single woman and force a child to become an orphan?
    The world is not underpopulated, gender roles have been and still are rapidly changing... This would have worked 100s of years ago. Stupid today. Sexist and backwards

  • The idea is plainly sexist.

    I have no issue with saving children first. But I can think of no reason women should be saved before men. Such a policy only makes sense if:

    (1) You are concerned about the ability of a population to grow rapidly. The number of women has a greater effect on a population's maximal growth rate than the number of men.
    (2) You believe that female lives are more valuable than male ones.

    Seeing as the world is already somewhat overpopulated, reason (1) is irrelevant. While it seems that many people instinctively believe in (2), I don't.

  • Stop infantilizing women

    As a female, it's insulting that people assume that because of our genitals we are more delicate. With equal accessibility, children should certainly be saved first. They have less capability to protect or save themselves. Honestly, nothing about my vagina makes me "more distraught" over a disaster. It is also harmful to propagate the idea that men are somehow immune to damage from a disaster. Men have as much right to be upset about things as women do, and it isn't ok to expect men to inherently be more competent in a disaster.

  • The most accessible victim should be saved first

    Although it may seem to some as though women and children should have priority in being saved, this does not make any sense. The person who should be saved first is the one who is most easily accessed. Only in the event of all victims having the same accessibility, women and children should be saved first because they weigh less and are easier to save.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.