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.
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.
Women are the ones who mostly look after children & give birth to them. A women might be knowingly or unknowingly pregnant at the time of the disaster so that would be TWO lives lost if not saved. It's the obvious survival of the most valuable to the survival of the human race.....Less women equals less babies!
If children weren't involved i’d say it doesn’t matter. If half the world’s population were to start dying off due to some deadly sickness and medical supplies needed to go to the most vulnerable. I’d have to say Children then women and lastly men. If history has taught me anything, children in need are more likely to be taken in by women. Although this may sound sexist to women, suggesting their lives should only be saved because they’re more likely to help the children survive. It’s just regardless of blood relation, most women have maternal instincts which go above and beyond their own close relatives. I imagine if a life or death situation arose where a man had to choose between himself and a child unrelated to him. He’d likely choose himself perhaps not even out of selfishness but just survival instincts. Also women have the reproductive system that the majority of men do not. So they have the capability to re-populate the earth with more men.
I am researching this and I think it would be very unfair to have men's lives be spared and innocent kids die. Yes, men and women are equal, but 1, women are needed to reproduce, and 2, kids include both girls and boys. Kids cannot always save themselves, they are small and pretty weak.
1) if there were no women, you wouldn't exist. I wouldn't exist, and removing as stated, losing a substantial amount of women would be essentially signing an extinction warrant.
2) Children have a long life ahead of them, if they die now, then there would be no growing population, and thus no new men or women, and no reproductive cycle. Again, it's like signing a death warrant
Without children we would not be here ( considering that I am a child ) . Children are the heart of the world and children get married and make us ( don't ask how ) . WE ARE THE HEART OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!! WE MAKE THE PEOPLE !!!!!!!! . SAVE THE CHILDREN !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I said yes because there is one thing I am always concerned about if there is a horrible situation: children. I believe that in any disaster, children and their parents should always be the first ones saved. Not women and children. Parents and children. Children normally need more medical attention as well
Men are scientifically more easier to generate body muscle mass. Some women are strong too, i know that, some men are weak too. But majority are men. What i'm saying is WOMEN WHO ARE WATCHING THIS, please don't feel sexist, accept our help, we are not saying you are weak. We are just saying we want to help you.
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
I agree with children being prioritized over men and woman but people say that because woman give birth to more children that they are more important. This is clearly not true because in a world with 7 billion people how much of a dent in the population will be contributed of around 40 out of 100 woman don’t make it. Exactly so it should be children first hen men and woman for themselves.
They say its because the males don't matter well I understand the fact that girls and boys are different. But in THREE freaking different things.
Girls have different body parts and they mostly have longer hair its not fair for mans to die just because of different body parts needed
The women can help too and if there is an old grandma who is like 80 years old and a 20 year old man the man should be saved because he has much more years to live than the old woman. The men should think about themselves too not others.
It depends on the situation but why is that women always have to be first? They're always complaining about sexism, but saving them first and not men isn't sexist? That is really dumb and backwards.
As for children I don't know. I would honestly try to save family members over someone else's child so I would probably just go with everyone for themselves in one of these awful situations, as bad as that sounds.
I agree that children should go first, but if possible it would be ideal to have a pre-designed chart of who should be saved in what order on that specific ship depending on their state of wellness and ability rather than gender, which is extremely ineffective. Just so the patrons don't freak out that the ship is prepared for a mishap, the order of evacuation could be marked covertly (like, if their room key card/armband for entry is orange that person is a priority one evacuee.) There could be broad guidelines for all liners to make the process simple, but still safer than the "women and children first" idea. For example, if an 85 year old man is on the ship, it shouldn't be a question that he should be evacuated before the 30 year old woman. Plus, I know it's impossible to imagine, but women can be stronger than men, you know? I didn't really think much about how the system would work, so I'm sure there are holes. Still, I've never studied anything about security, let alone on ships, so I'm just giving a possible example. The process would definitely be more time-consuming than the black and white idea proposed in the question, but when it comes to saving lives and maintaining order in the case of a crisis, it's worth it.
I think that all lives are equal and saying "women and children first" is like saying that their lives are worth more than everyone else's. If you do have to put some people first, I would say put children and the elderly first because they would be the least able to save themselves.
All lifes are equally worth! Otherwise, why not to save men first? I'm a gay man, so the more men there are, the happier I am, but is this a reason to say men should saved first?
As for children, ok, they have lived less time, but reasoning that way implies that youngsters should saved first than the aged, but this would be terrible.
1) lives of like maybe 20 women isnt helping to repopulate or something like that
2) its sexist to say women lives are more important than men
i agree that children should be saved first and then everybody else . . . . . . . . . . .
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.
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