the woman and the children first

2012-11-07T00:56:39+00:00

[permanently deleted]

samarye · 2012-11-07T04:02:11+00:00

Said to have been first implemented on the HMS Birkenhead in 1845.

Edit: the wikipedia page on the Woman and Children First protocol had a section on concerns about it. No surprise, the concern wasn't something crazy like men sacrificing their lives for the stupid sake of chivalry. Nope, here's what it says:

Some writers have argued that the entire concept of putting women first in an emergency may be merely a means of promoting an idea of essential gender differences which may then be used to justify other inequalities that disfavor women.

Yeah, yeah, ok, sure, why the fuck not? Lets make men potentially committing suicide in a time of emergency about fucking women. Fuck! How do they always manage to do this? How is every issue magically about women? Even when the issue saves women's god damn lives, it still oppresses them! When, in the history of humanity itself, has an oppressed group of people been protected, and placed in higher priority than their oppressors?

See all those plantation mansions in the south? The slaves lived in those. Also, the Jews ate steak in concentration camps; Native reserves are actually prime real estate; and the Chinese-Canadian miners were in fact crammed into small rocky crevices with TNT because they were comfy.

Also, even if this type of thing does create inequalities towards women, I'm fine with that. Because guess what, if I'm going to sacrifice my god damn life to save your stupid vagina, I expect a fucking reward. Luckily we don't live in a society nearly as life-and-death as that. But would I honestly be the bad guy for expecting a little bit of compensation?

akakaze · 2012-11-07T07:12:08+00:00

It comes from nautical practice, in an age when women weren't often taught to swim, but men were. Nowadays, anyone who actually has cause to use the phrase understands it to mean, those who are capable save in capable before themselves. That's how it was taught to my Sea Scout ship anyways.

SamsIphone · 2012-11-07T01:57:53+00:00

It comes from the fact that if you ever had to recreate a society it would be possible for one man to father children to a large number of children to various women simultaneously, where as only having one woman and lots of men will severely limit the chance of survival of the new society. Obviously all the children having one father is terrible for the gene pool, but it is possible.

Clearly today this is not an issue, but that is the root of the phrase. It was meant to be used in emergencies, i.e. leaving a sinking ship, raid from a rival clan, etc

OutstandingWarrant · 2012-11-07T05:28:52+00:00

I think it has something to do with, at least at the time, men being generally stronger than women, and so are more likely to survive in a situation that women and children first is implemented.

jolly_mcfats · 2012-11-07T05:54:09+00:00

We also tend to say "98 personnel died including 2 women". Men are never referenced by gender unless they commit a crime (gunman, etc...). If men do something heroic or selfless, we are referred to as gender-neutral professionals or people (soldiers, officers, employees, etc..).

I think this is due to a combination of proactive linguistic efforts of feminists in the eighties to rephrase professional titles in a gender neutral way, and a pressure brought about by evolutionary psychology to be more concerned for the welfare of women.

In an egalitarian society, men would either be recognized for their sacrifices, or women wouldn't. In a society free of misandry, men would either be recognized for good actions and bad, or neither.

TheRealPariah · 2012-11-07T06:10:59+00:00

A holdover from times when the future of the species depended on the survivability of women and children. We left that era quite some time ago.

AloysiusC · 2012-11-07T06:11:18+00:00

It's a consequence of "male disposability" - the inherent assumption that men's lives and well being are worth less than women's.

Pretty much all men's issues come down to male disposability.

Splinter1591 · 2012-11-07T23:28:52+00:00

Look. It only takes one male to populate a whole boat full of women. So when you get stranded on a deserted island you can start a new civilization

sdk2g · 2012-11-07T03:17:59+00:00

Traditionally it's to prevent men, who are typically physically larger and more powerful, from shoving their way to the lifeboat/exit/safety they are attempting to reach at the behest of those "weaker" than them.

ThePigman · 2012-11-07T01:41:07+00:00

There is no rational reason for the "women first" mentality. It is simply one of the ways in which men are tricked into being disposable.

rightsbot · 2012-11-07T00:42:20+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

HeadingTooNFL · 2012-11-07T03:07:18+00:00

Woman and children and first should go against feminist theory because it places women as more important then men and we all know feminist want equality

Title	the woman and the children first
Author	lurigfix
Upvotes	21
Comments	16
Date	November 7, 2012 12:42 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/12rgud/the_woman_and_the_children_first/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-woman-and-the-children-first.1009781 https://theredarchive.com/post/1009781

Comments