~ archived since 2018 ~

Women and Children first?

September 2, 2022

If there’s anymore evidence that men and women are not the same, it is reflected in the title. Another old saying that, I believe that should be applied to women and effeminate men is, “children should be seen but not heard”.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/AllPillDebate.

/r/AllPillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Women and Children first?
Author allahrubarakh
Upvotes 2
Comments 25
Date September 2, 2022 1:14 AM UTC (2 months ago)
Subreddit /r/AllPillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/AllPillDebate/women-and-children-first.1139625
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/AllPillDebate/comments/x3o8aq/women_and_children_first/

[–]DivineDaedraChadwife 5 points6 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

That second phrase has already been applied to women—particularly in the Bible.

It even gets said today just in different words.

“Just stand there and look pretty”

“Smile more, talk less”

[–]BumblingBeta 5 points6 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

You want to be taken seriously, not have any expectations on how you look, while still retaining all your female privileges and expecting men to keep all their disadvantages to being men - modern feminisn in a nutshell.

[–]DivineDaedraChadwife 1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Now where exactly did I say that?

I literally just pointed out that OP’s desired application of the second phrase already exists.

[–]BumblingBeta 2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Well feminists will never say that, but that's what they want. It's become about gaining as many advantages as possible at the expense of men.

[–]DivineDaedraChadwife 1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Key word there is feminist. There’s a reason I no longer consider myself a feminist.

The reason is that in order for true equality to be achieved—the thing I used to think feminists actually wanted—involves giving up some outdated privileges as well as holding ourselves accountable for the existing imbalances we help perpetuate. I’ve met far more feminists willing to throw everyone not belonging to their in group under the bus for personal gain than ones willing to actually try to help everyone.

[–]IHateNormis 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It’s because female lives are valued a lot more

[–]you-arent-reading-it 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

100% true

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It’s because female lives are valued a lot more

I don't doubt it but really female lives considered more valuable even if they get old?I thought that is only true for young women

[–]IHateNormis 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, when they are old as well. In a fire a fireman would save an old female over me

[–]Silver_Took32 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

“Should be applied to women and effeminate men” - so you think these demographics are children and cannot provide consent?

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

As woman,I sometimes don't understand " Women and children first".When I was teen,I used to think they say this to roast woman and children as they are weaker lol.My crazy weird thought.

[–]Siukslinis_acc 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A child is a future generation and women give birth. So by making "women and children" first, it canbe seen as trying to ensure that the population wouldn't die out,

[–]SaltyGeekyLifter 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are considered expendable (by themselves).

Women and children are not.

[–]tired_hillbilly 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

"Women and children first" barely ever happened historically, and in fact in many disasters women and children fair worse than the men. The Titanic is the only example I can think of, and it was a spur of the moment decision, not standard procedure.

[–]Ambassadior 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I swear you guys get off on gaslighting men, this is the general rule throughout so much of historical tragedy

[–]you-arent-reading-it 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, all the wars ingrain the concept of women and children first. Women are protected by men that risk their lives for them. If we didn't care about women and children that much, we wouldn't be here. And we wouldn't be that much in numbers. Also you watch too many movies.

Also, in Italy my country, this concept is followed everyday when immigrants enter the country running from war. Not only in the beginning when they need to bring them in boats where literally give the priority to women and children, while those men go back to a war they don't even want to fight and probably torture them because of the absence, but also during ( and after ) the travel. During is: if there's not enough space they literally push men first and let them die in the sea, after ( in our country ) women and children are the first ones brought from the boat to our land and have the privilege to complete burocratic gibberish and find home earlier than men.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand why the men don't just mob the people denying them. Crowd rush. They're going to die anyway, that's how I'd see it.

[–]EulenWatcher 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

What's said isn't always what gets practiced.

Since the sinking of the Titanic, there has been a widespread belief that the social norm of “women and children first” (WCF) gives women a survival advantage over men in maritime disasters, and that captains and crew members give priority to passengers. We analyze a database of 18 maritime disasters spanning three centuries, covering the fate of over 15,000 individuals of more than 30 nationalities. Our results provide a unique picture of maritime disasters. Women have a distinct survival disadvantage compared with men. Captains and crew survive at a significantly higher rate than passengers. We also find that: the captain has the power to enforce normative behavior; there seems to be no association between duration of a disaster and the impact of social norms; women fare no better when they constitute a small share of the ship’s complement; the length of the voyage before the disaster appears to have no impact on women’s relative survival rate; the sex gap in survival rates has declined since World War I; and women have a larger disadvantage in British shipwrecks. Taken together, our findings show that human behavior in life-and-death situations is best captured by the expression “every man for himself.”


We analyze the effect of disaster strength and its interaction with the socio-economic status of women on the change in the gender gap in life expectancy in a sample of up to 141 countries over the period 1981 to 2002. We find, first, that natural disasters lower the life expectancy of women more than that of men. In other words, natural disasters (and their subsequent impact) on average kill more women than men or kill women at an earlier age than men. Since female life expectancy is generally higher than that of males, for most countries natural disasters narrow the gender gap in life expectancy. Second, the stronger the disaster (as approximated by the number of people killed relative to population size), the stronger this effect on the gender gap in life expectancy. That is, major calamities lead to more severe impacts on female life expectancy (relative to that of males) than smaller disasters. Third, the higher women’s socio-economic status, the weaker this effect on the gender gap in life expectancy. In other words, taken together our results show that it is the socially constructed gender-specific vulnerability of females built into everyday socio-economic patterns that lead to the relatively higher female disaster mortality rates compared to men.


[–]allahrubarakh[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Only 18 samples? Over a span of three centuries? Aren’t there more disasters? Despite being the most cited website Penas has a very large left wing biase so does the LSE.

[–]EulenWatcher -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

To address these questions, we have compiled and analyzed a database of 18 maritime disasters over the period 1852–2011 (Table 1). Our data cover the fate of over 15,000 passengers and crew members of more than 30 different nationalities

[–]allahrubarakh[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

And yet there are more than 18 recorded maritime disasters over the span of 300 years. You don’t need a mariner to tell you this.

[–]EulenWatcher 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Can you find a study with a bigger sample?

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

“every man for himself.”

Based policy. Some mangina flustercuck get in front of me on my way out of a disaster I will find a way to get him out of my way. If I have to go to jail later for prioritizing myself (and my family) during a disaster then welp I will be judged by 12 rather than carried by 6.

[–]allahrubarakh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The cuck manginas will be standing in front of you and your family during a disaster and rightfully you should whoop their lily asses. The real men will show you the exit and give you that free skirt to cover up your vagina that you mistakenly call a pair of testicles.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't believe in women first or that women/effeminate men should be seen and not heard.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter