Women&Children and Whose Life is Valued

Mighty_Wombat42 · 2022-03-03T05:11:38+00:00

TL;DR: historically men have made the decision to prioritize the safety of women and children because this makes sense biologically (their bodies are designed for strength, ours for survival) and tactically. Now that we (in some parts of the world) aren’t dying in childbirth as much as we used to, some short-sighted and selfish men are mad about it.

A man/teen boy only needs to inseminate someone twice in order to have reproduced at the replacement rate. He could literally do this in one night. Even accounting for him not knowing who is fertile and making sure he has produced enough embryos that at least two will statistically survive to adulthood, a particularly slutty man can have accomplished this feat with a different woman every time in a year. In contrast, it takes us at least 9 months and possibly longer if breastfeeding to go from conception to being physically able to get pregnant again. Add to that the fact that without modern medicine and access to it, a woman/girl has about a 1 in 7 chance of dying during childbirth (higher if she’s younger, older, had several back to back pregnancies, or it’s a high risk pregnancy). From a population replacement standpoint it doesn’t make sense to draft women the same as men. Add to that the fact that men in many cultures aren’t content with a child to pass on their genes but specifically want a son. If women historically died in wars at the same rates men did, there often wouldn’t be enough of us left to die in childbirth.

On a personal note, I have family from a country that was in a similar situation to the Ukraine several years ago. Most of the single women and older couples were eventually able to get visas, but not the young men. My relative, a young man in university, was injured in an attack and only then was he deemed safe to receive a visa. His perspective was that it was better for him to have experienced this than his elderly mother and father.

And realistically women and children left in areas with war may end up fighting as well. If you’ve seen Lord of the Rings, you may remember the scene where Eowyn, despite being a competent warrior, is sent to watch over women and children rather than being placed on the front lines. Strategically, this makes sense- if the enemy gets past the men and thinks they’ve found vulnerable children, the fighting women can surprise them, increasing the childrens’ chance of escape and thus their peoples’ chance of survival.

Geocities_SEO_Expert · 2022-03-02T23:23:25+00:00

It's not safe for civilian women to stay around in a war zone, and men know it. The invading force isn't even as dangerous as the local criminal men who will come out to vandalize, loot, rape, and murder.

Vaahla · 2022-03-03T02:23:58+00:00

Men were the ones who decided “women and children first”

Men wrote the draft, where only men are called up

Men wrote the laws that prevent women from joining militaries

Men assault/rape/murder the women they do allow into the army (LaVena Johnson is a heartbreaking example)

Sorry, what were we talking about again?

How women ruin men’s lives by checks notes protecting the children and staying alive to rebuild your fighting force and population?

✌️ without women to birth more cannon fodder, the ruling men can’t continue their greedy wars.

PenelopePitstop21 · 2022-03-03T10:46:19+00:00

There are some factual errors in your post (not your analysis though!)

[From a 2012 article published in New Scientist]

Historically, 'women and children first' was never true, certainly when it came to ships sinking. The majority of survivors were male crew members, then male passengers, then women and children where an average of only 15% survived.

There were a very few exceptions. The most famous was the Titanic, where the 'women and children first' rule was suggested by the First Officer, then over-interpreted as 'women and children only' by the Second Officer, which resulted in more women and children than men surviving that sinking.

It would make a great deal of sense if it had been a rule throughout history, but since when have men ever done something that makes sense if it runs counter to their self-interest, unless forced to do so?

melympia · 2022-03-02T23:42:54+00:00

From an evolutionary standpoint, male lives actually are more expendable. Why? If there's a fight (or whatever) decimating a population, and in the end you have 1000 adults left...

If you have 100 men and 900 women left, they can have (almost) as many children as 900 men with 900 women. I say almost, because men might still be needed for some things to help raise said children, but if push comes to shove, women can do it on their own.

If, however, you have 900 men and 100 women left, they cann only have as many children as 100 men with 100 women. Which is way less offspring than with the first scenario.

So, yes, men's lives are more expendable than women's lives for purely procreational reasons.

But, of course, there's more. How many men cannot deal with children? How many of them aren't even safe to be around children? How many men don't even know how to keep a household running? And how many men will go on a shooting spree when they're overwhelmed and cannot wet their dicks?

2022-03-03T01:40:14+00:00

It's a disastrous idea.

If Ukraine for example were to draft young women, it would make rebuilding a population harder. I think volunteering is fine, but no draft.

millennialpink2000 · 2022-03-03T00:34:04+00:00

I posted this sentiment the other day but it bears repeating. The 'women and children can evacuate first' rule is because men are considered first class citizens therefore it is their DUTY to protect their country. Traditionally, women have been second class citizens (and still are) so it's not their duty to fight for a country that treats them like shit.

Also, the reason men are more expendable than women historically, is because women are more valuable to a tribe, nation or area. That's why they weren't usually hunters—it was too risky to potentially lose them. Think about it. Today, most countries DEPEND on women's labour to function. Notice how the country didn't fall apart during WW2?

xfelugirlx · 2022-03-03T03:19:30+00:00

They are the ones that write this society and rules mostly for having privileges. Well privileges comes with responsability.

Also women in army or war? We know how that ended just look ww2 or every war with a lot of r*pe cases of women and children, they know their genre do these things so that’s why they want to evacuate their wifes or children first

DivineGoddess1111111 · 2022-03-03T05:33:32+00:00

No way would I fight in any war. MEN start wars, MEN can fucking fight.

They created this society and war was always a man's business. They can deal with it and the mess they have made for the past thousands of years.

SupremeDearLeader · 2022-03-03T14:30:33+00:00

In times of hardship , what women were known to go around and rape children , seniors? Men's base nature is far more suited to killing and hurting and they know it.

sewingmachinesavior · 2022-03-02T23:09:59+00:00

I always thought in war situations children were protected bc they are the future, and women are protected because they make the babies who are the future, generally one at a time, for 40 weeks, plus recovery, on average once every 2 years. Men however, can impregnate many women, quickly. They are physically larger and stronger, they can’t make or feed babies from their bodies. It’s not that anyone is more valuable or expendable than the other.

pickadaisy · 2022-03-03T05:59:03+00:00

This is such important stuff to critique. Thank you for this post!

Determinedblonde · 2022-03-02T22:49:55+00:00

It’s not safe to send children off on their own. For numbers, it’s best to send anyone without children off to fight.

modernmedusaa · 2022-03-03T18:48:37+00:00

Lol men start wars but women should defend them?

Sorry what where.

Men love harping on about being leaders and the stronger sex yet want us to fight their dirty wars, knowing most men are physically stronger?

Knowing most nuclear weapons are invented & owned by men and we are all screwed if one of those things gets let off

All wars are started by men like Putin with little dick syndrome who have fragile egos and are power hungry

Wars get started because of fragile male egos

‘Ugh a leader offended my ego! Time to blow the legs off 1000s of innocent people to show how powerful I am ’

Time to create generational trauma & then blame this on women as they try to navigate home life with literal bombs dropping above them.

Women have been complaining about men’s sociopathy and violence for years

The reason we have so many of these ‘issues’ is because we live in a male patriarchy that doesn’t respect women, nature or the planet

It’s only when arms start getting blown off they paint themselves as heroic victims bc men with more power can overthrow them

Men egg on and start these wars then cry victim when they have trauma and there’s economic depression for decades

They’re all brave & ready to fight till they see legs get blown off

Also this generation of men is even more wimpy & entitled so we’re screwed if there is a world war

It is likely women would be defending these wimpy men who are ducking behind us

Not to mention women like Violet Szabo did fight in the last war, acted as secret intelligence for a long time, never gave up information even when tortured & ended up raped & killed

But they won’t bring up that.

But if you gave these men the same power, they’d do the exact same most time’s,

Honestly I think men love starting these wars as they’re itching for a chance to seem dominant and play hero

It’s their caveman pea pea brain coming out in full glory

But they were like this even when women stayed at home, out the workforce

Remember those wars whilst women stayed at home scrotes??? Do you remember? You remember the trauma they caused? Pregnant women rationing eggs trying to stay alive?

But they want to pin society’s issues on us lol. Okay ….men have a long history of being violent & destroying society’s.

On a micro scale…it’s like men deliberately blowing up their lives and relationships by going nuclear so they can preach about their (self caused) mental struggles on red pill podcasts

‘Man fake tears after my wife divorced me & took my kids after making her life miserable & cheating 13 time’s….I almost considered killing myself. Almost. Then I remembered I am an alpha warrior back to abusing women grrrr!’

Get bent you silly wimp. You’re no hero. Everyone can see what a fragile tempered short sighted immature idiot you are, blinded by rage and ego.

Like yeah bro we see what you are doing, you create dramas and violence so you can put your weak self on a false pedestal and cause havoc. So you can give these men a free for all to spread violence & rape women.

If we left these wimpy men with the kids they’d probably end up in soiled nappies for several days even more hysterical than without him.

That’s why it’s women & kids first. Because we’re more vulnerable & we didn’t want these wars in the first place.

askmeabouttheforest · 2022-03-03T10:22:07+00:00

Hmmm let's ask Nature whose lives She thinks should be preserved.

For all the men (and brainwashed women) who like to talk about bIoLoGy AnD eVoLuTiOn (and somehow their idea of those always suits their needs of the moment), nature values women's lives above men's; if a tribe is threatened, nature wants to keep the women. If women are threatened, nature wants to keep their uteri and vital organs. Please allow me to demonstrate using the mechanics of death by hypothermia:

Women have a higher difference of temperature between limbs and core. Meaning, women's core (thorax, abdomen) will typically be warmer than their hands and feet, while that won't be as true for men. This is an evolutionary scheme: if a tribe is stuck in a spot cold enough to k*ll them, the men will be able to keep on working longer, because of their warmer hands and feet. Presumably they would work to keep the rest of the tribe alive (yes, I know, that won't happen in our culture, but Nature didn't take LVM into account because She didn't create them, that was patriarchy's work). However, men will also die from hypothermia sooner, because they lose their core heat through those warm limbs. Women will be incapacitated sooner due to their colder limbs, but their core will go on even if they lose their limbs to frostbite, so that they'll lose the ability to reproduce last.

So, next time some eye-roll stimulant tells you about EvOlUtIoNaRy PsYcHoLoGy, tell him that:

Higher rates of death during childbirth for teenagers mean that, in evolutionary terms, they're not supposed to have kids; optimal childbearing age is early thirties, and:
This

... and watch their belief in EvOlUtIoNaRy PsYcHoLoGy... disappear 😂

Certain_Garlic_5321 · 2022-03-03T12:07:06+00:00

Women and children first, yeah right.

Read about the fires where men cause the deaths of women and children by trampling and pushing them out of the way (there was a really sad case of this at a theater, I recommend looking it up). Men will literally throw their fiancé in front of danger to save themselves while typically women help each other and the children.

Another fun one to research is the Russian wolf attack during their travels to a wedding celebration. A bunch of carriages were being attacked and men threw their partners to the wolves. Literally. It happened a long time ago so look far back if you want to read about it.

The Titanic is basically a fluke and one of the common examples used. The men were threatened at gunpoint because they were trying to get ahead of women and children (like they have throughout majority historical tradiges). That captain forcing the men back is the only reason that women and children didn't die at the rate seen with other shipwrecks.

Even the fathers ditch their kids and partners in emergencies. Ex. A man and his wife were out at the mall with their infant and toddler. The husband was holding the baby when a man started shooting up the place. Husband literally PUT HIS INFANT ON THE GROUND and ran. To his car. And drove away. Without his family. I get it's a traumatic experience but it shows how they react even when they have their children to protect.

So yeah, I'll believe women and children first when I see it. Taking us out of war zones so we can help build the population back up and so we can care for their children doesn't feel like a privilege. Being able to choose does, though.

Sorry for lack of specific names but this stuff is super easy to find, and I'm short on time. It's very sad, and there's more examples out there I'm sure.

savagegardenn · 2022-03-02T23:17:38+00:00

Because the men will diddle the kids. We don’t have time for screenings. Mothers and children take shelter, men step up and fight. They are expendable. They literally are expendable to our species. That’s the hard cold truth of biology. If it took a sperm 9 months to mature, and we could hand over our eggs, it would be a very different world.

Born-Seat5881 · 2022-03-03T01:36:00+00:00

It wouldn't logical sense to force women to stay behind or defend their country. Plenty of women do volunteer regardless. But it's incredibly dangerous to have women in war zones. Why? Because other men (either those around her or ones who capture her) will harass and rape her, women can get pregnant, have debilitating periods, and on average cannot physically match the strength of men.

And as someone else stated above, women literally make the population. If you send them all to war alongside men then who is left to populate the country/care for the children?

VintagePallor · 2022-03-03T02:23:08+00:00

Males are biologically of far less value than females because males are only needed for conception but females bear and raise the next generation. This is why male birds are bright and colourful and females and young chicks are drab. The colours make the male far more visible and vulnerable to predators but it's okay since he used his bright plumage to mate and pass on his genes so his life's work is done. The females and chicks are much better camouflaged to give them the best chance to survive. One male can fertilize many females but a female can only raise so many chicks so it is much more important to have a larger population of females surviving. It ensures the ongoing success of the species. The idea that "women and children first" is rooted in chivalry or some modern construct is just silly. It's basic biology. The male population could be reduced by 90% and we could live in a happy matriarchal society where women raise their children together and males exist more on the fringes, mostly for procreation. Hell, with enough advanced notice and sperm freezing they could ALL die out and our species would have absolutely no trouble repopulating. With the genders reversed? Literal apocalypse and the end of the human race. Not saying this is something we should strive for or that I wish harm on men as a gender but they are in practical, scientific terms FAR less valuable than women. If someone has to fight and die (in wars begun by men, let's recall!) it's a biological no-brainer as to who that needs to be.

Musical_orchids · 2022-03-03T10:58:13+00:00

This is comment is only addressing the phrase “women and children first” which is a maritime phrase.

‘Dr. Mikael Elinder is an economist at Uppsala University, Sweden. He told The Independent “In the majority of shipwrecks, women have a much lower survival rate than men, which is consistent with the idea of every man for himself. Male chivalry seems to be completely unimportant or non-existent in reality when it comes to maritime disasters.”

He comes to this conclusion after studying 18 shipwrecks involving 15,000 passengers. Women had a survival rate about half that of men, while children fared even worse.’

https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-Myth-of-Women-and-Children-First

HollandLopBun · 2022-03-03T05:03:23+00:00

Wonder how much these dudes cared about the equality of Ukranian women before last week? Or is it they want all the privileges of being a male with zero of the responsibilities?

travertine_ghost · 2022-03-03T12:55:34+00:00

This is an interesting and timely topic. I recently watched Winter on Fire: Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom, a documentary on Netflix about the student led protest in the winter of 13/14 that led to the Ukrainian Revolution and the removal of Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych in February 2014, an event that is key to what’s happening now.

The documentary featured about as many women as men and I got the sense women were not relegated to a secondary role in organizing the protest, rather the film presented it as an egalitarian movement. However, I did note several times it was mentioned that when the threat of violence became imminent, the women were ushered into a more protected space with the men putting themselves between the police forces and the women. Both the women and men mentioned this in a very matter of fact way. It wasn’t as if the women were less than or the men were trying to present themselves as the heroes, it’s just the way it was. It was just something that struck me from the film and this topic made me think about it again.

RaccoonSweaty3741 · 2022-03-03T13:26:38+00:00

I always assumed the greater inclination to protect women vs men was based on the possibility of pregancy. Pure stonecold logic. But ofc men have to make everything about them and their little feelings.

NightOwlNightWitch · 2022-03-03T05:16:08+00:00

I’d be there with them if they’d let me. Childfree and children are not for me.

FineDeliciousSnakes · 2022-03-03T16:34:12+00:00

Thank you so much for this post. This is great content that made me think.

Maximum-Possible1612 · 2022-07-13T02:42:34+00:00

Women are simply more valuable than men. It is the duty of men to fight and die for the protection of women and men should be proud to do so. No country on Earth would survive without the sacrifice of men for the protection of women and children.

Title	Women&Children and Whose Life is Valued
Author	BoxingChoirgal
Upvotes	376
Comments	60
Date	March 2, 2022 10:42 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/t5cau0/womenchildren_and_whose_life_is_valued/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/womenchildren-and-whose-life-is-valued.1104429 https://theredarchive.com/post/1104429

Comments