Save the women and the children first

[Atheris]

As a gentleman and someone who sees children as precious and fragile, my wife and child would go before me in the lifeboat. But that’s just me.

My own wife and children are a different matter. I am not against sacrificing myself for them.

But random women and children, I don't hold the same standard.

Same here. I don't have a wife or kids and I won't, but if I have to die in order to save my family (biological or otherwise) I'll gladly take that bullet.

[Page]

Well, at the end of the day, at a purely biological level, eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. On a more human level, even in a very lefty place like where I live, when I worked at one of my jobs, the really heavy duty grinding work was all done by men. Not because women couldn't apply or were discouraged under the table, but because none ever bothered to. In most situations, generally men are going to gravitate to more muscular and dangerous tasks. To some extent, men should embrace this.

I'd say save the women and children first. I think most of us would if we were really pressed against the wall in a dangerous situation, ideology be damned.

Unless human existence itself was on the line, I do not consider a woman's life to be any more valuable than a man's life.

And we are far from that.

It just is not a factor which we should care about, lest we go down some real ugly roads.

Men who think that way should board last.

Indeed.

If we are in a situation where human existence is on the line, there should be more women saved than men but there should be more adult males saved than children of either sex, because a population that predominantly consists of children cannot take care of itself.

If we were facing human extinction and I had to make an ark, I would choose people between the ages of 16 - 30, 7 out of 10 being female.

[Arisyan]

Save the weak first (injured, disabled, pregnant etc.) along with children. Don't separate families as much as possible. And remember to bring lifeboats.

[The Blaatschapen]

Unless human existence itself was on the line, I do not consider a woman's life to be any more valuable than a man's life.

And we are far from that.

It just is not a factor which we should care about, lest we go down some real ugly roads.

Indeed.

If we are in a situation where human existence is on the line, there should be more women saved than men but there should be more adult males saved than children of either sex, because a population that predominantly consists of children cannot take care of itself.

If we were facing human extinction and I had to make an ark, I would choose people between the ages of 16 - 30, 7 out of 10 being female.

You need sheep on that boat.

Just making sure.

[Stellar Colonies]

Unless human existence itself was on the line, I do not consider a woman's life to be any more valuable than a man's life.

And we are far from that.

It just is not a factor which we should care about, lest we go down some real ugly roads.

Indeed.

If we are in a situation where human existence is on the line, there should be more women saved than men but there should be more adult males saved than children of either sex, because a population that predominantly consists of children cannot take care of itself.

If we were facing human extinction and I had to make an ark, I would choose people between the ages of 16 - 30, 7 out of 10 being female.

Sadly, yes.

Unless we can fix that glaring defect in our reproductive patterns, male lives will be inherently less valuable on a biological basis, which has leaked into our culture and politics since before history itself.

Rather disturbing, really.

[The New California Republic]

If we are in a situation where human existence is on the line, there should be more women saved than men but there should be more adult males saved than children of either sex, because a population that predominantly consists of children cannot take care of itself.

If we were facing human extinction and I had to make an ark, I would choose people between the ages of 16 - 30, 7 out of 10 being female.

You need sheep on that boat.

Just making sure.

You guys can float, right?

*Googles "sheep floating in water" and the only image is a dead one floating upside-down in the water*

...oh. Alright. You can get in the boat.

[Stellar Colonies]

You need sheep on that boat.

Just making sure.

You guys can float, right?

*Googles "sheep floating in water" and the only image is a dead one floating upside-down in the water*

...oh. Alright. You can get in the boat.

*Ducks out*

*Returns*

Oh, those are gruesome.

[The Blaatschapen]

You need sheep on that boat.

Just making sure.

You guys can float, right?

*Googles "sheep floating in water" and the only image is a dead one floating upside-down in the water*

...oh. Alright. You can get in the boat.

Wet wool smells.

And we're not fat, so we don't float.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

If we are in a situation where human existence is on the line, there should be more women saved than men but there should be more adult males saved than children of either sex, because a population that predominantly consists of children cannot take care of itself.

If we were facing human extinction and I had to make an ark, I would choose people between the ages of 16 - 30, 7 out of 10 being female.

Sadly, yes.

Unless we can fix that glaring defect in our reproductive patterns, male lives will be inherently less valuable on a biological basis, which has leaked into our culture and politics since before history itself.

Rather disturbing, really.

Men are equal in the fertilization stage, and more dispensable in the incubation stage. Then suckling stage: in the scenario of all human things as well as all other humans being destroyed, suckling babies is an absolutely indispensable role of the woman. However, in incubation and suckling, the woman needs extra food and that makes the man quite useful.

Even now, babies with two parents tend to do better than those with only one. Take away the benefits of human civilization, and there would likely be a quite stark difference in survival-to-breeding-age. Also remember, that with a poor diet breeding age might be 20 or older.

If the optimal ratio was extreme (20 women to 1 man for example) then evolution would have broken the gender balance, wouldn't it? A tribe of women who all give birth to one boy, then nothing but girls, could outbreed a half-girls-half-boys tribe ... IF the ability to grow their tribe quickly was a significant advantage.

If evolution favored the way we have now, then evolution is presumably correct. This scenario we commonly start with, of unlimited resources which we have to grow as quickly as possible to the limit of resources, is apparently quite insignificant. Surviving many generations within the limits of the available resources, is apparently the dominant selection pressure in our past.

On the unlimited-resources, small group to re-establish humanity scenario, it probably is best to favor women. But not very much. Among the threats to their survival will be social disharmony leading to conflict of arms. Not just the obvious, fighting among the men, but unforeseen disharmony as the small society with no outside influences mutates rapidly. Actually, I've changed my mind. Rapid growth of population is less important than social harmony. We should stick with the 1:1 ratio and aim for monogamy with or without nuclear families, lest dumb men lured by the prospect of so much sex, allow the development of a matriarchy, their own enslavement, then segregation. "Never have to work, but all the sex you can handle" might sound OK, but it could mean extinction. When one tribe ruled by women realizes the best way to get the better of another tribe, permanently, is to kill their men ...

If we're talking survival of the species, I think it would be rash to choose any ratio but the one we know works.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

A harsh look on life, but a true one.

!!!!!!!!!!

Fun to replace? What do you mean?

You’ll learn when you get older.

[Atheris]

A harsh look on life, but a true one.

!!!!!!!!!!

Fun to replace? What do you mean?

Gross.

[The Blaatschapen]

Sadly, yes.

Unless we can fix that glaring defect in our reproductive patterns, male lives will be inherently less valuable on a biological basis, which has leaked into our culture and politics since before history itself.

Rather disturbing, really.

Men are equal in the fertilization stage, and more dispensable in the incubation stage. Then suckling stage: in the scenario of all human things as well as all other humans being destroyed, suckling babies is an absolutely indispensable role of the woman. However, in incubation and suckling, the woman needs extra food and that makes the man quite useful.

Even now, babies with two parents tend to do better than those with only one. Take away the benefits of human civilization, and there would likely be a quite stark difference in survival-to-breeding-age. Also remember, that with a poor diet breeding age might be 20 or older.

If the optimal ratio was extreme (20 women to 1 man for example) then evolution would have broken the gender balance, wouldn't it? A tribe of women who all give birth to one boy, then nothing but girls, could outbreed a half-girls-half-boys tribe ... IF the ability to grow their tribe quickly was a significant advantage.

If evolution favored the way we have now, then evolution is presumably correct. This scenario we commonly start with, of unlimited resources which we have to grow as quickly as possible to the limit of resources, is apparently quite insignificant. Surviving many generations within the limits of the available resources, is apparently the dominant selection pressure in our past.

On the unlimited-resources, small group to re-establish humanity scenario, it probably is best to favor women. But not very much. Among the threats to their survival will be social disharmony leading to conflict of arms. Not just the obvious, fighting among the men, but unforeseen disharmony as the small society with no outside influences mutates rapidly. Actually, I've changed my mind. Rapid growth of population is less important than social harmony. We should stick with the 1:1 ratio and aim for monogamy with or without nuclear families, lest dumb men lured by the prospect of so much sex, allow the development of a matriarchy, their own enslavement, then segregation. "Never have to work, but all the sex you can handle" might sound OK, but it could mean extinction. When one tribe ruled by women realizes the best way to get the better of another tribe, permanently, is to kill their men ...

If we're talking survival of the species, I think it would be rash to choose any ratio but the one we know works.

Keep in mind, that women die in childbirth on a fairly regular basis in a society that lacks the facilities to mitigate it. If women were to become a dime a dozen, why invest in that?

This is getting bleak, and not at all the situation described in the OP though We're not talking about a survival of the species, nor about a massive gender imbalance in terms of quantity in the world.

[Ethel mermania]

Well, no they're not.

Most women don't find 9 months of gestation enjoyable.

As if we MEN^TM were supposed to care for the opinion of walking gestation chambers/sandwich makers. Seesh. Enough with this toxic femininity.

Heh, you haven't had a kid yet. never send out in the middle of a cold snowy night, ordered to bring back a blueberry cheese cake or not come back at all.

You weren't there man, you weren't there.


<==== cries

[Kannap]

As if we MEN^TM were supposed to care for the opinion of walking gestation chambers/sandwich makers. Seesh. Enough with this toxic femininity.

Heh, you haven't had a kid yet. never send out in the middle of a cold snowy night, ordered to bring back a blueberry cheese cake or not come back at all.

You weren't there man, you weren't there.


<==== cries

Did you get the blueberry cheesecake?

[Ethel mermania]

Heh, you haven't had a kid yet. never send out in the middle of a cold snowy night, ordered to bring back a blueberry cheese cake or not come back at all.

You weren't there man, you weren't there.


<==== cries

Did you get the blueberry cheesecake?

I am still married, so yes.

[Atheris]

As if we MEN^TM were supposed to care for the opinion of walking gestation chambers/sandwich makers. Seesh. Enough with this toxic femininity.

Heh, you haven't had a kid yet. never send out in the middle of a cold snowy night, ordered to bring back a blueberry cheese cake or not come back at all.

You weren't there man, you weren't there.


<==== cries

All the more reason for me to never have children.

...Wait, what do you mean I vowed to be the cool uncle? Are you sure about that? Gimme the tape.

...

Oh, dammit.

[The Blaatschapen]

As if we MEN^TM were supposed to care for the opinion of walking gestation chambers/sandwich makers. Seesh. Enough with this toxic femininity.

Heh, you haven't had a kid yet. never send out in the middle of a cold snowy night, ordered to bring back a blueberry cheese cake or not come back at all.

You weren't there man, you weren't there.


<==== cries

So I never came back at all.

Easiest way to break up with someone

[Ethel mermania]

Heh, you haven't had a kid yet. never send out in the middle of a cold snowy night, ordered to bring back a blueberry cheese cake or not come back at all.

You weren't there man, you weren't there.


<==== cries

So I never came back at all.

Easiest way to break up with someone

As Mr. Taylor tells us,,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ-w_IKGRFM

[The Republic of Fore]

I'd save myself first, dying to save someone else is pointless,

The point is for the other person to be alive.

you'll just be forgotten anyway.

Who cares?

Who cares if the other person is alive? They haven't done anything to deserve your sacrifice.

[Xeralaversian]

I would like to think the idea of men being left behind isn't with the intent of dying but with the intent of ingenuity, helping people, and the ability to possibly stay alive longer than the weak while waiting on help to arrive. We are speaking of 1911 with the Titanic, women and children were not the same as women and children now. Men on Titanic were in charge and could have filled boats better, controlled the chaos, so on and so forth.

[The New California Republic]

We are speaking of 1911 with the Titanic

No, we aren't.

[The Blaatschapen]

I would like to think the idea of men being left behind isn't with the intent of dying but with the intent of ingenuity, helping people, and the ability to possibly stay alive longer than the weak while waiting on help to arrive. We are speaking of 1911 with the Titanic, women and children were not the same as women and children now. Men on Titanic were in charge and could have filled boats better, controlled the chaos, so on and so forth.

Not just any men were in charge. Crew.

So male passengers should be discriminated against because some crew members happen to have the same gender?

[Destyntine]

Wait, this whole thing gets me thinking, where would transgender, gender fluid, and non-binary people fall in this situation if women were prioritized over men?

[The Blaatschapen]

Wait, this whole thing gets me thinking, where would transgender, gender fluid, and non-binary people fall in this situation if women were prioritized over men?

If history is anything to go by.... back of the line. Or not even in the line

[Zul-ar]

Wait, this whole thing gets me thinking, where would transgender, gender fluid, and non-binary people fall in this situation if women were prioritized over men?

If history is anything to go by.... back of the line. Or not even in the line

I suppose if they passed as female they'd go with women, and if they passed as men they'd go with men. If they were unconventional looking, or out of the closet, I'd suspect they'd be at the back.