But alas, our culture still believes that women are inherently weaker than men, so it's probably not something that will be going away any time soon (and I doubt many women will be complaining about it).
Women aren't weaker when it comes to survival, but we lack the upper body strength to fight off a man (or even a boy) for a space in the boat or for a life jacket. Additionally, the stereotype is that women are nice and polite and wouldn't start biting or stabbing or kicking a guy in the balls in order to get into the boat. Allegedly, all the women would perish. That, and the raising of the babies, is why I think this rule is so common. Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I have no children and have had a great life. I'd like to think that I'd give up my life in order to save another persons.
Nonsense.
Yup. Women get to vote, they get to drown like the rest of us. They can go into military combat roles too, while they're at it.
And the 85 year old man is someone's grandfather. If it was my family, I would have put grampa in the boat and tossed the old cow into the sea.
Yup!
LOL!
In the U.S. women are not allowed to serve combat roles (which comes w/ a higher pay) but they are on the front lines of the fight. It's silly. Let 'em be drafted, be in the infantry, and pay them just like the male soldiers. They are there anyway.
We can keep grandpa, he'll make useful shark bait for later. Or, we may have to eat him. And let's face it, most folks are going to be more willing to murder gramps later on, then they will be to murder granny. So, yeah, he can stay until he's needed to serve a "greater purpose."
But, if we're really talking about survival of the fittest, why are we so adamant about saving the children? Think about it. It makes no sense at all. If we're marooned, those kiddies won't be able to help build the shelter or search for food. They aren't strong enough to lift things and they are more likely to get sick. If our plane crashes in the snow, the kids are more likely to catch hypothermia. If we crash in the ocean, the children are more likely to dehydrate. Plus, you'd have to deal w/ their crying, their fears, and their whining. If they perish, their bodies aren't large enough to fill everyone's tummy (sure, we have gramps, but we might be in danger for a long while) and teens need a lot of food in order to survive. Children aren't as intelligent as adults and do not have the survival skills of adults. They aren't an asset.
This is survival of the fittest. The men have the upper body strength, but women have heels, and mace, etc. Let' em fight it out. At least one woman will get a good kick in to the guys nuts, or will be able to spray the dude w/ her mace, and she'll get on the raft. The kids, older folks, and disabled, will all get the shit beat out of them and maybe even killed by these men who are insistent on survival. That'll help the woman who isn't quit willing to kill off a child. And there ya have it. We have enough healthy and capable males and females who can continue the human race.
but for thousands of years, women and children were always first because they are considered weaker when it comes to physical survival and men always rather see that 85 year old woman go first because she is someone's mother, grandmother etc.
