by Charles Gillette 17 Replies latest jw friends
Even to this day when disasters occur children should go first and women should go second then the men
I'm pretty sure the procedure today is most vulnerable first, which means children, the elderly and infirm and those with injuries are evacuated first. Able-bodied adults (regardless of gender) would go last.
I think it would depend on the situation.
I think, as someone above mentioned, it May be better to phrase it as mothers and children first as young kids usually need their mothers when they sense danger.
When I worked on the airline we always put strong men next to the wing in order to help the infirm out in an emergency. However a strong young woman would be preferable to a very out of shape male.
Although I like to think I would put my husband and children first in an emergency as he is healthier and will live longer for my children if there was a choice between us.
However as much as it pains me to say it I don't think I could respect the kind of guy who would elbow a woman out of the way to get out first in a fire, say.
MeanMrMustard beat me to it. This is evolutionary biology at work.
The term is evolutionary psychology, or more specifically, the social theory of male expendability.
Although the phenomenon is real enough when it comes to things like the history of armed conflict, it's a little iffy to treat a cultural specific practice as universal to the human race.
My Norwegian wife would be angry at the idea that she could not or should not accept her fate with the same courage as a man. (Actually there would be a charred, smoking hole in the ceiling where she went through it...) and similarly, German speaking women have openly mocked the idea (i.e. Allowing themselves to be rescued while their husbands died) both in speech and in song..
My Norwegian wife would be angry at the idea that she could not or should not accept her fate with the same courage as a man. (Actually there would be a charred, smoking hole in the ceiling where she went through it... -TD
So Charles Gillette this is how modern women like myself and TD's wife feel about this archaic attitude. We are certainly not alone I know.
It has nothing to do with courage, or accepting fate. It's all about making sure the family unit's DNA continues as part of the gene pool. A few million years of survival have hardwired us to act in certain ways. This is one of them.
A few million years of survival have hardwired us to act in certain ways. This is one of them.
I would agree with you. Except...
There are many tribes who, for e.g., walk through dangerous terrain males first, then women, then children, then the elderly. Why? Because the last In the line is most likely to be attacked by the croc etc. So young males are preferrenced over all else. Native Americans and East Indians have the tradition of males eating first - if food is scarce they get first dibs. Again, males are preferrenced. This I think is because they have to stay healthy to fight and defend the tribe.
I think you will find the ladies first is quite specific to certain cultures and probably began around the time( at least in the west) of the chivalric middle ages.
Jeff,
If this level of chivarly were hardwired into the human race, then we would expect to find it in many different cultures. Do you think it existed in India? How about the Middle East? Or Imperial Japan? Or China?
What we're talking about on this thread was a relatively short-lived practice confined almost entirely to the English speaking world. And as Elinder and Erixson document in the paper Gender, social norms, and survival in maritime disasters, it was relatively rare even in that sphere. We know of only three instances where it actually happened. We know of at least a dozen others where it did not.
I think a great many women would disagree with you on the question of courage. Here for example, is brief snippet from a German love song: (Translation is mine)
