Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt and VF

[dairyfreelife]

Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt has a post up about VF's idea that women and children should be first. She/he disagrees with this notion. In fact, she turns into a problem because it means women deserve more than men or something like that.

I found the calling "women and children first" to be Christian doctrine way too strong of a term. A Christian sentiment, perhaps, but doctrine, no. Although, on second thought, that would go to explain why churches are heavily women and children focused.

The next statement I agree a little with because I do think women are not always the weaker ones. Outside of that, she's spweing nonsense.

If the bible were to spell out "women and children first" that would be one thing, but to base it on the strong helping the weak, the weak are not necessarily always going to be women.

I disagree with this aspect because I don't think anyone with knowledge of history can say this.

It is "cool" to regard a woman's life as more worthy than a man's, so the mantra is promoted.

Women have only ever been more "worthy" because of their reproduction. Women slaves cost more than man like female dogs cost more than males. They cost more because they can birth children/puppies. Men can only provide the seed to spark new life, but women carry and birth one so that was their only value. The comments on this one are beyond ridiculous with the men there going on crazy tangents about how women are all selfish, harping bitches and men are fighting back and not getting married. Funny because I know plenty of married men who seem rather happy to me. Seems these men have some serious issues they need to work out instead of blaming women for being allowed to have lives of their own.

fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt.blogspot.com/2012/03/women-and-children-first-as-christian.html

[debrand]

If the bible were to spell out "women and children first" that would be one thing, but to base it on the strong helping the weak, the weak are not necessarily always going to be women. How many men with disabilities or advanced age died to save women. An elderly man is most likely much weaker than a woman in her thirties, but according to this "Christian doctrine" the man should be the one still to die

I find it amusing that many of us have expressed similar sentiments on this site. Does she realize that she is coming periously close to feminist thinking?

Anonymous said...

I think it was Dalrock who has pointed out that "sorting" by any parameter merely slows up evacuation, thus when there are enough life boats, the death loss will be much bigger than necessary. No sorting; no dithering, get on the stupid lifeboat and take a seat.

I have written about school fire drills. All the kids in a school can get out in a very short time, because there is no sorting. Kids file out as they come. and, they all know where to go.

Put a feminist hag at the school doors and send the boys back, as they would like to do, and it will take a very long time for the girls to clear the building, because traffic will get knotted up near the exits.

I agree with the first two statements. However, I don't think that he understands feminism if he thinks that it is the feminist 'hag' who would send the boys back. The people that I hear who want to seperate out women or girls as being too weak and needing extra care are all traditionalists not feminists.

I am not certain why traffic would get knotted up in his scenario. However, I don't think that a boy deserves to die more than a little girl so I'm for lining up in an orderly fashion with no emphasis on the sex of the student.

It amazes me that some of these posters don't understand that feminism isn't a threat to them.

[dairyfreelife]

I find it amusing that many of us have expressed similar sentiments on this site. Does she realize that she is coming periously close to feminist thinking?

I agree with the first two statements. However, I don't think that he understands feminism if he thinks that it is the feminist 'hag' who would send the boys back. The people that I hear who want to seperate out women or girls as being too weak and needing extra care are all traditionalists not feminists.

I am not certain why traffic would get knotted up in his scenario. However, I don't think that a boy deserves to die more than a little girl so I'm for lining up in an orderly fashion with no emphasis on the sex of the student.

It amazes me that some of these posters don't understand that feminism isn't a threat to them.

What's more amazing to me upon reading them is that some of the men go "typical woman can't use logic" and then goes on to make a statement just as illogical as the woman did. The men there seem to have issues with their first wives and are blaming all women for it.

Yeah, I agree with you. I can't think of any feminist who would want to sent boys back in a burning building. I was going to be a primary teacher at first. It's a teacher's job to protect all students ahead of themselves and I can't think of any decent teacher who would ever think of sacrificing one gender over another. They want all children out and safe.

[debrand]

What's more amazing to me upon reading them is that some of the men go "typical woman can't use logic" and then goes on to make a statement just as illogical as the woman did. The men there seem to have issues with their first wives and are blaming all women for it.

I've noticed this. I've also noticed that anyone who disagrees with them is considered overly emotional no matter how well thought out their argument.

[lilah]

I also work in primary education and my obligation in an emergency would be to protect every child.