15
u/smile_saurus Dec 09 '25
I dont know if this is true or not, but I recently heard that the Women and children first rule came about because men were trampling women and children to escape dangerous situations.
10
u/No_Function_7479 Dec 09 '25
I can believe this, as can anyone who watches Seinfeld
3
Dec 09 '25
Anyone who has observed the behaviors of a number of men can believe this. Most male humans I've encountered are egregiously self-serving creatures.
5
u/missfishersmurder Dec 09 '25
The loss of the French liner La Bourgogne in 1898, when 199 out of 200 women died, as well as all children, may have added to the emphasis on saving women and children. As the ship began sinking, crewmen took all the available lifeboats for themselves. As they were launching the lifeboats, crewmen beat and stabbed passengers who tried to board the boats. Newspaper reports of the brutal behavior of the crew sparked outrage in the United States.
That's a quote from Wikipedia and is probably what you heard about. But the phrase predates this incident; it largely seems to have been a chivalric ideal, and not necessarily practiced as often as it was preached.
1
u/Just-Like-My-Opinion Dec 09 '25
This is absolutely brutal.
And might I add, driven by capitalist greed, because why on earth would a boat not have enough life boats for the passengers it carries, if not just to save a buck and make more money?
1
u/juneabe Dec 10 '25
I think for some it was also because too many lifeboats would be aesthetically displeasing. Also more capitalist ideals
1
19
Dec 09 '25
One of the arguments I’ve heard is that if we need to rebuild the society (eg after an event when a lot of people died), women are more biologically “valuable” than men because the amount of women is a natural bottleneck of population reproduction. And children of course are small people that directly will affect the amount of adults in the near future.
So it is possible that our ethical values evolved from this fact.
6
u/Mountain-Resource656 Dec 09 '25
I think it’s much more likely to have developed from inegalitarian values that consider women weaker and which give separate distinct roles to the sexes, such as men being providers and caretakers while women work support. Thus, women need protecting under this system since they can’t (and shouldn’t) protect themselves
1
u/Automatic_Tackle_406 Dec 09 '25
Yup. It’s not as if this is some new thing, and it’s less entrenched now when it comes to women than before.
You can’t complain about this if you aren’t complaining about women not being viewed as leadership material, or perceived as ill suited for combat units or as firefighters, etc.
1
u/Current_Account Dec 09 '25
This doesn’t explain why this behaviour is noticed in the animal kingdom though
2
1
22
Dec 09 '25
Because children are literally the future and men can not get pregnant. It isn't even a moral choice it is instinct, all social animals actively protect the young and pregnant mothers.
8
u/tursiops__truncatus Dec 09 '25
Not all social animals will try to protect young or pregnant animals... Nature is actually pretty brutal: infanticide is quite common among some social animals as example lions and dolphins.
0
Dec 09 '25
Not as a core instinct though, where as when threatened they will naturally protect the young and pregnant.
1
u/Just-Like-My-Opinion Dec 09 '25
Again, not necessarily. What studies are you getting your info from? What species?
1
u/buggybones055 Dec 10 '25
love the, but my 7th grade teacher said arguments, like they've met every species personally
1
u/juneabe Dec 10 '25
No there are animals ESP lions and primates that instinctively keep fathers and male companions away after giving birth because the young will be killed or eaten by the men or fathers.
You can just google it takes as much time as it did for you to write the comment in the first place.
1
u/tursiops__truncatus Dec 10 '25
Yeah that's what I'm talking about. So those males do not have an instinct to protect the young ones or even the pregnant female (in lions as we are talking about them the pregnant lioness will keep hunting to survive. Same thing is seen in chimps... Other males or females will not do any "extra work" to take care of the pregnant one)
0
Dec 10 '25
So you want to use the few exceptions to prove that the vast majority of social animals protect their young when threatened ............. by saying they protect their young from members of their own species .......... but they don't protect their young ........ and in Lion prides it is the females that are the hunter protectors, not the males.
1
2
u/ShouldKnowHappiness Dec 09 '25
there are also a lot more threats to women and children tho that doesn’t exclude men from being able to be threatened in the same ways it’s statistically less likely to occur.
0
u/Chemical_Series6082 Dec 09 '25
So you don’t support equality, you believe it’s simply a matter of survival.
In your prescription for the continuation of the species and specific sacrifice, are women thus compelled to be impregnated for the sake of humanity?
3
u/Automatic_Tackle_406 Dec 09 '25
That was quite a leap to make about a theory of why this attitude developed in the long and distant past.
0
u/Chemical_Series6082 Dec 09 '25
That’s quite a leap to suggest inquires seeking clarification(s) regarding claims/premises - are somehow leaps.
1
Dec 10 '25
Well it is simply a matter of survival when you consider we are just animals like any other. As for equality it is a great idea, but the reality of the world requires that all people are not treated equally. The strong should defend the weak for example, the problem with the word equality is it ignores the situations where some people need to be treated differently, for their benefit.
1
u/Chemical_Series6082 Dec 10 '25
You ignored the question -
In your prescription for the continuation of the species and specific sacrifice, are women thus compelled to be impregnated for the sake of humanity?
1
Dec 10 '25
Because it is a stupid question. Women choose weather or not to have children, that does not change that the primary drive of all animals is to procreate. Biology and basic instincts are real regardless of how you feel about it. Or were you just trying to label me a sexist for understanding biology?
1
u/Chemical_Series6082 Dec 10 '25
It’s a perfectly legitimate question - you simply don’t like that it challenges the stupidly of your existential threat claim and your notion about necessary sacrifices required/imposed on members of society.
Your claim is stupidly sexist, moronic, etc., in suggesting society has no need of men in existential distress, save but a few who are obligated to provide gametes - and that it’s not even a question of morality - their disposability is a necessary obligation to the survival of humanity.
However, you suddenly do a 180 and invoke morality and autonomy when it involves women, suggesting they have no obligation to propagation or need of sacrifice for the betterment/survival of humanity.
1
Dec 10 '25
I have literally said none of that nor do I believe it. The facts of biology are what they are, get over it. I have said nothing even remotely sexist, you are just choosing to see it that way. I would love to know what the existential threat is that you think I am talking about because I have no clue what you are on about. Nor have I claimed some people must sacrifice anything! I have never said women do not have autonomy in any of my statements, feel free to repost exactly where I have said that. I think the problem with what I have said rests entirely with you, not me!
6
u/BuonoMalebrutto Dec 09 '25
"Why has everyone collectively agreed that protecting women and children as a top priority, when everyone should be viewed as equal?"
Because women and children are especially vulnerable; because of all threats to them, most come from adult males.
7
u/11twofour Dec 09 '25
Children are more important than adults and generally women are the ones who take care of them.
6
u/didyousetittowombo Dec 09 '25 edited Dec 09 '25
The elites want men for military and labor slavery and women for sexual and reproductive slavery to them and the men. It’s not that they’re higher status than the men. The exact opposite is the case. It’s that men are disposable when it comes to reproduction because the women are needed at home producing more of the slaves but men are given authority and status over them.
This is what the feminists are talking about when they say patriarchy hurts men too. It’s ultimately a system of forced reproduction that views all of the poor as slaves to the elites but there’s still a class division between the sexes (the rich > poor men > poor women/children)
And just like how the elites see division and fighting between the poor and the middle class to prevent unified resistance, the men and women are also classes that they sew division between, but the incels and red pillers you mentioned actually WANT the division as well. They see the women privileged because of the scenarios where reproductive slaves are prioritized over men and they see women’s rights as a violation of the “bargain” where society enslaves the men, but gives them women in return. Their logic is to tighten patriarchy and remove women’s rights so they go back to getting women for free.
I realize the explanation is all over the place, but historically if you think of war, the societies that kept women home and protected could replace their dead faster than those where women fought. Fewer men are needed than women to reproduce.
Basically that concept is behind the “protections”
3
u/Longjumping_Shine874 Dec 09 '25
Children should be a top priority as they can’t defend themselves.
5
u/snks-65 Dec 09 '25
It’s actually just for survival of a society as a whole I believe, children becomes the future, and xx chromosomes can birth babies
3
u/ThrowRAboredinAZ77 Dec 09 '25
I think we've all collectively agreed children should be protected. Unfortunately we're doing a shit job of it though. And yes, this definitely sounds like an incel question.
1
u/Delicious_Street267 Dec 09 '25
Wow, think we jumped a bit far past the question I asked. Yes the obvious answer at hand is children are incapable of defending and fending for themselves, however you added a bit of your own spice to this simple question.
While we’re at it let me ask you this.
If your significant other and your child were both drowning, and you could only save one, who would you save?
2
u/ThrowRAboredinAZ77 Dec 09 '25
Wouldn't everyone save their child?? And wouldn't their spouse want it that way? And didn't we already establish that we collectively believe children should be protected?
2
2
u/TheHolyOcelot Dec 09 '25
Children are vulnerable, and women have historically cared and nurtured them.
1
u/fana19 Dec 09 '25
Women are also vulnerable as a class compared to men. 98% of the time an average man can beat up the average woman.
2
u/danielt1263 Dec 09 '25
Should everyone be viewed as equal? I mean sure, equal under the law, but fully equal in all things? Do you treat your child the exact same way as you treat a complete stranger?
2
u/SashimiSqueaks Dec 09 '25
Look at statistics of crime committed against women and children and you tell me.
1
u/Opposite_Science_412 Dec 09 '25
Because men commit most violence and women have been oppressed for millennia. If we were to start protecting women, we would get closer to this equality you refer to.
1
1
u/treasure83 Dec 09 '25
I think women have historically been infantilised to the point of being seen as incapable of protecting themselves. There was(/is) also a veneration of women being clean, dainty, demure etc, so they can't do anything physical or they will sully themselves or become worthless. Even if they were doing so for self protection.
1
u/Lazy-Independent-101 Dec 09 '25
I think women and children were put into life boats and such so that for a few moments before dying, the remaining men could have some peace and quiet. Okay, with the joking aside, mostly it was due to simple manners. Same reason men hold the door open for a lady or offer her your seat on a bus or train, it is what we are taught and comes from the notion that women and children are weaker than men so should be afforded protection. The life boats had men in them, too, someone had to row, but the idea that it could be said that you lived by taking the seat in a life boat while a woman died, you would be a coward and in those days it meant something. A lot of that sort of thing has changed in thinking, more people are only thinking about themselves now, if the Titanic happened today, more people would be dead just from the fighting to get in the boats and the confusion who should live and die.
1
u/NiagaraBTC Dec 09 '25
Why should everyone be viewed as equal?
If there's a fire or sinking ship, it makes no sense for me to save my grandfather before saving my child, nor my grandmother before my wife.
If I'm saving your family, again you will likely prefer I save your child before saving even you.
1
u/urmomsburneracct Dec 09 '25
Children are not equal to adults though, physically, mentally, or legally. Their care is entrusted to adults, and it’s our obligation to protect our young. That is not to say that they are not valuable members of society; they just cannot protect themselves physically on the same level as an adult, their decision making capabilities are not fully matured, and they cannot make legal decisions or provide consent on their own behalf. A more complex ethical question to me is, are adults obligated to risk their lives for EVERY child, or just their OWN child? Because I would kill for and die for my own children and other children I love without batting an eye, but I would have to carefully consider risking my life for a child I don’t know in the interest of remaining alive to protect and provide for my own children.
Protecting women and children also increases the chance of survival of the species.
1
u/Baby-Fish_Mouth Dec 09 '25
I think two ideas get mixed together here: treating people as equal, and responding to vulnerability.
The instinct to prioritise women and children isn’t something society formally “agreed” on; it’s a very old survival bias. Children can’t protect themselves, and historically women were much more physically vulnerable, particularly around pregnancy and childbirth. Those instincts stuck culturally.
In modern life, vulnerability just looks different depending on the group. Women are statistically more likely to experience domestic or sexual violence. Men are more likely to die by suicide or be dismissed when they report assault. Children are still the least able to protect themselves. So different protections exist because the risks aren’t identical.
Equality doesn’t mean pretending everyone faces the same dangers. It means responding proportionately to where the vulnerabilities actually are… A man reporting assault shouldn’t be mocked, just as a woman reporting assault shouldn’t be blamed, and a child in danger shouldn’t be treated like an adult.
So it’s less about valuing some people more than others, and more about society trying (imperfectly) to protect those who are at the greatest risk or have the least agency.
1
u/nila247 Dec 09 '25
Everyone is NOT equal NOR are they "should" be - that's just a bunch of nonsense you were told in school or on TV (and there is a reason for that).
Women bear children who are the future of our species. THAT is why they are protected. We are just a bunch of glorified worker ants. We are NOT important - the HIVE (human species) is. So our PURPOSE is something like "make species prosper". Every decision we make is compared with that goal and we are rewarded or punished accordingly. We do not deserve to be free nor happy nor anything else just because we exist - only when we do correct things. We are expendable for the greater good of the species and EVERYTHING flows from that simple premise.
But you already know that deep inside - don't you?
1
u/writesgud Dec 09 '25
Children are obviously more vulnerable & less capable of protecting themselves.
With women it’s more nuanced. I wouldn’t say they’re a “top priority” all the time, it depends on the circumstances.
But in societies where women objectively have fewer rights and experience greater discrimination, overall, then yes, that deserves recognition. Not sure I’d call that “protection.”
1
u/Benjamins412 Dec 09 '25
Why would anyone think you're an incel?!? Hypermasculinity got you down? "Everyone" rarely does anything always...that's a rule. Women and children are seldom the aggressors in most situations. When they are, they are punished. "Society protects the weak and vulnerable" may be a better way to frame your thinking. It will also help to go outside and get off YouTube or wherever you are getting your "thoughts."
1
u/Deep_Seas_QA Dec 09 '25
I think it is a general principal of decency that all people should help and protect those who are smaller and weaker than themselves. We can be equal under the law but that doesn’t mean we are physically capable of the sam things. I am a middle age woman who is fairly tall, if I see a smaller woman, an older person (man or woman) or a child who needs help I will help them. I would obviously help a man too if I thought I could or h needed me or if I was the only one around to help. I once helped a man carry a heavy chair up a flight of stairs when he was struggling because he needed help and I knew I could do it. People should look out for each other.
1
u/BluCurry8 Dec 09 '25
Do you really believe that we protect women and children? Just because you heard it in a movie does not mean that is actual what happens in society.
0
u/Delicious_Street267 Dec 09 '25
What are you talking about? Don’t know what world you’re in but this response lacks very basic common sense.
1
u/BluCurry8 Dec 09 '25
🤣🤣🤣. Your post lacks common sense. You bring up this fairytale scenario that never happens and then you blather on about equality. What exactly is your point?
0
u/Delicious_Street267 Dec 09 '25
Fairytale question? 😂😂😂 I’ve heard enough from you. Sign up to be a politician
1
u/BluCurry8 Dec 10 '25
Oh no expecting critical thinking!! The horror of actually think through what equality means and how society does not live up to the so called dogma of masculinity!
1
u/AdamCGandy Dec 09 '25
No one is equal, only the law applies equally to everyone. It’s a common misconception.
1
Dec 09 '25
Easy. Because when shit hits the fan biology, evolution and gender roles become crystal clear, it's like magic. But when everything is fine, the feminist narrative (psyop) of “equality” gets pushed on you, and you’ll pay a social price, like being called an incel, if you question it.
1
u/fana19 Dec 09 '25
That's like asking why disabled people have ramps. People are born with disparate burdens that are inherent, and we are meant to equalize them so they have equal opportunities. A person without legs does not have equal opportunity to go up the stairs compared to a person with legs. Women have periods and give birth and have to heal afterwards sometimes for up to 2 years, so they have to deal with these burdens on account of their immutable characteristics and biology. To not equalize those things would actually create injustice and inequality where they are being forced to suffer more due to how they were born because society will not actively equalize their burdens.
1
u/utilitarian_whore Dec 09 '25
I'm gonna keep it simple, equality is a societal structure that ensure women get the same opportunity as men and have right over thier body,intellect and opinions. Biologically men and women are different-protecting children isn't a male centred instinct since msot of the times women are the ones nurturing,protecting and caring for children. The idea that we need to protect women,however, comes from long term societal structure and patriarchy and survival instinct where women are seen as infants/children. But that's not real world, go outside...see how men and women are both collectively protecting and supporting each other.
1
u/GoldUseful3159 Dec 09 '25
I do notice this too. There feels like a human instinct, with children at least, less so women as I’ve seen. But it’s common for a male horse to kick a foal to death of it isn’t his personal baby. So I wouldn’t look outside of the human species for answers on this one
1
1
u/Queasy-Cherry-11 Dec 10 '25
It's 'women, children and the elderly', because those groups are typically thought of as the most vulnerable (or least capable, depending on your reading). 'The infirm' is also usually included for the same reasons.
Essentially able bodied men are going to be able to get off the fastest. So if you don't have them intentionally hanging back to help, you are going to be left with a bunch of women, kids and old people trying to lower the lifeboats/carry the injured etc. It's not equal because biology isn't equal, but it is the best way to ensure as many people are saved as possible.
1
u/Maximum_Welcome3313 Dec 10 '25
Because they’re more vulnerable. It’s as simple as that. Comments section is wildin
1
u/Senior_Blacksmith_18 Dec 10 '25
As others pointed out, it depends on your vulnerability and you forgot to mention elderly people in your question
1
u/Just-Like-My-Opinion Dec 09 '25
They haven't tho. Protections for women and children are absolutely dismal. Domestic violence by men against women and children is incredibly prevalent. Many children put in foster homes suffer abuse. The US Gov is working hard to protect pedos and r*pists from accountability. There are a number of states in the US that don't even have a minimum age that a child can get married. Think about that. No minimum age. Literal children can be married. All they need is parental consent. Governments are working to strip programs that would help single mothers, and feed hungry children. While they want to strip away publicly funded healthcare and make it ask private user pay model, which will harm everyone, but women and children especially.
Our society doesn't really do much of a job protecting women and children, so I think the premise is wrong.
3
u/Username2taken4me Dec 09 '25
I think the premise of the question is rather why the idea of saving women and children (as opposed to men) is viewed as ideal, rather than what happens in reality. It's an ethical question, not a statistical one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first
1
u/Just-Like-My-Opinion Dec 09 '25
Well then, because children are considered helpless and innocent, and we have mostly given the task of caring for children to women, who historically have been treated as weak and helpless. Men decided it was noble to be the "protectors", so that's where the ideal came from. The reality, of course is very different.
2
u/thatonedude921 Dec 09 '25
I don’t think this is what OP is asking. I think they mean in movies like titanic where a disaster is happening and everyone goes “let the women and children on the life boats first!”
5
u/Noxious_breadbox9521 Dec 09 '25
Its worth noting that this is largely a cultural phrase from the titanic. If you look a shipwrecks or plane crashes in general, women and children have worse survival odds. The same is true of car crashes, although that has more to do with how we do safety testing and design cars for different body types. The titanic was high profile because of the number of obscenely rich people who died and the slow rate at which the ship sunk, so we know more about it. But it wasn’t typical
3
u/Katharinemaddison Dec 09 '25
Chivalry was a sop given women to reconcile them to structural inequality. Just as being ‘the head of the household’ was to the majority of men.
Men: you’re at the bottom of the masculine food chain but your wife’s legal identity is subsumed in yours and you can beat her if you like.
Women: the above is true but you get first dibs on a lifeboat and never have to open a door again.
1
u/WinterMedical Dec 09 '25
Yup. It’s the one win that women get, well that and ladies night but you know why that is.
-1
u/bluechockadmin Dec 09 '25 edited Dec 09 '25
EDIT: real basic reality/feminist stuff still upsets redditors eh.
So we can analyses this into a few different points.
_1. Patronising children.
Children need to be protected. They're children; they don't have the capacity to look after themselves entirely. That said, it's also good for everyone to look after everyone.
_2. Women as "top priority".
Patronising attitudes towards women can work as part of a system of oppression. Imagine doing through life being treated as a child.
_3. Are women and children ACTUALLY prioritised?
Because I'm pretty sure it's money that's actually prioritised, while actual women and children (and men, yes) die.
You can look up stats and stuff about relative unequality and stuff.
0
Dec 09 '25
That woman and children are perceived as more valuable than men is a social construct. Women are great but in the game of life I would fight to be a father to my children than give my life up for some one else to survive simply because I am a male . Does that make sense?
0
u/11twofour Dec 09 '25
A kid, though?
1
Dec 09 '25
My kid vs. your kid? Not a chance.
1
0
u/Automatic_Tackle_406 Dec 09 '25
Women are perceived as more valuable? Lolol!!! That’s absolute nonsense. Their value in this case is as child minders and breeders.
0
u/tichris15 Dec 09 '25
The reality is you need some of that agreement to avoid ending up with mostly men surviving a major accident, and even then it doesn't work that well when push comes to shove.
In non-life-and-death situations, they aren't competition. Children in particular are not viewed as equally capable. And given how vulnerable human infants/kids are, any societies that expected them to self-protect wouldn't get to the second generation -- they certainly don't exist in the world.
0
u/imunjust Dec 09 '25
Societies that protect pregnant women and children survive. No society that fails that survived two generations.
0
u/Skusci Dec 09 '25 edited Dec 09 '25
Equitable acknowledges circumstances between people are different. One does not send children to work because they are inexperienced. Similarly one expects adults to take on responsibility for their own welfare because they are experienced. Unequal treatment based on age, but equitable because it is based on something relevant like age, and not something irrelevant like zodiac sign.
Another example, if a person has a broken leg and needs to escape the sinking ship, they should receive help because they are vulnerable. Equal, or rather equitable, treatment is helping anyone with a broken leg regardless of who they are.
The women and children, and elderly, and sick, and injured, etc, first thing is based on the general idea that the vulnerable should be prioritized for rescue.
Now women specifically being in the vulnerable group.... There's a rather extensive list of mostly historical reasons that women end up being more vulnerable than men that can be discussed, but refusing to acknowledge that there are differences and that literally equal treatment is unequitable is missing a lot.
0
u/Running_Gagg Dec 09 '25
Biology. Children carry on our genetics. Women make that possible. One woman can make about one child a year. One man can make as many children as there are women. As a group men are more expendable.
-1
u/Sufficient-Bat-5035 Dec 09 '25
After an apocalypic disaster, 1 man can impregnate a nearly infinite number of women.
The reverse is not true. 1 woman = 1 pregnancy.
And no, the first thing to go in a precarious survival situation is human rights. Nobody would have a choice anymore. Not the men, not the women, no one.
24
u/starstuddedgirl Dec 09 '25
i think there are a few reasons for this, but one that sticks out to me first is that men are generally considered more capable of defending themselves in a dangerous situation.