Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For all of human history we have had a "we must always defend and protect the women!" attitude and philosophy.. Which makes sense as they have been the ones ton give life, but clearly things are far different today, with over 7 billion humans we most certainly aren't close to going extinct. According to Matthew White’s estimate on the page Worldwide Statistics of Casualties, Massacres, Disasters and Atrocities., a total of about 123 million men died in all wars of the 20th Century. Hypothetically speaking, say the exact same number of women just dropped dead tomorrow as all the number of men who have died in war in the 20th century, while obviously it would be extremely sad and tragic. do you think 123 million women instantly dropping dead would be as inherently worse than the same number of men instantly dropping dead?
Ahh. The Birkenhead Drill: “Women & children first!” It’s considered more of an act of patriotism, than it is an act of chivalry.
It used to be that men that saved themselves first spent the rest of their life being shamed & ridiculed. Now; a lot of young men would probably be confused about that.
It used to be a no-brainer. Women used to be of vital importance. Now? I don’t know ... I’m not a man.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,542,705 times
Reputation: 6253
Nah.
Everybody is to be thought entirely equal now, so nobody has any inherent value over anybody else anymore. We're all perfectly capable clones of one another with no defining differences... until it's convenient for a narrative.
For practical purposes it wouldn't make any impact on the world's population as a whole. It would just be a little glitch. I guess it would depend on whether or not it happened all at once in places scattered about all over the world or if it happened in just one place. If it happened in only one location it might be a disaster and a change of civilizations for that one location depending on what the overall population is there.
But if the women's deaths happened scattered all over the world it wouldn't make much impact on societies and since men have a higher mortality rate and lesser longevity rate than women do it wouldn't take long for 123 million men to die to make up the difference (maybe around 6 to 8 years, which isn't long). It would take even less time than that for more females to be born and replace the dead women because presently there are 55.3 million deaths per year world wide but there are 131.4 million births per year, pretty much equally divided between males and females for both deaths and births.
Ahh. The Birkenhead Drill: “Women & children first!” It’s considered more of an act of patriotism, than it is an act of chivalry.
It used to be that men that saved themselves first spent the rest of their life being shamed & ridiculed. Now; a lot of young men would probably be confused about that.
It used to be a no-brainer. Women used to be of vital importance. Now? I don’t know ... I’m not a man.
The concept originates in the mathematics of biology: one male can initiate the pregnancies of many women contemporaneously, but one woman can only carry one pregnancy at a time...ie- a clan could perpetuate itself nicely with one male and many females, but a clan with one female and many males would be doomed to extinction.
That concept may have morphed thru the years into the "protect the weak" mentality, but ever since the invention of gun powder, size & strength doesn't mean so much any more.
As Zoisite points out above, given our huge world population now, losing a few (even a million at a time) still leaves plenty of folks left over to keep the species going.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 6 days ago)
35,627 posts, read 17,961,729 times
Reputation: 50650
I think it was because women and children are kind of defenseless against gangs of men.
This was routine, in the settling of the US, that men (on both sides, Native Americans and European Immigrants) had to corral the women and children into a safe area and fight off the attacking men from either the White settlers or the tribesmen.
Defending their women and children was something the Comanches were remarkably good at, and that's one of the reasons they were so wildly successful as a tribe. And that's why the Parker raid was such a catastrophe - too many men working too far out in the fields from the Ranch, too few men to protect the women and the children within the fort.
Other instances where you protect the women and children that don't involve murderous gangs of men are probably just because women and children are less able to run, swim, fight fire, etc. than men and men have a strong drive to protect them.
Ahh. The Birkenhead Drill: “Women & children first!” It’s considered more of an act of patriotism, than it is an act of chivalry.
It used to be that men that saved themselves first spent the rest of their life being shamed & ridiculed. Now; a lot of young men would probably be confused about that.
It used to be a no-brainer. Women used to be of vital importance. Now? I don’t know ... I’m not a man.
I always thought it was obnoxious, similar to those "BABY ON BOARD!" stickers people put on their back windows. So a 50 year old male accountant is OK with dying in a terrible crash? Or when the news discusses the death toll in natural disasters. "28 people died, including 15 women and children." Like the 13 male victims are just an an afterthought and male deaths don't matter. (I'm a woman BTW).
Mankind can go on if only one virile man exists. It would be much harder with a harem of men and 1 fertile female - God bless her soul, lol.
Children are the future. A male lion has a pride of lioness'. A buck has a harem of does. Can anyone think of an example where nature and evolution has played that out in the reverse among mammals?
Women and children first is about saving the future.
Women and children first had nothing to do with valuing women’s life more. It had to do with women viewed as weaker and unable to defend themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
