Poirot, I'm somewhat with you on the consumer-driven feminist angle. Governments saw an opportunity to tax women's work and companies saw an opportunity to profit from women having more money to spend.

However, that's not what I'm interested in here.

What if the man had to be removed to make room for you? Are you still comfortable in your pre-warmed seat?

Pericles, would you care to have a think about it? I'd be interested in your reasons. The same goes for you, Ammonite.

Lexi, I agree that the children should be accommodated first. As for the "helpless", what does that mean? The ship is going down in waters barely above freezing. Everybody is helpless, including you. Only those in the lifeboats are not victims.

I don't think you've thoght this through very much.

By "helpless" I mean anyone who looks like they need help. For chrissakes; someone who may be panicking, or can't swim, weighed down by clothes - all encompassing word "helpless".

Maybe you should think about it.

I am courteous to people because that is an intrinsic part of my personality - if I reach a door before someone else I open it for them - I don't check out who they are first. Just greases the wheels which makes the world go round. If and when I do hold a door open for a man and he comments (as has happened) I kindly say that "courtesy goes both ways". Anti, maybe you could try it out instead of setting up straw arguments such as why we save others in a crisis.

On consumerism - which was not what I thought this topic about - but since when was consumerism a feminist issue?

Don't non-feminists buy stuff? What does this have to do with surviving a crisis?

Antiseptic,

I used the word "helpless" meaning all those who were
unable to help themselves. Such as for example, babies,
young children, pregnant women, disabled, handicapped,
sick, infirmed, and so on. Not the fit and healthy.
I would not consider myself "helpless." Scared. definitely,
but helpless - no.

I trust that clarifies things for you.

Everybody not in a lifeboat died. Therefore anybody not in a lifeboat was helpless, including you. Therefore, you need to apply some more thought to your views. At present Ammomnite's responses read like a schoolgirl tantrum and Lexi has adroitly avoided considering the question. I'd also appreciate a genuine effort to analyse why you would do as you claim. Remember, this isn't a case of pretending to stand up for someone else more helpless, everyone is equivalent.

Challenge yourselves.

Anti, at it again? your question has Merritt.
But that is not shared by some, the tattooed armed type woman some times found today would have to fight for my seat.
In truth I value manners and would go last,
But some little Princesses of today would tell their man to die without blinking an eye.
Those days are behind us , some good things went with them.

I suppose it could depend how your situation is. If a couple has children, then it would be supposed that a man then (and now?) would save his wife, not only for her survival, but also knowing that she would be there for the kids. Perhaps if there was only the two of you, a couple may wish to die together instead of one surviving without the other.

Anti, I don't think "principal" would overrule the will to survive in this case. If I was offered a seat, I would accept it because I wanted to survive. As I've stated in an earlier post, there are reasons why men automatically put women and children first, even if these reasons are not logically apparent in the first instance.

Ammonite,

Of course, the changing paradigm is pertinent to Anti's original question - and I agree with him regarding consumer society and the shift in gender roles and outlook. Every time a woman enters the "workforce" GDP goes up.