Poirot

>> Every time a woman enters the "workforce" GDP goes up. <<

It does?

What happens when a man enters the workforce?

Does this mean that only women should work and men stay home?

Silly me. I thought excessive consumerism was practised by both sexes and that both sexes could be for capitalism. And, yeah, I can see how this applies to saving others on the Titantic, well, not really. Just thought I'd say that.

Anti why do we have the duopoly of "women and children” and then "men"?

IMO it is an evolutionary trait, we protect the breeders and their offspring, although we can be tribally selective, but the fact is a paternal society has evolved in the majority of cultures because women are in “survivor capable” terms the weaker sex.

Modernity and legislation backed by enforcement has given women the equality they now share. If tomorrow modernity was gone, the rule of law was gone and it was struggle for survival on a daily basis then women would go straight back to square one, totally reliant on the men, they called it the “thatched ceiling” in those days.

About the life boat, I’ve been programmed, women and children first, even Belly’s fat tattooed dykie chic, she is still a fem and I could kill or maim her on a whim today or tomorrow, but she is still the weaker sex, tattoos or not, big mouth or not, and they must survive at the cost of mature males.

My generation was taught to give up seats to women (if you were a man), to the aged and the disabled. I have done it all my life and I don't think it is a bad thing. It is a recognition of the fact that the person you are giving up your seat is less able than you to navigate the public transport system. My husband still opens my door for me and I put in an effort to cook things he likes etc (that is oversimplifying..I know).

I disagree totally with Anti's assessment of the Titanic. The reason the lowest class passengers failed to survive was they were locked in their berths so the upper classes could get off first. It was a class issue as much as it was gender issue.

Didn't you watch Kate Winslett and Leonardo Di Caprio's Titanic? ;)

Men have always gone off to war to defend and protect, it has been tradition but times do evolve and things change. We now have female police officers, lifeguards and the like. This does not mean women are necessarily stronger but women have always had a strong protective instinct especially in relation to family.

I am of an older generation and as such I am just as influenced by my own upbringing and I like it when men open doors and perform the traditional niceties. I also do the same in return especially if I have gone through a door first (regardless of gender). I don't expect it or demand it, but it is nice when there is still some chivalry to be found. I also don't like it when women emasculate men in public or when men ridicule or belittle women.

It really comes down to common courtesies and respect.

Ammonite,

You're being a tad disingenuous (as is your want).

My comment was directed at the modern paradigm of "rampant" consumerism wherein a marked alteration in societal structure and gender participation "now" dictates that women "should" take part in the workforce.
If every woman (or man) paid another person to do the domestic chores now undertaken without pay, the GDP would increase.

Anti was asking the question as to whether the alteration in gender identification (due, in my opinion, to modern consumerist society) would a game-changer in a crisis sutation.

But, by all means, feel free to continue with your stunt.....

Poirot

>> If every woman (or man) paid another person to do the domestic chores now undertaken without pay, the GDP would increase. <<

Our consumerist society could not afford to pay for domestic chores currently performed for free by women and a few men.

As for crises, we have had several in Australia in recent years. I was present in the Dandenong Ranges at one. I recall there were women and men working alongside each other as ambos, police officers, firefighters and members of the public to save whom and what they could. I do not believe that efforts to save others were divided along either gender or, as was the case of the Titanic, class lines.

You can claim I am disingenuous - I believe it is people who are constantly creating battles and divisions between people for their own selfish reasons who better fit that tag.

However, this is OLO - where "freedom of speech" reigns supreme, doesn't it?

Antiseptic,

I have answered the question as honestly as I
could. I can't do much about the fact that
you're not satisfied with what I gave you.

I'll try to explain it to you again:

I can't say what I would or wouldn't do for certain
in a crisis,

I have no way of knowing -
whether panic would set in or not. I can't predict
that ahead of time.

All I can say is - based on the way I was raised,
(to put others first), I would hope that my reflexes
and upbringing would kick in, and I would
look to saving the more vunerable first - rather than myself.
So, on the law of averages - no, I wouldn't take the seat
on the life-boat while there were others more vunerable
then myself around. People as I mentioned previously -
like babies, pregnant women, children, ill, disabled,
and so on.

That's the best answer I can give you.