Ammonite, you have a truly impressive capacity to misunderstand simple English and an even more impressive capacity to misconstrue simple figures. I suggest you ask someone more competent to explain what the thread is about. Mind you, such a Sisyphean task would be a most unkind burden on anyone. Best forget it.

Lexi, your response indicates you would decline a seat if offered. Is that right? I'm not seeing your justification, unless you think "I'd like to hope" is such a thing. What if the donor insisted?

Folks, I'm not asking you to predict what you'd do, necessarily, I'm interested in your reasons for why you think you'd prefer to act in the normative way.

As I said at the start, would you men give up your seat willingly for a woman and would you women accept it or would you even expect it as a normal part of your due? What are your reasons, not just your gut feelings? Are there any you can think of, given that there is ultimately nobody more helpless than anybody else? I'll stipulate that children and possibly women with a baby at the breast should be given first refusal. So what of the rest of you?

dan, I'm asking about the specific sorts of circumstances pertaining to the Titanic. In that case the crew perished at roughly equivalent rates to 2nd class passengers.

So far, we've got all the men saying they'd sacrifice their place and a couple of women who say they'd accept, while a couple of others are dodging and weaving and trying to find some way to feel better about saying they'd accept. SOG posits an evolutionary basis for this situation. Is that the case?

In 2011, it is difficult to imagine the socialisation that might lead to people stoically standing back while others hopped into the last lifeboat. Nowdays, the scramble for lifeboats would leave many people physically unable to board lifeboats. The melee amongst journalists and lawyers onshore would be similarly tactless.

In 2011, I also predict that poorer passengers would feel more entitled to lifeboats than the toffs. Furthermore, they now tend to be physically bigger than the rich (in contrast to 1912).

Dear Antiseptic,

People can insist all they want.
I'll basically do what I feel is
right. As others have indicated
they would as well. That's something
you shall have to accept, whether you
like it or not.

The way a man or woman treats a baby in the womb gives a pretty good idea as to how they would react in a choice situation.

Ok, I've thought about it, Antiseptic.

>>Pericles, would you care to have a think about it? I'd be interested in your reasons.<<

And my thoughts are, that his is not really about making an objective assessment of value-to-the-community of male/female, old/young, is it?

If it were, then there would be no question, you'd leave all the old folk behind (or let them stand on the bus, whatever) and trample over them in the rush to save yourself - the young and fit getting the places in the lifeboat. By the rules of survival of the fittest, you would be in the right.

But civilization has, over the years, modified that devil-take-the-hindmost approach, where everyone subscribes to the the "me first, I'm more valuable" approach. Hence civility, politeness, consideration for others, unselfishness.

Of course, this may not be a sustainable stance. We could well regress into the more primitive state, on the basis that to do otherwise would be to deny our descendants the appropriate genetic makeup for their survival.

Nevertheless, on balance, I prefer politeness, and will continue to stand up for women, the elderly and the infirm.

Poirot

You ARE determined to disagree with anything I write aren't you?

I stated: "We have progressed a little since then, some more than others."

You responded with the appalling lack of federal government aid in the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina.

New Orleans is my favourite place in the USA. Louisiana had two marks against it both of them poor and black. I never said there was no more discrimination, merely that we have progressed "a little".

Followed by

"Some more than others."

As amply demonstrated by Anti's constant quest to prove all women are evil/wrong/stupid - whatever.

Anti

You cannot make an cogent argument without resorting to personal insult by making completely unfounded comments regarding my comprehension skills. Such paucity of effort simply delineates your latest discussion thread as another attempt to further your gender war.

No doubt it pains you to know that should I reach a door before you I would hold it open for you.