Since the human species is not hurting from a lack of population, I don't see the need to prioritize women merely because they are capable of giving birth. Furthermore, I will NEVER work to establish a society where men are thought of as inherently inferior to women.

Depends on the woman.

I try to protect those I care about, whether they be male or female. Do you not think women also wish to protect those they care about?

Some men would make better rulers than some women. Some women would make better protectors than some men. Should we not choose the person best qualified for the job?

I don't understand why one sex should necessarily be above another.

Take my girlfriend and I, we treat each other as equals.

OF COURSE, if there were only room enough for one of us on a life boat I would push for her to survive over me, to address your earlier analogy.

If I had to die to save her life, I would gladly do so and would go to any lengths, legal or illegal to protect her from harm.

These are extreme examples. But, on a daily basis, we pretty much live as equals, neither RULES or dominates.

I don't think that she nor any of her friends wish to be bowed down to and told to be given total control over their significant others.

Yet, by your logic, this is immoral behavior ?

Even if we were to have a world dominated by women, what makes you think that would be any better ?

There are plenty of women sociopaths, users, manipulators, con artists, takers and murderers, just like men.

Your links don't seem to really provide any empirical evidence that what you are suggesting would make the world any better or any more "moral". So I don't know where you are coming up with this.

I wouldn't mind just having some female sex robots that look like real women.

Let's get past the life boat.

You would give the seat to those you love but not to a woman you did not know.

Do I have that right?

You do not believe in the notion of saving women and children first. Correct?

Just so you do not think I completely ignored your last question, the answer is yes but with a caveat that I will explain later if we are on the same moral page otherwise you will not understand the POV.

Regards
DL

The morality is tied to sanctity as spoken of in the link.

I said nothing of

"she nor any of her friends wish to be bowed down to and told to be given total control over their significant others."

Man in large part rules today and we do not for such.

If you are ready as you say to bow to the needs of women in times of crisis, why would you change that policy when not in times of crisis?

What did you perceive was meant by sanctity in that Ted clip?

Regards
DL

Ok, my mistake for taking your comment out of context by saying "bowing down and be given control". I guess I am reading this OP the wrong way and not really getting it, because I thought that is what you were getting at. I guess you'll have to put it into more simpler terms for me to comprehend.

I have no problem with a woman President or leader, if that is what you ARE getting at in the OP. Doesn't bother me at all.

As far as a non-crisis policy, I am not sure what you mean ? I tend to treat all people the same. I treat them the way that I want to be treated. It's only when they step out of line or disrespect me that they find out that I am not always such a nice guy.

Now of course, I handle women differently in those matters than I do men. For instance, I would never strike or hit a woman, whereas that rule does not apply to other men. But other than that, you would have to be more specific about times of "non-crisis".

I mean, in emergency situations, by default, it is always women and children first.

As I have already stated, if it was my girlfriend's life or mine, I would give mine if it saved hers. But, in a time of "non-crisis" as you put it, we pretty much treat each other the same.

I guess you'll have to be a little more specific for me to understand.

If they wanted me to, yes.

I should be no more likely to give the seat to a woman I didn't know than to a man I didn't know.

In general, I think children should be given a higher priority. I do not, however, think women should be given a higher priority than men. Being female does not automatically make one more worthy of life.

We are on the same page basically. Many men are. Yet do not bring that women first policy to everyday practice. That seems rather hypocritical to me as I carry the same policy all the time. You and I are in the equal plus side on emergencies. I carry that policy to always. You do not.

Why is that not always your policy?

Regards
DL

I simply said that I was unclear what was meant by the policy of non-crisis.

So is Schettino only a coward because there were still women on the ship? If the cruise was a gay cruise with only male passengers would things be different and his actions excusable? I don't think so. What about all the other male passengers who abandoned ship before or at the same time as Schettino? Are they cowards? Should they have held back and waited for every female to be safely off the ship first? That is absurd. In such a situation every single male trying to play the role of hero and standing around waiting for all the females to get off the ship would simply be in the way and slow down the evacuation. The end result would be hundreds of more deaths all in the name of chivalry.

Schettino is a coward because as captain of the ship he had a duty to protect all of his passengers be they male, female, transsexual, hermaphrodite or asexual green space aliens. He shirked his duty to protect his own life which is why many people view him as a coward while I doubt most would put similar blame on some random male passenger that got into a lifeboat.

In any emergency situation leaders will emerge to help others based on their physical ability, special skills, position of authority and natural personality. While being a leader and rescuing others is certainly commendable and usually lead to being designated a hero, it is a good thing that usually only a few people adopt that role. Too many heroes all trying to risk their lives to save each other simply causes problems. I don't question the morality of those who decided to abandon the ship while others remained aboard. Such situations call for quick decisions and sometimes it is appropriate to be a hero and risk yourself to help others, sometimes it isn't- whether or not the person you are helping is male or female seems irrelevant. If I was on the ship and saw a male who for whatever reason clearly needed help and I judged myself to be in a position to be able to help him, I would.

Thanks for clarifying the story Beyond, and I definitely agree with what you're saying.

I believe he/she finds the rule insulting because it seems to imply you think women are inherently more valuable than men.

to Greatest I Am: It seems you view women as inherently more valuable and worthy of life than men. Do you hold such a view?

I'd say , leave the lifeboat analogy out of the argument for the moment and stick to providing some form of empirical data that actually makes this a valid hypothesis. 

I'd hit this.

YIKES ! No breakfast for me this morning. I think I just lost my appetite or am feeling somewhat nauseous.

Ah okay, yeah, that's a position I can get behind.  And besides, it wasn't like I was terribly understanding since I did break out the 'Retarded' first.  Needlessly combative on my part as well, so I see your Apology and Raise you my Own.

I say we just blame it on the thread .

 That's my wife.

just kidding. 

Then I jumped the gun. My bad my friend.

Regards
DL

Absolutely.

Regards

DL

My eyes, my eyes,. Bastard, look what you have done to my eyes.

I did not really mean bastard. But my eyes, my eyes, look what you have done to my eyes.

Regards
DL

Women and children first.

I picked up this bit after reading I became interested in where and when it came into practice and this is what I found
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first
Women and Children First

History

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, ships typically did not carry enough lifeboats to save all the passengers and crew in the event of disaster. In 1870, answering a question at the House of Commons of the United Kingdom about the sinking of PS Normandy, George Shaw-Lefevre said that[3]

"in the opinion of the Board of Trade, it will not be possible to compel the passenger steamers running between England and France to have boats sufficient for the very numerous passengers they often carry. They would encumber the decks, and rather add to the danger than detract from it"

By the turn of the 20th century larger ships meant more people could travel, but safety rules regarding lifeboats remained out of date: for example, British legislation concerning the number of lifeboats was based on the tonnage of a vessel and only encompassed vessels of "10,000 gross tons and over". The result was that a sinking usually involved a moral dilemma for passengers and crew as to whose lives should be saved with the limited available lifeboats.

The practice of women and children first arose from the chivalrous actions of soldiers during sinking of the Royal Navy troopship HMS Birkenhead in 1852, which was memorialized in newspapers and paintings of the time, and in poems such as Rudyard Kipling's "Soldier an' Sailor Too." In that wreck the captain ordered the wives and children aboard (20 in all) to enter the only small lifeboat available, saving them, while the men stayed on board until the ship was wrecked. Only about 25% of the men survived the wreck and none of the senior officers did. Samuel Smiles, in his 1859 book Self-Help, described the principle being applied during Siege of Lucknow.[4] The specific phrase first appeared in a novel by William Douglas O'Connor entitled Harrington: A True Story of Love in 1860.[5]

RMS Titanic survivors aboard a collapsible lifeboat
Although never part of international maritime law, the phrase was popularised by its usage on the RMS Titanic,[6] where, as a consequence of this practice, 74% of the women on board were saved and 52% of the children, but only 20% of the men.[7] Some officers on the Titanic misinterpreted the order from Captain Smith, and tried to prevent men from boarding the lifeboats.[8][9] It was intended that women and children would board first, with any remaining free spaces for men. Because so few men were saved on the Titanic, the men who did survive were initially branded as cowards, including White Star official, J. Bruce Ismay.[10]

There is no legal basis for the protocol of women and children first — according to International Maritime Organization regulations, ships have 30 minutes to load all passengers into lifeboats and maneuver the boats away.[11] History has furthermore shown that application of the protocol has been the exception rather than the rule. An Uppsala University study published in April 2012, found that historical survival rates have been in favor of adult males rather than women or children. The paper analyzed 18 maritime disasters covering a period of one and a half centuries, from 1852 to 2011. The same study found that crew members have a relative survival advantage over passengers. The particular case of RMS Titanic is therefore not representative of maritime conduct in general.[12]

The clothing worn by women, notably in the Victorian era, has played a role in the historical survival rates of men vs women at sea. With the sinking of the Royal Charter, the women were still dressing below decks when they should have been mustering with the men on the deck to abandon ship; their bulkier clothing also limited their ability to swim in the heavy surf.[13]

Concerns

Some writers have argued that the entire concept of putting women first in an emergency may be merely a means of promoting an idea of essential gender differences which may then be used to justify other inequalities that disfavor women.[14] The British ruling class used the myth of male chivalry at sea to justify denying women the right to vote. According to their argument, there was no reason for women to vote since men would always put the interests of women ahead of their own interests.[15]

I damned near choked when reading this last. Sounds like you would not.

Regards
DL

You seem to be comparing apples and oranges - 'deadbeat dads' (those that don't pay child support) are not the opposite to unwed mothers on the 'who's better at child rearing' scale.. Your original assertion is not only wildly speculative, but also makes no sense.

And this article cited says absolutely nothing about the quality of child-rearing - remember the law is generally on the woman's side when it comes to child custody - and therefore access to those children can be very lopsided between the parents.

Are you suggesting that men are better at child rearing than women and are more responsible in terms of keeping their children?

Regards
DL

Exactly how should we do so? What price should men pay today? Do you generally support punishing the descendants of people who committed injustices? 

You just suggested that denying equality for women is an injustice. Yet here you are denying that men and women are equal.

3 seconds? Damn, I don't think I could go that fast if I tried.

So exactly why do women need more protection? Is there an outbreak of people attacking pregnant women? Sure, pregnant women generally have certain physical limitations that make it more difficult for them to do physically demanding activities and if you are in a position to it is certainly nice to help out. Other people also have physical limitations that can be temporary (say a broken arm) or permanent (say a paraplegic) and it is generally nice to lend a helping hand if you see someone in need regardless of sex. 

People should protect whomever they desire to protect. I don't think that strength necessarily conveys an obligation to protect another person on its own. Nor do I believe that people can be clear cut into weak/strong categories. A person can be both at one time and the reality is that physical strength is far less important today than it was in the past. The vast majority of people will go through their lives without a serious physical conflict.