2 ms·
> "women and children first" didn't come out of some noble sense of chivalry This is a natural instinct for any decent man, and you can verify it by looking at
by the_gorilla 2y ago
> "women and children first" didn't come out of some noble sense of chivalry
This is a natural instinct for any decent man, and you can verify it by looking at the attitudes and writings of men in the early 1800s (predating your maritime disaster) in America during times of war. Any race or society that doesn't prioritize women and children is going to quickly be eliminated.
> “My God! What shall I do with these women and children!” Hull exclaimed on receiving Brock’s message. Horrified at the thought of a bloodbath, he was bamboozled into surrendering Detroit on August 16, 1812 without firing a shot or even consulting his officers.
The logic is also circular. Prioritizing women and children only after they die in a disaster doesn't make sense unless you already consider that a particularly bad thing, with extra consideration to their safety.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y agoCiting the writing of men in the 1800s is a very bad way to go about proving the existence of a natural chivalrous instinct. Anything you cite can easily be put down to cultural attitudes.
- the_gorilla 2y agoWhy did you respond to my post without reading what I was responding to? Why? Why? I'm so sick of these low effort replies that don't even put the smallest amount of time into even looking at what they're responding to.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y agoI literally did though. I understand that you were responding to a claim that disembarking procedures changed in response to a specific maritime accident, but you also made the claim directly in your comment that there is an innate chivalrous instinct in men, and your only substantiation (admittedly because you were responding to a claim about the time period) was to cite the writings of men in the 1800s. My point still stands and that’s why I responded to you.