Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and
    young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment,
    luxury, or folly which can--and must--be dumped in emergency to
    preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal
    morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect
    society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!"
    is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless,
    starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly--and
    no doubt will keep on trying.


					--Robert Heinlein

    Maybe a tangent or a rathole. "WACF" is oriented not toward the
    survival of any individual so much as the survival of the species.
    (It could be the ultimate collectivist statement.) If you put the
    individual first, the phrase is somewhat repugnant. If you put
    'humankind' ahead of the individual it makes perfect sense. 
    It all depends on your values. 
    
    (In a war or other disaster, as long as one male survives the
    species can repopulate, *if* there are females. In wildlife
    management the game biologists control herd size by controlling
    the number of *females*. For instance, deer hunters could harvest
    80 % of the bucks in a herd and the herd could still maintain
    and even *increase*. To keep the herd from overpopulating it
    is necessary to harvest a certain number of does. Simple
    arithmetic - 10 bucks plus ten does = 10 offspring. 1 buck plus
    ten does = 10 offspring!)

    (entered for informative purposes only, please let's not get into 
    the hunting rathole here.)

	Ayup! 

	The Persian Gulf crisis has really been shoving this one in my face too.
"There are over 3000 American Hostages in Iran, at least 1000 of which are 
*women and children*!"  *Gasp* Horrors!  

	Yeah, my sympathies are with those who are being held against their will,
but the adults *men and women* CHOSE to be there.  I can understand a special
emphasis on the plight of the kids.  They are in danger through no choice of 
their own.  But if it's bad for a woman to be a hostage, it's equally bad for
a man to be a hostage.  Likewise, if it is no big deal for a man to be a hostage, 
it's no big deal for a woman either.  I realize no one is saying that it is 
no big deal, but it *feels* like it. 

	So I don't like it for two reasons:  1) It devalues the lives of the men 
who are held, and 2) there is an element of women=children.

	re: .1  "ya just can't beat this argument!"  Bullshit!  RAH, although 
he is one of my favorite authors, is just that -- an author.  Not god or the 
oracle of light and holder of all truth.  If we were a frontier society
in danger of falling below the "critical mass" of population needed to keep 
going, the argument has merit.  Alas, we are in NO danger of running out of
people any time soon.  (Unless we bomb ourselves into oblivion, and so far I 
know of no bombs that affect men and not women and children.)

Tracey  

    
    If the children being released are young, they'll need a parent
    to take care of them.  In the past, the primary child-caretakers have
    been mothers.  I thought maybe this is where 'women & children first'
    came from.  Because it's assumed that the children need women/mothers
    to take care of them.  Of course, I don't agree that it need be
    women/mothers, as it could as easily be men/fathers.
    
    re a few:
    Survival of the *human* species?  Harumph!  We don't seem to have
    *any* problem with that!
    

    OH yes, it's just so romantic--'woman and children' first.  Remember
    the scene in the movie, the Titanic, the women and children sailing
    (safely?) off in boats while the men sank.  Right.  Just another
    way of romanticizing/glorifying war.
    Maia
    

    re: .0
    
    no, no women in combat topic yet here....feel free to start one!
    
    -Jody
    

    re .5, speaking of the Titanic and "women and children" first, I
    believe that it was only the first class women and children who were
    saved.  I seem to remember reading that most of the women and children
    in steerage went down with the ship.  In the past I think "women and
    children first" usually meant rich or upper class women and children,
    the possessions of the wealthy, white men who ran the world and made
    the rules.  I think poor women have often met the same miserable fate
    that the poor men have.  Of course, I don't imagine that any of the
    hostages in the middle east are poor or working class people, or they
    woiuldn't be over there in the first place.
    
    To discuss another aspect of the "women and children first" business, I
    have to admit that it annoys the hell out of *me* when people complain
    about "women and children first."  Just because a few women here at DEC
    have the same advantages as most men in the U.S. do, doesn't mean that
    all women, as a group, have the same opportunities, or are equal with
    men, as a group, at this time.  I think that it is still a "man's
    world" and that men are still pretty much running the show, here in the
    U.S. and in the middle east.  I think that there are still many average
    American males who really believe that men and women are not equal and
    that women are more suited to be wives, mothers and do certain jobs
    where they help men but are not equals.  These men cannot have it both
    ways.  It seems to me that when we say we want to be equal many men do
    not want us to be equal, but then complain because women are not in
    combat or female hostages are released first.  It's almost as if the
    attitude is, "Oh, you want to be equal.  Go fight and die, and stay be
    tortured if you're a hostage, then!"  Gee, thanks a lot.  It seems that
    women could lose everything this way.  We could wind up going to war
    and getting killed, not being let out first if we're hostages or on
    sinking ships, and *still* wind up never getting the best jobs because
    of the glass ceiling and still wind up having our SO's and husbands
    angry at us if we dare to disagree with them in a political argument. 
    When women have just as many important jobs as men do, and when there
    is no threat whatsoever to reversing Roe vs. Wade, and when women in
    the U.S. make a dollar to every dollar a man makes, THEN I'll complain
    about "women and children first."  Things aren't so great for women, as
    a group, yet, that I'm ready to complain about it.
    
    Besides, so far, as a society we are still raising girls differently
    from boys.  More boys are raised to be stronger, more athletic, and
    more capable of surviving in an atmosphere such as hostages are likely
    to be in.  Most women are still smaller than most men afterall.
    
    Lorna
    

re: .7 

	Actually, I'd be willing to bet (vast generalization coming here, insert
all standard disclaimers :-) ) that women would hold up better in a hostage 
situation than men.  Physical strength and ability have very little to do with 
how well you stand up to this intense mental and emotional ordeal.  In fact, I'd 
go so far as to say that the very socialization that you mentioned would work 
AGAINST men in this situation.  If they are used to be physically active, the
strain of foregoing that would be even greater.  (Whereas computer dweebs like
me are used to staying under the flourescent lights for seemingly months at a
time and would be hard pressed to give you a weather report upon demand. :-) ) 
AND women have been shown to to be able to hold up under long-term stress better 
than men.

	
Tracey 
	
	Feel free to substitute "many", "some" or "most" wherever it'll make 
this more readable to you.
	

	Lorna, 

	You got most of it right, but there are women who are poor
	or at least by our standards poor, who are trying to get out
	of Iraq.  They are Asians or Africans or Indians - who went
	to the area with their family or alone to find work and now
	have found that their employers are gone.  They are the ones
	alone with the men in the camps along the boarder of Iraq, who
	don't have a goverment to bring them home, who don't have the
	money to "just fly home".   Do we here about getting them out
	of the area - There are tens of thousands of them not three
	thousand (or less).  But then they are not "our" women and
	children, and if they starve or die from illness there is so
	many of them that it doesn't make a difference, does it.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			All people are my people

    Okay, let's have some fun with this topic by putting it into a
    practical application of a situation:
    
    You are the captain of the brand new 1991 PACIFIC TITANIC cruise 
    ship with 500 passengers. History (or herstory, if you will) repeats
    itself and we hit an iceburg. And, again, we only have just enough
    lifeboats for 300 passengers. Now, 100 of the passengers are children.
    No one from either sex would argue that they should be the first to be
    boarded onto the lifeboats. Maybe followed by 100 elderly and
    handicapped people. That leaves a balance of 300 people on board
    the cruise liner still. 
    
    We don't have much time as the ship is sinking rather quickly. Now,
    the captain has to make a decision as to whom should be placed into
    the remaining liferafts next. He can only choose 100 people. 
    
    How do you decide on that?  Draw lots?  No time.  Take a vote? 
    No time. Who stays and who goes? I'll make it even tougher by saying
    that there's 150 women and 150 men, so that means that no matter
    how you decide, 200 souls will be lost at sea...mixed of both male
    and female. Now who goes, and who stays?           
    

    re .10, I think the only fair thing is that they all drown.  More
    fools they for getting on a ship called the Titanic.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    they shouldn't have lifeboats for only 60% of the passengers.
    

    RE: 12
    
    But the actual TITANIC did. That's why they don't have only 60%
    anymore. But, like I said, history in this case has repeated itself.
    

    Whoever isn't carrying luggage gets to leave the ship.
    
    That means I would drown with my books, but that's how I'd like to go.
    
    Ray

.3,
>	Yeah, my sympathies are with those who are being held against their will,
>but the adults *men and women* CHOSE to be there.

Ya know this is not Lebonon where everyone knows it is a dangerous place.
Most people in iraq and especially in Kuweit never realized the danger until
too late.  Next time you go some place, make sure to bring with you a fortunate
teller who has absulote knowledge as to what is gonna happen. 

>	re: .1  "ya just can't beat this argument!"  Bullshit!

Calm down.  Nobody is trying to save you from drowning or an hostage situation
right now.

Alf

	You don't have to be a fortune teller to know that the middle east is 
a rather unstable place.  That does not mean that it is stupid to live there 
or that the hostages "deserved what they got".  You will note that I said my 
sympathies are with them.  I meant, and only meant,  that as adults they made
had the capability and opportunity to weight all factors and make choice.  This 
is not so of the children in this situation.  My point was to show that I 
could see a distinction between adults and children in this case but that the 
distinction does not extend to differentiate between the genders.

	re: "Calm down".  PPPPBBBBB!  (That's a raspberry)  I am not angry 
(or at least I wasn't).  Merely vehement.  BUT!  who the heck are you to tell 
me I can't feel anger (and express it) if I want to???

Tracey

    I don't think RAH's comments can be so easily put off by saying we
    don't have a population problem. I think centuries of survival with
    WACF are almost part of our subconscious. Of course, that is a
    generality. (If the movie about the TIANIC was acurate weren't there
    men who tried to sneak on the boats when they weren't supposed to?)

    I too feel strange when I keep hearing about the women and children
    leaving. Something in it grates at me that I have the responsibilty as
    much as the men. I also believe it's true that all these concerns are
    about the wealthy and not the poor. No one cares if they die.

    As for the new Titanic, I'd leave the older folks and put young couples
    on the boat after the children. liesl

    
    i think it's a primal urge for men to die, ostensibly so that others 
    may live. in this way, they approach god-hood.
    

    I think there ought to be a principle above the "Women and Children
    First" principle-- the "Alfs and Babies First" principle.  Despite its
    degrading connotation of equating Alfs with Babies, this Alf will have
    no objection to such principle.
    
    ...
    
    I have yet to see any conciencious objectors refusing rescue because
    they are against the principle of  "Women and Children First" or 
    even "Alfs and Babies First".
    
    Alf

    re .18, sounds good to me. :-)  I'd gladly climb aboard the life boat
    so that I wouldn't stop some guy from approaching god-hood.
    
    I think Liesl's idea of making the old people sink with the boat and
    letting the young couples with children on the lifeboats is good.  I
    also think mothers should be able to go with their kids.
    
    Of course, if I really were the *captain* of the ship, which is the way
    the question was phrased, I would solve the problem of who to save by
    first getting on the life boat myself, and then picking the 99 people I
    liked best and letting them on.
    
    Lorna
    

    errrr.......gulp......Do the last few responses mean that women
    *without* children, and no intention ever to *have* children are going
    to be shark food?
    
    
    Maybe I should change my mind!
    
    Naaaahhhh!  I'd rather be shark food!
    
    E Grace

    The British  navy had a rule (which they did use), called "funeral
    order". The youngest people got in the lifeboats, the theory being
    that  they  had  the  longest lives in front of them, so they were
    most worth saving.

--David

A couple of thoughts.

First, I do not and never have liked the phrase "women and children first".
Not because I disapprove of the sentiment but because it contains the
phrase "women and children", and phrase so common in this society it has
become trite.  It isn't always "women and children first".  Sometimes
it is "women and children should..." or "women and children do...".

But that phrase, "women and children" is really pronounced "womenandchildren."
The words run together, they ways words that are so often put together that
are almost considered synonymous and are never see apart run together.  
"Various and sundry".  "Intents and purposes."  "To and fro."  "Women and
children".  And *that* bothers me.  I see it like Lee does - it seems to
assign women and children to one class, inseperable, defined by one another.
Synonymous.  Women and children are *seperate*, even in situations where
they might be treated similarly.  So I object to the phrase "women and
children first" even when I might not object to a similar phrase "children
first, and then women."

Secondly, the hypothetical Titanic II example, while it might perhaps be
an interesting mental exercise, tells us nothing about the topic at hand.
*Yes*, it would be incredibly difficult to choose who lives and who dies.
Choices like that happen in our society all the time, from individual
("which Siamese twin gets saved if they must be separated to live and
only one can survive") to global ("which cause gets the money, cancer or
AIDS?").  They are difficult, but that doesn't mean that an *easy* answer
"women and children" is better (or worse) than a more difficult answer.
It's ridiculous to try and justify the WOCF *philosophy* by saying "Well
which would you do?"  Well I just don't know what I would do.  And I
never hope to find out.  Nor do I know what I would do if I had to choose
between my children (hypothetical) or between my parents or...  But I
can still critisize another's choice, and I can *especially* critisize
a philosophy which dictates one choice or another.

D!

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
    
    First, *I* don't and haven't ever seen/heard the phrase "women and
    children" used in a manner which equates women with children.  That's
    not to say it doesn't happen but might you be reading too much into it
    THIS time?
    
    re .20	
    >I think Liesl's idea of making the old people sink with the boat and
    >letting the young couples with children on the lifeboats is good.  I
    >also think mothers should be able to go with their kids.

    What about fathers!?  Either parent is just as capable of looking after
    their own child.  To my mind this is the *same* as saying WACF.
    
    		Holly
                         

    G'day, 
    
     In Japan, the question of one spare place to safety, and you can pick
    your 80yo mother, your wife, or your child, would be answered...
    
    Mother....
    
    you can always remarry, always have more children, but you can't
    replace your Mum!!!
    
    
    derek
    

    
    Okay, so the "women and children first" philosophy may not be fair -
    I'm not saying it is.
    
    But, you may have noticed that in Iraq there were women who opted to
    stay behind with their husbands (or the men, however you like to put
    it) and they were allowed to do so.  No woman was *forced* to leave, they
    were all given the opportunity to take if they wanted to.  Granted, it
    is definitely not fair that the women and children were given that
    opportunity and the men weren't.
    
    However, I still believe that many of the women who left may not have
    wanted to, but were urged to do so by their husbands.   In a life or
    death situation (hypothetical), if my husband were given the chance to
    leave but I wasn't, there is no way I would say to him "I'd rather you
    stayed and die with me please" than go to safety.  This is very likely
    the same principle that encouraged many of the women who left Iraq to
    go.
    
    I maintain that it is not fair that women/children should be allowed to
    leave and not men.  But if you are put in that situation, there is
    little point in hanging around to argue it.  If the ship was sinking,
    you would drown before anyone had a chance to hear your argument.  And
    at least some of your family would be saved.
    
    Sam

	re: -.1 

	Oh hey, I'm no fool.  If I were in Iraq and they let me go, I'd go!  
I'm not saying that the people who have the opportunity to leave are bad/wrong/
immoral for taking it.

	What I am saying is that the media coverage keeps talking about "NNNN
American hostages, MMMM of them women", as if it were worse for a woman to be 
held than for a man.  That's what I'm saying is wrong.  And it is all caught
up in this philosophy of "women-and-children first".

Tracey

    re .23, D! if you ever do have real children, I'm willing to bet that
    you'd easily be able to put their lives above those of anyone else. 
    Most people put their kids first.  (My mother would want me to put her
    grandchildren first, too.)  I think it's instinct to guarantee the
    survival of the species.  (If your parents won't save you, who will?)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Well, in my humble opinion, women as a group are NOT treated equally
    even in this enlightened U.S. They are treated even worse in the Middle
    East. In Pakistan ( I think ) if a woman reports she is raped, SHE is
    jailed and even beaten by her male relatives for disgracing the family
    name..only one example.
    
    So, until women are treated equally, then I think that they should
    take ALL the few advantages given them. 
    
    I also think that this phrase has its origins in the continuation
    of the species. Let's face it, one man can impregnate 10 women
    in about 2 months if he so desires.  To date, there is no woman
    alive who can give birth to 10 babies in 2 months. It is medically
    impossible.
    
    Desryn.
    

re. Lorna

When I read D!'s .23, I thought her intent was to say that she would have a hard
time ever choosing between children [child vs. child] or between parents
[mom vs. dad].

I am of course filtering this through my own rather visceral filters -- having
once had an inhuman git ask me, if I could choose, which of my two children
I would magically bring back to life.

re. topic

'women and children first' -- OK by me. It would get me out of a situation
more dangerous than the one I live in now.  I am somewhat ego-centric.

Do I like what it might imply? not in the least.  Therefore, I refuse to
live by any of the excess baggage that people care to attach to it. _No_one's
life is any more intrinsically valuable in the grand scheme of things than
another's.

  Annie

>When I read D!'s .23, I thought her intent was to say that she would have a hard
>time ever choosing between children [child vs. child] or between parents
>[mom vs. dad].

Yup.

D!

    RE-.23
    
    I understand that it's the phrase and not the concept that bothers
    some of you. My example merely was to illustrate how this concept,
    through either man-made (person-made) or natural disasterous
    situations, came into being. And, to emphasize how this "rule" is 
    applied in many situations which require quick and decisive responses.
    
    I wasn't trying to make light of any of the subsequent conversations
    surrounding this matter, I just wanted to clear up any misconceptions
    of where and how this "rule" has been applied in recent times. 
    

    One thought to add  (if i can w/o being offensive...):

	given the cultural bias's, and restrictions placed on 
	women in traditional islamic countries,

	wouldn't the women face the added risk of being sexually
	mistreated?  

	It's not likely that the guards would be women.  But it IS
	likely that the guard would believe that only a  prostitute
	would not cover her face any time she is in the presence of a
	non-family member... (course, many islamic women are simply
	NEVER away from proper family male escort - even if that
	male escort is only 5 years old!)    

	I have some islamic friends (male) who had a hard time
	grasping the fact that women are allowed to say 'NO' as
 	well as 'YES' in the US.  They wern't bad people, they 
	just couldn't comprehend some of our culture at first.

	Given that,  and given that the guards are not likely
	to have been chosen from those with lots of exposure
	to western cultures, if it came to extended time chained
	to each other, or chained to furniture, what are the odds
	they wouldn't be attacked?

	Our own history is filled with such examples, from armies
	pillaging and rapeing, to the slaves, and so on.

	So the idea of being more concerned about the women's fate
	may stem from the fact that they face an added danger.


	m

    If I were the hypothetical captain of the hypothetical Titanic II,
    I would probably take Lorna's approach, and get in first, then
    pick the people I liked best.  After all, the ship is sinking:
    This is no time to be rational and methodical!

    More realistically, there is no time to choose.  First come, first
    served.  If parents take care of their kids, so much the better.

    If you take away the element  of urgency... I'd group the people
    into family/friend units, and arrange them into boats restaurant-style,
    keeping the groups together (dividing them into smoking and nonsmoking
    boats is optional.  But at that point, I'd be tempted to let my 
    personal biases show).

    Yeah, this "women and children" stuff irks me too... partially for
    the reasons D! and others have cited, but there's something else
    there too which I can't quite put my finger on.  Sure, if I were
    an Iraqi hostage given the option to leave because I was female,
    I'd go... but with the words "d**n sexist a**h*les" under my breath.
    Perhaps it's because it's the same sort of discrimination that I've
    encountered directed at me, as a woman, that's being directed at the
    men, and it's *wrong* to categorically deny people opportunity that
    way.  I *can't* support it.

	Sharon

    This whole discussion makes me wonder if the male 'protect the
    women and children' ethic is entirely social, or (and I *hate*
    to use this term in re. humans) instinctive. Consciously I
    work hard at treating people equally. On an emotional level
    I get boiling when I see women and children being hurt by 
    stronger people. I'm very protective of my sisters. (Even the
    one I can't stand.) I don't _think_ I view them as 'property',
    I don't _think_ that a threat to them is a threat to my ego.
    So why do I react this way ? On the Titanic II the 'rational
    self-interest' part of me says "I'll make d*mn sure *I'm* on
    a lifeboat," but there's another part that says "women and 
    children first." Conflict.

    
    Its probably fairly instinctive. Reminds me of elephants, who form a
    circle around the mothers and babies.
    
    When there is no birth control, and a lot of sex, a woman can have a
    child at least every other year. Which means she's either pregnant or
    nursing. Protecting the mother is therefore a form of protecting the
    child, and thus preventing extinction.
    
    Things aren't like that anymore, but as is obvious from the state of
    the world, old habits, MANY of them, die hard.

    
    
    Having read all the replies, a pain when you enter so late but
    needed if you are not going to offend or say something stupid.
    
    re Women and Children first
    
    Most of the replies to this concept have taken it as a racial
    concept applying to the human race as a whole.  This is probably
    not accurate in terms of application or origin.  Human beings
    are, and allways will be, organized along genetic lines.  This
    means that the typical genetic survival order would be;
    
    1. Family
       A. Children
       B. Female Parents
       C. Male Parents
    
    2. Tribe or extended family next.
    
    3. Strangers
       
    Most of human history has been organized around the ideas of family,
    clans and tribes, ie genetically related groups of humans.  Hence
    the concept of children first and women second is still valid based
    on genetic survival of the near gene pool.
    
    This also throws cold water on the 1 men plus 10 women equals
    10 babies vs 10 men plus 10 women = 10 babies theory. The first
    case yeilds children which are more genetically similar and so
    the genetic group has lost 40% of it's gene potential.
                                  
    Re the Titanic example
    
    1. Load all children.
    
    2. Ask for volunteers to remain behind.
    
    3. Load one parent for each child and let the parents choose which
       one will go.  If only one living parent exist and that parent
       is on board then load that parent.
    
    4. Load remainder by age.
    

    re womens equality
    
    Unfortunatly equality, liberty and justice cannot be given.  They
    must be taken and then defended by all who want them for themselfs
    and others.  I do not have a daughter, however I will have one and
    I will teach her how to fight for her rights and how to defend the
    rights of others both by word and deed.
    
        
    
    
    
    
    

    re-.37
    
    The only problem I have with your answer to the TITANIC II hypothetical
    situation is that there is normally not enough time in an increasingly
    hostile and dangerous situation to be *that* democratic. There can
    usually be no vote of any kind (such as in the actual Iraqui crisis)
    and usually only one person (male or female) will ultimately make
    the final decision as to "who stays and who goes". 
    
    There's simply no time in that kind of a situation for a democratic
    selection process. It usually has to be a decision of a huge group
    of people broken down into several smaller groups, then deciding
    which of these smaller factions may be escorted from danger first.
   
    And that's a split-second decision which must be made and is FULL of
    what could later be misconstrued as either racially or gender-biased. 
    I'm sure, though that it was not originally intended to be as such by 
    the one who made the decision. That's when you have to take a look
    back at the origins of this "process of natural selection". 

	re "Women and Children First"

	The "Women and Children First" approach to the hostages
	in Iraq has been in the news for at least a week now.  In
	all of that time I haven't heard it discussed once, by
	government (or U.N.) officials or reporters, on either ABC
	or CNN headline News.  I'm surprised at this.  It is almost
	as if the thought never occurred to any of them to not do it
	this way.  Has anyone seen *any* discussion of this by the
	tv networks?

	Dan

	p.s.  When I first came here to find this topic ... it hadn't
	even been created here yet (it was started later that night).
	That was a bigger surprise.

.23  >  But that phrase, "women and children" is really 
     >  pronounced "womenandchildren."

D!, 

That made me smile and irked me at the same time. Irked
because the pronunciation is true.  The phrase is loaded 
with sanctamonious hogwash.  

For one thing, if you read the news stories all the way
down to paragraph N, we often find that some men came
out too.  But tossing men in the headline ... somehow
fails to evoke that heart-warmy-jolts that comes from
"womenandchildren."

I think people are fond of singing "womenandchildren"
for the same reasons they like saying "you will grow
up and fall in love and live happily every after" and
"It was his time to go, and it is not ours to quesion."
Screw reality.  It is more important to cook up
some heart-warmy-jolts.    

Which way to the vomitorium, please.   Meigs