"Women and Children"

not sexist just common sense i agree with alot of what missnu says men are better designed for physical things and quick response.women are better designed mentaly more social and emotional.doesnt make one better than the other we are just better equipt for some things than others by the way i think you cant be to emotional when the sh*t hits the fan and you cant build a strong family or society if you are always figting.

I think a lot of responses in this topic are looking to nature to validate our sexist and discriminatory views.

Using nature to try and validate human ideals is impossible and incorrect on many levels especially when we attempt to impose it on our society. Humans are a species unlike any other, with the ability to reason and comprehend we have moved our species into a group of its own that operates with only the most general associations to the natural state.

If you wish to use nature to bolster a view you must asses the total impact of what you are saying and the many artificial variations we place on the system using our reason and comprehension to deny many natural characteristics and replace them with decisions and choices that were once made by nature for us but now we make interdependently.

your example of lions will do nicely......

First you must consider all the attributes of nature that we "choose" to neglect as humans.

Each male makes claim to 5 to 6 females - humans take only one thus the roles of the partners change drastically.

Male lions generally "take" sex from the females when the time is right with or without their consent, often leading to force when she is unwilling.

Lions hunt/kill for there food - while humans occasionally do the same, we have generally.........................lunch break brb

Thats true, tho It isn't like that, I personally have my mind over the hormones most of the time.
Sorry to the thread starter about spam on sexism, when the thread is about women and children.
About that, I can say that men act different to women, than to men, I try to be nicer even thought I don't even want to be friends with that particular woman. And children are just children, obviously if you need to save somebody it'll be children because they have more time left on this world.

Originally Posted by Justin00

Does anyone else not see it as blatantly sexist when we (news, politicians,.. everyone) group "women with children" separately from men in what is obviously considered to be a lesser and more defenseless category.

I just find it odd that this expression is used so widely on such a large scale yet i have never heard any objection. It seems strange than in the the age of equality and extreme fear of discrimination that we over look such an obvious slight about the weakness of the modern day woman.

I suppose a lot of it may generate from the lack of a requirement in the US for women to sign up for selective service. But I don't think it is exactly the same thing as the continued racial tension caused by the numerous "reverse racist" (for lack of a better word) organizations spreading "reverse discrimination" like the NAACP, BET, along with a number of other institutions aimed solely at the betterment of a specific race often at the cost of others, including educational scholarships limited to a specific race, television programming featuring entirely one race, and numerous public remarks by respected leaders that would be considered racist and politically incorrect if reversed. While similar groups exist in the feminist circles they seem far less pronounced and "in your face" thus seem to cause less of a response. Weather that is good or bad i guess depends on your perspective.

Back on topic, does it not just seem horribly 20th century to constantly group women with children rather than with men? I mean despite the fact that women are, generally speaking, physically smaller than men they are still much more similar to physical attributes of men than they are to children.

For sources read "ANY" war or attack related article!

If nothing else I hope my short post will serve to illuminate an alternate perspective on logic, humanity, and ethics.

Thanks for reading, J

Somehow I get the sneaky suspicion that the little quip I highlighted was the original intent of your post.

1. There is no such thing as "reverse racism". Racism is racism not matter who is being the racist. Reverse racism doesn't even make any fucking sense.
2. The NAACP and BET are not racist institutions. If you knew ANYTHING about the NAACP (which is obvious that you don't), you would understand that they promote equality and the betterment of minorities. ALL minorities. BET is a fucking televison network targeting a specific demographic. It's about a target audience. Not about beating down the white man. Jesus. Why aren't you screaming about Univision or Telemundo? Aren't those "institutions" promoting Latinos to the detriment of decent god fearing white folk?
3. There are Native American scholarships, Latino scholarships, Chinese scholarships, etc., etc., ad nauseum. You would be surprised at the insane qualifications for scholarships across the nation. Entire books are dedicated to finding grants and scholarships for just about anyone. What is the point of these scholarships? TO HELP PEOPLE THAT CAN'T AFFORD COLLEGE. Not to create a generation of cracker haters.

Can we please stop with the race baiting? It's getting really old.

And. Are you really complaining about our propensity as a society to protect the most vulnerable among us?

as far as the mind goes it is the smartest choice of action male children become men and we dont just sacrifice ourselves we have self preservation ya know and when the women and children are gone we can focus at the task at hand kickin some ass or natural disaster if the women and children were right next to you, you would not handle the situition as clearly so, ya women and children first in my home not because there better but because that is my priority.

Well the point is that keeping women and children alive is important to the race more so than keeping men alive...I mean unless all those children are girls...But then men protect the women and children, while the women protect the children as the next line of defense...but children of both sexes must stay alive...and you can get the race caught back up quicker if there is an adult woman about...So...that is pretty much that...I mean we need males to continue the species...that is obvious...I mean a bunch of women can't make babies without a male in there somewhere...just like males can't survive without females...I mean we were obviously designed to complement one another...I don't understand all the infighting..men need women, and women need men, No one sex is "better" than the other...we are all important, necessary, and able...I am happy knowing that my husband will protect me in a physical situation and I will figure out how to get through stickier situations...we are both strong people alone..but together there is nothing we can't do..

Originally Posted by Carne Seca

Somehow I get the sneaky suspicion that the little quip I highlighted was the original intent of your post.

1. There is no such thing as "reverse racism". Racism is racism not matter who is being the racist. Reverse racism doesn't even make any fucking sense.
2. The NAACP and BET are not racist institutions. If you knew ANYTHING about the NAACP (which is obvious that you don't), you would understand that they promote equality and the betterment of minorities. ALL minorities. BET is a fucking televison network targeting a specific demographic. It's about a target audience. Not about beating down the white man. Jesus. Why aren't you screaming about Univision or Telemundo? Aren't those "institutions" promoting Latinos to the detriment of decent god fearing white folk?
3. There are Native American scholarships, Latino scholarships, Chinese scholarships, etc., etc., ad nauseum. You would be surprised at the insane qualifications for scholarships across the nation. Entire books are dedicated to finding grants and scholarships for just about anyone. What is the point of these scholarships? TO HELP PEOPLE THAT CAN'T AFFORD COLLEGE. Not to create a generation of cracker haters.

Can we please stop with the race baiting? It's getting really old.

And. Are you really complaining about our propensity as a society to protect the most vulnerable among us?

Thanks for stopping by and derailing the topic Carne, you and UncleBuck are great at that.

Bringing up a concern for discussion is not necessary "race baiting" especially considering that small blurb is not even the main topic. I would be happy to debate racial stigmas in private messages with you or i might even make a comment or 2 in a topic about the subject; but as emotions tend to get the better part of many of us when discussing race i think its better on a 1 on 1 basis.

I'm looking for a discussion not a fight soooo...

Thanks for your input none the less.

but in Carne's defense, I am actually racist, sexist, and probably other bad stuff also. With white people i tend to be very selective with who i associate with, white people over 40 tend to look down parts of my lifestyle making them bad candidates for relationships, some white women i get along with but typically only as friends. For me almost all of my relationships with white women have ended poorly. As far as younger white men I normally must be very similar in terms of interests and lifestyle to maintain any kind of close friendship. I don't know why but i tend to get along very well with black men and have good friendships, black women not so much, i have no explanation but I seem to but heads with most of the ones i know under 40. Furthermore, i know this is generalizing to some degree, but i have never been able to maintain a good friendship with any latino males. Latino females on the other hand i tend to have great success with as both friends and girlfriends. Asian people i get along great with, but only in loose friendships. I have never met an asian person i disliked (as long as they can speak english). lol yeah that sounds bad but I live in a mostly english speaking nation and chose spanish as my first second language dew to my proximity to latin america and the large number of hispanic immigrants in my area.

I think most of you may be right in that the habit seems to come from the importance of many females being required to maintain the species where as only one male is need service a large number of females thus we, as males value them higher than either of us value other males. and yeah as stated before children are the future, they are all that's left of us after we die, so obviously that makes since.

I tend to be a pretty big fan of chilvery also but think it is largely dew to either interist in the girl or my childhood where i was taught a large amount of "social respect" (don't know the actual term I''m looking for) to the point where it is simply habit now.

But i'm still surprised that more women have not be upset by the phrase "women and children" or the clear difference in the value of men and women in our society, highlighted by this small phrase.