A question about the value of men

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:30 pm

A woman is about to be hit by a car. A man can save her but will die pushing her out of the way. What should he do?

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:48 pm

The politically correct and chivalrous thing to do would be to throw himself in front of the car. In real life it's hard to say, I suspect his instinct for self preservation would take over and he would do nothing to sacrifice himself most likely. On the other hand he may sacrifice himself but it isn't likely.

What would I do? I honestly don't know. I do know that if it was my wife I would step in. She would do the same for me.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:53 pm

If other people are watching and know the man can save her, does that change anything?

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:55 pm

I've had arguments about whether or not I should save a sibling because, if they loved me as much, they'd not want me to die for them. So lets leave marriage or family out of it for the moment.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:27 am

Does he know the woman?

Can he not just yell to her to get out of the way?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:30 am

mikeinie;1368964 wrote: Does he know the woman?

Can he not just yell to her to get out of the way?
*Controversial* Don't get all logical (obviously a man's answer) The questioner is female.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:45 am

A serious answer would be that no one knows how they would react under pressure.

The majority would act first and think later, if they survived.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:15 am

Bruv;1368966 wrote: *Controversial* Don't get all logical (obviously a man's answer) The questioner is female.

I'm female and I think the whole thread is based on a ridiculous premise. *shrug*

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:21 am

Its a generic scenario representing the societal expectation that men should die to save women, which is part of what men are taught by the media and society as they grow up. It's the beginning of a look at whether or not men have an easier life than women.

I agree. It's a ridiculous premise. Unfortunately, it's a real one.

Post by **spot** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:50 am

koan;1368959 wrote: If other people are watching and know the man can save her, does that change anything?

Not in the least. Neither does the fact that it's a woman as opposed to another man. Of course he has to take a shot at it. There's no way of knowing beforehand what the outcome will be - two dead, two alive or just one. How can the participants possibly know the outcome without performing the action?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 8:33 am

Scrat;1368957 wrote: The politically correct and chivalrous thing to do would be to throw himself in front of the car. In real life it's hard to say, I suspect his instinct for self preservation would take over and he would do nothing to sacrifice himself most likely. On the other hand he may sacrifice himself but it isn't likely.

What would I do? I honestly don't know. I do know that if it was my wife I would step in. She would do the same for me.

What's Politically Correct or Chivalry have to do with it? For me it's a NO BRAINER----I don't care who was watching----I would make no attempt to save her if there was the slightest chance of me loosing my own life, however, if it was a close family member I might reconsider.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 8:41 am

I don't think there is a logical answer to this. Kids go into the water and save drowning friends. Kids also drown going in to save a friend or a pet. Neighbors rescue neighbors family and pets from a burning building. Neighbors also perish running into a burning building to save neighbors. There are often other folks standing around who don't make the same effort.

I think that those who act, don't stop to analyze why they act, they just know they must. I can't imagine that gender is part of that brief thought process.

But who knows

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:24 am

flopstock;1368984 wrote: I don't think there is a logical answer to this. Kids go into the water and save drowning friends. Kids also drown going in to save a friend or a pet. Neighbors rescue neighbors family and pets from a burning building. Neighbors also perish running into a burning building to save neighbors. There are often other folks standing around who don't make the same effort.

I think that those who act, don't stop to analyze why they act, they just know they must. I can't imagine that gender is part of that brief thought process.

But who knows

Same brain. I also don't think the victim has to be a woman to bring out the hidden savior.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:38 am

I think it depends what the person observing the approaching danger has predetermined their life's worth to those who matter most to them. In certain times I believe my existence to be important to my family's wellbeing and other times I don't, so I may decide it's worth possibly sacrificing myself on Monday and not Tuesday. If I was terminally ill or an emotional or financial liability to my family, I'd most likely go for it hoping I'd become the victim.

There's another interesting part to the question for me and that is: What if the person in danger were say, Sarah Palin? Would saving Palin, with all her political capital and influence mean she'd change her dishonest ways and be a positive member of society or is sacrificing her a better deal?

Post by **spot** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:49 am

It distresses me moral absolute values should have rusted over to such an extent that this discussion can even happen. Were it Dick Cheney fresh from hearing he was only weeks from heart failure none of us would have the slightest excuse for not instantly and without consideration dashing across the rail track to drag him free from the points, not even if the odds appeared to be against our success.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:52 am

koan;1368956 wrote: A woman is about to be hit by a car. A man can save her but will die pushing her out of the way. What should he do?

With all due respect to all the analyzing and deep thought processes going into answer a very simple spur of the moment event......

Some people would jump in, some people wouldn't, no one would 'think' at the moment, but just react on gut feelings based on their personality, fitness.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:01 am

A serious answer would be that no one knows how they would react under pressure.

The majority would act first and think later, if they survived.

I'll second this, it seems most logical. We have been known to be in moments of adversity capable of great sacrifice. History abounds with examples but who really knows what the persons involved are thinking or if they are thinking at all? I think the reaction would be largely instinctive. We do have a built in instinct to try to save others of our kind.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:04 am

spot;1368991 wrote: It distresses me moral absolute values should have rusted over to such an extent that this discussion can even happen. Were it Dick Cheney fresh from hearing he was only weeks from heart failure none of us would have the slightest excuse for not instantly and without consideration dashing across the rail track to drag him free from the points, not even if the odds appeared to be against our success.Only if one is concerned with their reputation.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:37 am

I don't see how the question relates to the Title, I don't see how either way if the man does or does not act his value is decreased or the value of Men over all decreased, or if it makes men more/less valuable as compared to air/water/trees/cats/birds/dogs/women. You can easily switch the places of the man and woman, or make the "man" a woman who looks like a man and the "woman" a man who looks like a woman, and ask the same question but it doesn't change the value of each person or person's gender as a whole.

Post by **spot** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:40 am

It makes more sense once you decide the title in the context of the original post has an underlying subtext of "they're no use for anything else". I quite like a bit of comedy.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:47 am

spot;1369010 wrote: It makes more sense once you decide the title in the context of the original post has an underlying subtext of "they're no use for anything else". I quite like a bit of comedy.

Well, koan did say people find her amusing. It's apparently limited to a select group, however.

Post by **spot** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 11:08 am

SnoozeAgain;1369014 wrote: Well, koan did say people find her amusing. It's apparently limited to a select group, however.

Were the list limited solely to myself it would be more than sufficient justification.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:29 pm

As stated I think many more "Men" would attempt to help simply by not knowing what the end result is.

It's as equally hard to get the truth out of someone as it is the limits you place on their hypothetical future.

I mean, how old is this lady? For instance, I doubt screaming at a 97 year old lady would do much to help the situation, but would that influence one more so to help? Or would seeing the utter shock of a 97 year old lady about to be pureed by an oncoming train instill a level of hesitancy in to this potential savior equal to his lack of appreciation for yet more irony?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:53 pm

K.Snyder;1369036 wrote: As stated I think many more "Men" would attempt to help simply by not knowing what the end result is.

It's as equally hard to get the truth out of someone as it is the limits you place on their hypothetical future.
It's 'the limits on their hypothetical future' bit that threw me this time

I mean, how old is this lady? For instance, I doubt screaming at a 97 year old lady would do much to help the situation, but would that influence one more so to help? Or would seeing the utter shock of a 97 year old lady about to be pureed by an oncoming train instill a level of hesitancy in to this potential savior equal to his lack of appreciation for yet more irony?
'equal to his lack of appreciation for yet more irony'?

It's not me..........................is it ?

theia · Post by **theia** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 2:08 pm

Bruv;1369038 wrote: It's 'the limits on their hypothetical future' bit that threw me this time

'equal to his lack of appreciation for yet more irony'?

It's not me..........................is it ?

no, it's not

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 2:33 pm

Bruv;1369038 wrote: It's 'the limits on their hypothetical future' bit that threw me this time

'equal to his lack of appreciation for yet more irony'?

It's not me..........................is it ?Don't worry about it Bruv

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 2:35 pm

Well, I know that in such a case, I don't think the man would have time to process whether it was a woman or man in danger, and whether he would die or not in the process.

It would be a split-second decision, and I think most men would probably try to save the endangered pedestrian. I think most women would, as well.

And, no, probably screaming at the person would just seal her doom, as it would take a while for her to turn and look in the direction of the scream, then back to the vehicle bearing down on her, and probably let out a scream of her own. Damn, too late.

I remember yelling at a guy once because a baseball was coming at his head. He turned around just in time to catch the ball with his nose.

He would have been better off had I not said anything. It would have clopped him on the back of his head. No broken nose.

This question, IMHO is simply a dumb sexist question.

Post by **spot** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 2:49 pm

Speaking from experience, a couple of seconds spent assessing the situation exactly is often both available and invaluable.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 3:11 pm

K.Snyder;1369042 wrote: Don't worry about it Bruv

I am not worried...........for myself......honestly.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 3:13 pm

spot;1369048 wrote: Speaking from experience, a couple of seconds spent assessing the situation exactly is often both available and invaluable.

A couple of seconds is far too long.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 3:42 pm

I saved a young mans life while he's friends beat up on my friend .....because I had the audacity to do what they wouldn't ......I'm owed!!!

Post by **spot** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 3:44 pm

Bruv;1369054 wrote: A couple of seconds is far too long.

It depends on the circumstance. I've seen an occasion where it was available and made a difference.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 3:57 pm

koan;1368956 wrote: A woman is about to be hit by a car. A man can save her but will die pushing her out of the way. What should he do?

Bruv;1369054 wrote: A couple of seconds is far too long.

spot;1369060 wrote: It depends on the circumstance. I've seen an occasion where it was available and made a difference.

Depends on the question ?

A women is about to be hit.......no time to think.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:18 pm

Bruv;1369052 wrote: I am not worried...........for myself......honestly.Oh I see...

Ok Bruv

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:21 pm

Of course it would depend, also, on who the woman was.

Jolie, I'd die for.

Thatcher, I'd sit and watch.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:30 pm

let me clear up what I thought was obvious regarding the title. This isn't a Scruples question. This is about how women and children are saved first when a Titanic is sinking, men were the only gender ever drafted (except in Israel) men are told their lives should be sacrificed in exchange for women's lives and even though we now have women in the army they aren't there because they were raised to think their lives are expendable.

You can call it sexist but it's not my creation. It's fairly well documented.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:46 pm

I don't believe it's sexist at all . it's a survival of the species thing

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:36 pm

Because women reproduce on their own so well?

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:49 pm

koan;1369110 wrote: Because women reproduce on their own so well?
no but having few males and more females can repopulate a species alot quicker than having few females and more males, meaning better survival rate if the population of said species were diminished, for the obvious reason one man can impregnate numerous females, where as a female is only getting pregnant by one male then of course has to carry the child until the birth.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 11:02 pm

And we have a population problem? Underpopulated are we?

I'd buy that in the past but are men still less important?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 11:05 pm

fuzzy is the person I was hoping to attract to this conversation because she seethes women's rights from every pore. I used to be like that but I've come to the opinion that those rights have come at a price.

I am not a women's libber. I think we've backlashed.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 11:26 pm

koan;1369129 wrote: fuzzy is the person I was hoping to attract to this conversation because she seethes women's rights from every pore. I used to be like that but I've come to the opinion that those rights have come at a price.

I am not a women's libber. I think we've backlashed.

Yeah the feeling of revenge against those who oppressed a minority cause some in that minority to want to oppress back unfortunately it that feeling of revenge ends up being geared towards the original oppressor's offspring who had nothing to do with it.

Though I don't think a man's willingness and readiness to risk his life to save his species( as humans cognitive thought has extended that to family, tribe, region, country, religion) and be O.K. with that because of the man's ability to replenish his half of the reproductive ingredients needed to make a child quicker than a female can; reduces the male value as a sex. If anything it adds to the value of it. I guess you could say a value of being a male in our species is the ability have the male population low and have the species keep going. Though the increased ability to have male lives be fair game I would say may lead men to make some rather rash decisions that probably could have been thought out a bit better.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:33 am

koan;1368956 wrote: A woman is about to be hit by a car. A man can save her but will die pushing her out of the way. What should he do?

Rather than just pushing her out the way just pick her up throw himself out the way with her in his arms and both get out the way. Whether they have wild passionate sex afterwards is a whole different question.

What happens to the woman driver?

posted by koan

let me clear up what I thought was obvious regarding the title. This isn't a Scruples question. This is about how women and children are saved first when a Titanic is sinking, men were the only gender ever drafted (except in Israel) men are told their lives should be sacrificed in exchange for women's lives and even though we now have women in the army they aren't there because they were raised to think their lives are expendable.

You can call it sexist but it's not my creation. It's fairly well documented.

It's a cultural thing that women and children first. The titanic is unfortunately a bad example to use - they locked the gates to the lower decks to keep the steerage passengers out the way so the first class passengers could be saved first with lifeboats being launched half empty the first class male passengers were quite happy to save themselves while women and children were drowning.

You're thinking of the Birkenhead perhaps, where the tradition supposedly started.

HMS Birkenhead (1845) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:08 am

The question has evolved into something else, but the answer remains the same.

Any analysis has been pre programmed, and would follow the idea that men protect because they are physically stronger.

Post by **spot** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:17 am

Bruv;1369149 wrote: Any analysis has been pre programmed, and would follow the idea that men protect because they are physically stronger.It's nothing of the sort. We don't exist in a vacuum. We live in a society where those who have gone before have set a standard. What sort of people would we be, collectively or as individuals, if we failed to live up to their example. I for one would far prefer a swift and honourable death than to live with the knowledge that I'd fallen short when tested. Even if only one person had behaved properly in the past, the onus is on each of us to do the same. As it is, the examples are beyond counting.

I was reading, last night. I happened on ten or so lines from Goldsmith which focus on this aspect of society as a whole. Do we live to consume or do we live to improve, that's what he asked. This is from his preface, and I follow it with the lines themselves.I inveigh against the increase of our luxuries; and here also I expect the shout of modern politicians against me. For twenty or thirty years past, it has been the fashion to consider luxury as one of the greatest national advantages; and all the wisdom of antiquity in that particular, as erroneous. Still however, I must remain a professed ancient on that head, and continue to think those luxuries prejudicial to states, by which so many vices are introduced, and so many kingdoms have been undone.

O Luxury! thou curs'd by Heaven's decree,

How ill exchang'd are things like these for thee!

How do thy potions, with insidious joy

Diffuse their pleasures only to destroy!

Kingdoms, by thee, to sickly greatness grown,

Boast of a florid vigour not their own;

At every draught more large and large they grow,

A bloated mass of rank unwieldy woe;

Till sapp'd their strength, and every part unsound,

Down, down they sink, and spread a ruin round.

The Deserted Village: 1770

And people sit here in this thread discussing the value of their own life against the imperative of trying to save others? Fie on you.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:50 am

spot;1369151 wrote: It's nothing of the sort. We don't exist in a vacuum. We live in a society where those who have gone before have set a standard. What sort of people would we be, collectively or as individuals, if we failed to live up to their example. I for one would far prefer a swift and honourable death than to live with the knowledge that I'd fallen short when tested. Even if only one person had behaved properly in the past, the onus is on each of us to do the same. As it is, the examples are beyond counting.

I was reading, last night. I happened on ten or so lines from Goldsmith which focus on this aspect of society as a whole. Do we live to consume or do we live to improve, that's what he asked. This is from his preface, and I follow it with the lines themselves.I inveigh against the increase of our luxuries; and here also I expect the shout of modern politicians against me. For twenty or thirty years past, it has been the fashion to consider luxury as one of the greatest national advantages; and all the wisdom of antiquity in that particular, as erroneous. Still however, I must remain a professed ancient on that head, and continue to think those luxuries prejudicial to states, by which so many vices are introduced, and so many kingdoms have been undone.

O Luxury! thou curs'd by Heaven's decree,

How ill exchang'd are things like these for thee!

How do thy potions, with insidious joy

Diffuse their pleasures only to destroy!

Kingdoms, by thee, to sickly greatness grown,

Boast of a florid vigour not their own;

At every draught more large and large they grow,

A bloated mass of rank unwieldy woe;

Till sapp'd their strength, and every part unsound,

Down, down they sink, and spread a ruin round.

The Deserted Village: 1770

And people sit here in this thread discussing the value of their own life against the imperative of trying to save others? Fie on you.

Everybody knows you are of the verbose school of debate, where the use of 10 words rather than one gives more gravitas.

I am more of the cut the bull school, as my linguistic skills are not up to much.

My economy of verbiage considers the reader has intelligence enough to fill in some blanks.

Any analysis has been pre programmed....Equals

We don't exist in a vacuum. We live in a society where those who have gone before have set a standard. What sort of people would we be, collectively or as individuals, if we failed to live up to their example. I for one would far prefer a swift and honourable death than to live with the knowledge that I'd fallen short when tested. Even if only one person had behaved properly in the past, the onus is on each of us to do the same. As it is, the examples are beyond counting.

Fie back to you

Post by **spot** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:08 am

Oh come now, you can't just drop the "and" which thereafter contextualizes the pre-programmed analysis as related to physical, in contrast to moral, strength.

Your "use of 10 words rather than one" had me looking up Jake Thakray's "never use three or four words when a couple of thousand will easily do". If you have five minutes... Jake Thackray - On Again

eta: as a completely irrelevant aside, very occasionally some unsung genius puts exactly the right images to a lyric.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:31 am

spot;1369153 wrote: Oh come now, you can't just drop the "and" which thereafter contextualizes the pre-programmed analysis as related to physical, in contrast to moral, strength.

I rest my case......and call feighnites.......buried under an avalanche of waffle

eta. To maximise the contextual relevance of the feighnites prerogative ergo such like verbatim, pro-rata bla de bla de bla bla ......rotated three times on right heel while holding left lapel with right hand.....bla de bla de bla bla......that should do it.

Post by **spot** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:35 am

I hope you crossed your arms across your chest and sat still after you typed that.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:57 pm

Here Is a notion...

How about, as human beings, we would do whatever to save another human beings life?