From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue May 14 2002 - 21:33:02 MDT
Phil Osborn writes
> It is an artifact of our altruist Judeo-Christian
> heritage, plus Victorianism, that we invert our
> evaluations of people, based on a kind of perverse
> sense of fairness. Women and children first! Why?
> Well, because it's our DUTY as gentlemen to protect
> these poor unfortunates. Right.
>
> As a woman [were I a woman], I think I would feel
> insulted by the implied condescension.
>
> ...if I ever have to make that kind of life and death
> choice of who gets to ride in the lifeboat, all other
> things being equal, and not personally knowing the
> parties, I will definitely choose adult men over
> women, and especially over children.
> Even if those I allowed in the boat were clearly to
> have no role whatever in determining out likely
> survival, still, I would consider it a betrayal
> of basic human values to choose people who are
> generally of less value.
A Roman soldier might disagree: unless Hannibal is
at the gates *right now*, the woman can give birth
to multiple soldiers. In my own terms, at present, a
woman is much more useful than a man in saving people
from non-existence. The traditions in our culture
that you deplore likely as not ultimately arose from
similar considerations.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:05 MST