{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Ric_Adbur:
4/20/2013 11:13:51 PM
5
There is a difference between expectation and what ends up happening despite expectations. Men have always been expected to ensure the survival of women and children before their own survival in hazardous situations; if they still end up surviving anyway, it certainly doesn't disprove that this is an expectation that society has of them, it only proves that they survive in such situations easier, probably due to their inherent strength and temperature regulation advantages over the others.
English
-
[quote]the notion became widespread after the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. The captain explicitly issued an order for women and children to be saved first. As a result, the survival rate for women was three times higher than for men.[/quote] Clearly, when that expectation actually comes into play, it makes a very significant difference. So, given that the general survival rate for women is half that of men in these types of disasters, I think it's pretty safe to say that the expectation went out the window most of the time there was an actual life-threatening situation at sea, if it was even there to begin with.
-
Yeah, and what matters is what actually happens, which is that women's survival is consistently undervalued relative to men. The expectations don't really mean anything when it doesn't affect reality...
-
Again, the fact that women tend to survive less does not prove that women's survival in general is "undervalued relative to men's survival." It merely proves that in hazardous situations, their inherent strength and temperature regulation disadvantages cause them to succumb in greater overall numbers relative to men. Women simply aren't designed to be as durable, biologically speaking.
-
I'm not sure why you think these data support the "inherent strength and temperature regulation disadvantages," especially when the data show that when WACF was invoked, more women and children tended to survive. If strength was really all that mattered, why should WACF change anything?
-
Edited by Ric_Adbur: 4/21/2013 4:47:58 PMWhat I'm saying is that you have no grounds to infer intention regarding who's survival is more valued (or not) from this data. The only thing this data tells us is who tended to survive more, sorted by gender and age. That stuff about strength differences and such was merely me speculating as to a possible reason for why more men might tend to survive catastrophic events than women and children. Given the 'structural' differences between the genders and between adults and children, it seems a reasonable guess to suspect that adult men's tendency to survive more than any other gender or age group is more likely a result of their generally superior durability comparative to the other groups than the likelihood of it being a question of societal value or intention. I simply see no reason to suspect that women's survival is valued less than men's survival, and I also see no reason that this data should be taken as evidence for such an assertion either. There are lots of other factors that should be taken into account before attempting to come to any sorts of conclusions.
