Recently, for those of you lucky enough to have seen any piece of news material, a large cruise liner went Titanic. But instead of sinking it rolled over on its side a few hundred metres from an island, and 99% of the people on board escaped unharmed. Half the boat however remains under water.
In the news reports that followed, the pushing and shoving etc was widely described as pandemonium, chaos and other similar, yet disastrous adjectives. But due to the proximity to land and sufficient numbers of life boats, few lives were lost.
But I had to have a bit of a chuckle to myself though. There was an interesting tid bit article on one of the trash web sites (news.com.au), about whether 'women and children first' should still apply in this day and age. In a society where it's deemed to be every man for himself (so to speak) wouldn't we then just end up with life boats full of muscly guys who have fought valiantly for their own survival?
Hmmm, I'm all for equality between the sexes. But that one's a thorny issue! Enough said really... But not really.
A few "Lol" worthy points were raised in the comments section.
The ironic observation was made, that on average women are more chubbed up. Therefore, if anyone should have to go in the drink, it should be the girls as they will survive longer in cold water. Guys, with more muscle and higher metabolisms will quickly freeze (a la Leonardo DiCaprio V. Kate Winslett). It made me "lol."
Some optimist also had the cahones to suggest that proportional representation should occur. I'd like to see that get sorted out on a sinking ship though!
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I'm going to assume we're all modest enough to say that the kids can go first. But does gender equality demand men and women die in equal numbers these days!?
Consider this link maybe
The world is overpopulated. Lifeboats should be loaded in reverse order of fecundity:
ReplyDelete1. Post-menopausal females.
2. Pre-pubertal males.
3. Post-pubertal males.
4. Females of reproductive age.