h a l f b a k e r yLike gliding backwards through porridge.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Very simple really. A law to ban the use of the phrase "women and
children" as a measure of tragedy in news media. Such a phrase
promotes gender inequality and has no place in modern society.
Women are not a precious commodity to be protected from all harm
anymore, especially given how many countries
are
sending them
into
combat these days, and every time the phrase "women and
children"
is used to measure the level of tragedy when a large group of people
are killed reduces the importance of men in society and objectifies
women. It's not fair to either gender and needs to be done away
with.
I may be crazy, but I ain't reckless...
http://www.youtube....watch?v=I0mknY1l2AU
Hahahahahahahaha, oh, oh my belly, ah jeez [2 fries shy of a happy meal, Aug 15 2012]
Women & Children First?
http://pjmedia.com/...en-first-originate/
"There are three things I like about Italian ships. First, their cuisine, which is unsurpassed. Second, their service, which is quite superb. And then, in time of emergency, there is none of this nonsense about women and children first."
Winston Churchill
[DrBob, Aug 21 2012]
Crying
http://www.youtube....watch?v=j7OHG7tHrNM
Picture this, but children instead of litter. And me, crying, and I look just like that Indian dude. [bungston, Aug 21 2012]
Here's what I'm talking about
http://www.bbc.co.u...rld-africa-19371622
// But according to Amnesty International, nine people, including one woman, were removed from their prison cells and executed on Thursday night. // [21 Quest, Aug 24 2012]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
So now it's just 'and children?' |
|
| |
Actually, the whole concept needs a thorough
rethink.
|
|
| |
Pre-teen children are quickly and easily
replaced, and have not yet been the recipients
of substantial resource investment.
|
|
| |
The most valuable carbon units are those who
have received an expensive education and are
economically productive; these should be
prioritised for rescue.
|
|
| |
Any suggestions for a new phrase ? |
|
| |
I've only heard that phrase recently when discussing events in cultures where it still means "non-combatant" by definition. And even then rarely. "Civllian" is much more common. |
|
| |
I would rather see "men, women, and children". Longer, but giving everyone humanity in the same way. |
|
| |
//The most valuable carbon units are those who have received an expensive education and are economically productive; these should be prioritised for rescue.
|
|
| |
Any suggestions for a new phrase//
|
|
| |
Doctors and investment brokers first? |
|
| |
1) Category other: [general] ? That's as good as it gets?
|
|
| |
2) We need another law? Really?
|
|
| |
4) How about just saying something like "our peeps" ? |
|
| |
Sorry, I had the Public category selected... I'll
move it. And we do need another law, because
the use of that phrase in news media carries legal
consequences. A jury who is deciding the fate of a
man accused of, say, a mass shooting or a public
bombing, is going to be unfairly influenced on an
emotional level by journalists saying things like 'He
is accused of shooting/blowing up 27 innocent
people, including women and children.' Using
overly graphic rhetoric to stir up emotions is
already illegal in certain circumstances, but using
the phrase 'including women and children' never
seems to draw any fire and it should.
|
|
| |
Shooting children, I agree, is a far more heinous
crime than shooting adults. It just is. They aren't
old enough to have done anything or made any
political statements or even voted against your
view on a sensitive issue to warrant killing them.
But adults are adults. Why is shooting an unarmed
woman in the chest or face considered somehow
less honorable than shooting an unarmed man in
the back? |
|
| |
I knew this was your idea from the title.
Just sayin.
|
|
| |
Women lack testosterone and so do children making them on average much less agressive than males. This makes crimes against them more heinous in my book. ...and furthermore, when it comes to life-rafts it should still be women and children first.
|
|
| |
//The most valuable carbon units are those who have received an expensive education and are economically productive; these should be prioritised for rescue.//
|
|
| |
Isn't that the way it is now? |
|
| |
Men lack estrogen, which makes them on average
much less bitchy than females. This makes crimes
against them much more perplexing in my book. |
|
| |
// Isn't that the way it is now? //
|
|
| |
Yes, of course it is; but there's this pretence that it isn't, which is dishonest, misleading, and wrong. |
|
| |
In case of an emergency it's a man's job to flee last. This is because men live by a code. It's the one thing universally shared by all men on the planet.
|
|
| |
If a female car mechanic gets a flat tire we offer her to change it.
|
|
| |
If a female olympic gold medallist in weightlifting has heavy groceries we offer her to carry them for her.
|
|
| |
We do not piss against the wind. |
|
| |
Sorry misunderstood the idea here. It's actually about measuring tragedy, hmmm
|
|
| |
No sorry still a - it is actually worse if a woman or child is hurt. Yes defenitely part of the code there. |
|
| |
//If a female car mechanic gets a flat tire we offer
her to change it//
|
|
| |
And risk getting slapped, punched, or hit with a
tire iron because you've offended her pride.
|
|
| |
//If a female olympic gold medallist in weightlifting
has heavy groceries we offer her to carry them for
her. //
|
|
| |
Ditto the above quote. I also seem to recall
someone on the HB (Auscan, I believe) saying that
an Australian woman will knock a man flat on his
ass for offering to buy her a drink, because you're
implying a woman can't work and thus has no
money of her own. Stereotypes have no place in
modern society. Mind you, I'll still hold a door for a
lady any time. I'll hold the same door for a man
walking behind me because it's just the courteous
thing to do. And if I'm on a sinking ship with my
girlfriend and her kids, you bet your ass they're
getting on the boat first and I'll throw anybody
else off, man or woman, who tries to get there
first because they are my loved ones. I will then
promptly follow them on, then allow others to
board behind us.
|
|
| |
In other words, you can take that code and blow it
out your ass because it doesn't belong in any
society that also boasts gender equality. |
|
| |
non-combatants still not good enough? |
|
| |
Maybe, to show "gender equality" if that's important
to you, we should refer to men, wo and children? |
|
| |
Then why not simply say 'people including children' or
'persons including
children'? My
point is, it shouldn't matter what the gender of the
victims is/was. You should feel equal
sympathy/empathy/sadness for all innocent human
beings who meet an untimely demise. |
|
| |
//Men lack estrogen, which makes them on average much less bitchy than females.//
|
|
| |
I dunno, hasn't stopped you none... : ]
Kiddin-I'M KIDDING, don't look at me like that, just, yes that is a very pretty knife, all glinty... I really don't need to see it so closely... is that a chip on the edge?
|
|
| |
Hey! <smacks forehead> There's a theme song for this. [link]
Ok that might be taking it a bit too far but I laughed my ass off the first time I saw it so, maybe you will too... and then you can show me your gun collection.
|
|
| |
Seriously though. It's hard-wired in all of us critters. It only takes a single male to father an entire generation. Fifty men on an island with only one female though is nothing more than a long-drawn-out bar-brawl, without enough booze...
~That's~ the code.
|
|
| |
//this pretence that it isn't, which is dishonest, misleading, and wrong.//
|
|
| |
Ah, I thought it was the pretense that it isn't wrong which was dishonest and misleading. See, I've got my proirities backwards. My futilitance is all resisty, and I think I may have been assume-ilated. |
|
| |
I agree with this idea but the reality of my observation is that men react very differently to seeing a woman in a bodybag. Reconfiguring that instinct may not prove to be easy. |
|
| |
//men react very differently to seeing a woman in
a bodybag//
|
|
| |
Do women react differently to seeing a woman in
a bodybag? I believe news media is for both sexes,
n'est pas?
|
|
| |
There are an awful lot of instincts men still hold,
such as to save the ladies, save the babies; but
perhaps to achieve true equality, those instincts
must be allowed to dissipate*. Do phrases such as
"including women and children" perpetuate these
instincts? We're all of generations that taught us
to hold the door open for women – specifically –
even if we do so for men as well out of politeness,
so from a very early age we are indoctrinated with
this level of subconscious sexual favoritism.
|
|
| |
Anyway, bun for interesting observation, and
because I don't think the idea deserves the
number of bones it's accrued. Sort of an
equilibribun, if you will.
|
|
| |
* Whether we WANT these instincts to dissipate is
another question. Do we have those instincts for
good reason? |
|
| |
Hmm. That didn't last long... |
|
| |
I'm talking about real life, not seeing bodybags on TV. |
|
| |
I suspect the reaction to the women in bodybag image he was thinking about was the the one involving the strong primal urge to find and pummel the living shit out of the bastard responsible. |
|
| |
//Do women react differently to seeing a woman
in a bodybag? I believe news media is for both
sexes, n'est pas?//
|
|
| |
I don't know, but it's not only men who use the
phrase. I think it seems incredibly selfish when I
hear a woman saying 'this was particularly heinous
because it included women and children'.
|
|
| |
//I suspect the reaction to the women in bodybag
image he was thinking about was the the one
involving the strong primal urge to find and
pummel the living shit out of the bastard
responsible//
|
|
| |
A stranger is a stranger, and my reaction to a dead
stranger is the same regardless of gender. No,
what I suspect is the cause of this so-called
'chivalry gene' is in fact an innate urge to flirt with
the opposite sex at every given opportunity. You
hold doors open for women so you get to smile at
a pretty lass as she walks by and you feel good
when she smiles back. You also get a nice view of
her ass as she passes by. There's a reason you are
taught to hold the door for a lady, and not for just
any woman. Take note of the difference.
|
|
| |
That, I suspect, is the root of the issue. Men
started being chivalrous because they discovered
you attract more flies with honey. Plain and
simple. Nothing noble about it, that's just the
excuse. That urge to find and pummel the man
who hurt an injured woman before you is driven
by a primal instinct to challenge that man to a
dominance fight. You want to impress that woman
in the hope (either conscious or subconscious)
that she will want to have sex with you. Let me
ask, would you have the same urge to pummel
another woman if she was the one who murdered
the one in the body bag? If not, then you know
that what I've said is true. |
|
| |
Would you kindly refrain from sharing the secrets of manhood with women? While they still believe we have good intentions.
|
|
| |
(allthough I have a suspicion they just pretend to believe in our good intentions and underneath they are just as vile and kinky as we are and they actually want us to defile them)
|
|
| |
Oh, and the weightlifting lass will take me to bed because I'm cute and all women are basically prostitutes [ducks for cover] as much as all men are good and true [checks if it's safe to get up again] |
|
| |
Oh please, how may women do ya figure we have in
our group? My guess is 4 or 5. |
|
| |
Well, yes but there's at least one with power. |
|
| |
I can come up with three, including Jutta, but I'm sure there are more. |
|
| |
I was thinking Jutta, Blissy, Xandram, and Pericles. I
always thought Squeak was a gal, too, but I'm not as
certain. xSarenkax pops in from time to time, as well.
But that's about it as near as I can tell, and Pericles
hasn't shown her face in ages. |
|
| |
[po], [blissmiss], [jutta], [xandram], [froglet]
(retired), [lewisgirl] (retired), [Pericles] (retired),
[madradish] (retired), [xSarenkax] (retired), [corylus]
(retired) & [catriona fisher] and [sarah somich]. I
can't recall the actual usernames of the last two.
|
|
| |
I'm sure there are many others whom I've forgotten. |
|
| |
Back to the idea. Over here on the BBC we do this via command of the English language:
"News just in. 1 Englishman and 139 Malaysians were killed today in a freak Tsunami. 14 Belgians were also killed but it appears that their English was not very good."
With apologies to (I believe) the Monty Python team. |
|
| |
Ah, of course po... knew I was leavin one out.
Isn't Catriona retired, as well? I can't
remember the last time I saw her name
anywhere other than Facebook.
|
|
| |
As to the idea, why is it so controversial, on
the HB of all places, to propose a step
toward gender equality? 7 fishbones, really?
Must gender equality always mean putting
men down or excluding us? |
|
| |
'Oh please, how may women do ya figure we have in our group?' Interesting point... can you tell from posts alone? |
|
| |
I saw a story on Australia's SBS news last night...
"More than 50 civilians, including 14 children, were
killed in an attack by Syrian military forces today."
|
|
| |
I watched the commercial news bulletins this
morning on two other channels. One said "More
than 50 civilians, including children." The other
said, "At least 50 civilians, including women and
children."
|
|
| |
Given that most of these stories are generated or
brokered by about a dozen major agencies (AP,
PA, Thomson Reuters, AFP, UPI, Business Wire,
Hugin, GlobeNews, etc) then it's likely a default
option to mention "women & children" in the
stories stems from the original writer/editor team
in the agency. |
|
| |
There is at least one female halfbaker missed and I bet many more who don't feel the need to specify their gender.
//why is it so controversial, on the HB of all places, to propose a step toward gender equality? 7 fishbones, really?//
Because there are obvious differences between the sexes. True equality can only be adopted in areas of actual equality, namely mental, which I agree should be equalized. Any other scale would be un-true.
True is true after all... Right?
|
|
| |
p.s. none of those fishbones are mine. |
|
| |
//True equality can only be adopted in areas of
actual equality, namely mental//
|
|
| |
Not necessarily. There are a lot of women who
would
sue the pants off any company who refused to
hire
them because they supposedly can't do the same
physical work as a man, and it has happened many
times. Women work in construction, they serve in
combat (as I stated in the post). No no, they claim
they are fully equal in all areas of society and they
are taking legal action to enforce that believe,
misguided or not. If that's what women want,
then fine, but they don't get the social and financial benefits of full equality AND
special protection status in times of crisis, and
that's the point of
my idea. |
|
| |
How about this idea? : take the word 'cats' out of the
expression 'it's raining cats and dogs', so that it's only
raining dogs. |
|
| |
Anyway, wasn't there a study recently looking at shipwreck survival rates that found that the whole "women and children first" thing didn't actually happen in most disasters anyway?
|
|
| |
Women and children first is out in shipwrecks now anyway. The preference is for complete families. |
|
| |
//if I'm on a sinking ship with my girlfriend and her kids, you bet your ass they're getting on the boat first and I'll throw anybody else off, man or woman, who tries to get there first because they are my loved ones. I will then promptly follow them on, then allow others to board behind us.//
|
|
| |
That could be a problem if I were on that same ship. Becasue as you 'attempted' to toss me overboard for not letting you take the seat of a woman or child... more women and children would board in your place. Then, if you succeeded in overboarding me, (I admit, it is a possibility), you'd have to deal with the next guy like me and such rough-housing would hardly expedite an evacuation. |
|
| |
Xenzag, a closer analogy to the idea at hand would
be 'it's raining pets'. |
|
| |
I think there’s an atavistic, instinctual reason for
the preference women and children are given in
“pick who survives” scenarios like shipwrecks, and
from that, why killing them is considered worse
than killing adult men: killing many men in a
community increases the time it takes to
reproduce to the pre-killing population less than
killing many nubile women and female children.
|
|
| |
This doesn’t explain why the “women and children
first” preference includes male children. Perhaps
the preference is really “women and whoever they
pick to take with them”, so male children are
included per the “my offspring first” atavism.
|
|
| |
I’ve an only vaguely substantiated impression
“women and children first” doesn’t apply to old
women: I think there’s something archetypally
heroic about senior of both genders “with less of
their life ahead of them” sacrificing themselves for
the survival of their juniors; and I’ve known some
women who became much more brave and self-
sacrificing in their old age than when they were
young. |
|
| |
How about "regrettably killing a lot of hot babes and some not-so-hot ones as well"? |
|
| |
I heard my name, yesterday. Slow to
respond. This idea is silly, btw. |
|
| |
Babes are the whole reason. |
|
| |
//I’ve known some women who became much
more brave and self- sacrificing in their old age
than when they were young.// I think it's quite
widely accepted that menopause is a specific
biological adaptation, unique to humans - a switch
from child-bearing to an altruistic, 'grandmother'
role. It would make perfect sense for there to be
associated behavioral changes.
|
|
| |
[spidermother] is not a woman - nor a spider. Hi
[blissmiss]! |
|
| |
HI Spidie. The voice of reason, amoungst a bunch of
nonsense. |
|
| |
Oh, there's always a lot of non-sense in this place.
Much of it is misogyny, like this idea, sadly. |
|
| |
Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. I
don't dislike them , I just don't think they deserve
special treatment. So please retract your erroneous
statement, UB. |
|
| |
Where's my anno ese? Don't you know I'm loco? |
|
| |
Always wondered, what does the word "ese" mean? |
|
| |
I think I have a book on that somewhere let me look for it. |
|
| |
This inevitably leads to assessments of worth; imagine if we all had to justify our worth to some kind of panel weighing up where we should belong on the basis of our history and potential. Chilling. |
|
| |
The weather seems to have taken a turn for the
cute, it appears to be raining kittens and puppies
out there. |
|
| |
Given that female Olympic swimmers are under
certain circumstances exceeding their male
counterparts, I suspect the time for women and
children first, has gone.
|
|
| |
Odds are that the statistically speaking the kids
and mothers probably have more time to dedicate
to swimming than their husbands, tirelessly slaving
away in some energy sapping office environment
at their gender stereotyped role as breadwinner.
|
|
| |
Non Combatants doesn't sound like the sort of
person I might meet on my way to the
supermarket. In my biased view Non-combatants
sound like people who generally cant afford to live
in a safe area and have perhaps been driven to
fanatical religious beliefs.
|
|
| |
People on the other hand sounds more like the
sort of people I might meet at the halfbakery
counter, where I buy my par-baked loaves.
|
|
| |
So are we agreed on the title "people including
children"? |
|
| |
Remind me to take extra note when we find something that 21 actually, truly, finds a giddy sense of joy in. I'll mark it on the calendar. Seriously dude, go dance naked in the rain, sing loudly in the shower, skydive, something. |
|
| |
Xenzag, I'm sorry I deleted your annotation. It was entirely
accidental, and you are encouraged to repost it. |
|
| |
Not to worry - was only commenting that I prefer it when
people stick to annotations about the actual ideas and not
personal remarks about the people posting them, even
though I'm sure I have been guilty of this myself in the past. |
|
| |
When the purpose behind the puropose of the place is to lighten up your day, I find that sometimes such remarks are necessary. |
|
| |
//A law to ban the use of the phrase ...//
Didn’t notice this before. Clearly, in the US, such a law couldn’t withstand challenge on 1st Amendment grounds, so to avoid this being a non-starter, we must replace “law” with “cultural taboo” or some such. |
|
| |
As I stated, limits on speech designed to stir up emotions
during already-emotionally-charged court cases are, and have
frequently been, implemented and upheld. |
|
| |
The poor children. Left all alone. Some of them can barely walk! I am shedding a tear for those children left without their women, just like that Indian guy in the old anti-litter commercials. |
|
| |
But to stand an’ be still to the Birken’ead drill
is a damn tough bullet to chew,
An’ they done it, the Jollies — ‘Er Majesty’s Jollies –
soldier an’ sailor too!
Their work was done when it ‘adn’t begun; they was younger nor me an’ you...
|
|
| |
Please to be removing or at least obfusticating my sister's name from your annotation UnaBubba. |
|
| |
Because in my book, any idea that starts with 'a law that restricts...' has taken at least one step backwards, and comes across as curmudgeonly takes 3 more. |
|
| |
An idea that calls for a step towards equality only
comes across as curmudgeonly to someone who
would rather keep women in their current place,
for whatever reason you may have. The fact is,
chivalry objectifies women and has no place in
modern society. The fact is Chivalry, didn't
originally apply to all women. To quote WIkipedia,
//The Knight's Code of Chivalry was a moral system
that stated all knights should protect others who
can not protect themselves, such as widows,
children, and elders.//
|
|
| |
Widows, not women. Notice the difference. It
used to be that an unmarried adult woman was
incredibly rare. If a woman was unmarried, she
lived with her parents, and enjoyed the
protection and chivalry of the man of the house,
ie her father. If she was married, the responsibility
of protecting her fell to her husband.
|
|
| |
These days, women choose to be single longer.
They know the dangers of the modern world, and
choose to forgo the protection/chivalry of a
husband because modern weapons (ie, handgun,
taser, pepper spray) can be carried and wielded by
a woman just as easily as a broadsword could be
carried and wielded by a knight.
|
|
| |
Thus, chivalry could have a place in modern
society by being directed towards children and
the elderly, but to apply it to all women who don't
have a man at their side is a bastardization of the
concept. |
|
| |
it's just about the tone. Nothing more. It's not fair! is the realm of angst-ridden teenagers. |
|
| |
Pointing out an inequality in the status quo is the realm of
anyone with a legitimate grievance. |
|
| |
Linguistic relativity runs amok through the legislature! Bills banning saying "not bad" in response to "how ya doin?" Congressmen bursting in unannounced on drafting meetings - doors swinging into walls, papers thrown aloft by the draft - to demand that the wording in this year's finance act be more avowedly aspirational. Rebranding of the entire executive branch as the "Supercool Awesome Gang" and the Judiciary renamed as the "MEGADUDEZZZ", cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria.
|
|
| |
This is a peeve dressed up as an idea. |
|
| |
Accepting life as a perpetual series of inequalities not all of whom are worth addressing is the realm of the wise. |
|
| |
Do people really think that chivalry is only directed
towards women? That seems bizarre, but then I'm a
medievalist, and a bit out of touch.
|
|
| |
Anyway, while I agree with the sentiment (men,
women, and children is also irksome, for different
reasons), isn't this advocacy / punish those who do
X? |
|
| |
Are you suggesting that gender inequality is one of those
inequalities that is not worth addressing, ray? |
|
| |
No, I'm suggesting prozac. |
|
| |
[Marked-for-Tagline] seconded. |
|
| |
Oh what-the-heck, thirded. |
|
| |