siani wrote:
> Winter Arcane wrote:
>
>> "siani" <siani@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:34qed7F4dl4b5U2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> Winter Arcane wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any parent that would put their needs ahead of those of the children
>>>> is probably a liability rather than a benefit to the family. I love
>>>> my wife intensely, but as far as I'm concerned if it comes down to
>>>> her or the children...she's expendable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> while that's the prevailing view in the west, in many other cultures
>>> it would be the children who were expendable. if the wife was saved,
>>> you could have more children, if the children were saved, you would
>>> be less able to care for them, and unlikely to have any other
children.
>>>
>>> siani
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know about others, but for me it would be a lot easier to
>> replace my wife than it would be to replace my children with
>> equivalent models. I've already had a handful of volunteers. While I
>> could conceivably have more children with my wife, it would take
>> several years for the new offspring to reach the stage of development
>> that my current children are already at. If I wasn't too picky, I
>> could replace my wife in a matter of weeks.
>
>
> i suspect the studies which came up with that response (i think Jennie
> pointed the out) used families with young children. it would be
> extremely interesting to see if the responses were different for older
> children or for women. iirc, the cultures questioned were also ones in
> which children are considered independent at much younger ages.
>
> what is interesting about it is that we, in western cultures, take it as
> a basic truth that one ought to save the children, whereas other groups
> consider it equally basic that they should save the wife. our own
> attitudes have changed a great deal from the victorian era, too. it's
> interesting how much of what we consider very basic morality is cultural
> rather than hardwired.
It's not that simple. A lot of it is probably fairly well hardwired, but
that will be filtered through cultural attitudes as well.
For example, given the choice between saving an infant and saving an a
healthy nubiler female, almost every member of that culture with the
likely exception of that female herself, will much prefer to save the
female. As age of the female approaches menopause and as the age of the
child approaches nubility, the tendency to prefer to save the older
female declines and the tendency to save the child increases.
Where you will likely find the greatest differences between the cultural
precepts regards the weighting between the older female and children of
specific genders. In western culture, for example, whether to risk one's
life for a woman approaching menopause or a child approaching nubility,
is highly related to the gender of the child; a female child approaching
nubility will probably be given highest priority, second priority will
to the adult female, least priority will go to a pre-nubile (probably
not the right word) male. In other cultures, the highest priority will
go to the male child, presumably because he is closest to maturation and
return on the investments made by the family/community in terms of being
able to both work and fight. But even in these communities, probably a
significantly higher value will be placed on the female closest to age
of menarche or beginning of actual reproductive age, than will be placed
on either older women or infants.
> it does mean that we probably shouldn't morally condemn s*t*r for his
> priority of husband over children, if we consider ourselves culturally
> sensitive, as the issue is more of culture than of moral strength.
>
> i'm glad i'm in my culture not his, though.
>
> siani
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
|
