{original post unavailable}

It's got nothing to do with second class citizenship. I'm
sorry, but when lives are at stake, *any* justification is acceptable
for saving them. When a ship goes down at sea, as much as possible it
tends to be the rule that women and children go first. It's not
putting women and children on the same social level, that's silly and a
misstatement of fact. The notion is that often men are physically
better suited to taking care of themselves in a physically dangerous
situation *as civilians*. Now, if you're talking military, you need
only to watch the same episode, "Severed," and you see women combat
soldiers slugging it out, and getting stabbed, and killed, right along
with the male soldiers.

Some people seem to feel that if one shows compassion for any
group, that somehow you are saying that's a lower or second class.
It's sad when compassion can become warped around to mean something
else. It's also illogical.

If the position is that women are second class citizens in this
case, then the cry would be, "Don't fire, we've got men down here."
Because that would imply that the men are more important; you'd get
"men first" on sinking ships because, as first class citizens, men
would be more important, and thus more worth saving, yes?

In a crisis situation, where people are going to die, you try to
get out those for whom you care, and to whom you give status. Those
which are important, and may be less able, physically, to deal with
great stress or danger.

So, basically, no, the statement did not come from any agenda;
your analysis, however, *did*.

jms