|
|
对楼上发言的解释：
The problem with this kind of logic, however, is its depressing reductionism. It's like a serious version of the geneticist's old joke that a chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg. But humans are more than just egg-layers. And traditional courtesies are more than just disguised survival strategies. So why do we say “women and children”?
Perhaps it's really “women for children.” The most basic parental bond is maternal. Equal parenting is great, but women, from breast to cradle to reassuring hug, can nurture in ways that men cannot. And thus, because we value children, women should go second. The children need them.
以上言论来自于：why women and children first 泰坦尼克号 |
|
/1 
发表于 2008-1-23 20:09
楼主
发表于 2008-1-23 21:33
发表于 2008-1-24 15:05
