Boys were used as this was the "norm" at the time. "Boys" had the adventures, girls were just... there either as sidekicks or as minor characters.

Both would end up killing each other. Girls first probably.

-~-~-~-~
You have called down the Thunder. Now reap the Whirlwind.

He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted.
Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Pls dont comment on why boys was used by Golding, we sorted that out in class, and I'm not in the mood for hearing it all again.
I'm only looking for comments on who would survive the best

Niether. I had this talk back in Jan/Feb

Girls would seperate more quickly into more bunched tribes. Boys might split or attempt to kill off the weakest but the book is more or less how it would go. In my country anyway though males might bond more. It depends on the people.

-~-~-~-~
You have called down the Thunder. Now reap the Whirlwind.

He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted.
Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.
Friedrich Nietzsche

/ahem

William Golding was my high school English teacher's English teacher when he was a boy. The characters were based on the boys he'd taught before he became a full-time writer. As posh schools were single-sex at the time, it's only natural he would write the story about boys only.

i trust that cans all the fruitless sub-freudian speculation?

"..send another Musa to free his children from dis' Babylon.."

Taw,well maybe you should learn to read again I already said it twice , this is not about why golding chose boys! this is about who would survive best in such a situation like that guys or girls


Edited by - sycho_warrior on 7/31/2004 10:41:35 AM

Gender won't make a bit of difference on survival in the end IF there is no hope of the two groups ever meeting. .... Obviously.

As to short term survival, the question itself is too dependent upon the relevant society from which those groups came.

For example, if the girls and boys are from a culture in which, as with Golding's time, boys were the ones who were to be the explorers, risk takers and what not and girls were not supposed to be anything other than future mothers and wives, I suggest that the girls would have a much harder time surviving because they would not have been taught either in school, by their own families and by their social environment, the necessary skills to be more competent in a raw physical environment.

If both the boys and the girls already were brought up to be equally competent, both would survive to approximately the same duration. How many in each group?
I don't know. In terms of collaborative abilities, I think it is pretty obvious that the girls would be more of a group than the boys.

The boys actually may end up split up between the ringleaders and the cowed. There may have been competing groups of ringleaders in which case there would have been a fight. If equally matched, then the territory would be divided and there would be attrition based upon that conflict.

The girls likely would have one Alpha female but the rest would group together with that alpha. There likely would have to have been a struggle, quite vicious one really, for the alpha to emerge. Probably, the other alpha contender had to die.

Gee Indy you make it seem as if girls are savages

Wow its english class all over again. We discussed this breifly, but the class was mostly filled with irrelavent competitions, and the teacher giving us her bogus theory on the meanings of color in that story. The highlights from that book are:

a.) Piggy falling and going splat on the rock
b.) Watching the Simpson's episode of the book in class

Hmm, tough one. My answer is no one. Girls would plot against each other, guys would just sit, try things, get pissed, and die.

i think boys, mainly because i dont know. they have better survival skills? they are stronger, physically by nature, so they'll handle nature better? move logs, set up tent, stuff like that?

not saying the girls couldn't whooop the sharks and drag them inland but.. yeah.

Depending on thier ages, i would say girls if old enough. They would be more willing to work togeather than guys. Less competativeness.

as if girls are gonna survive 5 minutes on their own <scoffs sexistly> pah! not even worth a conversation, really.

"..send another Musa to free his children from dis' Babylon.."

Actually you are halfway right, it just depends on the type of girls, same with the guys. But 5 mins is a bit of a hyperbole, they would last more. But I'll expand on my opinion in a couple of hours

Boys probably. True, they would probably split up into different tribes with different sections of the island, but if there was an intelligent leader, he would probably secure the area ,fortify the position, send people out to hunt/gather food. After that, he'd probably post guard watches, and then wake up in the morning, and plot how to get off the island.

Girls on the other hand, depending on their attitude, would probably spend a few hours arguing over who would be the leader, and then having a huge fight, after which they'd all be tired, and then would have to try and survive the night.

I (personally) don't know, anyone else got any opinions ?