Cruiseliner disaster: "Women and children first" Still relevant today?

[pulse2]

Ironic that, huh? Last time I was on that ship it was the right way up, and that was less than a year ago :/ Kind of creepy to know that its now half submerged. My thoughts and condolences are with those who suffered and those still suffering.

Anyway, that's not why I'm here (after a long spell of not being here), nor am I here to recite now old news, what I am here for however is your opinions on something, I saw an article on BBC that caught my attention:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16576289

Do you think the "Women and children first" rule should still apply today? Now bare in mind, the necessity for children to go first is obvious and we also have to bare in mind the disabled. But should men really be held back while women go first? In the event that all women go first and survive and the men that remained die, who would it benefit and what is to stop men simply jumping off recklessly and attempting to swim for it if they feel they have too much to live for and deserve life just as much as anyone else?

It is ASSUMED that because men are more physically fit we are more likely to be able to survive in extreme circumstances, but isn't that a little sexist? Not all men are that physically fit to endure those circumstances and not all women are as weak and feeble as they are made to seem, we live in a world where women can be as strong minded and independent as men, not necessarily physical as it is scientifically proven that men have more strength on average, but heck, I know a few women that make me look like a couch potato. What is the real reason for this rule anymore.

Furthermore, where do the elderly come into this? Should they be given highest priority because they are less able or lowest priority because "they have already lived a full life, the least they could do is let the young people have theirs".

So yes, lets discuss.

 

[Lilani]

I think it should be "least physically and psychologically capable first." In other words, children and their parents, elderly, and people with physical and psychological handicaps. Priority should be given to the ones who have the lowest chances of survival on their own. "Women and children" is simply the old and now politically incorrect shorthand for basically that.

 

[Captain Pirate]

I think it's still relevant. Give the child a chance at life when you've had more life than it, and of course it needs it's parents, and all that.
However I would just try and get as many people out as possible after the women and children. I have no idea how I would truly react in that situation, but I'm trying to live in the mindset of 'others first'.

 

[Farther than stars]

No, I still support that general rule. It's just a common thing of courtesy in my mind; the same way that I let women through a doorway first. To be honest I don't see the issue here. I think you're overthinking feminism when you become against the way that society treats women positively. That seems counterproductive.

 

[ChaoticKraus]

Maybe it does for some people, children should be helped but my opinion on the "women" part can be eloquently summarized with: FUCK THAT SHIT.

"cue footage of me scrambling for the lifeboats while "Move *****!" plays in the background."

 

[Vault101]

"capable help the less capable"

gener is irelevent, also its more about keeping calm and having an evacuation plan..as in handling the situation properly, which Im not sure happned here

oh and the children..gotta think of the children

 

[Davatehi]

My list when it comes to things like this goes:
1) Kids
2) Their parents
3) Me
4) People I know
5) Everyone else.
6) Steve

 

[JoJo]

Best of all is having a proper evacuation plan which can get everyone off, just holding certain people back doesn't automatically speed up the rests exit. But in a situation where certain people must be prioritised, children and their carers first. After that it depends on the situation, if a fully-abled bodied person should have no problem surviving then obviously a disabled or elderly person should be given priority. If on the other hand there's a very low chance of survival without lifeboat or equivalent such as in the Titanic, then there's no reason to discriminate by gender or disability.

My list when it comes to things like this goes:
1) Kids
2) Their parents
3) Me
4) People I know
5) Everyone else.
6) Steve

This list is pretty much what I use, so QFT.

 

[Phasmal]

I think it should be "least physically and psychologically capable first." In other words, children and their parents, elderly, and people with physical and psychological handicaps. Priority should be given to the ones who have the lowest chances of survival on their own. "Women and children" is simply the old and now politically incorrect shorthand for basically that.

Pretty much this.

Children, elderlies, disabled people and people who cant swim (me) first.

 

[Zantos]

My list when it comes to things like this goes:
1) Kids
2) Their parents
3) Me
4) People I know
5) Everyone else.
6) Steve

Man, do we have to include Steve? I hate that guy.

OT: It's a good line to yell in a disaster situation, I'd be focused more on getting myself and others to safety rather than political correctness. It'd probably be awkward though, sorting everyone through, and it'd hinder efficiency. Put children and parents, and the handicapped in cabins nearest the lifeboats to give them the best chance, then hurry people on as they arrive.

Oh wait, I'm a physicist, I'd be down near the problem thinking up horrifically convoluted ways to fix it. "Joe! Come on! We have to go!", "Just a minute, I've got a good standing wave going here!"

 

[pulse2]

No, I still support that general rule. It's just a common thing of courtesy in my mind; the same way that I let women through a doorway first. To be honest I don't see the issue here. I think you're overthinking feminism when you become against the way that society treats women positively. That seems counterproductive.

That's entirely different. In the common courtesy situation, never does the idea that "if you don't get through that door on time you will probably die" come to mind. You do it out of respect for others and respect in particular for women, besides, what have you got to lose?

But in this situation, it's life and death and for some men, if those women mean jack shit to you in the sense that they aren't your girlfriend, wife, friend or family, why should you not think of them as "just another human being" and want to get off just as much as they do, after all you too have family and friends at home, you too have a life you could live and when you think about it, this is your LIFE you are putting on the line, a life you may soon lose and never live again. Will those women you kindly let on board ever remember your kindness? No, not likely because every other man on the boat was made to do the same thing. So you aren't being remembered for anything in particular, why are you sacrificing your life again? Just to feel good about what you did? But what about what you could contribute to the world by being alive? Probably more so than those you are sacrificing your life for. What about the wife and child you may be leaving behind waiting for your safe return home, or your parents who only had you as their one child and of course want nothing more than wonderful things for you?

Of course I'm not saying that everyone should make a mad scramble for any lifeboat available, otherwise everyone would be in peril and there would be more chaos and less survivors, but when the time comes all you can really think of is yourself UNLESS something happens that makes you think otherwise, it's natural for us to think that way. In desperate situations, the true feelings of mankind are revealed, racism, sexism, selfishness etc.

 

[Nimcha]

It should just be free for all in my opinion.

 

[FamoFunk]

Children and their Parent/guardian first, which is in most cases the Mother.
Not just any old Woman should go; just ones with Children, after all, those kids kinda need at least one parents to be alive.

The Elderly and disabled should also be put before the physically fit.

I know we're in a time where equal rights are happily around, but Men are physically stronger than Woman and are still seen as the protector, so I think it'll always naturally be Children and Women before Men. Men would make sure their Children and their Wife are OK before himself, I guess that's why the saying is still about.

 

[Lizardon]

In a situation where the ship is sinking everyone will be panicking and not thinking straight. I highly doubt it would be the right time to try and evaluate everyone's physical abilities to determine who gets to go first. Gender and age on the other hand can be worked out at a glance.

It's not a perfect system, but I really can't think of a better way of handling an evacuation beyond "whoever get's to the lifeboats first gets to live".

EDIT: Hang on, the article says each passenger was assigned a lifeboat. Assuming they aren't trying to put to many people in each lifeboat, who goes first becomes pointless.

 

[Balvale]

Imposing chivalry where a rational decision should be should dated and moronic. Nothing makes the life of a woman, child or man inherently more valuable than the others. Should someone help a disabled or elderly person get aboard a life craft? I'd say yes, but it should not be required of them.

Here's how the list goes in my view:
1) People I know (because I care about my family and friend more than other people, sorry)
2) Me
3) Kids
4) Their parents
5) Everyone else
6) Steve (fuck that guy)

 

[Jedoro]

Imposing chivalry where a rational decision should be should dated and moronic. Nothing makes the life of a woman, child or man inherently more valuable than the others. Should someone help a disabled or elderly person get aboard a life craft? I'd say yes, but it should not be required of them.

Here's how the list goes in my view:
1) People I know (because I care about my family and friend more than other people, sorry)
2) Me
3) Kids
4) Their parents
5) Everyone else
6) Steve (fuck that guy)

This

I'll make sure me and mine are taken care of before I go out of my way to help a stranger.

 

[krazykidd]

Maybe it does for some people, children should be helped but my opinion on the "women" part can be eloquently summarized with: FUCK THAT SHIT.

"cue footage of me scrambling for the lifeboats while "Move *****!" plays in the background."

This made me laugh so hard .

OT: hell no , i don't care about some children , nor women , nor elderly ( especially the elderly ) nor the disables . It's every man woman and child for himself. TRY to stop me , i dare you . Seriously , leaving physically capable men to die because old people, the ones that have lived their full life, can't run as fast? Pfft? Children can be created anytime at easy , i say leave em behind . And why in the hell should i let another person pass in front of me because they were born with a vagina? NO WAY. The disabled i can understand , but hell if i'm going to be the one the spend my last moments trying to save them , someone else can do that.

Is my life worth more than anyone elses? Nope, but their lives are not worh more than mine either . Unless i am on a boat with doctors and scientists and MAYBE the prezodent.

 

[Farther than stars]

But what about what you could contribute to the world by being alive? Probably more so than those you are sacrificing your life for.

I don't really have any reason to believe that my life is more important than that of others. And I don't really think it's my place to judge either. All I know is that whatever I'd be giving up, they'd be giving it up too.

So you aren't being remembered for anything in particular, why are you sacrificing your life again?

Because it's the right thing to do. I'm not necessarily risking my neck and even if I am, what do I care whether I'm remembered for it or not? Nothing I ever do now is going to be remembered in 10000 years anyway; I'd rather worry about what the right thing to do is now.

In desperate situations, the true feelings of mankind are revealed, racism, sexism, selfishness etc.

That is of course not to say that when the time comes I won't be selfish. Heck, I might be coward, I might scramble for the exit, I might cling onto life for all its worth. But I'll let those "desperate situations" decide that for me. For the time being, however, why would I want to turn my back on the good side of humanity?

 

[Farther than stars]

"capable help the less capable"

gener is irelevent, also its more about keeping calm and having an evacuation plan..as in handling the situation properly, which Im not sure happned here

oh and the children..gotta think of the children

Sorry, couldn't help myself. I'll now ballance this post with a question of more academic value:

It should just be free for all in my opinion.

Let me get this straight: as a woman, you would rather have the rule changed to be less advantageous to you... Would you mind explaining that to me?