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

[brainslurper]

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.

That is dumb. Why should some 90 year old get to go on the life boat, while a 25 year old gets to die in the freezing water?

 

[brainslurper]

Here is the order (in my mind):

1.The kiddies
2.Their parents
3.Grandma (for her cookies) and grandpa
4.Me
5.Other people
6.Pets
7.plants
8.Fish

Please explain why it is a good idea to bring a fish on a life boat at all.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Please explain why it is a good idea to bring a fish on a life boat at all.

Why bring pets(and other stuff you don't need on trips) at all...

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Under current conditions it's irrelevant because the law requires there to be more seats in the lifeboats than there are passengers aboard the ship. And everyone is issued life vests with a signal beacon that says "help me, I'm in the water!" to every damn radio frequency within 500 miles.

Personally, I'm not worried about it because I've been trained in ocean survival, and if I don't make it onto the lifeboat in time because I let someone else (regardless of age or gender) on before me, I can easily swim to another lifeboat, and carry someone with me if need be.

The best thing anyone can do is keep calm and exit the ship in an orderly fashion and you'll have very few casualties.

Pretty much this, It's not really an issue anymore. I'm not entirely sure why it was an issue on the Concordia although there is rumours that the crew were untrained in the use of life boats and safety procedures.

Also let me just say that in the past men are the ones who came up with this rule, not women, so don't try and use it as some sort of 'women demanding privileges' thing.

 

[Ithera]

I suppose that in a calm and orderly situation, the kiddies can go first. In a chaotic stampede, it's "sink or swim junior" .

 

[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.

That is dumb. Why should some 90 year old get to go on the life boat, while a 25 year old gets to die in the freezing water?

I already explained this in another post, so I'm just going to copy and paste what I wrote.

Boat crashes tend to be escalating disasters. You have the initial hit, then as time passes the conditions get worse. The tilt of the boat in either direction becomes more extreme, power failures and shorts make for lower visibility and make communication harder, and naturally the people still on board are going to get more and more on edge. As the boat becomes less stable, life boats become harder to launch. They actually had this issue with the boat that ran aground--the boats were swinging freely away from the boat and became harder and harder to get into the water safely. They were requiring more manpower and more group communication and cooperation to get things done.

That is why I still think children and AT LEAST one parent, preferably both, should be boarded first. Children are going to be absolutely no help as things get worse, and will require constant attention. They'd just be a nuisance to others, and make the process more difficult and unsafe. So it's best for everyone to get them off ASAP. As for the parents, if they aren't with their kid they are going to be an emotional wreck at best. At worst, they'll be so desperate to hurry things along so they can be with them their judgment will be clouded and they will make stupid mistakes which will further endanger everyone around them. And if they don't get anybody killed they'll only add onto the escalating panic to everyone on board.

The people who are on the boat last should be the most physically and MENTALLY capable of the bunch. If all you have left at the end is a whole bunch of panicked families with squalling children chances it lessens the chances of survival for everyone else.

So tl;dr: Get the least physically and mentally capable off the boat first because things are only going to get worse from the moment the boat begins to sink. Unless, of course, your prerogative is to get yourself to survive rather than helping the greatest number of people overall survive. Then, by all means, act like you have Downs or do some other cheap trick to get yourself on a boat first.

 

[SoetSout]

its just how society has changed.

personally i think it should go as follow:
Children + their mother if the child is under 10. else just the child.
Young adults
Adults
Old people and handicapped
Captain

old people and handicapped should go last since (i know many WILL hate this), they arent as usefull as the rest to society. they wont start a company, they will rack up medical bills, some need assistance for daily tasks. Yes i understand wanting to save family etc...

but from a logical standpoint i see no reason for them to have a higher chance of survival then an healthy person.

plz no flaming, just posted it as i see it.

 

[Blobpie]

Here is the order (in my mind):

1.The kiddies
2.Their parents
3.Grandma (for her cookies) and grandpa
4.Me
5.Other people
6.Pets
7.plants
8.Fish

Please explain why it is a good idea to bring a fish on a life boat at all.

No.

 

[inquisiti0n]

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.

This is honestly one of the stupidest things I've read in recent memory. It has nothing to do with recognizing the innate differences in gender or sex - it's just shameless white knighting.

Well, I seem to have struck a chord here, so allow me to explain myself (thereby probably only making matters worse).
You see, something I've never gotten is the insistence on making everything equal for men and women, when we're obviously different in a physical (and probably psychological) way. And speaking of things that are physical, I'd say that swimming is one of them. I'd also wager that overall men are stronger swimmers than women and therefore I don't think that the current rule is a bad one.

Christ... People do realize that most ships sink in the middle of the sea/lake/ocean/whatever, and not right next to the shore, right? All this talk of "swimming" seems to stem from this basic misunderstanding. Where are you gonna swim to? Nowhere. You'll just float until help arrives, and women scientifically float better. Weighing more and being stronger aren't noticeable advantages in this area. In fact, you could almost say these qualities are :gasp: a detriment. Not to mention that the same buoyant body fat (of which females possess more of) allows them to endure colder temperatures (ie, floating in the sea, waiting for help) better than men can.

Don't be coy. It's embarrassing to watch you try to pass this off as anything other than your reluctance to abandon a poorly justified and laughably outdated social standard. I don't have a huge problem with it as long as people like you aren't impeding the progress of actual rescue situations by trying to stop certain people from getting rescued, but have a little honesty.

On, and this gem:

But besides that, I also seem to have noted that the people against my position OF 'MEN TAKING THE FALL WHENEVER THINGS GET TOUGH, DESPITE THE PRETENSE OF EQUALITY THAT MUCH OF THE WESTERN WORLD HAS BEEN LIVING UNDER FOR THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES' appear to be exclusively male, including you. That strikes me as extremely UNSURPRISING.

I fixed it for you.




OT: Children first, but that's it. Or maybe by youngest. Allowing the child's caretakers has the potential of having random adults grab children as their ticket to get on a lifeboat and making the situation even more chaotic.

 

[Wesley Brannock]

I'm in favor of EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD for themself. I don't care what physical disability you have , gender , or age if you allow ANYONE ahead of ANYONE else it's not fair to one of the two parties. The only thing I would ask for is a civil line to get on the life boat. Everyone has a right to live but no one's right is more important than anyone else's right to live. Yes Women and children first is a good idea on paper but not so much in reality if your the poor Schmuck that is male and not in the child range of age when the boat goes down as well as no life boats left then you'd wouldn't think twice before trying to get to a boat.

 

[Craorach]

Children and people to care for them first. They have the most to loose, life wise.

Elderly, infirm, severely injured or impared people.. last.

It's maths, its logic, and it's all that matters in a life threatening situation.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

With gender equality in full effect, I'd say screw etiquette, it's back to some very basic survival of the fittest.

I can't condone elbows and fists or other crap behaviour, but seeing as how we ended up deconstructing 500 years of culture in not even fifty, I think it's quite amazing already people didn't build floats made of, well, women, children and/or the elderly.

Had the captain messed up so severely somewhere a little bit more remote, there would have been plenty more casualties.

 

[TheBaron87]

I thought it was more of a male instinct to protect women. Everyone talking about equality, or treating women like children, or the "weaker" sex... am I the only one that places more value on a woman's life than a man's?

Male, by the way.

EDIT: Herpederp I really ought to learn to check the date on the last post before I assume any thread I follow a link to is still relevant.

 

[henkalv]

I thought it was more of a male instinct to protect women. Everyone talking about equality, or treating women like children, or the "weaker" sex... am I the only one that places more value on a woman's life than a man's?

Male, by the way.

Gentleman in training FTW!

Oh and yes I would go for the "children and women first", but that is due to me being a tad old fashioned, not that I think that woman are somehow incapable. That 15% muscle mass advantage men have at birth is not that big of an advantage.

 

[inquisiti0n]

Gentleman in training FTW!

Oh and yes I would go for the "children and women first", but that is due to me being a tad old fashioned, not that I think that woman are somehow incapable. That 15% muscle mass advantage men have at birth is not that big of an advantage.

um, they simply ARE less capable in the event of basically any disaster situation that you can think of.

how is that offensive? how many disasters does the average woman experience anyways for that fact to even bother her? if someone told me women are better at handling some situation that I barely ever come across, I wouldn't even care enough to act offended, and that's even if it was blatantly wrong.


even in the event in which you would voluntarily "sacrifice" your life for a stranger on no other basis than what their gender is, you still feel the need to reassure them that they could just as well handle it themselves?

i'm a guy, but if someone who didn't even know me was willing to sacrifice their life to save mine based on some nonsensical rationalization they held, i sure as hell wouldn't mind it if they claimed to be better at handling the situation. how petty do you imagine women to be?

 

[Dave Konkol]

I believe in rights for women.

I give them a right hook to the jaw and while they are unconscious, *I* get in the lifeboat! What? It is filled with kids? Time to learn about the 'circle of life' junior!

*starts tossing them into the sea*

 

[Mazza35]

Because it was a Gentleman's act to let Women and children through first, whether it be doors, cars, coaches, ect.
It also was from a time that women were thought to be weaker, but even if that's not true. I would still do it, for I believe the age of Gentlemen should of never died, too many people with no respect these times.

 

[inquisiti0n]

Because it was a Gentleman's act to let Women and children through first, whether it be doors, cars, coaches, ect.
It also was from a time that women were thought to be weaker, but even if that's not true.

IF IT'S NOT TRUE THEN WHY WOULD THEY NEED EXTRA HELP????

What's hilarious is that even in the extraordinary case of saving a total stranger's life at the expense of your own, you still feel compelled to tell them that they could do without your help, as if you saving their life infringes upon their sense of independence.

I can understand and accept that there are guys who are willing to do such a thing, but why impose your pathetically outdated spineless behavior onto other people who don't share your irrational need to throw your life away in a desperate attempt to seem like a hero?

I would still do it, for I believe the age of Gentlemen should of never died, too many people with no respect these times.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of that word. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/respect]