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

[Esotera]

If in that situation, as a white 20-something male I would adhere to those principles until the very last moment, at which point I'd probably break them, because I don't want to die.

Obviously this would go for elderly/disabled people as well. I think the whole spirit of the phrase is whoever has least chance of surviving in cold water, should go first. Men are more likely to practice some form of exercise than women, so will also be better at the whole swimming thing, which is a definite advantage that other passengers wouldn't have.

 

[Batou667]

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.

Exactly this.

To avoid getting another low-content warning, I should add that the phrase "women and children" shouldn't be taken to mean that women are no more able to take care of themselves than children, but rather should be taken as a group description: mothers and children, basically.

 

[Sandytimeman]

Don't we like, have enough lifeboats on these things now? Plus inflatables and shit? I think this is a moot question.

But now I pose another question, what if your the bottom in a homosexual relationship? I am and I'm pretty effeminate. Does that mean I get to board with the children?

Women and Men, I was raised to see as complete equals. Anything I can do, a woman can do. And that includes saving herself.

I do however have some survival training thanks to being an Eagle Scout and going on some awesome trips to simulate survival situations.

But Yeah, to be honest, I would help get people to my assigned life boat. I would make sure crew are in place and doing their job, if they are then I can best benefit the situation by following the escape procedures.

 

[Phasmal]

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?

I'm a woman, I dont agree with a free-for-all, but I dont agree with women and children first, either. People should be put on elderly and children first, as well as disabled people and people who cant swim.
Not every man can swim, so they wouldnt have a great chance of surviving. Of course I cant swim either and I would probably be freaking out under that sort of situation.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

Sorry, but in a life threatening situation any modicum of humility I have goes right out the window. If waiting behind means I'm not going to make it, then regardless of the kids or disabled, I'm grabbing anyone on that boat that I know/care about, yanking them on with me to the nearest life boat and saying sayonara to any of the poor bastards still left behind and never looking back.

I'm a woman, I dont agree with a free-for-all, but I dont agree with women and children first, either. People should be put on elderly and children first, as well as disabled people and people who cant swim. Not every man can swim, so they wouldnt have a great chance of surviving. Of course I cant swim either and I would probably be freaking out under that sort of situation.

Ok I have to ask how the hell do people not know how to swim? It just boggles my mind trying to understand that. I mean I could understand if you were a cripple or something but thats it.

Bare in mind, being able to swim isn't going to do you that much good if you're going against the current and the boat is sinking roughly 200 miles from the nearest shore. As for why some people don't swim? Well, a hell of a lot of people never have a need to, thus they never learn. *shrugs*

- Omni ^_^

 

[Nimcha]

"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?

I'm pretty sure I can get ahead of most children, so it could be quite an advantage.

 

[pulse2]

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?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with your point of view, merely providing a differentiating perspective. I think if you do happen to stick by that should the time come where you are made to think it again, then you are an honorable person, but lets be realistic here, people frantically trying to jump ship, while you may be the noble one and let women and children off, including your girlfriend, wife, mother, friend, daughter etc off, not everyone on that ship is going to want to follow "the rule", in times of desperation the mentality is "the rules can shove themselves", for example the captain of the ship who fled and refused to return to help rescue everyone, now no one could have foreseen his attitude to be that way about his crew members and passengers but he thought about his life and the value of his life and figured he'd rather be alive and probably in jail then potentially decomposing at the bottom of the sea :/

Going back to what I was saying, given that everyone is frantically trying to jump onto the lifeboat you just put your children and female relation (whatever that relation may be) on, would it not automatically occur in your head to want to be with them? Protect them from all the people scrambling to get on?

So in a sense its kind of a double edged sword. While its nice to think the rule may apply, when the time comes the rule rarely applies, most men at that point would rather take their chances and jump, 'fuck waiting or helping, I'm taking my chances to survive mate'.

 

[Beliyal]

I don't think it should be relevant anymore. First of all, I think we learned from our mistakes and we are not modest when it comes to lifeboats and other means of saving the lives of people in case of disaster. If we're capable of making a boat 290 metres long, we can as well put enough lifeboats on it. This particular disaster is a good example; more than 4000 people on board, and not even 10 dead (of course, there were some circumstances that made it easier to save people; if it happened on an open sea and not in front of an island, there would have probably been more dead, but most certainly not anything as disastrous as the Titanic).

Second of all, women in the past most likely didn't even know how to swim and it was socially unacceptable for a woman to do a physical job, like physically helping others, lowering the lifeboats and generally doing any hard work. Those days are over. The priority should certainly go to children, and not to women specifically only because they are women. Besides children, we should let the elderly first (although, that should really depend on the old person; I believe a lot of them would sacrifice themselves and let young people survive), as well as anyone injured, physically disabled, pregnant women and people who can't help in any way, but require help. I would also let young parents with kids and men from families where the man is the only one who works.

However, in all that chaos and fear, it's difficult to filter people like that. "Women and children first" is somehow the easiest filter to make, because it is in our nature to secure the ones that give birth and our young. I don't know how would I behave in a situation like that, but I would feel horrible if someone lost a father, grandfather, a child or an injured person didn't get out because it was obligatory for me, a woman, to get out first, despite the fact that I might be capable of waiting, maybe even helping in some way. I believe we should get past that "rule" and first help those that need help, regardless of gender, age and/or status.

In the end, it's a tough choice and I believe we should work on getting better means to save everyone and to give everyone an equal chance to survive in a case of disaster. Simply put; there should be enough lifeboats for everyone and enough time for everyone to get out safely (meaning, the captain should not wait for the last minute to tell people that the ship is fucked up for good).

 

[Phasmal]

I'm a woman, I dont agree with a free-for-all, but I dont agree with women and children first, either. People should be put on elderly and children first, as well as disabled people and people who cant swim.
Not every man can swim, so they wouldnt have a great chance of surviving. Of course I cant swim either and I would probably be freaking out under that sort of situation.

Ok I have to ask how the hell do people not know how to swim? It just boggles my mind trying to understand that. I mean I could understand if you were a cripple or something but thats it.

I had a bad perforated eardrum for the first 12 years of my life, so whenever I put my head underwater it really hurt, so I always avoided water. I had an operation to fix it when I was nearly 13, but by then I wasnt interested in swimming. I tried to learn when I was about 16, but I just sink. My boyfriend said he will get around to teaching me, but I dont like water so I'm not thrilled.
Soooo basically I was an ear-cripple.

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

It's called 'equality'.

Besides there's the reasoning behind why women are being treated positively in this instance. Namely that they're being seen as weaker and treated that way. Treating women just like you're treating the children... well that has a rather nasty implication.

Or considered more valuable. I.e. as mothers or potential mothers. Either way it's an outdated viewpoint.

Regardless I imagine any 'rules' are generally thrown into the wind when something like this happens, especially if the organisation is poor.

Lord knows what I would do in such a situation, probably freak out like most people.

 

[The Bucket]

I think you're overthinking feminism when you become against the way that society treats women positively. That seems counterproductive.

Feminism (or at least real feminism) is also against women being treated better based solely on their gender. Its still sexist and its still not right.

 

[Phasmal]

I think you're overthinking feminism when you become against the way that society treats women positively. That seems counterproductive.

Feminism (or at least real feminism) is also against women being treated better based solely on their gender. Its still sexist and its still not right.

Ugh. This
Why do people think feminisim means rights only for women?
Its a campaign for equal rights. >.<

 

[The Bucket]

I think you're overthinking feminism when you become against the way that society treats women positively. That seems counterproductive.

Feminism (or at least real feminism) is also against women being treated better based solely on their gender. Its still sexist and its still not right.

Ugh. This
Why do people think feminisim means rights only for women?
Its a campaign for equal rights. >.<

The same reason Masculism has such a bad name. Unfortunately, the foaming-at-the-mouth-crazy bloggers are the only ones people enjoy paying attention to.

 

[HardkorSB]

OK, let's say that the ship starts to sink 100 miles off shore. Let's say that the water is freezing and if you would get in it, you would end up like DiCaprio in "Titanic" (spoiler warning).
If you would load the lifeboats with elderly and children, they wouldn't make it because they wouldn't be able to row the boats quick enough to reach the shore before starvation/dehydration etc.
What then?

If I was in that situation, I would say: "Fuck the elderly, I want to live!"

 

[Wolfram23]

I think "families first" followed by "single people". Basically. Maybe.

Part of me wants to say that crippled and elderly should be last, but the other part of me thinks I'm a huge asshole with no heart for even considering that.

 

[Findlebob]

Only the children part. After that youngest first.

 

[emeraldrafael]

There's more women in the world then there are men, so i dont think it will matter if that number is even as long as they're adults.

The way I see it, children should go, because tehy have their lives ahead of them. They should go with their familes.

Then you go to the disabled with a guardian.

Then you go to important adults 9say if a woman had the cure for aids, or a man the cure for the cancer).

Then after that its first come first serve.

...

Though I dont hink it matters. I think nowadays youre not legally allowed to sail if you dont have enough lifeboats for everyone.

 

[flaming_squirrel]

In a society of so called 'equal rights' the idea of putting women first in such a situation is rediculous and reminds me of the slightly odd saying of having your cake and eating it.
Positive discrimination is still discrimination no matter how you look at it.

Although in a situation where a ship is going down and there are sufficient lifeboats for the number of passengers, what's wrong with first come first served? Staff priority should be keeping everybody calm and orderly but getting them to safety as quickly as possible.
Everybody onboard has an equal right to being saved as anyone else.

Part of me wants to say that crippled and elderly should be last, but the other part of me thinks I'm a huge asshole with no heart for even considering that.

In a purely logical way, it makes sense. Dont think you'll get too many people admiting they'd support that approach though.

There's more women in the world then there are men, so i dont think it will matter if that number is even as long as they're adults.

The way I see it, children should go, because tehy have their lives ahead of them. They should go with their familes.

Then you go to the disabled with a guardian.

Then you go to important adults 9say if a woman had the cure for aids, or a man the cure for the cancer).

Wait, what. You'd put children and disabled ahead of somebody with the sole knowledge of curing cancer, that person being capable of saving millions of lives. Odd priorities.