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

[Henkie36]

Well, in all fairness, it's usually true that the men are simply the strongest people. So if the ship were to go down before all the people on it were safely in the life boats, they would have the biggest chance of being able to reach the life boats swimming.

What's always true is that adult men have bigger lungs the adult women of the same size, let alone children. Therefore, they can hold their breath longer and again, have a bigger chance of survival if the ship goes down with them.

But then again, we live in an ''equal rights'' society, so in my mind, that should work both ways. We're all equally too fat and equally incapable of swimming so why not just say: who gets to the life boats first, leaves the ship first.

What I will say is that I think that the captain should leave the ship last, not as what happened here, one of the first. He is responsible, he should carry that responsibility till the end.

 

[Substitute Troll]

This is my order of importance

Children (with respective parents if possible)
Parents (see above)
Younger men AND women without children
Older men AND women without children
Elderly

See how I put the elderly at the bottom? I mean, I love my 70+ old grandfather... But there's no way he deserves to live longer at the expense of someone around 20 or 30.

 

[fix-the-spade]

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

That's the theory, but then the boat tipped over, it became somewhat moot how many life rafts there were because one side's are dangling uselessly in the air while the other side's are being held many feet under the water on their mountings.

As for the women and children thing?

Bah, better to organise into family groups and crew, better to not save the kid at all than leave them alone in the world. Cold hearted I know, but more practical than generating a whole pile of parentless and traumatised children in one go.

Also, what was the captain playing at? Aside from crashing in the first place, abandoning ship with the crew and most of the passengers still on board? Dirty coward...

 

[Saladfork]

Well, biologically speaking, saving the lives of, say, 100 women at the expense of 100 men makes more sense than the reverse because multiple women can bear children from fewer men whereas multiple men and fewer women results in much less overall population growth.

 

[kickassfrog]

Women generally have lower density than men... because, you know, typically men have more muscle and women have boobs.
Cutting back to track, I think we should just allow women to think whether or not they want equal treatment, or the perks of not dying.

 

[Dogstile]

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. >.<

Probably the hundreds of blogs belonging to "feminists" (using the term loosely, as they're not real feminists) trying to get that idea across.

OT:

Yeah, as a bloke, if i'm on a lifeboat and you're gonna tell me you have a right to be on there more than me because you have a family, i'm going to tell you to fuck off. I have one too, just because i'm not the father doesn't mean I don't help support it.

So no, I don't support the rule.

Edit: And yes, i'm a supported of the "fuck steve, throw him overboard" rule XD

 

[someonehairy-ish]

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

Screw steve, he can stay on the ship.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

Perhaps it's just me, but I would save the children first (because they still have their entire life ahead of them) and the elderly next, for all the knowledge and experiences they've seen, so that they may pass this down to the children.

 

[Jegsimmons]

personally, fuck women and children first. who ever gets to the life boat first first.

learn to swim *****!

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. >.<

tell them that then.

 

[Gamergeek25]

Children first, then elderly and then I would make a dash to save my life

 

[Phisi]

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

Hold on I may have a Wikipedia link to help you with this umm.... Here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism

Feminism has fragmented into many different groups. You could compare it to Christianity in that the West Boro Baptist church is a Christian denomination but doesn't follow Christian ideas of other denominations. Add to that the women who go around accusing people of being sexist and how they are feminists and have the moral superiority of that position without actually understanding any of it and just use it to forward their own agenda like one of my teachers who said that girls were smarter than boys and would dismiss any opposition as coming from stupid boys :/

Basically, a new word is needed that solely means gender equality and not to forward men's or women's rights so it can not be miss-used. I suppose that would fall into Humanism.

Sorry for the late reply, my internet broke while I was typing this.

 

[isometry]

Small children first is not logical because they have the least knowledge and skills and are the most easily replaced. Take the extreme of a baby, they don't know anything or have any skills, and can be replaced in just a year or two. Compare that to a young adult who after decades of society putting resources into raising them is in the prime of their life and ready to be productive.

 

[Bad Jim]

Women and children are, on average, lighter than men. So you can put more of them on a lifeboat than men. If the number of useable lifeboats is insufficient, more people will be saved with a "women and children first" policy than with a "first come first saved" policy.

 

[Durgiun]

OK, here's how it should be.

Children go first and then the men and women have a ''who can drink more sulphuric acid'' contest to decide to who goes next.

 

[ResonanceSD]

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.

I think the idea is equality in all things, including emergencies. The concept that women are less likely to survive in hazardous situations, because they're women, is sexist. Therefore, a rule of "disabled people first" might be more fair, because disabled people, by the nature of their condition, are less likely to survive in hazardous conditions.

 

[t3h br0th3r]

OK, here's how it should be.

Children go first and then the men and women have a ''who can drink more sulphuric acid'' contest to decide to who goes next.

I vote for this.

 

[MammothBlade]

Children and disabled people first, I don't think gender should come into it. Adult men and women go without preference for either.