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

[Random berk]

Whatever order the passengers are evacuated in, the crew should be last. They are the ones who are trained to deal with such an emergency, they need to make sure as many people escape as possible. I'm think its a maritime law that the crew of a stricken passenger ship remain on board to assist in the evacuation as long as they can, couldn't say for certain though.

The captain of this ship was not only criminally incompetent, but a damned coward. Christ, he could have at least waited to see if the ship continued to sink for a bit before he bugged out on both the passengers and his crew who were counting on his leadership. Not only this, but the he refused to go back on board to carry out his duty when the ship came to rest on the sandbank and the harbour master ordered him to go aboard! This man deserves to not only lose his licence, but should be universally unemployable, and should live out the rest of his days in disgrace.

 

[Floppertje]

no, it's not. and honestly, it never was.
not out of some moral question, but more out of practicality. everyone seems to assume people will just get on the lifeboats in whatever order the powers that be decide, but that's not how it works. If you're on a sinking boat, first thing you do is locate your family, stick together and try to get out. you shouldn't seperate families during crises like a boat sinking, or they'll go back into the ship to look for each other, creating a much larger chaos and thus killing more people. also, what if those first groups of women and children get into a situation where they need a man's strength? don't seperate them, just get groups into the lifeboats as quickly as possible.
What I DO think, is that the crew should be the last to go, because they can guide the passangers to the lifeboats, make the whole thing go much smoother and thus make sure more people get into the lifeboats

 

[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.

*sigh* You're not using just logic. You're using a set of values independent of logic and going from there. Logic alone doesn't state that we ought to save the least replaceable first, that depends on a system that says we ought to value lives based on productivity in society. Logic alone doesn't care if we all live or die, you have to throw in human values.

You're right, I should have said "if we value people's lives according productivity, we should not prioritize children's lives."

The reason I felt that point has logical content, is because I see some people embracing the premise but not the conclusion. But you're right, I didn't quote people to properly build the context of what I was arguing against.

 

[thraza]

i know this may sound evil but why are there so many people saying instead of women and children children cripples and old people. why would you put the slowest first. sure its nice but it will likely slow down the group leaving less time of others ( there is a bit of an exception with children since they barley lived their lives and their small so you can get a lot of them out)
.

 

[MarsProbe]

It should just be free for all in my opinion.

It may sound a bit callous, but I'm somewhat inclined to agree with this. I've never been in such a situation as this so I don't know how things pan in out in such life or death circumstances, but, if I was there by myself (that is, no friends or family around to consider), my only thought would be "I'm going to try and get out of here, and damn the consequences".

When the chips are down, I'd basically just be trying to get myself out of there and continue to live to see another day - and I'd expect many others to be doing the same, really.

 

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Farther than stars]

A position no doubt based on extensive study... oh wait I just googled "men vs woman endurance" and found: http://www.active.com/swimming/Articles/Men-Vs-Women-in-Endurance-Sports.htm

And I'm sure that "extensive study" of yours could really be put to the test if the boat was full of athletes. But besides that, I also seem to have noted that the people against my position appear to be exclusively male, including you. That strikes me as extremely odd as well.

 

[Dense_Electric]

I think you're missing the point. It's not about survival odds (frankly EVERYONE is an individual and therefor EVERYONE has different survival odds), it's about treating people fairly.

 

[RatRace123]

I don't think that it's totally relevant anymore.

I'd say that children should still go first, but they should have equal priority with the handicapped and the elderly.

Adults, men and women alike should also have equal priority with one another, and come after the first batch.

And naturally I should go before anyone else, I mean that's just common sense, I'm far too important.

 

[IbanezLaney]

Children 1st, Women 2nd, Men/Physically fit/well adults 3rd, Elderly/Very Sick 4th.

Many wouldn't use spots on life boats for someone who only has 10 years of life left or already dying when there are adults with 40-50 productive years who have kids to look after. I think most people will agree with me on Kids 1st then Women 2nd but I think lots won't like my 3rd and 4th positions. It's like a medic in battle - the ones with the least/no chance of life ahead of them are attended to last, if at all. Same should apply here.

If someone is so strongly feminist that they would not get on the boat till the end - good on em. At least their actions match their words and they should be commended for having the guts to stand up for their beliefs in such a dire situation.

But the fake 'feminists' who are really 'anti-menists' would be on that boat in a second without caring who is left behind.

 

[Dense_Electric]

I'm just going to say this (in general, to no one in particular) about our hypothetical situation: If you are male and you would like to stay behind until everyone who had the simple fortune to be born with a vagina is off, you go right ahead and do that. If you try to stop me leaving, though, we're going to have a problem.

Also, I'm just saying, it is the two-thousand twelfth year of the Gregorian Calendar. The fact that we're even having this discussion is a little disheartening.

 

[him over there]

children and Parents first is more sensible. The main reason mostly is to keep the parents and children as a unified group so there aren't any orphans after the disaster or parents living with the grief of leaving behind a child with maybe eighty years of their life left. After that disabled people on the grounds that they probably need assistance getting into the lifeboats.

 

[chadachada123]

For me, it's not so much that "women" should go before me, it's "anyone less physically fit than me, and with more stubbornness than myself." This includes children, the elderly, most middle-aged people, and most women.

I wouldn't leave until I was damn-sure everyone else was off before me or until I'm physically forced off. Considering that I'm a 20-year old fairly-fit male, and an ex-lifeguard/state swimmer, I'm willing to put myself at risk to get others off ahead of me because I know that *I* am physically able to endure more (especially concerning water) than most others.

I consider it my duty as a human being to help as many people as possible in an emergency like this.

 

[ResonanceSD]

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.

A paragon? You should be the one using TNTF! and SY! To ensure that everyone gets 66% Damage reduction.

boom

The idea behind equality is that everyone is equal. Not to pick and choose which bits are to be equal. You know, just like religion, either it's all true or it isn't, you can't pick and choose there either.

 

[Ariseishirou]

As a woman yeah, I don't think it should apply anymore. We don't wear corsets so tight we'll faint from the slightest exertion anymore, or 50lbs of skirts.