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

[Kopikatsu]

I don't understand why everyone keeps saying 'Elderly first'. They don't have much life left to live. Why save them before the people who do still have a full life ahead of them and/or kids waiting back home? Srsly. The mentally inept and the physically incapable should be the last ones to be saved, if they are saved at all.

 

[Farther than stars]

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.

I think the logistical issue with that is that every place that the father takes up is one that a woman and child of another family could be sitting in first. Because supposing that the children can (mostly) sit on a woman's lap, when you offer two seats to two women and their children, you're statistically saving far large parts of more families as opposed to very few entire families.

 

[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.

I think the logistical issue with that is that every place that the father takes up is one that a woman and child of another family could be sitting in first. Because supposing that the children can (mostly) sit on a woman's lap, when you offer two seats to two women and their children, you're statistically saving far large parts of more families as opposed to very few entire families.

Of course whether it is a father or mother is irrelevant but I see your point in making sure that more families that at least have a parent child couple get on than entire families. Of course in a perfect world there would be enough life boats for everyone.

 

[Farther than stars]

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.

To reiterate, I do think men and women are different and therefore not euqal. Sure, we're all human, but we're also different in more ways than one. Therefore I believe that human rights should be the same for men and women, i.e. women should be allow to vote and should be paid the same as men, etc. But I think on a lot of issues we differ as far as genders are concerned in way that should also be reflected in the treatment between men and women. It doesn't necessarily have to be good or bad, just different; this issue being on of them.
And since you brought religion into it, I don't think religion is an absolute thing either. I would in fact definitely argue that there has been a lot of picking and choosing over the years; letting out part of the Torah when composing the Old Testament, for example. Also I know many Christians who themselves are evolutionists.
But I'm saying that these differentiations don't need to be a bad thing. After all, rigid religion has been proven to be dogmatic and dangerous to critical thinking, whereas, well, can you imagine how boring life would be if there wasn't an opposite gender?

 

[ResonanceSD]

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.

To reiterate, I do think men and women are different and therefore not euqal. Sure, we're all human, but we're also different in more ways than one. Therefore I believe that human rights should be the same for men and women, i.e. women should be allow to vote and should be paid the same as men, etc. But I think on a lot of issues we differ as far as genders are concerned in way that should also be reflected in the treatment between men and women. It doesn't necessarily have to be good or bad, just different; this issue being on of them.
And since you brought religion into it, I don't think religion is an absolute thing either. I would in fact definitely argue that there has been a lot of picking and choosing over the years; letting out part of the Torah when composing the Old Testament, for example. Also I know many Christians who themselves are evolutionists.
But I'm saying that these differentiations don't need to be a bad thing. After all, rigid religion has been proven to be dogmatic and dangerous to critical thinking, whereas, well, can you imagine how boring life would be if there wasn't an opposite gender?

The main point that the OP brought up was that equality shouldn't be sacrificed in situations where there's no reason to bring it up. In terms of women and children first, I think the most sensible solution would be to change that to "children and the disabled first"

 

[Farther than stars]

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.

I think the logistical issue with that is that every place that the father takes up is one that a woman and child of another family could be sitting in first. Because supposing that the children can (mostly) sit on a woman's lap, when you offer two seats to two women and their children, you're statistically saving far large parts of more families as opposed to very few entire families.

Of course whether it is a father or mother is irrelevant but I see your point in making sure that more families that at least have a parent child couple get on than entire families. Of course in a perfect world there would be enough life boats for everyone.

But there are enough life boats for everyone. Most western nations legally require their boats to have enough spaces on life boats in case the ship goes under. The real issue, however, is whether or not people can get on a life boat. Sometimes it takes a while to get them all in the water or for all the people to make it to a docking station. In case of, say, a tiddal wave, that can be tricky.
Also, as far as mothers over fathers is concerned, it's not just space which is an issue in life boats, but weight as well. Even if it's hard to draw up any conclusive evidence as to which gender is the stronger swimmer, you can definitely say that over all, women weigh less and have a lower BMI, meaning that's safer to put them in with the children for that reason.

 

[zehydra]

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. >.<

It's a campaign for equal rights with an exclusive focus on women. At least that's the impression I got from my feminism class. We had to research on Women's groups as part of our work, and many of them had nothing to do with equality.

 

[Farther than stars]

The main point that the OP brought up was that equality shouldn't be sacrificed in situations where there's no reason to bring it up. In terms of women and children first, I think the most sensible solution would be to change that to "children and the disabled first"

I don't think disabled people have ever been denied a place on a life boat. But then they are in a minority, so to make a general rule about that seems redundant, since we do live in a society which is mindful of them anyway.
As far as the children are concerned, however, who exactly is going to go with them if it's neither the father or the mother?

 

[illas]

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.

I fear you are making things worse.

Making concrete determinations based on physical aspects of gender is a terribly slippery slope.

Here is a highly contrived hypothetical that is not to be taken seriously: Due to their biology, men will never go on maternity leave. Therefore, they are potentially more valuable employees than women, and thus should be paid more. Obviously this is nonsense since not all women choose to have children (and even if they do, the survival and success of humanity is paramount). Furthermore, Men are more likely to be imprisoned, so should they be paid less because of that? Again, obviously not. Profile people based on gender, fine, just don't define them unnecessarily.

The generally acknowledged key to equality is equal rights and opportunities. Should biology determine things after this point, fine, of course men and women are different and should have the freedom to express that; but letting gender define rights and opportunities before individuals are able to make these decisions for themselves is detrimental to both gender's freedoms.

 

[ResonanceSD]

The main point that the OP brought up was that equality shouldn't be sacrificed in situations where there's no reason to bring it up. In terms of women and children first, I think the most sensible solution would be to change that to "children and the disabled first"

I don't think disabled people have ever been denied a place on a life boat. But then they are in a minority, so to make a general rule about that seems redundant, since we do live in a society which is mindful of them anyway.
As far as the children are concerned, however, who exactly is going to go with them if it's neither the father or the mother?

Other children, bring on Lord of the Flies. It's not a queue system, it's just preferred seating. The main point which you're still ignoring is "women before men", which is just an outdated axiom which needs to be removed.

 

[Ammutseba]

Children, elders and others (mentally and/or physically challanged) first, then everyone else.

I don't see why women are suppose to go first if we'er suppose to have equality. There's this little saying that goes: "You can't have a cake and eat it too".

Edit: spelling

 

[Farther than stars]

Making concrete determinations based on physical aspects of gender is a terribly slippery slope.

Here is a highly contrived hypothetical that is not to be taken seriously: Due to their biology, men will never go on maternity leave. Therefore, they are potentially more valuable employees than women, and thus should be paid more. Obviously this is nonsense since not all women choose to have children (and even if they do, the survival and success of humanity is paramount). Furthermore, Men are more likely to be imprisoned, so should they be paid less because of that? Again, obviously not. Profile people based on gender, fine, just don't define them unnecessarily.

The generally acknowledged key to equality is equal rights and opportunities. Should biology determine things after this point, fine, of course men and women are different and should have the freedom to express that; but letting gender define rights and opportunities before individuals are able to make these decisions for themselves is detrimental to both gender's freedoms.

Agreed. But the issue here isn't whether or not we should pay women less, rather whether or not we should let them off the sinking ship first. And as I think I have expressed to my fullest extent: I'm fine with that.

 

[illas]

Making concrete determinations based on physical aspects of gender is a terribly slippery slope.

Here is a highly contrived hypothetical that is not to be taken seriously: Due to their biology, men will never go on maternity leave. Therefore, they are potentially more valuable employees than women, and thus should be paid more. Obviously this is nonsense since not all women choose to have children (and even if they do, the survival and success of humanity is paramount). Furthermore, Men are more likely to be imprisoned, so should they be paid less because of that? Again, obviously not. Profile people based on gender, fine, just don't define them unnecessarily.

The generally acknowledged key to equality is equal rights and opportunities. Should biology determine things after this point, fine, of course men and women are different and should have the freedom to express that; but letting gender define rights and opportunities before individuals are able to make these decisions for themselves is detrimental to both gender's freedoms.

Agreed. But the issue here isn't whether or not we should pay women less, rather whether or not we should let them off the sinking ship first. And as I think I have expressed to my fullest extent: I'm fine with that.

The pay-gap thing was purely an example to highlight the ludicrousness of defining people by something that they both can't control, and don't necessarily have to engage with at all.

In this case in particular, the lifeboats in question are large enough and sufficiently buoyant to render gender irrelevant. Pragmatically, since the purpose of them is to float and await rescue (not be rowed back into port) potentially gender-based characteristics such as superior male strength (for rowing the things) or superior female child protection instincts (for caring for children too weak to care for themselves) don't really come into the equation at all.

When things are neutral like this, the solutions typically come down to the most basic human trait: the survival instinct. Hence, the OP's news article featuring men (and women) disregarding the old-fashioned adage in an effort to live.

 

[Farther than stars]

Making concrete determinations based on physical aspects of gender is a terribly slippery slope.

Here is a highly contrived hypothetical that is not to be taken seriously: Due to their biology, men will never go on maternity leave. Therefore, they are potentially more valuable employees than women, and thus should be paid more. Obviously this is nonsense since not all women choose to have children (and even if they do, the survival and success of humanity is paramount). Furthermore, Men are more likely to be imprisoned, so should they be paid less because of that? Again, obviously not. Profile people based on gender, fine, just don't define them unnecessarily.

The generally acknowledged key to equality is equal rights and opportunities. Should biology determine things after this point, fine, of course men and women are different and should have the freedom to express that; but letting gender define rights and opportunities before individuals are able to make these decisions for themselves is detrimental to both gender's freedoms.

Agreed. But the issue here isn't whether or not we should pay women less, rather whether or not we should let them off the sinking ship first. And as I think I have expressed to my fullest extent: I'm fine with that.

The pay-gap thing was purely an example to highlight the ludicrousness of defining people by something that they both can't control, and don't necessarily have to engage with at all.

In this case in particular, the lifeboats in question are large enough and sufficiently buoyant to render gender irrelevant. Pragmatically, since the purpose of them is to float and await rescue (not be rowed back into port) potentially gender-based characteristics such as superior male strength (for rowing the things) or superior female child protection instincts (for caring for children too weak to care for themselves) don't really come into the equation at all.

When things are neutral like this, the solutions typically come down to the most basic human trait: the survival instinct. Hence, the OP's news article featuring men (and women) disregarding the old-fashioned adage in an effort to live.

Fair enough, but if you don't mind I'm still going to adhere to traditional social conventions when it comes down to acts of chivalry. I guess that's just something we'll have to disagree on. But you do raise an interesting point about defining personalty. Is or should gender be a part of who you are? I say yes, but that's enough from me for now. I hope you have a nice day or sleep well, wherever you are.

 

[illas]

Fair enough, but if you don't mind I'm still going to adhere to traditional social conventions when it comes down to acts of chivalry. I guess that's just something we'll have to disagree on. But you do raise an interesting point about defining personalty. Is or should gender be a part of who you are? I say yes, but that's enough from me for now. I hope you have a nice day or sleep well, wherever you are.

I'd tend to agree: the genders are intrinsically a little different.

I just think we as a society should not formalize those characteristics/definitions and instead leave it up to people to work out for themselves.

Oh, and of course we can agree to disagree

 

[Squilookle]

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".

Finally- someone sees sense.

There is rarely time to get every passenger to flex, star jump and produce their freaking swimming medals to determine who should stay and who should go. In time of crisis, an easily identifiable and followable plan is essential, and while not all women are physically weaker than all men, in any given cross section of a population, it's more probable that they will be. Therefore, Women and Children first. The rule is still relevant and always will be.

 

[cthulhumythos]

to be frank, i will try to save my skin as fast as possible. there is no higher priority.

honestly, as long as families stay together, i don't think it matters who gets on first.

 

[The Night Shade]

Children, youngsters and disabled people then all the rest

But if i were in that situation i'll just grab the people i know or my family and get to the nearest boat really fast