Cruiseliner disaster: "Women and children first" Still relevant today?
- Thread starter pulse2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think there was a time tested reason why women and children were saved first. This is more from a historical standpoint (I'm talking 1500's here), where women were seen as weaker than men who would willing fight and possibly die to defend the women and the children.This phosphine went all the way up to the time when the Titanic sank, but after the World Wars women gained a different social perspective and began to work instead of staying at home. In this current age I think that there is the potential to change the phrase to 'parents and children first,' instead because women who are now equal to men in all respects. (I really hope I don't sound sexist)
Children first. That's the most important. From then, form up queues. Anyone who wants to get off sooner can jump into the water and swim for it. Anyone else must line up and get on in an orderly fashion.
Should physically and mentally disabled people and elderly people get to go on first?
No. That is working both against natural selection (Social species, doesn't matter as much, IDC) and forcing misery upon others for little gain.
Now, think about this. Which would hurt you more: Your grandmother died, or your mother did. Odds are, your mother. Your grandmother would be old, and you would know she would die sometime soon anyway. In addition, she probably isn't the main one taking care of you and providing for you.
On the other hand, you expect your mother to be there for many years to come, and she likely takes care of you on a day to day basis and provides a portion of your financial support shared with your father.
If someone must die, let it be the old. Personally, I would try to make it myself the last person to get on. I can swim quite well, and would jump off before a the main part of the ship started sinking so that the drag of it going down wouldn't be as strong. I am intelligent enough to know how to survive in such situations, and have experience in situations similar to this, though not on the open ocean, from my days sailing. I could also likely swim to and hold onto the side of a life boat and help myself survive. On top of that, I don't feel my life is worth that much compared to others, and would gladly save others before myself.
Baring that though, Elderly people will contribute the least to society, are the most expected to die anyway, are the slowest of the lot so it would likely take more time to load them all up than to load on a full set of adults, and are usually not as important to a family as a middle aged parent is.
When you form a queue, there should be nothing to complain about. The order is 100% luck, so the elderly who were up near the front will likely get in before the fit up the back. It is a lottery of who will get on, and thus nobody should complain, and if someone feels so self entitled that they should get to go on first as they are more important than others, I'd throw them off the boat (Not really, but that sort of behaviour annoys me [I should go first! I'm a woman/elderly/disabled/millionaire/ect!])
Really, children first, queue up after that. Sorting out who should go first by physical condition, contribution to society, ect. takes far too long. In that time, more people could be unloaded onto liferats, and if there isn't enough then more people could jump for it and hang onto the sides of the rafts before the ship went under and its pull got even more powerful.
Should physically and mentally disabled people and elderly people get to go on first?
No. That is working both against natural selection (Social species, doesn't matter as much, IDC) and forcing misery upon others for little gain.
Now, think about this. Which would hurt you more: Your grandmother died, or your mother did. Odds are, your mother. Your grandmother would be old, and you would know she would die sometime soon anyway. In addition, she probably isn't the main one taking care of you and providing for you.
On the other hand, you expect your mother to be there for many years to come, and she likely takes care of you on a day to day basis and provides a portion of your financial support shared with your father.
If someone must die, let it be the old. Personally, I would try to make it myself the last person to get on. I can swim quite well, and would jump off before a the main part of the ship started sinking so that the drag of it going down wouldn't be as strong. I am intelligent enough to know how to survive in such situations, and have experience in situations similar to this, though not on the open ocean, from my days sailing. I could also likely swim to and hold onto the side of a life boat and help myself survive. On top of that, I don't feel my life is worth that much compared to others, and would gladly save others before myself.
Baring that though, Elderly people will contribute the least to society, are the most expected to die anyway, are the slowest of the lot so it would likely take more time to load them all up than to load on a full set of adults, and are usually not as important to a family as a middle aged parent is.
When you form a queue, there should be nothing to complain about. The order is 100% luck, so the elderly who were up near the front will likely get in before the fit up the back. It is a lottery of who will get on, and thus nobody should complain, and if someone feels so self entitled that they should get to go on first as they are more important than others, I'd throw them off the boat (Not really, but that sort of behaviour annoys me [I should go first! I'm a woman/elderly/disabled/millionaire/ect!])
Really, children first, queue up after that. Sorting out who should go first by physical condition, contribution to society, ect. takes far too long. In that time, more people could be unloaded onto liferats, and if there isn't enough then more people could jump for it and hang onto the sides of the rafts before the ship went under and its pull got even more powerful.
Youngest to oldest. Sex shouldn't come into it at all.
Especially if you take feminists into account. They want equal rights, well chivalry isn't covered by that.
Especially if you take feminists into account. They want equal rights, well chivalry isn't covered by that.
The children bit is obvious.
Huh I never thought about how the men are supposed to be more physically able to save themselves ... I always thought it was about how women are more "precious" because they can bear children.
Huh I never thought about how the men are supposed to be more physically able to save themselves ... I always thought it was about how women are more "precious" because they can bear children.
Will thats what comes with wanting equality. Although i think woman only want equality when it suits them.
April 14th 1912:
MAN: ?Women and children only please.?
25 years ago:
WOMAN: ?Women want sex equality?
15 years ago:
WOMAN:?Women to fight sexism?
5 years ago:
WOMAN:?Women winning on sex equality?
4 days ago:
WOMAN: ?It was unbelievable, men were trying to get into the lifeboats before women?
So its kids first.....then everyone else.
April 14th 1912:
MAN: ?Women and children only please.?
25 years ago:
WOMAN: ?Women want sex equality?
15 years ago:
WOMAN:?Women to fight sexism?
5 years ago:
WOMAN:?Women winning on sex equality?
4 days ago:
WOMAN: ?It was unbelievable, men were trying to get into the lifeboats before women?
So its kids first.....then everyone else.
Actually, I heard someone say on a radio program about the disaster, that they tend to try to keep families together, rather than 'women and children first', as it tends to speed things up when you don't split families and people start worrying about missing members of their family.
I will always put children in front of me when it comes to the situation. Then likely I'd put everyone else in front of me too.
I'm not sure whether there would be time to organise groups as specifically as people are mentioning here. I think women and children first is a rule of thumb, just to cause physically/mentally capable people of calmly and do whatever they can without panic.
I don't know whether its PC or equal, but I think the concept is to have people ask themselves whether they can put other people before their own safety. Which I think is an admirable attitude for society to adopt.
It needn't be militant in its execution but if people can be brave and try and help people they think might struggle they are most likely to save a larger number of lives.
Of course, I realise that it's easy to say that kinda stuff from behind a keyboard.
I don't know whether its PC or equal, but I think the concept is to have people ask themselves whether they can put other people before their own safety. Which I think is an admirable attitude for society to adopt.
It needn't be militant in its execution but if people can be brave and try and help people they think might struggle they are most likely to save a larger number of lives.
Of course, I realise that it's easy to say that kinda stuff from behind a keyboard.
I asked a Captain about this and he said:pulse2 said:
"First or last is irrelevant. I will ensure that all would be safely evacuated in due time should there be need to abandon ship. Any evacuation will be orderly and swift with no delays"
Seems to be his way of saying it would be a waste of valuable time trying to split up families and groups along age and gender lines especially when there should be plenty of life boats to go around and if everything goes to procedure everyone who can make it to the lifeboat mustering point should find a place and a place in time.
The "women and children first" seems to be for situations where all plans have gone to hell and there is a critical shortage of life boats and any rescue is a long way off, so a form of triage is performed partially on the logic that if some have to treat water for however long then it is better the men who are generally stronger than women or children. This would also go that wounded men should go on the life boat as well as disabled or otherwise would find it harder to survive on open seas. So you could say the rule is:
"those less able to swim first - which includes usually women and children"
Though maybe even that is anachronistic in light of how social attitudes to women's physical activity means as a population they may be just as capable to treat water. Maybe a young and physically fit woman queueing for a place on the life boat should give up her place to someone who is physically frail.
I'd like the the Wikipedia article on Triage, but with the blackout it wouldn't be very helpful.
Interestingly, when the Titanic sank gender and age were quite irrelevant to class and wealth.
Those with first class tickets were evacuated first and given plenty of room to stretch their legs on the large lifeboats. It's almost as if someone on the design committee was happy if there were only enough lifeboats for the rich passengers as if the malnourished working class were somehow more capable of surviving on the open sea.
Those with first class tickets were evacuated first and given plenty of room to stretch their legs on the large lifeboats. It's almost as if someone on the design committee was happy if there were only enough lifeboats for the rich passengers as if the malnourished working class were somehow more capable of surviving on the open sea.
You make a valid point, but I think in that type of situation, it'd be unrealistic to take a look at everyone on board and divide the "strong" from the "weak". Men = strong and women = weak is very dated now but its still a fast and at least somewhat accurate way of judging it.
I agree with you and dont think many (all joking aside) would disagree with children first. But then they of course need their parents, which raises the real issue of; both parents or just the mother? Personally Id find it incredibly extra tragic for so many families to be broken up because fathers couldnt go to. But then that means "All those without families here - yeah you're screwed"...
As for rules about elderly going first/last and all that, I think they should get the choice. It should be for them to decide on the spot - do they really want to go or are they ok to stay.
I agree with you and dont think many (all joking aside) would disagree with children first. But then they of course need their parents, which raises the real issue of; both parents or just the mother? Personally Id find it incredibly extra tragic for so many families to be broken up because fathers couldnt go to. But then that means "All those without families here - yeah you're screwed"...
As for rules about elderly going first/last and all that, I think they should get the choice. It should be for them to decide on the spot - do they really want to go or are they ok to stay.
