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

[museofdoom]

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.

This! I always thought of that phrase to mean mothers and their children first. However, I think we should include the fathers because they are just as important as the mothers in my opinion.

After families I think it should be the physically/mentally handicapped and elderly. And then everyone else.

Although this whole thing is kind of a grey area, as is any argument involving morality. It's kind of like trying to determine who's life is more important which is kind of impossible if we want everyone to be equal. And then there's the strictly logic standpoint that we should let all the young healthy people on the lifeboats first because they will contribute more to society. I still think it should be children and their parents, and then disabled and elderly first, because I was raised to be courteous and put the less capable ahead of me.

There's so much I could say on this topic but alas, I have midterms to study for.

 

[The Lesbian Flower]

Oh, come on, after the Titanic sunk wouldn't all cruisers be equipped with all the lifeboats needed to save all the passengers and then some? Really, this debate is unnecessary.

 

[MikeOfThunder]

I don't think any general 'rule' applies really. If you are able to help people and are in no immediate danger yourself, help those around you that need it.

 

[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.

It'll be interesting to see where you got the evidence that women are so much worse at swimming in open water compared to men. Or are you just assuming that it's all sheer force?

It'll be interesting to see where you got your evidence that I said anything *whatsoever* about women being so much worse at swimming in open water than men. Can you point out that part for me? I'm having trouble finding an open water swimming gender comparison part in my post. At all.

Oh I see, so you were talking about... what when you were yammering about women being physically weaker? Their ability to carry boxes off the ship with them?

Yes, that's it. That's it exactly. Carrying boxes off the ship. The biggest factor in deciding who stays and who goes.

I don't even know why I'm even bothering with a reply to this. Believe whatever you want to believe, kid.

Honestly. boxes...

 

[CosmicCommander]

Imposing chivalry where a rational decision should be should dated and moronic. Nothing makes the life of a woman, child or man inherently more valuable than the others. Should someone help a disabled or elderly person get aboard a life craft? I'd say yes, but it should not be required of them.

Here's how the list goes in my view:
1) People I know (because I care about my family and friend more than other people, sorry)
2) Me
3) Kids
4) Their parents
5) Everyone else
6) Steve (fuck that guy)

These are my sentiments.

I'm all for being courteous and such, but I hold my existence and the existences of those I care for to be far more valuable than the lives of others- and I don't see how gender or age should give people a greater case to live; a death is equally tragic, regardless of their chromosomes or maturity.

 

[Dimitriov]

It's a biological imperative thing really. The species needs more women than men, and obviously children, for survival. And no that doesn't seem important today, but that's no reason to discontinue the practice. Just because most of us currently live a world where survival is a non issue is no excuse to become weak.

I have no problem dying if a number of other people can live, and if someone else does I am not sure the rest of us really need them around. But if it makes you feel any better: I am betting I would still qualify a bunch of you as children anyway.

 

[joshuaayt]

Nope. Children first, with any guardians, disabled adults, then everyone else. Ordered by cabin number, maybe. Gender is beyond irrelevant in this case- we might as well include race, if we want to be really archaic.

Seems to me the best solution is to retire all cruiseships- any vessel of such elevated size is going to be a ***** to evacuate safely.

Why not just a lot of little things, maybe the ocean equivalent of buses, in a fleet instead? Wouldn't even need to worry about order, then, just "A'ight, everyone out- getting a bit wet in here"

 

[Abedeus]

IT'S EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF!

...Okay, now help me!

OKAY, EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF!

 

[Neonit]

it is something everyone should decide by themselves. do you want to give up your seat for a woman/child/elderly? more power to you - but that should not be enforced by rules, neither those made by society nor the regular ones.
personally? i dont think i would give up my place for a stranger, someone who i know - maybe, but stranger?
and lets not forget that there is a matter of panic involved. you want reasonable behavior out of scared people? well, good luck in your long search.

also, i would like to remind you that (speaking as a whole, in stereotypical manner....) men are maybe "stronger" that women, but far less "durable". sinking would probably by one of those thing women would be better able to handle.

 

[applesandoranges]

edit

 

[liveslowdiefast]

yeah children part i'd agree with, but an able bodied adult, i think it should be fair.

 

[Joby Baumann]

It's called chivalry, maybe it's outdated and all, but hey

 

[ShadowsofHope]

1) Children
2) Everyone else
3) Steve

That is my very simple list. Steve threw all my cheerio's in the trash this morning, so fuck that guy.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Maybe it does for some people, children should be helped but my opinion on the "women" part can be eloquently summarized with: FUCK THAT SHIT.

"cue footage of me scrambling for the lifeboats while "Move *****!" plays in the background."

actually I couldn't help but think of this video....

 

[Meatspinner]

If we are going to be discriminate between who gets saved first then lets just do what we always do.

The rich in first then the regular Joe followed by the cripples and minorities that nobody cares about.

 

[Blobpie]

Here is the order (in my mind):

1.The kiddies
2.Their parents
3.Grandma (for her cookies) and grandpa
4.Me
5.Other people
6.Pets
7.plants
8.Fish

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Those with the highest initiative go first.

 

[alandavidson]

Under current conditions it's irrelevant because the law requires there to be more seats in the lifeboats than there are passengers aboard the ship. And everyone is issued life vests with a signal beacon that says "help me, I'm in the water!" to every damn radio frequency within 500 miles.

Personally, I'm not worried about it because I've been trained in ocean survival, and if I don't make it onto the lifeboat in time because I let someone else (regardless of age or gender) on before me, I can easily swim to another lifeboat, and carry someone with me if need be.

The best thing anyone can do is keep calm and exit the ship in an orderly fashion and you'll have very few casualties.