Poll: Do you believe in "women and children first"?

Recommended Videos

Goofguy

New member
Nov 25, 2010
3,864
0
0
So with a lot of focus on the Titanic tragedy's centennial this past week, I've been reading some news articles about the ship's evacuation debacle. As a result of the lifeboat shortage and the priority thus given to women and children, approximately 80% of the men on board perished. In such a time when the men were the breadwinners, this left a lot of the surviving wives and children destitute.

Now, the "women and children" principle has never been law but rather a chivalrous principle to follow and even then, it's been relatively rare in execution. Nonetheless, Hollywood has done quite the job of romanticizing the notion of the husband remaining behind while the wife and children are led to safety almost to a point where anything less would seem immoral.

So I ask you, do you believe the "women and children first" to be appropriate in this day and age?

What about the single parent father? Or the adopted child's gay parents? Should they be told to stay aboard because they are men?

How about the feminist? If she wants equal social rights, should she not cede her seat on the lifeboat to one of the aforementioned men? Or is a mother always the more important parent than the father?

I am by no means trying to start a gender war but rather, see what people think about a potentially outdated principle.
 

DarkRyter

New member
Dec 15, 2008
3,077
0
0
Ultimately there's really no "Anybody goes first". No life has any objective value or another, or really any objective value at all.

I'm just gonna go with children first, because I like kids more than adults. There's no real reasoning behind it other than my own irrationality.
 

Nouw

New member
Mar 18, 2009
15,615
0
0
I believe in chance. No one should have value over anyone else.
 

The Scythian

New member
Jun 8, 2010
280
0
0
I believe in "me first." As long as I'm safe, the rest doesn't matter. All life is equal in that it is not equal to mine.

Anyway, if I'm not on said boat, then I think whoever gets to the raft first should get it.
 

Heaven's Guardian

New member
Oct 22, 2011
117
0
0
Yes to both. Honestly, since everything seems to be sexist in some way nowadays, I've decided to emulate St. Alphonsus de Liguori, in that I will follow my conscience first instead of trying to rationalize my theoretical actions and do something I would be uncomfortable with.
 

afroebob

New member
Oct 1, 2011
470
0
0
TestECull said:
No. The orny little shits are not my responsibility, they are their parent's.
Wow... your kind of a prick. I won't put a woman's life over a mans, but I will put a childs life over my own. I don't think one life has more value over another, but I think a younger child deserves to know what it feels like to be an adult more than an adult has the right to know what it is to be elderly.
 

Indecipherable

Senior Member
Mar 21, 2010
590
0
21
I'd live to regret it but I'd probably save myself in preference to someone I don't know a thing about, man, woman or child.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Since the situation in which "Women and Children First" would be relevant is generally one of intense physical stress, I'd adjust it to "The weakest go first", as the strong have a better chance of surviving as the situation worsens. Due to biology, this tends to naturally manifest as women and children first. However, should we have some physically powerful women and/or excessively brave and herculean kids, they shouldn't be among the first.
 

FamoFunk

Dad, I'm in space.
Mar 10, 2010
2,628
0
0
I think Children and disabled people first. They need help being saved, but I do think Women should go with them in some cases as the child needs at least one parent, and in most cases the Woman is the one who raises the child and can cope better as a single parent.

Physically fit people have more chance of survival if saving themselves so should try and help other people who cannot do that (i.e Toddler or wheelchair user).
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Goofguy said:
So with a lot of focus on the Titanic tragedy's centennial this past week, I've been reading some news articles about the ship's evacuation debacle. As a result of the lifeboat shortage and the priority thus given to women and children, approximately 80% of the men on board perished. In such a time when the men were the breadwinners, this left a lot of the surviving wives and children destitute.
I'm not sure that's true, actually. As I understand it, it was rich women and children, then rich men, and then other people.

If you were a rich man, you weren't worse off than a rich woman, you just made a show of how much of a gentleman you are before abandoning the poor people, who are fucked whatever their gender.

IMHO, that's how "women and children first" tends to work. You can make a big deal of being chivalrous, but as long as it doesn't actually put you in danger.
 

TechNoFear

New member
Mar 22, 2009
446
0
0
They did airline crash experiments and found that the plane evacuation was orderly with women and children first.

Then they offered a cash prize for the first 'survivors' off the plane. The result was males under 25 have a MUCH better chance of 'surviving' a plane crash.

Consider that when you are deciding who gets saved.

The Titanic demonstrates a moral code (of chivalry) that is no longer any where as dominant as it once was. In some ways it is sad to see that respect disappear, but was required to facilitate equality of the sexes.

Personally, I was taught to help a woman or child in distress, even at personal cost (although I have not yet been asked to give up my place in a lifeboat...).
 

Gatx

New member
Jul 7, 2011
1,458
0
0
Goofguy said:
As a result of the lifeboat shortage and the priority thus given to women and children, approximately 80% of the men on board perished. In such a time when the men were the breadwinners, this left a lot of the surviving wives and children destitute.
With that in mind you might do well to have something like "children and parents" first or "families" first. Children are the future and all that. Can't succeed as a species if the older generation places themselves above the younger.

OT: Actually starting to enjoy the captchas: "describe this brand with any word(s)"
 

Phisi

New member
Jun 1, 2011
425
0
0
I don't think any sentient life is greater than any other. It come down to chance, fate if you believe in it and I don't think you should force people to sacrifice themselves to save others. It is like the train track thing switch the track and kill one guy and save four people. I would not do it because I do not have the right to decide whether that person dies or not, only they do. If you want to sacrifice your safety to try to save other people then that is your choice but I don't think it should be forced especially based on something like sex.

EDIT: if you're a parent you should try saving your child first as they are your responsibility for deciding to have children just as it is your responsibility to feed them etc. That's it I think.
 

AngloDoom

New member
Aug 2, 2008
2,461
0
0
TizzytheTormentor said:
You save yourself and If you can save anyone else, do that, but you NEVER take a chance on you're own life.
Agreed. It somehow seems ungrateful to throw yourself away for the sake of a stranger: is their life really worth more than yours?

Personally, I take the First Aid approach to life - ensure your own safety before you consider the safety of others. You can't help anyone when you're dead.
 

Fieldy409_v1legacy

New member
Oct 9, 2008
2,686
0
0
Yes.

Id like to think Id do the brave thing and protect those weaker than me, even if it is from something like drowning where strength doesnt mean much.

I know it doesnt make sense in this world where women and men are equal but I just feel that way. Kids are a no brainer though, you save the kids first.