What do you think of the notion of "women and children first" during a disaster?

[AngryAmish]

When the Italian cruise ship ran aground there were reports that men pushed past women and children (and other men) to get at the lifeboats.

I can understand the notion of children first but is there room in our society prioritizing one sex over another during a disaster?

[onehandle]

1. It would be women and children first with me.

No argument. Go. I'll be behind you.

[roguevalley]

38. agreed

[HappyMe]

2. First come, first served basis would be fair.

I hope I never have to find out.

[RZM]

30. Isn't the point of women and children first to avoid that

Men are more physically powerful and can force their way through a crowd better than women and children can (obviously there are exceptions).

[HappyMe]

50. I'm going on the assumption that there is 1 spot available

on the life boats per person. And also that the captain isn't a bonehead.

I personally would not get on a life boat without my love. I also don't believe that the men are all going to shove everyone out of the way.

[RZM]

52. I have read accounts of that happening

During WWII. When the enemy is approaching, evacuation scenes can get really ugly.

Plus, it appears that the captain on the Italian liner really was a bonehead. According to what I heard on the radio today, he might be brought up on charges of abandoning his ship. Apparently Italian law says that captains are required to stay on board during evacuation to direct the process and provide leadership. It looks like this guy left the ship way early. He could get 12 years for that alone.

[HappyMe]

61. I saw a couple of captains being interviewed earlier today.

They all said that the captain is always the last to leave the ship. That it is rule number 1 of the sea/ships.

This particular captain left the ship. Instead of ordering the evacuation way earlier, he was busy with ordering drinkies and a meal, and complaining to room service that his companion's dessert wasn't on the tray.

I would just hold tight to my sweeties hand and hope for the best.

[cbayer]

107. He's going to get even more for manslaughter, but anyone who is a captain of any size

vessel knows that the captain always stays with the boat until everyone else is safe. It is the number one responsibility of the captain... always.

The thought that this guy got off and then resisted re-boarding is anathema to the boating community.

[kiranon]

96. Children would come in last so from their point of view - not fair.

Believe idea that women and children go first was to preserve the species and because many men believed in helping women and children along with themselves. Men would fill most of the slots if "first come, first served" were the rule. Just depends on one's point of view whether to help one's own children or the children of others. As a much older woman, I'd give up my spot on the life boat to a child, woman or younger man who could help the women and children survive.

[arcane1]

3. It makes sense to me...

especially in a HUGE disaster. Quite simply, it's easier to repopulate with a high ratio of women to men than it would be if it were the other way around.

[ret5hd]

4. I'm a devout follower of George Costanza on this subject:

?t=1m19s

(i kid, i kid)

[Swamp Lover]

5. My only child and and grandchild are female so I'm in favor.

But as a practical matter, as men typically have greater upper body strength, men in a position to help women and children maximizes the survival of all concerned. If all of the men and able bodied women dash to the boats or exits, then the weaker who might need help (including elderly men) are less likely to survive. If the able bodied are last to evacuate then more are saved.

Including women in the list of "first out" is just practical as a matter of having to make a rule that covers the greatest percentage of instances. SHould a woman choose to remain behind to help with the evacuation, as she realizes that she is in good shape and can assist, I do not frown on this as much as I do a man who selfishly refuses to help.

[Generic Other]

6. Just as long as the captain isn't first

How about non-swimmers, young children and elderly first?

[Dokkie]

46. best reply so far

As a non swimmer, I am terrified of water and drowning in fact 90% of my nightmares involves me drowning in water and for this reason alone, I am going for that life boat regardless of how many women and children are around. Also as a society, we have advanced(populated) to the point where our society is not dependent on a few women and children to continue the herd so theres really no difference if men or women die, the world just keep chugging along. In fact there are more women than men in the world if that makes any difference

Except for the elderly in the list, I am totally in agreement with your post. Non swimmers, young children and everybody else

[hlthe2b]

7. I can see why that whole notion would be taken as quaint and totally out of step...

I really can..

And then I think of how often I have seen linebacker-sized men step all over small, short, or elderly women (and men)--in this case totally oblivious to what is around them, rather than intentionally trying to trample them. with that in mind, though, I'd have to think on this a bit longer. Surely many women will hold their own in such situation and I most certainly do not intend to imply women needed to be treated like children. Nonetheless, maybe we take gender out of it and suggest that children and the "less able" are given some assistance?

Surely those with superior body strength or related (which is most often men) ought to help the others. At least in my idea of the "ideal" world.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. Overboard with them! Every Man for HimSelf!

My Bible Tells me . . . . er . . . oh, oops, there I go again, channeling my inner Tea Bagger.

For all the bible beating and claims of being god fearin' christianists, they sure seem to miss all the big lessons. If I read my two part fairy tale correctly, (and I have gone through it cover to cover several times) then that water walking dude told the faithful flock NOT to keep religion on their sleeves and to forget about preying in public. I guess that the real JC, if he even existed, was anti-Tebow.


As for your real question, historically, childbirth was truly a life and death matter. More kids died than survived, and the childbirth was often fatal to the mom. If a tribe wanted to survive, having breeders and the young spawn of their tribe survive was critical to the tribe's future.

[hobbit709]

9. It certainly shouldn't be Captain and crew first.

[Scuba]

21. In case the obvious needs to be stated.

[hobbit709]

27. There's been several in the last few years where that happened.

[hlthe2b]

29. And then I think of the staff of that famous Mumbai hotel that stayed after terrorist attack & fire.

to help the hotel guests. Several died in the ensuing fires and after saving the lives of those (largely foreign) guests.

[Yooperman]

10. Children first certainly.... and for me it would depend on who the women were...

If there happen to be a repug women convention ... and the likes of Bachmann, Coulter or Palin on board... get to the back of the line baby!

Otherwise I guess I am one to think save those who would have the least chance to save themselves first.

[seabeyond]

11. we have this is womens forum. my answer. copied and pasted

help whomever and would expect children to be watched over. and women be a part of that

along with the men. and others that need help by able bodies of both gender. i agree that mostly people are selfless in these situations. true heros.

that being said, last night in the latest trauma of my 16 yr old sons heartbreak i have talked of, here at du. well, du2. late last night i was thinking. why the hell of we not accepted and adopted both gender taking responsibility on asking out and paying for the date. why hasnt that gone to the side of the road yet.

anyway....

was on my mind and i wanted to express.

[hlthe2b]

16. Elderly supposed to go out and forage...?

Interesting... maybe in some cultures... I could see the Japanese doing this. American's? Not so sure.

[hlthe2b]

41. Oh, I understand the "science" behind the thought, but sort of doubt the practicality...

or the "selfless" implementation--at least in this country. Yet, who knows?

[Saving Hawaii]

34. The elderly get thrown under the bus in nuclear plans.

The idea is that the radiation exposure might cause cancer 10, 20 years down the road. If you're already dead by then from other causes, nothing to worry about.

[Zalatix]

112. The draft is sexist and should be banned.

[Lance_Boyle]

142. the draft *is* banned, but could be resurrected by Congress

Registration for Selective Service is still around, and still sexist. I am of the opinion that it should remain around, but registration should be compulsory for females turning 18 as it always has been for males turning 18.

[Zalatix]

146. Get rid of selective service

Why can't the warmongers fight their own wars?

Let Rumsfeld go fight in Iraq.

[murielm99]

13. Think of the opposite extreme:

Muslim girls were left to die in a school fire. The rescue was stopped because they were not wearing proper Muslim dress.

I remember another one from several years ago. Muslim women were left to drown in a ferry accident. The men were rescued. I could not find any links for that one, but the school story is well documented.

[mike_c]

14. in an emergency evacuation ANY systemic approach is better than chaos....

However, by the same token, any systemic approach prioritizes one group over another. That's just the nature of the beast.

[snagglepuss]

130. You make a good point that a system avoids chaos. Having women and kids

go first instills order in a chaotic situation because in effect everyone knows the drill.

[librechik]

15. It's just common sense. The men are usually stronger and need to help with survival efforts

they can't be off in the boats (out of the eay like the children) until everything is squared away--exceptions should be made for unusual circumstances and strong women crew members nowadays, but there is a "common sense" protocol and that's part of it--it's not romance.

[quinnox]

17. fuck that

If it is me and some kids and women, I'm going to run them over to save myself!


But seriously, I would hope the noble manhood thing would kick in when faced with a situation like this, and we as men would do the honorable thing and save the women and children before ourselves. One can never know for sure though until faced with this emergency first hand.

[demmiblue]

18. Elderly, those with physical limitations and children should be first. However, ...

I think that the main caregivers of young children/babies should accompany them due to safety/psychological issues.

[jberryhill]

48. As I get older....

I'm more inclined to think that in a life or death situation, I'd give priority to younger people, who haven't had as much life yet as I have.

Some cultures would probably reverse that.

[RobinA]

82. As a Middle-Aged

fairly fit female, I've gotta go with - everybody weaker than me before me, everybody stronger after. I'm not going to trample Grandpa, but if a 20-year-old linebacker tries to push in front of me I WILL attempt to trip him.

In a "run for your lives" situation I'd try to save children in the immediate family, probably other immediate family members, but other than that, outta my way.

[pampango]

115. You nailed it. Children first then the stronger help the weaker regardless of gender or age.

[XemaSab]

58. I was going to say children, their mothers, handicapped people, and the elderly should go first

Followed by women, then men, then the crew, and finally the captain.

I'm thinking that the children need someone to look after them, and it would be terrible for children to be orphaned because their mothers, being able-bodied, were near the back of the line.

After children and their mothers, people who are not physically able to help themselves should be given priority. If they volunteer to remain until other people are in the boats, then that should be respected.

Then women, being less strong, should be given priority, and finally men, who would be expected to do a better job of clinging onto wreckage or treading water, should be put in the lifeboats.

Optimally, of course, there would be enough lifeboats that everyone could have a seat.

[Lance_Boyle]

62. Why not children and their fathers? n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. Shhh. You'll get a lecture about privilege. n/t

[Charlemagne]

90. Well done

[ZombieHorde]

134. You have no idea what you are talking about.

It's like reading about evolution from a creationist.

[lumberjack_jeff]

137. Yay! common ground!... cuz I have no idea what you're talking about either. n/t

[woolldog]

85. I posted the same question...

before I saw your post. Great minds and all that

[Zalatix]

113. Men are expendable, remember this is an equal society

until the s$%t hits the fan, that is.

[woolldog]

83. Um, why can't it be children and their fathers?

just curious

[Charlemagne]

98. male disposability.

Some analysts such as Dr Carey Roberts and Dr David Benatar have viewed the policy of "women and children first" (and conscription) as evidence of what Warren Farrell refers to as "male disposability," where preservation of a woman's life is given priority over preservation of a man's life.

now reverse those roles. sounds sexist, dunnit?

[iverglas]

105. actually

If 1 man and 5 women survive a disaster, the group can produce 5 children in a year.

If 1 woman and 5 men survive a disasater, it can produce 1 child in a year.

I suspect that we have an example of the close kinship between ethics and survival here: the more children and the higher the proportion of women in a given sized group, the better chance of maintaining a viable population or repopulating. Not really a consideration these days. And in fact the verbalization of it as "women and children first" is really more the stuff of chivalric/romance literature and Hollywood than reality, I gather.

In our past, biology played a whole lot bigger role in ethics, in whatever rudimentary form self-interest and species-interest manifested. Human infants are wholly dependent on adults for multiple times longer than other animals, and the mammalian habit of breastfeeding the young assigned the primary child-protection role to women. Men were actually very useful for protecting the mother-child couplet. Not a consideration these days to the same extent, anyway.

I have no idea why anyone would adhere to the "women and children first" rule today, including the "children and mothers" alternate rule. People in need of assistance first (children, the aged, those with disabilities -- we value diversity now that we don't have to worry about species survival in the immediate timeframe), orderly behaviour next, hope for the best if there is scarcity.

And the big thing, that we actually have the resources to do these days, is make sure that appropriate precautions against disaster and to be able to react to disaster are taken, and appropriate responses given by those in a position to respond in the event of an incident that calls for such response.

[Charlemagne]

108. I was just trying

to be an a**hole. Not really being serious. However, that shouldn't subtract from your post. Excellent points and I really love your grammar and sentence structure. Seriously. Not trying to be an a**hole this time. You are very clear and concise.

cheers!

[iverglas]

111. I'm especially clear and concise

When I haven't slept since Monday morning. You're just lucky you didn't get the caustic that tends to come with.

I didn't think you were being a jerk, really. You were just handy!

[Zalatix]

114. "If 1 man and 5 women survive a disaster, the group can produce 5 children in a year."

Not necessarily. 1-4 of those women might simply go without. Someone might also get killed fighting over access to that one male.

[krispos42]

135. I've come to the conclusion that our space colonies will be founded by lesbians.

Womb power. A journey of a couple of hundred years in cold sleep, then the ship reaches the virgin planet and disgorges a few hundred women and a scattering of men, with semen from hundreds of more men cryogenically frozen.


Enough real men to keep things going in case artificial insemination or IVF becomes impossible. Enough frozen spermies for genetic diversity for generations to come.


I guess some of the women would have to be straight, or at least bisexual.

The kids would be a normal mix of boys and girls, straight and gay, and things would progress from there.



The fundies would flip out.

[rhett o rick]

19. I say those that need the most assistance go first.

Handicapped, children including their mothers, and the elderly. Personally i would then help the women. I see it as chivalrous not sexist, because I feel women are much tougher than men. Just how I see it.

[Justice wanted]

20. I think the idea came from "Olden" days when the women where the mothers of the children

Someone would be there to take care of the kids.

I can totally respect what you are saying that one gender should be saved as to another BUT it is a sad commentary in the world that you have men caring only for self preservation that they would push past others. I'd like to think if I where in that situation I would actually try to help those around me before trying to save my ass.

[Bonhomme Richard]

22. Women and children first. If I saw someone pushing..

to get ahead I would knock them on their ass.
That's just me.

[trackfan]

23. A kid shouldn't be on the boat anyway.

They make too much damn noise.

Joke! Joke! Joke!

[hlthe2b]

43. Good point...

Reminds me of:

[HappyMe]

75. lol!

You will NEVER find me on one of those horrid Disney cruises.

[lapislzi]

24. The least able should be evacuated first, by the most able

Regardless of gender.

But I'm one of those weird people who likes sitting in the exit row, and not just for the leg room.

The able-bodied who claw their way to safety with no regard for others are deserving of nothing but contempt, in my opinion.

[intaglio]

25. No reason but ...

One sex using physical mass and strength to bully the other sex is a non starter.

The act of placing women and children first is called the Birkenhead Drill because of the actions of the soldiers during the sinking of HMS Birkenhead in 1852 and has never been a part of maritime law. Somerset Maugham the writer was known to say that he preferred sailing on foreign ships because there was "none of that nonsense about women and children first."

Possibly the apotheosis of the drill was during the sinking of the Titanic which resulted in 74% of women and 52% of the children being saved against only 20% of the men

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. "Other people first" is I think probably the important thing.

I think it's very hard to predict how one would act in a disaster without having experienced it. What I *hope* I'd do is let other people go first, irrespective of age and gender, but I have no idea whether I actually would.

Also, of course, in some disasters the last people you want to get out first are the children.

[Lance_Boyle]

28. Gender bias in action, or at least in policy - this is an inequality the feminists won't target.

Look - people are even rationalizing it in their responses. "Men are more powerful and need to help out." "Women are more important in terms of repopulating society." "I'm a real man and I'd *never* save myself over a woman who needed saving!"

[justiceischeap]

36. I just told my co-worker that I'd like to THINK that I'd

allow parents with their children first and I would wait (I'm a woman). I also told her that it may still be women and children first because in a situation like this a child may feel more comfortable with her mother (but I'm not speaking from experience, I don't have kids or experience with kids) and that it probably goes back to when women were the primary caregivers.

[LanternWaste]

47. I'd certainly want my wife and kids saved at my expense

I'd certainly want my wife and kids saved at my expense. Regardless of whether you believe that to be predicated on gender biases or not...

[iverglas]

110. well here comes a feminist

and calls that bullshit bullshit.

Gender bias in action, or at least in policy - this is an inequality the feminists won't target.

These "people" who were "rationalizing it in their responses" -- they were feminists, were they?

Or are you suggesting that we feminists should devote an hour a day to finding and pondering arcane examples of some "privilege" granted to women, and next morning gird our loins and go out and do battle against it? Surely there should have been many volumes of feminist thought devoted to these four words by now.

I don't want to be herded through doorways or onto public conveyances by men, and I have no grounds to demand or expect that any man would treat me in any special way in a disaster because of my sex. Nor would I want it.

Sad now?


Oooh look! And from the Daily Mail! About the Titanic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2087585/Cruise-ship-Costa-Concordia-sinking-Whatever-happened-women-children-first.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

The Daily Mail, in an editorial of April 17, 1912, claimed that it was The Law of the Sea that: ‘Those who are saved are not the strong and able-bodied but the weak and the dependent — not the grasping millionaire from the private suite on the promenade deck, clutching a roll of bank-notes . . . but the defenceless wives and sisters and children.’

Yet surprisingly, perhaps, such an attitude provoked sharp responses from early feminists, who believed that ‘women and children first’ infantilised women, and it gave rise to the slogan ‘Votes not Boats’ for the female sex.

The Mail published several feminist ripostes to its celebration of chivalrous behaviour on the Titanic.

Sadder?

[Scuba]

31. Opinions vary...

Newt says poor people should swim next to the lifeboats and help propel them forward by kicking their feet. Only the wealthy should be allowed in the boats, regardless of age or sex.

Rick Santorum says that straight Christians should go in the lifeboats; anyone else should go down with the ship.

Mitt says children could be strapped to the hulls of the lifeboats while the poor could be strapped together to create rafts so the One Percent doesn't have to be cramped.

Ron Paul says it's every man for himself, but all women must receive a vaginal inspection before boarding a life raft.

Rick Perry said he had a plan for this, it was first children, second women - or maybe the other way around - and he couldn't remember who was third.

[quinnox]

40. lol very good

[MissB]

42. DUzy

well done.

[IcyPeas]

51. well said Scuba

[Charlemagne]

91. +1

[drmeow]

103. LOL! n/t

[varelse]

32. Children and the physically disabled should be helped first

as others have already said.

[jberryhill]

35. It's very primal - as appropriate to an emergency

I always took it as a reflection of our earliest rituals which value fertility and the preservation of life.

In a mass disaster in which there is doubt as to the ability of all to be saved, we give priority to the future, as reflected in fertility and youth.

One can make all sorts of value judgments about that, but it seems to be a connection to very ancient impulses.

[Snake Alchemist]

37. Women, children, elderly, and disabled.

What type of society are we becoming when these aren't the first priority.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Equal?

A society in which the captain can be a woman should also be a society in which the other able-bodied adult passengers should be considered equally valuable.

[Snake Alchemist]

57. I look at it as a form of affirmative action.

Do you want men climbing over women, children, and the infirm?

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. Affirmative action involves correcting injustices of the past.

70% of the titanic survivors were women.

[Snake Alchemist]

76. So you think that percentage is too high?

So you would be for identical physical fitness tests for men and women?

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. For identical jobs? Yes.

Would you give different tests to applicants for the bar exam to mitigate for women's superior language proficiency?

[Snake Alchemist]

86. Why should they be different at all?

If a woman can't do 10 push-ups in gym, she fails.

[treestar]

39. I heard differently, that families did not want to be separated

In this day and age, I can understand that. It's stressful enough, and then you'd have the worry about if Husband made it or not, and having to comfort and deal with the kids alone, while they also worry about Husband/Dad. Better all round for the families to stick together.

[stevenleser]

44. I agree. It is a sexist anachronism & wishful thinking anyway. Panic overrides all.

The reality is we are talking only about those who keep their heads anyway. It's pretty easy to panic in these kinds of situations and people who panic aren't going to adhere to any kind of code as far as who goes first and gets a better chance to live.

The better question and answer is, why isn't there an overabundance of safety equipment, lifeboats, and mechanisms to get people into the boats and into the water so that if there is an emergency, we dont have to make choices like that.

[Scout]

45. children, with a parent/guardian first...

then if room, once all the children and their guardians are "on the lifeboats" then let other family members join them.

i guess we childfree will just have to fend for ourselves if there isn't room in the boat

LOVE how comments are being made that feminists won't give up THIS privilege. assholes. we didn't ask for it, change the attitude of the patriarchs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. You must have missed post #58

Clearly this is a privilege that some feminists are reticent to give up.

"women you can be an asshole too"
- Frank Zappa

[Scout]

141. you must have missed #105 and #110 n/t

[Lance_Boyle]

143. I think he can be forgiven for lacking the ability to read future posts, yes?

I mean I know women are bad with numbers and all (I kid, I kid!), but surely you realize that 69 comes before both 105 and 110...

[riderinthestorm]

49. Children with one of their parents (mom or dad), then disabled, then elderly, then the rest.

I'm a woman but I'm also fit and extremely strong. If my children weren't with me on the boat, I'd absolutely stay behind to assist others getting into lifeboats, as well as help get the boats into the water.

I see no reason why women should be prioritized over men.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. What if the Captain is a woman?

Kids and the elderly/disabled first. And I'd use my superior upper body strength and relative repopulative disposability to help enforce that.

[HockeyMom]

54. Not disaster, but my experience riding the NYC subways

when very pregnant to and from work 30 years ago. I never expected anyone to offer me a seat and most times they they didn't. It was mostly elderly men AND elderely women who did. I always refused and told them I was fine. Sometimes, if lucky to get a seat, if I saw somebody else who was struggling in the packed rush hour car, I would get up. big belly and all, and let THEM sit instead. I hoped that if I needed it someday for to be reciprocated.

It was. The winter of my 8th month they had the heat blasting it the sardine packed car. I started feeling like I was going to pass out. The car was spinning, but even at the next stop I could have never pushed my way to get out. In front of me were men and women of all ages, but an elderly woman got up and told me to sit. "You look sick", she said to me. I told her the heat was making me dizzy, and said thank you, and that I would give her her seat back when I felt better. She took out a bottle of water from her bag and told me to drink it. I was about ready to get up again, but she got off the train.


I guess I am saying that there can't be a simple solution. It just depends on the circumstances. Generally, those most able should HELP those less physically strong, disabled, old, very young, etc. It's just the HUMAN thing to do.

9/11 was the biggest disaster of our history. We had female 1st responders who died, got injured, helping others. We also heard of "civilians" going back up stairs, into the buildings, to help others; men and women.

It's called doing the RIGHT THING.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Demographics of Titanic disaster interesting in this regard. Men 20% got off the ship

Women, 74%.
http://www.ithaca.edu/staff/jhenderson/titanic.html

[hedgehog]

70. I wonder what the demographics of the people on board was -

for example, if most of the steerage passengers were men, the numbers may actually reflect an economic bias.

[AngryAmish]

74. John Jacob Astor IV

[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jacob_Astor_IV|

[ZombieHorde]

59. It doesn't make much sense to me.

What if some of the children don't have mothers? Why should they have to loose their only parent?

What if the people who have the survival skills for the situation happen to be men? Leaving those men to die could doom everyone.

What about people with terminal illnesses? Should a dieing 12-year-old have priority over a healthy 20-year-old?

The chaos of the situation could potentially cause additional complications. For example:

If some of the passengers have firearms, a shootout could occur over priority. One firearm holder wants women and children first, another wants his or her family first, another starts shooting because a firefight broke out. The life boat could get a hole in it from a stray bullet.

On a side note: I think "women and children first" is another sign of the belief women are closer to children than to grown men.

[Dreamer Tatum]

65. Looks like everyone would die waiting for you to suss out priorities. nt

[ZombieHorde]

71. They can talk about it while I am on the boat with my family. nt

[Snake Alchemist]

77. Undoubtedly, trampling some geezer with a cane to ensure that. nt

[ZombieHorde]

80. I bring a cane-using geezer everywhere I go just for trampling purposes.

Just kidding, she uses a walker.

[undeterred]

63. Disaster brings out character.

If you are on the crew of a ship or plane its understood that you risk your life for your passengers.

If you are a passenger you save yourself and those you love first. If you are strong and skilled you help others and save others if you can or put them ahead of you.

I remember hearing a story about a man who slipped off a bridge into the icy waters of the Chicago river in winter and was calling for help. There were hundreds of people standing there staring at him... it was a woman all dressed up for work who jumped in to save him.

[Rex]

66. The seed and the future go first, us manly men will wait to cower

and huddle in mass when everyone is out of eyeshot.

[mrs_p]

67. I was actually thinking of this the other day.

Who would go with our baby in case of a disaster like this. I know both my husband and I would insist on the other. Made me too depressed and I decided to think of other things.

[RockaFowler]

68. Personally

I wouldn't want to leave without my husband. It should be children and handicap first. Like when you are boarding a plane.

But not the Captain first - what a prick that guy is

[lpbk2713]

72. Rethuglicans would say "Privileged class first!"

"get out of the way you dirty people."

[Charlemagne]

92. OMG

That reminds me of a time I listened to Neil Bortz right after Katrina. People were mad that the rich and their homes had priority. Bortz said (paraphrasing here) "Hell yes the rich should go first. They are the ones who create jobs,. They are the ones who create wealth. You dont rescue those who contribute nothing to society."

Seriously.

[dballance]

73. What a dumbassed idea

I see no reason to save women and children. Who knows what those children will turn out to be. They could be the next Ted Bundy. it's a foolish old idea. Adult men who are making a contribution to society should be saved.

[MineralMan]

93. You forgot your Sarcasm smiley there.

I hope.

[Arkansas Granny]

78. I think most people would instinctively protect the young and those who could

procreate to replenish the species. Maybe that's just ingrained in us by custom. However, as a woman, I would let women with young children go ahead of me.

[LeftinOH]

79. Children first. then women and less-abled men, then older men,

then it's every (able-bodied) man for himself. BTW, I'm in the final category.

[Throd]

81. As a 44 year old male, I'm OK with the concept.

It would also make for a more orderly evacuation than a "everyone for themself" clusterfuck.

[Charlemagne]

87. During the time when sea travel

Was the only way to get there, there was an 'honor code' of sorts. You can call it chivalry or whatever you like. Men were supposed to face death 'like men' and make sure that the gentler sex was spared the harshness of that reality. Children, being innocent babes, were also to be ensured safety before the men could do the same. A man should be brave and face danger. Women and children, whose sphere is domestic life, should be protected.

When the titanic sank you had several instances of very wealthy gentleman giving their coats and spots in the life boat to young peasant irish women. Probably for that very reason. Face it like a man. It is/was a cultural thing.

That is one of the parts that the crap Titanic movie got right. Ben Guggenheim is shown in the film as going down with the ship. That did happen. Guggenheim was one of those gilded age millionaires (several times over). After the crash, he is reported to have stated, "We've dressed up in our best and are prepared to go down like gentlemen....Tell my wife, if it should happen that my secretary and I both go down, tell her I played the game out straight to the end. No woman shall be left aboard this ship because Ben Guggenheim was a coward."

Is this true in all cases. Hell no. Was it expected, socially, for men to do so. Yes

Its a carry over from that. Kinda romantic in a way.

[Saving Hawaii]

99. Wasn't always that way.

The whole "women and children first" thing dates to the sinking of the HMS Birkenhead. They only had enough space on the lifeboats to fit the women and children. Not wanting to swamp the lifeboats the men, British soldiers, stood on the deck in formation and went down with the ship. This was about 1850, so pretty late in the history of seafaring actually.

[Charlemagne]

101. True

I think it became canon of sorts in the late victorian era...certainly cemented by Edwardian era. At that time of industrialization we had large modern ships and diasporas of immigrants (as well as leisure travel) was more common and safer. Very true, it was at the end of naval travel.

"Not wanting to swamp the lifeboats the men, British soldiers, stood on the deck in formation and went down with the ship." As a proper British soldier should. GSTQ.

[yellowcanine]

88. It should be children and disabled + guardians first, old folks next, able bodied last.

Young children and disabled should not be separated from their guardians if possible because the chances of them surviving goes down, whether the guardian is male or female. Able bodied are most likely to survive anyway even if they go last so this order makes it more likely that everyone will survive.

[Liberal_in_LA]

89. there were also reports that 'women and children first' broke up families. Fathers separated

from the family. Families probably want to evacuate together.

[MineralMan]

94. I'm an old fart.

In an ideal situation, everyone could be accommodated. I would not go ahead of people unless everyone could be accommodated. I would, however, try to assist anyone I could.

[ret5hd]

121. uh huh.

[JVS]

95. Fuck that shit, I'm getting saved ASAP!

[lynne]

97. I'm imagining a lifeboat full of men and children -

- and the men tending to the children - making sure no one goes overboard, dealing with the crying, the fear, the little ones in diapers.

I now totally understand the wisdom of "women and children first".

[ZombieHorde]

120. Sexist. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. I'm hoping that is just a sarcastic post

though I need to point out there should be more to witty sarcasm than just writing something dumb, like your post, and waiting for people to think "I never expected something that stupid to turn up on DU".

[qb]

100. Children & primary caregivers first.

[ecstatic]

102. Aren't most children with their mothers?

I guess the women without kids on board could then take turns with the men.

[Edweird]

104. Are women equal to men or aren't they? I know the answer, but it isn't 'politically correct'.

[elleng]

117. 'Equal?'

Really depends on the context. Equally as entitled as men to an education? Yes, certainly.
Equal in physical strength? Generally, no, hence in emergencies 'women and children first' makes sense, helps an orderly society to preserve itself.

[Liquorice]

133. What's the answer?? nt

[pokerfan]

106. Captain and crew first; everyone else can fend for themselves

Not the first case of a cowardly captain:

We had a shipwreck off the coast of South Africa some years ago. the boat was called the Oceanos. When the lifeboats were launched, all of the Greek crew and the Greek Captain were on the first lifeboat. Later the captain said that he felt that he could control the rescue better from dry land. Fortunately, no lives were lost due to some heroic people who stayed onboard to assist in the helicopter rescue.

[obamanut2012]

109. Children and one parent (or guardian) first

After that.... line up and be orderly.

[elleng]

116. It still works.

Children are clearly weaker than others, and generally women are weaker physically than men, so in emergencies its reasonable and even necessary to give women and children an advantage over men.

[Warren DeMontague]

118. how about everyone who needs assistance: kids, elderly, disabled-- AND

their primary caregivers?

If you have some blanket rule about "women & children first" what about the gay male couple with a toddler or a baby? ...Fuck 'em?

[Jean V. Dubois]

119. To quote Heinlein on the subject...

All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly, which can — and must — be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly — and no doubt will keep on trying.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

Men are expendable; women and children are not. A tribe or a nation can lose a high percentage of its men and still pick up the pieces and go on ... as long as the women and children are saved. But if you fail to save the women and children, you've had it, you're done, you're through! You join Tyrannosaurus Rex, one more breed that bilged its final test.

Robert A. Heinlein, The Pragmatics of Patriotism

[ZombieHorde]

132. He seems to be talking about some bizarre, large-scale, catastrophic event.

A boat going down is not going to result in genocide or the end of humanity. Those quotes are just silly in today's world.

[lumberjack_jeff]

144. A great deal can be rationalized on the basis of men's responsiblity to protect the women. n/t

[JSnuffy]

123. Doesn't seem like even a question...

Women and children first...

Especially in this situation. See that shore over there? Get your ass overboard and start swimming. Your wife will meet you at the dock...

Common sense exceptions apply for the elderly and disabled...

[barbtries]

124. most men

are still bigger and stronger than most women. it's not the same as holding a door, trying to get off a sinking ship. those most able whether male or female should ideally stay and help those not.

[IrishEyes]

125. It would be children first with me.

I'm a woman who is pretty strong and resourceful in an emergency. Many people both male and female are not good in an emergency and need help. I would help the children, the disabled, the scared and elderly.

[chrisa]

126. Children first, and then women - no brainer - women are the smarter sex.

Just kidding. I don't know. Hopefully I'm never in that situation.

Obviously you want the children off first, but they need a parent with them - probably the mother (or father if the kid only has a father) to keep them calm. These things are never orderly to begin with, though.

[greiner3]

127. Survival of the species;

Dictates that the female needs to be 'protected.' I do not mean this in a human sexist way. However, it is the females who ensure the survival of their species. Very few males are needed, in most cases, to impregnate a LOT of females.

As to the saving of the young, this is also hard wired as the males are usually larger and will be the 'warriors' to take on an intruder, in this case a clear and present danger, when warranted.

How this fits in with the story is that the males of the species need to ensure that his genes will be passed on to the next generation. He can only do this if his children survive and then can have children...

[treestar]

129. But in the modern world, there is no such concern

There are 5 billion people on the planet, and 4000 on this ship. It just doesn't matter in today's context.

[yawnmaster]

128. As soon as a disaster strikes a committee should be formed to judge the relative worth of each...

person on board.
The committee can be formed by splitting those on board into equally sized groups of a randomized selection and have each group choose a representative.
The committee can then judge the worth of each person by whatever metric they decide upon.
By interviews and with whatever records are available, they can then order those on board by their worth and give each a non-transferable numbered ticket.
They can then line up for evacuation of the sinking boat (or whatever) in a very orderly manner.
The committee may include themselves in the numbered evaluation.

[krispos42]

131. I believe the policy is now "families with children first"

Keep the families together, keep the kids alive.

[Blacksheep214]

136. This ship was 3 hours out, right?

Did they even run any emergency procedure education or drills?

It sure doesn't sound like it.

[Marie Marie]

138. Hey, as long as Dick Cheney is last, I'm good.

[Liquorice]

139. This really isn't a question, is it? I mean really? Men are

much stronger and bigger than women and children, and they could easily just muscle their way out of the situation by throwing the women and children to the side. I really can't imagine many people agreeing that trampling women and children to get to safety is appropriate. I know no man in my family would think that was acceptable behavior. Any man who would act that way would be a real scumbag, in my opinion.

I also think older people who are frail and not able to move the way a younger adult can should be helped by healthy stronger adults of both sexes. You wouldn't kick grandpa's walker out from under him to escape a disaster... Would you??

[Dan]

140. Assuming that there are enough lifeboats,

assuming that there has been the appropriate evalcuation drills,
and even if not, children and Pregnant (male or female) people first - with appropriate physically able personnel to ensure their safety.

Time availability is now a factor - but then Elderly and disabled second - with appropriate physically able personnel to ensure their safety.

Sorry, then equal rights for the balance...

[DevonRex]

145. I think all the big strong guys who can

swim for long periods of time should shove all the women and kiddies out of the way to get to the lifeboats first.