Ship sinking: is "women first" moral/LEGAL?

I understand children but not women. Only about 20 % that survived Titanic were men, and some were seen as cowards. Though some officers misunderstood the captain's orders, and tried to prevent men from getting in the lifeboats. It's been said that many British men were too polite when Titanic sank as well.

How much time you have probably matters. Which is logical enough. Titanic took almost three hours to sink. When Lusitania sank three years later in 1915, it took only about 20 minutes. It was every person for him or herself. Lusitania was torpedoed and the situation was different from Titanic, but time is still important. If you only have minutes, there is likely to be a lot more panic. In the end it's survival of the fittest. Most of the people who survived were young men and women.

It should never be expected. What that crew did was awful.

Yes. Many countries don't allow women being on the front lines. You hear about men being distracted by wounded women and so on. It's complicated. But if a person is fit for the job, they should be allowed to fight if they want to.

I wouldn't be surprised if Norway made conscription (close to one year ) mandatory for 18 year old girls in the near future. They already have to meet up for a mandatory military session. I got two letters from the Norwegian Armed Forces when I turned 18.

In the end, not all18-19 year olds get conscripted or stay for the full amount of time (30-40%). You also have to be fit enough etc. But it's only fair that girls get conscripted too.

I wasn't implying they do. It is, in my opinion, a way of keeping order on a ship and having a procedure to evacuate. That doesn't mean I think it's right or wrong or that someone has more right to live over another person. Look at it the other way, what if a whole family survived over your whole family because we let havoc reap and organised it on a family based procedure. Surely you'd want some of your family to survive than none? I'm not on either side of the fence really, I'm just throwing ideas out there, as you seem to have a one track mind. If it was every man for himself, whose to say anyone would survive? At least the method they have in place now, right or wrong, works. To answer your question, I'm very close to my family and to lose any of them would be devastating, but to deny a whole family life would also be awful. I think the solution is to have a quicker yet organised procedure and to have enough lifeboats for everyone so whether on the same lifeboat or not everyone gets out. Like I said, I can see it both ways so if you want an argument you're not going to find it here. I can see your point of view as well as others.

This comes from the days when women were the weaker sex and needed protecting by the stronger, more powerful men. It seems a bit ridiculous to still be enforcing nowadays. It makes me quite angry actually.

Why does it make you quite angry?

This has actually annoyed me, sure I can understand children but not women. Genders are suppost to be equal now, it's great women getting equal pay etc.. But you have to take the negatives of being an equal aswell as the positives.

Still can't believe you actually have conscription in a supposedly civilised country.

Why does it make you quite angry?

Because it is direct and potentially fatal discrimination against a group of people - what's not to get angry about?


Yes, this is exactly what I think. You have to take the rough with the smooth - you can't have equality and chivalry at the same time.

Maybe because it's discrimination.

Against women you mean?

Would you see it as discrimination if a man offered to stay behind so women and children were saved?

Is this even legal? And is this morally correct? If I was a guy on that ship I would be pretty annoyed if I was being told I couldn't access a lifeboat because of my gender: that is pretty crazy actually.

it's supposed to be the gentlemanly thing to do. in dire situations like that, moral/legal considerations would hardly be on their minds imo.

It is the chivalrous thing to do, in that kind of circumstance. Traditional values and all that.

Don't you know that feminists have killed off chivalry?

I can't say whether it is morally correct or not because I understand it is a controversial way to look at things given gender equality...

However if I was a man, I believe I would want women and children to go first, because they are seen as the most vulnerable.

I would say that I would definitely want children to go first, and then the reasons for women going first, at least those with children is reasonably self- explanatory. Although I understand why fathers would want to go too.

Would you deny a child entry on to a life boat for yourself?

Women and Children first with the exception of:

Justin Bieber, Hazel Blears & Harriet Harman.

Why does it make you quite angry?

Why does it make you quite angry?

But that isn't what happened and as such is a totally pointless question.

It seems unfair, to me, that men are expected in this situation to potentially give up their lives for women. It angers me that this 'tradition', for want of a better word, is accepted and still in place.