Should the 'women and children first' rule still apply when a ship is sinking?
Scroll to see replies
The good thing about the rule is that EVERYONE knows it, so when a ship is sinking, there can be some kind of order to getting in the boats, rather than everyone scrambling for a space and all around havoc. Now this does not necessarily count for women, but definitely children first, and invalids/elderly. This is purely because they are less likely to survive the sinking ship. Also, if the crew need any help on the ship, it is best to have the able bodied there to help them.
Original post by Scoobiedoobiedo
Sperm bank obviously
What if there was no sperm bank. All reserved sperm was destroyed before the ship set sail
Original post by kuteascake
So, it's been 100 years since the Titanic sank and it's got me thinking. Is the 'women and children first' rule (which isn't always practiced or enforced when a ship is sinking anyway) outdated?
Personally, it strikes me as kind of sexist- why should a woman's life be worth more than that of a man? Us girls are constantly complaining that we still aren't treated as complete equals to men, but surely things like this unwritten rule are hindering our achievement of equality?
I know that if I were on board a sinking ship, I'd give up my space on a lifeboat for somebody else, but I wonder how many others actually would?
Anyway, I'm just interested to know what you guys think; should it be every man for himself, the most vulnerable first or should the captain still order men to step aside for women and children?
Discuss
Personally, it strikes me as kind of sexist- why should a woman's life be worth more than that of a man? Us girls are constantly complaining that we still aren't treated as complete equals to men, but surely things like this unwritten rule are hindering our achievement of equality?
I know that if I were on board a sinking ship, I'd give up my space on a lifeboat for somebody else, but I wonder how many others actually would?
Anyway, I'm just interested to know what you guys think; should it be every man for himself, the most vulnerable first or should the captain still order men to step aside for women and children?
Discuss
No, because people would rather stick wid their families/friends or whatever on a lifeboat as aparently it makes you feel more safe and secure and secondly, everybody has enough space to escape so hopefully everybody would get off, no matter if your first or last to abandon ship.
Original post by x-pixie-lottie-x
because disabled and old arent so good at swimming....
and not the whooole of society will fit on a boat... if all the healthy fit men and women die thats their fault for not swimming/floating better.... and all will be fine because all of those not on the ship can reproduce and look after the children and old and disabled
x
and not the whooole of society will fit on a boat... if all the healthy fit men and women die thats their fault for not swimming/floating better.... and all will be fine because all of those not on the ship can reproduce and look after the children and old and disabled
x
They can't swim as well? Too bad.
Original post by Playa10
Yes because a woman can reproduce without a man
If you have 1 woman and 100 men you can have about 10 children, max. 1 man and 100 women and you can have about 1000 children, max.
Just saying.
Original post by SleepySheep
If you have 1 woman and 100 men you can have about 10 children, max. 1 man and 100 women and you can have about 1000 children, max.
Just saying.
Just saying.
Lucky man
Unlucky woman
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Playa10
What if there was no sperm bank. All reserved sperm was destroyed before the ship set sail
I saw a film once where they used a horse.
Seemed legit.
According to research this 'rule' is rarely followed anyway and it ends up being 'every man for himself':
The Guardian - Report: It's everyone for himself on sinking ships
A hundred years after the Titanic sank, two Swedish researchers on Thursday said when it comes to sinking ships, male chivalry is "a myth" and more men generally survive such disasters than women and children.
Out of the 15,000 people who died in the 18 accidents, only 17.8 percent of the women survived compared with 34.5 percent of the men
Out of the 15,000 people who died in the 18 accidents, only 17.8 percent of the women survived compared with 34.5 percent of the men
The Guardian - Report: It's everyone for himself on sinking ships
Original post by Scoobiedoobiedo
I saw a film once where they used a horse.
Seemed legit.
Seemed legit.
Lol what film is that then
Original post by SleepySheep
If you have 1 woman and 100 men you can have about 10 children, max. 1 man and 100 women and you can have about 1000 children, max.
Just saying.
Just saying.
It would keep the population in control eh
Original post by MancStudent098
It was a bloody stupid rule at the time the Titanic sank, plenty of lifeboats pushed off half empty because there weren't enough women and children to fill them. Everyone should just get in the lifeboats in a calm orderly manner in whatever order and anyone who suggests otherwise should be left on the sinking ship.
That wasn't because of "woman and children first". That was become some crew members interpreted it as "woman and children only. It's supposed to be that all the woman and children in the vicinity get on and then if there are any spaces left, the men get on. Not launch half-empty lifeboats because there were no woman or children nearby.
Anyway, as for the OP. The likelihood that anything along the lines of the Titanic will happen again is minuscule.
Seeing as there should be enough lifeboats for everybody on modern ships I think disabled/frail/ill/elderly people/pregnant women/babies and infants (with a parent/carer) should go first. It's all very well wishing that people would form an orderly queue but people panic so it won't happen. Those that are weaker and more likely to get badly hurt by other people shoving and panicking to get to a lifeboat should have first priority. Then children with a parent/carer and then everybody else with crew members last.
Original post by Playa10
Lol what film is that then
Semenbiscuit
Rules state there should be enough lifeboat places for everyone on the ship, so it shouldn't matter so long as the evacuation is prompt and organised.
However, if it really came down to it, I think children should be first. I couldn't give you a reasoned justification as to why, other than the fact children are the future, but that is just how I feel.
However, if it really came down to it, I think children should be first. I couldn't give you a reasoned justification as to why, other than the fact children are the future, but that is just how I feel.
Original post by Hravan
That wasn't because of "woman and children first". That was become some crew members interpreted it as "woman and children only. It's supposed to be that all the woman and children in the vicinity get on and then if there are any spaces left, the men get on. Not launch half-empty lifeboats because there were no woman or children nearby.
Agreed. Although there were other reasons for leaving the boats half-empty. I've read that the materials used to make the boats were not of the best quality and there were fears that the boats would split taking all the weight as the boats were hanging mid-air. They wanted people to swim out to them, once they were in the water [fun given the water temperature!
]. 
Original post by cuckoo99
the weakest individuals on first- children/elderly/disabled
NO !!!
In a situation like the Titanic anyone who does not get a lifeboat seat dies anyway so an 18 year old strong male is as likley to die as an old man or a child. So why should that young male have to sacrifice himself for an old person who has already lived his life.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Pls help me mark my answer
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Why do men shake (their willies) rather than wipe after urinating?
- CRITICISMS OF THE MARXIST VIEW OF THE FAMILY - Help please.
- Girls, why doesn't there seem to be interest in marriage & kids these days?
- Thoughts on Abortion?
- Is it bad that I DON'T want to be an 'independent woman'?
- Poem opinions
- Are women fully protected by the Law?
- Who am I supposed to date/marry?
- Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirms
- Am I unattractive? What is it?
- Medicine Route: Switching from GP to Surgical Training
- Schools encouraged to scrap gendered language like Sir and Miss
- Why do people hate it when a woman doesn't want kids?
- What do you guys think ?
- what age do you think a person should get a phone?
- My girlfriend of 2 years wants a 3 some
- ShipBroker.
- Unsure about my future
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
