Should the 'women and children first' rule still apply when a ship is sinking?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 180

cl_steele

Original post by associativememory

It should be the ones who can contribute most to society that shall live.

that would involvem some serious logisitics though..

Reply 181

cl_steele

Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox

The difference is, help would arrive a lot faster, so they wouldn't be in the water for as long- if at all when then boat eventually went down completely.

i swear it would be completely academic how fast help arrived as it still wouldnt arrive fast enough to save them? with regards to the titanic senario mentioned above anyway.

Reply 182

Dragonfly07

Original post by Playa10

Yes because a woman can reproduce without a man

Essentially, if you want more children (which obviously the world doesn't need but just saying), you'd need multiple women for just one men.

Reply 183

Suetonius

Children, probably. Women, hell no. Why should someone have more of a right to salvation by simple virtue of their birth?

Reply 184

gernumblies

Original post by Sniggey

I'm fairly certain that since the Titanic all ferries and cruise liners are equipped with more than enough lifeboats to hold all the crew and passengers. The reason this was not the case for the Titanic was that the builders and owners of the ship were adamant she was unsinkable.

Discrimination in an emergency situation would only slow down the process and lead to more deaths, better just to continuously cram people onto lifeboats in order to save as many as possible.

Lifeboats can hold about 100, and ship-to-shore tenders can hold 150 at capacity (although I'm sure if you sat people on the floor etc. they could hold more). On P&O cruises, at least. However, the amount of time it takes to get one wheelchair onto a tender could get a good five or six able-bodied people on board, and that's with well-practised crew.

Reply 185

Beebumble

It should always be the weaker that go first. Women are generally physically weaker than men so yes they should go first because they are far less likely to survive the cold and less able to swim. Of course there are exceptions and I'd fully expect Fatima Whitbread to hang around and let an average 20 year old man go first because she'll obviously be more stronger then him.

Remember there's a sinking ship there's no time to stand there and go "oh yes but is this morally correct" the main aim is to get as many people as possible out alive and if that means letting women go first then that's just the way it is.

Reply 186

MAPW

Children should definitely go first!
Women and men should be treated equally!

Reply 187

Ray Bradbury

Children first followed by those less able to swim (elderly and disabled)
Men and women treated equally, first come first served.

Reply 188

StuartJ

That depends on the morals, values and ethics of the individual at the time and perhaps the relationship of the women and children with each individual.

Reply 189

Danz123

'Children first' is completely fine with everyone. That's not where this debate lies really. The main issue is the convention of women first. The reasons behind this are because women are on average weaker, and therefore less likely to survive; and because they are more 'important' than men. I personally think that's ridiculous and anyone on a sinking ship in a situation like the Titanic will all be equally as likely to die. Plus, it is rank hypocrisy for women to agree with this notion that they are more important. I thought they wanted equality?

Reply 190

Einheri

Original post by kuteascake

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?

Why? I wouldn't.

Me first, then anyone else who is strong enough to take a place. Survival of the fittest and all that.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 191

simonbellringer

Original post by Nightstar-27

Considering the ships are meant to have enough life boat places for everyone, the crew should organise it so that everyone stays calm and moves to the boats in an orderly fashion, the order that people arrive in should be the order they get on the boat. The crew should ensure everyone gets on a boat and be the last to leave. Anyone who pushes people out of the way and is a general arse about the situation and puts others in danger should be shot. If people were calm and collective, nearly everyone would get off alive. Of course this is idealistic

Yes, but there were NOT enough lifebelts for everybody!! And what boats there were were sent out half-empty at first because people did not believe that the Titanic could sink; they were a bit snobby and arrogant in those days, and did not want to be proved wrong/. In an ideal world, the Titanic would not have sunk!! In an ideal situation like that, (or as ideal as the situation would get,) the passengers would have listened to the crew and a lot more people would have been saved because the lifeboats would have been filled.

Reply 192

madders94

The most vulnerable first - children and those who would not be able to swim if the ship sank so the elderly, the disabled etc - and then men and women on a first come, first served basis. Women want equality, we should be prepared for equality in every situation, not just the ones that suit us. If there are men who feel that women should go first, they can give up their place on a lifeboat for a woman, but they should not be obliged to.

Reply 193

madders94

So what is the definition of a child? On the Titanic, boys of 13 were told that they could not get on the lifeboats because it was women and children first - but I'm sure to many of us that still seems like a child. Legally the definition of an adult is someone over the age of 18, but I know that I and many others my age (17 and to some extent 16 year olds too) wouldn't consider ourselves to be children, although I've no doubt we'd jump in the lifeboat if it was offered to us! So how do you define children, and at what age does a child become a man or a woman for the sake of a situation like this?

Reply 194

meow444

Original post by tufc

Women were born with a biological weakness of being the only sex who can get pregnant. Under your dichotomy, employers would be allowed to discriminate against women in the recruitment process, because they're more likely to have a child and cost the employer money while they're on maternity leave. I doubt you'd like that.

Yes but employment and a sinking ship are two very different things, you can't use one situation and just apply it to another. One is about life and death, the other is not. It makes sense to take biological factors into account when you are considering whether people will survive. Plus you can prevent pregnancy with contraception. It is a choice. Drowning in a sinking boat is not.

Most people do not stay in one job their whole lives anyway, and men and women have all kinds of reasons for leaving, so it is unfair to discriminate based one just one reason. The employment market should be made equal, because it affects everyone, even those who don't work. Laws like this one create social mobility, which surely is a good thing? They create a more equal society in general and give minorities, for example racial minorities a chance. The rule of 'women and children first' on a sinking ship only affects those on board directly (and their loved ones on land indirectly) and it has no lasting detrimental effect on society. So you can't compare it with employment.

Some kind of system needs to be in place when people are boarding lifeboats, and this one makes the most sense. It is universally understood and it has reason behind it. I think people are likely to stick with it as well. People from all nationalities will understand, it is a quick and obvious way to organise people. Organisation will lead to faster deployment of lifeboats, which is important. I hate to think what an evacuation would look like if the staff just announced 'every man for himself'!

Reply 195

gemnomnom

Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox

The difference is, help would arrive a lot faster, so they wouldn't be in the water for as long- if at all when then boat eventually went down completely.

Ah yes, I had forgotten it did take 2.5 hours to sink.

Reply 196

.eXe

Original post by Mr Smurf

It should be in this order:

Women and Children
Men
Feminists

LOL ahahaha best post I've read in a while. Kudos sir.

Reply 197

924103

Still think the same rule should still apply because they're like the weakest links, whereas, us men are (or should be) strong

Reply 198

cakefish

Everyone has the same right to life - male or female. Young children (say up to 12 years old) should have priority but after that it should be whoever is first in queue. Thankfully there are enough lifeboats for everyone these days.

Original post by hannaaahlima

Secondly, women can reproduce and have other children if they are saved.

Last time I checked our species wasn't in danger of extinction so how is this possibly relevant?