[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.

[.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.

[noorul87]

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

[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?

[hannaaahlima]

(Original post by 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.

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

i'm just saying it's their logic!!! I don't agree with it!!!

[gozatron]

Non-swimmers first.

[tc92]

It should still apply. But then, so should lots of chivalrous or sexist traditions, depending on your viewpoint.

Equality is the order of the day though, so the rules should be implemented...well, equally.

[for_healing_only]

I would like to think I would be noble and give my place up for a child or a disabled person (not their wheel chair, that can go overboard and the person can be bundled in with the others)

But to be honest I would probably be pulling people out of the boat to get a place as I am petrified or drowning. (if i got left behind I would be trying to sink the escaping life boats with a makeshift harpoon made from broken deck furniture)

[Architecture-er]

(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 Is the 'women and children first' rule (which isn't always practiced or enforced when a ship is sinking anyway) outdated?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

I think it's a dumb rule as well, but I reckon it was put in place (if it was ever really enforced) to stop all the men pushing the women and children to the back. If a man is at the front, he should be let on, not forced to step aside to let more women on in his place.

Then again, should fat people be discriminated against in these situations? You could probably fit 3 small asian ladies into a place that would be taken up by one incredibly obese man.. In cases where it'd save more lives I might think discrimination is ok.. I don't know

[cakefish]

There was never a law enforcing this back then, it was just just what the captain had ordered. And back then, on a ship hundreds of miles from land, the captain's rules were treated as law.

[riotgrrl]

I think children first makes perfect sense- each with one parent, whether male or female, doesn't really matter.

[Joinedup]

Rather irrelevant given ships have enough lifeboats these days... I think it was mostly something the press used to attack rich male titanic survivors for their lack of chivalry rather than a well known unwritten law of the sea that people had heard of prior to it's sinking.

[aja89]

It's easy for people to say women and children first because it's the chivalrous thing to do. But trust me, if I was on a sinking ship with my mum, dad and brother, I'd be punching bitches out of the way to get all my family on a life boat.

[jennifex]

(Original post by associativememory)
It should be the ones who can contribute most to society that shall live.

Lol. We'll all stand around and have the debate of who is going to contribute the most while the ship sinks :P

[Playa10]

(Original post by Dragonfly07)
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.

I'm only referring to the question of reproduction...not mass reproduction

[Dragonfly07]

(Original post by Playa10)
I'm only referring to the question of reproduction...not mass reproduction

It doesn't really need to be mass reproduction. If you want 5 more babies in the world, the minimum you'd need is one man and 5 women. Men arent very essential in numbers.

[kka25]

(Original post by Mr Smurf)
It should be in this order:

Women and Children
Men
Feminists

So true

[Aj12]

Since ships tend to have enough life boats I don't think it really matters

[Annora]

Children and disabled first, as they're the most vulnerable in the water. The differences in the chances of survival in the water between men and women is not distinct or clear enough to make a general statement of who should be the first priority.

[kka25]

(Original post by SubAtomic)
What if the waters are shark infested I am a guy so if I am being left to go in the shark infested water pass me a gun so I can maybe have a happier ending.

OMG if this would happen!!