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

Scroll to see replies

Personally I believe families should be saved first, so yeah, including men. I can't imagine growing up without a Dad :/

I'm not saying single people shouldn't be saved, but parents and children in my eyes have more of a priority. Of course, it would be perfect if everyone can be saved :frown:

Reply 141

Cll_ws

Just make it random, evacuate people by room number or something, who cares whether they're male or female.
Women who believe they should go first are only going against the rule of equality. The woman should go first so that she's there for her children if her husband dies? nonsense. In this day and age she could be a woman working full time every day of the week, with somebody else looking after he children anyway. The husband would have just as much of a case for going first, he could look after the children if that was the problem.

Reply 142

lemonabc

Original post by salma25

where do you think they will get the time to ask if the person can or cant swim??? :confused:

if the situation occurs it would be every man child or woman should fend for them selves

everyone would be thinking for the selves and how they would save their own life

it actually takes a split second to make decisions in an emergency with all the adrenaline running. it takes about 2 hours for a boat to sink, even in a plane crash where evacuations must be done within 120 seconds there's plenty of time to keep order and prioritise the evacuation according to need. flight attendants have strict protocols to adhere to in these circumstances to make sure people who need help are attended to first, failing to do so will be neglect.

have to disagree, i've witnessed humans who are selfless even in a life or death situation.

Reply 143

Cll_ws

Original post by bexstarr

Even if I was a single, world famous scientist, close to finding a cure for cancer. and the family was a non-working, benefit receiving couple with 5 children (8 if you include the two that were taken off them, and the one in prison)? :lol:

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 144

Electronica

I would hope that many people would be more courteous than to be the first to rush for a lifeboat. Sinking ships take a long time to sink usually. I personally would wait until the very last second, helping others get on the lifeboats, before I would get on. Since I consider myself to be a strong, physically fit male. I hope by the time everyone else is on that there is still room for me on those boats.

But in answer to the question, anyone they like can get on the lifeboats first - I wouldn't judge them. I hope that people would notice the old frail man in the corner or the young child and would help to get them on the boats before they do.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 145

Intriguing Alias

Maybe this will come off as controversial but what is with people saying save the vulnerable first including elderly people. Chances are on a proper sinking whoever it is will die if they don't get on a lifeboat, no matter how fit and healthy they are. So then wouldn't we rather save the 20-30 year old men who may have children or at least have big futures ahead of them, over someone who has lived a pretty full life.

Reply 146

diving_queen

Original post by SubAtomic

I would say the opposite. Elderly and sickly people last as their time is nearly up or miserable anyway so why should healthy men in their prime be sentenced to death?

Plus people like Ray Mears would come in very handy so people with survival at sea skills should go first or make sure they get on at some point.

Seems very unfair and a bit counter productive saving a group full of frail and disabled people with no survival skills as they will die at sea anyway if they aren't rescued quick enough.

I'd have said it more 'PC' but this.

Why disabled people? And the Eldery? The latter have had their best years, why leave a healthy fit 20-55 (Note, not saying above 55 you are eldery but think they are the prime years) who the earlier ones still have almost their whole life left? To die. Because they are supposedly 'fit'?

Reply 147

Shabalala

Original post by Electronica

But in a titanic situation there wasn't enough life boats for people to get into which means you would be sentencing people to death by refusing them access to a life boat and and why should an old man/woman who has already lived their life get to live over a young person who is just starting out in their life. If it wasn't like the titanic and there was enough life boats or if we were close to land/another ship then yes I would help all those less physically fit than me or those that couldn't swim aboard before myself but in a Titanic situation I would first make sure my family get's on a boat and then myself.

Oh and it's can happen even today where there isn't enough lifeboats sometimes if the ship has turned past a certian degree then they can't deploy life boats on one side of the ship or if there is a fire it can block access to life boats so a similar situation could happen some time in the future.

Reply 148

Electronica

Original post by Shabalala

Then I would sacrifice myself to save others. What happens then is between all the people jostling for a window seat on the lifeboats. In the Titanic film, I'd probably be the guy playing cello waiting for inevitable destruction. :tongue:

I'm not so afraid of death as I'm sure other people are.

Reply 149

SubAtomic

Original post by diving_queen

Lol political correctness is not my strong point and never will be :cool:

Seems a backwards proposition to leave the strong and healthy behind and save the frail and genetically weak.

Reply 150

Bea492

I think the whole women and children first thing was born in the age of chivalry. Now that it seems chivalry is largely dead so I don't know how likely it is that men would go with it now.
The equality issue has to be brought up now as you could say women can't have it all ways etc. But it's a bit like punching- it's socially acceptable for a man to hit a man but it's quite universally seen as wrong if a man hits a woman as its seen as a bit of an uneven match physically (in most cases). So the men that throw women and kids out of the way to save themselves is going to forever be shamed and looked down upon. It depends whether men actually care about this or not, if not I'd say it's fair game excepting children who should be saved first. But as a woman, I'd hope all the men wouldn't throw my poor self overboard to save themselves!

Reply 151

boba

I would say children given priority but not women

Reply 152

SubAtomic

Original post by kuteascake

Should the captain still order men to step aside for women and children?

Discuss :biggrin:

If the captain tried this they would be walking the plank :smile:

Arrr

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 153

gemnomnom

Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox

I would like to think that modern ships are better equipped so that not as many people would die.. But.

I do think women and children should go first. In the modern world, chances are there could be helicopters sent out to those without a lifeboat within an hour, and the simple fact remains that men are stronger than women and children as a general rule and therefore would be more likely to be able to survive until help arrived.

It's not sexist, it's common sense to ensure the survival of the most people.

In the Titanic scenario, there would not be much between the expected survival time of a man and a woman. You have said, "in the modern world", but the Atlantic is still pretty cold.

Reply 154

ALazyThracian

I would love to see a ship full of politicians maybe even obama upon a sinking ship to see if they just stand there and say "Ladies first" o.O

Reply 155

A Mysterious Lord

Women want equality don't they? They can't just pick and choose the best bits then go back to being vulnerable little women whenever it suits :p:

Reply 156

diving_queen

Original post by SubAtomic

Lol political correctness is not my strong point and never will be :cool:

Seems a backwards proposition to leave the strong and healthy behind and save the frail and genetically weak.

Completely agree.

Reply 157

Spaz Man

For goodness sake not EVERYTHING ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH has to be subject to political correctness. It is slowly sucking the life out of this country.

Reply 158

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.

Reply 159

Shabalala

Original post by Sniggey

Actually it can still happen if a ship happens to flip to one side and goes past a certian degree then they wouldn't be able to lower the life boats on one side of the ship and sometimes they are innacesible because of a fire or something.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/disasters-at-sea-why-ships-sink/4od

The above examples are from the program above the only reason more people didn't die is because a rescue helicopter managed to get the remaining people of the first ship and in the 2nd one they were carrying extra emergency inflatible life rafts at the time which they don't normally do which saved more people.