What do you guys think of the unwritten "women and children first" rule for sinking ships and other emergencies?

goatismycopilot · 2019-04-12T12:40:07+00:00

Children first.

[deleted] · 2019-04-12T15:57:27+00:00

I refer you to a comment I made a few years ago:

I would be too busy being gobsmacked that anybody yelled that (edit: "Women and children first") in the first place. I have no idea why there is this conception that gallant men stayed behind to drown while women and children were herded into lifeboats. There were a lot of shipwrecks in the 19th century, and in nearly every single one, women and children were the ones most likely to die. Men booked it off that ship and left women and children behind to die. (Edit: And the reason that men were more likely to survive is that most ships did not have lifeboats, most women couldn't swim, and most women weren't willing to save themselves and leave their children to die. If the only option was to swim for it, men were the ones most able and willing to do so.)

Several years ago, the Philadelphia Museum of Art had an excellent exhibit on contemporary portrayals of 19th century shipwrecks, and noted quite clearly that men were far more likely to survive. The exhibit was centered around a painting by Winslow Homer, sensational at the time, of a man rescuing a woman from a shipwreck. It was sensational for several reasons; the first, of course, was the fact that total strangers were pressed so physically close together. (The models for the painting were a brother and sister, I believe.) The second was that such a rescue was even possible; the lifeline of the title was new technology at the time and much lauded. The third was that a man was going back to save a woman in the first place. This event was uncommon enough to be noteworthy.

nemma88 · 2019-04-12T12:21:04+00:00

I agree with the commenters who suggested less able through to most able but then this comment changed my mind a bit...

I would think that simply chucking evacuees onto the lifeboats as they arrive is the most efficient way of emptying a boat. Messing around deciding who goes first is simply delaying everyone.

As noted in the article, since the whole Titanic thing ships carry lifeboats to 125% capacity, so it's never a question of how much space is available, only when you are boarded.

Evacuation should be fairly quick if there are enough trained staff on hand. So maybe some sort of middle ground where the disabled have their own boarding area while the rest wait to board. It's not like they are filling lifeboats up one at a time. It's mentioned here in the article the passengers had not yet gone through the evacuation process as it was the first day, so it likely made the whole thing more chaotic than needed.

As for people fighting to get onto lifeboats, they should stop believing what happens in movies is real.

This bit is pretty warming though eh..

All the research we've done in all types of disasters – maritime, aircraft, train with fires, building disasters, the World Trade Centre - people are pretty selfless people will help other people. Even in very extreme situations. So I would expect that conditions would have had to deteriorated to a very, very bad level before people decided that they weren't going to help other people.

supermans_90s_mullet · 2019-04-12T14:25:57+00:00

Do they still exist? Don't regulations typically nowadays require that there be enough lifeboats for all?

Indeed the article says:

It now prescribes that there should be 125% life boat capacity creating a surplus that in theory is supposed to prevent the need to ration the evacuation procedures. [...] The current guidance gives no advice on prioritising different groups of passengers. There must be adapted life boats for people with mobility impairments, not including babies or toddlers, but they are otherwise not prioritised in the evacuation process.

"Women and children first" no longer exists as a matter of protocol: it's first come first serve if they are under capacity.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2019-04-12T14:16:33+00:00

But who does get priority during evacuations?

as far as i know, the only way this would come into play is as the private policy of a common carrier or of a public accomodation and apply to the STAFF regarding the their role in an evacuation process.. theres no laws regarding it nor should there be. so what is there to discuss

LeJacquelope · 2019-04-12T16:14:52+00:00

There is no such thing as feminism in the middle of a disaster.

lefactorybebe · 2019-04-12T12:23:33+00:00

There is no unwritten rule. There are like four cases ever of "women and children first". Historically, women make up the vast amount of deaths on shipwrecks.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/dn22119-sinking-the-titanic-women-and-children-first-myth/amp/

The survival rate for men was almost double that of women for the shipwrecks studied spanning the past 300 years.

Edit: and on the most famous case of "women and children first", we have no idea how well that would even have been accepted. The captain gave the order, the officers enforced it. But the captain and some of the officers were the only ones who actually knew the ship was going to sink and there were not enough lifeboats. All the passengers believed it wasnt serious and help would arrive shortly. At first they had to convince people to get in the boats because nobody wanted to leave the apparent safety of the ship. Nobody believed their lives were at risk, and they were told by officers that everything was going to be fine. Once it became clear that the ship would actually sink, both men and women panicked to get into the few remaining boats. There were cases of men disguising themselves as women to get a spot as well. So we don't really know what would have happened if the passengers knew from the start how serious the situation was.

Jeez, this is the third time the Titanic has come up in the past two days for me. And we're currently in the anniversary of its sailing (April 10-15), how funny!!

WhiteningMcClean · 2019-04-12T12:26:02+00:00

Younger first, excluding extremely young children.

Barely-moral · 2019-04-12T12:26:53+00:00

To that rule I say the same thing that I say to any rule that wants me to act against my own benefit. "Make me"

Maybe I am forced to obey it. If that is the case... sucks for me.

poppy_blu · 2019-04-12T11:51:16+00:00

There is no women and children first rule. Stop believing Hollywood melodrama.

I’ve been on a plane that had to evacuate and been involved in a few disaster related evacuations. There was no women and children first rule. Each time it was an orderly evacuation based on getting everyone out as fast as possible with no one getting hurt.

sublimemongrel · 2019-04-12T11:38:42+00:00

I think it speaks to more traditional gender roles of men being the protectors. I don’t have any experience with what happens during disasters (fortunately) but it’s nice to see that the people who have studied it found people in general tried to be selfless in helping others. What I can say is that if my husband and I were in such a situation I cannot imagine he would even let me try to save him over myself if he could stop me.

FereallyRed · 2019-04-12T15:27:03+00:00

Fuck that noise. Me first, bitches.

AutoModerator · 2019-04-12T11:09:15+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[deleted] · 2019-04-12T14:22:14+00:00

Just get everyone on the lifeboats, whoever's in line.

GridReXX · 2019-04-12T15:09:25+00:00

“fuck them kids”™️

chukb2012 · 2019-04-12T16:16:20+00:00

Feminists fought for equal rights so I figure we're all equally able to fend for ourselves in such a tragic time, but honestly if i can save children before me i would.

phillipsheadhammers · 2019-04-12T11:16:09+00:00

Children first.

Primary caretakers of those children second.

In centuries past, that meant women. Today, it only means women three quarters of the time.

If there's still space after children and their primary caretakers, draw straws.

abaxeron · 2019-04-12T15:22:23+00:00

The "women and children first" rule doesn't exist, but it should, so we get more wonderful cases like the one I-can't-remember-the-name-of where women got loaded on two lifeboats without a single man, and they were so weak and incompetent that none of them could oar the boat away; one lifeboat got covered by the wave raised by the sinking ship, and the other got sucked beneath the surface after it.

Ultimately, of course, emergency situations should be prevented.

DartagnanDema · 2019-04-12T11:50:17+00:00

This has never actually been a rule. It's not maritime law. It's just one of those things spread through the media really.

But to answer your question, humans have a survival instinct like all other animals and we will default to self-preservation. If I see a space on a lifeboat and I can beat a child to get in first I will.

In an emergency everyone should be treated equally imo. Lifeboats should be (and in practice, are) first come first serve.

Hungry_AF · 2019-04-12T11:59:20+00:00

Children should go first because they have a whole life ahead of them they could potentially experience. It would be tragic to take that away from them. Also, they are the most helpless.

Women should go second because fuck men.

Sir_Koopaman · 2019-04-12T13:47:55+00:00

Absolutely not. I go first, not some random ho and her spawn.

3vilg0d · 2019-04-12T11:55:23+00:00

There should be no unwritten rule. Everything should be based upon first come first serve basis. If we are pursuing egalitarianism, it's of utmost importance to value each life equally regardless of age or gender.

_Anarchon_ · 2019-04-12T14:56:49+00:00

Ladies and kids of yesteryear deserve special respect. Women and kids of today? No special treatment.

CamoWoobie100 · 2019-04-12T12:27:13+00:00

Survival of the fittest IMO. Women children and elderly be damned, I'm gunna do what I gotta do to survive even if it means going to prison when I get back.

yasee · 2019-04-12T16:05:10+00:00

I think it makes sense to prioritize kids and people who can't swim, assuming you've got the luxury of time.

looking at that picture I'm thinking I might be able to survive without a lifeboat, just float for awhile and wait for rescue. I am probably underestimating the sea though

LinkedFerret69 · 2019-04-12T16:08:38+00:00

It's an outdated concept assuming men can help themselves amd women can't. Children, that is accurate. But some women are capable of helping themselves and some men are not

The-Wizard-of-Oz- · 2019-04-12T16:40:10+00:00

Hypocritical double standards. You can't have it big waysm

redditicantrecall · 2019-04-12T17:12:24+00:00

I can see children. Same with handicapped people.

Women it depends, same with men. There's some pretty tough, strong women out there.

insultin_crayon · 2019-04-12T17:35:09+00:00

In a perfect world (ships wouldn’t sink in a perfect world though, would they?) think the order should be:

Children 14 and below
Physically disabled persons
Elderly
Non-swimmers and weak swimmers
Able-bodied women and men.

I’m a woman who is a very strong swimmer and can (and have) tread water for a few hours. I’ll be okay.

buartha · 2019-04-12T17:45:18+00:00

I feel the same way as I felt every other time this sort of thing has been posted. It's a myth outside a few isolated incidents, but if it weren't I would support it on the basis that women of child bearing age have the chance of being pregnant. No room for post menopausal ladies though, sorry nans.

Jackpot807 · 2019-04-12T17:57:17+00:00

As a man it makes me feel objectified - like my only purpose is to be disposed of. I know the alternative is worse, but I still don’t like feeling like I’m disposable.

JustRuss79 · 2019-04-12T18:06:04+00:00

Outside of some sort of emergency requiring physical strength... I don't see it as valid anymore.

Children should go first regardless, they are the least useful and most at risk in an emergency situation. Infirm or Disabled people next... then weak women and men, then strong women, then strong men.

Basically... if you need someone to hold open a falling metal door, or carry heavy boxes, or pull people to safety...

There are perfectly capable women, and and women MORE capable than men of being physically useful in these situations. These women have trained for them, and have worked to get stronger.

But by NATURE.. men tend to be stronger without working for it, and would more useful in some situations.

I don't think its a value for life argument like it may have been in the past (see Draft), for me its a skills in an emergency argument.

Is she physically strong, exceptionally well trained, a doctor/nurse/emt? Are her skills more useful with the children or with the disaster response team?

So... if you realize that "women and children first" is nuanced and not a hard rule...then it should still be followed. But if you use it because you think women are weak, or because they deserve some greater priority and protection... then you are an ass.

No way to know if you are one or the other, some people will always think you're an ass, others will understand, other will agree with the wrong assumption.

You are basically screwed no matter what for saying it. Welcome to being PC. Nuance is Dead.

Long live Nuance.

Bntt89 · 2019-04-12T18:13:48+00:00

I think it’s clear that it’s children first as they have barely experienced life. After that I guess it’s fair game.

Also women can’t use the naturalistic approach to obligate men letting them off first. Because if they do this then they have no argument against ppl who say they should be in the house talking care of the children. They are both using nature to prescribe rules and obligations on genders. This would not be consistent.

KerPop42 · 2019-04-12T18:15:23+00:00

To each according to their need.

People least able to survive without a boat should get them first. On the other hand, women tend to have more body fat and less muscle mass, making them float better. So it's pretty complicated. As always, Marx is less useful than he at first seems

shoup88 · 2019-04-12T20:58:01+00:00

It’s a myth and it always has been a myth.

I also think it has nothing to do with this sub.

blackedoutfast · 2019-04-12T21:38:50+00:00

no, it should be a battle royale style fight to survive. children are easily replaceable and women are too inept and weak to be good at much of anything except having kids. ships should have exactly one lifeboat, and whoever takes it gets official recognized as a true Chad.

AngryNurse2019 · 2019-04-13T13:50:26+00:00

Historically, it’s honored more in the breach than the observance. It’s like “chivalry”, a mythic ideal that almost never exists in real life. Other than the obvious “children” part, it’s just an example of benevolent sexism. After all, it’s men who decided not to have enough lifeboats for everyone.

[deleted] · 2019-04-13T21:56:10+00:00

They're not my children and those women aren't gonna fuck me, so I hope you can swim

-Mavs · 2019-04-12T15:53:40+00:00

Yeah, I'm not potentially giving my life for a cunt and stupid kid whom I don't know just because society pressures me into it; society doesn't give a fuck about me as a male, why should I give about it?

fuckdr11 · 2019-04-12T12:05:51+00:00

I support it, because children and women are typically physically weaker and slower than men.

Nevidimka- · 2019-04-12T13:09:44+00:00

The rule children first shouldn't have to be explained.

When it comes to women first, if nobody would say women first, most if not all women would die since the average woman can't fight the average man. If you implement this moral code, they have more chance. Obviously, not every man is going to keep the code, especially not when shit really hits the fan and survival instincts kick in, which will hopefully balance things out towards the ideal 50/50 outcome? I'm just speculating. Idk if these things have ever been properly researched.

wingbark · 2019-04-12T13:40:49+00:00

Lol unless I have a wife and kids of my own, I’m saving myself first. If I have a wife and children, my objective would be to ensure their safety first. For them, I’d sacrifice. For anyone else, you’ll have to try and stop me

crackrocksteady7 · 2019-04-12T11:13:48+00:00

If this rule wasn’t in place, women and children would die.

Title	What do you guys think of the unwritten "women and children first" rule for sinking ships and other emergencies?
Author	topredhat
Upvotes	7
Comments	141
Date	April 12, 2019 11:09 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/bcca5l/what_do_you_guys_think_of_the_unwritten_women_and/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-do-you-guys-think-of-the-unwritten-women-and.256272 https://theredarchive.com/post/256272

Comments