• Women and Children first
    300 replies, posted
This thread is about the idea of women and children being evacuated first in a disaster. I was reading an article on the cruise ship that capsized off the coast of Italy and the crew said that they tried to get Women and children on lifeboats first but that the Men wanted to get on too to 'stay as a family'. Apparently this caused confusion. What I wonder is: in an apparently non-sexist society, why this rule still applies. I support the children part, but this is an area in which a women's life is being valued over that of a man, which is sexist. [B]Edit:[/B] 07/02/2012 I think a better scenario is you have enough time but not enough capacity.
It's out of respect for the women. A man is supposed to lay down his life for the women he loves, it's been that way for years. Also, care to post a link to the article?
Oh i thought this was about the Van Halen album...
because men are traditionally considered to be braver? That they are willing to die if it means saving women? I don't know why, but I don't see why it's a problem. (and is it really sexism if men came up with it?) [editline]14th January 2012[/editline] and because chivalry isn't dead.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16561382[/url] Also, I am not saying that men should be allowed to give their place, but to have it engraved in the rules is sexist. In the article "He said children and women were given priority when it came to allocating places on lifeboats, but the system proved to be difficult to implement because many men "weren't accepting this" because they wanted to remain together as a family, prompting "huge confusion"."
see. If they accepted it, the "huge confusion" could have been avoided.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34210197]see. If they accepted it, the "huge confusion" could have been avoided.[/QUOTE] I can't blame them for not just laying down their lives. They have as much of a right to life as anyone else.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34210197]see. If they accepted it, the "huge confusion" could have been avoided.[/QUOTE] If a matter of social standing gets in way of your family and or your life you shouldn't simply "accept" it. Issues like these should be under-minded and erased from a modern society.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;34210234]I can't blame them for not just laying down their lives. They have as much of a right to life as anyone else.[/QUOTE] well seeing as only 3 people died, "laying their lives down" is an overstatement. [editline]14th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;34210246]If a matter of social standing gets in way of your family and or your life you shouldn't simply "accept" it. Issues like these should be under-minded and erased from a modern society.[/QUOTE] but then what should be the system for this? first people to the boats get them?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34210288]well seeing as only 3 people died, "laying their lives down" is an overstatement. [/QUOTE] Firstly, that incident was simply an example of a wider issue. At the time I doubt they knew if they were going to survive. Also, 3 is the current death toll but 70 are unnaccounted for. Not all of them are likely dead but I would be surprised if it didn't rise.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;34210327]Firstly, that incident was simply an example of a wider issue. At the time I doubt they knew if they were going to survive. Also, 3 is the current death toll but 70 are unnaccounted for. Not all of them are likely dead but I would be surprised if it didn't rise.[/QUOTE] still, what would be the right way for handling this? and I never said they had less of a right to life, but it's just the right thing to do.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34210356]still, what would be the right way for handling this? and I never said they had less of a right to life, but it's just the right thing to do.[/QUOTE] It should simply be Children first, then elderly/injured/infirm, then adults.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34210356]still, what would be the right way for handling this? and I never said they had less of a right to life, but it's just the right thing to do.[/QUOTE] why? Anyone has the same claim to life. ANYONE. Though i do understand children first, women, i do not.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34210356]still, what would be the right way for handling this? and I never said they had less of a right to life, but it's just the right thing to do.[/QUOTE] Right and wrong are very debatable words. Honor to some can mean dishonor to others, the order in which people get onto life boats shouldn't ever come up as a social issue.
Personally, if there was a boat going down and there was only one lifeboat left and it was only me in a group with alot of women and children left, i would bulldoze the FUCK out of anyone to get on that lifeboat/something.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;34210395]It should simply be Children first, then elderly/injured/infirm, then adults.[/QUOTE] that makes a lot of sense. I would be surprised if this isn't done, actually. [editline]14th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=krazipanda;34210450]why? Anyone has the same claim to life. ANYONE. Though i do understand children first, women, i do not.[/QUOTE] Because traditionally that is what men do. I'm not saying it should be like a rule, but to me seems like common sense. [editline]14th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;34210512]Right and wrong are very debatable words. Honor to some can mean dishonor to others, the order in which people get onto life boats shouldn't ever come up as a social issue.[/QUOTE] how is it not a social issue?
[QUOTE=IMoo;34210642]Personally, if there was a boat going down and there was only one lifeboat left and it was only me in a group with alot of women and children left, i would bulldoze the FUCK out of anyone to get on that lifeboat/something.[/QUOTE] I would say that is a little extreme. I would not value your right on that boat over that of the women, although seen as you have a better chance of survival without the boat the children should take precedence, although there should be a few adults on board for obvious reasons.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34210658]that makes a lot of sense. I would be surprised if this isn't done, actually. [editline]14th January 2012[/editline] Because traditionally that is what men do. I'm not saying it should be like a rule, but to me seems like common sense. [editline]14th January 2012[/editline] how is it not a social issue?[/QUOTE] It isn't a social issue in that it is a simple matter of getting on a boat to preserve yourself, it doesn't or shouldn't matter which order people board the boat.
Gender roles and it's stupid.
I see it as yet another idiotic gender role. Nobody should be asked to lay down their lives in favor of others just because the others have a vagina. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34210062]because men are traditionally considered to be braver? That they are willing to die if it means saving women? I don't know why, but I don't see why it's a problem. (and is it really sexism if men came up with it?) [editline]14th January 2012[/editline] and because chivalry isn't dead.[/QUOTE] Just because men are traditionally considered braver doesn't mean they are. If they're willing to die, let them, but don't make the men who don't want to die do it too.
I would let the women on first, but I was raised in an older family and I guess that's why I think like that. My dad went to school with most of my friends Grandparents. So maybe my thoughts are just old, but I would let a women go in my stead, and try and help as many people as I could in the process of getting off the vessel.
If I was in a situation such as that I would say fuck that, because I'm not about to die for the sake of being chivalrous. There is no reason women should have more of a priority than men.
Can't say I'd be happy about giving up my seat on a life boat to a girl who's first instinct is to post on facebook about the ship sinking.
[QUOTE=CrispexOps;34210045]It's out of respect for the women. A man is supposed to lay down his life for the women he loves, it's been that way for years. Also, care to post a link to the article?[/QUOTE] What happened to equal rights? Wouldn't the term and action of "[B]Women [/B]and children first" be sexism?
[QUOTE=CrispexOps;34210045]It's out of respect for the women. A man is supposed to lay down his life for the women he loves, it's been that way for years. Also, care to post a link to the article?[/QUOTE] Chivalry indeed. That's the only thing I can think of I guess. Something in my male brain makes me go "But of course! We must save the women and children." But the egocentric coward within me says "Fuck that!" So I'm a bit torn on this. :v:
It is a gentlemanly thing dating back to way back, it is the same thing as putting your coat on a puddle for a woman or a more modern example; paying for her dinner.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;34212774]It is a gentlemanly thing dating back to way back, it is the same thing as putting your coat on a puddle for a woman or a more modern example; paying for her dinner.[/QUOTE] Well if a person wishes to give their life for another, whether man or woman, that's their decision, but it shouldn't be the standard policy for this kind of thing.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;34210959]It isn't a social issue in that it is a simple matter of getting on a boat to preserve yourself, it doesn't or shouldn't matter which order people board the boat.[/QUOTE] what if there aren't enough boats for everyone? Than it does become a social issue.
It shouldn't be a requirement, it's just chivalry.
I think it's justified. It's not necessarily sexist so much as an honor principle. And it has practical applications. Children need to be protected first and foremost - I don't think that point is being debated. Furthermore, men are (for the most part) far stronger physically than women are (They are socially expected to be, and they are better genetically equipped to gain muscle mass) and so, as the last evacuees, will be better able to provide assistance necessary to save more lives until they're allowed to evacuate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.