Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder if women and children should be evacuated first?

289 replies

lesley33 · 17/01/2012 14:05

I have been reading about the recent sinking of the Italian cruise ship and one thing that struck me was the passengers complaining that womena nd children weren't evacuated first. Now many would agree that children should be evacuated first. But should women be evacuated before men?

If I was on a sinking ship I would want to be evacuated early on. But really AIBU to think there is no real reason why I should be evacuated ahead of a male passenger?

OP posts:
nulgirl · 19/01/2012 17:00

I know - its such a sad story and the men and older nurses were so brave and noble. I would have thought that it was because they had a much stronger sense of duty due to it being wartime. Everyone in the boat would have carried with them the risk of death every day and so didn't panic. Not sure I could ever be so selfless.

kerala · 19/01/2012 17:29

That is so sad nulgirl. I had a great uncle who was a ships doctor in WW2. His ship was torpedoed (sp). He felt he couldn't leave his patients so went down with the ship. He was only 28 and his heartbroken fiancee never married anyone else we still have his photograph up. My granny often talked about him - a quiet gentle man but with a great sense of humour.

Hulababy · 19/01/2012 17:39

Although we don;t know for definite about the captain and the first office, this report from the BBC regarding the Giglio mayor is in complete contrast. He actually got in a lifeboat and went TO the ship and helped to rescue people for 6 hours, until exhausted.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16638399

He actually went out into the sea, onto a sinking ship, putting his own life at risk to save others.

franatash · 19/01/2012 17:42

I am in my late eighties and need a lot of help. It would be quite ridiculous for me to be given priority at my age. I have n ot too many years to live and though I lead a happy life it would be useless to put me on a boat to the exclusion of younger an d more able people. Just imagine what an incumbrance I would be!

HappyHugs · 19/01/2012 23:09

Franatash I really hope that I will think like you when I'm you're age. I think it's a brave and noble thing to see the value in a younger person's life at the possible expense of your own.

I just asked my DH about this whole subject. He was shocked to hear that there are men out there using the 'equality' case to justify a free for all scenario; his reasoning is that we're not equal, men (in general) are physically stronger and have a better chance of swimming etc. He would never place himself before any woman or child. I believe that's true (even though it makes me a but sad, I'm also proud of him for it).

Whatmeworry · 20/01/2012 07:31

He was shocked to hear that there are men out there using the 'equality' case to justify a free for all scenario;

To the best of my knowledge it's been some women, not men, arguing for that on this thread. And there is a certain logic to it, ie if equality is claimed in all other areas then it should apply to saving your skin too.

To my mind the interesting differentiation is between mothers and others.

TeaTowelQueen · 20/01/2012 08:16

Coming a bit late to this but I do have personal experience of being evacuated from a war zone - not quite the same as a sinking ship, MOST people panicked less than they would - but we followed the women and children first and it made a lot of sense. In the situation we were in, women and children were a vulnerability. The men left behind were able to make clear and decisive decisions when the worry of their families was removed, luckily in this case they all followed a couple of days later but it wasn't clear at the time how many planes we were going to be able to get in and out.

And before I get jumped on I am not being sexist about women and children being a vulnerability, should the government troops we were supposedly under the protection of got nasty, the men might have been treated ok, but women and children were regarded as second class citizens, we were better off under the 'protection' of the rebel forces.

I was sixteen and put in charge of a bunch of other kids while the mums came out on the last plane. I did a lot of growing up in one day!

In conclusion (at last you say) I think it depends on the situation you are in and that is when true leaders come to the fore, they are not always the people you think they should be.

Sermon over :)

exoticfruits · 20/01/2012 08:25

I agree with TeaTowelQueen-leaders who come to the fore, and those who are wonderful in a crisis, are not always the ones you imagine.
If women want to be fully equal then I don't think they can 'cherry pick' the parts where they want to be equal. It seems unfair to think that no differences should be made, but then say 'I'm a woman, I want your place in the lifeboat'.

Original poster
lesley33 · 20/01/2012 09:12

I posted this because on other sites where people were posting comments about this disaster, there were a lot of men saying that women shouldn't go first because of equality i.e. women couldn't argue they wanted to be treated equally in one context and not another.

OP posts:
lottiegb · 20/01/2012 09:53

There's equal (one man, then one woman) and equal (who gets to the lifeboat first goes first). I'd be interested to know which those men really had in mind and how they think equality would be enforced in a panic.

lottiegb · 20/01/2012 09:55

Also whether the same men think all sporting events should be equal - open to all, no women's events, no paralympics. I suspect that, like a couple of people on this thread, they may be confusing 'equal' with 'the same'.

DillyTante · 20/01/2012 09:59

Marking place so I can read on my phone later.

foglike · 20/01/2012 10:06

How did paralympics get shoehorned into this thread?

Of course equality means equality and with that equality we have to accept responsibility.

We can't be weak one minute and strong the next to suit our position at the time it's just wrong on every level.

The glaring facts are that women can be as able as men in the water and there are some shit bad male swimmers and excellent female swimmers.

BoffinMum · 20/01/2012 11:31

I think TeaTowelQueen has hit the nail on the head. You have to stop thinking about crap like equality, which is actually very individualistic and somewhat petty in the circumstances, and think about the greater good of the group, so as many people survive as possible. Then someone has to show some leadership and stand up and direct other people with this end in mind.

I think I probably have a disaster-ready mindset. I've had various types of related training in my life, and been in a couple of sticky situations (eg schools with real fires, bad traffic accidents, other stuff) where I had to do this, so I know that: 1. I am comfortable taking the initiative and standing up and directing others, and 2. I tend not to panic until 12-24 hours later, when I get a delayed reaction and have nightmares, but in fact find myself falling back on my training and being calmer and even more authoritative than usual. I also know I need to find 1-2 large framed men (or in extremis, women) of a certain age and mindset in the first two minutes to physically direct both sides of the group while I helicopter over the situation and look at the bigger picture (if I can - sometimes you simply don't have enough information but you have to do your best), for the appropriate shepherding to safety to happen. This is not heroism, this is not ego, it is training and experience. As I know I can do this, I see it as my responsibility to help as far as possible as not everyone has this ability. Sometimes someone comes along who is better at this than me, so I am happy also to stand aside and assist if it is clear this is the case. I have done that too.

It occurs to me that this captain had probably not had sufficient training and certainly did not expect to find himself in a situation where in peacetime and calm water his ship was sinking. Hence he started doing irrational things. I think it's not desirable, but it is understandable.

winnybella · 20/01/2012 11:44

I think a captain of a cruise liner must have gotten safety training, I cannot believe he didn't. In any case, nothing excuses him and his 1st officer 'accidently falling' into the lifeboat before the evacuation was completed. Interstingly enough, the International Maritime Law doesn't say that the captain has to be the last to leave the ship, although there is lots about taking responsibility for the passangers and the crew.

In Polish Maritime Law (I'm Polish and have been googling out of curiosity) it is clearly said that the captain must be the last to leave the ship in all circumstances. I wonder about Italian law.

In any case he proved himself a coward.

And equality-yes, sure, but men pushing/kicking women away is a bit Hmm, don't you think? I think myself equal in lots of things, but strength is not one of them.

BoffinMum · 20/01/2012 11:45

I imagine he was trained in how to carry out normal evacuation procedures, but these probably assumed engine failure or something, not a boat listing to the side like Titanic.

winnybella · 20/01/2012 11:51

Titanic wasn't listing to the side. Surely they must get training in case of ship sinking? The same as airline pilots and crew get training what to do in case of ditching in water etc.

Lueji · 20/01/2012 11:52

It gets more complicated than that.
Maybe thin people who are more likely to suffer from hypothermia should get in the lifeboats and fat people should risk getting in the water?
Plus, you can save more people if only skinny people get in the lifeboats.

The same for children. Two or three children weigh about less than a male adult. Most women are also lighter than men.
So that means more people fit in the lifeboats and more people are actually saved.

Simples.

;-)

winnybella · 20/01/2012 11:52

And he didn't follow proper evacuation procedures- they waited for over an hour before they started. If they had started earlier (before the ship listed) and got everyone on deck then there wouldn't be 11 dead and 20 missing.

BoffinMum · 20/01/2012 11:53

That's true, it sank one end, then lots of women in billowy white dresses fell all the way down the deck as the ship went vertical, and then it sank completely (or was that just the film?)

Anyway, the ship leaning that way made lifeboats unusable, as I understand it.

BoffinMum · 20/01/2012 11:54

That's an argument for a boat for of slim, young women and one fit bloke again.
Oh yes, we started there.

winnybella · 20/01/2012 11:56

If they didn't wait over an hour til the ship started listing the lifeboats would be usable. And there wouldn't be people trapped in lower decks' corridors if they got everyone out on the deck in time as opposed telling them it was only a little electrical mishap.

Whatmeworry · 20/01/2012 12:05

That's an argument for a boat for of slim, young women and one fit bloke again.

But no feminists 'cos they believe there is no difference between them and the menz :o

sausagesandmarmelade · 20/01/2012 12:10

No particular group should go off first....

Reason being that sorting people into groups takes time...time that is very precious. Should be first come, first serve BUT you would hope that the crew and the strongest would do their best to help others evacuate...before 'jumping ship' themselves.

exoticfruits · 20/01/2012 13:37

I think that far more worrying than who goes first, is today's film of people mustering in their life jackets to be told they are being silly,there is no problem and to go back to their cabins. You hope that people trusted their instincts and stayed put.