To wonder if women and children should be evacuated first?

[lesley33]

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?

"Towards the end of his life, Winston Churchill was asked if he would like to take a cruise. He replied: ?Yes, I would. On an Italian liner.?

?But Mr. Churchill, why not a British ship??

?First, because the food is terrific. Second, because the service is superb. And third, there is none of that nonsense about women and children first.?"

Back in the day, women wore enormous skirts and dresses and underlayers, and wouldn't have stood a chance of swimming, unlike men in trousers.

Thinking, having listened to the Captains transcript last night, as he sat in the life boat...... because a man who would put himself before women and children would be a coward. And society would judge him as such. Rightly so.

Women with children in this day and age?

Oh that's horrific, Adversecamber. Why on earth was the little boy not allowed to get on the boat? Poor little soul. But why on earth did the mother not give up her seat for her son?

children, yes
women, no not necessarily

But back to the original question, this issue has been haunting me as well. If I had been on that ship alone, I would have been quite happy to swim to the shore (happy not being the right word here but you know what I mean) as I am a very strong swimmer. BUT, had I been with my three young children with me including a baby that wouldn't be possible and so would expect to have been given priority to the lifeboats. But looking at the pictures of them climbing up the ropes to get to the lifeboats are just chilling. I would not have been able to do that whilst carrying or supporting 3 children.

I am saddened by the number of comments I have read on internet and news forums from men who see no reason why they should not trample over children and vulnerable people to secure their place on the lifeboat. I would truly like to believe that I would be brave and help others in a situation like this.

I once read about a study of the factors that influence survival of air crashes (where you sit on the plane etc). The single most important survival factor was: gender. Men are far more likely to survive than women. Because, in most RL situations, people DO panic and trample and generally act less than heroically. And men do this more effectively than women.

A few years ago we went on holiday to the Maldives and went on a snorkelling trip. Basically there was about 15 of us on a boat in the middle of the sea and we all jumped off to go and look for turtles.

Anyway one time the weather suddenly changed and instead of being in nice gentle water it was suddenly 6 foot high waves. We were immediately told to swim back to the boat and then we had a wait in turn to climb the rope ladder up into the boat. The guy in charge told us who was going when and it was women first. Which was reasonably sensible except that I'm a very strong swimmer and was wearing a life jacket.

About half the people weren't so it seemed wrong that I was able to reach safety before them. I went when I was told though as it would have taken longer to argue than it did to climb the ladder.

The guy in charge got on last.

Everyone was fine and we all got on the boat very fast as it was very ordered but I do think it should have been women no jacket, men no jacket, women jacket, men jacket. It still would have put me ahead of my husband who I swim much better than but there isn't really the time for swimming tests.

I would say children and their parents first, who was next would depend on what happens if you are late getting evacuated. If it's likely everyone will survive then I'd put frailer people before stronger people. If however it seems that those evacuated last may die it makes more sense to put younger people of both sexes with more of their lives ahead of them before older people. I can't imagine many people being comfortable with leaving a boat with old people on to sink though, it seems horrid. The captain and crew should definitely be amongst the last to evacuate though, to keep order and evacuate properly, and the captain should have stayed until he had ensured all possible survivers were off the ship. That bloke comes across as an egotistical coward. I hope he's in gaol for a very long time.

On the Titanic disaster one side of the ship implemented a women & children first and thee other side of the vessel just filled the lifeboats with anyone they could. The former technique cost lives as valuable time was lost sorting out people into groups and led to lifeboats being launched half empty.

I agree that if sorting people causes delay and loses lives because all the kids are at the back then you should just fill up the boats. I never understood why they were launched half empty though, surely if no women and kids were handy you'd just shove whoever was into one to make up the numbers. The crew should be trained for this though and staying on board sorting people out. If current policy is "first come first served" they should say this to everyone.

I wouldn't be surprised if the captain was also drunk or on drugs. There seems to have been a certain lack of seriousness in his response to the situation....

I was horrified to read a headline about the Italian ship saying men were pushing children aside saying 'I don't want to die'...but the news reports are indicating so much confusion and lack of leadership, perhaps we'll never know half of what really went on.

After the Zebrugge ferry disaster, (I was aged about 11 at the time), I never went on a ferry without knowing where the muster points and life jackets were, and used to always want to make sure we were sitting as close to them as possible. Thank goodness Eurostar came along...

NB I do wonder about instinctive behaviour by parents and how much of that is actually genetic programming and how much is acting on the spur of the moment, for instance pushing your child out of the way of a car and taking the impact yourself. I would imagine parents have a genetic imperative to preserve their child's life at the expense of their own?

On telly this morning they were talking about this, and someone who seemed to know what he was talking about said that it wasted time to sort out women and children first.

In a situation like the recent disaster, it seems like if the captain had done his job properly and assembled everyone as soon as he should have, everyone would have got off that boat safely before it went under. Therefore there should have been no need to prioritise anyone over anyone else.

I don't think there should be any order myself, I think everyone, weak or strong, male or female, young or old has equal right to a space on a lifeboat. The focus should be on evacuating everyone ASAP, not sorting out who is likely to survive longest in the water.

We can all offer opinions on this but if we're never going to face the situation our musings are moot.
Officers on the Titanic used guns and weapons to shepard passengers (Or in most cases stowage) this quite clearly wouldn't be the case now so the "Law/gentlemans agreement) that woman and children go first wouldn't be observed by anyone in mortal danger.

Unless either every ship had ample lifeboats or there were council like officials with clipboards quoting regulations and asking people to form queues and fill in form 45a and form 45b in triplicate the every man for himself scenario is always going to exist.

Is the women and children first rule only applied in disasters at sea?

Burning buildings/earthquakes/explosions/RTA etc?

if in the panic of every man for himself, people were relentlessly elbowing their way forward, my guess is the women and dc would mostly end up the losers. Try jostling yourself past 5 men who have no intention of letting you pass. Doubt I would manage it. Maybe that's how it came about? In any case I suppose the idea was to rescue the dc first as the most dependent and the women next since they tended to be the ones (and probably still are) who do most of the upbringing of dc.

Women can be mothers of minors even if their dc are not with them on the boat . Could be left at home or at boarding school for instance. With mother and father gone, they would be a rough place. You couldn't go about sorting out which women have minors, which do not and all the rest of it so I suppose they just defined priorities as dc, women then men

In a different sort of survival situation - say a nuclear holocaust, you'd actually want to have fit, healthy people who take up least resources and are able to contribute most to society being the survivors. So in that case, children would be a drain on society as they haven't had the investment of education and would require looking after. Likewise, elderly people or disabled people would require increasing resources as they aged so wouldn't be prioritised. Fertile women would be prioritised most as they be needed to re-populate, as would educated people with skills to rebuild society.

The number 1 thing you can do to increase your survival in these situations is plan ahead - find where exits/lifesaving equipment is and plan an escape route in advance, which decreases panic and increases your chances of survival, regardless of age/sex.

I wouldn't be surprised if the captain was also drunk or on drugs. There seems to have been a certain lack of seriousness in his response to the situation....

Possibly, but a lot of people are pointing fingers very early on, long before the facts are fully known - so I suspect the reasons may have more to do with blame (and fine?) shifting.

Also, a ship tilting in heavy seas at night is very confusing situation, the captain may have judged he was better off on a boat where he could get the best overall view. I wouldn't judge quite so early.

I think it's really simple. In a free-for-all the smaller people get trampled and pushed aside and the larger, stronger ones get ahead.

For an emergency situation you need simple rules that can be understood easily and acted on quickly. There isn't time for assessing individual needs or issuing complex instructions about priority.

Yes, you'd hope that people would behave in a decent, honourable way and let people weaker than themselves or parents with children go first. Unfortunately, especially in an emergency situation, lots of people are utterly selfish, so you need rules and for these to be very simple and easily enforced.

I always thought that this was the idea because men re generally stronger than women to wait for rescue or just survive in general - of course i know some men are weaker than some women but you cant test it in an emergency. For example my 6 foot 2 15 stone dh would stand a better chance of survival than me in any physical situation since i am a good foot shorter and lighter.
I cant quite imagine meekly gettign on a lifeboat and leaving him behins at the same time although im pretty sure if he had the option me or him he would just throw me in the boat with the children rather than stand about arguing about it.
When I was a child we were on a ferry in a major storm and i dont actually remember what happened but it ended up that everyone was out with lifejackets im told they were getting ready to evacuate the ship but luckily got to safety before it was needed. I was only young but my main memory of this is of orderly queing and of being ushered around with my grandfather and grandmother while my parents were no where to be seen - so perhaps we HAD been seperated into most vulnerable first? old and young? this seems most logical young plus a gaurdian .No idea as no one else on that trip with me is still alive to ask!

From an evolutionary/biological point of view, more women are required to have more children and a single man is sufficient to produce many children. Children are actually expendable, and are/have been in many societies, and women are capable of producing more children, it depends on the woman's age.
So, it would be best to save young women (best is pregnant - two in one), and older children, particularly girls and at least one young man, but not more than 1 for every 5-10 women.
Anyone over 50 is expendable.
Just saying... :)

A friend of mine was on the Estonia. From what he's said about it (not much cause was pretty traumatized) the ship capsized quickly and there was nothing like an orderly evacuation (as in the Italian case). He (male in his 20s) survived because he was lucky enough to get a place in a half inflated life-raft but also because he didn't freeze to death before rescue came - many other did. He says they were all being thrown around, soaking wet and so cold that he remembers being pleased when someone was sick as it was this tiny bit of warmth .