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?

The biggest losers on the Titanic were 3rd class men (Steerage).Percentage Survived: 13%

The biggest winners were 1st class women.Percentage Survived: 97%

Even first class children suffered by percentage in comparison to first class women. Percentage Survived: 86%

Second class women fared equally compared to first class children.Percentage Survived: 86%

Second class men were hit hard with Percentage Survived: 8%

Stats obviously don't tell us everything but when the Titanic sunk class came before sex and sex came before everyone else whatever the age of the passenger.

I would evacuate families first (or if worse comes to worse children with their mothers) then women and eldelry as they are more fragile and finally men.

I dont think it is partical to impliment woman and children first, surely it would implicate on the speed and efficiency of the evacuation if people are being moved back and pushed forward, also the trauma and damage of breaking up family units would have a massive psychological affect in recovering from such a tradgedy and traumatic event.

Apparently if you apply the 'women and children' first rule to airline evacuations, the time taken to evacuate is more than double due to the time taken to organise and sort categories. If there are sufficient lifeboats for everyone, (unlike in the Titanic where it was clear that there would be deaths) then it is quicker to evacuate simply by order. The aim of evacuation is to get everyone out quickly and increase survival chances for all - this is achieved by treating everyone equally.

Lueji that's harsh.... but probably true :(

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.

Nubile women and 1 fit bloke to every lifeboat.....

Had this discussion with my OH last night. He reckons that due to differing body fat to muscle ratios men are less likely to survive jumping into a cold sea than women, so should go first, but I countered with the fact that women and children have larger surface area to volume ratios so will lose heat more quickly (two many scientists in one house can be a problem)

Seriously though, I hope that the more able would help the less able, whatever their sex and age.

I would think in most situations an airline evacuation is faster and every second is more critical, though, whereas things may happen more slowly with a sinking liner and there would likely be more space to arrange people.

Wouldn't you think think a man that jumps ship before a woman is a coward?
I think I am too old fashioned for this world, I want to get off.

I don't really think men are brought up to have a keen sense of honour these days, perhaps it was so in the past when men were more privileged than women women and, at the same time, expected to risk their lives in war. Perhaps it was a different conditioning. They ruled the roost and also they were expected to be the defenders of it. I don't know if there really was more of that in the past obviously but I assume so.

In the end, unattractive as thse men strike us, trampling past dc to get on a boat faster, you really cannot say one human life is more valuable than another I suppose.

Well, actually, from a biological/evolutionary point of view saving children is rather a high risk strategy (if your aim is to perpetuate the species) as child mortality is rather high - so even if they survive the immediate threat, they will be of no reproductive use for years. So children should be evacuated after adults of breeding age, but before the sick and elderly.

Best to forget evolution and stick to common humanity, I think.

I wouldn't timetoask

I don't see why men should be expected to be braver than women, or to have more capability to override their survival instinct than women.

Plenty of men are complete wusses, that doesn't mean they aren't real men or don't have value in lots of other ways. Plus, you can never know what responsibility a man has for someone else, or what physical weaknesses they may have that would give them less chance of survival than your average woman.

what is the point in saving the life of a boy if he is only to go down on a boat when he is grown up IYSWIM?

Hmm. I would say that men who trample children in order to save themselves aren't 'real' men, no.

ZZZen, I don't think men do have as much of a sense of honour nowadays, but much of that will be down to feminism and equality, and the fact that men can also no longer beat their wives when they want, or rape them when they want. Women wanted to be treated equally, (and rightly so) so they have to take the good with the bad. They can't say that they have equal right to the things they want but they still wanted to be treated like a weaker sex when that might get them on a lifeboat quicker.

Lesley,

I was thinking about this the other day too. If I were a man I would be running for my life. I didn't really come up with a solution, but I definitely;l think the elderly should be a priority.

Anyone remember this story from 2004?

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/dec/31/tsunami2004.samjones

A mother has spoken of the moment when she realised she would have to choose which of her two children might die.

Jillian Searle, from Perth in Australia, was on a family holiday with her husband, Brad, and sons Lachie, five, and Blake, two, on the island of Phuket. The tsunami struck as she and the children were strolling past their hotel pool.

As the waters rose she grabbed them but soon knew that she would not be able to hold them both. "I knew I had to let go of one of them and I just thought I'd better let go of the one that's the oldest,"

Of course any other culture, than a Western one, would scarifice the baby and keep the child who had already got past the infant mortality stage. That would be the normal instinct.

This hypothetical end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenario that this thread has mutated into: Im afraid old people are expendable as are children. Survival of the best fitted to adapt to new surroundings would be needed to start a new society. Intellect wouldnt come into it; brute strength, hunting and breeding ability would ensure the survival of the species.

maybe "sense of honour" was a weird way of putting it. It is all very well to expect people will be noble in these drastic situations but I am not sure how noble I would be if it meant risking that my dc wouldn't make it. I do think my father's generation operates a bit differently to my brother's generally though.

They can't say that they have equal right to the things they want but they still wanted to be treated like a weaker sex when that might get them on a lifeboat quicker.

dont speak for us all - I quite like being female, with all it's chivilrous advantages - those of you who wish to mutate into men may do so - just don't expect me to conform to your unnatural ideals of how you think society should be run.

IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll- but women are the weaker sex, physically speaking (generally).

Mind you I would have been shocked to see adults pushing past dc to get on the lifeboats first.

I knew what you meant ZZZen. There are men in that older generation t hat think women shouldn't be in the forces, or be builders or do other physically demanding jobs though, so I think it's a good think that that whole attitude is disappearing.

Troisgarcons I like being the 'weaker' sex too, it serves me well in many ways!

But I also think that my husbands life is equally important to mine, as will my son's lives be when they grow up. In a race to a lifeboat situation, I think I would be fully prepared to physically fight it out with any woman that thought she had more right to one of my male family members spaces than they do just because of her sex.

Winnybella, the problem is that it is just too general. There are man with hidden disabilities or weaknesses, there are men that are strong by are 5 foot four and weigh nine stone, while there are women that are six foot and weigh eighteen stone, so will be stronger just because of that. That's why you just have to put equal value on everyone's right to survive, sex should have nothing to do with it.

Any adult who pushes past a child to be saved is a lesser human being in my book, regardless of sex. My sister is an officer on a cruise ship, and this has really had her shaken/thinking.

Hmm, tricky.

I'm an OK swimmer, though nothing fantastic. When my kids were little I tried swimming (just in a council pool) while supporting them. It was obvious that if we had to swim to shore, even a short way, we'd all drown :( I could save myself I think but not my kids, so they would only survive if we'd all been in lifeboats.

DH being stronger would have been more likely to be able to save them. So maybe he could have gone into the water with them, while I went separately. On the other hand, I have more body fat than him and would survive longer in cold waters. So he could go in the lifeboat with them while I swam.

Now they're bigger and more independent, they could go in the lifeboat while DH and I swam. Then again, the kids can now swim better than me...

Hope I never have to try this out!