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?

I do think that if we were in a situation like this and there was no question that some were going to die, then I would expect DP to go with the DC in the lifeboat. He will always be stronger than I am and more capable of physically protecting them if the need arose. He's also a stronger swimmer than me. I can't see that he would agree with me though and we would end up wasting valuable time as we argued about it.

foglike "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."

Actually I think the stats, like all stats, can probably be interpreted whichever way you choose to interpret them. Robert Crampton in the Times was discussing the Titanic yesterday in connection with this very question, i.e. women and children first, and his conclusion was that sex was more important to survival than class. Apparently even third class women in steerage had a better survival rate than men in first class.

Surely the thinking behind this is that men are stronger therefore if there are no "women and children first" rules they will be able to push women out of the way and make it to the lifeboats. Therefore in the event of an accident like this all the survivors would be men (agree there is the odd exception of particularly strong women/frail men but generally men are stronger). Luckily our society has evolved from this base survival of the strongest mentality.

trois what a heart rendering story, in that snap decission such as in this scenario I would have taken my chances and kept them both and died together. but that would have been the wrong decission seeing as they all survived. wow.

I'm interested too in the aspect of the numbers of places - surely everyone had a place assigned on the lifeboats given the number of people on board? So as long as each and every lifeboat was full before launch, it wouldn't matter who evacuated first as everyone would be evacuated eventually?

I'm just thinking that it's wasting time trying to load vulnerable people first when they take the longest to evacuate - surely it should be priority to get everyone off as fast as possible, so first come, first served?

They do airplanes row-by-bow as far as I know? Same principle would apply surely?

The issue here is many lifeboats couldn't launch due to the angle of heel, so there may or may not have been enough space for everyone. And I suppose in the panic of the moment no-one knows how long the ship will stay afloat for etc so time is of the essence.

Parents of children with their children should go first. Otherwise I can't see that it matters.

In emergency situations there's often panic. The old fashioned rule of women and children first IS outdated yet it gives a clarity without too much thinking. If it was 'children and one responsible adult first' then you'd get people snatching children off their parents just to make it to the lifeboat.

If the rule of thumb was 'weakest' first, there'd be people limping.

If you disallow an adult onto a lifeboat with their child, I should imagine the fall out would be more delay.

In the recent tradegy, a lot of the panic could have been saved (and a lot of lives) had the Captain stayed on board and led the evacuation properly. I'm not saying he's guilty of everything he's accused of, as I don't know, but for a Captain to be on dry land before his passengers and crew just isn't done.

If there's a decent emergency procedure in place and the staff and crew know it well, there would be no reason for a 'women and children first' assumption... though children will always and should always be saved first.

Strength does come into it too, or ability. As an ex surf lifesaver (many many years ago) I would take my chances in the sea, but I would expect my children to be saved first.

surely everyone had a place assigned on the lifeboats given the number of people on board? So as long as each and every lifeboat was full before launch, it wouldn't matter who evacuated first as everyone would be evacuated eventually?

in this case, many of the lifeboats couldnt be launched as the ship had tilted and the lifeboats were under the water

I'd like to hear a logical reason why children should go first. In a situation where there are going to be deaths, why do children's lives matter more?

I think children should go first too, but I'm not sure why I think that. probably just because i have children. There is part of me that says that they don't have more right to life than anyone else just because they are children so why should they go first?

*Whatmeworry

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.*

We are talking about one vessel, not an end of days/ nuclear holocaust scenario here.

We are talking about one vessel, not an end of days/ nuclear holocaust scenario here.

Or, alternatively, you could read the thread.

Children are less capable of looking after themselves/surviving so take priority for that reason. In my heart I also think that they deserve a chance at life as they wouldn't have had as much of one yet.

What I have to agree with Compos. Your evolutionary argument is not relevant here as survival of the species is not an issue.

I have to agree with Compos. Your evolutionary argument is not relevant here as survival of the species is not an issue

It wasn't even my argument, I was quoting and responding tongue in cheek to the originator with my "women and 1 fit bloke" comment, and quite a few people were discussing the issue...

You clearly have not read the thread..

IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll- because children have virtually no chances of survival in the water. Adults do. Therefore denying the children the relative safety of lifeboats would mean certain death.

There is discussion on this thread both of why the rules came to be in the first place (evolutionary argument could be very relevant) and what the rules of the sea should be in cases like this (not so much).

I'm not sure that is a good enough reason winnybella, at least not in a situation where you know help is going to be a long way off and deaths are inevitable for those that don't get on the life boat.

Some children probably have a better chance of survival than some adults, and as there won't be time to work it all out, people should perhaps just get on the lifeboats in order in the quickest way possible.

I am playing devils advocate a bit here too. Partly with myself as well!

I do think the evolutionary thing is hardwired though. The survival instinct is extraordinarily strong, but even more so is our desire to save our children. And you could repopulate a society with a dozen women and a man or two.

I'd actually have a better chance of survival than DH, though. I can swim for miles and have much more fat. He is so tall and thin that his hands and feet are always cold as it is, and doesn't swim well. Plus, he panics in a crisis whereas I'm rock solid. So.

That captain WAS a coward, though, from the sound of it.

And I've had hypothermia twice. I'm experienced. :o

I don't buy it that men consider having a better chance at survival in a sinking boat.
It is about who must be saved most and foremost.

Men are very likely to want their own children to survive (spreading their genes), and their own women may potentially be pregnant.

I bet that single men are less likely to consider putting children first or even women, unless they recently had sex with them.

These rules are also instilled by society. And society, regardless of size, wants to make sure it's able to reproduce. Hence men go to war, women stay behind.

In a situation like the recent disaster, given that the ship was so close to land and there was a very high chance of survival by swimming then I agree that it should be children (young - under 13ish) with one adult of either gender and the elderly/disabled/vulnerable first.

However, in a situation where those who do not get the lifeboat spaces are very likely or certain to die then I think, to be brutally honest, I would put the elderly last - they have already lived their lives. I might even rank healthier people ahead of the ill, very young and disabled as the weaker people might be less likely to survive the rescue operation anyway and therefore have 'wasted' a place.

In the cases of disasters on a massive scale, affecting huge swathes of the population, I actually think you'd have to think objectively and along evolutionary lines rather than subjectively and with empathy.

Women and children first is the unofficial British maritime evacuation protocol known as The Birkenhead Drill. It came about following the sinking of HMS Birkenhead off the coast of Africa in 18somethingorother. The ship was carry mosting soldiers and a small number of women and children. The head military bloke took control and ordered the men to form up on decks to allow the women and children into the lifeboats first. The few remaining places were allocated to the youngest soldiers. Most of the soldiers died. All the women and children survived.

mosting? MOSTLY