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?

and while you are all standing around trying to figure out who is going to go first:
A) the ship is sinking
and
B) the children, vulnerable, eldery and their parent/carer of whatever sex can't get to the lifeboats to get into them as there are too many people who don't (yet) qualify for a lifeboat in the way. And no where for these people to move out of the way to - cause they are on an actual sinking/heavily listing ship.

Fark it's a nightmare!!! I feel so sad for those who have lost loved ones and an immense admiration for the brave people still entering this boat looking for people and trying to contain the diesel.

'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.'

It's unlikely you would have enough time to assess everybody, but really, how about just a common decency? You would really deny a place on a lifeboat to a young child or a disabled person, because they might be less likely to survive than a healthy adult?

i would say children, one parent and infirm off first

I am generally quite selfish so I would want to survive with my children.

Having read this thread I am starting to feel convinced that some order in an evacuation is necessary to optimise survival. I don't really know what the solution is, but I imagine the point of women and children is that men are stronger and can look after themselves.

The mark of a civilised society is the way they care for the weaker members.Therefore Children first, women second and men third.Men are physically stronger (generally) than women and more likely to be able to save themselves or hang on til rescue arrived.

Further to the other stats regarding survivors of the Titanic posted: www.ithaca.edu/staff/jhenderson/titanic.html

31% of all on board survived
72% of all women survived
50% of all children survived
19% of all men survived

In terms of class: The %age survivors were first class (63), second class (43) and third (25)

Never signed up for the equal opportunities manifesto. I'd quite selfishly want off ship with DC's prompt.

I suppose in a way that the idea of women and kids off first was probably based on the idea that men are stronger and sterner in the face of death etc and not so emotionally fragile. Men pushing women and children aside in a frantic scramble for the life boats kind of puts paid to that idea though.

I'm another one who would want dh to take my children as I don't think I would manage the swim - I never learned to swim properly (will doggy paddle if panicking ) and I would want the best chance of survival for my children.

I don't think it's entirely sexist though. I think saying that is like saying that men and women should compete in unisex races at the Olympics. Men have a physical advantage over women in ordinary circumstances and I agree that the idea of women/children first probably arose from the fact that without that societal expectation in place, it's likely that women would have had to fight against physically stronger men for places in lifeboats.

As a fairly elderly person I wouldnt want to be saved ahead of a young person of either sex.

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.

I think this maps to most scoieties through the ages - children, mothers, other women, young men who have not yet had children....then whoever is left.

Women can't have it both ways. I believe they are equal, therefore it seems grossly unfair to play the 'weaker-need looking after' card.
Children, the elderly and the infirm first-fit and healthy adults last.

There is another way of looking at this. In studies, air travel safety people discovered that able bodied young men will quite happily trample women and children half to death with no regard to the consequences if a fiver is at stake as a prize. Imagine how this would pan out if the stakes were higher, i.e. life and death? There would be a complete and utter stampede and overall survival rates would plummet. However if it was drummed into these men that they should hold back a bit and assist others, then the overall survival rates might be more favourable. In other words, while it might seen gentlemanly on the surface to do this, it is actually about the greatest good. What does everyone think?

If it was British men in this disaster it would be women and children first.

The men would stand together, perhaps gently humming Abide with me, taking a last puff on their pipes, and staring stoically out to sea.

Showing no fear, stiff upper lip to the fore, as the ship slipped silently between the waves.

Indeed. As Cameron says, Britannia did not rule the waves with armbands on, and all that. We are made of sterner stuff.

A modern thought - what do ungendered people do? Go first or last?

Absolutely agree with your 19:01 post Boffin

hah - BoffinMum, anyone who has witnessed the behaviour in the rush for unallocated airline seats would know that!

Frail older people, small children, all being barged aside as men on golfing holidays pushed past to get the best seats for that 2 hour journey. FFS.

Hula - those stats would presumably reflect the fact that as the Titanic went down women and children were given the first places in the lifeboats.

Women, and it IS women we're getting steamed up about here, should be there, entirely on account of their lesser physical strength.

It's not sexist.

as a woman...yabu.

Sorry, should have said, first, with the children, and others physically less able than the average man.

This brings me out in a cold sweat. The whole idea of leaving my partner on a ship while I got on a lifeboat is horrible.

This surprised me too! We were lucky enough to do a crossing on the QM2 a few years ago and the drill was for everyone to proceed as intructed to the lifeboats provided for all. Nothing was said about dividing people up and there is no way we would have split up! This is surely obsolete except in very specific circumstances when it might be the self-evident thing to do where there are limited places as the children have more years ahead than the retired for example. One can't say never...

I think you're right Boff.

It's not that women have any more right to survive than men. It's that a sizeable minority of men need restraining from their antisocial behaviour and this is a way to do it.

That is a good point, about the unallocated airline seats. It does demonstrate this principle at work.

I don't think men would stampede over women and children to save themselves. Some of them may want to, same as some women might also want to, but it should never get to a point where it is a free for all.

The captain is supposed to be last off the boat for a reason. The crew are meant to coordinate the evacuation.

The only right way to do it is for everyone to form an orderly queue and wait their turn, whatever age, sex or fitness ability they are.

Winnybella, you said 'You would really deny a place on a lifeboat to a young child or a disabled person, because they might be less likely to survive than a health adult?

How is that any different to saying that a man should be denied a place just because they are a man? There is absolutely nothing to say that They have a better chance of survival, because many of them won't. And whether they do or they don't isn't the point, everyone has equal right to a space in a lifeboat!