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?

children always first id hate to leave my partner behind on a sinking ship. i,d want us all to survive together. what about the elderly and disabled poor sods do they have to reley on praire.

I do think there's a case of getting kids out of a situation like this as quickly as possible though, greater good argument again.

in this case though, many of the people did swim to land.

a child is unlikely to make such a swim in a cold sea: they should get a lifeboat space.

a woman is less likely than a man to make such a swim (face it, we just aren't as strong) : therefore preferred to men for lifeboat space

the infirm of all kinds are less likely to make it: they should get a space.

it may not be true that all men are less likely to swim through cold water successfully, but in an emergency no-one has time to go through a fitness assessment.

I can't imagine DH consenting to get on a lifeboat if there were more needy people waiting. He's like that.

that should be 'more'

I am disabled but could easily have managed the 400m to land as long as someone was on hand to warm me up at the other end.

Interesting that people think people behave badly in emergency situations as there was a discussion or woman's hour yesterday about this. The 'expert' said the opposite that generally people behave well and help the vulnerable.

Not sure which is true but I'm going to hope he was right.

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?

Societies have traditionally optimised on those with the most future potential as "greatest good".

well...like i say, no time for individual assessments!

This is one of the reasons why I'm not a feminist. Women and children, elderly and disabled first.
If I didn't have children and was single I would make sure mothers, children and fathers went before me, but for the sake of my children I would hope to go with them before others, including DP. I'm sure he would feel the same.

Depends on the definition of "greatest good".
I would rather die than live in a society where strongest bash the weakest.

Generally speaking, men as a group will have a much better chance of survival than children. Surely you can't dispute that? Therefore it seems to me that a right thing to do is to put the children in the lifeboats first, because if they aren't, they will die.Men are more likely to be able to swim, are stronger, have more chance to hang on before rescue arrives. Children have 0% chance.

It isn't black and white, sexism wise IMO. I expect to be treated equally in all aspects in which I am equal...which is in all aspects other than physical. I am smaller, and weaker than DH, but I am as intelligent as him, if you see what I mean.

Sod that as a women I am one with women a children going first

Or I might be lucky and fall into a life boat like the captain

winnybella a child on their own will have 0 chance of servival with out a parents

Come on what chance would 2 month old have launched off on a life boat in the dark on its own or a four year old it's likey to fall over the side

Harecare do you honestly think that if you were a childless woman then you should be of a lower priority to adult females and males just because they are parents?

I don't care who goes first so long as it's me.

maypole- yes, of course, I was only responding to the poster who was wondering why children should take priority over men.

Really I am sure she wouldnt have been saying that if she was in a sinking ship

I do worry about any mother who dosent know why a child should take priorty over a grown adult

I bloody well would! My 18 year old child (a man in other words) is just as important to me as your four year old is to you.

I don't have an 18 year old btw, but I was talking about a situation where anyone not in a lifeboat had only a very small chance of survival. I know that the recent disaster wasn't like that and some people could swim to shore, but it might not happen that way.

I'm not going to get out the boat to check if I think my dh or my ds might be able to swim it, I'm going to do what I can to save my own family, and only then would I be bothered about other people. Harsh but true.

I bloody well would! My 18 year old child (a man in other words) is just as important to me as your four year old is to you.

That HMS Birkenhead example saved the women, children and youngest men (traditionally its those who had yet to have kids) - aka highest future greater good potential)

Surely the utilitarian's response would be 'small or thin people and children first' so as to fit more in the lifeboats?!

Yes bighairy. My life is no more or less important, but I couldn't go before a child and a child would need its main caregiver - usually the mother. I could not live with myself afterwards if I survived but some poor child was orphaned because of me.

But you said 'mothers, children and fathers'. Should they all go ahead of you?