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?

This is making me think a lot...I would want to go with DS if DH weren't there, because he is so little and I couldn't leave him alone.

But if it were the three of us I'd want them to go together. DH is far bigger and stronger, but he didn't grow up cannon-balling into freezing water through a hole chopped in the ice. I did. :)

How horrible for everyone though. :( I was a young teen when Titanic came out and watched it about a billion times. All I cared about was poor swoony Leo. I watched it again after I became a mother and couldn't get the little ones out of my mind. Terrible!

I read that that's what they said, WhoMoved...that the non-English speakers couldn't follow directions.

But Wikipedia says "In his book, The Night Lives On, historian Walter Lord devoted a chapter ("What Happened to the Goodwins?") to the family, using the fact that the Goodwins were English to challenge the White Star Line's implication that such high numbers of third class passengers perished because they could not understand the English language."

The Goodwins all died...mum, dad, and six little ones. :(

There was a documentary a while a go on the sinking of the Estonia (I think - getting forgetful in my old age...). Anyway, there was a woman interviewed who said she'd got out by trampling over others and climbing past old people to get out first. I was horrified - but unjustifiably so, I think. Who knows what we'd do really? It's all very well to sit in front of the computer thinking you'd save the weaker ones before yourself, but until you're in the situation you don't really know, do you?

I was on a boat that was evacuated in Italy once and every single American pensioner on the boat elbowed their way to the front. The evacuation turned out to be unecessary thankfully, but good to know it's every man (or OAP) for themselves when panic sets in.

Isn't this something like the fifth thread on this topic?

YANBU to wonder if the rule should still apply. I doubt you are actually asking if you are being unreasonable to wonder though.

To my mind there are two quite different situations.

1- you are in a warmish place and/or close to shore and/or help is nearby
Lifeboats should go to those who are least able to swim. Children, elderly, disabled, then people who are smaller or weaker.
The judgement is made based on who is most likely to survive.

2- you are in a cold place, far from shore, help may take a long time.
Now you are not judging who will best survive because nobody will survive if not in a lifeboat. Now you are judging who DESERVES to live. Much more difficult.

Perhaps its because children are most vulnerable and most children need their Mum ? Men have always been seen as the protectors ?

Anyway it suits me,.. being a woman ! :)

"I was on a boat that was evacuated in Italy once and every single American pensioner on the boat elbowed their way to the front. "

WOW I would say a few choice words to them if they elbowed past DS aged 6.

Not even sure I am women and children first IF it delays unloading where there are enough lifeboats and time. Certainly needs a good captain and crew to organise. I'd rather not think about it .

A single pensioner has as much right to life, and to not drown, as everyone else on the boat.

They were elbowing their way through.

If some survive others not then children win in my book. This was an organised and not followed through evacuation.

I have an image in my head now of a crowd of Mumsnetters standing on the deck of a sinking ship discussing who should go first while everyone else actually does it.

Of course there's always the 'I accidentally fell in a lifeboat' approach as favoured by the Captain...

"right to life" yes........ they will already have had a lot of life.

And therefore may have more to lose than a child.

You just can't ever know personal circumstances. How do we know that they trip wasn't a pensioners one holiday away from caring from a disabled adult child, or caring for a grandchild whose parents have died or abandoned them?

Unlikely, but possible. That's why everyone has to have equal chance IMO.

Read about 1 passenger who said they were stuck inside the boat as it was pitching about. A woman handed him her baby asking him to nlook after the baby - the mother obviously thought he was more likely to survive. He took the baby, but as things got worse he thought theyw ere all going to die anyway. So he handed the baby back because he thought it was better that the baby died with its mother there.

As no babies have been reported as missing, hopefully both the baby and mother are safe.

Of course pensioners have a right to live and a right to be considered among the weaker passengers.
The suggestion that "They have already had a life" is horrible.

Elbowing implies they were not explaining their priority. So men maybe criticised for such behaviour but not OAPs . If you are talking about delaying men then they are more likely to be carers (Dads) of their children. If everyone has equal chance I defend my right to stand up for DS (choice words and DH would stop them).

Ideally no rules (each to their own) apply IF enough lifeboats and organised. If enough lifeboats then elbowing etc that could cause problems should be firmly dealt with to stop panic.

I am refering purely to the post :

"I was on a boat that was evacuated in Italy once and every single American pensioner on the boat elbowed their way to the front. The evacuation turned out to be unecessary thankfully, but good to know it's every man (or OAP) for themselves when panic sets in."

They decided they were worth more than the others. I would defend my son especially if there was no need to barge/elbow.

That's called panic iggly2 and you can't legislate for that in any event.
You are rightly considering your family first it's natural and it's admirable.
But if everyone considered their lives more important than anyone elses that's a free for all (Which would probably be the case) and the weak and vulnerable probably wouldn't stand a chance.

Katiepoes Based on this thread (and not in the least surprising) I have an image, in a real emergency where speed matters and there may not be enough life-boat places, of Mumsnetters barging to the front, children in their arms and fighting it out with the young single men for first place.

Unfortunately 'feminsim' has not given them a secret strength potion, so being equal but not the same (as anyone with the slightest clue about feminism understands), in this instance those without male partners fighting for them will lose out.

Of course people with children think their children are the most important people in the world and that they, as their carer, are more important than anyone without a child. I don't think it should be such a surprise that people without children, or travelling alone, may think that they themselves are the most important people in the world and are not all that interested in you or your children - once the veneer of civility and rationality has evaporated.

As Onlyaninja said, there's a massive difference between a situation where all can survive and one where some won't. Speed of evacuation - so orderly or panicked - also makes a massive difference. In a speed-evacuation with some order, smaller people have to be allowed first to avoid being trampled. Loved the 'unallocated seats' example, it doesn't take much for people to behave blatantly selfishly and through life experience generally, I've never doubted the capacity of young men in particular to be utterly selfish (not doubting that capacity, buried a little deeper, in others either).

Quick off loading is most important with good organisation (where all lifeboats and time available- this is likely qiucker and what airlines appear to favour). I like to think I would stand my ground with choice words to those barging (generallycalm in emergency person).

I did find "mummmyboffin" post about how woman and children first maybe used to avoid males stampeding (sorry paraphrased) very good idea.

If I were a young single man I would fly not travel by boat/ferry or dinghy.
Would chivalry exist in the event of a warship sinking?
I doubt that sincerely.

Love the idea that 'choice words' will prevent you from being elbowed in the face and knocked over by somebody scared for their life!

Captain would be the one to make the decision ie...... either order of people evacuated OR first come first served but loaded on to life boats quickly.

The captain of the ship that sank this week fell into a lifeboat :)

Accidentally of course.