Women and Children first......Why?

Liam79

We are on a boat...its sinking....we dont have enough life boats.....women and children first .......

A bomb went off in Baghdad today killing 20 people, including 10 women and children.........

Children i understand...

But why the distinction between adult men, and adult women....

Are women more "precious" than men in the modern world?

Just askin.........

Victor

A few reasons.
* Reproduction - some of the women may be pregnant. Also, number of women of child bearing age is the dominant factor in population number of men has a very low influence.
* Ability - in general, men are more physically capable of surviving extreme situations.
* Participation - men are more likely to be involved in (extreme) violence than women. If several / many women are killed in an violent incident, we can reasonably assume they were victims only, not participants.

Now, much of the above is (historical) social conditioning and role playing and we have to accept that both roles are changing and that past standards are not necessarily applicable.

Also, in the lifeboats type situation, many old people are willing to give up their opportunity to younger people.

Ickle Magoo

Do they still say that?

This is where it comes from:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/women-and-children-first.html

The Corinthian

Chivalry. This medieval code underlined honourable behaviour, of which part of it was to protect those weaker than or inferior to you, including the poor, children and women.

With the advent of female emancipation and equal rights, women naturally no longer need 'protection' however the tradition persists, just as the tradition of buying dinner for a woman on a date comes from a time when women were completely financially dependant on men.

metrovelvet

To add to victor's list:

Its also because women are the main caretakers of the children. I would imagine that if the children are looked after there is a lower death count.

RandolphEsq

Liam79 wrote: »

Are women more "precious" than men in the modern world?

lol most definitely not! Women are for the vast majority physically weaker than men.
Also women complicate a situation by considering too many issues, whereas men with their one track minds work better at the simple task of getting people onto life rafts

Terodil

I'd go one step further even. I don't get why kids first either.

What makes the life of a 17yo more valuable and worthy of saving than the life of a 21yo? Where's the line when the life of one suddenly drops in value so that they can be expected to relinquish their chance of survival and bear it 'like a man' (especially).

To me, 'women and children first' makes absolutely no normative sense in the world we're living in. To suggest that more kids die when in the care of men than women is, frankly, disgusting. And considering that the average number of kids per woman in the west is significantly below 2, the argument about reproduction is laughable. If the passengers of the boat were the last humans on earth, then it could be discussed, but in the times of 6B people... no.

That said, however, if I personally was on a sinking boat and I could either save myself or make sure that my wife and kid survive, then I'd pick the second. But that's an individual choice and not one that serves as a moral maxim.

herya

Terodil wrote: »

I'd go one step further even. I don't get why kids first either.

What makes the life of a 17yo more valuable and worthy of saving than the life of a 21yo? Where's the line when the life of one suddenly drops in value so that they can be expected to relinquish their chance of survival and bear it 'like a man' (especially).

I think it's more about maximizing survival chances of the whole group. Strong adults left behind still have a chance to find a way to survive while leaving children behind is leaving them for certain death.

metrovelvet

herya wrote: »

I think it's more about maximizing survival chances of the whole group. Strong adults left behind still have a chance to find a way to survive while leaving children behind is leaving them for certain death.

Yes. It lowers the death count.

Victor

Also, more small people will fit on the life raft and individually use less supplies.

Terodil

herya wrote: »

I think it's more about maximizing survival chances of the whole group. Strong adults left behind still have a chance to find a way to survive while leaving children behind is leaving them for certain death.

Fair enough, although I originally had a 'Titanic' in front of my mental eye, not a coastal ferry.

I think that's the easy argumentative way out though. If there's a realistic chance of survival for those who don't make it on the boat, then it's no longer a moral choice, it turns into a simple operational task.

In the Titanic example, however, where the water is freezing cold and survival is a matter of a few minutes, we're back to weighing one life against another. And I fail to see why sex should decide over life and death.

The Corinthian

Terodil wrote: »

And I fail to see why sex should decide over life and death.

I shouldn't - as I said earlier, it is simply a historical throwback that we still have not fully adjusted for in the modern World.

Victor wrote: »

Also, more small people will fit on the life raft and individually use less supplies.

"Women and midgets first - but no fat chicks."

Liam79

What about the "Bomb in Baghdad" part tho lads.....20 people killed, incl 10 women and children......
As i said, Children i get but why the distinction between adult women and adult men?? :rolleyes:

herya

Terodil wrote: »

In the Titanic example, however, where the water is freezing cold and survival is a matter of a few minutes, we're back to weighing one life against another. And I fail to see why sex should decide over life and death.

True but emergency procedures need to be generic or they don't work. There is no time to analyse water temperature, sea depth and rescue chances in each situation to adjust boat loading accordingly, if we stay with this example. "Weakest first" is probably the best life saving strategy in the long run, although I agree that it's debatable why all the women should go in before all the men. Another mental shortcut I guess.

Jesus Wept

Liam79 wrote: »

What about the "Bomb in Baghdad" part tho lads.....20 people killed, incl 10 women and children......
As i said, Children i get but why the distinction between adult women and adult men?? :rolleyes:

Because we live in an antiquated society unfortunately.

I notice this all the time on the news, it's pathetic.

metrovelvet

^ You wouldn't give your place up in the queue for a woman and a child?

mike65

Liam you cad!

Its a foolish convention rather like holding doors for women but not men (I'll do it for both but slam it in the face of teenagers).

Jesus Wept

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ You wouldn't give your place up in the queue for a woman and a child?

In what queue? Aldi? I give up my place in the Aldi queue sometimes, it's not a gender based decision though.

metrovelvet

The-Rigger wrote: »

In what queue? Aldi? I give up my place in the Aldi queue sometimes, it's not a gender based decision though.

No, for a lifeboat or the staircase in the world trade center, for example. If you were ahead of me and wouldnt let me go in front of you, id stick my son on you.:D

Jesus Wept

metrovelvet wrote: »

No, for a lifeboat or the staircase in the world trade center, for example. If you were ahead of me and wouldnt let me go in front of you, id stick my son on you.:D

I'm sure you would.
That seems to be the attitude I find with many parents.

I tend to find myself walking around town dodging buggies that parents flail into my walk. I have to duck and weave to make sure the child doesn't get clattered.

I always note that it's interesting that (for some reason) I care more about their child's safety than they do.

metrovelvet

The-Rigger wrote: »

I'm sure you would.
That seems to be the attitude I find with many parents.

I tend to find myself walking around town dodging buggies that parents flail into my walk. I have to duck and weave to make sure the child doesn't get clattered.

I always note that it's interesting that (for some reason) care more about their child's safety than they do.

What has pushing buggies in a busy street got to do with a reduction in a death count?

Warfi

Liam79 wrote: »

What about the "Bomb in Baghdad" part tho lads.....20 people killed, incl 10 women and children......
As i said, Children i get but why the distinction between adult women and adult men?? :rolleyes:

It's a comment on how stupid we are as a race. Much like climate change, why are we doing our damnedest to make sure that human civilisation doesn't last beyond 3010? Children are our future, it's possible women who are involved in explosions could be carrying children. It makes no sense to sabotage our own future. That's probably why they're saying it in news reports.
That or it's just being said to annoy men who believe women are hypocrites. Although when the sh*t hits the fan, petty squabbling goes out the window, and everyone does their best to help their loved ones whether they're male, female or children.

Jesus Wept

metrovelvet wrote: »

What has pushing buggies in a busy street got to do with a reduction in a death count?

I incorrectly read your post to mean 'I'd stick my son in front of you'.

Anyhow, is your main concern reducing the death count optimally or is it your own survival? I think it could be the latter dressed up as the former.

To be honest, titanic situation: I'd wager that you'd have a lower death count if all men were allowed on to the lifeboats as they would have a better chance of survival than than women and children (more so children).

So in the interest of the precious death count, I'd push all the ladies and their bundles of joy out of my way and strive to the front, selflessly.

Warfi

The-Rigger wrote: »

So in the interest of the precious death count, I'd push all the ladies and their bundles of joy out of my way and strive to the front, selflessly.

get in there

F-Stop

In case there are sharks in the water.

Sleepy

Liam79 wrote: »

What about the "Bomb in Baghdad" part tho lads.....20 people killed, incl 10 women and children......
As i said, Children i get but why the distinction between adult women and adult men?? :rolleyes:

Traditionally it would have been used to indicate non-combatants... so 'civilians' would be a more meaningful figure these days.

Terodil

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ You wouldn't give your place up in the queue for a woman and a child?

You didn't address it to me, but if I was in that situation: for any woman and child? no -- why would or even should I? For my OH and kids? yes, naturally.

But I think it's archaic and discriminatory to expect that any random man should give up his place on a lifeboat for a woman just because... err... help me here... because she has tits?

herya

Sleepy wrote: »

Traditionally it would have been used to indicate non-combatants... so 'civilians' would be a more meaningful figure these days.

Exactly, if it was a male (or adult) only group it could still be a purely military conflict. Women and children mean that it was a group of civilians, therefore most likely unarmed and not acting in a provocative manner. It's just journospeak.

Liam79

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ You wouldn't give your place up in the queue for a woman and a child?

No, I wouldnt. Not a chance. Why should I ??!!:rolleyes:

Times I would give up my place in a queue.....
If I was queing at the shops with a full trolly and the guy/girl behind me was just getting 2 or 3 items...no problem
If the person behind me was elderly and didnt have a trolly full of All Bran and Wurthers Originals..absolutely

Apart from that, no....absolutely not.
And you shouldnt expect me to just cos your a woman!!

And if a life/death situation ala life boats...i would get my OH/Kids on before me, and sod the rest of ye, I dont care how young or old you are!! Ya...Thats right!!

And as for the Bombing theory...can you imagine the furore if the news reader said 20 killed, including 10 children and Men......!

Liam79

herya wrote: »

Exactly, if it was a male (or adult) only group it could still be a purely military conflict. Women and children mean that it was a group of civilians, therefore most likely unarmed and not acting in a provocative manner. It's just journospeak.

And what about the non militant innocent men killed.....???!! :rolleyes:

Terodil

herya wrote: »

Exactly, if it was a male (or adult) only group it could still be a purely military conflict. Women and children mean that it was a group of civilians, therefore most likely unarmed and not acting in a provocative manner. It's just journospeak.

And outdated even at that, because especially in asymmetric wars, women and children engage in/are used for military purposes, too: be it as 'human shields', suicide bombers or children soldiers.

I'd be much more comfortable with the more neutral 'civilian', too. But unfortunately, that's becoming increasingly more difficult to determine.

blinding

Seriously in this day and age a woman should not get or expect special treatment.

Women fought hard to get get equal rights in this every woman/man for themselves. I see no reason that in times of emergency that we should put that all behind us and revert to old stereotypes.

Having said all that I would be very surprised if I did not give women special consideration in this situation. I think most humans will give kids special consideration also.

To be honest none of us know for certain how we will react in a situation where this would come into play until we are involved.

Any human may "let themselves down" in such a situation.

Best we can hope for is that we do not have to make such choices.

herya

Liam79 wrote: »

And what about the non militant innocent men killed.....???!! :rolleyes:

Sadly everyone is dead. Women and children are not mentioned for special mourning but to indicate that the whole group was (most likely) civilians. Yes there are male or female suicide bombers but they hardly move around in groups and male or female human shields are hardly there by choice and often are forced civilians too.

They could have said "families".

Terodil

herya wrote: »

Sadly everyone is dead. Women and children are not mentioned for special mourning but to indicate that the whole group was (most likely) civilians.

No, they are mentioned because the writer wants to evoke even stronger shock/repulsion. And usually succeeds. Emotions sell, after all.

Alan_007_

mike65 wrote: »

Its a foolish convention rather like holding doors for women but not men (I'll do it for both but slam it in the face of teenagers).

So you wont discriminate someone because of their gender but will because of their age?
Contradictory much?

TenLeftFingers

Ah yes, 'Women and children first'.

Sometimes I think the lads just wanted the feck*n ship to themselves.

we'llallhavetea_old

yes, its because women and children are more precious than men...

koHd

It's because women are lovely faire creatures that us men must protect and honour. The question you should ask is would you gladly get on the lifeboat ahead of a woman, with the thought she might not get to get on one, and then die? It's just male protective nature. We're softies deep down under all that sweat and rage.

The Corinthian

koHd wrote: »

The question you should ask is would you gladly get on the lifeboat ahead of a woman, with the thought she might not get to get on one, and then die?

If it was Ivana Bakic, Mary Harney or Dana? You bet.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

If it was Ivana Bakic, Mary Harney or Dana? You bet.

Well getting on a lifeboat with Ms Harney is a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. Plus Im not sure she qualifies as a woman. Not sure behemoths have ever gotten priority.

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

Plus Im not sure she qualifies as a woman. Not sure behemoths have ever gotten priority.

I love the way women who aren't considered attractive are subject to questions over their gender, if even in a joking way. As if being attractive and slim are so vital to our concept of a woman that a person who doesn't fit the mold could not possibly qualify!

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

I love the way women who aren't considered attractive are subject to questions over their gender, if even in a joking way. As if being attractive and slim are so vital to our concept of a woman that a person who doesn't fit the mold could not possibly qualify!

Can she call a man fat, or would that offend you too?

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

Can she call a man fat, or would that offend you too?

A totally predictable response that tries to dismiss me as a person who is easily offended and manages to entirely miss the point I made. Sigh.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

A totally predictable response that tries to dismiss me as a person who gets irrationally outraged and manages to entirely the point I made. Sigh.

I'm with The Corinthian on this one. You're terribly sensitive about these things.

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

A totally predictable response that tries to dismiss me as a person who gets irrationally outraged and manages to entirely the point I made. Sigh.

Ironically that sounds like a dismissal.

The point I was making is whether it calling someone 'fat' is an acceptable criticism regardless of their gender. Either it is or it is not, and if it is then their gender should not protect them if the criticism is valid.

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm with The Corinthian on this one. You're terribly sensitive about these things.

How dismissive. Why not try addressing the point I made, rather than making personal comments.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ironically that sounds like a dismissal.

And your post wasn't? How incredibly hypocritical.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The point I was making is whether it calling someone 'fat' is an acceptable criticism regardless of their gender. Either it is or it is not, and if it is then their gender should not protect them if the criticism is valid.

Well that really doesn't have much to do with the point I made.

And the part about being offended? What was your point there exactly?

On topic - I think the historical reasons for women first probably stems from society's perception of them as weak and child-like, both physically and mentally. And so they were put in the same category as children. It doesn't really have much place in a modern society.

j1974

Liam79 wrote: »

We are on a boat...its sinking....we dont have enough life boats.....women and children first .......

A bomb went off in Baghdad today killing 20 people, including 10 women and children.........

Children i understand...

But why the distinction between adult men, and adult women....

Are women more "precious" than men in the modern world?

Just askin.........

the women and children rule was first introduced when a sea captain noticed his ship was sinking 3000 yards from shore of the coast of south africa, the water was a wll known hotspot for sharks and because most of the men on board were sailors who could swim, the captain proclaimed that only women and children go first in the boats, purely based on safety and swimming ability. This rule was given a name after the ship, called the "birkinhead" rule. the women and children were the sailors wives and children, which is why they were on board.

I think it's quite obvious in terms of war, why women go first. if you cant guess then just read all the answers submitted.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

How dismissive. Why not try addressing the point I made, rather than making personal comments.

Why should I? Its not as if I consider it worthy of a direct remark. As for personal comments, you often take this kind of stance in threads.. Am I wrong?

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

And your post wasn't? How incredibly hypocritical.

Actually I was pointing out your hypocrisy of dismissing my dismissal, hence the irony.

Well that really doesn't have much to do with the point I made.

What was your point then? From what I could see you put Metrovelvet's quip down to the subject of it being a woman. My second response (the non-dismissive one) pointed out that the gender really is irrelevant. Let's face it, were Harney a man, the criticism would still be as valid - we're not talking about a little bit of puppy fat here. Sometimes people are just fat.

And the part about being offended? What was your point there exactly?

Forgive me, and others, for this, but that is how you have come across. Women do get unfairly judged on their looks, just as men get unfairly judged on their capacity as a 'provider' - it's just one of those cultural-evolutionary things that is changing slowly (like the "women and children first" principle). However, sometimes the criticism is merited.

On topic - I think the historical reasons for women first probably stems from society's perception of them as weak and child-like, both physically and mentally. And so they were put in the same category as children. It doesn't really have much place in a modern society.

And this I agree with and even gave it a name earlier - Chivalry.

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually I was pointing out your hypocrisy of dismissing my dismissal, hence the irony.

Indeed. I don't think being dismissive helps any debate. So I apologise.

The Corinthian wrote: »

What was your point then? From what I could see you put Metrovelvet's quip down to the subject of it being a woman. My second response (the non-dismissive one) pointed out that the gender really is irrelevant. Let's face it, were Harney a man, the criticism would still be as valid - we're not talking about a little bit of puppy fat here. Sometimes people are just fat.

My point was not about Metrovelvet's quip on Harney being fat, but on whether she was actually a woman or not on account of her being fat. I was certainly not attempting to exclude women from the criticism of being fat.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Forgive me, and others, for this, but that is how you have come across.

No, this is how you, and others, have perceived what I wrote. It's easier to dismiss a person than their idea. So trying to highlight another poster as a person who is easily offended is bad form, it is also just lazy debating.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Women do get unfairly judged on their looks, just as men get unfairly judged on their capacity as a 'provider' - it's just one of those cultural-evolutionary things that is changing slowly (like the "women and children first" principle). However, sometimes the criticism is merited.

And I most definitely was not trying to argue that Harney is not overweight...! That would require an amazing feat of mental acrobatics.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And this I agree with and even gave it a name earlier - Chivalry.

Well at least we agree on something

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

My point was not about Metrovelvet's quip on Harney being fat, but on whether she was actually a woman or not on account of her being fat. I was certainly not attempting to exclude women from the criticism of being fat.

Ah, I see your point. Fair enough.