Women and Children First?

So, on a sinking ship, would you put yourself last, and women and children first (assuming you're a man)? Would you expect men to put you first (assuming you're a woman)?

According to an article published in New Scientist, "the answer, it seems, depends on how long the sinking takes. If there's enough time, you can switch from adrenalin-driven self-preservation to conscience-driven self-sacrifice."

It's an interesting read, and it raises several interesting questions about our modern, feminist, equality based society.

(link)

seanybiker

Im not sexist, I would hop on straight away

Pygmalion

Children first.
After that it's fair game.

FoxInATreehouse

I'd like to think I would help children first. But seeing as I'm currently sitting in a chair in front of a laptop, and have never been on a sinking vessel, I don't know how I'd actually react.

The_Minister

Pygmalion wrote: »

Children first.
After that it's fair game.

I came over here after reading several threads on After Hours, and I read that completely wrong.

ToniTuddle

I don't believe a womans life is anymore important than a mans.

Safely say I would end up dead as I'd be trying to save folks esp the children-those folks always end up dead -.-
God it would be terrible though...who do you save, who do you not save.
Then your own survival kicks in and I'd definitely be trying to get on the lifeboat!

lil_lisa

Thinking outside the box here, I believe the only situation where women would get heads up to go first would be if the whole race was in jeopardy. We have sperm banks all over the world so we can repopulate the planet (slowly but surely!) however, they haven't created a fake womb yet so men would be quite useless on their own.

Now, back to real life, its completely equal. The only reason I can think of that this women and children thing ever began (centuries ago, I'm sure) was because men would have been seen to be stronger emotionally to allow other people to go before them. I'm not saying thats the case just maybe thats the way it was seen. Who's up for testing it in the 21st century?

ToniTuddle

lil_lisa wrote: »

Thinking outside the box here, I believe the only situation where women would get heads up to go first would be if the whole race was in jeopardy. We have sperm banks all over the world so we can repopulate the planet (slowly but surely!) however, they haven't created a fake womb yet so men would be quite useless on their own.

Damn...never thought of it like that :eek:

Now, back to real life, its completely equal. The only reason I can think of that this women and children thing ever began (centuries ago, I'm sure) was because men would have been seen to be stronger emotionally to allow other people to go before them. I'm not saying thats the case just maybe thats the way it was seen. Who's up for testing it in the 21st century?

Well when that plane crashed into the Hudson river in (New York?)....America, did they let women and children off first or just filed the passengers out as they came along?

Makes more sense to file them all along as by getting all the women and children organised it would waste precious seconds/minutes that would have been better spent saving everybody.

sweetswing

a friend of mine who was a sailor said they done away with women and children first because back in the day they were finding life boats full of dead women and children after ships went down , the more men per lifeboat the better the chances of survival "supposedly"
personaly i would save my self first then try to help if i could.

My name is URL

Men and women aged between 16 and 35 should be first into the lifeboats as they are the ones currently most likely to continue procreating. Children may not survive until adulthood so they're too much of a variable =p

unreggd

The news is worse for this

X amount of women and children dead

Herbal Deity

My name is URL wrote: »

Men and women aged between 16 and 35 should be first into the lifeboats as they are the ones currently most likely to continue procreating.

Why is ability to procreate a factor?

Herbal Deity

lil_lisa wrote: »

however, they haven't created a fake womb yet so men would be quite useless on their own.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Pygmalion

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Why is ability to procreate a factor?

He seems to be thinking of an apocalyptic end of the world scenario, in which the survivors will be the only ones left on the planet, in which case choosing wisely means a lot.

I took the question to mean a boat sinking or the like, where in the grand scheme of things who lives and dies probably won't have any direct effect on the world.

Necrodermis

Children first, always.

I'd do everything in my power to save anyone that may be struggling around me (kids first), and I would like to think that someone (male or female) would assist me when I can do no more and am on the edge of death. I could think of no better death than one whereby I had saved the life of one or more children. I'd like to think that I could see the others who are having an impact, and that I would help them (after the kids that is).

Asking whether we save males or females is idiotic. We all should save whoever around us that is saving the most.

My name is URL

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Why is ability to procreate a factor?

What is it that you'd trying to save exactly if not the continuum of life? The only reason that a child's life is more valuable than an adult's is based on an ethic and moral

Inari

Women and Children first, based on biology. We can all agree that there's no sense in a terminal patient taking up a place in the life boat. Thus we can similarly conclude that there is no point in an 85 year old taking a 17 year old's place in said life boat. If we are to say this, it means we're saying that the people who deserve the places on the life boats are those who will get the most time. Since women live longer than men, and children have more time than adults...it's easy to come to the logical conclusion of "Women & Children"

However, logic is often stripped from peoples minds in times of tragedy

Herbal Deity

My name is URL wrote: »

What is it that you'd trying to save exactly if not the continuum of life?

The individuals involved.

The continuum of life isn't important IMO, it's merely a side effect of our existence.

Inari wrote: »

Women and Children first, based on biology. We can all agree that there's no sense in a terminal patient taking up a place in the life boat. Thus we can similarly conclude that there is no point in an 85 year old taking a 17 year old's place in said life boat. If we are to say this, it means we're saying that the people who deserve the places on the life boats are those who will get the most time. Since women live longer than men, and children have more time than adults...it's easy to come to the logical conclusion of "Women & Children"

"whoever has the most years left" is a flawed metric in this case.

You would save a 17 year old over an 85 years old because the 85 year old has experienced 85 years of life, as opposed to 17. It's not about how many years are left in either of their lives, it's about fairness, giving those who haven't experienced as much of life as others a chance to do so.

Inari

I disagree with it being about fairness. There's no sense in someone who's got less time to live taking up space on a lifeboat when someone with much more time is being left behind. I do see your point though, that the older person would/could say "I've had my time, now it's yours" but my argument is that the ones with greater life potential deserve the spaces, hence the women and children argument.

lil_lisa

Inari wrote: »

Women and Children first, based on biology. We can all agree that there's no sense in a terminal patient taking up a place in the life boat. Thus we can similarly conclude that there is no point in an 85 year old taking a 17 year old's place in said life boat. If we are to say this, it means we're saying that the people who deserve the places on the life boats are those who will get the most time. Since women live longer than men, and children have more time than adults...it's easy to come to the logical conclusion of "Women & Children"

However, logic is often stripped from peoples minds in times of tragedy

Ha ha, from this I understood that men are like terminal patients.

The whole women and children thing started years ago when women were deemed almost 100% dependent on men. Nowadays women are entitled to everything a man is (well almost). There's no logic in it, it was just traditional. And IMHO, very few traditions have logic!

Herbal Deity

Inari wrote: »

I disagree with it being about fairness. There's no sense in someone who's got less time to live taking up space on a lifeboat when someone with much more time is being left behind. I do see your point though, that the older person would/could say "I've had my time, now it's yours" but my argument is that the ones with greater life potential deserve the spaces, hence the women and children argument.

Who would you save out of the following two people:

A terminally ill 17 year old with 6 months left to live.
A 70 year old in reasonably good health with 5-10 years left to live?

I would save the 17 year old, personally.

My name is URL

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Who would you save out of the following two people:

A terminally ill 17 year old with 6 months left to live.
A 70 year old in reasonably good health with 5-10 years left to live?

I would save the 17 year old, personally.

Who is going to get more out of life if they live though? Just because the 70yo is older doesn't mean that the 17yo is going to have a better life after been 'saved'..

Is it really that much fairer to put a value on life based on age alone?

Inari

I concede the point about quality over quantity. But the odds of quality with quantity are increased.

Women and Children was quite traditional, but most traditions do have quite a lot of logic behind them. The old one of men giving women their seat on the bus; anatomically speaking men have a greater muscle mass than women, due to having the hormones to build muscle. Therefore it's reasonable to conclude that it was easier for the man to stand. Obviously not always true, but the logic was there behind it...even if it was masked in the whole males believing all women to be weaker, which just isn't true

james finn

id say the times wer in now the lads would run for the boats first,

its kinda like saying would you eat your friend if you had noting to eat, you have food now so you say no i wouldnt eat my friend.

but if it happens you would do it.

lil_lisa

james finn wrote: »

id say the times wer in now the lads would run for the boats first,

its kinda like saying would you eat your friend if you had noting to eat, you have food now so you say no i wouldnt eat my friend.

but if it happens you would do it.

Dude, that's kinda messed up!

james finn

DID YOU SEE THE FILM ( ALIVE )

ITS FACT, IF YOU ASKED THOSE PEOPLE BEFORE THE CRASH WOULD THEY EAT ANOTHER HUMAN THEY WOULD HAVE SAID NO,

THEY ATE ALL AROUND THEM WHEN THEY HAD NO CHOICE.

lil_lisa

Yeah but to eat your friend? I would rather die I think.

Anyway, back on topic, you are right, no one can know what they would do in a life threatening situation, adrenaline and panic hit, anything could happen.

james finn

YES ITS FUNNY TO HEAR ALL THE GREAT LADS SAYING ID DO THIS ID DO THAT BUT SHOULD IT HAPPEN IT WOULD BE OUT THE WINDOW,

JUST LOOK AT 9/11, WOULD YOU JUMP OUT A WINDOW, NO

bigeasyeah

They would be no room on the boat after I fill it with food,drink and valuables.
Equality rules.

Chuchoter

Maybe its just the feminazi in me, but I always found putting women and children on a par with each other demeaning, as if we were incapable of being as guilty as men. As if we were too stupid to make decisions, like the way a child who steals is innocent just because they didn't know any better.

cantankerous

crayolastereo wrote: »

Maybe its just the feminazi in me, but I always found putting women and children on a par with each other demeaning, as if we were incapable of being as guilty as men. As if we were too stupid to make decisions, like the way a child who steals is innocent just because they didn't know any better.

I thought a feminazi would want women and children first..... The whole women deserve equal rights+ special treatment because they are better than men attitude.

The whole thing is obviously a hangover from a time when men and women weren't viewed as equal. The fact that people are still defending it today just shows to me how blindly (and desperately) some people will cling to tradition, coming up with whatever justifications they can for the case at hand instead of questioning "traditional wisdom" and thinking about things for themselves. This is imo haveing a negative impact on progress in the world.

lil_lisa

Equal rights + special treatment? Slightly contradicting. But by wanting equal rights it means being treated fairly and the same as men. By saving women before men it means they're not being treated the same.

Pygmalion

crayolastereo wrote: »

Maybe its just the feminazi in me, but I always found putting women and children on a par with each other demeaning, as if we were incapable of being as guilty as men. As if we were too stupid to make decisions, like the way a child who steals is innocent just because they didn't know any better.

That's not being a feminazi, that's wanting equal rights, generally when people use the word "feminazi" they refer to the man-hating women who think they should be treated better for being women.

StormWarrior

I'd find it very charming and chivalrous if men in that situation offered me the chance to be saved instead of them. But if my father/husband/brother/son were there and would have to be left behind to die, I couldn't bring myself to get on the boat and leave them behind.

Overheal

submitted as evidence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuP9YClyPRY

amacachi

It would be MY woman and children first, then me.

Coriolanus

Inari wrote: »

I disagree with it being about fairness. There's no sense in someone who's got less time to live taking up space on a lifeboat when someone with much more time is being left behind. I do see your point though, that the older person would/could say "I've had my time, now it's yours" but my argument is that the ones with greater life potential deserve the spaces, hence the women and children argument.

But it's not as simple as that, is it?

A 25 year old man has longer to live than a 35 year old woman, going by average age of death.

So it'd be children first then women under 25 and men under twenty, then women under 30 and men under 25 etc etc.

That just sounds messy.

Anyway, as for myself, I'd echo the thoughts above that "my" women and children would be going first, followed by me since I flatter myself in presuming that if I were with them their hope of survival goes up.

Andrew33

My name is URL wrote: »

Men and women aged between 16 and 35 should be first into the lifeboats as they are the ones currently most likely to continue procreating. Children may not survive until adulthood so they're too much of a variable =p

Who said the world needs more procreators:eek:

strobe

I think another thing to be taken into consideration that no one seems to have mentioned is that men, in general are physically stronger, better stanima etc than women or children so they would have a better chance of surviving most of these situations....boat sinking (in general men are stronger swimmers), building on fire(men can climb better), village under attack(men are better fighters).....so it just makes sense to get the women and children to safety first.

This of course only applies in a situation where there is some possibility of getting to safety second, so to speak, but I always thought the above was the obvious rationale for the "women and children first" thing.

tihkyld nic

Children first. Then women, cos being stuck on a lifeboat in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of kids would be a fate worse than death, so it's all yours girls. :eek:

I don't know. it should be equal, but extreme situations taps into that evolutionary instinct. You can imagine a kid who's saved along with their mother respecting her mother the rest of her life, but it's hard to imagine they wouldn't blame and be ashamed of their father in the opposite scenario. Some might say that in a truly enlightened society that wouldn't be the case, but even if that's true (which I don't think it is) that's not where we're at.

I would like to make the sacrifice if it came to it, I really would, but I kind of doubt I could. If the choice could be made before the situation happened, I'd totally do it. But not in the heat of it, hopefully I'd just freeze in fear until it was too late to get in drag convincingly (ship'd need to sinking pretty slowly tbf).

discus

amacachi wrote: »

It would be MY woman and children first, then me.

Indeed. If only for the fact that I'd want to set a good example for the children. A memory of a fathers whose example of selfless commitment to his family and his compassion and welfare for others would probably serve them better throughout life then my actual fathering skills!

Fluorescence

lil_lisa wrote: »

Yeah but to eat your friend? I would rather die I think.

Swap legs :pac:

Regarding the debate, I always thought it was children first (for obvious reasons - it's the duty of society to protect and rear children), and their mothers to mind and protect them. That probably just became women in general as women are motherly figures that a bunch of terrified kids are likely to look up to in those circumstances. I'm not sure how well this argument holds water (:pac:) though, as any adult (male or female) in this situation would be an obvious guardian to the kids until they got to safety.

EDIT to add: In an apocalyptic situation, I think it's women and children first because you need fewer men to impregnate a lot of women to get the population back up again :P. Like the way a farmer might have a herd of cattle and just one bull

d4v1d

in my view preservation of genetics would kick in first. if, in a hypothetical situation, my family is on a sinking ship and there was a limited space on a lifeboat, i'd have no problem in sacrificing someone elses children in order to save my own first. i'd never have any guilt for doing anything to save the lives of my children.

once my children are safe then in reality self preservation would kick in. i'd probaby do everything possible to save myself before my wife or any other women/children. of course if i were in my 60's/70's then i may have a more altruistic way of dealing with the ordeal, but not right now. me, me, me!

chickenbutt

Children first is great and optimistic and all, but I disagree. It's like when a plane is going down and the air masks pop out, do you put yours on or your childs? You put yours on first because if you didn't, who's to say you won't pass out who will then take care of the child? I'm not saying jump ship and leave the kids behind, but you can't just throw the kids in a boat and hope they make it. They'll need adults.. so, women and children first, or men and children, either way... Otherwise it could be a whole other Lord of the Flies scenario and no one needs that!

Arpa

d4v1d wrote: »

in my view preservation of genetics would kick in first. if, in a hypothetical situation, my family is on a sinking ship and there was a limited space on a lifeboat, i'd have no problem in sacrificing someone elses children in order to save my own first. i'd never have any guilt for doing anything to save the lives of my children.

once my children are safe then in reality self preservation would kick in. i'd probaby do everything possible to save myself before my wife or any other women/children. of course if i were in my 60's/70's then i may have a more altruistic way of dealing with the ordeal, but not right now. me, me, me!

Jesus, hate to be on that boat with you. Sacrificing someone elses children? Jumping in before your wife and other women and children? I know it's a life and death situation, but your exactly the type of person who shouldn't get in the boat, because you're all panicked. You'd kill everyone on the life boat for the last packet of Tayto.

I'm not sayin' I'd be Mr. Cool and let everyone ahead of me, but I am certain that acting through shock I'd probably become helpful in saving others, not because I value my life less, but because I think every man should be noble in crisis situations and...well...be a man. It's inherent, respected and required. Too many wussy men jumping in lifeboats.

Save the women and children first because it is the honourable thing to do. Women are beautiful creatures as they carry and introduce life, men are beautiful creatures because they have the power to preserve that life.

I'm sure that a look into the animal kingdom would present arguments to suggest that the male sacrifices himself to preserve the continuation of the species. Analogies can be drawn.

Pollythene Pam

Pam first.
Humanity last.

slowburner

I remember being taught that the first human instinct was to save others. I would have thought the first instinct would be to save yourself. I mean, if your sofa caught fire and you felt excruciating pain in your arse - your first instinct woudn't be to save the person next to you, would it?

slowburner

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Who would you save out of the following two people:

A terminally ill 17 year old with 6 months left to live.
A 70 year old in reasonably good health with 5-10 years left to live?

I would save the 17 year old, personally.

70 years of wisdom and at least 5 years to dispense it, against a spotty, hormonal teenager with six months left to live, no contest!
What on earth would the teenager have to offer?
We are weird in this country when it comes to respecting the experience and wisdom of our elders.

InReality

I think in the panic it would be me me me in my thoughts!

I was in a white water rafting thing , and when the boat leader said help x in , I was kinda frozen in panic , didn't move for fear I would fall in myself.

The hudson ( I think) it was people who were a bit infirm etc that got helped along first.

Some people def let others ahead of them , and died as a result.

Daniel S

Should be done on how good looking you are....




Eh, wait.. no that's a bad idea....

sheesh

What about Families First option if you can get family units together and put them on first if you have the time then its everyone for themselves.

*kicks solo travelling Grandmother out of his way to get on last life boat.