Women and children first?

davet82

I was reading various news website articles today about the cruise ship that hit the rocks and that had to be evacuated at the weekend. One aspect of the story was the fact that a lot of the crew abandoned ship before passengers were evacuated. There were also various stories about the how the golden rule ‘women and children first’ was totally disregarded by crew and passengers alike and that it was ‘everyman for himself’.

The comments on a lot of the websites were surprising to me to say the least, many posters said that in this day and age that 500 year old rule was ‘out-dated’ and one posted ‘too right I’d push anybody out of my way, woman or child’ and ‘why is my life worth less than others’

I’m curious to see peoples honest views on this, would you save your own hide first by pushing a women and child out of the way to hop on a life raft? Is it something you post, saying you would do the honourable thing but when it came down to it you wouldn’t?

My name is URL

Well it is a bit of an antiquated notion imo. Unless the woman and kids were my own family then there's no reason why I'd feel that their lives are any more important than my own.

Mint Sauce

Not sure about women and children first. But I think I'd be making it my damndest that anyone struggling is not left behind, be they woman, child, or infirm, and getting them on the life raft with me.

After that, its everyone for them selves.

John Doe1

I think women and children first should definitely be respected. Adult males are in general **** anyway

Captain_Generic

Only the strong survive, if I have to punt a child out of the way to get off the boat then so be it

listermint

Situation dependent, in the situation you are pointing to i would have put them in the boat and swam myself over, they were right beside the shore.

IM0

My name is URL wrote: »

Well it is a bit of an antiquated notion imo. Unless the woman and kids were my own family then there's no reason why I'd feel that their lives are any more important than my own.

Im fairly sure thats where it comes from too, not just save the children for saving a childs sake, its basically "look, us husbands will stay back and all our women and children will take up the space in the boat, they are the next generation. we will rightfully die for to save them"

silly

Women maybe not...but children definitely... But then again, how will the poor child cope without their parents man or woman? At least one should go with the child, but who decides?

Dudess

Children, elderly, ill/disabled, heavily pregnant women first.

davet82

Captain_Generic wrote: »

Only the strong survive, if I have to punt a child out of the way to get off the boat then so be it

at least you are honest i guess...

do you have children?

Standard Toaster

I'd like to think I would, but until put into that situation I can only guess really.
Something like the Costa-Concordia disaster would very much be a case of 'every man for himself' I feel.

I'd have likely maintained a chivalrous stance and gone down with the karaoke machine playing.

Julie London

The elderly and children, non swimmers and women with infants, should be evacuated first i believe. How did this happen I havent seen much on it yet, if the boat was so close to land could anyone who was a strong swimmer not have swam to shore. And would there not have been time for lifeboats to do repeat trips?

Mint Sauce

davet82 wrote: »

at least you are honest i guess...

do you have children?

Your still new here.

Zulu

The reason the crew shouldn't go is fairly obvious: they are trained in evacuating people safely & know where the equipment etc. is located.

I'd be inclined to think children, pregnant women and infirm should go first (helped by able bodied adults), but don't see any reason other than an antiquated chivilerous code that adult women should go before adult men.

...that said, I don't see myself pushing anyone out of the way.

guitarzero

Pretty sure when you are contending with death, all altruistic notions of yourself are a lot easier to set aside for that time being.

ejmaztec

The crew's getting a lot of stick, with many of them allegedly getting off as soon as they could, including the captain.

ballsymchugh

davet82 wrote: »

at least you are honest i guess...

do you have children?

woah, wrap it up there. that line has been used. thread over.

Captain_Generic

davet82 wrote: »

at least you are honest i guess...

do you have children?

6, minus 3 due to puntings

J. Marston

I agree kids should be safe first but after that, I'm saving myself.

Standard Toaster

J. Marston wrote: »

I agree kids should be safe first but after that, I'm saving myself.

Even the ginger ones?

bodhrandude

One of Van Halens best albums it has to be said.

saa

If there are children they only need one parent to mind them and help them onto the boat so its a little sexist I know but its easier in an emergency situation to identify and order children, the elderly and women out first. I just see it as some kind of basic order nothing to do with chivalry, women without children can go on after imo.

Its easier to order 50ish % one gender and children within a crowd to move first, less people moving less people trying to get on, so all women with the likely hood of having children with them need help getting on and prioritised because of the children

If there were no children theres no issue except for crowd control.

the_syco

So the boat is full of women and children... what will they do? Can they row? Are you going to assume that they can navigate and/or able to row the boat? Of if they're strong enough to row the boat?

Zulu

silly wrote: »

how will the poor child cope without their parents man or woman?

The Batman.

Jake Rugby Walrus666

If I was on the ship there would be NO Deserters.

I'm firing one warning shot in the air and brandishing the gun for all to see.
Man, Woman or Child. Attempt to leave and you get shot.

Maximus Alexander

All for getting the kids off first, but if women want to vote, then they have to fight me for a spot on the lifeboat.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Jake Rugby Walrus666 wrote: »

If I was on the ship there would be NO Deserters.

I'm firing one warning shot in the air and brandishing the gun for all to see.
Man, Woman or Child. Attempt to leave and you get shot.

Would we be allowed to launch lifeboats? You don't expect us all to perish with the ship do you?

flanders1979

I'd look after my own family, I would also empty the bar to compensate me for the inconvenience.

Logical Fallacy

davet82 wrote: »

at least you are honest i guess...

do you have children?

He seems pretty confident in his ability to punt a child, so i reckon he does.

Mint Sauce

ejmaztec wrote: »

The crew's getting a lot of stick, with many of them allegedly getting off as soon as they could, including the captain.

Well they wanted to wave to their mates on the shore....





Apparently.

Jake Rugby Walrus666

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Would we be allowed to launch lifeboats?

No you will not. Cowards such as yourself spreading defeatism around the ship, with your talk of lifeboats, will be taken out and shot.

You don't expect us all to perish with the ship do you?

No. I expect you die Mr Deftlefthand.

davet82

ballsymchugh wrote: »

woah, wrap it up there. that line has been used. thread over.

sounded like a lecture was on the way there but was just curious

_______________________________________________________________


i'd be shouting women and children first if they were there with me but if i was on the cruise with the lads i may get a little pushy so i can get home to them

guess ya dont know til you find yourself in that situation

woodoo

Dudess wrote: »

Children, elderly, ill/disabled, heavily pregnant women first.

I agree with that but i would have it:

Me, Children, elderly, ill/disabled, heavily pregnant women first.

Napper Hawkins

I would do my absolute best to save as many men, women and children as I could.
But the second I realise that by staying any longer on this boat that I'm gonna die then you can bet your arse I'm getting the **** out of there sharpish and you're on your own.

davet82

Its apparently a crime if you are the captain to leave the ship before everyone else, a French couple spotted him hiding under a blanket on the first life boat, if the report is to be believed. Guess its sort of like being the bodyguard of the president and a guy takes out a gun and shoots him in front of you and you just stand there… you know you should have done what you were paid to do but…. F**k that :P

My name is URL

What about people that can't swim for shit? Surely that's the only category of people that should get first preference? Why is age or gender more important?

davet82

My name is URL wrote: »

What about people that can't swim for shit? Surely that's the only category of people that should get first preference? Why is age or gender more important?

Because suddenly nobody on the boat would be able to swim then :rolleyes:

Ellis Dee

I'd take all those reports and claims with a grain of salt until the accident has been objectively investigated. Considering that there were thousands on board and at most 20 were lost, the crew must have done something right.:):)

Maximus Alexander

My name is URL wrote: »

What about people that can't swim for shit? Surely that's the only category of people that should get first preference? Why is age or gender more important?

In general being a good swimmer is a moot point because you would be so far out sea or in cold enough waters that it wouldn't make any difference. This case is a bit of an exception in that respect.

Captain_Generic

My name is URL wrote: »

What about people that can't swim for shit? Surely that's the only category of people that should get first preference? Why is age or gender more important?

They should replace the life jackets with tridents and fight to the death (grannys included)

Oh and if a child is to small to hold one then two may enter as a team

ejmaztec

davet82 wrote: »

Because suddenly nobody on the boat would be able to swim then :rolleyes:

They could throw em into the sea to prove it. The ones that don't drown would be the lying bastards. This method has its drawbacks of course.

GavRedKing

In this incident I would have swam to the shore if I absolutely had to, they must have been less then 100ft from it.

citytillidie

Elderly, Children and those with disablities 1st

After that in this time of equality its up to you, why should it be woman and children 1st

Captain_Generic

ejmaztec wrote: »

They could throw em into the sea to prove it. The ones that don't drown would be the lying bastards. This method has its drawbacks of course.

Too time consuming

davet82

Maybe ONLY Women WITH children first???

Maximus Alexander

What about men who are single parents? Discrimination!!

LighterGuy

"women and children" first don't exist anymore.

One thing I hate is that women today talk about equal rights. If a man can do a job a woman can too, etc. Fair enough to that. But would the same 'independent' woman be screaming "equal rights!" in a sinking ship...

Nope. 'Women and children first! outta my way!' :rolleyes:

Butterface

I think the real issue here is.. why didn't Rose just let Jack get up on top of that piece of floating debris with her? or find something else to get up on top of?

kincsem

It should be "hot women and gifted children" first.

CucaFace

woodoo wrote: »

I agree with that but i would have it:

Me, Children, elderly, ill/disabled, heavily pregnant women first.

Well in fairness, heavily pregnant woman would float on top of the water due to their natural buoyancy so id order the launch all heavily pregnant woman over the side of the ship first.

Plus they could then actually be used as additional floats in the water by others who have fallen into the water.

Pity people just don’t use their heads in these situations of panic.

Agricola

It depends on a great deal of things. Firstly, how hot are these women?