"women and children first"

[revots33]

Hypothetical situation. Like the Titanic, a ship is sinking in the Atlantic Ocean and there aren't enough lifeboats. It is assumed that everyone who does not get on a lifeboat will assuredly drown. A commonly accepted protocol in this situation (and the one used on the Titanic) is, "women and children first". Why?

[McBusto]

Children are the future.

Women, I don't know.

[Andrew Karpinski]

Because men start wars and women start families.

[Dan.]

A residual effect of patriarchal life, I imagine. Men should be willing to die like men.

[SWB]

[ QUOTE ]
A commonly accepted protocol in this situation (and the one used on the Titanic) is, "women and children first". Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

The story behind the tradition:

http://ne.essortment.com/shiptraditionw_rrqb.htm

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever watched a movie, or read a book, about a ship in trouble and when the words "women and children first!" are shouted out, you know that inevitably those words means that the ship is doomed to sink?

This tradition, a gallant one, was started in 1852 when the HMS Birkenhead sailed around the coast of southern Africa:

The HMS Birkenhead was a 1900 ton warship. Her hull was made out of iron - almost unheard of in those days, as hulls were generally made out of wood. Besides sails, she sported steam-driven paddles as well. Eight lifeboats were lashed to paddle boxes. On 7 January 1852 she sailed from Cork in Ireland on her fateful voyage to South Africa.

The Birkenhead stopped over at Simon's Town and took on coal and other provisions. On 25 February she set sail for Cape Town. There were 638 people, including 476 British soldiers and 20 women and children. The soldiers were to be despatched to the Eighth Frontier War in the Eastern Cape.

The Birkenhead had an uneventful voyage - there were no storms and they steered well clear of the coast of Africa, known for it's treacherous rocks. No one is quite how or why it happened, but in the early hours of the morning on 26 February 1852, the ship ran on to a pinnacle of rock, just off Danger Point - which lies between Cape Hangklip and Cape Agulhas.

The metal hull was torn open and just over a hundred soldiers drowned as they lay sleeping. The rest of the troops rushed on deck and tried to help the crew to man the pumps and free the lifeboats. Alas, the lifeboats had rarely, if ever, been used and the rigging was clogged with paint and they were only able to free three of the lifeboats. The women and children were ushered into the three lifeboats.

The ship was sinking, and the captain knew that time had run out. He shouted out the words "Every man for himself."

The soldier's commanding officers, Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Seton, drew his sword and ordered his men to stand fast - to rush the lifeboats might mean that the women and children aboard the boats would be swamped and would perish. He threatened to use his sword to stop anyone who panicked. He had no need to use the sword - each soldier remained in their ranks. The horses on board were blindfolded and driven over the side of the ship so that the horses could try to swim ashore. The soldiers did not budge even as the ship split in two and the main mast crashed on to the deck.

445 people died - many drowned as the ship sank, sharks savaged others as they tried to swim ashore. Only 193 people survived - a few were picked up by the lifeboats, others clung to pieces of wreckage and others managed to elude the sharks and swim ashore. The captain and the courageous Lieutenant-Colonel Seton were among the dead.

The rock on which the ship was wrecked is known as Birkenhead Rock and is seen as a memorial to the brave souls who perished on 26 February 1852. Forever will the cry "Women and children first" be honoured, because of the gallant actions of a commanding officer and his men.

[/ QUOTE ]

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Because men start wars and women start families.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, a 70-year old woman would still be saved over a 21-year old man. Why?

[ZenMasterFlex]

Children first should be obvious. You aren't meant to bundle up sug and warm with your 10 year old daughter doggie paddling in the North Atlantic.

Maybe it's believed men could deal better with the horror of dying than women, and as the natural protector provider types, it kinda makes sense. But God help me if that bitch was extra naggy or bitchy latley, and I watch her wave bye on a warm lifeboat as I go down with the ship.

I give Rose from Titanic the boat, I give Rose's mom a lifevest.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I give Rose from Titanic the boat, I give Rose's mom a lifevest.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you stab Leonardo DiCaprio right in the eye?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's believed men could deal better with the horror of dying than women

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Men should be willing to die like men.


[/ QUOTE ]

I find these arguments interesting, and probably the most common.

My issue is with the whole idea that a male, by nature of his gender, can somehow "handle" death better than a woman. What is "dying like men"? My assumption is that, whether a man or a woman, the act of drowning to death would feel pretty much the same.

My opinion is that there is no justifiable reason why a 70-year old woman should be saved so that a 19 year-old man can drown to death. To me, it points out an obvious fact: a woman's life is considered more important and worthwhile than a man's. Men are expendable. This fact has been so ingrained into our culture that we don't even question it. There is no reason for the young man to sacrifice his life for the old woman, other than through the tacit agreement that her few years of life are more valuable than his many.

[Dan.]

I never meant to insinuate that "men should be willing to die like men" is proper, just that I'm fairly certain that'd be where the idea of 'women and children first' comes from.

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's believed men could deal better with the horror of dying than women

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Men should be willing to die like men.


[/ QUOTE ]

I find these arguments interesting, and probably the most common.

My issue is with the whole idea that a male, by nature of his gender, can somehow "handle" death better than a woman. What is "dying like men"? My assumption is that, whether a man or a woman, the act of drowning to death would feel pretty much the same.

My opinion is that there is no justifiable reason why a 70-year old woman should be saved so that a 19 year-old man can drown to death. To me, it points out an obvious fact: a woman's life is considered more important and worthwhile than a man's. Men are expendable. This fact has been so ingrained into our culture that we don't even question it. There is no reason for the young man to sacrifice his life for the old woman, other than through the tacit agreement that her few years of life are more valuable than his many.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the case of a 70 year old woman vs. a young man I couldn't agree more.

As for our society, placing the value of a womans life above a man I disagree. It's a man's world, and it's no different in america. Women, untill recently were 2nd class citizens, and in alot of ways they still are.
Men hold money,power,posessions over women. All women really hold over men is vagina.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Men hold money,power,posessions over women. All women really hold over men is vagina.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that settles it. Women get all the luck.

[McBusto]

"Women have all the power because women have all the vaginas."

- Dave Attell

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
As for our society, placing the value of a womans life above a man I disagree. It's a man's world, and it's no different in america. Women, untill recently were 2nd class citizens, and in alot of ways they still are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that they still are. On what do you base this?

[Power_Mad]

In a world of political correctness and chivalry, consider the white male on the back of the bus. We are looked at as a common and useless tool; money-making erectile dysfunctions. Women are treated differently in many situations where it is favorable. Equal treatment my ass.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for our society, placing the value of a womans life above a man I disagree. It's a man's world, and it's no different in america. Women, untill recently were 2nd class citizens, and in alot of ways they still are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that they still are. On what do you base this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Word.

What the [censored] is it that a woman can't do in today's society?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
In a world of political correctness and chivalry, consider the white male on the back of the bus. We are looked at as a common and useless tool; money-making erectile dysfunctions. Women are treated differently in many situations where it is favorable. Equal treatment my ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, a white male complaining about how difficult this world is for a white male. Just can't catch a break, that white male.

Yawn. Do you make this argument with a straight face?

<--- white male

[Power_Mad]

I'm not making an argument. I'm making an observation, ass.

<-- White male who never catches a break

Edit: Life is hard for everyone, not just those with darker skin, differing religions, histories of hardships, etc.

[Copernicus]

there are almost certainly evolutionary advantages to a "women and children first" policy. Survival of children ensures future fertile couples, and survival of women of child bearing age are more important than men of childbearing age, since one man can reproduce with several women, but women are limited to 1 pregancy every 11 - 12 months.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not making an argument. I'm making an observation, ass.

<-- White male who never catches a break

Edit: Life is hard for everyone, not just those with darker skin, differing religions, histories of hardships, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, your observation that there is some white guy somewhere who has it tough is a useful life lesson for everyone that prejudice doesn't exist, or that if it does, its directed mostly at white men. "White man on the back of the bus" is a really poignant line. Mind if I use that at my rallies?

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because men start wars and women start families.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, a 70-year old woman would still be saved over a 21-year old man. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because "Fertile, pre-menopausal women and children first" takes longer to say.

Seriously, the simpler the rule, the better in emergency situations.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because men start wars and women start families.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, a 70-year old woman would still be saved over a 21-year old man. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because "Fertile, pre-menopausal women and children first" takes longer to say.

Seriously, the simpler the rule, the better in emergency situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

And then count on the "wisdom" of the old hag to come through and tell Leonardo he can have her spot, she has had a full (sighs, tears and violins) life, because she has loved.

[Power_Mad]

When did I say that most prejudice is directed at the white male? I'm just sick of everyone playing their race card to death. Slavery has ended, women have all the same freedoms as men. What's more; they are saved before us on sinking boats. Feel free to use your misunderstood version of my statement at your "rallies".

[KeysrSoze]

I agree with the maxim. After I crossdress to get on the lifeboat, it's easier to throw women and children overboard when the food and water starts running low.

[revots33]

I don't think this has anything to do with race. I think, if we really are honest, we can find many examples where a man's life is considered less important than a woman's. Compare news coverage of when a man gets murdered with that of a woman victim. Compare the fact that only men have to register for selective service and can get drafted, although women are allowed in the military (but only women can choose to avoid combat positions if they wish). Compare the coverage of Jessica Lynch's rescue in Iraq with the coverage of the 2500+ men who've been killed. Would a man being rescued have gotten the same overblown coverage?


[ QUOTE ]
Because "Fertile, pre-menopausal women and children first" takes longer to say.

Seriously, the simpler the rule, the better in emergency situations.


[/ QUOTE ]

I personally do not think it is just a matter of simplicity. I suspect if you conducted a poll, most people would likely agree that it SHOULD be women and children first, regardless of age. This has nothing to do with expediency in an emergency. It has to do with the idea that men, regardless of age, should be more willing to accept death than women ("dying like men", as someone said earlier). It is really just chivalry taken to the extreme. And the overall message is that a man should be willing to die, at any time, for any woman.

[The_Bends]

Its simply a reflection of 19th century attitudes. Men run the family, man earn the money, men protect their family, men fight the wars, men hand out disapline. Its not that the men can handle dieing better its that their duty is to their family and woman who society has placed under their protection. It is the correct thing to do therefore to ensure the safety of the weakest first.

These days it is slightly anacronistic but holds true because most men and women at still retain the residue of 19th centruy values, especially in a time of crisis.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
When did I say that most prejudice is directed at the white male? I'm just sick of everyone playing their race card to death. Slavery has ended, women have all the same freedoms as men. What's more; they are saved before us on sinking boats. Feel free to use your misunderstood version of my statement at your "rallies".

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice backpedal. Your post specifically complains that white men do NOT get equal treatment, and you used the example of a white man being the 'new' Rosa Parks. Your point was very clear, very dumb, and you are now trying to back out of it. You are making a valiant effort at it, so I suppose I will let it go with this.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
Children are the future.

Women bear children, and children are the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

[kazana]

Why? Easy. Because it is so macho.

And in those situations it's typically mistaken for chivalry by women, wheras they normally couldn't care less about macho behaviour. Basically, it's a win-win.

[halt i am reptar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When did I say that most prejudice is directed at the white male? I'm just sick of everyone playing their race card to death. Slavery has ended, women have all the same freedoms as men. What's more; they are saved before us on sinking boats. Feel free to use your misunderstood version of my statement at your "rallies".

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice backpedal. Your post specifically complains that white men do NOT get equal treatment, and you used the example of a white man being the 'new' Rosa Parks. Your point was very clear, very dumb, and you are now trying to back out of it. You are making a valiant effort at it, so I suppose I will let it go with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read PowerMad's post before you starting attacking him, he never asserts that white men have to face life with greater hardships than anyone else. He is just pointing out what a lot of people eagerly overlook; though of course advantages exist, a white, middle-class male does not have the cushiest life. Preempting your following assertion, I would agree that most people of different color might have it harder, each in a unique way. But a white guy cannot just waltz through life on easy street. He has hurdles to overcome as well. Different hurdles, probably shorter hurdles, but hurdles. I don't feel particular affinity for Power's statement, but you were just, in my opinion, too quick to cut it down, vhawk.

[Shooby]

I'm pretty sure this idea wasn't thought up by a guy in a dire situation. Unless it's your kid, you would fight for your own survival.
There's a big difference between Robin Hood chivalry,and reality.
Steve

[alphatmw]

obviously if the men survive, they get blowjobs from the woman for being so chivalrousvoualous..

[Double Down]

[ QUOTE ]


Men hold money,power,posessions over women. All women really hold over men is vagina.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, but that's why we're trying to get the money, power, and posessions.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Men hold money,power,posessions over women. All women really hold over men is vagina.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, but that's why we're trying to get the money, power, and posessions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, to have to make this correction, but in the USA and other first world countries, the major portion of wealth is controlled by women. If you meant something else, I am sorry I butted in. Just wanted to put the facts straight. I am a great supporter of feminism but it does not extend to misrepresentation.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, to have to make this correction, but in the USA and other first world countries, the major portion of wealth is controlled by women.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this true? I have no data but was astonished to read this put forward as a fact.

[MidGe]

Hiya bunny,

AFAIK it is true. I had a copy of what was a UN sponsored study that confirmed it and have been trying to find it on the net with not much success. So if anyone knows about it I would love to get my hands onto it again. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Regardless of the availability of the study, simple maths should easily show that it is reasonable that it be so. The facts to bear in mind are:

1) inheritance laws that favour overwhelmingly the surviving spouse
2) women longevity that is significantly longer than mens
3) respective age of spouse in a marriage situation that would again favour women inheriting.

You will see that any model that factors those in will show an accumulation of ultimate wealth's control in women's favour (by a long shot).


There are other figures about gender distribution that would support that evidence:

Namely, the amount of medical research dollar spend on female gender specific diseases is, I believe, ten times greater, that the amount spent on men's specific diseases.

Mortality in all age groups from baby, infants, adloescents, adults, etc, whichever way you cut it, is greater for men than women.

Suicide in all age groups is greater per population in male than female groups.

Those figures are valid for first world countries and may not apply to other countries in all instances.

And I could (and can) go on. Let me again say that I am a feminist and believe that feminism is needed and does redress injustices. However it does not redress all of them, and specially not those related to male specific issues.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
And I could (and can) go on. Let me again say that I am a feminist and believe that feminism is needed and does redress injustices. However it does not redress all of them, and specially not those related to male specific issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely, which is why a blanket statement like "men have all the power" is just wrong.

Men are more likely to die on the job. (women tend to have the option of choosing safer jobs or not working at all)
Men are more likely to be a murder victim. (and not just black men - white men are much more likely to be murdered than women of any race)
Men are more likely to die in combat. (women can elect non-combat positions, men cannot)
Men are more likely to committ suicide. (often caused by financial troubles that come with being the breadwinner, child support alimony etc.)
Men are more likely to die from stress-related causes such as a heart attack. (the highest stress professions are overwhelmingly done by men)

Again, I am a feminist and think women should be equal to men. But to just scoff and say, "white men have all the power" is not fair. In terms of life expectancy and quality of life women (at least in the US) have more power, because they have more choices than men, who are still defined primarily by the chivalry/breadwinner model.

[madnak]

I agree with these sentiments. Many people fail to inform themselves. Gender bias goes both ways, and it's a serious social issue not just for women but for men as well. Society and culture are deeply unfair to men, as this thread indicates. I think one of the most unfortunate elements of modern culture is that men aren't "allowed" to have intimate relationships with one another. I think that's a big part of why there's such a disbalance in terms of romance - men are only allowed to be "weak" around their mates so they have greater need for sexual intimacy. Talking about personal issues and "being emotional" are considered inappropriate among men. Women, on the other hand, typically have female friends they can rely on for emotional support. To exacerbate this is the tendency to write off male aggression and instability as an obsession with sex or a lack of refinement.

Men also get much less sympathy in most situations. Men are taken less seriously when they suffer mental illness, domestic abuse, rape, or other similar problems. They typically receive advice to "suck it up" and are unlikely to get the care and counseling they need. Women attempt suicide three times more often than men, but men commit suicide three times more often than women. That is, men are nine times more likely to be successful in a suicide attempt. Men are also much more likely to be convicted of crimes they didn't commit, particularly rape (convictions often go through on "his word against hers").

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Men hold money,power,posessions over women. All women really hold over men is vagina.

[/ QUOTE ] Out one of which you too came.

Do you remember that ?

[Cyrus]

The species needs women to reproduce. And children have a longer life span ahead of them than the adults.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
The species needs women to reproduce . And children have a longer life span ahead of them than the adults.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is silly. We need men to reproduce every bit as much. What you meant to say was that women can only have about one child (or birth at least) per year, whereas men could have dozens, hundreds even. So women are more valuable and precious in reproduction. Of course its not like we are short on women, so its not really a valid reason for maritime law. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Borodog]

You know what I like about you, Cyrus?

Custom subjects.

[Michaelson]

Wouldn't the fact that men are generally more likely to be able to survive that women be a factor?

I always assumed that "women and children first" had a great deal to do with being a rule of thumb method of separating the most vulnerable from the least vulnerable.

Though that isn't to deny that there aren't notions of chivalry at stake as well.

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
Hypothetical situation. Like the Titanic, a ship is sinking in the Atlantic Ocean and there aren't enough lifeboats. It is assumed that everyone who does not get on a lifeboat will assuredly drown. A commonly accepted protocol in this situation (and the one used on the Titanic) is, "women and children first". Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop questioning everything so much. Just shut up and give me the seat in that lifeboat before I throw you on the floor and make you wish you had. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[CallMeIshmael]

I laugh until my head comes off
I swallow til I burst
Who's in a bunker?

[cakewalk]

well a long time ago some guy realized that the person in power had control over the women and children. so naturally males started competing for the women and children. ever since then they go first.

[Evenkeal]

1) Women and children first, because our species generally does better with a higher % of women (?)

2) A pet peeve of mine is that the word "feminism" is defined as "the belief in equality of the sexes." Although I believe in (the strict definition of the word) "feminism", I don't believe in what the term is a euphemism for, and that is for being pro-female.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
2) A pet peeve of mine is that the word "feminism" is defined as "the belief in equality of the sexes." Although I believe in (the strict definition of the word) "feminism", I don't believe in what the term is a euphemism for, and that is for being pro-female.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. That definition only makes sense in an evironment in which women are being unfairly discriminated against. In modern western society that is certainly not the case. If anything, it's the opposite. So the definition is a relic of the past at best and totally ridiculous at worst.

[madnak]

Is that really rational? Obviously it's a controversial term lately, but that's all the more reason to use it as a clear expression of equal rights.

[Darryl_P]

Why would an expression that contains the name of one of the two competing parties but not the other be a rational symbol for something that is symmetrical with respect to the two parties?

[madnak]

That's just etymology. If we're going to concern ourselves with that, we might as well use the term "womyn."

[jgorham]

[ QUOTE ]
I laugh until my head comes off
I swallow til I burst
Who's in a bunker?

[/ QUOTE ]

I opened this thread hoping to see a post like this.

[fearless]

OBVIOUSLY
there were no real men on the lifeboats.