Say, there are 50 men and 50 women on a ship that's about to sink?

Question

Don't ask why, but there are only 50 life boats.

If we were to apply "every man/woman for him/herself" rather than "women and children first"... Assuming none of them knew each other, what percentage of survivors do you think would be men?

BQ: If each man had one female family member on board, do you think the male to female ratio of survivors would be the same as it would be if they were all strangers to one another?

Answer 1

So, I think you're asking whether the survival rate of the women would improve with male family as opposed to male strangers. Well that depends on:



• how egalitarian the men were

• whether the men were happy with their wives

• whether the women were in close proximity to their male family at the time of the disaster

• whether the women made themselves more presentable and behaved more pleasantly with strangers than with men already committed

• how panicked the men were



Please fill in these, and other relevant details.

Answer 2

50 lifeboats would be more than enough to rescue 100 people.

edit: Are all the passengers adult? How many are elderly? Are any handicapped? If you're assuming all are healthy, young adults, I'd say men would out number women 4-1. BQ If each man had one female companion, then each woman would be with a man and the ratio would probably be 1-1 or even.

Answer 3

I'm really tired of women and children being blamed for their survival from the Titanic, to this very day by people that weren't even THERE in the first place...



First of all, you're bating for answers... You know the answer, and you've set the scenario up for fail...



IF 50 men, and 50 women were on a sinking ship, the CREW [as it did on the Titanic] would make sure they're the last ones off, whether male or female, your passengers always come first [except for the Concordia, of course, where the Captain got his tail out of there, and left people to die].

Answer 4

If I was on that lifeboat, I'd rather a family be saved rather than myself.



If this means a woman and child, so be it. I am only 23, but would happily sacrifice my life to save a woman and a child, and I'd be proud to do so.

Answer 5

for every woman there better be a life jacket for a man as well because men dying in boats is sexist

Answer 6

This isn't even hypothetical really since its already been studied. With the exception of the titanic, in which the captain ordered the crew to board the women first, all the shipwrecks of the 1800s and 1900s studied that had significant numbers of women and children aboard, men had two to three times as great a likelihood of surviving as the women and children did. They saved themselves, not their families. Ladies need to take care of themselves rather than "submit" in return for a chivalry and "protection" that has never even existed.

Answer 7

if they do not have any female relatives on board than probably 90%. If they do then 60%.

Answer 8

45 women, 5 men.





If they land on an isolated island the men can impregnate all of the women and quickly rebuild their generation on the island. 5 women with 45 men wouldn't work though.

Answer 9

If it were life or death, I'd do whatever it took to be among the living. I wouldn't blame anyone else for that, either.

Answer 10

Quite a high number. Why? Because the reason the "women and children first" rule was brought in was because in the bad old days, sailors panicked and trampled the women and children in their rush to the lifeboats.

Answer 11

Well I can't speak for others, but being a (pretty woman), I would definitely be amongst the survivors.