What do you think of the "women and children first" protocol?

Question

A great example of the "women and children first" protocol is when the Titanic sank. 75% of the women survived, while only 20% of the men did.
Do you agree with this protocol? Whether you are male or female, give me your reasons why you do or do not agree with this.
Thanks!

Answer 1

I think it should be changed to children and parent first. No matter which argument you use to support placing the welfare of women above men the only argument to beat is the one that put that line of thinking into place.



Back then it was viewed as men's responsibility to look after and take care of women and children. In many cultures(including western) women were viewed as being perpetual children.

By virtue of that line of thinking women had fewer rights but enjoyed many privileges. "Women first" is one of those privileges.



If "equality regardless of gender" is to have any meaning then the age old privileges women enjoy must end as men have already lost the few privileges we had and frankly spoken one could argue that there is no point or justification for "equality" if it is only one sided.

Answer 2

I think it's the most stupid thing. Yeah, in terms of "preserving the species" you only, technically, need one man and several women, but when it comes to a sinking ship and not the destruction of the world, I believe in survival of the fittest. In my eyes, people are all people, no life is greater than another life, be it a man, woman, or child. Yes, the adults have lived their life, children are our future, but think of it this way... perhaps a middle-aged adult lives and a child drowns... the adult is older, the child has barely lived, but what if that adult was a scientist on the verge of a cure for cancer, that s/he then finished a year later? And what if that child grew up to be a modern-day Hitler? If you had chosen the child over the adult, you just chose a genocide over the cure for billions of people.



The protocol is basically a planned Russian roulette. You don't know what you're gonna get, but you still know which slots the bullets are in, just not what kind of bullets.



I'm a big believer in fate, so I believe when things are controlled like that, it's severely limiting everything.



And I'm a woman, but seriously, we could do without some of those stuck up, egotistical female doggies that were on the Titanic, since the rich ones were given first dibs.

Answer 3

In my opinion, during those times, women were thought to be the carers, nurturing and raising the kids, more so, than the men. Which is why, women were allowed to board those lifeboats with their kids first, so that, even if the male of the family didn't make it, the children still had their mother to look after them, and provide that love for them.

They were also thought to be weaker than the men.



Of course, I think that thinking was incredibly biased. Personally, I believe a woman's life is no more valuable, than the life of a man. They each have unique attributes and traits, and "balance" each other out. A person's morals and ethics should be taken into consideration, more so, than their gender.



However...

...I've always felt that, if I had the chance to save a toddler OR a middle aged man/woman (and I had to pick an ultimatum), I would choose to save the kid. Simply because, he is still small and has a right to fully experience life. Maybe its just because I can't bear to see a kid who has the misfortune of dying so young.

Answer 4

The women and children protocol went out a long time ago, just like the Titanic. Usually the disabled and those who find it difficult to move quickly are evacuated first, so they're not run over, just like on airplanes. I don't see any reasons for men or women to go first, only those who find it difficult to evacuate without assistance, like children, and those with different types of disabilities, should go first. I looked at a number of evacuation simulation factors, and they didn't mention women and children, they mentioned boat design, evacuation drills, safety equipment, and trained staff.

Answer 5

If that had been me, I would have rounded up all the feminists, tied them together and chucked them into the water. They would have made a good flotation device!



I saw on TV a true story about a ferry that went down off Indonesia about 2 years ago. The men pushed the women out of the way and got onto the life boats. Some women got pushed into the water and got dragged down by their heavy robes. The story was told by two English people and one American woman who was on the ferry as it went down.



Most of the women drowned and about 120 men were saved.

Answer 6

This protocol was put into place after it was discovered that when a ship went down, the stronger sailors rushed to the boats, often trampling underfoot the weaker women and children.

I can't bear that the thought that anyone would be left behind.

I would rather every ship had enough lifeboats for everyone on board. Then it wouldn't be an issue. In fact, I'm sure that in modern times they do make provision for everyone, now.

This is something that came into place because of history and experiences of the past generations. We've moved on, thank goodness.

Answer 7

I only agree with the children first.



women are capable of thinking ways to save themselves just like men can. children are helpless.

Answer 8

In most disaster situations the men would have a better chance of surviving due to their larger size and greater strength than woman and children - especially in 1900 when the women wore silly big frocks (obviously not in the case of the Titanic where it was freezing cold and in the middle of nowhere).



So half practical and half traditional ideas I guess.



Being female and not very good at swimming I'm not complaining :)

Answer 9

Sounds good to me.



I agree with this because I'm a woman :D I'm always happy to be left off of a sinking ship first.



You want me to elaborate more? Okay, I have a strong interest in self preservation. And at the moment I don't know any men who wouldn't be better off on the bottom of the ocean. Oh, and I think children should be first also, because they really haven't had a chance to live their lives yet. I would definitely let any and all children off ahead of me.



....



Oh, and whiners like gateman should be the very, very last. He sounds like he'd be knocking toddlers out of the way to get on the lifeboat.

Answer 10

If it was whites first, blacks and jews last, there would be outrage.

So why is it fine for men to be treated as sub human?