I suppose it’s an American or Western sentiment that in any kind of dangerous situation or disaster that women and children would be rescued first.
Many would say that our society is and has always been, in some ways (varying in degree of course according to perception and experience) a bit
chavanistic. However, the “damsel in distress” mindset seems to be so much of a part of our culture as to be taken for granted.
Are all cultures that way? I mean in a literal sense. If a ferry went under, for instance, are there societies in which the men would actually take or be given lifeboats/rescue first?
Well, sure, but we’re talking about a ship (or ferry, always ferry) going down. It really makes no difference to the human species if more females than males survive. For that matter, it makes no difference to the species as a whole if anyone survives the ship (or ferry) wreck.
True on the ferry thing.
But maybe it’s so ingrained in us that we just do it anyways regardless of whether logic dictates that we should or shouldn’t.
I would think it has more to do with your perception of yourself as a man in society. There was, IIRC, a man on the Titanic who dressed up as a woman to get on a lifeboat. What is your opinion of him for doing this? I’m guessing it’s not so high.
Also, men have traditionally taken the lion’s share of the rewards of western civilization. Make more money, be the one’s in charge, own more property, etc. In cases where one group (officers in the military for instance) have these sort of priviliges it is somewhat common for them to be expected to allow others go first in certain situations as a sort of sociatial payback
If that’s true, then he’s my hero. Sure, I believe in the women and children first rule but I’m not the one on that sinkin’ ship. If I were in that situation, I might even elbow a woman or kid out of the way on my mad dash to the life boats.
Hehe. If I were a guy, I’d probably do the same thing. “No, really, I have two X chromosomes…”
Reminds me (as do most situations) of a “Seinfeld” ep- where George elbows out women, children, one clown, and elderly women (with walkers, no less!) to escape a tiny oven fire. Later on he’s explaining to Jerry that he was doing them all a favor, bringing about equality to society, putting an end to “women and children first,” to which Jerry replies, “I’m sure she’ll really appreciate that after she gets out of the burn center.” I’m not sure exactly what place this has in the thread, but I thought it was fitting.
I think the real question at stake is: Do clowns have more, less, or an equal footing with women and children when the ship’s going down?
I agree with the “Children first” portion, but the woman before men aspect is bullshit. Since when were women more worthy of living than a man? Both sexes have an equal right to live; anyone who says otherwise is blatantly sexist.
As someone who firmly believes in “Woman and children first”, let me explain my point of view…
I think that what this belief comes down to is an adherance to the behavior of a gentleman. If I were on a sinking ship, I would definitely makes sure that all woman and children were the first to safety before I would get on any life raft.
I am certainly not a sexist, nor do I feel that woman are in any way less capable then men…but in such a situation, I feel that my duty, as a man who believes in chivalry and honor, to make sure that I do everything within my power to see to the protection and safety of others.
That said, I would also make sure that other men were able to safely board their life boats before I myself would board one…but yes, I would make sure that the women and children were taken care of first.
Seems like children and women with children first would be a reasonable standard. I hope no one disagrees that seeing to the safety of young children first is the right thing to do, and in that case it seems somehow cruel to me to rescue a little kid while forcing them to leave their mother behind. Just MHO, of course.
I don’t think it’s a matter of ‘women are less capable’ so much as ‘women are more valuable’. In a survival situation I think it makes perfect sense to give priority to those who can perpetuate the species.
I’m going to try and take a different perspective. Let’s say the plane I’m on has just crashed, but I’m trying to help people get out.
In a perfect world, there would be no smoke, no screaming, no dead bodies strewn across any escape path, and a nice wide opening where everyone can leave through at once. Obviously, this is not often the case.
Would I stop each person to indentify their gender, making the men stand aside and wait while all the women and children climbed out first? No way. It’s chaos. There is no time to stop and sort, you’re simply dealing with people, victims. Period. All I’m going to be concerned with is getting however many people out as possible. In a dire emergency, you can’t start assessing the value of an individual’s life, you just react to the situation.
If it gets to a point where death is imminent if I stay behind, you’re damn right I’m going to try and get out, regardless of who’s still in there. It’s called self-preservation, and it exists in everyone. I would probably sacrifice myself for my own wife and/or child, but not for a total stranger. Sorry.
People can talk a lot of brave and chivalrous crap, but when their own ass is on the line, it’s a whole different story.
I think also it may have something to do with the way men and women are hard-wired. If the situation is dire, but possibly fixable, for the most part it will be the men that will know how to fix it (i.e. mechanical failure, etc.) and may need to get the women and children out of the way to perform the task. Also, men have a higher threshold for taking risks, so may be more likely to stay in a dangerous situation.
Not to discount social expectations and ingrained behaviors, but men and women are biologically wired to react differently in dangerous situations, and that may have something to do with it.