I was familiar with this concept from the Titanic, but was unsure if it was still applied today. But I was reading the account by a paramedic of his experiences at the WTC disaster, and he mentioned that in trying to escape he came to a ferry that was putting all women and children at the head of the line. (He got on anyway, due to his paramedic status). So my questions are:
Is this a widely followed practice in crisis situations?
Is it enshrined in any formal doctrine or law?
Is it legal in light of today’s sex discrimination laws?
Is it morally justified?
Are women (or the average woman) at a significant survival disadvantage in bombings and the like, as compared to men?
[sub](Some of these are more GQish and the mods may wish to move the thread. I put it here because 4 is clearly GD material, and some of the other questions seem like they might not have clear-cut answers)[/sub]
I guess I would rather die than live with the knowledge that I had to sacrifice a child to live. I’m not quite sure where I would put a random woman in this equation.
The big difference there is the ability to make a decision. A child can’t make a decision, so you are stuck making the decision for both of you.
ahh…
I see why women get lumped in there with kids.
flees thread and prays his wife never sees this thread
I always thought that “women and children first” was a survival instinct honed through millions of years of evolution. After all, kids are the future, and women are the ones who get pregnant and carry the fetuses to term, so it makes sense to save them first.
Us guys, unfortunately, are simply required to contribute sperm, and if one of us bites it, it’s not hard to find someone else to do the job. Wombs are much harder to come by.
I don’t think it’s any sort of codified law, however.
Or there’s this from Harry Chapin’s “Dance Band on the Titanic”:
I’ve always been a little dismayed by at least the “women first” part. I understand children need to be safeguarded first as they can’t take care of themselves so well, but why women? Unless the entire population is in danger, preserving child-bearers hardly seems necessary.
I see that I should have been more clear that I was focussing on women, as opposed to children. (Not that there might not be room to discuss children as well, especially in certain circumstances, but I think the issues would be different in the case of children vs. adults).
Depending on the situation, one could make a case that women do need a bit more help to survive than men.
Men are generally physically stronger than women and could run faster, swim farther (provided they can swim in the first place) or carry helpless victims ot safety.
I think it would be a good rule of thumb to say that the strongest, most capable people should hang back and make sure the less able are safe. In most cases, the strong people are the men.
I agree with Lucky. I don’t think any such decision should be gender-based, but need and ability-based. If I’m uninjured and capable, put me to work. Send the injured or elderly to safety in my place.
The phrase itself seems to suggest that women and children are together - perhaps it was expected that children would be accompanied by their mothers. While the majority of accompanying adults may be women even today, it certainly isn’t always the case.
I’m just not certain how to rephrase it. Instead of “Women and Children First”, we get “Elderly, Injured, Disabled, and Children Under The Age of 16, Accompanied by Their Primary Caregivers.” Doesn’t roll off the tongue quite so well.
As far as I know, the “women and children first” principle isn’t a legal principle, but has been applied for a long time. It is sometimes referred to as The Birkenhead Drill after this incident, which happened in 1852. Gender was a very big deal in those days, especially in the British Empire.
Isn’t this contrary evolution-wise? I mean, any society that fosters mainly the survival of it’s weakest members can’t possibly have the longest life expectancy.
I always thought the ‘women first’ thing was just a chivalrous notion.
Well, I’m one of the most “Men are physically stronger, on average” school of thought people around, at least as far as bleeding heart liberals go, but this is just not true. Women hold most of the distance swimming records, and are generally better swimmers, due to higher average body fat levels.
I guess my thinking here is that the physically stronger people have a better chance of getting themselves out, or surviving the whole thing, and thus a greater total percentage of the society makes it through. On a personal basis, I can’t have babies, so it makes sense to leave me behind. Either way, I doubt people will be thinking about what makes the most sense from an evolutionary point of view.
If we’re postulating here a scenario where you either get in a lifeboat or die, any sensible solution will surely be abandoned. Rationality and panic make poor bedfellows.
Start with the most basic premise, and examine it. “ME FIRST!” This is the survival expression at it’s most basic. It is closely followed by: “Me and mine first.” Those whom I value ahead of those whom I find less worthy. My evaluation is based on which losses will create the greatest hardship, or suffering for me. Then the more enlightened self interest: “Me, and those who are useful to me first.”
But these all have in common the survival of self, in its expanding sense of survival, as the root consideration. All protestations of the objectivists notwithstanding, altruism is a possible choice. Someone else first. Not to ensure the survival of the species, or the continuity of society, or even the continuation of productivity from those from whom the greatest expectation of productivity might be assumed. Someone else first because it might well be the right thing to do to ensure that the ones we love benefit. And whom do we love? However much it might be unfashionable, among Western Civilized Male Adults, the answer is easy. Women and Children, that’s who we love.
I am afraid we have no time for logic, rhetoric, or debate, my dear ladies, please get into the boat. I made my decision decades ago, and there just isn’t time for you to enlighten me during this emergency.
Tris
“It seems, in fact, as though the second half of a man’s life is made up of nothing, but the habits he has accumulated during the first half.” ~ Fyodor Dostoevski ~
I think is is common sense. It is not about who can fend for themselves better, after all women do cope better with being plunged into ice cold water than men do, but rather about survival on a more basic level. rjung is correct; men are more expendable. However there is also that a woman could be pregnant at any time and not show it, one of the many advantages of menstruation. Save a woman and you could be saving more than one set of chromosomes. Save a woman you have had sex with and you could be saving your own ultimate contribution to the species; many a line has survived via posthumous births.
Funny, you know, most of the ppl that I have known personally that argue against this principle have been either sexist pigs generally, or full blown misogynists. Odd that.
Flymaster, that was a very interesting comment about women holding the long distance swim records. I had no idea. While I don’t wish to be a stick in the mud, I did have another thought on the subject.
Although among the set of “top-notch, in training swimmers”, the women come out on top, but I still have my doubts that an average woman with no special training would beat the average man. I can easily buy that a woman who trains for long-distance swimming could beat a similarly trained man due to her higher percentage of body fat/bouency, but I doubt this small advantage would be of value to an average woman v. and average man. I would think the man’s greater overall strength would provide a bigger advantage in this case. What’d you think?
The reasoning in some of these posts defies credulity. (I’m talking about decision-making theory as a function of evolution, propagation of the human species, long-distance swimming abilities, “coping skills” in icy water, etc. etc.)
Let me remind that a (married) man who opts to be “chivalrous” and stay behind in a sinking ship or burning airplane/building is making his fateful decision for his wife and children, as well.
There is no law that requires men to yield to women and children in a disaster. It happened on the Titanic for two reasons: 1) the crew was British and the Brits are, among other things, chivalrous. 2) saving the women would hopefully ensure that the children had at least one surviving parent.
Today the law does not require ship crewman to triage female and minor children above the male passengers. However it does require crewmen to assist the PASSENGERS ahead of the crew. Heartless bastards.
Muscles weigh more per pound than fat, no? So having more muscles might be a disadvantage in keeping oneself afloat. (In other words, it would take a lot more energy to keep a big, muscular man afloat than it would to keep a small, lean woman.) Perhaps women hold the record in part because proportionally we have more body fat than men and fat is more buoyant…?
So if, as appears to be the consensus, it is not a law, is it legal at all? Are there any laws that govern situations like these, or can the crew (or whoever is in charge) make up the rules as they see fit? Suppose they decide to favor short people over tall people? Or white people over black people? Can decisions like these be questioned?
Also, I would make the point that a “survival advantage” has to be significant and widespread for it to be meaningfull. It would seem to me that in many of these cases any advantage is insignificant. And that the distribution of abilities is such within each gender so as to make this justification suspect - in randomly selected groups of men and women there will be quite a lot of women who are healthier, younger and in better general shape - better equipped to survive, IOW - than many of the men.
The “propagation of the species” argument never occurred to me at all. Does this imply that people who are capable of reproducing should be saved before those who are past child bearing age (or who have been sterilized)? This is absurd. If people are merely saying that because the mentality helps propogate the species it has become irrationally implanted into the human psychology, I guess that might have some merit. But to use it as a real justification makes no sense at all.
