Do you approve of "women and children first" policies?

Although I personally would put a preference on children, I think when it comes to men and women there shouldn't be one. However, I see no problem in some cases placing different values on the lives of people based on age and class. If it comes down to saving a 70 year old and a 40 years old, odds are I am going to save the younger of the two because of that person's (at the time) valued "potential". Same goes for class. If I had to choose between a janitor and a CEO, I'd probably save the CEO. In other words, I ain't no Batman.

Its difficult to defend it when as a society we are so quick to champion equality.

However I personally attach more value to the lives of women and children than I do my own. It wouldnt take a horrific incident to get me to sacrifice my life for a woman or a child. I would mind betting in the Titanic situation it was women of child baring age that were saved an probably not elderly women, but i might be wrong, iv done zero research.

Again, I cant give a reason, to me it just feels right. Equally if either me or my male best friend next to me were going to die id probably take the plunge first. I love being alive dont get me wrong, but I see no shame in dying if it allows another to live.

Its rich, rich beautiful women, rich kids first ... Titanic, while poor women and kids drowned =P

Anyways, its should be kids and elderly above able men and women.

The problem there is that a bunch of people were gonna have to die regardless. That's a necessary consequence of there not being enough lifeboats. Which means that there necessarily has to be some criteria for determining who gets to live, even if that's nothing more than "whoever gets to the lifeboats first." You can argue all you want that the lives of people shouldn't be "valued" based on something like age, but that begs the question: what exactly should be the criteria for who is "worth" being saved? There's an implicit value judgement going on no matter how you cut it. If you don't base that on age, then you could just as easily base that on whoever is strong enough to knock the women and children out of the way.

So the question isn't about whether or not it was wrong to place different values on peoples' lives. The question is by what standard such a value assessment should be made.

Given the circumstances, I'm relatively okay with the "women and children first" thing. I guess one could argue that occupation would be a more reasonable metric (after all, a male surgeon would likely be "worth" more to society than a female prostitute), but given the circumstances I'm wagering that they didn't have time to perform a rigorous application process.

Thinking logically in a situation like the titanic, yes, I'd put women and children first, especially in 1912 or whatever year it was that the titanic went down. Simply because children are the future, yada yada yada, and I can't imagine the men of 1912 having a ton of luck raising children should they survive. That was women's work back then, so it makes sense to send those who know how to care for the children with them.

I'd like to say today that everyone should get an equal chance (eg 9/11), but if the interest were to keep the earth populated (post-apocalyptic or something), keeping the women and children alive should be the priority. Men are of course also necessary, but I don't need to explain the birds and the bees to OT, do I? It's a lot easier for one man to impregnate 10 women than one woman to be impregnated by 10 men. One can be done in a weekend and the other takes about 10 years..

To put it simply, men are more expendable when it comes to procreation. In the time period one woman can carry a single pregnancy to term a man could potentially impregnate hundreds, if not thousands of women. That is part of the reason why in most countries with conscription only men are subject to it.

As for children, most of them are innocent and should be protected.

If you are trying to evacuate a sinking ship do you really want to waste time making sure the blue rinse brigade gets up safely from bottom deck, or do you wanna get as many people on the rafts as possible. Lets remember this was a cruise ship, oldies love a cruise.

Its women and children first after all. Not women and children only.

Rich men got on the boats before poor women and kids HeHe

I agree with half of it =P I will always do my best to get children out of harm's way first...other than that I'd risk my life for anyone...man, woman, elderly, they don't have less right to live than me. As for priority (after the children) it's going to be either whoever is closest, whoever needs help the most or whoever I think has a chance of being saved.

Its just not true google it.

I remember this scene a poor woman comforting two asleep kids below deck while ships sinking, why she didn't made it out?

Because they wanted an emotionally charged scene? =P

Some people were trapped below deck, various compartments flooded. Large amounts of water the other side of doors meant it was often impossible to open them (think how heavy a bucket of water is). Hundreds of people were trapped below deck in air pockets waiting for oxygen to run out with no means of escape. Nasty way to die.

I thought they were showing how poor people are left to die while rich gets away lol.

Ahhh! I thought all this time they were left to die, my apologies.Yup:(

@indzman: Yeah, that was their point. I was just being silly XD But I don't trust movies to accurately portrait an event that happened over 100 years ago.

Well you were not wrong, essentially they were left to die, not only were compartments flooded, there were too few life rafts, the water temperature was below freezing. \but thats what happens when you brand a ship unsinkable, people get complacent lol.

in fact, i'd choose i don't know, maybe the weak should get the upper hand, but when facing the death, each one has the same right to get the last chance to survive

Children definitely.

Women want equality, so they get to go when the men get to go.

And really, the whole reason there was a disproportionate amount of men that died was because there wasn't enough life boats for the whole ship. Modern cruiseliners don't have this problem.

Been quite a while since I've watched the movie, but I think that's the impression they want to give you. If I remember the movie correctly (I may be wrong), they purposefully closed the gate between upper and lower decks so that the "low people" wouldn't be competing for space on the life rafts.

Ahh so you were actually present during the titantic sinking? so that would make you without a doubt the oldest member on gamespot and who still play games. Nice job and i hope the gamespot staff make a article about you.

SMHBU.......

lol wut?

I was talking about a scene from the movie, what did you think ??? =P

And i was just making a joke since what does a movie scene made to stir a emotional response in the viewers have to do with the real titanic and women and kids first.

:D

LMFAO

@indzman: "Anyways, its should be kids and elderly above able men and women."

Yeah but elderly are gonna die soon anyway.

I agree that equality should be important, but at the same time the fact remains that average women in general are less "physically capable" than the average men. In situations such as Titanic this meant that men would not be able to use brute force to overpower women and save themselves. This of course wouldn't happen, but I suspect the idea stems from logic like that, and the very notion of "women and children first" being beaten into our heads since forever means that we are pretty much subconsciously wired to help them in dangerous situations.

Is it fair? Probably. Without this ideal I'd suspect women and children would have a much higher chance of perishing in disasters compared to men.

Of course at the end of the day I'm just philosophizing on a video-game forum.

child first is illogical. less has been invested in them so far.

By your logic it should be elderly first?

I have invested nothing on you...I'm leaving your ass behind next time =P

I feel bad when i see elderly's, feel compassion towards em heh.

At the time the Titanic sunk the relationship between men and women were different. Women were women and men were men. Today it is not the same as it was then so the question should use a different example.

Nope, today men are women and women are men and vice versa :D

ROFL

nope. able-bodied ( productive ) adults first since the world would most be affected by their loss.

old folks and kids can fight it out for the rest of the lifeboat spots

Giving women special treatment would be sexist.

"Chivalry" when it benefits the woman, "sexism" when it benefits the man

Hitler-logic prevails.

Children YES!
Women = HELL NO!

i just want to see who would win in a fight. a geriatric or a dozen 3-year olds.

Are these policies that are even in place? I mean your example is from the Titanic which was like 100 years ago

I do.

But if I stared at Leo's eyes long enough I might jump out off my boat.

How about they should have found out how many ppl all the life boat could cArry sold that many tickets problem solved I hope they do that now BC hell no I believe first came first serve

I approve the "myself above all else" policy.

Children fine, woman no.

I wonder what the titanic would be like in today's age of gender confusion. Guys claiming they are actually girls, FTM trannys trying to take it back, etc...it would be absolute chaos

No, because I don't benefit from these policies.