It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The ''Women and Children'' First Rule - What's Your Take on That?

page: 18
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in


posted on May, 7 2011 @ 03:47 AM

Originally posted by HarmonicNights

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Harmonic Nights...

Will you marry me ?

Most definitely

edit on 5/2/2011 by HarmonicNights because: (no reason given)

Under US law, both historically, and by recent legal precedent, a proposal of marriage proffered and subsequently accepted, constitutes a legally binding agreement and either party could sue the other for any damages incurred if the agreement is broken. Worth knowing these things.

I'm sure that you'll both be very happy together though

posted on May, 7 2011 @ 10:23 AM

Originally posted by BadPenny

Originally posted by TiberianPurifier
It's a simple question mostly aimed for men, ''The ''Women and Children'' First Rule - What's Your Take on That?'' my take is that well a man should help a woman or child even if it means risking his life even though he does not know them.

As another poster has already pointed out, the term is a modern appellation. If you look at the statistics of those who survived the Titanic, more women than children survived, why do you think that is? Surely, in terms of weakness, then children would go first, or is it, that some children were more capable than others and therefore not deemed as weak? Class, especially at that time, plays a huge role in the 'women and children first' rule. Women of the wealthy classes, were usually, from a young age kept indoors and allowed very little physical freedom. Similarly, so were boys up until the age of seven. Women, and children, were therefore, through lack of proper exercise and exposure to fresh air, quite ill disposed to any form of arduous tasks. In any dangerous situation, it is advisable to first evacuate those who cannot help or need help. The majority of the women on board the ship who died, I should imagine, were of the working classes, and were therefore, up until the end doing what they had done all their lives, and working beside the men.

If a man wishes to risk his life for me, I should hope that he would not be too ashamed to accept that I feel for him a similar devotion.

yea thats the sad part, mostly people who were ''nobles'' were saved. and in todays world people with more money are saved. makes me angry

but still the women or children were saved be it nobles or working. also at that time the ''class'' ladder was followed but just think if all were equally treated then still it would be more women and children saved, im not saying all but if all were treated equally it would be more women and children.

all situations wont be like titanic. i understand completely what your trying to say and i don't mean it in a wrong way but if it comes to me i would push a woman or child to safety before me if i can. now if you consider families where women are shunned then laws should be harsher for men cause i have mostly never seen women who would joblessly hurt someone

also what happens now is kinda sad cause people care about money and marriages can be broken easily as they are made, just throw a little money at the problem. what ever problems i see in marriages are caused mostly by men and i will try to be as nice as i can if i get married. now far east you see arranged marriages only on the basis of cast, race, tribe etc and also heavily influenced by money, i just wonder what the $@&* love means !!! it's like a 2 second thing i guess

posted on May, 7 2011 @ 10:53 AM
What isn't being said here clearly enough is in a situation like the Titanic, there is group consensus, and control, and anyone who steps out of line, ie. if you went against the group control to say, throw a child overboard, you would be overpowered or shot instantly. Whatever the norm for the group consensus or control would be enforced and maintained by either the controllers or the group or both.

In addition anyone who would try to live by harming another person doesn't deserve that life they stole and there are Adults watching over this world. Nothing that happens here is allowed unless your Higher Self has put this on your plate for your lesson, nothing here is real, its all a test.

Perception - The reality beyond matter

Animated Quantum Video

Entanglement (Animation) | Quantum Physics | What The BLEEP Do We Know?!

All this school is, though a school with consequence, and not everyone gets a passing grade, is a perceptional thoughtscape with some matter and the input signal for our shared reality constantly streaming in the projectors (stars), or the holes in the matrix. Our souls are the dvd players, its all perceptions within. The goal is not to stay trapped here by serving self or harming another but to really grow Love and Helpfulness to Others.

Trying to be as helpful to others as you can in any situation like this and having faith is the most important thing anyone can do.
edit on 7-5-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2011 @ 11:35 AM
I can certainly understand the reasoning behind this rule, and I try to be polite, BUT...well, just as someone said, gender equality is two-way street. Furthermore, and most importantly, the aforementioned rule is actually pretty selfish and silly; I mean, why should I much care about the lives of random women and children when I'm willing to bet anything that they don't give a flying **** about mine? And yes, I do speak as misanthrope.

Now understand that I am not trying to sound like a bastard. I'm just being rhetorical.

I think we can assume that this rule was relevant in the past, but these days, in an overpopulated, unnatural society like this, I'm really not so sure.

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 10:25 AM
I found this article...

The findings, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, came from a study of the sinking of two British ocean going liners in the early 20th century and their survivors.

In the case of the Titanic, which took just under three hours to sink, the "women and children first" rule was famously followed.

Women, children and those accompanying a child therefore made up the majority of the survivors.

When time was short, as in the sinking of the Lusitania, order broke down and selfish "everyman for himself" attitudes took over.

As a result those aged 16 to 35 – the fittest – survived the sinking which took just 18 minutes.

Dr Benno Torgler, of Queensland University of Technology, and colleagues said males and females aged 16 to 35 had a 7.9 per cent and 10.4 per cent higher chances of survival on the Lusitania respectively.

In contrast, on the Titanic young females, especially those with children, had a higher probability of surviving (48.3 per cent) whereas there male counterparts were less likely to live.

"In both disasters the captains issued orders to their officers and crew to follow the social norm of "women and children first".

"These orders were successfully carried out on the Titanic but not on the Lusitania due to time constraints and problems launching the lifeboats."

If we look at it in 'natural' terms, those at the peak of physical fitness are the best deposed to rebuild following a disaster, and therefore, in terms of survival, it makes sense that our instincts would tell us to fend for ourselves, and it is likely that in such cases where parents put the life of their child first, that both would perish. The urgency and immediacy of the sinking of the Lusitana is a factor. The staff did try and control the situation and enforce the 'women and children first' rule, but were over come. The Titanic on the other hand, due to the relatively slow sinking did not create the same panic and everyone co-operated. Class does not seem to have been an issue other than that there were very little efforts to help those in the lower decks evacuate.

I found this interesting though...

The first lifeboat launched was Lifeboat 7 on the starboard side with 28 people on board out of a capacity of 65. It was lowered at around 00:40 as believed by the British Inquiry.[53][54] Lifeboat 6 and Lifeboat 5 were launched ten minutes later. Lifeboat 1 was the fifth lifeboat to be launched with 12 people. Lifeboat 11 was overloaded with 70 people. Collapsible D was the last lifeboat to be launched. Titanic carried 20 lifeboats with a total capacity of 1,178 people. While not enough to hold all of the passengers and crew, Titanic carried more boats than was required by the British Board of Trade Regulations. At the time, the number of lifeboats required was determined by a ship's gross register tonnage, rather than her passenger capacity.

Titanic had ample stability and sank with only a few degrees list, the design being such that there was very little risk of unequal flooding and possible capsize.[13] Furthermore the electric power plant was operated by the ship's engineers until the end. Hence Titanic showed no outward signs of being in imminent danger, and passengers were reluctant to leave the apparent safety of the ship to board small lifeboats. Moreover, large numbers of Third Class passengers were unable to reach the lifeboat deck through unfamiliar parts of the ship and past barriers, although some stewards such as William Denton Cox successfully led groups from Third Class to the lifeboats.[55] As a result, most of the boats were launched partially empty; one boat meant to hold 40 people left Titanic with only 12 people on board. With "Women and children first" the imperative for loading lifeboats, Second Officer Lightoller, who was loading boats on the port side, allowed men to board only if oarsmen were needed, even if there was room. First Officer Murdoch, who was loading boats on the starboard side, let men on board if women were absent. As the ship's list increased people started to become nervous, and some lifeboats began leaving fully loaded. By 02:05, the entire bow was under water, and all the lifeboats, except for two, had been launched.

According to my calculations, in direct result of the overly rigid enforcement of the 'women and children first' rule, 472 lives were lost that could have otherwise been saved.

Discretion proves itself, once again, to be the better part of valour.

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 03:08 PM
My take on that?

This does seem a little strange?

Put in charge of No. 6 was Quartermaster Robert Hichens, who was at the wheel of the Titanic itself at the moment of impact.


Once the Titanic sank, it became apparent that Quartermaster Robert Hichens felt he had full control of the boat. While manning the tiller, he constantly beat back attempts by those on the boat who suggested they return to pick up survivors, saying they would only find "stiffs". He also yelled at the rowers, saying they would be drifting for days. After rudely refusing to let women row, when the RMS Carpathia arrived, he said it was only there to pick up dead corpses. Molly Brown famously threatened to toss him overboard after this argument. As a result of this threat, Hichens sat gloomily at the tiller and allowed the women to row around and look for survivors, of which they found none.

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 09:43 PM

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
Very true. Feminism is very harmful to females and society as a whole. The good news is that it seems most young women these days don't label themselves as feminists and some even scoff at it. The bad news is, like it or not, feminism has left a lasting legacy that has been deeply ingrained into our society and way of life. A lot of women who wish to stay at home with their children are forced to work as one income isn't enough. The family courts favor women and subsidize the break up of families. I think this breakdown was all orchestrated.

I believe in equal legal and social rights for both genders. I don't think that anyone should be legally discriminated against because they are a man or a woman.

I concur with your observations about young women rejecting feminism... From my experience, young women generally consider feminists to be dinosaurs: feminists are their mothers and grandmothers stuck in a 1970s or 1980s time-warp, embarrassing their children and grandchildren with their outdated views.

I'm not so sure that the breakdown of the family unit was fully planned for in an orchestrated move. I think that the naive feminists have been exploited in an opportunistic way.

In the 1960s, it was generally the norm for the man to work and the woman to be a professional housewife. He worked long hours to put ''the bread on the table'' while she was a full-time mother and housewife.

In the 1960s and 1970s, women successfully had the opportunity to carve out their own careers and to have the same job opportunities as men. This was awarded to them legally as society moved towards equality and full legal rights for both genders.

Fast-forward through the 1980s, and what are we left with in comparison ?

1960s Husband, wife, and two children. Husband works long hours to pay for food, health and utility bills for his family.

2010s Husband, wife, and two children. Husband works long hours to pay for food, health and utility bills for his family. Wife works long hours to pay for food, health and utility bills for her family.

Feminists got merked.

The idea of ''female liberation'' was to emulate men, yet women and men have to work equally as long and tiring hours to put ''bread on the table'' for their child now, when, in the old days, one parent's salary would suffice...

edit on 8-5-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 09:59 PM

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher
Well, a lot to say on the matter, I see. My final take on it is this: I have had a good life, fathered 4 children, all adults now. I have been on this planet for half a century. I am content with what I have done in my time.

If my death means that others can continue and have the ride I have had on this world, I would die a happy man.
It is my life to give and I choose to give it savind someone, rather than in my sleep (a meaningless death). We all die, there is no escape, why not die so that other life may continue?

Your comments are really easy to make on an anonymous internet message board, in the comfort and safety of your own room.

However, in a Titanic scenario, I doubt that you'd be quite so philosophical about your personal safety when the push comes to shove !

If all your family were safe, then we know that you'd be next in line, barging your way to safety as best you could.

Let's not pretend that you, or anyone else, are some kind of altruistic, Jesus type.

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:41 AM
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Not at all. Jesus and myself are like chalk and cheese. I am by no means a perfect man nor a saint by any mark. I live by my own code. I know that death will take me one day and it is my right to try and choose the manner by which I pass. I have been in this situation before, in my past, I upheld women and children first then, and I would do it again.

So, I am afriad that, in this case, your statement is invalid.

top topics

<< 15  16  17   >>

log in