Women and Children First? What do you think?

Greetings, ATS!

With the 100 year anniversary of the Titanic's sinking fast approaching, I've been thinking a lot about the notion of women and children first in a disaster situation. According to eye witness accounts, there were scores of men who gallantly gave lifeboat priority to the women and children.

I began to wonder what would happen in today's society if a similar disaster struck. Would it still be women and children first? Perhaps just children first? Or simply every man for himself?

Personally, I'd do anything in my power to make sure my child survived, at whatever cost. I believe most parents would react similarly. But lets assume the disaster occurs without affecting any of your relatives. What would you do?

As a thirty-something female (and teacher), I am certain I'd put the children first. Of course, no one knows how you'd really react, but that's what I'd like to think I'd do.

So, here are my questions. Given a disaster scenario where you know noone else involved, who would you choose to save, and why?

Children?

Women?

Young versus old?

Healthy versus unhealthy?

Skilled versus unskilled?

As a woman with a child...

Even without a "women and children first" policy, the women and children would be first. We would simply knock down anyone who stood in our way of protecting our children. So gentlemen, just calmly back away

reply to post by smyleegrl


Women and kids all the way! Our specie can't live without both.

And you're adorable, despite diapers and pms...

Given the relationship I have with my childs mother I might have to push her overboard and taker her spot. . Children first for sure.

Although I think the "Women and children first" policy is correct and noble... regretfully, I think the "everyone for themselves" policy would prevail.

What do I think?

reply to post by AllUrChips


LOLOL!!!!!

I love this scene from Seinfeld. Thanks for posting...made my day!

This is an interesting scenario. I find that one would (as a man, anyway) be more inclined to allow women and children to get to safety first. There does indeed appear to be a whole social aspect involved. Save yourself and take up a space on a woman and/or a child and one would be socially outcast, in a sort of Bruce Ismay sort of way... Also, I would imagine that it may be biologically built into our systems to protect the weak. We just have an 'urge' to step up, help the women and children, and stay and 'fight'.

I don't think that anyone would be able to decide between young/old, etc, in a situation like this, as there would simply not be enough time to do so. I also think that no decent person would consider rejecting a sick or old person a space.

However, opinions would vary depending on the scenario. Interesting topic though

As a man, I say women and children first. If I have to face that situation, I will do it like a man, not some coward who pushes women and children out of their way. In fact I would probibly deck the fool.

reply to post by Siberbat


Very well said, bravo!

If we were on a boat, then yes women and children first...although, I'm not sure what other situation this would apply to. If it were a national or global situation I know that I wouldn't want the kids and myself to be seperated from my husband.

So, here's another question: What other situations would this apply to?

It's a myth anyway:

The chivalrous code "women and children first" appears to have sunk with the Titanic 100 years ago.

Long believed to be the golden standard of conduct in a shipwreck, the noble edict is in fact "a myth that has been nourished by the Titanic disaster," economist Mikael Elinder of Uppsala University, Sweden, told Discovery News.

Source

Despite our woman/child up there claiming otherwise, men will prevail, as these statistics show. It's a survival of the fittest kind of scenario. Sorry, ladies. You'd better have a male protector with you or you're going down with the ship.

reply to post by BrittanyLea


Fire in a building, a bridge about to collapse with a narrow path to escape...

I don't think today it would have been the same scenario.

Most I feel would be pushing anyone, even kids, aside to get a boat. Just from what I see in today's world I don't see people being all noble and gentle.

I would have thought any man with a wife and kids would always put them first in any situation, I know I have and would. Its just the right thing to do in my book.

Originally posted by schuyler

Despite our woman/child up there claiming otherwise, men will prevail, as these statistics show. It's a survival of the fittest kind of scenario. Sorry, ladies. You'd better have a male protector with you or you're going down with the ship.

A male protector.............
............or a really big gun.

For myself, I wouldn't be that concerned, I don't think. But like another poster mentioned, if my child is with me it's a new ball game.

But I do think you are right. IMO, mob panic seems to be every man for himself, whereas smaller groups are able to cling to their "social norms.".

Something I found that reinforces my earlier post that sadly the "everyone for themselves" mentality would prevail;

news.discovery.com...

Originally posted by Ericthenewbie
Something I found that reinforces my earlier post that sadly the "everyone for themselves" mentality would prevail;

news.discovery.com...

Yeah, I saw that article too.

I think a person might choose to act differently if in a small group than in a mob.