'Women and children first"

DH and I were discussing this, while watching about the cruise that went down in Italy.

Do you find it odd that this is the standard rule? even when we women fight so hard to be equal?

I can see childen first, but why women?

Thoughts?

Re: 'Women and children first"

Is it still that way? If so, I agree, it's outdated.

Re: 'Women and children first"

I guess if some "men" got out first, they would be able to help the "women and children".

I'm not really sure how I feel about it on a whole though.

Re: 'Women and children first"

Children first, for sure. Elderly. Than after that a parent.

It has nothing to do with fighting in wars. It has to do with the one with more of a chance of surviving a disaster would be the one left to fend for themselves.

If it were a choice between DH & I, I'm pretty confident that we would both pick me going. It's not that we wouldn't be devastated to make the choice but I think we both get that (1) he is physically stronger than me & has a chance of getting out (2) that given a death, I'm probably better equipped to care for our children & the emotions that would follow.

Re: 'Women and children first"

Re: 'Women and children first"

I think it probably should be children, mothers or parent if mother not applicable and elderly first. Perhaps it is women and children bc the assumption is the women would care for the children?

Re: 'Women and children first"

I think most of the children are probably with a woman (their mom)--so they get lumped together.

I think its a chivalry thing too, not necessarily thinking we're (as women) weak and unequal.

Re: 'Women and children first"

Re: 'Women and children first"

No, I don't find it odd. I think most would agree that a man (assuming good health, and not a senior citizen) would be a real lowlife if he tried to get ahead of a woman to get out of the boat first. Remember the Seinfeld episode when there was a small kitchen fire at a kid's birthday party and George trampled everyone--women and children--to get out of the house.

I think men--everything else being equal--are stronger physically and have longer endurance, hence would have a bit of an edge survival wise...

I don't think it has anything to do with fighting for rights...men and women ARE different in some ways!

Re: 'Women and children first"

Re: 'Women and children first"

The practice arose from the chivalrous actions of soldiers during sinking of HMS Birkenhead in 1852, though the phrase was not coined until 1860.[1] Although never part of international maritime law, the phrase was popularised by its usage on the RMS Titanic,[2] where, as a consequence of this practice, 74% of the women on board were saved and 52% of the children, but only 20% of the men.[3]

Some officers on the Titanic misinterpreted the order from Captain Smith, and tried to prevent men from boarding the lifeboats.[4][5] It was intended that women and children would board first, with any remaining free spaces for men.Because so few men were saved on the Titanic, the men who did survive were initially branded as cowards, including J. Bruce Ismay.[6]

wiki

Re: 'Women and children first"

Re: 'Women and children first"

Between DH and I, he is stronger, he can swim better, fight better (he was in the army), has more skills to survive dangerous situations. I have more skills at being able to care for our children. If it was a situation like the ship, the kids would get the first lifejackets and life boats, and I'm sure he would put me next in line because he would have a better chance of surviving without it. I think that was probably more typical when the saying was initiated.

Re: 'Women and children first"

Posted by Eireann

No, I don't find it odd. I think most would agree that a man (assuming good health, and not a senior citizen) would be a real lowlife if he tried to get ahead of a woman to get out of the boat first. Remember the Seinfeld episode when there was a small kitchen fire at a kid's birthday party and George trampled everyone--women and children--to get out of the house.

I think men--everything else being equal--are stronger physically and have longer endurance, hence would have a bit of an edge survival wise...

I don't think it has anything to do with fighting for rights...men and women ARE different in some ways!

Re: 'Women and children first"

Well if they said "children first" then they would be filling up the lifeboats with a bunch of children who don't have any of their parents with them.

Re: 'Women and children first"

My DH can't swim.......so I'm pretty sure I'd be staying behind.

Re: 'Women and children first"

Re: 'Women and children first"

I think it all depends but my DH would never let me stay behind for him to go in a boat. I think its a little of old school him and the fact that he can probably survive somethign like that much better than me

Re: 'Women and children first"

Personally I think it should be "least capable first".

That would include children and elderly first and anyone after that who is not physically capable. I do think that most of the time parents are not going to send their children alone, so the mother goes with them.

I'm a woman but much more capable than some men in certain circumstances but I wouldn't want my 2 and 4 year olds going without at least 1 parent.

Re: 'Women and children first"

Message edited 1/20/2012 5:28:15 PM.

Re: 'Women and children first"

Equality or not, an average man is much stronger than an average woman and more capable of surviving an extremely situation like a ship reck. That is just a law of nature and you can't go against nature...

Also, as many PPs mentioned, in most cases a mother is naturally a primary caregiver and will be more capable of taking care of the kids and making them comfortable.

So, I say "women and children first" still stands!

Re: 'Women and children first"

Women and children b/c the reality is children need the women to care for them.

Re: 'Women and children first"

Re: 'Women and children first"

Re: 'Women and children first"