Does "women and children first" still apply?

I heard that someone said this on the plane that went down in the Hudson, though I don't know if thats what actually happened.

but as a practical matter in many rescues, assistance by able bodied men improves their chances of survival.

I'm an old broad. While I feel the past shouldn't be discarded, either, I'll wait my turn thanks.

Nearest the exit first is the only way to go. Imagine trying to sort out how to get the women and children out of the plane first... it would be a calamity!

Also, "Be sure to attach your own mask before assisting other passengers"

Sid

(Whoops, meant to reply to OP instead of this comment.)

Sorry, there's never a time during an emergency where the duration of the danger is known in advance.

Instinct says, regardless of actual personal ability, you help the most vulnerable people first--handicapped, elders, kids, and women. Now women may not actually be more vulnerable than adult men to drowning (or to whatever other threat the emergency presents), but on an instinctive level human beings have spent a million years assuming that women were. If the cabin's filling up with cold Hudson water, I'm not going to take a survey on who can do the most number of push ups.

I don't think it touches on political equality. Hopefully, an enlightened society is going to have fewer emergencies than a chauvinistic one anyway.

Emergency situations can be very revealing- they bring out the absolute best in some people and the absolute worst in others.

having seen way too many emergencies, yes instinct takes over

Sane men act rationally in an emergency.

But I think you've pinpointed the wrong one. What is happening here is the instinct for survival of the species. If all men died off bar one, that one man could impregnate thousands of women. But one woman cannot have thousands of pregnancies.

Can you imagine the poor sot who ends up with 1000s of wives? Nag, nag, nag, and every day he's bound to forget somebody's anniversary. Geeze, I think Mohammad had it right--plural marriages have to max out at around four spouses; anything more and it's strictly headache city.

although I think that while women may not be necessarily more vulnerable, they are usually the primary caregivers for infants and small children (who perhaps wouldn't go without their mothers).

although I think that while women may not be necessarily more vulnerable, they are usually the primary caregivers for infants and small children (who perhaps wouldn't go without their mothers).

If we'd been on this plane, who knows, they might've thrown me in the drink in their haste to escape.

in their haste to get out first, bumping into and elbowing me without apologizing. But hey, some men are clueless jerks.

when she was standing in the bus all the way downtown... unless they were young married men. Presumably they'd had had a pregnant wife and were more aware.

and regardless civility involves looking out for those who can't help themselves efficiently - so certainly children, the disabled, the frail or elderly.

as the sub-thread from reply #2 points out. Have you a description of how they did it on the plane so quickly?

ankle deep (and getting deeper) water on the wings to wait for help v. hanging out inside the plane helping others out. I'd say that put women and children at greatest risk.

Personally, I agree with protecting young children more (which doesn't necessarily mean putting them first) followed by those next most vulnerable (who are not necessarily the women).

Then I think you have to look to who needs help most.

However, I think attempting to save children first would be almost an (but not quite) instinctive impulse for people, the next motivation, opportunity.

Who is closest? Who is in most danger? How do you tell? Can you tell? I doubt there was much gender sorting given the situation. But I don't know.

In this case there were plenty of boats around, so as a practical matter it made sense to get the people with the least body mass to protect them in out of the cold first, as they were most vulnerable to hypothermia.

That's all I've got to say! You can assume and accuse anybody of anything you want. That's your issue.

Sorry for butting in.

It's interesting; how equal rights are usually wanted, but then thrown out when they become inconvenient to the person(s) wanting them. (that's not a blanket statement, just a generalization, but wanted to make aware upfront I understand generalizations can not be universal, just so I can preemptively tell the inevitable trolls to STFU. :D )

I'm still chivalrous, opening doors, and every other bit, and I've had to endure the "post-modern mindset" (aka forced insults in return for my politeness) as well. If I or anyone else treated THOSE women by the way they were treating me in action how to act, they'd throw a hissy fit anyway.

Devil's advocacy has its time once in a while too.

Not even close. Discrimination still exists and men have gotten to be experts at discriminating discreetly.

:-p I suppose you want women on the front lines too?

Children and woman are 1st to die during war or "military attacks".


out of 1200 in a certain occupied state in a biblical nation. 80% have been woman and children

A strong start though.

I can absolutely see the logic in children first. I see no logical distinction that should deem women first however. I think it's more of an issue of child vs adult.

I'll stick with the example of plane that just crashed landed in the water. If I'm the captain, or whoever is leading, I know that I've got to see that everyone gets off the plane as quickly as possible. They can't all leave at once, someone will be first and someone has to be last. I don't have time to conduct mini-interviews, so I have to decide the order based on the odds of who, in general, is best and least capable of saving themselves should the situation suddenly get much worse.

Like you say, children first is obvious and I'd have them followed by the obviously elderly and disabled. That leaves men and women. Although there are lots, TONS, of exceptions to this rule, most men are bigger and stronger than most women. Even if the ratio is 51 for men and 49 for women, it still means MOST men are bigger and stronger than most women. Based on that simple and not wholly accurate criterion, I say the women leave the danger zone right ahead of the men.

Now one of those elderly people might be the biggest prick that ever lived on the planet, one of the women an Olympic athlete, and the last man in line might be a young Albert Schweitzer, but I don't know these things. I have to quickly, and decisively, choose the order of egress based on the odds of each groups ability to survive should the situation deteriorate to individuals struggling to survive on their own.

If not, I fail to see what men being stronger really has much to do with something like that. Swimming has far more to do with aerobics than strength. The OP also wasn't limiting itself to this particular incident either. I don't believe for a second that men generally during an emergency have better odds of survival. And in most emergencies, the time alloted to survive is minimal and strength wouldn't even likely come to be a factor. The only factor is time and who is or isn't at the end of the line. In such cases, as I assumed the OP question to mainly be referencing, I say children and handicap first, the elderly if there is a good likelihood that everyone could make it off (they're old, and if there is risk of people dying due simply to time, I'd think they should be the first candidates), and then the healthy adults whether male or female.

Ladies? You're good where you are! Hey! Tell that man in the middle he has to go to the back! Come on people! Now, let's try this again! How old are you son? Fourteen? Hey who thinks this kid needs to go to the back with the men?

I could be wrong, but I believe most large aircraft break apart when they hit the water. In that case, some aircraft might sink in less time than it took you to type three paragraphs. Rearranging the order of people in regards to where the exits are isn't a good idea IMHO.

a total calamity where there is no time to do anything but panic and save one's self. That's not what happened here. The need to get out of the plane was imperative, and the more orderly the evacuation the quicker it will be. "Women and children first" is universally, in this country at least, understood. I think it is also pretty much accepted as the way most evacuations are expedited. It's not perfect, assholes will always be among us, but it's better than "Run for your life!"

I don't understand what is so abhorrent to some people here about "women and children first"! As I've said at least twice before on this now tiresome thread, somebody has to go first and somebody has to be last. If it is clear that all are going to survive, then those closest to the door should get out first regardless of category, but if the situation is such that it could become seriously life threatening at any moment (fire, explosion, sinking) then I think women and children first makes sense. Who would deny the children be the first to leave, and who is the man here who says a woman or child should stand out of his way so he can leave quicker? And please, I'm also assuming that, despite the situation, people will still have a bit of common sense. If a woman or child is stuck on the toilet, or held up somehow, I'm not suggesting anyone wait until they make their way to the door. There should be someone going through the door every second if not quicker. If 5 men are standing right by the door and a child is behind them, the men go first and then the child. That way all 6 get out as fast as possible.

You save other people first. Then you take care of yourself or you die trying to help another person out.

You people are egotistical, stupid and cowardly. Don't you give a damn for anybody but your own stuck-up Starbucks-filled asses?

And no, I can't afford one of your damned dripping sarcasm icons, even if I was being sarcastic.

Wake me when children start demanding "equal rights".

Unless they already have, for wanting to wear disruptive clothing in schools and think they can do what they want...

"Lord of the Flies", here we come! :party:

Thanks!! :sarcasm:


(Oh, don't read into this post too much. Or conjure up any comments that might not be real. Just think of this as one facet, of many. A facet few would think of. Or think of it as batshit perception; whatever it is, that's your choice. Maybe there is no ulterior, underlying comment at all.)

Personally I would say it's more a question of getting out those who seem to be unable to or having difficulty.

:thumbsup:

Civilization hasn't devolved totally yet, thanks to people like you.

evaluations can't be made and quick action is necessary "women and children first" I think is a good decision. There is no perfect decision.

I think "children first" should be a given for obvious reasons, and, speaking generally here, children are likely to be with parents. If I was in the unwelcome position of choosing which parent should be saved first, I would choose to save the mother first. I'm not speaking of specific circumstances or specific people, just a rule of thumb that seems to be the best course of action when evacuation is imperative and somebody (obviously) must go first and someone else last.

i used to work in an office building, and some of the guys would make a big deal about letting women on and off the elevator first, or letting them be the first thru the revolving door- and in both cases, they are completely WRONG from an etiquette standpoint.

anywhere that the the footing could be 'tricky'- on and off elevators, buses, trains, planes, boats, plane wings, etc., and in the case of revolving doors- the proper etiquette is for the man to go first. in the case of the revolving door- it's because of the effort sometimes required to get them going.

if you don't believe me, check emily post.

and by seat. If you were in a row closest to the exit, you exit first. There isn't enough room to be hanging around in the aisles and letting other people go first while disembarking from a plane in emergency situations. I think you file out in the order that you are sitting.

I'm guessing you aren't too fond of the idea that people with a uterus are equal to people with a prostate?

Personally, someone would have to knock me unconcscious if they wanted to separate me from my husband in a life-threatening situation. I'm not getting on a lifeboat or going anywhere else without him because I'd rather die with him than live without him.

But we don't have kids and are never planning to have kids and the whole continuation of the species gene seems to be missing in both of us. I think that having kids changes a lot of things. It makes you responsible for lives other than your own, so you have to do things like live on without your partner for the good of the kids. And although I don't personally feel emotionally connected to the species and its traditions and culture and all that, it's true that for most of our history we've seen taking care of the kids as the job of the female and the male role as being the strong protector.

And I may be wrong on this, but in a natural selection sense wouldn't the man want to see his genes live on and so take action to make sure that his children and the woman who may be carrying another of his children are safe? Kind of like how in the Bible when one tribe would conquer another tribe they'd kill all the non-virgin females as well as the males and take the virgins for themselves to eradicate all possible full-blooded descendants of the other tribe. The connection being the instinctual unconscious assumption that a woman may be pregnant and acting on that to either make sure that your genes continue or that the genes of other men don't.

There are many many layers here and we could tease out the gender politics of it all, but I don't feel like it so I guess I'll just sum up quickly. I do think that women and men are equal. I don't think that anyone is going to be thinking about politics much in a situation like a plane crash and I'm not going to lightly make assumptions about people's positions on gender equality based on their actions in such a situation. I think it's quite possible to think that the genders are equal and still instinctually react in a women and children first way in an emergency - after all, it's just biological fact that people with a uterus are the ones who carry and give birth to children. If a man lets his wife and children go first because he wants them to survive, I'm not going to judge him as being a sexist jerk. Now, if he forces his way up to the front of the line and is the first person in a lifeboat and sits there whining about how if women want to be considered equal to men that means that they have to let him go first....

Oh, and I heard that the pilot was the last to leave and I think that is very honorable and I would have expected the same thing of a female pilot.

Oh, and I guess my post was more about the feelings and motivations behind the "women and children first" reaction, not what I personally would think is the best way to handle the situation. Personally I would like to see the able of any gender assist the less able of any gender first and then go in the quickest way after that, regardless of gender.

ie (and I'm saying this as a man) adult men are much more "disposable" from a sociological and evolutionary standpoint than women, which is why the "women and children first" instinct is so widespread in the first place. ("Children first of all" should, I hope, be obvious to everyone.)

Chivalry is based on the stupid notion that females need a man in order to protect and save them.

I hope everyone is beyond that stupid notion!

I'll wager she would disagree with you.

After he kicked my ass. Then she went home with him. Okay, so I patted her on the butt. Who knew her boyfriend had something against Sailors?

Kiddie-winkies need an escort anyway.

Huh, we aren't talking about Van Halen records? :wtf:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mwiV9HeJag

But generally, people should just try to help each other. The children and elderly and disabled probably need the most special assistance. When that rule was thought up, women wore clothing that made it hard for them to take care of themselves in emergencies - things like corsets that limited their movement.

"women and children first" is that most babies, toddlers are in the care of their mothers so naturally you wouldn't snatch an infant out their mother's arms. On the flipside if a father is in the sole care of a child he should also be saved first. Then disabled people, then elderly, and so on and so forth.

Although it some sense for children and their mothers because in many cases it is the mother who is the primary care provider. Particularly if the child is being breastfed. But often the kids are older, and the parents could really chose either parent to go with the child. My guess is that many couples would chose the mother just because we still have a society where the mother is usually the primary care provider.

Part of it was simply that women couldn't climb things on their own easily and that kind of thing because of how they were dressed, though. They simply needed more help. I don't think we need the same amount of help these days. I'd probably be wearing jeans and tennis shoes.

just as much as the mothers do. Times have changed significantly in that regard.

Fathers were mentioned in that post: "On the flipside if a father is in the sole care of a child he should also be saved first."

I read that the first time. My response has NOTHING to do with being a sole parent. Maybe you should look again.

but there is a reason that the overwhelming majority of custody cases are in favor of the mother. Times may have changed significantly among certain segments of society, but overall they haven't. What is significant is the general increase in the number of irresponsible and absent fathers. And if we consider all the good fathers out there, how many do you suppose would choose to leave a perilous situation before their wife and children?

In a stressful and dangerous situation a quick decision that will be acceptable to most has to be made. There isn't time for interviews and appeals. Evacuation needs to be done NOW and SOMEBODY has to go first and SOMEBODY has to go last.

Rather than say something like, "Everybody has to leave the plane immediately. Women and children first", what would you say instead if you were in charge? It would need to be brief, decisive, and acceptable to the majority of those involved. What would you say?

BTW, if you respond I'd appreciate it if you don't call me "Pal". It does nothing to advance your argument and sounds sophomoric.

I said that if the father was the one as the sole parent caring for the child then he should to be one of the first ones to be helped off the plane.

So you can before you pitch a hissy fit I acknowledged that sometimes fathers are the sole caretakers of infants but you probably just too busy finding a reason to be mad.

father just being the SOLE parent, any more than your general statement had to do with the mother being the SOLE parent. I'm talking about parental responsibility in general. Welcome to the 21st century kid, where the fathers take as much care of their young as the mothers do.

or something because I was talking specifically in the this case now listen closely where one parent (did you get that ONE PARENT) gets on a flight with a child. Yes this happens often maybe a parent is taking a child to visit family etc so it's just the one parent. This was not an indictment of fathers everywhere which for some idiotic reason you took it that way.

In reference to your "welcome to the 21st century" currently 35% of children in this country grow up in a home without a father so I think it's YOU THAT'S LIVING IN THE PAST

Dude get back on your meds before your mind explodes.

a male stranger volunteered to brace the baby when the pilot said "prepare for impact." You couldn't ask for a better set of people to be involved in a crash with.

The hydraulics went out and the pilot had to crash land it after some harrowing time in the air. There were children on the flight without parents - on their way to visit a parent - and some nearby adults made sure they got out safely. A lot of people were hurt or killed though.

Another remarkable job by a military trained pilot (Al Haynes).

Children, the elderly, disabled or weakened in any way go first, the stronger go later.

Just kidding! lol..

Fuck the children and their mothers and grandmothers and grandfathers and weaker men. Big strong women can fight to survive too. Survival of the strongest and all....

:sarcasm: