Is the directive, "women and children first" fair and useful?

I think it is a wonderful rule of thumb in a physical emergency, if only for the tendency of men to have slightly more upper body strength.

If a woman were to tell me in an emergency she would prefer to wait and help me get the children and smaller women to safety, fine, let her do so.

Just answer these questions: Who has the most potential? Who pumps out babies? Which gender is the most worthless?

@ragingloli Neither??? Women might have babies but it takes two to tango.

I always thought it meant they should be tossed overboard first…?

@ragingloli “Which gender is the most worthless”??????

Ok, males I agree.

@ragingloli which gender is the most worthless? Seriously? Answer: this q can’t be answered with a blanket statement!

I think @ragingloli really does have a fair point. From a pure darwinian standpoint, this rule is the most likely to ensure the success of a society’s gene pool. I also agree with the point that men do tend to have more physical strength (this was especially true back when this rule first originated).

Children should be first, no matter what. That we understand.

I would hate to know I was on a sinking ship and in a rescue boat, leaving my wife and other women behind.

No. With me that would never happen.

One big reason…....men have stronger upper body strength than women. Men can tread water for a longer period of time, than women.

This is the best reason.

This notion automatically assumes one is more worthless than another. In the 21st century, I don’t see it as any different than choosing by race or sexual orientation. I also don’t think it’s wrong per se, and I think it’s very useful.

And, of course, this brings up the matter of where Transgender people would fall. Or is that perhaps a matter for future discussions?

I don’t think it’s unfair at all! I think it’s a very noble thing to do. As a father and a husband…I’d want to put their safety before mine.

I’d save my wife & kids, maybe my mother, but granny can fucking drown…..well, she’s had a “good innings” ;¬}

That “rule” has nothing to do with who is more important to the human race, it has to do with survival and proliferation of the species. Think about it: Children, obviously, are the future and will have a longer lasting, impact AT THAT MOMENT than say an 85 year old. They can have children in the future. And as far as woman over men, you only need one male to impregnate numerous women to populate. One man can get 10 women pregnant, and in 9 months you have 10 more people. 10 men can only get one woman pregnant, resulting in only one more person in 9 months.

I’m not saying, nowadays, it’s right, but in older times, this was the thinking. For survival of the species, it makes sense.

I don’t think it’s necessary. The old and fragile, pregnant women and children should go first. Women and men; there isn’t much difference. It’s the others I just mentioned that deserve priority.

Absolutely fair and useful.

Just to add: What if there is a strong, fit 25 year old woman and a frail 70 year old man with a walking frame? Does anyone think the woman should go first? I’m female and even I think it’s pointless. I would wait if it means someone weaker than me has a better shot.

Or I may scream like a little child to get to the front, you know… whatever.

The ones who are at an obvious disadvantage should be rescued first.

I don’t think it has anything to do with making babies. If a ship goes down, the human race will still survive. It’s about women and children needing to be protected, because they are weaker than men. Also, the children will need their mothers with them. Of course, I’m talking about the ideas behind this rule, not my personal beliefs. It’s definitely an outdated rule based on an outdated philosophy of honour and chivalry, but in an emergency you can’t make everyone do a fitness test and then decide who gets a seat on the lifeboat.

Nowadays, I’d say save the children first—that’s fair—and then hope that the 25-year-old lady picks up the 75-year-old man and puts him in his place, even if it hurts his pride.

I’m still curious if there is a general consensus of what is the cutoff age for children, 12? 14 maybe? In a crisis I doubt we’ll be checking ID’s and just go by looks I suppose.

I agree with @Chief_Brody; it’s a noble thing to do. I am undecided about which priority to give the elderly in this whole business.

@Nullo if there is a reasonable expectation of everyone surviving (e.g. There are enough lifeboats) I think children, the elderly, people with disabilities should go first. If it’s clear some aren’t going to survive I think the elderly should probably have a lower priority.