I’m wondering in this day and age if the “Women and children first” ethos would still apply. It’s my thinking, that in similar circumstances it still generally would. More or less. I don’t think there would be the craziness of not allowing men on boats that weren’t full or the wholesale shaming of men who managed to live. At least I hope not. It’s all just conjecture on my part. There would be more women crew now, that’s for sure. Religion was shown to play a part, at least in the movie 
. A crew member opened a gate after being reminded he’d soon be meeting god and have to explain himself. I like to think that a lot of people would only need their own conscience to not let children drown. I don’t suppose anyone knows how they’d behave in such circumstances. I like to think that I, an oldish woman, wouldn’t take the place of a young man, but I also know I’m a bit of a coward . Was the strict adherence of the rule to protect women and children just a product of the time and place? I don’t really know any Moslem men, and can’t very well speculate on what they’d do. Surely they love their mothers, wives, and children. The willingness of some of them to use noncombatants as shields in times of war isn’t very reassuring. The willingness to use that as excuse for bombs falling on children isn’t reassuring either though. Oh, it’s a messed up world, but as a woman I sure as heck wouldn’t want to go back to 1912, even if it guaranteed me a place in the life boat.
I wonder if in 1912, because women and children lacked the rights men had and may still have been considered chattel if the ethos of women and children first wasn’t, to a degree, about protecting property or about protecting the defenseless?
Women have a substantially lower survival rate in maritime disasters than men. Children also appear to have the lowest survival rate in such disasters.
The Titanic sinking appears to have been an anomaly in these respects.
Women even fare worse, and not better, in the sinking of British ships. Potential impending death changes chivalry stuff.
Wow, I was going to explain it away by saying men would want their seed to continue their existence, and the women to care for their seed. But… evidence.
hmmmmmm That’s interesting. It’s another reason for me to never go on a cruise. I think survival on the Titanic was somewhat based on your class too, so I probably could have kissed my happy ass good bye anyway 
. I wonder how the statistics were compiled. For people who actually end up in the water it would make more sense for those that survive that to more likely be men. That is as long as the water was a survivable temperature. I’d think that if survival ends up as a fight to get into a lifeboat then you’ve got chaos with fewer survivors in general.
As an entertainer on Cruise ships, NEVER go on a cruise, especially a “special interest cruise” such as a “Seniors Cruise” "Or “Grey Singles” the amount of cabin hopping, viagra by the bucket, and the poor old Medical Officer dealing with dodgy ailments and cardiac arrests on a daily basis. Plus I was pursued several times round the deck by a predatory octogenearian…no thanks.
I have other horror stories of my time on the boats…None of it good clean fun but they pay well and all ones salary (if one is wise) stays in the bank.
At one time I had my eye on a knitting cruise. I suppose men would be scarce on such a cruise, but that might just make the male crew in more demand. Lucky them.
A certain kind of predator loves those cruises, you will find them on “Art Cruises” , "Splendours of Athens (insert city/region here) cruises…get very vocal when left (forcibly) in Belize or Guyana from memory…
Well, what I pulled away from the study was… “Fuck the British!” Especially if you are female! LOL
I think that “women and children first” comes from basic biology.
One man can father any number of children with any number of women . . . yet a woman can carry only one pregnancy at a time.
This means that a species’ survival is more dependant upon a greater number of femaĺes rather than a greater number of males. This is something that was understood in the 1940s through the 1970s when Native American women were routinely sterilized without their knowledge and/or informed consent. As many as 25% of all Native American women (in that era) were sterilized, but the men were not treated in this way.
This idea that more women means more survival is–I believe–the source of “women and children first.”
As for the kids, survival of the children means that there’s more of the lifespan for the species to survive. Children are–after all–the hope for the future.
I wish climate change deniers would understand that.
A.k.a. science deniers.
I believe men should come first, the woman should make the man the head of the family and the man should honour the woman above himself. That is what Moses and Paul teaches.
Honor, not place her in any equal or higher position in the chain of command, correct?
I could be wrong, but I predict your stay here to be short and not too sweet.
With a hundred inane assertions and defense of none, I concur. Just a whackjob wanting to toot his horn and then run off.
Why?
Why should I care what characters from an archaic myth like Moses are purported to have said? Paul was a misogynist, so I am even less inclined to accept his opinions on how women ought to be treated.
I see no reason that women can’t be treated equally with men.