Women and children first, or every man for himself?

Mark Neil says:

06:41am | 20/01/12

“Equality has never been about physical equality”

As we have been told that forcing women to meet the same physical requirements for firefighters and military service is discriminating against women because they are less likely to be able to pass those then men (some countries have adopted different standards for men and women, others have lowered standards so more women could meet them (and more men too) in order to reduce “the discrimination”), your assertion that physical equality has never been a goal is dishonest. If feminists claim, in women’s name, that allowing more men then women into a particular career choice because men are more capable then women of meeting the requirements, is to be deemed sexist and discriminatory, then your doing the reverse, IE claiming women should be entitled to more seats on a lifeboat due to their inferior physical characteristics, is equally sexist and discriminatory.

It is this kind of sexist, selfish, double standard that is turning people away from feminism, so please, keep it up.

“Am I wrong in thinking that if you believe women (and children) should be treated equally with men in such situations, you probably don’t hold back when it comes to punching them (as opposed to punching another man)”

So, because a man isn’t willing to value his own life as less valuable compared to a complete stranger, for no reason beyond his having a penis, he must be an abuser. How shallow an attempt to shame and silence opposition. Would it equally wrong for me to assume your flippant self interest and disregard for men on a sinking ship suggests you have little reservation about abusing one yourself, especially if he is unwilling to defend himself? Or do you deem asking such a question to be unacceptable and underhanded?

LanceSmith says:

06:13am | 19/01/12

@realist

Are you seriously suggesting that all of the men who died on the Titanic would have survived if only they had taken swimming lessons????

The swimming ability, strength, etc arguments are nonsense. They are used as an excuse to rationalize anti-male sexism.

marley says:

06:27pm | 18/01/12

@realist - if your ship is sinking in the Med, fine. If your ship is sinking in the Baltic or the North Atlantic, your swimming prowess won’t matter a damn.  Just saying.

Mark Neil says:

01:20pm | 19/01/12

But there are no feminists on a sinking ship.

ossama taleb says:

01:43pm | 18/01/12

Ossama Taleb after reading the article i think this Melbourne woman forgot something , when you are faced with death most people whether women or men fight to stay alive, what she saw was the stronger human trying to save himself disregarding her own existence. which they have a right to do. self preservation is the number one reason we eat sleep have relationships and so on. the morals she was looking for is not part of our creation but it is a teaching from a religious nature. before religion there was no such thing as a tabu. men and women slept with their own sibling and siblings slept with each other. until the law of man was created. but that’s another story. so in answering this women why the men did it. its because they could. if she was stronger she would have done the same thing. old cardinal rule. the strongest survive. cruel but just look at the animal world.

Mark Neil says:

02:00am | 21/01/12

” the author may have a double standard, but I’m not talking about her”

Actually, when you asked the question…

“So where exactly is this argument that feminists want it all coming from?”

...you were. The author, and all those who support her ARE the answer to your question. If you are too self absorbed to see that, don’t blame the rest of us. many (not all) of the “women should be treated as equal” come from MRA’s (as many appear critical of feminism or hostile to Tory), though some are clearly feminists with a clue. But there are an ample supply of “these bitter woman hater” comments (AKA standard feminist response to opposition) in support of Tory to demonstrate the point. Furthermore, this isn’t the only article promoting this view, and those other articles also have plenty of comments in support of a double standard as well. Add to that the fact most women’s right’s groups oppose father’s rights, and it’s clear as day that feminists (in general) have no interest in equality. If that isn’t your stance, perhaps you should start looking within the feminist movement with a more critical eye to determine if feminism is really right for you, and stop blaming others for accusing feminism of stuff feminists actually do, just because you don’t.

“That’s why I think it’s a massive assumption that all feminists would demand to get ahead of men in line.”

Hyperbole. Nobody said “all” feminists, just feminists (as in the vast majority of them. enough to justify being representative of the movement)

marley says:

02:52pm | 20/01/12

@MarkNeil - the author may have a double standard, but I’m not talking about her.  I’m talking about the reaction of women to the author’s views, and most of the women are disagreeing with her. 

That’s why I think it’s a massive assumption that all feminists would demand to get ahead of men in line.  Some might, just as some men would shove their way to the front, but I think most reasonable people, including feminists, would be perfectly prepared to wait their turn.

Mark Neil says:

02:37am | 20/01/12

marley, search for the authors comments and you will see the very two faced attitude you are denying. The very first comment that shows in a search (ctrl+f on windows keyboard) clearly states that she feels women are weaker and so deserve a spot on the lifeboats before men. Given her recent tirade against men’s rights “extremists” (IE, men who dare to stand up for themselves) followed by this “pity the weak women and let them live” article, one can hardly deny the double standard being played by the very person who raised this discussion. please don’t play stupid.

marley says:

02:47pm | 18/01/12

Look, everyone is saying that feminists are being two faced, demanding equality but also demanding the seat on the lifeboat.  But when I read the comments above, I don’t see very many women at all demanding that lifeboat seat.  I see women saying lets all go in order.  So where exactly is this argument that feminists want it all coming from?

Mark Neil says:

12:51pm | 18/01/12

Strength plays no part in surviving a sinking ship. If you are unfortunate enough to go into the water, there is nothing strength can do to save you… endurance, yes, strength, nope. The truly pathetic thing though, is how quickly feminists are willing to latch onto the “we are weaker and less capable then men” when it suits their purposes, but tell a feminist there are less women in fire fighting and the military because they are weaker and can’t meet the physical entry requirements as easy, and suddenly calling women weaker then men is discriminatory. Dare to suggest that women construction workers and forester make less because they can’t carry as much as a man and woah, there will be hell to pay. But mention a boat is sinking and all of a sudden it’s “we’re so weak and frail, we’re just pathetic little things on par with children, give us the seats first”.

Clearly, to you, equality if whatever is best for women.

blogster says:

10:32am | 18/01/12

ahh, but as a woman, do you take into account the weaknesses men as a groupgenerally have compared to women (e.g. for argument’s sake social/conversational skills) and provide the appropriate level of regard?

or do you, like a lot of women just choose to take advantage of such relative weaknesses for your own personal benefit through personal manipulation on a day to day basis?

LanceSmith says:

07:37am | 18/01/12

Michellemac: “But I am interested in all the angry bitter men who seem to be upset by ‘equality’ and feminism.”

I find it interesting that when men speak up for their rights, they are described as bitter…but when women speak up for their rights, they are described as empowered.

“talking about what “women” want and what we should “expect”. Jeezus, really? Do you really think all women want the same things and do all women expect the same things”

It doesn’t matter what individual women want or don’t want - or what individual men want or don’t want - in the context of the overall discussion of men’s rights to life vs. women’s rights to life (which is really what the “women and children first” paradigm is about). What is truly offensive is the thought that able bodied men are EXPECTED in society to give up their lives for able bodied women. The implication is that men are disposable. Why people are unimpressed with feminism is not because they believe that women shouldn’t have equal rights - it is because even with all of this feminism and female empowerment, men are just as disposable today as they were 100 years ago. That is wrong and absolutely anti-egalitarian. Feminists - if they consider themselves egalitarians - should be writing all about how wrong it is to still expect men to be disposable. But since we have deafening silence on the subject, we can only assume that feminists are hypocrites. Hence the “anger and bitterness.” I think many men are finally beginning to wake up to the fact that they are getting screwed (and not in a good way). And men’s liberation from their many gender roles - including disposability - is a viable goal.

St. Michael says:

10:04pm | 17/01/12

“Do you really think all women want the same things and do all women expect the same things and we all act as an homogenous group like a school of fish??”

Summarising it: no, the main concern people—men and women—have with feminism is that radical feminists want women to have more than men have, and expect more the same things for men.  Some, as the “agent orange” download reveals, would like to castrate male children at birth.

And the school of fish metaphor isn’t a bad one.  There’s no one conspiracy, it’s more a matter of a few or even one fish making a turn, and then the others following along because there’s safety in numbers.  And it is, as may be discerned from some legislation and some public policy, a comparatively small group of women who are directing where the school is going.

marley says:

07:27pm | 17/01/12

@Good Grief - well, I’m looking at the picture, and I reckon that, unless you happened to be on the starboard side of the ship when it started to settle, and could jump out before your deck/cabin went under, you might find it pretty difficult to get off that boat.  How exactly do you think an older person caught on the port side would get off and safely into the water?

Good Grief says:

03:26pm | 17/01/12

Funny enough Chris, the apparently everybody had life jackets. Even if they can’t swim, just waving your hands and peddling yourself to shore shouldn’t be a challenge unless you are disabled or frail. Any able bodied individual (i.e. you have all the normal functions that a human should) should have not needed the use of the life rafts.

I have seen children here in Australia frolicking away from shore further than where this boat went down.

Kika says:

12:55pm | 17/01/12

So you are saying that childless couples are not as worthy as people with kids?

The Free says:

12:45pm | 17/01/12

“today’s men are cowards”.

From the feminist’s mouth to your dinner plate.

Oh please, for I beg you lay your wisdom upon me.

From the person calling Ericka misogynist.

“today’s men are cowards”

“today’s men are cowards”

These discussion make us all a little better off.

Brenda says:

12:44pm | 17/01/12

Today’s men are cowards.
Tell that to Jim Stynes’  family.  Tell that to the men who hung out of helicopters, plucking endangered people from rooftops during the Queensland floods. Tell that to the mine rescue workers. Tell it to the policemen who stand between us and danger. Tell that to the firemen who risk their lives pulling people out of burning houses. Tell that to the divers searching for shipwreck victims.  Tell that to the two Australian males recently awarded Victoria Cross for valour.
Men are cowards? 
For every one brave woman who risks her life for another, there’s 1,000 men quietly undertaking highly dangerous endeavours and without fuss or fame.

What a joke. No wonder more men are choosing freedom above domestic slavery.

LanceSmith says:

04:04am | 18/01/12

@gwallan:

Agreed! Australia seems to be moving in an ever more misandric direction. It must really bite to be a man there. Sad really.

gwallan says:

03:14pm | 17/01/12

“Of course women should NOT be given preferential treatment over men.”

Maybe somebody should inform the Labor party. They don’t seem to have received the memo.

marley says:

11:15am | 17/01/12

Actually, you know, I think this is a pretty good definition of mature adulthood.  Male or female, it doesn’t matter.  Having confidence in yourself but being sensitive to what others think, having patience, being honest, not whingeing when things go wrong, enduring in the face of adversity, not succumbing to empty flattery or kowtowing to those above you, living life to the full - these are the things we should all try to do. 

And I don’t much see anything particularly 19th century, or particularly gender-specific, about the underlying principles.

Men Are Not Abusers says:

09:48am | 17/01/12

Great poem. Foolish poster.

Kipling wrote this poem for his friend Leander Starr Jameson, after he was rightly vilified for provoking the Boer War in 1895. Kiplings purpose was to justify the Stoic view that was behind Jameson’s belligerent actions. 

Kipling’s view - the Stoic view - is that good judgement stands without concession to the emotions. Yet your use of it here, in order to shame men into a mode of behaviour that pleases you, is the opposite of what it proposes.

It is not for a woman to proclaim what makes a man. A woman who does proclaims herself a fool.

gwallan says:

09:40am | 17/01/12

Notice that there isn’t a single reference to women? Kipling understood that being a man has absolutely nothing to do with women. In that regard women are utterly irrelevant.

Rossco says:

08:58am | 17/01/12

Funny how you think quoting a man from the 20th century to be relevant today. You might as well have quoted Itsy Bitsy Spider.

marley says:

02:27pm | 17/01/12

@Know nothing - I just want to comment on the point about the crew.  I can understand panicky passengers pushing and shoving to get to the lifeboats;  I cannot understand professional officers and crew losing control of the situation.  The passengers aren’t trained;  the officers and crew are.  They’re drilled (or supposed to be) in safety and evacuation procedures, and, given that ship wasn’t going down in 1000 fathoms, they should have been able to effect an orderly evacuation process without the drama that seems to have unfolded.  It’s their job, after all.

Know nothing says:

08:21am | 17/01/12

Cant agree with you more, no matter how much we harp on about ethics,morals and equality. Until your in a situation which requires you to choose either flight or fight theres no real way of knowing what you would actually do.

Yes we can all frown apon the few who barged pushed and screamed to get on those boats but i couldnt fault them for doing so. In the end its about self preservation. Its not something we think about its anature intinct. The need to live and the willingness to do anything to achieve that.

Ive read a few comments stating the crew didnt have control over the passengers, you cant discount that they are human just like us.
We can all throw stones from the comfort of our chairs in the office commenting on how we would play the hero and save the day but the truth is, most of us wil never have the opotunity to find out, I hope i dont.

Psuedonym Sue says:

01:27pm | 17/01/12

I call bullshit on you being a ‘Brenda’. Sock puppet. LOL

Eni says:

09:21am | 17/01/12

Steve, Women of today certainly do not remember much discrimination against them , unless born in countries other than Australia. America and few in Europe, but those years of discrimination led to the women of today. The women who stand up today and say I am the same as a man under every aspect. As human beings we are the same in front the law and should be treated the same, with the same opportunities in life, however we are so very different and those differences should be celebrated. You are right to say that the a lot of men today are hybrids.
Also consider the fact that no all the women population of this world lives in a country like Australia. I was born overseas where discrimination against women was still felt, although not rampant.

marley says:

07:46am | 17/01/12

@Erick - I’d say most women, feminists included, would be perfectly happy taking their turn at getting into the lifeboats.  I don’t see any particular reasons why an able-bodied woman should get preference over an able-bodied man.  The fair thing to do is to get the kids into the boats, and have everyone else take their turn.

But anyone, male or female, who pushes other people out of the way to get into the lifeboat first is scum.  And there is no excuse for that sort of behaviour - it’s selfish, “me-first,” ” the hell with the rest of you,” crap and no amount of rationalization excuses it.

Erick says:

05:16am | 17/01/12

@eni - Men have been hearing the sort of hatred you spout for decades. Do you think they’re going to sacrifice their own lives, just to save a selfish woman who hates them?

You feminists have made your own bed. Now lie in it.

Zing says:

11:01pm | 16/01/12

Fatal Attraction much!

Steve Bell says:

10:58pm | 16/01/12

I still believe women and children should go first and any decent man that sees another pushing women out of the way should throw the sorry excuse for a human being into the water to swim for it.

Women have not been discriminated against for a very long time, and I am am personally tired of people thinking that todays women can somehow remember a thousand years of it. Sex discrimination is over and has been for a while. A true man/gentleman has never discriminated against women but has always protected, supported and cherished them through the inbuilt desire to procreate and protect his “tribe”. Men just need to learn to be men again, which DOES NOT mean discrimination but it does mean an added respect for the fairer sex.

ByStealth says:

02:17pm | 17/01/12

‘Being a man, gentleman, protector, earner, workhorse, etc is no longer the dream of most men.’

The role is disrespected. Women also believe that they are entitled to men behvaing this way for them. This is the foundation of the MGTOW movement. Why should men sacrifice when that sacrifice is neither respected nor reciprocated? Why do women eschew their traditional gender role and then get upset when men shrug off theirs?

People should google the herbivore men in Japan. Guys that look at the implications of accepting the traditional responsibilities of their gender role and go ‘no thanks’.

Nic says:

11:54am | 17/01/12

Eni, how on earth did you get ’ I can see that equality really bothers men, who probably would still like to have the monopoly of work, vote, education and the like’ from the other comments?
Unfortunately, your comments say more about you and your attitude towards men than anything else.
Most of the comments I see here from men regarding equality point out that sometimes they are expected to treat women as equals, and other times they are expected to treat women as if they are on a pedestal.
And here is an example of what I mean: not long ago I went to a garden wedding with my cousin and her husband, Jeff, who was suffering from luekemia. We got there early to make sure we got a seat and Jeff sat at the end of the row. A few minutes before the ceremony started , a young healthy-looking woman in her early 20s walked up and asked Jeff if she could have his seat. He asked her why and she answered “Because I’m a lady and you’re a man.” Despite the fact that his appearance made it clear that he was undergoing chemotherapy, this young woman just assumed that because she was female, she was more entiltled to a seat than him.
This is the issue, should women still be put on a life boat before a man? Unfortunately, any man that points out that in an equal society, the answer should be no, then they are accused of wanting to send women back to the dark ages.

James says:

11:00am | 17/01/12

As I said in my last comment, chivalry and respect is a great concept - but in a life or death situation, chivalry and respect often give way to fight or flight.  And that doesn’t mean a man is somehow disrespectful or wrong, it just means that his natural instincts are taking over.  The same happens with women and children.  This is the uncomfortable truth about the matter, which has to be considered in this context.

ByStealth says:

02:08pm | 18/01/12

There is no expected reward by the man sacrificing (and I’d be curious what this could be considering he’s dead. Money to his family perhaps?)

The argument is that people shouldn’t be entitled to generous behaviour from others purely based on gender roles.

If I say bought dinner for a girl I liked it would only be because I wanted to and she didn’t expect me to (or use my willingness to pay for her as a test to screen for compatibility). I wouldn’t expect sex afterwards.

A sense of entitlement for either gender based purely on whats between their legs is poison for relationships between the sexes.

marley says:

07:31pm | 17/01/12

@ByStealth - It’s not a selfless act if you expect a reward.

ByStealth says:

02:05pm | 17/01/12

‘Want to guarantee that a man will take care of you in an emergency situation?  Love him, respect him, and don’t assume that you are the one to go first.’

Again it shines through that it’s the sense of expectation and entitlement that many women have that rubs men up the wrong way. How can any selfless act have value if its expected as a given?

marley says:

07:56am | 17/01/12

@Reality - sigh. Chivalry was never about protecting women as the inferior sex.  Chivalry was about a code of personal honour and integrity.  I see nothing in the code which is incompatible with modern life, except that it requires a certain level of personal integrity that we seem to lack these days.

Chivalry would not necessarily require a man to give up his seat on a lifeboat to an able-bodied woman.  It would, however, preclude him from pushing her out of the way to get there first. 

And if you read the article, that’s what some men are alleged to have done.

Personally, I agree with you about how boats should be evacuated in emergencies.  But none of what you describe is inconsistent with chivalrous behaviour, by either men or women.

Reality says:

10:05pm | 16/01/12

Fantastic post mate!!!!  I have also been in a couple real life situations and I can attest to the fact that the real world scenario is that the people that can help themselves move toward safety under their steam, and capable people do not put themselves in harms way to allow another healthy person access. 

I have a massive problem with a lot of these posts that seem to think that if the W+C rule was abandoned (which it actually is in real life as people in an emergency don’t check what is between their legs before they take a seat on a life boat), that men will somehow turn into demons that will start pushing old people out of the way, treading on women, and throwing children out of the boat to get on.

Chivalry was designed in a world that is VASTLY different to the current world scenario.  As times change, so do our paradigms, and ALL of the reasons that Chivalry existed in the first place have been replaced in modern society due to efficiency as pointed out in the previous post.  Chivalry was based on the fact that women were inferior, and unable to get on their own steam what was due to everyone by virtue of human rights, and chivalry only applied to noble men.  Peasants did not follow the rule of chivalry.  Chivalry stopped being a moral code and became a COURTSHIP code many, many years ago.  Equality is the catch cry of the modern world, and I do urge everyone to read the Oxford definition before entering the argument.

In real life, these theoretical arguments are thrown out the door as the order in an emergency is very clear.  Healthy people first.  Men and women, move yourselves to the exits.  Extra capable people help the incapable.

Women shaming men with the notion that men would just run wild are pure hypocrites, as MOST of the time, the person helping you is a man, so be careful with your shaming tactics ladies, as the person you piss off today, may be the person that has to make the decision of whether to extend a hand to pull you up a cliff when you are not able, or to take themselves to safety. 

Want to guarantee that a man will take care of you in an emergency situation?  Love him, respect him, and don’t assume that you are the one to go first. 

The fact of the matter is that men just want to keep their position in line, and not be forced to the back of the line.  Why is there a problem with this??

A1 says:

07:47am | 17/01/12

“A real man would allow women, children, elderley and infirm to go first.”
Children - yes.
Elderly and infirm - possibly depending on the situation, it is a cost benefit thing, do I save 10 Elderly or Infirm at the cost of 30 others?
Women - No.
And BTW I have NO children of my own, have never been married and could quick likely fall into the ‘infirm’ category myself.

wissler says:

09:48pm | 16/01/12

“we have very few real men in the world any more.”

Possibly because they’re all at the bottom of the ocean….

The Free says:

09:30pm | 16/01/12

Congratulations you’re a real man full of manliness.

You’ve earned a beer and a meat pie.

..and the best cold beer is VIC…

ByStealth says:

01:55pm | 17/01/12

I wouldn’t consider being spat on the first hurdle. In post baby-boomer generations men been programmed with dogma that women are equal from before they started school. More likely for PeterD it was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Erick says:

05:10am | 17/01/12

@L. Mountbatten - Our society has made it very clear that men are regarded as second-class citizens at best, to be treated with contempt and hatred. Such a society creates men who are hostile rather than helpful.

L.Mountbatten says:

08:50pm | 16/01/12

So at the first hurdle, you gave up on your morals?

marley says:

10:10am | 18/01/12

@ByStealth - please point out the number of women responding that they should have the right to go first.  I don’t see very many myself.  I see a few men saying they’d let a woman go first, and I see a few women saying that they shouldn’t be shouldered out of the way by a male, but I don’t see many exerting a non-existent right to be first into the boats.  Do you?

ByStealth says:

01:42pm | 17/01/12

A man giving women all the choice while keeping none for himself is supplicating. This is a weak character trait and one which is actually unattractive to most women. Showing a woman respect and being her doormat are two entirely different things.

The argument men are making in this blog is that women who wish to be treated with equality must shoulder the same responsibilities that men do. No preferential treatment.

Resentment comes from men when women ‘choose’ to absolve themselves of those new responsibilities whenever it is in their interest, but still shame men to hold those same traditional responsibilities.

RyaN says:

01:01pm | 17/01/12

@Proudly Koori: “to give the choice to a woman to take the seat or not is what equality is. It’s not about degrading or undermining men it’s about allowing women the same choice men have.”
But the man doesn’t get the choice to take the seat or not I assume? Or is it only AFTER the woman has made her choice?
Oh yes I see your gender equality right there!

gwallan says:

09:28am | 17/01/12

Lawyers would be better but most of the pollies are lawyers anyway.

mLr says:

08:43am | 17/01/12

Only 100 Shane? hehehe

ben roberts says:

08:46pm | 16/01/12

Then you should have no problem fighting for your seat.

Bertrand says:

05:57pm | 16/01/12

And people like you are the ones who fuel men like Erick with your ridiculous statements.

Pierre says:

05:53pm | 16/01/12

And Tory Shepherd can’t handle the truth. No guts & little glory. Just another journo hiding behind PC.

The Free says:

05:53pm | 16/01/12

Sandra Jehan

You’ve said all you need to say.

Congratulations - Being succinct is better than teaching a monkey to mow the lawns when you have no grass.

Conversations with humans are the fun part of the day for many

ByStealth says:

01:22pm | 17/01/12

‘By the way I am a woman. I would never and have never driven passed a woman or child being beaten. No matter the personal cost. ‘

How about men being beaten?

Brasil says:

06:22pm | 16/01/12

Would make no difference, in all likelihood. It’s as much to do with the behaviour of crowds as anything logical. Look at the Hillsborough soccer tragedy and a million other examples of crowds behavior. Besides which you’ve just eliminated all the oldies from the cruises on the off chance the ship might sink - a bit like banning disabled people from high rises in case the building catches fire.

Hobbs says:

01:18pm | 17/01/12

@Amazon

A real push up, not a namby on your knees one…

Amazon says:

11:32am | 17/01/12

An average woman can’t do one pushup? You greatly underestimate the strength of the average woman.

ByStealth says:

01:31pm | 17/01/12

Pretty much. Rather than admit that men’s lives are worth less in our society, women will do backflips rationalising in each scenario why women need preferential treatment.

We get it. You only need a few surviving men to repopulate the tribe. Just come out and admit it and stop BSing us with obtuse reasons why women should come first.

stephen says:

05:12pm | 16/01/12

They were with ike Summer picking lobster tits off the floor.
But i would have pinched 3 bottles of D.P.
Nothing like having a sip of bubbly being rowed to the nearest Italian Winehouse.
(‘hey Luigi, row quicker, I’m nearly empty.’)

Sam says:

01:51pm | 17/01/12

did you say the Titanic happened in the 40’s?

Mark Neil says:

04:27am | 18/01/12

” it seems the men were the worst culprits - going by several survivors comments so far”

But were the men worst because they were behaving worst then the women, or because they were behaving worst then the self-sacrificing chivalrous men of yore? A man who behaves patiently, calming and waits his turn in queue, but refuses to allow a woman to cut in front of him because he insists his life is not worth less then hers, as you’ll see by some of these comments, was acting horribly and dishonourably. Now, I’m not saying that’s what happened (I’m sure many people, likely younger, fatherless people, of both genders, were being very selfish and pushing and panicking), but given many of the accounts of “men behaving worst then women” are coming from women, who’s self interests would have been better served by a “women and children first” policy, one should be suspect of where they’re benchmark for men’s behaviour begins.

Testfest says:

01:22pm | 17/01/12

Dogs are renowned for their loyalty. I find your comment about “dog acts” to be anti-dog. Dogist in fact!

Rossco says:

05:55pm | 16/01/12

Marley, tell that to the ship crew! These guys most likely paniced because of the absurdity of what was put before them. I agree with you, it should be equal, but the situation itself was not.

Carrie says:

04:51pm | 16/01/12

Agree with @marley. Well said.

marley says:

04:19pm | 16/01/12

It seems to me that equality means you wait with everyone else, male and female, you don’t try to push ahead.  I have no problem with men getting into lifeboats with the women;  I have an issue with anyone, male or female, pushing to the front of the queue.

Direct says:

04:32pm | 16/01/12

If manhood means anything, it means being expendible.

TD says:

04:26pm | 16/01/12

I agree Koz, a terrible indictment on modern society that we’re even having this conversation. How dare a man consider his life of equal value to that of a woman. A poor, frail, pitiful little woman. And what kind of evil man let such a fragile, perfect woman out of the kitchen and into the 21st century.

holden says:

08:17am | 17/01/12

Ha Ha! Just got a call from Hockey. He said he’d carry Gillard. Then he added, “I’ve been carrying that other $#&@@
for too long, already”.

Douglas Quaid says:

05:11pm | 16/01/12

Rhetoric ahoy!

St. Michael says:

04:59pm | 16/01/12

@ David: dude, you could totally use Gillard’s butt as flotsam to cling to until the rescue boats come.  Something that huge has got to have some buoyancy.

girl says:

04:38pm | 16/01/12

i’ll say, tony (and wait for abuse)

David Anderson says:

04:18pm | 16/01/12

Abbott would rip his clothes off and save himself by diving off into the water and doing a few laps of the harbor for good measure. I wouldn’t want to be the poor sod left to carry Gillard.

Panda Bob says:

04:14pm | 16/01/12

No mention of pandas either. Pandaphobic articles make me a sad panda.

marley says:

04:13pm | 16/01/12

You have a point.

Douglas Quaid says:

05:09pm | 16/01/12

Easy to be all rational and Chuck Norris-esque brave behind a keyboard when you’re not in that situation, quite another to be able to do that when the **** hits the fan and you’re life is in danger.

Speaking of posers….

Pierre says:

03:47pm | 16/01/12

Lets face it, British & white offspring around the world were the only ones to commit to women & children first then. And, probably the only ones that would follow that ruling today. You only have to switch on the TV to see how the rest of them carry on today.

Direct says:

04:47pm | 16/01/12

C’mon Max! Be a man; man up and take it like a man! That’s what a real man would do!

marley says:

04:16pm | 16/01/12

Actually, I believe it was a deceased elderly couple.  One of each gender.

RyaN says:

11:03am | 17/01/12

Not to all pommies, we don’t have a Tory party here you treacherous curs.
Try to keep up!

RyaN says:

11:02am | 17/01/12

Depends on which side of the ship you were located.

marley says:

03:54pm | 16/01/12

And you knew this in advance how?

St. Michael says:

10:00pm | 17/01/12

@ marley: “Well, it would seem like a couple of people actually understand what chivalry was really about.”

“You mean you’ll put down your rock and I’ll put down my sword and we’ll try to kill each other like civilised people?”

RyaN says:

10:59am | 17/01/12

@L. Mountbatten: Where do you think that “moral decay” came from, ah yes Feminism. Feminism is a very key part of moral decay.

marley says:

06:32pm | 16/01/12

Well, it would seem like a couple of people actually understand what chivalry was really about.  ANd what it should be, for both men and women.

Not a Tool says:

06:00pm | 16/01/12

@L.Mountbatten
Spot on. As a man I am also appalled at some of these comments. I don’t think they are representative of men in general though, just the ones who thrive on anonymity and feel, as you said, that everyone owes them.

May the code of conduct of good men continue.

L. Mountbatten says:

05:43pm | 16/01/12

@ Erick, Feminism has not destroyed chivalry (not more than any other of the isms), moral decay has. You’re right, I have no problem with equal rights, but I do have a problem with everyone believing they are better than everyone or more equal. Gentlemen should treat everyone with respect. 
I understand that you have a barrow to push regarding the ill treatment of men in modern society, and for the most I agree, however my barrow is the moral decay of society, especially within Australia, much of which you can witness on “Australia’s Greatest conversation” everyday. In any case I suspect your issue isn’t with equal rights but rather, the swinging of the inequality from women to men.
Perhaps if you feel so strongly about these issues you should take your voice to the streets, as opposed to the Punch, where the same 20 people comment on the same 20 things every day? (Look no further than the Open Threads)
@TD, I’m afraid I cannot agree that my code of conduct is outdated, but we will have to differ on this. In any case, in this particular tragedy happening, so close to shore, I am sure you would have been sure of your survival.

TD says:

04:11pm | 16/01/12

@L. Mountbatten: It’s not that we feel the world owes us something, it’s that we feel we don’t feel the need to adhere to any outdated code of conduct. If I’ve been waiting in line and I happen to fill the last seat in a lifeboat, I’d offer it up to just about any one of my family or friends, but I’d have to feel very confident of my survival to make me offer it up to someone I didn’t know from a bar of soap, be they male or female. I wouldn’t be pushing and climbing over anyone or jumping any queues, and if the person next to me tripped I’d help them up, but I do believe I have an equal right and should have an equal opportunity for survival as anyone else. That doesn’t make me misogynist. Kids with parents first, that’s it.

Erick says:

04:00pm | 16/01/12

@L. Mountbatten - Attitudes like yours belong in the past.

Feminism has destroyed chivalry. Feminists insisted that women should be treated as equals - and white knights like you agreed. This situation is your doing, so don’t bloody whinge about it!

L. Mountbatten says:

03:42pm | 16/01/12

Audra, it’s a real pity I had to scroll to the last comment (at time of writing) to find this sentiment. I am quite appalled at the nature of this “conversation”. Irrespective of whether women want equality, chivalry should not die, it not as other commentators above put it, based on the protection of the “weaker sex” but rather a code of conduct adhered to by men of good standing. Quite clearly, based on the above, Australia is full of thugs, people who think they have been poorly done by in the big scheme of life, feel that the world owes them something and the rest of society is worth less than them.
Yes women and children first.
And a side note, it would be no better on an Airline, studies were done on a British Airways Crash in the 80’s (apologies for the lack of an exact reference) when the Aircraft was on fire on the ground. It was discovered the majority of the deaths were caused through the disorderly disembarkation and passengers getting stuck in the exit aisle whilst trying to push past. If you think it would be any different 30 years later, I suggest you take a flight on Air Asia.

Stiffy says:

05:13pm | 17/01/12

The vast majority of the world simply do not queue. I have been on both Costa and MSC cruises and the Italian cruise lines are the worst. About 50% will line up for any meal buffet and the other 50% will try to pack in like a scrum.
Introduce the element of panic and there would be chaos.
Probably the safest thing would be to let those men and women who are trying to push in and ignore the muster supervisors instructions would be to simply let them go. they are more likely to be hurt in the rush.

lance says:

03:43pm | 16/01/12

Its not just a european thing, you obviously havent been to Asia.

ByStealth says:

01:09pm | 17/01/12

I’d be very happy with this. Save the kids first and make sure they don’t grow up orphans. A good strategy.

Michelle says:

12:17am | 17/01/12

Well said Hestia.  To me the saying was meant to mean children (vulnerable) and their primary parent (be that male or female) needing to be with them as you can’t really put a 3 month old baby and a toddler on a boat without a parent or someone to be looking after them.  I am hoping we don’t have to get politically correct and start saying ‘children and their primary parent first’!!  As a single women with no children I will happily give up my place to children and their parents.

TD says:

03:51pm | 16/01/12

Spot on I reckon Hestia!

Sharon says:

05:30pm | 16/01/12

I think there was but the tilt of the ship made half of them unuseable, at least that was what I heard but that was from a commercial news program.

JB says:

03:11pm | 16/01/12

Yes but during an emergency evacuation there is the time factor!

marley says:

03:10pm | 16/01/12

I believe there were.  But it sounds as though some people drowned before they could get to them.

ByStealth says:

12:42pm | 17/01/12

I think many people are arguing apples and oranges here. I’m against the idea that a mans life is worth less than a womans.I’m against the idea that men should automatically give up their lives to save women because they are women.

I’m not pro-harming others chances to save myself.

Be careful of strawmanning this argument into something that its not. Stepping over the bodies of nuns and infants to get to the lifeboat? Really?

I’m also not a fan of shaming language directed at men who won’t give up their lives for a woman. Its a double bind. Save yourself and your life has no value; die and you have no life.

This whole argument would be better framed as parachutes on an airplane to avoid the ‘swimming’ strength red herring.

PsychoHyena says:

03:51pm | 16/01/12

@Nett on Net I think as much of them as I think of the women doing the same thing.

@jade (the other one) And you’re better by saying that the men should die rather than the women?

Erick says:

03:47pm | 16/01/12

@Nett & Jade - It’s the selfish, hypocritical and sexist attitudes of people like yourselves that discourage men from helping women.

Why would I want to save someone who hates me, like you do?

TChong says:

03:46pm | 16/01/12

Nett , Jade
the” terrible men scenario” is obviosly a traumatised persons POV, and may well be valid for what she saw,
BUT
are you two implying that all the men were paniccing, trampling kiddies etc?, what were the numbers involved ? aprox 2000 + men going on the rampage ?- obviosly NOT. no woman became panicced ?
Who is to judge who panicced ?
these type of misandric speculation/ fantasies are no differnt or better than misogynistic fantasies about the value of women.

TD says:

03:45pm | 16/01/12

Such a real man would no doubt be tired and hungry after all that protecting of others and would need a real woman to cook his dinner, iron his clothes and keep his house. Thankfully society has advanced from the 50s to the point where women are considered equal, and therefore have equal responsibilities and opportunities at all times, including during times of emergency. Most women I know are just as good at survival swimming as I am (if not better, due to the inbuilt flotation devices). Are their lives inherently more valuable than mine? Are they less physically able than me? If so, shouldn’t female manual workers be paid less than their male counterparts?
The system should be children with accompanying parents first, everyone else after that with no heed to gender. The chaos in this case was both regrettable and avoidable, but I severely doub’t that it was only men doing the pushing (and if they were, it was probably on the insistence of their wives or girlfriends). I really don’t understand why gender should come into it at all.

jade (the other one) says:

03:18pm | 16/01/12

This. So very this.

I am disgusted that so many men on this thread are so misogynistic as to suggest that its perfectly acceptable for a man who is generally stronger than most women to push others out of the way, potentially killing them, rather than stepping up to the plate and using their physical strength to help save lives.

The Free says:

03:17pm | 16/01/12

Of course you wouldn’t Nett, you’re a perfect woman, of course you’re in a situation to judge, being you weren’t on the boat and don’t know if the women were as bad as the men.

As for your comment about a real man, you can shove that.  YOU don’t get to decide what a real man is any more than some chauvanist idiot gets to tell you to get in the kitchen and make him a sandwich.

Women don’t get to define men and vice versa.

You showed your hand when you said “Italian men are so full of themselves”

Nice, can you tell me what you think of Blacks and Jews?

Good Grief says:

03:04pm | 16/01/12

“At the end of the day don’t you all think just a little less of the men that pushed others out of the way??”

@Nett
As I mentioned before, I am all for “women and children first” being a traditionalist. But there’s this thing called “apathy”; what makes you think these men are concerned with what others think about them?

GenY says:

06:43pm | 16/01/12

@ Miles at least we they would be doing the right thing.

Miles says:

03:12pm | 16/01/12

If everyone put their lives before everyone else….everyone would stay on the boat and nobody would be saved!

Martin says:

10:31am | 17/01/12

@Steve_85

Lame excuse Steve. Whether it’s surrendering your bus seat to a pregnant woman, opening the door for an elderly gent or helping other passengers get off a sinking ship - chivalry is just basic decent behaviour. A quaint and outmoded concept perhaps, but decent behaviour nonetheless. Some people respond positively to it and some don’t. You won’t always be thanked for doing it, so just get over it.

wissler says:

09:17pm | 16/01/12

As the article states, “women and children first” originated a mere 150 years ago on a British troop ship. Why does everyone here seem to assume that a mixed group of Germans, French, Italians etc etc would all be aware of, and agree with this outdated British naval tradition?

marley says:

03:30pm | 16/01/12

It wasn’t just Italians on that boat.  I wonder if the French or the Germans understood it any better.

Steve_85 says:

03:23pm | 16/01/12

There are plenty of humans. One ship sinking, even if it killed every person on board is not going to even put a dent in the world’s population.

Chivalry is dead, and Feminists killed it. Welcome to equality. Enjoy.

Peter says:

04:29pm | 16/01/12

Erick - so, you think men hate women, now, do you?  Or, perhaps, you mean that YOU hate women.  It’s that - isn’t it, really.  At least you’re admitting it now.

Tobar says:

03:58pm | 16/01/12

@Jenny,Would you expect someone with the swimming and physical ability of a Dawn Fraser or Steph Rice to help in this type of situation.or should capable women just get choppered direct to a spa for the botox and anorexia clinic

Erick says:

03:11pm | 16/01/12

@Jenny - Men actually used to treat women as if they were precious and valuable. That’s why the poorest women on the Titanic were put on the lifeboats before even the richest men.

But then feminists came along, demanding “equality”.  And so, men gradually stopped giving women better treatment.

And then feminists like you like you came along, with your hatred of men. And so, men gradually started to hate women.

This is the world you are creating.

max says:

03:11pm | 16/01/12

It was never the normal thing to beat one’s wife etc. so do not taint us all with the same brush honey..

The Free says:

03:07pm | 16/01/12

Jenny are you not whinging, or is only whinging if men do it?

Jenny men used to treat women as if they were superior and above them - See I can interpret events I was not alive to witness too!

Jenny it was not normal for men to beat their wives because you or your feminist revision history says so.  Men who did were considered cowards and were shamed, beaten, often put to death and considered to be the very lowest of scum in a society.

How terribly sad that you took the time to spout feminist garbage on an article about people dying and use it for an opportunity to push the men-were-wife-beaters hate that feminism is so fond of.

Chris L says:

03:02pm | 17/01/12

Interestingly crime rates have been on a steady decline right alongside religion. Countries with atheist majority populations are the safest and happiest. As for compassion, there are plenty of atheistic charities so it’s not like religion has a monopoly on that.

Stop trying to sound superior and you’ll find people less inclined to point toward witch trials, inquisitions and infidel burnins.

Kika says:

12:57pm | 17/01/12

And the same goes who think parents are more valuable to society as they bore children and childless people are worthless so they have to wait…

Engi says:

10:09pm | 16/01/12

Your correct.

On this very forum, there are those who say, cripples should go last as they contribute the least to society, others that say the elderly should go last for similar reasoning. How many of those who said such things are crippled or elderly? Others have said more honestly and openly, every man for himself, everyone else can get lost and die.

In our Godless age compassion is rarely anything more than lip service. Ultimately, its all about Me, what I can get from the Government, my time, my way, my choice, my life, my right, my money, my baby (since when did a baby become a possession anyway?). Who should look after the poor? well not me, I pay taxes! the government should!

Unfortunatly for those who share the author thoughts of “Personally I would hope that the stronger people would…” are ultimately being irrational in a world where for many people God has become I.

marley says:

06:21pm | 16/01/12

@AJ - ever been on a cruise?  A lot of them are for the over 80s.  Even with a life jacket, the shock of being in coldish water (the Med would be something like 15 degrees at this time of year) can do them in.  And not all cruises are warm water.  There are cruises up the coast of North America to Alaska, and in the Baltic, and around Norway, and the water is never “warm.”

AJ says:

03:57pm | 16/01/12

If you cant manage to not drown with a life jacket and get on a cruise youre pretty dumb.

Erick says:

03:43pm | 16/01/12

@Far Canal - So you’re saying women can’t swim? Don’t be such a bigot!

Miles says:

03:14pm | 16/01/12

Maybe marley, but they have life jackets.  Still, the boat was so close to shore it wasn’t funny.  Why people madly rushed the lifeboats in this situation is just stupid, herd mentality.

marley says:

03:01pm | 16/01/12

Not everyone can swim.

bec says:

04:21pm | 16/01/12

Is this what happens when you highlight random paragraphs from the Spearhead and run them through babelfish so many times that the original meaning is lost?

Antisexist says:

04:05pm | 16/01/12

Lex,
By woman, because it is sexist to pick her just because she’s woman.

Lex says:

03:10pm | 16/01/12

Sued by who? The man was dead…..

Mark says:

02:59pm | 16/01/12

.. said from the safety of an air conditioned office while tapping away on a keyboard.

Mike says:

02:54pm | 16/01/12

. . . we certainly don’t expect the modern ‘women’ to give up their seat on the tram at any rate Ron.

Stuart says:

02:53pm | 16/01/12

How could you look in the mirror if you didn’t survive?

marley says:

02:47pm | 16/01/12

To be honest, I don’t think anyone expects modern men to make way for women and children, since they won’t even give up their seats on the tram for us oldies either.  It’s an “every man and woman for him/herself generation.”  Enjoy it.

Wynston Cruso says:

05:33pm | 17/01/12

I’d rather be an asshole and alive than a dead nice guy.

bobster says:

07:36pm | 16/01/12

I know exactly what i would have done, let everyone else go and stayed onboard the ship. Having grown up around boats, i’d be familiar with the ship’s course, its draft below the waterline and upon seeing the shore, the chance of it actually completely submerging. If i died because of that decision, at least i had free will to make it.

NickC says:

06:21pm | 16/01/12

You should help others less fortunate and strong as you.  This may be illogical, but if you don’t, you’re just another a-hole who won’t be able to hold his or her head up in the next life.

bec says:

05:15pm | 16/01/12

Nothing unreasonable about your response at all.

I estimate the distance from land in this case was under 2km. As a fit, strong swimmer, I cannot imagine myself in this situation trying to take a seat on a boat that should go to someone who cannot swim as strongly as I can.

marley says:

02:39pm | 17/01/12

I’d have described the Captain as a professional, not an expert.  Kind of like your GP.  Broadly informed in his subject area, rather than expert in a particular segment of it.

But, by all means, be sceptical of experts.  Of course, that does mean being doubly sceptical of people whose sailing qualifications are restricted to once rowing a boat, or whose medical qualifications are limited to what they read on an anti-vax website.

Testfest says:

01:00pm | 17/01/12

Crap guys, Anna is on to us!

Abort! Abort!

anna says:

07:29pm | 16/01/12

Oh please!! Everyone knows that the only reason men open doors for women is so that they can check out her a$$. There is nothing chilvarous about it

marley says:

03:07pm | 16/01/12

Chivalry has nothing to do with what women expect of you.  It has to do with what you expect of yourself.

JB says:

03:03pm | 16/01/12

What about a young child of say 6 years of age where without your help may very well die. Would you put yourself in harms way to save a child who has no chance without you? One aguement would be that if you died at least you had a life, a child is just starting.

Mike says:

02:57pm | 16/01/12

well said Brad, and I suspect you and Mahrat have the most honest and sensible answers on here amongst all the pontificating ‘what ifs’ going on around.

Mike says:

02:57pm | 16/01/12

well said Brad, and I suspect you and Mahrat have the most honest and sensible answers on here amongst all the pontificating ‘what ifs’ going on around.

Mayday says:

04:29pm | 16/01/12

Ditto on harbour cruises just on a smaller scale…..hate them!

Tim says:

04:09pm | 16/01/12

Meza,
you misread my comment.
I would actually prefer that the Punch lets more posts like Zeta’s through.

My problem is with the Punch who will selectively let some posts through like Zeta’s because they think it’s funny whilst at the same time saying they won’t let through comments that are sexist, racist etc.
They have no problem breaching their own community agreement when they feel like it.

Meza says:

03:49pm | 16/01/12

Lol, great call. Most males Ive ever spoken to didn’t think much of the cruises either but never put it quite so humoursly. Tim needs to relax a little and try to obtain a sense of humour rather than expect those that do to be sensored down to his level!

TChong says:

03:31pm | 16/01/12

Zeta
Farkeen funnee !!!

Tim says:

02:56pm | 16/01/12

And once again the Punch shows it’s moderation policy is a joke by letting this comment through because it’s Zeta and they think it’s funny.

Consistency? not on the Punch.

marley says:

02:50pm | 16/01/12

Only “cruise” I’ve ever been on was on a working container ship.  Three passengers, 26 crew.  Duty free booze, a gym, and not much else.  Oh, really bad Bollywood movies on DVD.  Nirvana.

Ron says:

02:47pm | 16/01/12

You must be a blast at parties.

JC says:

02:43pm | 16/01/12

I love Zeta

St. Michael says:

02:37pm | 16/01/12

Indeed this is why J. Bruce Ismay demanded all of Titanic’s boilers lit thus pushing the ship to full speed.  Nothing to do with breaking the speed limit, he’d just had it up to his back teeth with yet another bloody recital by the barbershop quartet hired to promise “divers amusements” on the top deck.

JB says:

02:31pm | 16/01/12

You need help! Psychological help!
To do something and not enjoy it and then do it again. Well there you have it!

Tony says:

04:14pm | 16/01/12

I am 67 and decided a few years ago when this discussion came up that I have had a good life and should I be confronted with a situation like this I would do my best to help those younger than myself regardless of sex. Btw, I do not believe in equality of the sex’s, in my opinion women should be put on a pedestal and honoured as the life givers they are. I guess i’m very old fashioned.

JB says:

02:32pm | 16/01/12

Jo , During an Emergency evacuation the you get out as many people as fast as you can. Disabled and elderly are lower on the list then able bodied people because while trying to save the Disabled and elderly you risk sacrificing many more people as they will slow down the egress of others.
Put it this way, you have 60 seconds to save as many people as you can. the disabled and elderly will take much longer to get out than the able bodied therefore lowering the number of survivors. You can get 100 able bodied men, women and children out or 50 - 70 people all up. Would you potentially sacrifice 30 - 50 people. It come down to numbers. You save as many as you can with the time allowed.

Ronk says:

03:27pm | 16/01/12

You’ve obviously never had the terrifying experience of being in a panicked and rushing crowd. You have to join in the rush or be trampled. probably the people pushing from below couldn’t see how close they were to shore, all they knew was that the ship was listing at a crazy angle and they were terrified it would turn upside down and they’d drown.

ByStealth says:

12:48pm | 17/01/12

‘This isnt just men, I have seen women forcible throw others out of the way as well.’

And I’m sure some women did on this ship. They aren’t the ones being raked over the coals for poor behaviour.

‘I’d be more inclined to believe that all were as bad as each other. ‘

I’m quite happy to assume this too. Regardless of gender, the boat had a large number of muppets on board.

TChong says:

03:23pm | 16/01/12

agree markus
something about the clicheness of it all seems too predictable.
The lady could only be speaking abouy a very small numbr in her immediate area.
As some earlier reports suggested, a “women and children ” order was given.
Maybe any paniccing men were reacting to the incredible notion that they were to be seen expendable ? Who knows?

Markus says:

02:43pm | 16/01/12

I did wonder when I read that comment from the lady with the 12 year old whether it just seemed like the men were worse due to a combination of men generally being bigger, and that she was expecting the men to assist her and her daughter but would not expect the same from the other women.

I’d be more inclined to believe that all were as bad as each other.

Jon says:

08:19pm | 16/01/12

I hear you but look at the size of the ship, if you were on the port bow and lucky enough to be on the top deck which you probably wouldn’t be (as everyone would have been on starboard side looking at the island/land), you could jump 4-5 storeys into the water which is like hitting concrete.. thats if you don’t hit part of the boat first which is death, or you could swim through compartments submerged in water till you got to the water on the starboard side - virtually impossible. On a smaller vessel yes you can abandon ship and swim to shore but on something this size is a different story, i mean seriously if people could just jump in and swim im sure most would have.

Slick says:

03:46pm | 16/01/12

Not really, survival wise, jostle and struggle to get to a life raft or jump over and start swimming? Personally I say screw the life raft, swimming would probably be safer!

Mark says:

03:03pm | 16/01/12

... said from the comfort of an air-conditioned office safely on land. “Oh, how dare people panic about a ship sinking blah, blah, blah”. Now pop off and grab another latte.

myahox says:

03:45pm | 16/01/12

jb i think there was a language barrier. it’s clear from what mahhrat has written that they would give their life for partner & child or a child, help a disabled person and feel no obligation to help someone they don’t know from a bar of soap. i did a double take when i read it at first thinking the same as you.

PsychoHyena says:

03:40pm | 16/01/12

@JB I think you’re suffering reading miscomprehension: “Put my life before” refers to the act of placing your life down in the hopes that your death will save that of those you are protecting.

I’ve got no qualms with pushing people I don’t know out of the way, ever been a father trying to get your under-5s onto rides that don’t have a queue? The mothers are vicious.

JB says:

03:09pm | 16/01/12

You are an A1 prick then. Faced with the same situation the lives for my wife and children come BEFORE mine. My children especially. I have lived a reasonable life but my children are just starting theirs. Apart from anything else I would not want to live knowing that i sacrificed my children! The only exception to this would be in an aircraft depressurisation where i would put my mask on first because i i passed out i can’t then help them. I any of you have ever managed an emergency you would know that you sometimes can’t save everybody as much as you want to, but you save as many as you can with the time and resources at you disposal!

Fezzbo says:

02:30pm | 16/01/12

Mahhrat, while you’re asking all those questions, Tory and the rest of the feminist brigade are shoving you out of the way and pinching your valuables as they pass…

Jacks says:

02:40pm | 16/01/12

SOLAS (Safety of Lives at Sea) teaches all crew members in training to keep families together at their musters stations in an emergency situation. They go together onto the lifeboat in an abandon ship scenario. This crew training occurs as soon as you board the ship to start your contract and then 2 emergency drills per cruise for the duration of your contract. As Shane from Melbourne says ” assuming a calm and orderly evacuation”. The Costa Concordia was an extraordinary and very sad incident, one I never experienced in my 10 years as a crew member and one that I hope never occurs again.

Richard says:

05:18pm | 16/01/12

That old crone is a terrible crooner.

Celia says:

05:27pm | 16/01/12

Erick, why don’t you understand that I don’t have to “want” equality - I am equal to any person.  I have posted above that I would absolutely have my husband and child board a lifeboat before myself if it meant saving my daughter before myself. It’s common sense.

Erick says:

04:27pm | 16/01/12

@Tory Shepherd - I call bullshit.

You can have “women first”, or you can have equality. Which is it?

You cannot have both.

Rose says:

03:54pm | 16/01/12

Actually I think this is less abut equality and more about a complete lack of respect by everyone who pushed any one else out of the way to get on a lifeboat. As a general rule I would hope there would be sufficient room on lifeboats for all passengers and crew and that the crew, who should all be well trained in safety and evacuation, would assist all passengers to board lifeboats safely. I would also hope that the able bodied amongst the passengers would all do what they could to give the less able the best chance to survive.
What appears to have happened here that the Captain and many of the passengers and crew turned out to be self-serving cowards with no respect for their fellow human being!

Gymmer says:

03:21pm | 16/01/12

I have no issue with men getting seats on lifeboats ahead of women. I don’t subscribe in this day and age to ‘women first’  and I would never expect a person to give me their seat on a lifeboat purely because they are male and I am female. ( I agree with children, parents of those children, weak, disabled first).

I do however take issue with people shoving others out of the way in order to get seats on a lifeboat, whether they are male or female. And judging by some survivors stories that have been reported a fair few blokes were doing this. One Aussie guy said apparently the young Italian men were leaving their wives and girlfriends behind as well…I can’t fathom this.  If you get to the lifeboat first, fair call. If you are throwing elbows and taking out people on your way there to ensure you get a seat you are a cretin.  Particularly if you show no regard for your partner in the process either. I wouldn’t leave my partner on the boat alone. If he had to stay on there, so would I.

Angry_Of_Mayfair says:

02:52pm | 16/01/12

Soooo….we’r all equal, but some of us are more equal than the others? OIC!

Dubs says:

02:24pm | 16/01/12

I can only agree with this but too many women want equality solely on their terms.

marley says:

09:13pm | 16/01/12

@Markus - claiming that the term chivalrous “is still purely defining dexterity and actions on the field of battle” would indeed be disingenuous.  Almost as disingenuous as claiming that I said anything of the kind.

It would, by the way, also be wrong.  Chivalry was never about wielding a sword better than the next man.

Perhaps things like honour and integrity no longer matter in today’s world.  Perhaps it is every man or woman for himself.  I think that sucks.

Markus says:

08:31pm | 16/01/12

@marley, knights haven’t exactly ridden into battle since the invention of gunpowder rendered plate armour obsolete, either.
The definition and social understanding of the term chivalry has changed a lot in 800 years. Claiming that the term is still purely defining dexterity and actions on the field of battle is disingenuous.

marley says:

06:29pm | 16/01/12

@antisexist - your article illustrates the whole problem:  people today understand chivalry to be a gesture towards good manners, to be instantly rescinded if not recognized.  Real chivalry is about values, not manners; it isn’t about opening doors for women, it’s about being honourable and generous and loyal.  Anyone can open a door;  not many can be truly honourable.  Male or female.  If you downgrade chivalry to mere manners, you don’t understand the concept.  Certainly, the article didn’t.

Antisexist says:

04:27pm | 16/01/12

Marley, Kassandra
Studies Show Chivalry Is Sexist - http://www.emandlo.com/2009/06/studies-show-chivalry-is-sexist/

Kassandra says:

04:08pm | 16/01/12

@ marley.

Hear hear! Bravo. Very well said.

marley says:

03:46pm | 16/01/12

@Markus - “chivalry” is certainly not based on the idea that men must protect women. 

Chivalry was in its inception a medieval code of honour that had more to do with the battlefield than the bedroom.  It was a set of “rules” for knights, revolving around honour, integrity, loyalty, courage and faith.  It evolved into a set of manners and behaviours but it was always at its core about the virtues a man should aspire to.

And I see nothing in those values that conflicts with the concept of gender equality.  In fact, I see nothing in those values that a woman couldn’t and shouldn’t aspire to as well. 
The value of chivalry lies not in how the other sex perceives you, but in how you perceive yourself.

lisa says:

03:18pm | 16/01/12

I think chivalry is an outdated concept because it’s gendered. Let’s just call it care and consideration for kids and other weak vulnerable people, regardless of gender. In this category I’d include obviously pregnant women.

For the anti-misandrists who seem to frequent here, yes you’re right it’s outdated, but don’t let it become a wedge to excuse thuggery. I’m an anti-misandrist too.

Markus says:

02:33pm | 16/01/12

“Equality of the sexes does not mean chivalry should be dead”
Chivalry is based on the premise that men must use their superiority to protect the weaker, unable to fend for themselves gender. So for equality of the sexes to exist, chivalry has to be dead.

“Equality is about being treated with respect, given opportunity etc”
So it’s about giving to all members of one gender things that you would not necessarily give to all members of the other, and thus is the exact opposite of equality?

LJ Dots says:

05:59pm | 17/01/12

@Anne71 - I hold open doors regardless of gender or status, it is good manners after all. In my time though I have noticed there are three and only three responses to this gesture.

1. The polite folk who acknowledge you and say thank you.
2. Some businessmen (all ages, all cultures) who ignore you and waltz through.
3. Some women (all ages, all cultures) who either ignore you and waltzes through or perhaps pause for a brief beration.

Offenders Two and Three are equally common in my experience.

PS I don’t hold open doors for people on mobile phones, good manners can only extend so far.

Anne71 says:

01:03pm | 17/01/12

To all the men frothing at the mouth at the concept of holding a door open for a woman - I hold doors open for men all the time. It’s just good manners as far as I’m concerned, something which you are evidently lacking.

On the occasions when a man holds a door open for me, I smile and say thank you. Once again - good manners.  Is that so hard to comprehend?

ByStealth says:

12:24pm | 17/01/12

‘Chivalrous men can fuck right off, as can lazy-ass entitled women who play the “oh, I’m not a feminist, I love chivalrous men” card to hide their overall ineptitude.’

I actually agree with you about weak men using ‘chivalry’ as supplication. It was meant to be a show of deference by the strong to the weak and it had value because there was no benefit to be gained. If the weak use it then there is no value in the act. Its either pretending to be strong or manipulation as you said.

This is also why I won’t buy drinks for women I don’t know. It doesn’t say ‘I’m a generous person’. It says ‘I’m trying to buy your time because I don’t have the value to hold your attention on my intrinsic merits’.

BJ says:

08:09am | 17/01/12

Men who are quick to do favours for women tend to have ulterior motives. Just sayin

Sheridan says:

09:27pm | 16/01/12

Actually as a woman I’d be mightily pissed if someone made me go before my husband.. He can’t swim and I can as far as my incapacity allows.. Do I not let him have a chance at surviving because he has a penis??

Favio Carroll says:

07:16pm | 16/01/12

@BJ: I have a wife and a daughter friend, I don’t have time for games, may be you do. And there is no need for me to defend myself regarding your sleezbag comments, nevertheless; I do find amuzing how the intellectually inept uses insults to add more credibility to what it’s clearly an empty and just as ignorant statement .

Elizabeth1 says:

07:06pm | 16/01/12

Bravo Marley.

BJ says:

06:36pm | 16/01/12

Kassandra clearly came down in the last shower. Our Favio is clearly a sleazebag. This chivalry stuff is part of his game.

Favio Carroll says:

05:39pm | 16/01/12

@Brian; mate, the captain stays with the ship is an expression, which means he is the last one to leave once he has ensured all civilian personnel and crew have abandoned the vessel, regarding who mans the raft it is obvious that will depend on the crew allocation on an emergency situation, it is call emergency protocol.

@ Heisenberg , I think I was very clear on my last post; it is not just a maritime tradition, but also a biological and survival strategy. So just as the real Hesinberg who got the critical mass wrong to build a nuclear device, you also got your facts regarding my statement very wrong indeed, I’m assuming you are a fan of Breaking bad and miss the irony why Mr White used that alias. Interesting fact. Oh.. And it is your prerogative not to help a female in need just to see “what they are made off” I rather the more helpful approach.

Brian says:

04:51pm | 16/01/12

Hmm… Crew last, captain stays with the ship? Who mans the boats? Passengers with no knowledge of how to con it properly? Who provides the first aid, operates the emergency equipment?

And why on earth would the captain stay with the ship? Even the Royal Navy were never THAT ridiculous - rather, the captain stays for long enough to ensure that what can be done to save the ship and passengers has been, then scarpers like anyone else. Yes, some captains decide to stay, but it’s hardly a requirement.

bec says:

04:26pm | 16/01/12

Chivalrous men can fuck right off, as can lazy-ass entitled women who play the “oh, I’m not a feminist, I love chivalrous men” card to hide their overall ineptitude.

Courteous and polite men, who’d hold the door open for men *and* women without making a big flashy show about it, are awesome - as are women who can do the same.

Hint: if your door-opening is accompanied by a flouncy bow, a “milady” or an uttered “bitch” afterwards if the recipient of your bravery and efforts doesn’t give you a blowjob for the onerous task of extending your arm and propping open a 2kg door, then you’re probs a bit of a dick. Lesson for today!

Heisenberg says:

04:14pm | 16/01/12

@Favio

You still do not provide a reason other than “just because”.

Your old time value are commendable but they do not provide women with the respect they deserve as equals to men, and disadvantage men in that women are happy to take advantage of such values and while they themselves adhering to new values.

The old order is dead mate, and this current Navy officer will never help a woman above a man. We will see what these women are made of in the coming years…...

marley says:

04:11pm | 16/01/12

Some of you need to look up the meaning and history of chivalry.  It has nothing to do with the gender wars.  It has to do with personal honour, integrity and valour.  It’s about doing what is right and honourable.  A truly chivalrous man will do what he judges to be right not because that is what society expects of him, but because that is what he expects of himself.  And he will continue to do so in the face of opposition, indifference and even hostility.

Feminism hasn’t killed chivalry, because it comes from within.  Greed, self-obsession, egoism, hedonism, these are killing chivalry.  And frankly, the world needs more, not less, chivalry, and from both genders.

Favio Carroll says:

04:09pm | 16/01/12

@ TChong : Im not saying that, you are! you are putting a value on a life according to achievement, isnt that what you are just sayin? I’m going a couple of very basic priciples here mate, one is a maritne, which you chose to ignored and I respect that, but how about the fact that men are biologically stronger than women? therefore we can outstand more cold, pain, heat and in a dangerous situation; our brains are better equipped to make an on the spot decision- which is great for us when we have a one track mind, but crap for multitasking- I tell you what, maybe in a disaster we all just take a small test before the boat sinks to see who is more worthy of a seat in the raft.. that makes perfect sense right?
Honestly, it is easy to sit at your desk and say equality this and equality that, but there are a couple of human principles that outstand equality; otherwise, may be you can tell tell me if you are willing to walk over your kids or your partner or your sister or mother because you are about to nail a big deal and they are just retired, students or just on the way.. honestly..
No wonder the world is so f***ed up..
@ShamWow: thanks

Baroness says:

04:09pm | 16/01/12

Steve, what you did was an act of politeness, not an act of chivalry. If the door had been about to eat the woman’s face off with it’s own doorknob, and you instead chose to force your arm between it’s jaws in the hopes of killing it before it hurt her. That would be chivalry.

Chivalry is an act of bravery by a man, to protect a woman or child. That’s the basic definition. I’m sure women can be chivalrous but there’s not a word for that yet.

Politeness is commendable though. So just before you swear off women forever and join Erick’s band of Merry Mysoginists (The Secret Feminist Shadow Government have decided to chip in and sew those chaps some rather dapper outfits. Just as a ‘Welcome to the Neighbourhood’ sort of thing) consider this-  It was a solitary incident. There are thousand of people, every day I bet, who walk around trying not to judge others on the actions of a few. Don’t be one of the idiots who gives in to that sort of thing.

Kassandra says:

04:00pm | 16/01/12

Thankfully there are still some chivalrous men despite all the efforts of feminism to change them.

Danielle says:

03:58pm | 16/01/12

Bravo Shamwow.

Chivalry needs no reason and it’s wonderful that there are still men (I am with one such man) who value chivalry.

Let the bitter twisted sad sacks of both genders pair up. Then the nasty cowardly men can be stuck with the kind of chicks who shout if you hold a door open, and us normal folk can get on with our lives.

Claire says:

03:48pm | 16/01/12

@Steve_85 - I am horrified to hear that about the woman spitting in your face. We are not all like that! Please don’t get discouraged by the actions of a putrid minority - there are putrid lowest common denominators in every category out there (putrid men, putrid kids, putrid colleagues etc) but don’t let them be the people who change your mind about random acts of kindness. The world needs more of them, and it sounds like you’ve been burned by some total pig who is not representative of the majority. Don’t get burnt out - kindness is where it’s at!

Steve_85 says:

03:43pm | 16/01/12

@Sarahh
Believe it or not. My point stands: The reasons for chivalrous behavior no longer apply.

Chivalry is dead, and women killed it.

Favio Carroll says:

03:40pm | 16/01/12

@ Mark: a moron? so let me see, according to you I don’t have a right to an opinion, hmmm..interesting Grow up boy will you. To quote a famous line: If you don’t stand for something then you will fall for anything - that goes straight for you Mark, I would like to see you in a dangerous situation, it’s people like you that will definitely push anybody (young old woman men sick or healthy) just to get out of a Jam. Is not about being a hero, its about doing the right thing mate, I will feel very sorry for your wife/girlfriend or children if you have any if such a situation happens to you and your family. What an exemplary role model you are mate..Bravo…

Sarahh says:

03:26pm | 16/01/12

@Steve-85 That story sounds like absolute rubbish.  Who on earth would abuse someone for holding the door open for them?  People do it all the time, men and women for men and women.  If you’re telling the truth, and I’m highly doubtful that you are, that woman was an exception, not the rule.

TChong says:

03:13pm | 16/01/12

Mark
On you side with this one
Favio - you seriosly saying some ones life should be of less value than others?
Is there a line in the sand Favio ?
Presumping your male -
would you willingly give up your parachute for ms paris hilton ?
because she is a she , so therefore more worthy of life , than say , a fella scientist researching breast cancer?
ShamWow- an argument that relies on chivalry as a valid reason in itself hasnt got much depth.
Rationale , of any type , other than “because” would be a good start.BTW - kiddies first, no argument there.

Steve_85 says:

03:05pm | 16/01/12

@ShamWow
How about since the reasons for being chivalrous no longer apply? I actually had a woman abuse me and spit in my face for holding a door open for her. I didn’t even know it was a woman, I was just holding the door for the next person.

The women wanted equality? I say have an extra helping, oh and I’ll be taking that seat. Thanks.

Erick says:

02:56pm | 16/01/12

@ShamWow - “Since when does chivalry need a reason?”

Since our society decided that men and women were equal.

And guess what? Turns out that chivalry doesn’t have a reason.

ShamWow says:

02:23pm | 16/01/12

@Mark - ouch, you didn’t get enough sleep last night? Favio’s comment doesn’t deserve your response. Since when does chivalry need a reason?

Mark says:

02:04pm | 16/01/12

You gave absolutely zero reasons for or against the policy except “maritime principle” which was sufficiently debunked by TheBrad, above.. It’s people like you who don’t actually have an original thought for themselves that continue to implement these disgusting perversions on humanity and some how think you are morally better than someone who made a decision about the situation.. You may be a hero on a sinking ship but an absolute and utter moron in real life. Do you have an opinion on anything or do you need to ask your commander about that one as well?

RyaN says:

08:49pm | 16/01/12

@nossy: Ha yep and pointing it out has them whining even more. Its like a bloody whine cellar in here, must be young white whine as it sure is bitter.

RyaN says:

08:46pm | 16/01/12

@Baroness: As we men aren’t allowed to specifically make reference to the performance or non-performance of a woman being a woman then if you want true equality even if the men were behaving badly the same applies. So in short answer to your question, YES.

@Sarahh: Purely speculation from one persons point of view, the mere fact that she felt the need to discriminate based on sex points towards her misandrist point of view.

bec says:

06:44pm | 16/01/12

nossy, do you happen to keep an open bottle of correction fluid by your computer? I am struggling as hard as I can to actually understanding what you’re saying.

Inhale *fewer* fumes is a dictum I’ve lived my life by for well over a quarter of a century now. It works for me - it should for you too.

nossy says:

06:05pm | 16/01/12

@bec   of course bec only the sheilas with something to put in a bra did the burning of one. I remember the 70’s - plenty of braless gels all sporting their new found independence. Helen Reddy was the lady who inspired many woamen to “come out and loosen up” - remember her song bec - “I Am Woman”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUBnxqEVKlk

Sarahh says:

04:42pm | 16/01/12

@RyaN What?  That’s not misandry, that was an observation.  Misandry is a specific hatred of men.  FYI.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/misandry?q=misandry

Baroness says:

04:28pm | 16/01/12

@RyaN, so, equality means that if we hold both sexes to the same value of bravery and all round doing what’s right…. Men can act worse than the women did, but we’d best not mention it?

That doesn’t make sense at all..

bec says:

04:17pm | 16/01/12

Actually, nossy, *none* of us sheilas burnt our bras in the 70s. How very tiresome to have to keep pointing out fact on this one.

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/burnbra.asp

RyaN says:

04:09pm | 16/01/12

@Baroness: Sorry I must have mistaken the blatant misandry in this statement “We just couldn’t believe it - especially the men, they were worse than the women.”

Not a Tool says:

03:55pm | 16/01/12

@Fred. So every woman wants to cut your throat, and you’d push over life boats meant for everybody (including perhaps your own mother, or child), once your own sorry butt is safe, “just for a laugh”.

Thank heavens for the anonymity of cyberspace, hey ‘Fred’? Any good bloke would punch your head in.

Baroness says:

03:42pm | 16/01/12

@RyaN, no one is complaining from as far as I’ve read. The issue is more that people were willing to push aside a child and save their own necks. That it was brought up by the mother’s statement, rather than a father’s…. shouldn’t matter. If you want everything to be equal.

@nossy, if ever we’re in the situation where the boat is sinking, my dear, I implore you….Go sit with the weak, the infirm and the young. I may be just a ‘sheila’ but I’m a strong swimmer and think I could last long enough in the water until help arrived. Me, and my sportsbra.

@Fred, it just tickles me when people talk about women’s equality as though it’s something all the naughty girls cooked up so they would get out of dusting things. Tell me, do you feel the same about people who marched for equal rights when it came to racial disrimination? Are they bringing you down too? Are you happy to make the same sweeping statements about them? Or do you just save the bitterness all up for the people who dared be born with different bits between their legs?

Sarahh says:

03:13pm | 16/01/12

That’s mature Fred.

holden says:

03:10pm | 16/01/12

Nossy, from what I hear there are blokes on every ship who put on dresses. And then ask YOU to get in the lifeboat. It’s just what I’ve heard, mind.

Fred says:

02:25pm | 16/01/12

They only want equality when it’s to their advantage. Which makes this an interesting question. At the moment I am single so my life isn’t worth a hell of a lot, but if I had kids then I’d probably push the women out of the way.

Seems fair, seeing as most women seem to value the ability to cut my throat in society.

Anyway, don’t they have lifejackets? I’d be more inclined to jump off the side in one of those than deal with a bunch of selfish bitches (both male and female). Then maybe I could swim over and push their lifeboats over for a laugh.

nossy says:

02:09pm | 16/01/12

@RyaN heh heh RyaN we are as one on this one fella - every MAN for himself - all you SHEILAS burnt your bras way back in the 70’s so its put up or shut up times girls!  I think there was some guy on the Titanic who put on a dress to get in a lifeboat wasnt there?

Chappa says:

06:07pm | 16/01/12

I did that fire warden stuff.  I can tell you, I stayed back with the oldies, disabled in a fire drill….but in the case of a real fire…..I would be looking after mates, then I would be gone !!

Fire Warden says:

03:18pm | 16/01/12

Er, people who feel unable to evacuate safely by themselves are moved to the fire stairs, which are fire safe for hours (made so via pressurisation, building codes, isolation strategies etc).  They’re not just left anywhere to pat out their flaming wheels alone.

PS: Pregnant women are counted among the ‘mobility impaired’, and may also be left in the fire stairs.  And, pregnant or disabled, you’ll usually have a fire warden stay back with you.

heroditus says:

03:03pm | 16/01/12

Ah, so that’s why authorised disabled vehicles have reserved spaces at shopping centres, closest to the entrances. Last out = more survivors. Just sayin’...

fairsfair says:

02:15pm | 16/01/12

True. We just underwent brief training and those in a wheelchair are to be wheeled onto the landing in the stairwell by the last person to leave and left alone until EMS crews are able to remove them from the building. Quite harsh, but if I tried to carry someone down stairs it wouldn’t end well. I would hate to be put in that situation but it would be tempting to stay with them. If you weren’t the person to physically wheel them in there, I don’t think you’d even notice. In an evacuation scenario, you simply don’t have time to overanalyse all this stuff. You can only offer assistance if you notice its need for a start. I have witnessed a major car accident and have been the only one able to render help. I did so, but I don’t recall noticing a lot of the stuff that was going on around me (like dangling pwer lines, glass on the ground, apparently I said a lot of things that I don’t rememebr etc).  The human mind is a freaky thing when it is under stress. Trying to imagine what it is like in a real life threatening emergency on a large scale, I don’t think the majority of people would actually identify someone in need.

LanceSmith says:

08:49am | 17/01/12

As other’s have said, AdamC that is too complicated. But the bigger issue: why should able bodied women go automatically ahead of able bodied men at all? A better approach is that able bodied men AND women stick it out for everyone else and then orderly board the boats.

Besides, as you are wasting time making sure that this group or another goes first, the ship goes down. Orderly, first in-first out evacuation should be the goal….regardless of gender (or age for that matter). The FIRST rule is make it orderly. Everything else just wastes time.

marley says:

06:12pm | 16/01/12

@Alicia - of course.  I’m just saying that Marko has, how shall I put it, a somewhat limited understanding of biology - as in what it takes to make a child.  Both parents. Both genders.

Alicia says:

05:27pm | 16/01/12

@marley - you can say the same thing for fathers too. It goes both ways.

Regarding the elderly, just piggyback them out with an able-bodied person.

Celia says:

05:23pm | 16/01/12

Thank you. My point exactly. And I take this point further.. As much as I hate to acknowledge this, my husband is a far stronger, better swimmer than I and would have a far better chance of getting our daughter to safety than I would if the lifeboat capsized. Therefore I would argue he is a far better candidate to get our child to safety and more logical that he take her to shore first. If I were the better swimmer etc, then the opposite would apply. Keep gender out if this debate if you are serious about equality.

Gazman says:

04:10pm | 16/01/12

Shouldn’t the disabled and elderly go last?

They contribute least to society

marley says:

03:28pm | 16/01/12

@Marko - without mothers, they wouldn’t have been there to design those bridges.

Marko says:

03:03pm | 16/01/12

Okay you want able bodied men to go last—the same men that with their able bodies build cities and bridges and make up the majority of engineers and scientists and so forth that give us our modern world and standard of living.

These able bodied men contribute to society as whole more than any of the other groups you have mentioned.

JB says:

02:28pm | 16/01/12

Mate, During an evacuation the you get out as many people as fast as you can. Disabled and elderly are lower on the list then able bodied people because while trying to save the Disabled and elderly you risk sacrificing many more people as they will slow down the egress of others.
Put it this way, you have 60 seconds to save as many people as you can. the disabled and elderly will take much longer to get out than the able bodied therefore lowering the number of survivors. You can get 100 able bodied men, women and children out or 50 - 70 people all up. Would you potentially sacrifice 30 - 50 people. It come down to numbers. You save as many as you can with the time allowed.

Tigger says:

02:17pm | 16/01/12

This is unworkable, the frail and disabled will hold up everyone else and result in even more casualties - see A’s comment below re building evacuations. If you want priorty for them then give them a designated area. But to block every exit by a person in a wheelchair is very foolish.

Anna C says:

02:10pm | 16/01/12

Yeah sounds right to me. We should first save those who cannot save themselves. 

Then again, may be we should leave the teenagers behind. Teenagers annoy me no end.

marley says:

01:53pm | 16/01/12

Realistically, too complicated in an emergency.  I’d say, kids first and the devil take the hindmost.

ByStealth says:

06:30pm | 16/01/12

Regarding men sacrificing themselves for women:

Many men have a strong protective instinct. Its common for men at a core level to want to protect women. However, when our sacrifice is expected through a sense of entitlement, the value of that sacrifice is lowered. If I’m expected to risk my life to save a woman, the choice to do so is worth less.

Can you see the difference between:
1) If you don’t risk your life to save a woman you are weak and worthless, not even a man but a slimy little boy versus
2) She was going to die and I wouldn’t have blamed him if he saved himself, but he came back for her.

The same concept at a much lesser degree applies to why men get upset that women expect them to pay for early dates. If its expected, if there is a sense of entitlement, then the decision by the man to provide for that woman is devalued. It becomes a ‘must do’ versus a ‘I want to do this because it has meaning to me’. You can’t test for this by doing the fake purse grab girls. I avoid early dates at restaurants to shortcircuit this test.

In a quick gender reversal, how do women feel when their partners give them a genuine thanks and big hug after cooking their man an extensive meal before doing the dishes without being asked? Now how do they feel if instead he just burps and puts the plate down on the floor in front of the couch while watching Friday Night Football and calls out for a beer?

RyaN says:

02:04pm | 16/01/12

I ask the same thing when some stupid tool towing a boat on the weekend drives up in the turning lane on the left of me then I slam my brakes on to let him in and stop him from having an accident, the thanks I get is a middle finger from said low class dropkick piece of excrement.
If this is the level of humanity then certainly why would you want to lay down your life for a complete sack of shit like that.

Brodee Wright says:

07:34pm | 16/01/12

I think it really comes to down to the fact of survival of the fittest. I agree Children should be spared and put before all others, but other than that a woman has the ability to walk, climb and swim what is stopping them? It is like a persons re-action just before hitting a tree in a car… The driver usually steers the car to hit the passenger side rather than killing themselves. Unfortunately anyone could be on that side a child, friend, husband/wife. Its a fact of life and we are programmed to survive in adversity.So no the argument that Women and Children should go first is wrong. Children yes, fittest and most likely to survive after.

Bertrand says:

04:26pm | 16/01/12

@Erick - My honest reply is that able-bodied adults (men and women) would ideally come to the assistance of those who need it (children, disabled, elderly, etc).

I would like to say that the able-bodied adults who pushed kids out of the way are a disgrace, but at the end of the day I can’t truly say how I would react. Perhaps my morality would fly out the window when faced with my own mortality? Unless we have been in the situation, we can’t really say what we would do.

With regards to the men or women first question. The idea that a man *must* give up his seat on a lifeboat for a woman is outdated. However, my personal understanding of what it is to be a man is to be a person of honour, respect and courage, which would mean giving up my seat for a woman. Again, I can’t ever say for sure what I would do, but I like to think that I would live my values.

Erick says:

03:33pm | 16/01/12

@Bertrand - Sarcastic or not, you come across as deeply sexist.

What’s your honest opinion? Should women go first, or should equality apply?

Meza says:

03:14pm | 16/01/12

Lol, good to see someone can maintain a sense of humour!

M.G says:

03:13pm | 16/01/12

lighten up JB….pretty sure it was a joke…..and very funny one at that!!

Bertrand says:

02:54pm | 16/01/12

Ron is indeed correct (except about the poor attempt part. I like to think of myself as hilarious).

Aj says:

02:50pm | 16/01/12

Its true Bertrand, men are treated like the lowest class of human life when it comes to any kind of emergency situation. I have no problems with men wanting to save themselves, and think its sexist to think otherwise.

I do agree with JB on the children being saved first, then its a free for all for everyone else.

Ron says:

02:36pm | 16/01/12

I am 100% sure that Bertrand is on your side.  Just a rather poor attempt at sarcasm.

St. Michael says:

02:35pm | 16/01/12

And the women who pushed women and children out of the way to save themselves?

Clearly feminists.

JB says:

02:20pm | 16/01/12

Is i met you i would quite happily flatten you. If you have a beef against women fine! but kids are to be protected above that of adults. To push someone out of the way to save your own hide at the expense of others is the height of cowardice!!

Chris L says:

04:38pm | 16/01/12

This is the problem with people getting their education from Hollywood. Brave people gave up their lives for their fellow passengers and yet get reviled when a movie makes it out to be different.

TChong says:

02:57pm | 16/01/12

stephen
my favrit line from “Titanic “is when Billy Zane says the “better half” will survive when the tub sinks.
hilarious flick

Nathan Explosion says:

02:33pm | 16/01/12

@Stephen

Well, a first class ticket for a berth on Titanic would set you back at least $100, and a suite was $4500. And that’s one way.

In today’s prices, that’s approximatley $3000 for a berth, and about $85,000 for a suite. YEOWCH!

Erick says:

02:22pm | 16/01/12

@Nathan Explosion - This has already been discussed in today’s Open Thread.

If you’d read that, you would know that the poorest woman or child on the Titanic was more likely to survive than the richest man. The divide was on gender lines and age lines, as well as wealth lines.

Stephen says:

02:01pm | 16/01/12

Now that is a better idea. Will get rid of the poor, will mean less drain on welfare, less drain on Medicare, let’s save the rich. Now you are thinking

Oops how much doi you need to be rich? I might not qaulify :D

Shane says:

10:30am | 17/01/12

Bugger the elderly and disabled.  Let them drown.  The lifeboat needs strong and capable people once it’s set adrift.  Why fill it with people who can’t help themselves?  Further, when the ship is goping down there can’t be delays in filling and launching life boats, if they can’t get themselves in, or cause a traffic jam getting into the life boat, then they shouldn’t go.  Save the young and productive first, leave the oldies and wheelchairs to themselves.

Chris L says:

10:56pm | 16/01/12

So… you disagree with what I said Danielle?

Parlay says:

09:59pm | 16/01/12

@Danielle

So how is it that you know he’s ‘bitter and unattractive’ and what does that have to do with his thoughts?  Only ugly women are feminists?  Is that what you are saying?

Danielle says:

05:48pm | 16/01/12

Erick - you lack comprehension skills, or your bitterness clouds everything, or both.

ChrisL - not sure what world you live in, but in mine I appreciate masculine qualities and have a loving, well-mannered and intelligent husband who has more balls than all of the hate-talking misogynists, put together.

Having a stand-off with the world because someone screwed you over in 2005, is pointless and immature. Chicks do it, guys do it, and their own lives end up being ruined for the bitterness that consumes them.

Steve hasn’t answered why he resents that women have equal rights, or what rights in particular he resents.

Chris L says:

04:35pm | 16/01/12

@Danielle - With rights come responsibilities. Welcome to the new world.

Direct says:

04:29pm | 16/01/12

Danielle, women had the right to vote in Australia in 1902, precisely 1 year after the nation was created. This time last century would have been 1912, meaning women would have had the vote for 10 years with the brutally oppressive patriarchy maintaining a stranglehold on voting for a grand total of one year.

Erick says:

04:16pm | 16/01/12

@Danielle - I note that you don’t address the topic of discussion at all, but simply attack TheBrad personally with feminist shaming tactics.

This demonstrates that you cannot counter his points with any facts or reason. All you have is your mindless hatred of men.

Is it any wonder that, when women are as hateful as you, men are starting to lose interest in helping them?

Danielle says:

03:52pm | 16/01/12

“Screaming equality for 60 years ...Here’s what you asked for. Enjoy the consequences”.

You sound terribly bitter and unattractive. Why the resentment have equal access to education, choices other than ‘wife and mother’, and the right to vote? ‘Cos that’s what they didn’t have this time last century. You don’t recognise that while women and men are different, they are equal in worth?

(They didn’t ‘ask’ for equality - you can’t ask for something that you already are, you can only point out that it’s not being recognised).

Steve_85 says:

02:57pm | 16/01/12

This what pretty much what I was going to say. The reasons for ‘women and children first’ no longer apply. Also, they’ve been screaming about equality for 60 odd years now.

Here’s what you asked for. Enjoy the consequences.

Tom says:

01:11pm | 17/01/12

Anne 71, “there were men trying to do the same thing on the Titanic.”’
http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm
For all your sniggering, there were a lot more women than there were men saving their own skins. Whatever excuse your lot use, you are all about selfishness and gaining privilege.

“Hilarious”? ... so are your boorish attempts to claim a moral high ground.

Anne71 says:

12:50pm | 17/01/12

@Luce - the reactions so far have been hilarious! All these men saying that they would pretty much trample anyone in their way to get to the lifeboats and justifying it by calling it “equality”!  Well, it’s nothing new - there were men trying to do the same thing on the Titanic. It’s nothing to do with chivalry vs feminism and everything to do with one’s common decency and humanity.  A truly decent human being, male or female, would be assisting the weaker in a situation like that, not just saving their own skin.

As for the captain of this particular ship, his career is over. As my ex-Navy father would have put it, he wouldn’t get command of a toy boat after this particular escapade.

Fiona says:

10:38am | 17/01/12

Most sensible comment yet.
For our yearly fire drill training, it is constantly hammered into us to help those that need it out the building. The same should apply here.
This post was destined to get a lot of comments…..
Hopefully, this accident will be some sort of lesson for the cruise ship industry.

Tom says:

10:28am | 17/01/12

Just a look at the Titanic analysis - “First of all, if you were a man, you were outta luck. The overall survival rate for men was 20%. For women, it was 74%, and for children, 52%.”

“Yes, it was indeed “women and children first.”

http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm

To all the people playing the “where is Erick” game, get a life.

Luce says:

09:16am | 17/01/12

My apologies Richard. I was just trying to follow Erick’s lead in being trite, lame and predictable. If only I’d known it would offend so much.

Jem says:

05:40pm | 16/01/12

I agree with Celia.  To me the issue would be parent with child, not women vs me.  The elderly. the disabled etc.  Those who stand no chance in the water.

In fact I woud probably give my daughter to my husband simply because he has a better chance of pushing through a crowd and getting her to safety. 

“Women and children first” only works for an organised evacuation.  In disorganised panic, I think any parent would go with what has the best chance of survival for their children.

Celia says:

05:14pm | 16/01/12

To put some balance in this argument, if my husband was carrying my daughter (which he does as he is stronger than me) I would happily let him and her get in a boat before myself. I am quite capable of getting into a lifeboat unassisted thank you very much. I think this gender issue here is irrelevant. If I was not physically capable or injured/disabled in some way, then I would expect him to assist me and then hand me our daughter, but I am fit and well so this is irrelevant. I don’t agree that being female makes me weaker.

Richard says:

05:05pm | 16/01/12

Oh Jesus, you do release that you’re about the 1000th person to post a comment like “herr herr herr, wunda erick’s gunna fink” everytime there is a gender article on this site.

For Christ’s sake, does any every try not to be trite, lame and predictable these day?

Sarah says:

03:53pm | 16/01/12

Ha ha yes I was just wondering - where is Erick?!   This is the sort of topic he would love getting his bitter old teeth into.

Jane2 says:

02:57pm | 16/01/12

Those cruis eships dont look unsafe. I went on the Allegra last year. Looked quite new and shiny.

The trouble is there are so many languages on board. It took 45 minutes to do a boat drill because the message was delivered in 5 languages. Everyone talked over everyone elses announcements so no-one ended up hearing what they were meant to do.

Even the practise “evacuate” announcement was in 5 languages!

On top of that you have panic, a condition where logic and sense cease to exist.

I am not at all surprised by the chaos.

Dogbolter says:

02:19pm | 16/01/12

Ha ha! Indeed. but I do agree with Tory in that the strong assist the weak. These days, there is no excuse for such unmitigated panic - all cruise ships have requisite number of life jackets, life boats and the like. That the captain abandoned ship well before the passengers is disgusting to the extreme. If a ship looks unsafe, or you’re about to have a really, really cheap cruise holiday, I’d be wondering if it woul dbe worth saving those few extra dollars.

biteme says:

02:59pm | 19/01/12

When did women get equality ?  ... ERA didn’t pass (thanks to such enlightened souls as yourself)  so if we are not equal, then what are we?... expendable ?

Mark Neil says:

03:42am | 18/01/12

How quickly the feminists turn to the “women are weaker and less capable then men” when it suits their purposes but every suggest that as a reason for something they don’t like, such as a reason less women are able to meat the physical requirements of firefighter or military entry, and hell hath no fury.

And how odd that people saying men should allow themselves to die due to their gender should call men who say that isn’t fair “misogynists” and “woman haters”. Don’t they see how their accusations are a psychological projections of their own misandry? Men’s lives are meaningless to these people, and they have the gall to claim others are hateful based on gender?

Leah says:

09:49pm | 17/01/12

Oh get over yourself.

Chivalry and generosity is not about giving people equality or what they ‘deserve’. It’s about going above and beyond. Whether it’s the issue of women in lifeboats or something entirely different, the point of it is when you think of others before yourself.

If I was filling a lifeboat I would just be trying to fill them up as much as possible and get them moving on as soon as possible. I’d be trying to get as many kids on as possible and trying to keep as many parents with their children as possible. Otherwise it’d just be getting as many people on as I could. But chivalry and generosity is not about rules or equality or procedures. They’re the total opposite. You’re completely missing the spirit of it if you’re trying to jam chivalry and generosity into a rules and equality peg-hole.

James says:

08:22pm | 17/01/12

@Dean: yes I do.

ohcomeon says:

05:49pm | 17/01/12

Thats the whole point Erick. You seem to think that all women should be treated as man hating harpies unless they prove otherwise, yet you go out of your way to act the stereotype of the bitter male.

Or simply you just get off on this attention which is why you post the same thing day after day, regardless of topic.

Chris L says:

03:47pm | 17/01/12

I do get a bit confused with this equal/not equal stuff. I don’t mind helping the girls with any heavy lifting, or escorting them through dark alleys and I’d like to think I’d be chivalrous on a sinking boat, but if women continue to roll their eyes and put men down for being men then they can carry their own shit, take their chances alone in the alley and wait their turn for a seat on the lifeboat.

PS. If people actually disagree with Al, Erick & Co it might help your case if you actually state why you disagree rather than lazily resort to petty insults and ignorant fantasies about what you imagine their lives are like.

Dean says:

12:57pm | 17/01/12

@ James
Um, you do realise that Bill Burr is a MRA right, and that the whole point of that joke, and a lot of his material, is to make fun of feminist hypocrisy.

Mark says:

12:09pm | 17/01/12

@Dave
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Fuck wit

Dave says:

11:31am | 17/01/12

what a sorry piss weak excuse for a man you must be (and everyone that agrees with you). Men are - or should be - physically stronger than pretty much any woman ever could be. In these situations they can look after themselves. Physically weaker people need help or at least an advantage. That you piss weak boy-men cant see that and that youre clearly only focussed on yourselves shows what a complete moral vaccuum you all are. You are not men. You are pustules on the face of humanity. I woudnt piss on any of you if you were on fire.

I, Claudia says:

10:58am | 17/01/12

Oh, Erick - your fear and angst makes me feel so much better about myself! And the fact that you grace us with your hysteria every day… for that, sir, I thank you. I’d be pleased to be fighting for a space on a life boat with you - I’d love to see the look of raw outrage on your face when I shove past you. See, I’m strong enough to do that, because over the past forty years, women have been secretly breeding special agents in government-funded killbot factories. Now, we’re not only more educated than you, we’re actually physically stronger than you are, too. It’s great to be alive!

Erick says:

09:57am | 17/01/12

@Ohcomeon - “Thats the problem when you start putting humans in little boxes based on your own prejudices, the world quickly becomes you vs them.”

Perhaps the feminists should have thought of that, before they divided the world into “men” and “women” and started a war between the two.

Patrick says:

08:54am | 17/01/12

Let me just say that when a ship goes down, those without access to lifeboats usually face certain death.

It doesn’t matter if a man on average is stronger than a woman, if it goes down in the middle of the ocean in near freezing waters, both will die. In this context it makes no sense to prioritize women over men on lifeboats.

LanceSmith says:

08:42am | 17/01/12

Oh this is an entertaining thread. So women want “equal rights” (and that’s different then equality). Ok, and so the argument goes that equal rights only pertains to things like employment, etc. In other words, women only really want equal access to the “good things” in life. But, the minute that equal rights also implies EQUAL RESPONSIBILITIES, then the whole argument goes out the window, and women (and men who worship them) suddenly trip over themselves in order to make up arguments for why women should maintain their privilege. And we see it here. We see that some women seem to expect that they get their rights, but when the rubber meets the road, they really still want their privileges.

Well what about a man’s right to life? Are you saying that he shouldn’t have equal right to life?

Sam says:

08:38am | 17/01/12

Tory Shepherd - “The whole ‘women want equality’ argument is a total furphy.”

Yes, but saying “Women want privilege”, won’t get you very far.

Cookie Monster says:

08:30am | 17/01/12

Wow, you can pick the bitter divorced men on this blog.

Ohcomeon says:

08:19am | 17/01/12

I have my suspicions that the big brave woman haters on this thread would save themselves only, everyone else be damned.

Thats the problem when you start putting humans in little boxes based on your own prejudices, the world quickly becomes you vs them.

Erick says:

07:15am | 17/01/12

@Samantha - “I think that was the point this article was making.  That stronger people should help weaker people, no matter what gender they are”

And it’s just a coincidence that men happen to be stronger than women, so ...

Nope, not buying it. If women can be soldiers and firefighters despite being weaker, then they can take their chances on a sinking ship too.

Selective equality won’t cut it, girls.

Samantha says:

10:57pm | 16/01/12

Al, I think that was the point this article was making.  That stronger people should help weaker people, no matter what gender they are

RyaN says:

08:51pm | 16/01/12

@dhurka: Love that quote “There are no feminists on a sinking ship.”
That would go great on a T-Shirt. I’ll get some made up for a group of friends who are heading on a cruise soon.

Queen of Sabah says:

08:44pm | 16/01/12

You took the words out of my mouth. Isn’t treating women as if they needed a man’s help was long declared offensive to women? Well, it’s only fair. You can’t eat your cake and have it

The man says:

08:37pm | 16/01/12

Absolutely.  If women want to be treated as equals, then outta my way after the children of course lol

D says:

07:35pm | 16/01/12

“I am like a feminist; I can assert multiple contradictory positions.“

Barbie says:

07:27pm | 16/01/12

Spot on. Right up there with “Civilians, including women and children…” - so, when men die or are injured that doesn’t count? Well, it should otherwise it’s sexism and ageism.

CraigS says:

06:47pm | 16/01/12

“i was waiting for some bitter and twisted middle aged divorced male to post this sort of comment”

Yet another area Women don’t want equality, it’s perfectly okay for women to make highly offensive sexist comments about men.

And just for the record I am neither bitter, middle aged, or seperated/divorced

The other thing that really gets me is when there is some disaster like a bomb blast and the news will say “200 dead, including 30 women and children”, oh so men don’t matter then, we are expendable.

GenY says:

06:40pm | 16/01/12

Equality my woop. We can never be completely equal… men are physically stronger… women cant physically be equal… women want equality in aspects that they SHOULD be able to have, like same rate in pay, same job availability etc. We dont expect them to be equal on all aspects… and therefore when it comes down to it if you can swim… swim… leave the boats for the people who need them… if your a man, statistically you can swim further than a women because your basic male drive lets you.

As a female… and a good swimmer, I would have swam back to shore… I would expect most men who can swim and are fit to do the same… men are selfish.

B.J. Leonard says:

06:23pm | 16/01/12

Yes, I agree except for those women who don’t want equality, but hey at panic stations how can you tell if they want equality or not?

Nick C says:

05:58pm | 16/01/12

Tory -  by your reasoning, it would be hard to conclude that women should be in the military.

Is this the case ?......

dhurka says:

05:44pm | 16/01/12

Tory proving once again, there are no feminists on a sinking ship.  Women get equal access to education, jobs etc, but men shouldn’t expect equal access to lifeboats.

James says:

05:25pm | 16/01/12

Sorry that should be women haters not “men haters” woops.

perplexed says:

05:01pm | 16/01/12

“i was waiting for some bitter and twisted middle aged divorced male to post this sort of comment”, they’re a funny breed, probably spent their whole lives being complete arses to their partners, and then still can’t figure out why they were turned out.  MOre than likely they let themselves go and are now fat and old and noone wants them.  Let alone their self obsessed personality which probably gives them the delusion that they are irresistible to women and any woman that doesn;t want them is therefore a “manipulative bitch”.  Look at yourself before you cast the first stone.  And yes women should go with their children especially if they are little, they are the primary nurturer.

Karl says:

04:59pm | 16/01/12

In these enlightened times, what about where two women, or men for that matter have custody of a child?  Flip of the coin perhaps?

Ryan says:

04:58pm | 16/01/12

Seems like this “equality” bizzo is open to definition depending on circumstances; though you can be sure it will always be set such that women are given preference. Would Tory suggest that obese men should be allowed to proceed before fit women? Women who are regular swimmers should go to the back of the queue? The ability to survive in cold water will vary greatly across members of both genders so the generalization that women are weaker on average is, umm, extremely general.

Mike says:

04:57pm | 16/01/12

Equality might be a furphy, but women are the first to trumpet it loudly when they don’t get their own way in other fields of society.  If Titanic was real, then all the povvo passengers died and all the rich passengers got off in the lifeboats.  Do you like equality now, or should be say “poor people first, rich people last because the poor people should get a break” ?!

James says:

04:56pm | 16/01/12

?? says:05:35pm | 16/01/12

Damn, these men haters need a sex life, ease the tension guys.

James says:

04:50pm | 16/01/12

Perhaps Bill Burr may need to tweak his routine!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr162OZ2Z0w

jf says:

04:48pm | 16/01/12

Tory Shepherd says:05:05pm | 16/01/12

“The whole ‘women want equality’ argument is a total furphy.” In fact the word ‘equality’ is practically meaningless.

Sadly it isn’t. People constantly mix up take equality of opportunity and fairness to mean equal: by those who are for and against women’s equality (of opportunity that is).

For me it is the strongest that should help the weakest. This obviously means children first. But what about a man alone with his young kids? Should they be given a set ahead of two single, childless gals out on a hens cruise?

What about strong women - a mate of mine was a jackaroo and was knocked clean over a bar by a woman shearer. Should she help us lesser males?

I’d like to think that I would help women and children. However, before I met my wife, I was a single dad. God help anyone who would have stood in way in my efforts to look after them: and by that I mean ensuring that I was with them all the way to make sure that they made it.

jason says:

04:48pm | 16/01/12

My goodness Tory… Last week you were deriding men that dare say they have been descriminated against and this week you are saying it is their duty to drown…. i rarely come across such misandry… children first, then first come first saved would be the fairest way to go about it… and also you are now saying that equality is a furphy… WTF…

jason says:

04:48pm | 16/01/12

My goodness Tory… Last week you were deriding men that dare say they have been descriminated against and this week you are saying it is their duty to drown…. i rarely come across such misandry… children first, then first come first saved would be the fairest way to go about it… and also you are now saying that equality is a furphy… WTF…

Tom says:

04:47pm | 16/01/12

now now Tory you cant just flip it when it suits you…. Lets take it at face value withiout delving deeply into it… because realistically its very simple.. Equality is just that equality.

?? says:

04:35pm | 16/01/12

i was waiting for some bitter and twisted middle aged divorced male to post this sort of comment

Chris L says:

04:32pm | 16/01/12

Tory I can see your point and I see that men would have a natural advantage in either forcing their way into a lifeboat or surviving without one. On the other hand, if we are to have exceptions to the idea of men and women being equal, why do those exceptions always seem to favour women?

Steve_85 says:

04:32pm | 16/01/12

@ Tory
You’re right. Women have never wanted equality. They wanted equal rights.

You’re doing the typical feminist thing and viewing equality as ‘equal outcomes’ rather than ‘equal opportunity’.

If we want equal outcomes then we should have 50% of the seats for men and 50% for women and the rest can start swimming.

If we want equal opportunity then the seats should just be there and whoever gets to them gets to survive. Those who don’t get to the seats can start swimming.

Brasil says:

04:23pm | 16/01/12

An equal chance at life? In that case women should be the last to get lifeboat seats. Women have a higher percentage of bodyfat than men and thus are more buoyant. What’s more bodyfat acts as an insulator (plus the fact that they normally are shorter and dumpier, ie less surface area to mass), meaning they are less prone to hypothermia. This means their chance of survival in open water is greater. So all things being equal, the average woman should take her position in the queue behind the average bloke.

You can’t argue for positive discrimination for women on the basis of their biological requirements in one area (ie employment) while ignoring the benefits that biology provides in another.

Erick says:

04:22pm | 16/01/12

@Tory - “The whole ‘women want equality’ argument is a total furphy.”

Feminists have made it very obvious that equality is the last thing they want. They demand special privileges for women in all and every situation.

As we can see in this thread, the idea of “equality” goes straight out the window when it comes to deciding who gets into the lifeboats first.

Feminists have spent decades vilifying men and taking human rights away from us. Yet somehow they seem to expect that we will continue to treat them like privileged little princesses.

A man needs a woman like a bicycle needs a fish. And what bicycle would be willing to drown, in order to save a fish?

Occam's Blunt Razor says:

03:12pm | 16/01/12

I am a big believer in women and children first.  However having been on a Cruise Ship where you have to actually do an emergency drill on boarding we came across the dilema of children.  We had our two kids, a toddler and infant, with us.  I said if anything happens I’ll take the infant and my wife takes the toddler.  All nice in an orderly drill.  In the chaos of a real situation i now suspect i would have probably just wanted to get them all on to a lifeboat and say I’ll catchup with them later.

Al says:

03:11pm | 16/01/12

Far Canal - which would you prefer, a child being an orphen or an entire family dying because they weren’t seperated?

Get the children off (with 1 or 2 responsible adults like a parent to watch over in the lifeboat), THEN worry about having them reunited with family.

Marko says:

02:57pm | 16/01/12

Agree TChong

in our modern societies fathers are seen as nothing more than a income support machine.

I am an egalitarian and I believe the law of the sea ” women and children first ” should be replaced with the law of the jungle “everyman for himself”

Js says:

02:50pm | 16/01/12

Don’t you mean parents with children?

vauxhall says:

02:49pm | 16/01/12

Then why not women and men with children Far Canal?

TChong says:

02:44pm | 16/01/12

Farks
and why not fathers ?

Far Canal says:

02:30pm | 16/01/12

No child should go on alone, update should read ‘Women with Children first’

S.L says:

02:16pm | 16/01/12

You have my vote for comment of the week Al.

Tigger says:

02:13pm | 16/01/12

Completely agree