Olden Lore

“Women and Children First” Not an Official Rule, Just Outdated Manners

by Jamie Frevele | 12:41 pm, January 19th, 2012

Human beings are animals — pure and simple. And every animal’s priority is its own survival. True, one’s own children’s survival is also important (the next generation carries on the existence of the species, family, etc.), but when humans find themselves in a life-threatening situation, natural instincts call for them to save themselves. That’s what happened when the Costa Concordia cruise ship sunk off the coast of Italy on January 13 — and plenty of men were seen saving themselves (including the captain), disregarding the long convention of “women and children first.” And while some people thought this was a selfish act by those particular men (because plenty more men were seen performing equally selfless acts), is the “women and children first” thing even an official rule? The answer: Nope. Not at all. So, why has it lasted all this time?

Nowhere in official maritime law does it state that women and children are to board lifeboats first during an emergency on the open seas. In modern times, passengers of a ship are assigned lifeboats according to their cabin numbers, ensuring that every single person aboard will have access to a lifeboat. However, ever since the first reported adherence to the “rule” in 1852, it has been sort of unofficially upheld during such events. And there is no real explanation to it, aside from slightly machismo reasoning.

In 1852, the HMS Birkenhead sunk in the Atlantic Ocean after catching on fire. The accounts describe the men on board choosing to save the 124 women and children before themselves. After the rescue was complete, “the splendid fellows stood, shoulder to shoulder, without a movement or a murmur, so standing saw the boats shove off, and went down with the engulfed vessel.” The Parish magazine described this as “a piece of pure and exalted manhood.” (Little known fact: Their stately, erect penises actually drowned in the icy ocean first. Heroes!)

Slate goes back even before 1852, to the 18th century, when everyone on board left fate in God’s hands, believing that whatever happens, happens, and that God chooses the survivors. So, no one was safer than anyone else.

One could speculate that the convention existed because children had their lives ahead of them and women, as the mothers of those children, should stay behind as caregivers while their fathers gave their lives. (And young women without children might miss out on having some of their own.) There is also an element of old-fashioned sexism, making the assumption that women are weaker swimmers than men. (Certainly children are weaker than adults in general, so it’s still probably safe to say we should be putting children on lifeboats first. Definitely babies. They don’t even know how their own bones work, for gosh sakes.) Nowadays, we know that there are plenty of women who are willing and able to save themselves — and probably stick around to help weaker men. There is also the matter of age — while some elderly people may require asstance, some who are in better shape might say “thanks, but no thanks.” We know now that this should be a matter of the strong helping the weak, not men helping women or vice versa.

So, old-tyme manners aside, men have no obligation to the women and children on board a sinking ship. (Nor do captains.) Some might think they look like selfish, terrible people if they jump in a lifeboat before a woman or a child. But when it comes down to it, we are hard-wired to save ourselves. Though if we are able to save ourselves, we could probably try to save someone else, too.

(via Slate, Yahoo!)

TAGS: survival skills

Anonymous

But according to maritime laws, the Captain does have to stay with the ship. That is why the captain of the Costa Concordia is telling people he “fell into a lifeboat” (or, in a new version, fell into the water) and was unable to get back on the ship, even after being ordered to do so, repeatedly. While everyone may work to save themselves, the Captain is exempted from the rule of self-survival. He (or she) is obligated to stay and help.
Anonymous

Also, realistically, your chances of swimming in a corset and petticoats were slim.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7GVNIKWG3S2UTHEQOMSZXT4M4 Anna B

I heard that in maritime law that a Captain is required to put everyone first, so maybe he does have an obligation. However, if he were my father/brother/husband/son, I’d be selfish enough to be thankful that he survived, though I think at the very least, leaving your ship and passengers behind on a sinking ship is a career killer.

I do agree, though, that men have no obligation to let the women go first. Everyone has an obligation to help those who can’t help themselves, and yes, children should always, always go first.
Kortnee Bryant

I was actually getting ready to say this. So, unless women were willing to strip almost naked on the deck of a ship, they were guaranteed to drown if not in the lifeboats. The men had a chance of making it if the water wasn’t cold enough to freeze them to death.
Anonymous

If I could quickly find the Monty Python sketch with the executive staff hastily dressing in women’s and children’s clothing, it would go here.
Adam R. Charpentier

I agree that this unofficial law should be replaced with, “Anyone that can’t swim, is a child, hysterical, unconscious, and otherwise has no capacity to help with the evacuation and is generally in the goddamn way, first.”
http://twitter.com/cosmo111687 Andres

Anybody who is willing to give their lives to help others find their way to a life-boat shouldn’t be considered anything less than a hero. And anybody who is going to steal a spot from a child shouldn’t be considered anything less than a coward.
Anonymous

But are Captains allowed to leave at all? Like, if everyone is taken care of and there’s no more to help with can they get in a lifeboat or do they have to stay and kind of wave at everyone?
http://twitter.com/Chizwick Charlie

I’d like to know what meaning was intended by the statement “(Little known fact: Their stately, erect penises actually drowned in the icy ocean first. Heroes!)”
Is this a snarky attempt at humor, at the expense of the dead crewmen? Is the “Heroes!” meant as sarcasm?
I hope that’s not the case.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PD2RKCPBVAOFWV5K4MZ4SFAQIY Tom

Help the children regardless of their gender, but women have no more rights than men to be saved.

In a survival situation, everyone will try to save themselves
Anonymous

“Some might think they look like selfish, terrible people if they jump in a lifeboat before a woman or a child. But when it comes down to it, we are hard-wired to save ourselves. Though if we are able to save ourselves, we could probably try to save someone else, too.”
I think there the double sting of the situation.
On the one hand, nobody can honestly say how they react in such a crisis until they’ve been though one. I honestly can’t say how I react -

- yet if I did act so craven to put my life at the expense of people I had a chance save, I would justly be ashamed. Ashamed I let animal self preservation overall my compassion were it should have been the reverse.

I think this old adage put it best (I forget were it originally from):
“He who fears nothing are not courageous, nor those who know fear cowards.
For only those who is master their own fear can truly be called courageous,
While only those who let fear be their master is deserving of the title coward.”
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=144100690 Jordan White

Though children should be saved first, I think there is an obligation to keep families together (interpret families loosely since there are many different types) to monitor said children in the lifeboats and prevent children from becoming orphans. At the very least, one parent should stay with their child, and it can be the mother or the father.
After that, stronger v. weaker members on the cruise ship… do you save the elderly that really only have 5-10 more years of semi-quality life or do you save the younger folks that are still in their prime? You can factor in the birth rate and overpopulation, and you can factor in survival in the water after the ship went down. I honestly don’t know the answer.

The captain was SUPPOSED to be TRAINED. He shouldn’t be excused due to the sympathetic blurb of “self-survival.” He was SUPPOSED to know what to do, and a captain ALWAYS stays with his ship. There is no excuse for his cowardly behavior.
Anonymous

Yeah, it read offensive to me.
Terence Ng

Even Damian?
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7GVNIKWG3S2UTHEQOMSZXT4M4 Anna B

Yeah, sure. No reason to give Old Nick a first-hand account of why he ought to condemn me to hell.
Jarom Mills

I totally agree… I just found this blog today and I was very excited that there was finally a blog focused on geeky women without bashing men. Then I read this article and the more I read, the more I see little things like this bashing men…