This just goes to show that equality only suits women when it is convenient for them.

Many people who feel that men should give their lives for women point out that men are more rugged than women, so are better able to survive disasters. Therefore, women should be given preference to make up for it. Some would say that this argument shows that men and women are NOT equal after all, so the whole equality thing should be dropped.

Others would say that such condescension is not worthy of women, who have shown their ability to survive and thrive. ("Whatever a man can do a woman can do better".) And others would simply point out that equal treatment must mean just that: no preference because of sex.

Anything A Man Can Do, A Woman Can Do Better, Except... - YouTube

Who do we really care most about: women or children? Children have a better chance of surviving a disaster if helped by the toughest, strongest parent. Since that parent is almost always the man (otherwise why does anyone support "women first"), then surely, a better survival cry should be "children and fathers first." With everyone else picked at random afterwards.

If it was me , I'd push anyone I could out of the way to gethttp://www.southampton.gov.uk/news-events/pressoffice/NewsItem.asp?ID=4315&M=0 to a lifeboat . My life is worth the same as any woman

antimisandry.com People are still being brainwashed according to titanic poll

I would be disinclined to push anyone out of my way in an emergency, unless they were deliberately impeding me (due to my being a man or not).

I would certainly be concerned for my safety and survival, and strive to ensure it, but I know that I would also have to live with the consequences of my selfish behaviour.

There are better ways of conducting oneself, shirley?

Maybe it is my upbringing. Maybe it is my military experiences and 'culture'. Maybe it is just a matter of conscience.

The equality of people, men and women (I can except the children) is a gainsaid arguement, but to me that means it matters little whether they are men or women.

Here's a story:

As the Titanic was sinking and every one was in a panic, an Irish man was on the deck playing his fiddle. Finally, someone stopped and asked, "Why are you just sitting there? The boat's sinking! Don't you care?" The Irish man replied, "It's not my boat."

Well, given that nature has afforded women with built-in flotation devices both front and rear, they are more suited to not drowning than men and children and therefore should demonstrate their superiority by insisting on being rescued last.

Anyone who gets on a vessel that does not supply enough rescue equipment for every passenger is a fool. Has anyone ever flown on a plane and been told that his seat did not come with a flotation device or breathing apparatus? How is it that 100 years after the sinking of the unsinkable Titanic, cruise ships still have not figured out how to rescue all of their passengers?

As I have said before, cruise ships should include rescue insurance as an optional part of the cost of passage. Those that opt for the insurance can wear special shirts, hats or bracelets to identify their insurance status in the event of the ship's sinking. One's rescue-worthy status or drown-worthy status would be determined by what you paid for, not your genitalia or age.

Kids and the elderly should go first, then whoever needs the most help. Forget this idiotic chivalry crap and help your fellow human beings out.

Quote from haute macabre

Kids and the elderly should go first, then whoever needs the most help. Forget this idiotic chivalry crap and help your fellow human beings out.

In a situation with many potential casualties, how do we determine who needs the help the most?

Quote from Dylan MacVillain

Well, given that nature has afforded women with built-in flotation devices both front and rear, they are more suited to not drowning than men and children and therefore should demonstrate their superiority by insisting on being rescued last.

Anyone who gets on a vessel that does not supply enough rescue equipment for every passenger is a fool. Has anyone ever flown on a plane and been told that his seat did not come with a flotation device or breathing apparatus? How is it that 100 years after the sinking of the unsinkable Titanic, cruise ships still have not figured out how to rescue all of their passengers?

As I have said before, cruise ships should include rescue insurance as an optional part of the cost of passage. Those that opt for the insurance can wear special shirts, hats or bracelets to identify their insurance status in the event of the ship's sinking. One's rescue-worthy status or drown-worthy status would be determined by what you paid for, not your genitalia or age.

You mean it would be determined by how wealthy you are. That should never be a determination in whether a person lives or dies.

One school of thought, was that, since men are stronger, they would be more able to survive in the water for longer. However, I would argue that swimming-ability has more to do with general fitness and experience of swimming, than it has strength. It was commented, as to how "disgusting" it was that the last members off the Concordia, were three female dancers in their early 20s (I believe). Now, I may well be able to bench-press three times what each of these girls could, but, as young, fit dancers in their prime, I bet their swimming-ability exceeds mine; girls like that probably incorporate swimming into a fitness regime, on regular-a-basis. Indeed, women are more likely than men to engage in swimming.

So, on the basis of this area of female-superiority, women should be let off AFTER men, perhaps? But, of course, the DOWNSIDES of female-equality/superiority never were the order of the day, when it came to feminism.....

My dad swam across the English channel many years ago while I was sat on the boat giving him energy drinks.. Otherwise I would think the sex that is more fish like would be generally better suited to the wet option.. Women are indeed more suited to endurance in the water than chaps are.. Still, most folks like the idea of children being protected and since women are in practice regarded as the main child raisers still this tradition has endured not so much because people are "brain washed" but because men naturally seek to protect women and children and naturally self-sacrifice of the good of the tribe..

Thats why they go to war too and take greater risks generally. Self sacrifice is something that men are not only naturally programmed to do, they often even strive to demonstrate that they will do this as a point of pride when they consider that there are more worthy survivors.

Did not captain oates sacrifice himself for his chums down below to increase the chances of them reaching the base?

Quote from Garak

You mean it would be determined by how wealthy you are. That should never be a determination in whether a person lives or dies.

Not at all. No one has to go on a cruise. That is a luxury. What's more, insurance is an option, at least in some cases. Furthermore, many rich people are misers. Some would probably risk not having insurance. Whereas many middle-class people would probably get it. Poor people would not be on the ship in the first place unless they were working.

If we want everyone to be equal, then we can have rich people pay for poor people's passage and insurance and let the rich people go down with the sinking ship.

Quote from Dylan MacVillain

Not at all. No one has to go on a cruise. That is a luxury. What's more, insurance is an option, at least in some cases. Furthermore, many rich people are misers. Some would probably risk not having insurance. Whereas many middle-class people would probably get it. Poor people would not be on the ship in the first place unless they were working.

If we want everyone to be equal, then we can have rich people pay for poor people's passage and insurance and let the rich people go down with the sinking ship.

I knew that would be your defense. Poor people wouldn't be there anyway, in which case, what if everyone buys insurance? Wouldn't there be a need to have enough rescue boats for everyone? Why not just make that standard or is it going to be first come first serve on the insurance?

If folks where designed to travel vast distances in water they would be born with gills and fins..

The ingenuity of mankind has given rise to opportunities for travel beyond what the human body would otherwise be capable of.

If all risks could be eliminated then it would be a wonderful thing but safety considerations are often limiting to the validity of the mode of travel.

After thousands of years of addressing the issues of travelling safely on non human powered transport, even superman broke his neck falling off his horse..

No amount of insurance or safety procedures can ever eliminate all risks and when it comes to it the decision as to who lives and who dies will forever be down to raw instincts and hierarchy it seems.. With the occasional bit of good luck..

Quote from felixblue

If folks where designed to travel vast distances in water they would be born with gills and fins..

The ingenuity of mankind has given rise to opportunities for travel beyond what the human body would otherwise be capable of.

If all risks could be eliminated then it would be a wonderful thing but safety considerations are often limiting to the validity of the mode of travel.

After thousands of years of addressing the issues of travelling safely on non human powered transport, even superman broke his neck falling off his horse..

No amount of insurance or safety procedures can ever eliminate all risks and when it comes to it the decision as to who lives and who dies will forever be down to raw instincts and hierarchy it seems.. With the occasional bit of good luck..

It's the poor who can't afford treatment in the US Healthcare system. It's the poor who sign up for the military and go to war. I guess we may as well make it work the same way for sinking ships. Not that I agree with it but that's what it comes down to anyway, lower decks and all that.