Why are women and children saved first?

In summary: But don't be so biased about this scenario...the elderly (whether they are men or women) are also bunched into being "saved first". It boils down to men are considered stronger and those who can save the more vulnerable. Would you rather have a...weak man who can't protect you, or a strong man who can?
  • #106
loseyourname said:
There could be some basic group survival tactics at play here, too. The future of a society is its children, and one man is enough to impregnate quite a few women, but a woman can only do so much herself to repopulate. A woman might have twenty kids or so at the top end of the bell curve. Shawn Kemp has probably quintupled that number without even trying to have kids.

So after all the women and children are saved do the blokes start totting up their sperm counts to see who's going to survive?

I don't think the death of at most 1000 women in a scenario that we're envisaging would be much of a blow to the population. Hence you're Dr. Strangelove type thinking is not applicable.

I really don't think anyone in a life or death scenario would seriously assert that women should be saved before men; putting aside age and all that.

A group consensus type thing of "OK, the ships going down, Ladies grab your personals and jump in the lifeboat, Gents start praying" would never happen.

However, I can imagine that individuals would decide to die for their family, for example, if I had a family and partner, I would be forced to consider sacrificing myself if that meant my family survived. My wife/gf wouldn't have that pressure simply because she's female.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
I still don't understand why everyone is talking about sperm count, wisdom and etc.

This topic is NOT about long-term survival, it is simply about exiting the ship to safety.
 
  • #108
loseyourname said:
There could be some basic group survival tactics at play here, too. The future of a society is its children, and one man is enough to impregnate quite a few women, but a woman can only do so much herself to repopulate. A woman might have twenty kids or so at the top end of the bell curve. Shawn Kemp has probably quintupled that number without even trying to have kids.
I already said so, 3 years ago.
arildno said:
Quite simple:
Women:
You need only one male to fertilize many women, so you can make do with fewer men than women in building up the population
 
Last edited:
  • #109
arildno said:
I already said so, 3 years ago.

Quite simple:
Women:
You need only one male to fertilize many women, so you can make do with fewer men than women in building up the population

And I already said that this is irrelavent. The topic is refereing simply to life or death scenarios, not a nuclear holocaust.

I'd be a little annoyed if I were on the titanic and the reason you mentioned was used to justify not letting me onto a lifeboat.
 
  • #110
neu said:
And I already said that this is irrelavent. The topic is refereing simply to life or death scenarios, not a nuclear holocaust.
Wherever did you get the idea that adaptation is some sort of high-precision tool?
It is not, it is a bundle of rules of the thumb.
The instinctive reaction will trigger in "dangerous" situations, where we err on the side of caution in the "evaluation" of what constitutes "danger".
 
  • #111
arildno said:
The instinctive reaction will trigger in "dangerous" situations, where we err on the side of caution in the "evaluation" of what constitutes "danger".
It seems to me the implications if it being 'instinctive' are that, in a dangerous situations, we instinctively (i.e. from our genes, not our brains) toss the women on the lifeboats and remain behind. That we don't have to be told 'women and children first'. That it is more powerful than our instinct for self-preservation.

I'm not sure I can buy that.
 
  • #112
DaveC426913 said:
It seems to me the implications if it being 'instinctive' are that, in a dangerous situations, we instinctively (i.e. from our genes, not our brains) toss the women on the lifeboats and remain behind. That we don't have to be told 'women and children first'. That it is more powerful than our instinct for self-preservation.

I'm not sure I can buy that.
I agree. Surely SELF preservation is all important, so if a man were single he'd be rather silly not to kick every women and child out of his way if he were truly instinctive.

The only reason I can see to justify the saving women and children first is not for breeding but for preservation of a family unit. Take a nuclear family, if one member has to be sacrificed many would chose the father, and I think many men with a family would feel they should concede to this overt pressure if they were in an applicable situation. The situation is far different for a group of single adults, where I think any gender based demarcation for rescue would be socially "justified" and not instinctive, as in this situation instinct = save yourself.
 
  • #114
It's not women and children first anymore. They try to keep families together these days. Sorry single guys out there, you're going down with the ship.
 
  • #115
If it's evacuating an airplane, it's whoever shoves their way past the others.
 
  • #116
C Rob said:
It's not women and children first anymore. They try to keep families together these days. Sorry single guys out there, you're going down with the ship.

What about single women?
 
  • #117
Evo said:
If it's evacuating an airplane, it's whoever shoves their way past the others.

I always wondered why arm rests had to be down on planes for take off - I assume it is to delay you long enough that the cabin crew have time to get out first!

(Yes, I know cabin crew are primarily there for your safety and wil happily risk their lives because you didn't listen to the safety briefing)
 
  • #118
mgb_phys said:
I always wondered why arm rests had to be down on planes for take off - I assume it is to delay you long enough that the cabin crew have time to get out first!

(Yes, I know cabin crew are primarily there for your safety and wil happily risk their lives because you didn't listen to the safety briefing)

I heard that the "safety" procedures like the one you mentioned and the strange emergency position you're supposed to adopt is so that in the case of a crash your dental records are kept in your seating position. This does sound a little far fetched doesn't it?
 
  • #119
Evo said:
If it's evacuating an airplane, it's whoever shoves their way past the others.

It's whoever plans better before the accident occurs.

1) Pick a http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4219452.html [Broken]. Back in the days of smoking on airplanes, it always seemed ironic that the smokers were the most likely to survive an airplane accident. Equally ironic is that the more expensive your seat, the more likely you are to die - the first class passengers are the most likely to die.

2) Know what you're going to do when the plane comes to a stop. You have about 90 seconds to get out of a crashed plane before toxic fumes overcome you, maybe a few more seconds. Fortunately, most of the people surviving the impact itself will be too shocked to move. In fact, any surviving flight attendants will take several seconds to recover before they start directing the passengers to evacuate. That means if you're mentally ready to evacuate before impact, you have a real good chance of being one of the people that get out within 90 seconds.

3) Forget the elderly or the small! They'll move too slow, so you're probably sacrificing more than one healthy adult for each slow moving old person or child you save. If you planned well, it might be worth a "This way! Quickly!" to an attractive person of the opposite sex as you evacuate. If they don't respond quickly enough, then they probably weren't good reproduction material in any event.

4) Just remember that, no matter how stressful the plane crash itself might be, surviving a plane crash will probably result in http://www.apa.org/releases/planecrash.html [Broken] (definitely better than the mental health of the non-survivors).

Edit: mgb_phys and neu will probably be one of the non-survivors. People that believe a plane crash is virtually certain death are almost always correct. They're the most shocked about surviving the impact and the slowest to start reacting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #120
BobG, I've been meaning to tell you that I'm afraid you're our next funniest member Guru. I would suggest you start preparing your fireproof apparel.
 
  • #121
BobG said:
4) Just remember that, no matter how stressful the plane crash itself might be, surviving a plane crash will probably result in http://www.apa.org/releases/planecrash.html [Broken] (definitely better than the mental health of the non-survivors).

Hmmm...that article compares the mental well-being of plane crash survivors to frequent flyers who have never been in a plane crash. It found that crash survivors were in better mental health.

But I wouldn't say that being in a crash results in better mental health. My guess is that the mentally healthy people were more likely to survive. Perhaps depressed people, or those who struggle with anxiety, are more prone to "freezing up" at critical moments.

(The sample size was so small - 15 crash survivors and 8 frequent flyers - perhaps no conclusion can be drawn.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #122
Evo said:
BobG, I've been meaning to tell you that I'm afraid you're our next funniest member Guru. I would suggest you start preparing your fireproof apparel.

Well, naturally, those that plan what to do after being tossed in the volcano are the most likely to survive and I kind of look forward to finally being psychologically well adjusted. I'm simply astounded at the advances in psychiatry since the days of electro-shock treatment and ice-pick lobotomies.
 
  • #123
neu said:
What about single women?


Families, Women, Men, Elderly. On ships anyhow. I assume evacuating a crashed plane isn't as much of orderly exit as crawling over bodies and finding a hole big enough to get out. For the record, you won't survive a plane crash...
 
  • #124
C Rob said:
For the record, you won't survive a plane crash...
What do you mean "you won't survive a plane crash? Take a look - plane crash survivors
 
  • #125
C Rob said:
For the record, you won't survive a plane crash...

There's a high casualty rate, but quite a few people survive plane crashes (List of commercial plane crashes). You're more likely to survive a crash if it occurs while taking off or landing, but those are the most common types of crashes. You even have some chance of surviving if your plane is destroyed in mid-air (mid-air collision, explosion, lightning strike, etc).

Juliane Koepcke fell out of an airplane that broke apart after a lightning strike and fell, still strapped in her seat, from an altitude of 2 miles into the Amazon rain forest, then walked for 10 days to reach civilization (it was later discovered that 14 people survived the initial crash/fall, but died awaiting rescue). Staying strapped in your seat isn't a good idea in spite of it working for Koepcke. Airplane seats are heavy and normally come in rows. Your row of 2 or 3 seats is going to have a higher terminal velocity than your body alone. Best bet is to quickly release your seatbelt and push off from your seat before you lose consciousness from the thin air.

Just a month later, Vesna Vulovich fell from a plane that exploded in mid-air at around 10,000 ft and she survived. She wound up partially paralyzed, but continued working with the airline in a desk job.

Crashing into mountains has a low probability of survival, as well. Still, it happens once in a while. Sixteen survived a plane crash in the Andes and 17 others survived the initial impact, but died during the 2 months they spent stranded in the Andes awaiting rescue. The survivors stayed alive by eating the dead.

(While not related to survival, I found it surprising that there were two crashes caused by crews so busy fixing faulty light bulbs that they failed to notice they were losing altitude or running out of fuel. How many crewmembers does it take to change a light bulb?)
 
  • #126
  • #127
BobG said:
It's whoever plans better before the accident occurs.

Edit: mgb_phys and neu will probably be one of the non-survivors.
Nope - I fly a lot.
On 737s I always sit in an aisle seat at the back. In the "unlikely event ..." I am going to be first to the door, over the heads of anyone else in the way.
The way I see it, is that if I get the door open while everyone else is re-reading the safety card it's best for everyone.

'Plane breaking up in mid-air' accidents aren't terribly survivable, but most accidents at take-off/landing/taxiing are, if you get out quickly.

ps Ignore the over wing exit - they are people who paid extra for the leg room, not the sorts who spent any time checking how to work it before take-off.
 
  • #129
BobG said:
You're more likely to survive a crash if it occurs while taking off or landing, but those are the most common types of crashes.

I think ALL crashes occur upon landing. :uhh: :wink:
 
<h2>1. Why are women and children saved first?</h2><p>The practice of saving women and children first in emergency situations dates back to the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. At the time, societal norms dictated that women and children were considered weaker and more vulnerable, and therefore in need of protection. This practice has since been ingrained in emergency protocols and is seen as a way to prioritize those who may be the most at risk.</p><h2>2. Is it still necessary to save women and children first?</h2><p>While the practice may seem outdated in modern times where gender roles are less rigid, it is still considered a standard protocol in emergency situations. This is because women and children may still face additional challenges and barriers in escaping danger, such as physical limitations or needing to care for young children. Additionally, saving women and children first can help ensure that future generations are protected and able to continue the human race.</p><h2>3. Are there any exceptions to the "women and children first" rule?</h2><p>In most cases, the "women and children first" rule applies to all women and children, regardless of their age or health status. However, in some emergency situations, such as during war or natural disasters, the rule may be altered to prioritize those who are most in need of immediate medical attention or those who are able to assist in the rescue efforts.</p><h2>4. Does the "women and children first" rule apply to all cultures and societies?</h2><p>The concept of saving women and children first is deeply rooted in Western culture and may not be universally practiced in all cultures and societies. In some cultures, the elderly or those in positions of authority may be given priority in emergency situations. It is important to understand and respect the cultural norms and practices of different societies when it comes to emergency protocols.</p><h2>5. Could the "women and children first" rule be considered discriminatory towards men?</h2><p>While some may argue that the practice of saving women and children first is discriminatory towards men, it is important to remember that the rule is based on the idea of protecting the most vulnerable individuals in a given situation. Men are not automatically excluded from being saved first in emergencies, but rather the focus is on prioritizing those who may face additional challenges in escaping danger. In situations where men are also at risk, they would also be given priority in the rescue efforts.</p>

1. Why are women and children saved first?

The practice of saving women and children first in emergency situations dates back to the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. At the time, societal norms dictated that women and children were considered weaker and more vulnerable, and therefore in need of protection. This practice has since been ingrained in emergency protocols and is seen as a way to prioritize those who may be the most at risk.

2. Is it still necessary to save women and children first?

While the practice may seem outdated in modern times where gender roles are less rigid, it is still considered a standard protocol in emergency situations. This is because women and children may still face additional challenges and barriers in escaping danger, such as physical limitations or needing to care for young children. Additionally, saving women and children first can help ensure that future generations are protected and able to continue the human race.

3. Are there any exceptions to the "women and children first" rule?

In most cases, the "women and children first" rule applies to all women and children, regardless of their age or health status. However, in some emergency situations, such as during war or natural disasters, the rule may be altered to prioritize those who are most in need of immediate medical attention or those who are able to assist in the rescue efforts.

4. Does the "women and children first" rule apply to all cultures and societies?

The concept of saving women and children first is deeply rooted in Western culture and may not be universally practiced in all cultures and societies. In some cultures, the elderly or those in positions of authority may be given priority in emergency situations. It is important to understand and respect the cultural norms and practices of different societies when it comes to emergency protocols.

5. Could the "women and children first" rule be considered discriminatory towards men?

While some may argue that the practice of saving women and children first is discriminatory towards men, it is important to remember that the rule is based on the idea of protecting the most vulnerable individuals in a given situation. Men are not automatically excluded from being saved first in emergencies, but rather the focus is on prioritizing those who may face additional challenges in escaping danger. In situations where men are also at risk, they would also be given priority in the rescue efforts.

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
Replies
124
Views
25K
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
130
Views
11K
Replies
1
Views
870
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
618
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
6K
Back
Top