Talk:Women and children first

message: The phrase "although in reality more first class men survived than third class women" is misleading.  Statistics on http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm show that "third class women were 41% more likely to survive than first class men," where the percentage of men saved from all classes was much lower than the percentage of women and children saved.
So no attention's going to be played to the feminist viewpoints on this degrading and patronizing practice?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.125.29 (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately in the modern era, it has reverted to "every man for himself". The above is true. On the Titanic, many third class passengers were saved. The chivilry of the first class male passengers was well documented - God bless them! Wallie (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Every man for himself" is not the only alternative to "women and children first" - I think in the modern era it is actually "everyone must be saved" - for example there are now rules requiring that there be enough lifeboats for all passengers and, as Pink Elephant and I have commented below, "women and children first" actually IMPAIRS the efficiency of evacuating ships and (especially) airplanes. Johnnie Rico (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survival Rates on the [[Titanic]]

message: I concede my (now struck-though) comments (as 118.90.54.168) on aircraft evacuation probably violated WP:SOAP
Perhaps, however, you should have made a comment reminding us of these policies and given me/us a chance to edit them rather than wholesale deleting several comments that ARE relevant to the article - that "women and children first" is still called for in evacuations, whether it impairs efficiency, whether it has ever been part of formal procedures, whether "every man for himself" is the only alternative, whether it is gender discrimination and its evolutionary context are all valid topics for article inclusion IMHO. Comments? Johnnie Rico (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion The First

message: Blanking user comments on talk pages is vandalism, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not. (WP:VAND)	
Could you explain, please, why you think that all the comments you deleted are "not relevant to improving the article" otherwise
"do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission." (Talk_page_guidelines)
Johnnie Rico (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion The Second

message: As per the template at the top of this talk page, discussion here should focus exclusively on how to improve this article.  
This is not a discussion forum or soapbox for personal views.  See Talk page guidelines for further details.  
Thank you.  Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Soapboxing was conceded and removed. Other comments contain information useful to improving the article. Johnnie Rico (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - let's move forward. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of this talk page

message: Captain Smith spent most of his life in the 19th century, at a time when women still had a legal status which approached that of a child. For instance, the Napoleonic code denies women to most property rights and orders them to legally submit to their husbands. It was only in the 1960s and 1970s that women got an access to purchasing cards, at a time when they were legally emancipated in most Westerm jurisdictions. It should also be noted that labour codes at the time considered women's labour to be roughly equivalent to the phenomenon of child labour. ADM (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually at the time most of the world's shipping was British. In around 1900 nine out of ten of the world's merchant ships were British-built, and eight out of every ten were British-registered. In September 1939 when Britain went to war there were ~12,000 merchant ships on the British register flying the Red Duster, of-which around 4,000 were sunk in the period 1939-45. The next biggest ship-operator was Norway with around 2,000 ships. In fact the British merchant fleet was at least two or three times the size of all the rest of the world's merchant fleets combined. Britain still had the world's largest merchant fleet til as late as the 1960s.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.177 (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Women considered to be minors

message: Given that one man may father children by many women at a time and one woman is basically limited to bearing a child for one man at a time, this practice is actually based in the biology of species survival. Khajidha (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you took the biological explanation serious you would have to save a young man instead of an old woman who can't give birth anymore. But this wouldn't go with the Birkenhead Drill. The biological  theory reduces women and men to reproductive machines. Already in Ancient Egypt human society was far too complex to reduce the importance of a human being in the society to reproduction. This theory is even dangerous. It's not a long way and you have "perfect" explanations why to kill the handicapped an so on. On the other hand it implies that humanity would be on the verge of extinction. "We" have survived several ice ages and so on. So, what`s it all about? India has a long tradition of killing girls (which is abominable). It still has a high population growth. Anyway the Birkenhead Drill only works if respected on a voluntary basis. Otherwise refused men just block the way and reduce the speed of action. Time is essentional for saving lifes. Any selection takes time, especially when it has to be forced upon people. And what's the benefit of the Birkenhead Drill? Does it help to save more lifes? Looking at the Titanic disaster I come to another conclusion. Imagine the World Trade Center attack with a "women and children first" evacuation policy. Would it have helped to save more lifes? I therefore think that the biological explanation shouldn't be included in the article. --Mk4711 (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Biological basis

message: The criticism section doesn't really sound all that much like criticism; although, I do think that it could be expanded (and perhaps called something else, and have a proper 'criticism' added as well, if need be). I'm not sure it adequately explains the significance of "resulted in high numbers of widows or orphans who might then face economic and social difficulty" statement, unless I'm not understanding correctly.  Is it saying that it was the wrong thing to do for that reason? Zujua (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Can we search for more notable examples of this policy? They can put some light on gender discrimination. emijrp (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More notable examples 

message: The article states "Dr David Benatar views the policy of "women and children first" (and conscription) as evidence of what Warren Farrell refers to as "male disposability," where preservation of a woman's life is given priority over preservation of a man's life." There is surely no more ultimate form of discrimination than with regards to matters of life and death. And it's not simply a concept with merely theoretical consequences, an examination of the survival statistics for the Titanic shows the potential end result, with men held back from lifeboats at gun-point simply due to their gender (some of the life-boats being half empty). My views on the appropriateness of this category is shared by at least one other so can people please not remove it without giving a reason. Thanks--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no strong opinion on that particular category, but, as it happens, I was planning on editing that sentence in the near future. Benatar's article appeared in the journal "Social Theory & Practice" with not one, but four rebuttal articles. This suggests that his opinions may not be widely held. I have skimmed Benatar's article and I can find no reference to Farrell. Benatar does write about the phrase "women and children first" more than once, but only in passing. This appears to be synthesis of two minority views. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Be very careful of edit warring here please.  You have gone ahead and reverted again before any discussion or consensus on this page.  I don't have a strong view on this subject, but agree with the comment above from Delicious carbuncle that this is a minority view. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about the Titanic, but practice in general. Men are stronger and have higher survival capabilities than women and children and as such priority is commonly given to women and children. I don't think that a man shouting "Sorry, it's a sex discrimination" while making his way into a lifeboat with women and children has a good rationale. Brandmeistertalk   09:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't priority given to children because they are the future and to women because they are the limiting factor in replacing lost population? Generally speaking a woman carries only one child at a time while a man may father numerous children at the same time by multiple mothers. It's the same reason male birds are often brightly colored while females and young are often dully colored, the protection of females and young over adult males is basic biology.--Khajidha (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Men are stronger and have higher survival capabilities than women and children" No, some men avec higher survival capabilities than some women and children. The (alleged) "Women and children first" is only about the sexgender and age, not about survival capabilities. Apokrif (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is highly unlikely that humanity would have survived to become the dominant species on the planet if there hadn't been an instinct to protect women and in women to avoid danger. I use woman in the sense that she has the womb and nurtures infants. An example often used is WW1 and how little it affected overall fertility as men did most of the fighting and dying.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.58.231 (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I have removed the criticism section, since it consisted of the questionable Benatar/Farrell synthesis and an unsourced statement about the high numbers of widows and orphans left by men dying on the Titanic. I think there is a valid criticism to be made on the basis of sex discrimination, but that wasn't it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

text: The discussion about this category can now be found here. Apokrif (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category "sex discrimination" 

message: The caption for the IMO muster station signal images says that it illustrates the concept Women and children first, but I'm not seeing it. It looks to me like the center of the image shows a man, a woman, and 3 children. How does that illustrate Women and children first? Kaldari (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - I've removed the image until a discussion is had here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How can we discuss it if we can't see it? 98.26.28.41 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yer late :) Here's the image: :File:IMO_Muster_station_sign.jpg. Kaldari (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMO muster station signal image 

message: I think we've already covered this in the discussion about the "sex discrimination" category here (and elsewhere, although I can't recall where), but is it appropriate to add :Category:Misandry to this article? I find the contention absurd that the naval tradition of "women and children first" is based on "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men", but my removal of the category has been reverted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote in edit comments, I can't see anything much relevant in this talk page. I have a very hard time understanding how it could not be an expression of "dislike, contempt or prejudice" against men to say that their lives are less valuable than women's. Apokrif (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there sources characterising the practice as sex discrimination or misandry? It doesn't matter what the tradition is based on; it only matters what the sources say. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First, it's original research. Second, Apokrif's suggestion is absurd. "Women and children first" wasn't due to dislike of men, it was due to the fact that some people believed that men were superior to women and children and thus less vulnerable during a disaster. The idea wasn't to kill the men, it was to maximize the survivors, regardless of how misguided that idea might have been. Rather than recycling silly MRM propaganda, let's exercise a modicum of common sense here. Kaldari (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I categorized the article in :Category:Sex discrimination instead. Apokrif (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Misandry" category 

message: The link for reference 6 doesn't lead to the paper anymore.Lucasgrange (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A bunch of the references don't lead to anything. Telstar2 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: * 1840, the ship Poland is the (at present) first documented application of "women and children first". GEEZERnil nisi bene 10:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First documented incident 

message: I hope I am doing this right, I read this entire article and it just made me angry that there were so many references to the 2012 Uppsala study, a study which in itself is a joke. It's just another one in a long line of "research" that try to turn chivalry into something that never existed. Should also look at Claes-Göran Wetterholms book from the same year, he even has the stomach to claim that there was no chivalry on the Titanic because "Just as many women and men were saved"....let's just say he is really bad with statistics, first of all he seems unable to count how many men and women there were on the Titanic, anyhow, back to the 2012 Uppsala study, why is it a joke? Well, mainly because the "researchers" compare completely different maritime disasters, they lift up the Estonia as their "proof" that maritime chivalry never existed, but when the Estonia sank there was really no time to do anything, it just tipped over, and some of the stronger people got out, it important to remember that the Estonia survival rate wasn't even close to the survival rate of the Titanic, so there really was no time for "women and children first".
What they basically are doing is comparing maritime disasters that can't be compared, maritime disasters in different cultures that can't be compared, and also in different time periods that can't be compared. Basically the entire study is just an attack on chivalry. Chronicler87 (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The 2012 Uppsala study?

message: This article and principle is about an idea near and dear to the heart of the bleeding-heart Islamic conservatives such as Osama bin Laden such as when he said, "The evidence overwhelmingly shows America and Israel killing the weaker men, women and children in the Muslim world" and male politicians like Bill Clinton or John Kerry pontificating.--24.248.74.254 (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Osama bin Laden principle 

message: I reverted your edits because this source is the 100 year-old primary account of someone with a conflict of interest, which has been  criticized as "whitewashed". It also somewhat contradicts the preceding paragraph which was sourced to more recent, independent sources. I removed the criticism section because it synthesized "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." PermStrump(talk) 16:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions from John Paul Parks 

message: I'm not sure if we can consider this misandry in a neutral point of view so should we remove the Misandry category from the page?  The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 11:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Calling that a misandry is a stretch-out. Brandmeistertalk   09:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misandry? 

message: I would like to ask, the article says that the method was used in the 21st century, but in the news I did not find information about why it was done so, so until now in a society where this gender equality is based there are cases of egregious discrimination, are there any articles that denounce this practice as a violation of human rights, and so on, why do femenists so wrestle.in advance I'm sorry I'm Russian and I can not write normally in English. Can you please give links to sources--Гривусинус (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question? 

message: The article only addresses men and women. Is there any information about what happens to e.g. agender people? Apokrif (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... there are only two. DerKarthager (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genders 

message: Hi User:JMOprof, I just reverted your mention of William Lewis Herndon and the sinking of the SS Central America as an example of women and children first, because I couldn't find evidence for this claim in any of the linked sources. I consulted Gentleman Boss and the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. I'd love to include it if we could find a source that supports it. Suriname0 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This article mentions Story of an American Tragedy, Survivors Accounts of the Sinking of the Steamship Central American, which quotes one of the passenger accounts as follows: "It was one of the noblest things in the world that all the women and children were saved…From the beginning to the end [Captain Herndon] forbade any man to get into one of the boats until all the women and children had been carried off." I don't have time to look up that book now, but it may very well be the secondary coverage we need if it substantiates that passenger account. Suriname0 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Hi User:TEDickey, a gentle reminder to WP:AGF. For example, the claims you inserted (via revert) are completely unsourced. What "source" are you suggesting that I read? Re-adding challenged, unverified material to an article without a source should be avoided. I see that you added this source to the William Lewis Herndon article: is that the source you're referring to? That source, not currently cited in this article, says: "Her boats were lowered and filled first with the women and children." In your view, does that source support the added claim, that the sinking of the Central America is a "notable invocation of the concept" of women and children first?  To me, that still sounds like WP:OR. However, thanks for finding that source! It looks like we should add the Central America to the main body of the article. Please let me know if I missed a source you added to this article. Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting that the source is misleading, because you're claiming that someone other than the captain of the ship gave orders for filling the boats first with women and children? TEDickey (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Tedickey, I'm a little confused by your response, as I didn't say and wasn't trying to imply that the source was misleading. Perhaps you can clarify your question? The unsourced claim that you added is that this particular sinking is a "notable invocation of the concept", which is not an argument that I see in that source (or the others I consulted), so it seems like WP:OR to me. Suriname0 (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

text: User:Tedickey, I continue to not understand your responses, which seem irrelevant to what I've written above. Please clarify your concerns, or even better: constructively provide sources so that we can make this article the best that it can be while adhering to WP:V! Suriname0 (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herndon and the SS Central America. 

message: Should it be called an "unofficial" or "unwritten" code of misconduct, or neither of them? I already made the change, but I wanna know the opinions. Wahakadha mustakhdim (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial or unwritten