6 ms·

I can't find a source now (of course), but I was at the Titanic Museum in Belfast this summer, and the information there indicated (through my hazy memory) that

by rconti 2y ago

I can't find a source now (of course), but I was at the Titanic Museum in Belfast this summer, and the information there indicated (through my hazy memory) that "women and children first" didn't come out of some noble sense of chivalry, but of a maritime disaster in the 1850s where every single woman and child on board died. I can't remember the name of the ship, and maybe it's a mis-telling of the Birkenhead story, but the museum's version was that the loss of women and children in the earlier disaster led to such revulsion that it became practice to instead prioritize women and children. EDIT: Aha, it was the Atlantic in 1873 that I'm thinking of. So both stories can be true, since the Atlantic sinking occurred between the Birkenhead and the Titanic. https://www.phillyburbs.com/story/opinion/columns/2012/12/19/pondering-lost-life-lifesaving/17913943007/ https://www.phillyburbs.com/story/opinion/columns/2012/12/19... https://www.theguardian.com/news/1873/apr/03/mainsection.fromthearchive https://www.theguardian.com/news/1873/apr/03/mainsection.fro...

esafak 2y ago
It's just common sense to order by likelihood of perishing, if you want to minimize casualties.
- Nevermark 2y ago
  And more smaller people and children can fit on a boat.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  This only applies if you consider it reasonably possible for someone to survive a shipwreck in frigid waters, not, of course, that those queuing could always accurately evaluate that chance. I think the reality here though, if we’re being honest, is that it’s based on a valuation of some lives over others, and that men are considered more expendable in emergencies.
CTDOCodebases 2y ago
I would argue that "women and children first" has been practiced since the dawn of times in a smaller setting i.e. tribes of hunter gatherers The motivation is to protect women and children from likely dangerous circumstance so that the tribe can be quickly repopulated. The tribes that sent all the women and children off to war or adventure and had only a few women or girl survivors left would have to wait for decades to repopulate the tribe to previous numbers but the opposite could be achieved in years. I can't find a link but this very scenario is playing out in Ukraine at the moment. There was a video released by the government outlining the policy perhaps to explain why men were barred from leaving the country.
- senderista 2y ago
  Of course cannon fodder can’t leave the country.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    I'm upvoting you to counter the downvotes because that is the brutal reality of war, particularly if the top brass (on both sides) don't actually have anything to lose.
    - senderista 2y ago
      In both Russia and Ukraine, conscription does not apply to those who chose their parents wisely
  - CTDOCodebases 2y ago
    That's a biased take. A more accurate take would be "Of course cannon's and cannon fodder can't leave the country during a time of war."
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    Yup
- llm_trw 2y ago
  If all your fighting age males died the women and children would just becomes slaves to whoever won. There are numerous examples of this being documented during Romes expansion into Western Europe. A group of young men on the contrary can quite easily raid and kill the men in neighboring villages and take as many women as they can keep as slaves. Again, documented in Romes founding. People seriously underestimate how bloody and amoral history is and that women were as complicit in all of the barbarity as the men.
  - elmomle 2y ago
    Could you clarify what you said about women's complicity at the end? Every other part of your comment seemed to attribute very little agency to women (they are essentially prizes for whoever wins a fight, with seemingly no other choice).
the_gorilla 2y ago
> "women and children first" didn't come out of some noble sense of chivalry This is a natural instinct for any decent man, and you can verify it by looking at the attitudes and writings of men in the early 1800s (predating your maritime disaster) in America during times of war. Any race or society that doesn't prioritize women and children is going to quickly be eliminated. > “My God! What shall I do with these women and children!” Hull exclaimed on receiving Brock’s message. Horrified at the thought of a bloodbath, he was bamboozled into surrendering Detroit on August 16, 1812 without firing a shot or even consulting his officers. The logic is also circular. Prioritizing women and children only after they die in a disaster doesn't make sense unless you already consider that a particularly bad thing, with extra consideration to their safety.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  Citing the writing of men in the 1800s is a very bad way to go about proving the existence of a natural chivalrous instinct. Anything you cite can easily be put down to cultural attitudes.
  - the_gorilla 2y ago
    Why did you respond to my post without reading what I was responding to? Why? Why? I'm so sick of these low effort replies that don't even put the smallest amount of time into even looking at what they're responding to.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      I literally did though. I understand that you were responding to a claim that disembarking procedures changed in response to a specific maritime accident, but you also made the claim directly in your comment that there is an innate chivalrous instinct in men, and your only substantiation (admittedly because you were responding to a claim about the time period) was to cite the writings of men in the 1800s. My point still stands and that’s why I responded to you.
TexanFeller 2y ago
[flagged]
- sarchertech 2y ago
  You’d promptly be shot or thrown overboard yourself.
  - TexanFeller 2y ago
    Yes I'd die fighting and take a few with me. Just submitting is not an option.
    - dmichulke 2y ago
      Do you think that's the most effective action you could take at such a moment?
    - sarchertech 2y ago
      So in an evacuation where women and children were going first, and the men are ordered to wait behind because there’s not enough life boats, you’d walk up to a line of innocent children waiting to get in a lifeboat and kill as many as you could. Then you’d kill as many men who tried to stop you as you could. You would murder children because you don’t like being told what do do. I think that’s something you need to work on sir.
- the_gorilla 2y ago
  An aversion to instructions sounds like oppositional defiance disorder but more importantly, this is concerning behavior for someone with access to children or women.
YetAnotherNick 2y ago
> didn't come out of some noble sense of chivalry There is obvious "value" of someone's life in all of the history and even now and children and women and higher on that ladder. In 1800s if 10 black man dies for the cost of saving 1 white man, it wouldn't have came to anyone's attention at all, but if 1 white woman dies, it was a news. Even now, a school shooting in US killing dozen children gets more news than 1000s killed in middle East. Even in countries closer to middle East than US.

by rconti 2y ago

esafak 2y ago

It's just common sense to order by likelihood of perishing, if you want to minimize casualties.

Nevermark 2y ago
And more smaller people and children can fit on a boat.
BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
This only applies if you consider it reasonably possible for someone to survive a shipwreck in frigid waters, not, of course, that those queuing could always accurately evaluate that chance. I think the reality here though, if we’re being honest, is that it’s based on a valuation of some lives over others, and that men are considered more expendable in emergencies.

CTDOCodebases 2y ago

I would argue that "women and children first" has been practiced since the dawn of times in a smaller setting i.e. tribes of hunter gatherers The motivation is to protect women and children from likely dangerous circumstance so that the tribe can be quickly repopulated. The tribes that sent all the women and children off to war or adventure and had only a few women or girl survivors left would have to wait for decades to repopulate the tribe to previous numbers but the opposite could be achieved in years. I can't find a link but this very scenario is playing out in Ukraine at the moment. There was a video released by the government outlining the policy perhaps to explain why men were barred from leaving the country.

senderista 2y ago
Of course cannon fodder can’t leave the country.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  I'm upvoting you to counter the downvotes because that is the brutal reality of war, particularly if the top brass (on both sides) don't actually have anything to lose.
  - senderista 2y ago
    In both Russia and Ukraine, conscription does not apply to those who chose their parents wisely
- CTDOCodebases 2y ago
  That's a biased take. A more accurate take would be "Of course cannon's and cannon fodder can't leave the country during a time of war."
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  Yup
llm_trw 2y ago
If all your fighting age males died the women and children would just becomes slaves to whoever won. There are numerous examples of this being documented during Romes expansion into Western Europe. A group of young men on the contrary can quite easily raid and kill the men in neighboring villages and take as many women as they can keep as slaves. Again, documented in Romes founding. People seriously underestimate how bloody and amoral history is and that women were as complicit in all of the barbarity as the men.
- elmomle 2y ago
  Could you clarify what you said about women's complicity at the end? Every other part of your comment seemed to attribute very little agency to women (they are essentially prizes for whoever wins a fight, with seemingly no other choice).

the_gorilla 2y ago

> "women and children first" didn't come out of some noble sense of chivalry This is a natural instinct for any decent man, and you can verify it by looking at the attitudes and writings of men in the early 1800s (predating your maritime disaster) in America during times of war. Any race or society that doesn't prioritize women and children is going to quickly be eliminated. > “My God! What shall I do with these women and children!” Hull exclaimed on receiving Brock’s message. Horrified at the thought of a bloodbath, he was bamboozled into surrendering Detroit on August 16, 1812 without firing a shot or even consulting his officers. The logic is also circular. Prioritizing women and children only after they die in a disaster doesn't make sense unless you already consider that a particularly bad thing, with extra consideration to their safety.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
Citing the writing of men in the 1800s is a very bad way to go about proving the existence of a natural chivalrous instinct. Anything you cite can easily be put down to cultural attitudes.
- the_gorilla 2y ago
  Why did you respond to my post without reading what I was responding to? Why? Why? I'm so sick of these low effort replies that don't even put the smallest amount of time into even looking at what they're responding to.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    I literally did though. I understand that you were responding to a claim that disembarking procedures changed in response to a specific maritime accident, but you also made the claim directly in your comment that there is an innate chivalrous instinct in men, and your only substantiation (admittedly because you were responding to a claim about the time period) was to cite the writings of men in the 1800s. My point still stands and that’s why I responded to you.

TexanFeller 2y ago

[flagged]

sarchertech 2y ago
You’d promptly be shot or thrown overboard yourself.
- TexanFeller 2y ago
  Yes I'd die fighting and take a few with me. Just submitting is not an option.
  - dmichulke 2y ago
    Do you think that's the most effective action you could take at such a moment?
  - sarchertech 2y ago
    So in an evacuation where women and children were going first, and the men are ordered to wait behind because there’s not enough life boats, you’d walk up to a line of innocent children waiting to get in a lifeboat and kill as many as you could. Then you’d kill as many men who tried to stop you as you could. You would murder children because you don’t like being told what do do. I think that’s something you need to work on sir.
the_gorilla 2y ago
An aversion to instructions sounds like oppositional defiance disorder but more importantly, this is concerning behavior for someone with access to children or women.

YetAnotherNick 2y ago

> didn't come out of some noble sense of chivalry There is obvious "value" of someone's life in all of the history and even now and children and women and higher on that ladder. In 1800s if 10 black man dies for the cost of saving 1 white man, it wouldn't have came to anyone's attention at all, but if 1 white woman dies, it was a news. Even now, a school shooting in US killing dozen children gets more news than 1000s killed in middle East. Even in countries closer to middle East than US.