From ‘Women And Children First’ To ‘Every Man For Himself’

A friend was telling me about Downton Abbey, the British television period drama series that’s taking the world by storm. It won big at the Golden Globes and my husband and I will be watching it soon thanks to the wonders of Netflix. Anyway, my friend was saying that the whole premise of the show is unimaginable sexism. Basically, laws prohibited estates from passing to female heirs and since both male heirs of Downton Abbey dying unexpectedly, the estate goes to a distant third cousin. And there’s nothing the daughters can do about it.

Now, why did the male heirs die? Well, they were on the Titanic. And in those days, of course, it was “women and children first.” Most of the women on the Titanic survived whereas most of the men lost their lives saving the women’s. That’s why Downton Abbey lost its heirs. In fact, 74% of the women on board the Titanic were saved and 52% of the children, but only 20% of the men. Even the women in the bowels of the ship had a better survival rate than first class passengers who were males. These are fascinating and sobering statistics.

Now cut to 100 years later and we have stories coming out of the Costa Concordia. There’s no comparison of the two disasters in terms of loss of life, but much of that is due to felicitous circumstances such as the temperature of the water and the rescue operations located nearby. Still, I get the feeling that some women were hoping the “women and children first” mantra would rule the day while some men had no use for it. x (It was never a legal requirement but did have cultural importance for a while.) Take this account from an Australian paper:


AN Australian mother and her young daughter have described being pushed aside by hysterical men as they tried to board lifeboats on the stricken Costa Concordia cruise ship.

Michelle Barraclough, 46, of Melbourne, said she and husband John Sultana clutched on to their 12-year-old daughter Katherine to keep her by their side during the mayhem as 4000 passengers tried to cram on to lifeboats and flee the violently listing vessel.

“It was every man for himself,” Ms Barraclough said.

Now, what’s the problem? I hope women have figured out by now that you don’t need to scowl at men for opening the door or offering seats on the metro — although that was certainly a problem when I went to school. But after years of being told that such acts of chivalry are demeaning to women, it’s kind of weird to be held to a different standard when it comes to orderly evacuation from a capsizing boat, no?

Now, I’m sure that both men and women acted hysterically during this event. We haven’t heard too many stories of heroism — particularly from the captain, who abandoned the ship mid-evacuation. But it is interesting to compare with accounts of the Titanic disaster. As National Review‘s Rich Lowry mentions in his column this week:


Guys aboard the Costa Concordia apparently made sure the age of chivalry was good and dead by pushing it over and trampling on it in their heedless rush for the exits. The grounded cruise ship has its heroes, of course, just as the Titanic had its cowards. But the discipline of the Titanic’s crew and the self-enforced chivalric ethic that prevailed among its men largely trumped the natural urge toward panicked self-preservation.

Women and children went first, and once the urgency of the situation became clear, breaches weren’t tolerated. The crew fired warning shots to keep men from rushing the lifeboats. In an instance Daniel Allen Butler recounts in his book, “Unsinkable,” a male passenger trying to make it on one lifeboat was rebuffed and then beaten for his offense.

The Titanic evacuation was known for its orderliness in the face of death while the Costa Concordia evacuation was nothing short of a goat rodeo. Do you think the lack of chivalry contributed to the chaos? Does it matter?


http://mommyish.com/stuff/cruise-sh...-children-first-to-every-man-for-himself-918/

 

Maritime law and ethics has always made the captain the go to man for any and all evacuations of the Italian ship. What made the Italian captain lose his marbles and jump or put himself into a situation where he would be catapulted off the boat?

Who can say what made this guy panic and do the unthinkable? Is it lack of training or lack of moral fiber, or both?

Only the Italian legal system, which is extremely tenuous at best, and that's being kind, will tell us for sure, sort of.

 

I think this is a one-off.

Look no further than what "Sully" Sullenberger did..... I think it all depends on the character of the person who happens to be Captain.......and is less a sign of the times than it is a commentary on this specific situation.

 

I submit to you that at least in part, this situation is due to government(s) creating an atmosphere in which government does for people what the people should do for themselves.

We saw something similar during Hurricane Katrina- thousands of morons and losers sat there as a Category IV hurricane approached waiting for government to come save them.

A very sad state of affairs.

 

Not as much the Captain, but the crew and male passengers. On this ship there was no such things as women and children first. They were pushing women and children aside to board the boats. What a different in our society.

 

and when the floods hit the central states the people responded on their own. maybe there is something to the entitlement mentality

 

I agree with you and Ace.

Also, this is not all about the captain of the ship. There were male passengers and crewMEN who did the same thing - shoving their way into boats and even some accounts of ripping life jackets off of others to save themselves first.

Yes, I think there is something to be said for the decline of chivalry. I think it comes with the decline of Western culture.

By the way -- I know you will love Downton Abbey! I'm so hooked, I think I've watched every single episode a half dozen times!

 

Character will always matter, but the times have certainly changed. I always marvel when I see the photos of men in the long soup lines during the depression. No doubt, some of them resorted to crime to feed themselves and their families. But it was, overwhelmingly, orderly. I'm trying to think of a current or recent event where self-sacrifice was as much on display.

The Golden Rule was more respected then, perhaps?

 

No one ever accused the Italians of bravery. Mussolini and his Mistress Pitacchi were dragged through Rome by the citizens of Italy after the tide of war went against the Axis. They, along with the French can at times. be depended upon to let the soldiers of other nations to do the dirty fighting for them.

 

Women wanted equal rights. They got it.

TFB, ladies. You've earned yourselves the equal right to die in disasters.

 

Whats so stupid is that they were in shallow water, a couple of hundred feet from shore and no need to evacuate the Ship the way they did. Jumping into cold water to swim to shore? Are you kidding? Over 2/3 rds of the ship was still dry. I can only pray that if faced with a situation, I can do the right thing. The passengers acted like animals.

 

Yup... a one-off on a "one-percent-er" pampered, luxury cruise. So you don't get what you pay for... even if you're as rich as Croesus?

No skin off my ass, and I wouldn't wish this on anyone, although I do care a lot more for people on a air flight like the one that Captain Sullenberger saved with his magnificent flying skills.

 

Feminists want to be completely equal to men, but then they complain when they don't get treated with "chivalry". its ridiculous.

If I was a passenger on that boat I would have let the women and children go first then I would have found a boat. If i couldn't find a boat I would have swam my ass to shore. I was on a high school-college swim team for 7 years and still regularly practice. A few hundred yards in chilly rough water is nothing to me.

Now in a true titanic situation i would let the kids go first... then I am getting my ass on a lifeboat. Sorry disabled/old people/women who can't imagine not being put on a pedastool...

 

Marine1 wrote: "A friend was telling me about Downton Abbey, the British television period drama series... my friend was saying that the whole premise of the show is unimaginable sexism. Basically, laws prohibited estates from passing to female heirs and since both male heirs of Downton Abbey dying unexpectedly, the estate goes to a distant third cousin. And there’s nothing the daughters can do about it. ... Even the women in the bowels of the ship had a better survival rate than first class passengers who were males."

I have to disagree with your friend's assessment regarding a premise of sexism in Downton Abbey. Lord Crawley inherited the grand estate from his father. However, it's the entail determining succession, not the law. Both parents would've left the estate to their daughter Mary. In fact Cora, Crawley's wife, saved Downton from financial ruin. Violet, Lord Crawley's mother is also in Mary's corner. Both Mary & her sister Edith are attractive and intelligent young women. It is true that in some ways they are both trapped between the societal norms of the past and the changing world around them. Cybil, the third daughter, is entirely different. Rather than sitting & watching the world change, she's determined to play her part in changing it. I also highly recommend the series, an excellent periodical.

As for the Titanic, it is my understanding that more 1st-class passenger men were saved than 3rd-class passenger children. What may not be so different is that the captain of a cruise ship is still not the man controlling the ship. This guy ran aground trying to get his passengers a closer look at a small island and perhaps some of its inhabitants. What he did, many of them do. So the question is, who is influencing the captains of these cruise ships to get their passengers as close to the scenery as possible?

 

Honestly, I would have put women or children (Especially children) ahead of me in the line to get to a lifeboat. It's just the type of person I am.

However, If I was a woman, I would not EXPECT a man to give up his place in line for me. What can I say, My faith in humanity has declined over time.

Thank you for your time.

 

Interesting reading if a little muddled. Chivalry didn't come out of no where. It's what nice guys decided to do after literally centuries of women's disenfranchisement under church influence. Take away the political and social infantilisation of women, we wouldn't have "women and children first". It would be more like moms and kids first, mom's meaning those with babies. Or maybe parents with small child first. Not catchy but whatever get's the kids out.

What's disturbing is the guys not letting the children go first. I'd pound a guy if they pushed a kid out of the way to save themselves.

 

Women should be let off first as women can reproduce - they can have babies. Men cannot. It is vital that more women live than men.

And while it wouldn't matter to me whether men or women (on that boat that sank recently) were saved, no one should have been pushing and shoving people out of the way. Stay calm and maybe more lives would be saved.

 

‘Every Man For Himself’ seems very progressive.

_

 

WRONG. The Catholic Church invented the code of chivalry and persuaded knights to follow it.

I would provide a link but Wikipedia is on strike today.

 

uh, it takes a man to make a women pregnant. women have no monopoly on procreation.

 

The modern liberal believes in "every man for himself."

The liberal votes Democrat because Democrats promise to tax rich people and give money to him.

Liberals tend to be tightwads, not giving much to charity, as proven by the tax returns of John Kerry, the Clintons, and Joe Biden.

 

well it was a different situation because this happened very quickly...remember the evacuation from the Titanic took hours, a more appropriate comparison would be with the Lusitania (sp)..there people panicked too and the whole 'women and children' first thing went out the window there too.

 

Nailed it!!


_

 

I wondered how long it would take someone to throw all women into the feminist category...regardless if they ever agreed with the feminist movement at all.

(and how very telling that you throw old people and the disabled in there too...just say it, you don't have any feeling of responsibility for anyone but yourself.)

 

oh please, this is ONE boat, the species will survive without the particular gene mix of anyone on the boat.

humans aren't exactly an endangered species...