Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Women and children first!

ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
edited March 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
I was reading this rather sweet story today and it was on the radio just now too.

BBC wrote:
Father's Titanic heroics revealed

The story of a father's final act of love towards his family as the Titanic sank has been revealed.

Arthur West scrambled down the rope of a rescue boat to give his wife and two daughters a flask of hot milk before returning to the deck, and his fate. The 36-year-old's act of bravery was revealed in an account written by his wife, Ada, which is being auctioned next month with the flask and letters. The items could fetch up to £60,000 at the sale in Devizes, Wiltshire.

The luxury liner struck an iceberg and sank on 15 April 1912, killing 1,517 people.

"We were all asleep when the collision took place, but were only jolted in our berths," Mr West's widow wrote. "The steward bade us all get up and dress thoroughly with plenty of warm things. "After seeing us safely into the lifeboat, Arthur returned to the cabin for a thermos of hot milk, and finding the lifeboat let down he reached it by means of a rope, gave the flask to me, and, with a farewell returned to the deck of the ship."

Mr West, his wife and young children, Constance and Barbara, were emigrating to Florida when disaster struck. The family - second-class passengers, from Truro in Cornwall - were put into lifeboat number 10 before their rescue by another liner, the Carpathia.

Ada wrote that the noble actions of her husband, whom she referred to in one letter as "Dad", had not been matched by two men who had managed to sneak on to their lifeboat.

In a statement to the Board of Trade she revealed that the men had hidden under women passengers' skirts: "I saw no signs of wreckage or bodies, only icebergs - had no idea that the disaster had been so great," she wrote. "There were men in our boat who had concealed themselves under the ladies skirts and had to be asked to stop lighting cigarettes as there was a danger of the dresses becoming ignited."

In a letter written in New York following their rescue, she also wrote: "We were amongst the first to leave the ship - when I said goodbye to dear Dad it was without a shadow of fear as to our ever seeing him again. In a separate letter on Titanic branded stationery, Mr West describes the liner's luxury before the disaster: "We went aboard and found our cabin, it's most beautifully fitted and the white paint shines like a mirror," he said. "The rest is mahogany with silver-plated fittings. We have two hanging wardrobes - several drawers - in fact plenty of space for everything."

The statement, the letters and the flask are being auction following the death of Barbara in 2007 - one of the last survivors. The pre-sale estimate for all the items at Henry Aldridge & Son auctioneers is £40,000 to £60,000.


The tone regarding the men who made it onto lifeboats - in this particular story and whenever else the Titanic makes it into the news - annoys me. Why do we still seemingly feel women are more deserving of life than men in these situations? This sentiment doesn't even carry over into healthcare and the like; it seems to only apply to emergencies..

What I'm saying is: if I'm on a vessel with too few lifeboats, I'm not sitting back and letting my place be taken by a woman. Is there anything wrong with that? Is it even ignoble to save yourself when you could save another in your place?

Æthelred on
pokes: 1505 8032 8399
«13456710

Posts

  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Because in 1912, Chivalry was still alive.

    Today, Chivalry is dead.

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • ParagonParagon Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    "There were men in our boat who had concealed themselves under the ladies skirts and had to be asked to stop lighting cigarettes as there was a danger of the dresses becoming ignited."

    Fantastic.

    Anyway, I don't think I would give up my place for just any random woman, but I would give up my seat for a child, or for my own family.

    Bagginses wrote: »
    Really, -J-'s argument against empiricism comes down to "sure, it might work in practice, but it still doesn't work in theory," which I suppose makes rationalists the philosophical version of paultards and goldbugs.
  • never dienever die Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I think it was more of the fact they were lighting cigarettes under the ladies skirts, endangering everyone. They were self-serving jerks, compared to the father, who sacrificed his own life to save his wife and children.

    Spoiler:
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Because in 1912, Chivalry was still alive.

    Today, Chivalry is dead.

    good riddance

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I'm given to understand that the modern tradition is to preserve families (in their entirety, not just the women and children). To be honest, I couldn't tell you where I read that, though.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Because, generally speaking, men are meant to be the protectors of the tribe. We are expected to be out in front, facing danger and sacrificing ourselves to save the women and children. I don't necessarily blame the men who snuck on the lifeboats, not knowing their reasons. I know that if that shit went down today, I'd be damned if I didn't go with my wife and child, unless my being on the boat meant that their chances for survival were diminished.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Because in 1912, Chivalry was still alive.

    Today, Chivalry is dead.

    Chivalry is inherently misogynistic. And yeah I'd say there is no difference between all the women who got off without offering others their places are just as bad as the men.

  • DemiurgeDemiurge Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    never die wrote: »
    I think it was more of the fact they were lighting cigarettes under the ladies skirts, endangering everyone. They were self-serving jerks, compared to the father, who sacrificed his own life to save his wife and children.

    No, he saw them into a lifeboat then died like a gentlemen. There's no heroics there.

    DQ0uv.png 5E984.png
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    So he would've made it onto the boat as well if he hadn't stopped to get some warm milk?

    No wonder the Dairy Council suppressed this story.

  • never dienever die Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Demiurge wrote: »
    never die wrote: »
    I think it was more of the fact they were lighting cigarettes under the ladies skirts, endangering everyone. They were self-serving jerks, compared to the father, who sacrificed his own life to save his wife and children.

    No, he saw them into a lifeboat then died like a gentlemen. There's no heroics there.

    Compared to knocking one of the men hiding under the skirts off so he could stay on?

    Spoiler:
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited March 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Because in 1912, Chivalry was still alive.

    Today, Chivalry is dead.

    The attitude still seems to exist, though. There's always tut-tutting in media reports when recounting these stories.
    nihon wrote:
    I'm given to understand that the modern tradition is to preserve families (in their entirety, not just the women and children). To be honest, I couldn't tell you where I read that, though.

    That makes more sense. "Parents and children first" is rather fairer.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • DemiurgeDemiurge Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    never die wrote: »
    Demiurge wrote: »
    never die wrote: »
    I think it was more of the fact they were lighting cigarettes under the ladies skirts, endangering everyone. They were self-serving jerks, compared to the father, who sacrificed his own life to save his wife and children.

    No, he saw them into a lifeboat then died like a gentlemen. There's no heroics there.

    Compared to knocking one of the men hiding under the skirts off so he could stay on?

    Why would he stay on? There's a max carrying capacity in those lifeboats and the Titanic didn't have enough for half the passengers, his seat could be filled with a child. Even if he did notice the men (it was night) any kind of ruckus would propably knock the boat over. Its pretty much chivalry, he did what was expected of him by the gentlemen code.

    DQ0uv.png 5E984.png
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first_(saying)

    "A lone, single male can sire many children given access to an abundance of women, but it is noted that a single woman cannot sire many children given an abundance of men. A woman only needs one man for dioecious propagation, and any excess men are expendable. Protopopov argues that because of this logic, society places increased importance on the survival of women at the expense of men's survival."

    Genetic disposition to make sure the human race is propagated?

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first_(saying)

    "A lone, single male can sire many children given access to an abundance of women, but it is noted that a single woman cannot sire many children given an abundance of men. A woman only needs one man for dioecious propagation, and any excess men are expendable. Protopopov argues that because of this logic, society places increased importance on the survival of women at the expense of men's survival."

    Genetic disposition to make sure the human race is propagated?
    Society is also more sympathetic to a woman with children who loses a husband than it is to a man with children who loses a wife. The same "code" that expects the man to sacrifice himself also comes more to the aid of the women and children left behind.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first_(saying)

    "A lone, single male can sire many children given access to an abundance of women, but it is noted that a single woman cannot sire many children given an abundance of men. A woman only needs one man for dioecious propagation, and any excess men are expendable. Protopopov argues that because of this logic, society places increased importance on the survival of women at the expense of men's survival."

    Genetic disposition to make sure the human race is propagated?

    I somehow doubt that biological tendency is fueling people when a ship is sinking

    that's the opposite of the case in many countries - for instance, china and india are beginning to have population imbalances skewed in the favor of men since so many female babies are abandoned. It's more desirable in those countries to have male children.

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • FireflashFireflash Montreal, QCRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    In a survival scenario the #1 rule is my life before the life of others. My life is not worth less than someone else's. I expect the same of others.

    PSN / XBL: PatParadize
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first_(saying)

    "A lone, single male can sire many children given access to an abundance of women, but it is noted that a single woman cannot sire many children given an abundance of men. A woman only needs one man for dioecious propagation, and any excess men are expendable. Protopopov argues that because of this logic, society places increased importance on the survival of women at the expense of men's survival."

    Genetic disposition to make sure the human race is propagated?

    I somehow doubt that biological tendency is fueling people when a ship is sinking.

    It isn't but it became a cultural norm because of the tendency. And people are just following the cultural norm. The root of it isn't really relevant.

  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Fireflash wrote: »
    In a survival scenario the #1 rule is my life before the life of others. My life is not worth less than someone else's. I expect the same of others.

    I don't like the sound of this.

    However, in a Zombie Apocalypse? I'll be the first to say "Every man for himself".

    Games completed recently: Dead Island: Riptide, Batman: Arkham Origins, StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm, StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty, Dragon's Crown
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Fireflash wrote: »
    In a survival scenario the #1 rule is my life before the life of others. My life is not worth less than someone else's. I expect the same of others.

    FF to 1:25 if you're impatient.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuP9YClyPRY

  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Fireflash wrote: »
    In a survival scenario the #1 rule is my life before the life of others. My life is not worth less than someone else's. I expect the same of others.
    Then you'll all die fighting over who gets to survive.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • FireflashFireflash Montreal, QCRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    urahonky wrote: »
    Fireflash wrote: »
    In a survival scenario the #1 rule is my life before the life of others. My life is not worth less than someone else's. I expect the same of others.

    I don't like the sound of this.

    However, in a Zombie Apocalypse? I'll be the first to say "Every man for himself".

    Well it doesn't necessarily mean fuck everyone else. And in a way I still think the life of many outweighs the life of a few. But in a me or someone else scenario, i don't see any reason to sacrifice myself for the other person. When I die it's over. I stop existing. My death will have been futile because anything that happens post-death becomes irrelevant.

    PSN / XBL: PatParadize
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    KevinNash wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first_(saying)

    "A lone, single male can sire many children given access to an abundance of women, but it is noted that a single woman cannot sire many children given an abundance of men. A woman only needs one man for dioecious propagation, and any excess men are expendable. Protopopov argues that because of this logic, society places increased importance on the survival of women at the expense of men's survival."

    Genetic disposition to make sure the human race is propagated?

    I somehow doubt that biological tendency is fueling people when a ship is sinking.

    It isn't but it became a cultural norm because of the tendency. And people are just following the cultural norm. The root of it isn't really relevant.

    You can't assume that's where it came from though.

    just because there are two ideas of 'we need more women than men' and 'women and children first' it doesn't mean they are related.

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Because in 1912, Chivalry was still alive.

    Today, Chivalry is dead.

    The attitude still seems to exist, though. There's always tut-tutting in media reports when recounting these stories.
    nihon wrote:
    I'm given to understand that the modern tradition is to preserve families (in their entirety, not just the women and children). To be honest, I couldn't tell you where I read that, though.

    That makes more sense. "Parents and children first" is rather fairer.

    What? Fuck that. Why should I die just because you bred some spawn?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • DuffelDuffel Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Leitner wrote: »
    Chivalry is inherently misogynistic. And yeah I'd say there is no difference between all the women who got off without offering others their places are just as bad as the men.
    People in a culture a century old had different values than we do today.

    News at 11.

  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Fireflash wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    Fireflash wrote: »
    In a survival scenario the #1 rule is my life before the life of others. My life is not worth less than someone else's. I expect the same of others.

    I don't like the sound of this.

    However, in a Zombie Apocalypse? I'll be the first to say "Every man for himself".

    Well it doesn't necessarily mean fuck everyone else. And in a way I still think the life of many outweighs the life of a few. But in a me or someone else scenario, i don't see any reason to sacrifice myself for the other person. When I die it's over. I stop existing. My death will have been futile because anything that happens post-death becomes irrelevant.
    If it's me or a child, then I'm not killing that child.

    Unless he's a jerk.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • never dienever die Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Sentry wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Because in 1912, Chivalry was still alive.

    Today, Chivalry is dead.

    The attitude still seems to exist, though. There's always tut-tutting in media reports when recounting these stories.
    nihon wrote:
    I'm given to understand that the modern tradition is to preserve families (in their entirety, not just the women and children). To be honest, I couldn't tell you where I read that, though.

    That makes more sense. "Parents and children first" is rather fairer.

    What? Fuck that. Why should I die just because you bred some spawn?

    Cause those spawn are the next generation, and if the parents die, are you gonna take care of them?

    Spoiler:
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    urahonky wrote: »
    Fireflash wrote: »
    In a survival scenario the #1 rule is my life before the life of others. My life is not worth less than someone else's. I expect the same of others.

    I don't like the sound of this.

    However, in a Zombie Apocalypse? I'll be the first to say "Every man for himself".

    Wow. You'd be the asshole hiding the gaping bite would on your arm even though you know what it means for the people around you once you turn.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    never die wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Because in 1912, Chivalry was still alive.

    Today, Chivalry is dead.

    The attitude still seems to exist, though. There's always tut-tutting in media reports when recounting these stories.
    nihon wrote:
    I'm given to understand that the modern tradition is to preserve families (in their entirety, not just the women and children). To be honest, I couldn't tell you where I read that, though.

    That makes more sense. "Parents and children first" is rather fairer.

    What? Fuck that. Why should I die just because you bred some spawn?

    Cause those spawn are the next generation, and if the parents die, are you gonna take care of them?

    Umm... fuck the next generation? If I'm about to die, why should I care?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    urahonky wrote: »
    Fireflash wrote: »
    In a survival scenario the #1 rule is my life before the life of others. My life is not worth less than someone else's. I expect the same of others.

    I don't like the sound of this.

    However, in a Zombie Apocalypse? I'll be the first to say "Every man for himself".

    Wow. You'd be the asshole hiding the gaping bite would on your arm even though you know what it means for the people around you once you turn.

    BULLSHIT! I have been in this discussion a million times... If I were bitten I would inform anyone and everyone to shoot me in the fuckin head when they get a chance.

    If I weren't bitten I'm not going to slow down to let myself get eaten if someone's having trouble running. Unless they had a skill that was useful.

    Games completed recently: Dead Island: Riptide, Batman: Arkham Origins, StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm, StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty, Dragon's Crown
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    never die wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Because in 1912, Chivalry was still alive.

    Today, Chivalry is dead.

    The attitude still seems to exist, though. There's always tut-tutting in media reports when recounting these stories.
    nihon wrote:
    I'm given to understand that the modern tradition is to preserve families (in their entirety, not just the women and children). To be honest, I couldn't tell you where I read that, though.

    That makes more sense. "Parents and children first" is rather fairer.

    What? Fuck that. Why should I die just because you bred some spawn?

    Cause those spawn are the next generation, and if the parents die, are you gonna take care of them?

    I was going to go with a more callous response of "Bastard children will cost the taxpayer money, whereas if the Parents are saved instead of singles, it's less of a burden on taxpayers", but I think your statement is just as effective.

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • DuffelDuffel Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I know I'd feel like a dick if I let a kid die in my place.

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Because in 1912, Chivalry was still alive.

    Today, Chivalry is dead.

    good riddance

    ...and women killed it!

    steam_sig.png
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Sentry wrote: »
    never die wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Because in 1912, Chivalry was still alive.

    Today, Chivalry is dead.

    The attitude still seems to exist, though. There's always tut-tutting in media reports when recounting these stories.
    nihon wrote:
    I'm given to understand that the modern tradition is to preserve families (in their entirety, not just the women and children). To be honest, I couldn't tell you where I read that, though.

    That makes more sense. "Parents and children first" is rather fairer.

    What? Fuck that. Why should I die just because you bred some spawn?

    Cause those spawn are the next generation, and if the parents die, are you gonna take care of them?

    Umm... fuck the next generation? If I'm about to die, why should I care?

    Uhh, because you're a person who thinks beyond just himself?

    steam_sig.png
  • never dienever die Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Sentry wrote: »
    never die wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Because in 1912, Chivalry was still alive.

    Today, Chivalry is dead.

    The attitude still seems to exist, though. There's always tut-tutting in media reports when recounting these stories.
    nihon wrote:
    I'm given to understand that the modern tradition is to preserve families (in their entirety, not just the women and children). To be honest, I couldn't tell you where I read that, though.

    That makes more sense. "Parents and children first" is rather fairer.

    What? Fuck that. Why should I die just because you bred some spawn?

    Cause those spawn are the next generation, and if the parents die, are you gonna take care of them?

    Umm... fuck the next generation? If I'm about to die, why should I care?

    It involves caring more about others than yourself.

    Spoiler:
  • truck-a-saurastruck-a-sauras Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    urahonky wrote: »
    Fireflash wrote: »
    In a survival scenario the #1 rule is my life before the life of others. My life is not worth less than someone else's. I expect the same of others.

    I don't like the sound of this.

    However, in a Zombie Apocalypse? I'll be the first to say "Every man for himself".

    Wow. You'd be the asshole hiding the gaping bite would on your arm even though you know what it means for the people around you once you turn.

    I'd be that hiding the bite guy. Because I know I'll be a zombie soon and hungry for brains. I want to have a fresh food source ready when I turn. 8-)

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Steam
    XBOX
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Like, in some weird hippie abstract way? Because I don't like, know these people. I just know that I get to die so they can remember that one time they had a really bad night.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    Leitner wrote: »
    Chivalry is inherently misogynistic. And yeah I'd say there is no difference between all the women who got off without offering others their places are just as bad as the men.
    People in a culture a century old had different values than we do today.

    News at 11.

    Is different code for inferior?

  • DuffelDuffel Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    We're all going to die eventually anyway. I don't see how "giving up your chance to live so others can" isn't noble and therefore admirable.

  • DuffelDuffel Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Leitner wrote: »
    Is different code for inferior?
    Hello ethnocentrism!

    Don't you think it's a bit foolish to expect people in a different society in the past to live the way we do in our society in the present?

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    In a sinking ship/burning building/zombie apocalypse, everyone's a Republican apparently.

«13456710
Sign In or Register to comment.