In 2007, my husband and I sailed the western Mediterranean on the Costa Concordia, so it was with awe and fascination that I watched it sink off the coast of Italy. I kept wondering what it would have been like to be sitting in the dining room when it struck the rock, then the fear and panic as the ship listed heavily to the side.
Then I realized that many of the passengers were in their first day of the cruise, having boarded at the port in Civitavecchia (an hour from Rome) before they had even done life boat drills or knew where their muster stations were, although we joked that the ship was such a maze it would be hard to find the muster station again anyway, and I noted that our muster station captain, Italian Jamie Bamber (as I called him), had limited English comprehension. I also wondered if we would have been in the dining room or would have been sleeping off our jet lag in our cabin, an even scarier prospect. And I couldn’t help but think of the cruise we took a year later on the Costa Serena (Concordia’s sister ship) with our 3 kids. Being in a shipwreck with our kids was a far more sobering thought.
Costa is an Italian cruise line, so over half the passengers were Italian. Spaniards were the next largest group in our sailing. English speakers were only 4th of the 5 languages supported, and that was partly because many eastern European languages were not supported, so those passengers chose to take their instructions in English. Each ship’s announcement was very long (some lasted 10-15 minutes!) as it had to be repeated 5 times, starting with Italian, then going on to Spanish, French, English, and German. During our English language orientation that was geared mostly toward the Brits (there were few Americans), we were told not to be offended that people crowded and pushed rather than queued, and that we needed to do likewise or be left out. Not to worry, we were told, this was just a cultural difference and not in any way rude behavior. Another observation we made was that while the majority of customer-facing crew members spoke Italian, many of the departments on the ship consisted of groups that spoke other languages (e.g. the kitchen staff was Romanian), and didn’t have the ability to communicate in other languages. At times it was difficult to find an English or Spanish speaking crew member (the only two languages in which we had a good chance at holding a conversation; we tried to meet the Italians halfway by speaking Spanish with an Italian accent, but it was a non-starter).
Cut to January 2012. There were examples of heroics in the sinking (a husband giving the only life vest he had to his wife who couldn’t swim; she survived, he died), and cowardice (the damning recorded conversation with ship abandoning Captain Shettino). Several people talked about large male passengers scrambling over the others to get to life boats, pushing down women and children in the process. When a mother asked why they were not following “Women and children first,” she reported that a crew member said that it was “Every man for himself” and that the notion was no longer followed. According to passengers, there was little time to think once “Abandon ship!” had been called and the ship lay on its side in cold waters.
We recently revisited the traveling Titanic Exhibit here in Singapore. Each of our family members received a name of an actual passenger, and at the end we discovered their fate. Both my daughter and I survived, while all 3 of our men folk met an icy death in the cold northern Atlantic. In fact, 75% of women survived, while over 75% of men (who were living at the height of patriarchal society) died. That disaster (the real one, not the James Cameron wooden dialogue version) had many examples of heroic behavior, and tearful separations as women were saved while their men died. In contrast to the Concordia disaster, the ship stayed mostly upright until the end, and the disaster occurred when most passengers were alert and up top rather than belowdecks.
For practical reasons, children and many women would not be able to compete lifeboat space with much stronger, larger men. In the Concordia disaster, several who could swim made it to shore on their own. Yet, a parent weighted down with hysterical children trying to swim hundreds of yards is not feasible. My kids are capable of being hysterical when there are too many bell peppers in their dinner, so I can only imagine them in a maritime disaster.
Is the notion of “Women and children first” antiquated or impractical? Is it a byproduct of our more egalitarian society like women serving in the military or providing paternity leave for fathers? I think most would agree that children should be given priority where possible, but it has become problematic to extend that thinking to prioritizing women over men. On what basis would that judgment be made? Why would a woman’s life be more important than a man’s? Let’s see what you think.
[poll id=”46″]
Discuss.
Everyone for themselves means, as a practical definition, women and children last.
The real question is who is disposable in today’s society. I think the results of the ship sinking tell us the answer.
Just thought you might like to know that this principle still is taught: the standard of “Women and Children first” is the closing line of the Sea Scout (BSA) Oath. My son is working toward completing his Quartermaster Award (highest rank on Sea Scouting) before his mission and takes the oath very seriously. It seems to me an excellent application of the Aaronic Priesthood purpose.
By the way… The Sea Scouts are Co-Ed.
I didn’t vote since all the selections are impractical in today’s politically correct society.
I would always give my wife and my younger children the lifeboat or lifevest first.
That is the way I was brought up.
I agree with Stephen. Either women & children first happens or women & children are last by default. Which is unfortunately what happened on this ship.
I’m for the women and children first.
“women & children are last by default.”
If you ever been in a queue in Italy, you would understand why this is…..
Jeff – exactly! As Americans, it took us two full days of polite aheming and dirty looks at those rude crowders just to work ourselves up to be assertive enough for the buffet line.
Hawk,
my same experience with the bus. You start out in American/UK queuing mode and end up with elbows flailing.
What really shocked me was this same behavior happened on Sunday morning at the Vatican and I was being pushed by Nuns!
In the extreme situation, with all humanity at stake, it is easy to prioritize the three groups.
(Priority 1) Children first. Otherwise, humanity will not survive. Let all adult women and men die.
(Priority 2) Women and children live. Let all the men die. They are less essential for the continuation of the species.
Well…If I were there with my wife and three kids, and the was a teenager there (unknown to me), I might put myself ahead of him(?)
I closest I ever came was “pulling cards’ for classes in college. I got the last card for an important class. The girl behind me really broke down in tears. I handed her the card and went and got a lesser class.
I would prioritize by age, and related parties. For example I would rather see an older woman let a young family keep their dad.
So rather than women and children first, I would like to see it be children and parents first.
In crisis, people may behave at their basest, I guess. Children are to be protected, women less so, except that those mothers may be in the best position to protect their children.
I suppose the most fortunate is the captain who tripped and fell into a life boat…
I love it — gender doesn’t matter, until it does.
I feel like that if it meant life-or-death for either one of us — I’d put my wife and kids on that floating door while I froze in the water.
…but I can imagine that my wife would say the same thing — i.e. that she’d give her life for me and kids, telling me to just re-marry a good woman, etc.
“Women and children” implies “Toss the father” — so I like Starfoxy’s:
I’ve read similar articles on other websites comparing the two ships and asking these same questions. I’ve asked myself the same questions and I really don’t have a good answer. For me, my first responsibility is to protect my family. That’s a no brainer. My wife and children go in the lifeboat first and heaven help anyone who tries to get between my family and their safety. But who gets saved next is the difficult question. If there isn’t enough space to save everyone, do I save myself along with my family or do I give up my space to save another mother or child? In other words, do I take the life of my family’s husband and father leaving them widowed and fatherless so that another mother or child can live or do I save myself so that I can protect and provide for my family not only at this moment but for the rest of our lives while leaving another mother or child to die? If I have the opportunity to save myself, it would be irresponsible for me to willingly abandon my family and perish. If I have the opportunity to save someone else’s life, it would be selfish of me to trade their life for mine. I don’t think there is really a right or wrong answer, just a very difficult decision that I hope I never have to make.
Honestly, if I were in this situation, my family, or at least my wife, would most likely refuse to leave without me so the decision would ultimately be to save myself with my family.
You missed category five. There should be some kind of lottery system. Since all the lives on that boat are equally important (and really, who could argue otherwise…there are plenty of women and children in this world not at risk of drowning in a maritime disaster, so the whole save humanity-thing is a red herring), those who survive should be chosen at random. Interestingly enough, there is a case from the 1800s where a lifeboat was overloaded, so the crew threw some of the people off who ended up drowning. They were eventually convicted of murder. The crewmen argued necessicity because everyone would have drowned if they hadn’t thrown people off. The court in dicta said that if they had chosen those who would die by lot, the crewmen may have avoided being convicted of murder.
dpc,
“There should be some kind of lottery system’
the boat is sinking…… 🙂
“Earth first! (We’ll strip-mine Mars next…)
“Women and Children first!” (consume the appetizers before the main course)
Seriously, what we saw by the cruise ship foundering was another pathetic example of the death o chivalry. Of course it may simply be more pronounced amongst Italians. Been thirty years since I did my mission there, but if they’ve descendants of the proud Roman legionnaires, Trajan and Flavius Aetius must be in tears somewhere. That’s probably why Lee Harvey Oswald picked a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to shoot JFK – likely thrown down just once!
You write about “women” and then poll only about “mothers.” I guess childless women, and women traveling without their children (including virtually all elderly women), can just go down with the ship.
I voted for the mothers go with children, fathers stay behind. My wife’s maternal instinct is pretty strong, so the odds of anyone separating her from our children are slim to none. Besides, by staying on board, I might get a little fishing done. Wonder how the bloggers at fMh feel about this issue?
@jeff spector
Might as well put that casino equipment to good use one final time… 🙂
I vote women and children first, but I would imagine many brave women also would allow the mothers with children first. Men need honor and make the right choices, and the women need the same.
Listening to the audio, it is amazing how the coast guard was ordering the captain back on board time after time, and he continued to cower. Truly amazing.
dpc,
“Might as well put that casino equipment to good use one final time… ”
Judging by some of my family members who like to gamble, they would….
Hmmm. This is tricky. I didn’t vote in the poll, but I think it’s safe to say that children should be first. Since mothers are often the primary caretakers of their children, it seems that “mothers and children first” or “families first” would make the most sense to me, but in situations like this, it will always be unfair.
Reminds me of a question asked in a philosophy class I had once, where the answer was supposed to be in line with a more patriarical societal bent. “If you could only save one, which would you choose, your mother, wife, or child? The answer is your mother, as you only have one mother, but can always get another wife or child.” It was meant to be shocking to our western (supposedly more advanced) sensibilities, which to me it was. Trouble is, to me, there is no “right” answer. It would depends too much on the dispositions and most of all wishes of those involved, not just some luck of the draw.
When I was Ward Clerk, we had an instance where the fire alarm went off during Sacrament (the actual ordinance, not just the meeting). My first thought was to seeing that my pregnant wife was taken of, which took all of seconds by being sure my father (who was visiting at the time) was going to take care of her, and then to my duty as the Clerk responsible for checking and resetting the alarms. I don’t know how others reacted int hat situation, but I was somewhat proud of my own.
I’d like to think that I would be amoungst those having women and children go first, helping to be sure they were situated before seeking my own refuge. Course, I’d probably also be one of those takinga a stick to those who panicked and tried to flee without thiking of others or those who sent off half filled boats. I don’t think that would be different even if I was a woman – it is part of our better nature to make sure that those who have less chance than us of survival to make use of equipment to increase that chance.
Course, now I think of the choice of the people if it were just me and and US Olympic womens swim team, and seeing me being thrown onto a boat despite my protestations . . .
Hmmm. This isn’t as hypothetical as we’re all making it sound. How much am I willing to sacrifice my and my family’s economic welfare to save some kid in Afghanistan or the Congo? For that matter, how much am I willing to deprive my kids of an education to save YOUR kids, particularly if I think some other guy is likely to throw my kid over the side at the first opportunity if I’m not there to be a protector?
“Who is my neighbor” is still just as difficult a moral question today as it was in Biblical times. I guess we do need to think through the protocol before the ship lists too badly, don’t we? We won’t have time then.
I think I would prioritize by people who are the most vulnerable/less-able and their caretakers, regardless of gender.
I’m with Firetag. In all situations, including capitalist economics, “Everyone for themselves” means “the least of these” go last.
Then they get blamed for it.
Yes, Taryn, in ALL situations, including non-capitalist economics in practice, because after all, we need all of those officials to have the prime seat in the lifeboats in order to steer them — even if they were the ones who put the ship on the rocks in the first place.
Perhaps we should also remember the old saw about the captain going down with the ship, too. 😀
Its all well and good saying that women and children should go first, but who will provide the much needed priesthood and/or patriachal leadership on that life boat without men there? 😉
In all seriousness though, for me it would be a case of saving as many lives as possible regardless of gender or age. For instance if all the women and children are at the back then pragmatically to bring them all forward through the crowd would be difficult and may result in more dying then if you were to put some men on first to create space for women and children to come through and then help them. Its all about maximizing the amount of lives saved and there is no one rule on how to achieve that.
I might have to go with myself. I KNOW who I am and how my family needs me. I know NOTHING about the woman or kid next to me. They may be the worst people ever to have lived a life.
As someone who is over 60, both parents dead and all children married with families, I hope (and do believe) that I would willingly give up my seat or lifejacket for a younger person, especially a child or parent (male or female) who has so much more living to do. I think most of the people my age that I know would do the same.
And I agree with FireTag. This situation is analogous to world economics. Maybe the real solution is in creating lifeboats with room for everyone.
If we’re going by most lives saved then only children should be allowed in lifeboats. They weigh less individually (usually), and are smaller in stature. Thus, any woman or man sitting in a lifeboat is taking the spot of 2 or 3 toddlers.
There seem to be a few missing categories. Of those that died, I believe that quite a few had physical limitations (wheelchairs) that prevented them from making it to the lifeboats quickly. Of course, with the listing of the ship, many of these lifeboats were useless, and many swam to safety.
Is it moral to leave a crippled grandpa or grandma to die because they probably aren’t going to make it, in order that the able-bodies are able to take care of more people?
Tough questions that I hope I will never have to answer.
Newlyhousewife, if the boat is full of toddlers, who is going to steer the ship?
I say children first with 1 parent per family. The parent that stays is the one most likely to live. Ergo if I can’t swim but my wife swam competitively in college. I go she stays. In our case, I would probably have the best (albeit) slim chance. So I stay. Worst case the children get one parent alive and the example of the other parent in death.
Also as to pertaining to the Titanic while they seemed to have got gender right there is a large amount of evidence that wealth mattered hugely. 32% of first class male passengers survived. Only 8% of 2nd class males passengers survived and 16% of 3rd class males. So if you were first class and male you had 4 times the odds of surviving than a 2nd class M and were twice a likely to survive as the 3rd class male. Teh most authoritative work on this indicates that both the layout of the ship and class discrimination played a role these difference of odds. The class effects show up for women/children too. 2.7% of first class women died. 2nd class women died at 4 times the rate (11.2%) and third class women/c died at 30times the rate of 1st class women/c (57.8% of them died). A good day for gender a bad day for the poor. If I was picking feminist nits I would say it just goes to show being a women and poor seems to a especially bad for your life chances…..
reference: http://espace.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:152940/HallSSM2261986.pdf
**seems to be especially bad…ergh.
Also, it appears it wasn’t so much keeping the lower classes out (though some of that did happen) but of giving some of the rich guys privileges.
Mormon Heretic, I’m assuming there is at least one gifted ten year old per life boat.
If not, then there is at least one kid per life boat that listens to their parents when told “go that way” before being placed.
#37: NewlyHousewife,
A little off topic, but at some point,”abandoned ship!”, takes men. It’s not like a Disney ride. It’s hard and dangerous to carry out.
It’s not unlike a triaging situation in wartime or other disasters. Someone in authority has the unpleasant task of playing “Gawd” in making the decision as to where the efforts are made to save lives.
In contrast, just last Friday was the 69th anniversary of the sinking of the USAT Dorchester and the story of the Four Chaplains. Their selflessness is a type of what their Savior did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Chaplains
Of course, today, absent something like major combat damage or a sudden capsizing (ala The Poseidon Adventure), there’s no excuse for a well-practiced crew and frequent evacuation drilling. I can’t see why anyone should have died in this tragic case. I certainly want to see the transcript of the maritime board of inquiry, and will be shocked if there aren’t indictments of not only the captain and the officers but also the CEO and top management of the cruise line.
Of course, be assured that the Savior himself will have even greater fervor about our (those of us with supposedly a testimony of the Gospel and/or the Priesthood) collective failures to bring about the salvation of our fellow men (and women and children, and they’re all “first”).
I’m guessing that the relatively few (29?) that died on the Costa Concordia died at or near the first few minutes of the ship running aground and water rushing in at the lower levels. I haven’t read anything that says they died because they were on deck waiting to be rescued, were left behind, etc. While things were probably chaotic, I believe most people were able to get off the ship safely. Unfortanately, most tradegies don’t allow for a reasoned, well thought out approach to rescue. Somebody does have to take charge and be responsible. Hopefully we have testimonies of the life hereafter. While death shouldn’t be accelerated, it certainly isn’t something to fear. Perhaps an order of commorientes should be followed if enough time and resources were availiable.
Douglas, I appreciate your comment #39. I remember seeing a painting of the four chaplains at Fort Jackson, SC I believe it was.
I think that the woman and the children should have been first the men can be the gentulmen and let the woman go first am i not right
#42 No gender egalitarian type person would agree with that, Tyler. Feminists might be cool with it though.
I like Van Halen’s interpretation of “Women and Children First” ca. 1980.
And the cradle…will rock! Yes, the cradle, the cradle will rock! And I say, Rock On!
(Have you seen Junior’s grades?)
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=B6HXZK4nEtQ
Wolfie’s a chip off the old block.
Children and handicapped first, always. In fact, all children handicapped adults should be loaded onto lifeboats and accompanied by the driver of that boat. After that, it’s every man and woman for themself.
But if we still want tradition, will one of you ladies get in the damn kitchen and cook me a steak? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
In response to the number 4 comment made by “hawkgrrrl”:
Anything I can do you can do better. Remember?
Steven 40 – there were injuries (bruises, and I believe one concussion) sustained by women & children who were pushed out of the way by larger men, or so some of the accounts of passengers stated, but I believe you are correct about deaths in this case.
Maybe the rule should be able-bodied swimmers LAST.
Yes! Children and Women first!!! Equality is in the workplace and life because that is different its about brain power and knowledge, but its never a fair fight when a man is bigger and stronger than a woman…i have yet to see 2 women working for a moving company and moving my whole house on their own…why? because women aren’t built for that sure there are some strong girls out there…but reality is not really! bodies are built different a man has a higher chance of surviving if a boat is sinking by swimming or using his upper body strength than a smaller framed woman! I still hold doors for women, i see nothing wrong in that, just the way i was raised. Women actually are grateful and say thank you. Its out of respect because my mother was a girl and a woman! If we don’t put women and children first then chances are high they would never make it out alive if there were only 2 life boats to save lets say 50 people out of 100. Why do you think we have separate races and teams in sports? is it wrong? NO because women and men are both built differently…women are stronger internally, but men are stronger externally and for this reason a man needs to man up and step aside and let the Women and children go first! they are also most likey shorter than you – you are the bigger one!
Also i’d like to add: if there were 15 men and 15 females…and they had to fight for 10 spots on a life saving boat – grantee you that 9 out of 10 would be men if there was nothing in place of women first – because men are generally Taller, bigger and stronger than women! Its a shame that some women/men don’t raise their son’s to be noble and gentleman like!
As Dr. Phil always says – A man should never put his hands on a woman because its not fair! 90% of the time he will win! Again i’m all for equality, but the reality is men are stronger than women physically! Women are built stronger internally and men are built stronger externally. The reason for “women and children” first was not about being sexis its about keeping the human race going, if there a crisis its better to have the men die off and the young women to live…if the world had 1 million women and only 10 men…we wouldn’t loose too much because we could re-populate the earth, now if it was a free-for all survival men would beat women and push them to the ground so they would live and the women die and if we were to have 1 million men to 10 women…the human race would be depleted! Woman are the child bearers that is why we say woman first, they are also shorter and smaller built so this is why by instinct men would save their wifes and children first before themselves. There is something wrong today where a grown 6 foot man would jump to his own safety and the poor 5 foot 2 women behind him never gets the chance because after all he is stronger and faster!
Bart said, “As Dr. Phil always says – A man should never put his hands on a woman because its not fair! 90% of the time he will win!”
Are you suggesting that men cannot control the force of their punches? I have hit a woman before because she was attacking me. I pushed her down. End of fight. She quickly realized the error of her ways. I mean, if I hit Mike Tyson, and he knocked me into 2015, most people would side with Tyson. Why pick a fight with someone who is stronger than you?
When it comes to women and children first: I believe in children first. Women and men may then fight for boats. I shouldn’t have to die by default just because I was born the wrong gender. When there is no parity between social ( tradition, chivalry, etc) and professional ( academic, employment, etc) equality, things like this tend to happen. You can’t mess with gender roles and expect society to function as it once did. We won’t evolve out of this mess. It will slowly correct itself. Not in my lifetime, though.