Women and Children First?

I was chilaxin' the other day, listening to the late George Carlin's bit on “Things You Never Hear" when he kills with: “Look, do what you want to the girl, but leave me ALONE!” So wrong...yet so freakin' funny - and suprisingly thought-provoking... 

Because it occurred to me that this whole sentiment of "women and children first!" is probably one of the only universally-understood phrases in the world, spanning generations and transcending language and culture. While thankfully most of us have never personally experienced a situation that this would come up in, I would venture to say it is bellowed at some point in every single disaster-movie ever made. Similarly, something along the lines of  "Do what you want to me, but for god’s sake PLEASE DON’T HURT THE GIRL!”  is grunted by some Bruce Willis-type in every action movie.

And while I'm ok saving the children, frankly, I'm not sure I can be counted on to let the women go first. Sorry - but if my plane is making a crash landing, I am fully capable of pushing some old broad outta my way (assuming she's not said child's mother) to make my way off. And if some chick and I find ourselves in the clutches of some maniacal evil-doer, honey - it's every man for himself.

I know, I KNOW I'm comparing my life to movie scripts,and speaking in hypotheticals, and that the chances of the latter ever happening are zero. But hey - with planes landing in rivers, pirates boarding ships and other extreme emergency situations arising more frequently these days, it is actually conceivable that I - and you - might find yourself in a "women and children" first scenario. Which begs the question: what would you do? Assuming the next safe spot on the rescue boat goes to either you or a single female, do you allow her to go in the name of anachronistic etiquette, or do you stand up for yourself, give her your drink tickets and say "Ciao for now!"

Online Surveys & Market Research

(Image courtesy of Getty)

Comments

[dukeofdutchess]

This is actually an interesting question, but the point is undercut by this column using stupid, faux hip/cool terms like "broad" and "chick." As a gay male, I do find "women and children first" reactionary. I'm thinking more like "children, older folks, people in wheelchairs, etc., first" -- i.e., those who might particularly need the help of a stranger in an emergency situation. To include women in that category strictly on the basis of their gender is, dare I say it, sexist. But I would hope -- one never knows till it happens to you, if it ever does -- that I would stop to help those less able to help themselves, and that "every man for himself" would not be my mantra; otherwise, what's the point of being human?

[Alex]

This makes me sad gay.com, to think that you would even bring this into question.

The main reason why women and children go first is that they are the least able to get there life boat into the water. The men aboard would be much more able to help the less fortunate be lowered to the water safely if the automatic controls fail and they need to be lowered manually.

But I guess you have a point, even in titanic, a few pansies were able to escape on a lifeboat (at the expense of other women and children).

Only bring your little dogs if you think they taste good after a nice brine wash.

[chris]

Let's not fool ourselves here...we live in a Matriarchial Society - yes I said Matriarchial. Equal Rights means Equal Rights - it's a two way street - if there is a seat on a lifeboat and all the kids and older folks are accounted for and I'm next in line, I'm in the damn seat - women need to start practicing Equal Rights - open your own f------ door and start paying child support. It's time men, gay and str8 stood up to all of this blatant sexism and call this whole society on the carpet - it's matronziing of men needs to stop.
I hate to sound like a misogynist but seriously - it's time for men stop putting women up on pedestals. As a gay man - it's like facing double discrimination.

[zarxo]

These people are crazy for helping others over themselves. They need to read some ART or some literature--not cheap novels. The French cannabilism, hum, something that your school did not teach you, there is actually an ART piece on it. Go look it up. The Raft of the Medusa by Theodore Gericault.

"I guess white-meat does taste good."

In the end, saving a few may mean dinner for later. LOL

[butterflyboy1974]

Let's analyze the rationale behind 'women & children first'.
CHILDREN - Sure, save the children first. They're helpless and they have more life left in them. Makes sense.
WOMEN - Hmmm. Are they more precious? No. Helpless? No, but may be at a disadvantage in a situation where courage & strength are in order. Oops! Now I'm a sexist. Or am I? Who the hell knows anymore. One woman appreciates it when a man opens a door for them, the next one gets bitchy because she wants to prove she doesn't want/need any doors opened for her.
Help people who need help or just help your own damn self. Each person make an individual decision about who/what is most important. I think most of us can agree that placing value on someone's life based upon gender isn't quite right regardless of which choice is made. There is no right answer in that regard.

[tomriddlesmate]

UNFORTUNATELY, the premise of this entire article is based on a Victorian sentiment. If a large passenger liner were to sink today, the ships officers do not go around shouting, "Women and Children First." They will even explain as much during the mandatory lifeboat drills at the beginning of every cruise.

Gays should have no compunction to disregard anything Victorian, as it is felt by some historians, that today's anti-gay angst stems straight from that era, and not from 2000 yrs. of religious teachings.

We have several Revolutionary War Heroes, for example, that were openly gay. Even signers of the Declaration of Independence, such as John Hancock, according to his own descendents in the Dallas area, were openly homosexual, though Hancock did have a business relationship that many refer to today as a marriage.

"Women and Children First," stirs visions of well dressed gentlemen gallantly parading across the boat-deck of the Titanic, selflessly forfeiting their lives, chivalrous to the last.

I say, it is society today that no longer shares this view as a character strength. I fear that gays would be marked as evil cowards if the downfall of this "virtue" was attached to us. Somehow, not being heroic would be further blended into all that is "Gay," rather than just being seen as a selfish weakness of any individual, straight or gay.

[DesignerSkyline]

This article is stupid.

[Alex]

Chivalry is dead, and good riddance. I am 100% against gender discrimination in any form (give her equal pay but if a draft comes up make sure hers is next to mine on the list, damnit!) but at the same time, what exactly does being gay have to do with this? Except that if the battle was with a butch lesbian most of us would probably lose...

[Roger]

W H O A! Although I agree that children should be handed or guided out of a situation first but women or men without children, it's first in line, first out as far as I am concerned. I do not agree with "shoving out of the way" whether it is a man or woman. I understand that in a panic situation we don't always live up to our ideals. I would hope that I and others experiencing a situation would. I did find some of the words to describe women in this article to be offensive. I know these kinds of things are often said in comments but I think linked articles should rise about this.

[Rain City Blues]

I think the original idea behind 'women and children first' had something to do with the ability to spawn future generations of humans. Kids receive preferential treatment because they'll outlive us (hopefully), and women because they can do a neat little trick with their generative organs that we can't called childbirth.

Well, there's no shortage of humans these days. Still, I'd want o protect anyone who's especially vulnerable. So, if faced with a butch diesel dyke that can probably swim to shore dragging the boat by a rope she's holding onto with her teeth and some femme little queen that looks like he can't swim, I'd say the queen gets the lifeboat and I'll help the dyke pull the luxury liner to shore.

Since most times girls are smaller than boys, I'd say most of the time, ti would be women first.

[Wesley]

Who goes first should really be based on helplessness. We should all be helping those who cannot help themselves. This includes children and SOME elderly or disabled. When it comes to women, though...they fought for equal rights for years and now feminists are still screaming they're not treated equally. So then why should they be given priority when men don't get the priority either? While letting them go first is common courtesy, social restraints are basically thrown out the window in a panic situation. They should remain behind with the rest of the men to help with the children and elderly. And I'm gonna have to say that mother's don't really count either, unless the child is too young to walk. Mothers are just as capable as non-mothers to guide the chaos, but if they need to physically care for an infant, I'd understand....
Now, concerning the idea of sexual orientation: why should gay men be any different that straight men? Why do we need the label? It's gotten us in trouble for years, wouldn't saying "Hey, i should go first because I'm gay and don't give a shit for the survival of children" make us seem even more like obstinate assholes? We are currently fighting for equality too, so why should we feel that we are superior...umm...ever? Equality means EQUAL. That means every PERSON helps one another, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. And on a sinking ship, anyone who thought otherwise should be thrown overboard anyway! haha

[Laun]

Sorry, I don't like the nowin, too bad for the gay guy. Yes, there should be special attention for the children, women, and elderly as needed; however, I prefer the group think (We all get out of here together ok, or nobody does). That ensures a sound effort by all to care for eachothers needs.

[saddenned]

Wow...I am beyond saddened by the responses to this article. To be gay, apparently, means that chivalrous duties are dead. I would not even think twice about allowing women and children first and those of you who try to throw out this equal rights crap are ridiculous. To avoid going into too much detail, everyone who would not allow women and children first are cowards...period.

[rod]

How come these articles get every day more stupid?

[Mike]

Children - absolutely.

Women need to get in the line. Chances are they'd be on a cellphone anyway, or if it's a plane trying to get the bag out of the overhead compartment (the same one they needed help to get into said compartment) - whatever.

[Brandon Sills]

somehow i feel like there's nothing more to write about so we're being forced to read stuff like this.

seriously, it doesn't matter honestly. if you're fighting other people to live, i could see how it could become even uglier. if people are calm enough in their panic to help each other out and survive, do what you gotta do and all... then you don't have to push the bitch out of the way to get a t-bone steak 3 weeks later... because you both could get one!

... point being... don't write articles about stuff like this. it's just... more retarded than my 1st year of special education was...

[Loky]

I clicked on the banner thinking this would be an article about gay men who choose marriage (women) and family (children) first before coming out of the closet. That might have been an article worth reading. This was pointless.

[ArtistnSM]

Being a man and raised a gentlemen women and children will always be first , and lets not forget the elderly and disabled. I have no problem protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

[Aaron]

The other person goes first -even if it is Dr. Dobson, Obama, or some HIV-infected, meth-addicted, 60 year-old, bald, obese man- because that is just called not being a selfish bastard.
That's the problem with the world and gay community especially -full of selfish people.

In something that does apply to everyday life, here's a question for you: Do you hold the door for people -men and women?

[Joshua]

Oh yeah, guys, great idea. Let's save all the helpless types so that those currently useful to society are killed off. The kids can end up state wards, the disabled can get a government check, and the women can find another man to subsidize her lifestyle while she spends the days shopping, bitches about every little thing the man does after he spent all day at work, AND not put out for him.

Welcome to the modern era! We are so enlightened.

[Chemosh]

Women and children first is a throwback to perpetuation of the species. The fact is people act very strange under duress. The best example is the lifeboat situation on the Titanic. Although the W&C first thing makes for great movies in fact most of the life boats left the ship only 1/2 full or even 1/4 full. A lot of the men that stayed on board so their own wife/children could make it on the few that were crowded. On airplane crashes/fires you have most folks either helping each other regardless of sex/handicap. And in others crawling over each other to escape ....who knows how anyone would act.

[Jared4everx]

Children = YES
Women = NO

[Mark]

There should be a category for any men OR women with children, NOT only women and children.

[The Truth]

George Carlin was a scream. I miss his hilarious observations.

[Michael Andrew Baldelli]

Christ, I don't know what's more foolish; watching a douchebag who wrote this article stir up a shit-storm with the attitude and adolescent word choices, or the fact that this topic has been brought up in the first place.

Originally the reasons behind "women and children first" has not been because of a "matriarchal society" as one poster inaccurately points out, but because of sometimes far more base -- the continued procreation of the race. What's often forgotten because of Hollywood myopic and ignoble perspective while at the same time trying to foster the noble spirit of mankind is in fact men did save themselves afterward. Fight the danger, make it easier for women and children, there time came afterward.

The strongest of the men would survive afterward, thereby guaranteeing that those genes would be passed on once out of danger.

Do I personally believe that chivalry should die and that we should all rush out to the lifeboats or to safety -- every person for themselves -- as the douchebag writer ponders?

No, save the women and children. Let the strongest of the men survive. For as long as more gay babies are produced along with the heterosexuals, I'll be happy.

[Your_Fear]

Oh boy, you are FOS. This is not a sexist thing but ethical! Like if you were going to bring newborns to the world. You are the epitome of selfishness which is very ad hoc to this era. What if your mom was the person who needed help and some gay guy says to her: Ciao for now!? Right, my point jackass.

[Ohiney]

Wwhy wasn't "It doesn't matter, just break into song." one of the options?

[Ray]

Speaking in a current-day context - children should always be looked out for, since it's a grown-up world and children don't have the developed judgment which can lead them into danger. However, when it comes to a grown woman - it's all equal, baby. I've had ENOUGH doors dropped on me by some cunt I mad the misfortune of following into or out of a building, and I've waited patiently for an elevator with four or five other men and about the time the elevator goes "DING!" and the door opens, had some bitch who just walked up just BOLT toward the opening elevator door as if everyone is supposed to wait for Her Royal Highness. Fuck that. I'll step right across and in front of the bolting bitch and bring her to an abrupt stop while I waddle my fat ass onto that elevator. SHE can catch the next one. We're all equal now, baby. But, seriously - I'm content to let a lady go ahead, as long as she's a lady about it and acknowledges my presence. A lady allows a gentleman to BE a gentleman.

[ScottHunter]

I think all of this arose from an era when women truly were more delicate and defenseless. I have found that today's women are just as aggressive and capable as many men are when it comes to taking care of themselves. Plus, I have come across some who I would call just down right mean and overpoweringly bold. I find myself being surprised that having pondered the question I'm siding towards the "treat everyone equally" scenario because my upbringing was to the contrary. I am all for giving way to the disable and weak, young and old but when it comes to a one on one man or modern woman choice (me or her) I think I would probably take the seat in the life boat if I got there first. Sorry ladies, you sort of brought this on yourselves. You wanted to be our equals so now you have to compete for the last seats too.

[Rndmacts]

The question as stated does not offer the proper choices, a child and parent should have first priority whether that parent is male or female, the next question becomes how soon is rescue expected, if it is near than the elderly and infirm should be saved but if rescue is not imminent then the able bodied should be given precedence as they have a higher liklyhood of survival. But the whole discussion is a nonsequitor as modern ships must contain enough rescue vehicles for all passengers and crew, that is maritime law.

[Homohirsutus]

Wow.....all you guys are a joke. You are all saying "save the children" when you damn well know if it were a real situation, you would push that kid out of the way and save your self. I know I would. I mean, if you can ethically choose to let a woman die instead of you, then why do you draw the line at children. And really, it only takes 9 months to make a new baby, Im 37 years of perfection..... *hair flip*

[VaTeFaireFoutre_]

When it comes down to it, I would pass up a seat or a parachute or a helping hand if someone, ANYONE, needed it more than I did. I got described as selfless the other day because when I was in the midst of having fun and hanging out, I left to go help a friend with a small issue to me but a big issue to them. For me, perhaps, it is an ego thing. I don't feel like I need the help if someone else needs help too. As for the women and children thing...Children should ALWAYS be rescued first along with a competent chaperon such as a parent or relative. Then the disabled and injured should be rescued. When it comes down to men and women standing together, I would allow everyone else to be rescued first...men or women. It's hard for me to think that women are less than men. And the whole idea of women first just makes me feel like the belief they are less than men is perpetuated. I hold open doors for anyone I can without making me a door-man. I guess that's just me.

[kidduffah2]

During the Age of Sail, it was always 'women and children first' in survival situations.

First to be eaten, that is. Passengers, wives, and cabin boys were always the first to go.

[Equality for all...?]

Sorry, but equal rights means that the woman has the equal right to die or be tortured before or with the man.

That aside, I'd sacrifice myself if I knew, beyond any type of doubt whatsoever, that someone else would be safe due to my actions. Wouldn't do it if they were just going to die anyways.

[Esteban]

Ive come to hate women (at least American women)- I would sacrifice a dozen of them to save one man- especially if hes hot!

[splerk]

I think healthy men are left behind because we are naturally physically stronger & are most likely to be less emotional in a panicky situation to calmly think of resolutions.
I naturally would let anyone go before me & hold the door open for everyone, especially Pregos, Older people out of respect I'd give my seat if they looked like the needed it more then I.
And anyone visibly handicapped without question.
But as far as some blond chick who drives with her titties thinking she is all hot & can just nose her way in front of me in traffic with or without a cell phone just because she thinks she is hot?
I don't think so bitch.
lol

[splerk]

I think healthy men are left behind because we are naturally physically stronger & are most likely to be less emotional in a panicky situation to calmly think of resolutions.
I naturally would let anyone go before me & hold the door open for everyone.
Especially Pregos.
Older people out of respect I'd give my seat, if they looked like they needed it more then I.
And anyone visibly handicapped without question, for sure.
But as far as some blond chick who drives with her titties thinking she is all hot & tries to weasel her way in front of me in traffic with or without a cell phone just because she thinks she is hot?
I don't think so, BITCH.
YOU DON'T DO A DAMN THING FOR ME!!!
LOL

[jlee_deinleid]

misogyny,wut?

[wow]

Seriously it's now wonder why we are taken as a jokes if we think we are better than all others. I can't believe some of you thinking that you should come before women...well considering how some of you act I guess it's not that amazing. The reason that phrase came about was that it was supposed to be that a man was supposed to protect those who are less able than themselves. If you think you're better than someone else maybe you should re-think your life...cause you aren't you're the same as everyone else. And if you still think you are you better expect someone to push your ass into the fire instead of themselves...what comes around goes around

[Astro]

more wonderful gay.com "content" hurrah.

I guess I'm old fashioned with my parents Southern Values and my dad a career military man, so I still think sick, elderly, pregnant women first.

I still hold the door open for women...though I dont really pull out a chair or open a car door..

I don't know this seems like a silly question, and I find the comments here even more bothersome.

[Stryse]

I've long said...

Women and children first... gay men second!

[Stryse]

I really don't get the sense he feels he's better than other people, or women in particular. It is because he is, as you say, the same as everyone else...

His sense of self-preservation will have an equal tendency to override any other concern in a situation of extreme duress.

History has taught us time and time again that when people are put into those kinds of situations, the conscious mind locks up and the subconscious mind takes over...

so its all well and good to intellectualize that we'd be 'real men' and let the 'weak' escape disaster ahead of us...

but reality may not actually play out that way when our personal fight of flight response kicks in.

Of course it also raises the argument... in a society that wants women treated as equals to men... if we aren't just furthering the notion that women are weaker and in need of a man's protection (in this case standing back while they get out of harms way).

I guess I should revise my mantra: Children first..

[Dino]

okay for real gay guys can do what the fuck they want but regardless of sexual orientation in a disaster women and children always have the right away, oh i don't wanna die. that's bullshit put away your selfishness and help out the woman and the children then it should be the ederly, your should always put others before you even if it means death for yourself.

[Mark]

It sounds like this article was written by a man hater who wants to gather negative responses to use against men and be able to say, "See? I told you all men are evil and must be punished for being born male". According to the poll results on this article, cities that have a large percentage of gay citizens are more considerate of women, so this makes me think that this article is about woman's rise to complete domination of men both gay and straight. They already have complete control of straight men and are now gauging gay responses to completely control gay men also. Even though women are hateful to me in this city for being male, I still consider all life to be precious and valuable (male or female). I do not believe one sex should be treated as more valuable than the other in any situation, preference should be based on need, not gender. Then again, all areas seem to be irreversibly corrupt, so fair treatment does not seem to exist anyway.

[spherefactor]

'women and children first' came up because of survival of the species & family, 1 woman and 10 men cannot carry on civilization, but 10 women and one man can...

[Michael Boudreau]

the way I look at it is this...

Traditon has a place.
but if women want equal rights, equal pay etc.. then they shouldn't expect men to go out of their way to open doors for them, or buy them drinks etc.. as a gay man, I would extend this courtesy to everyone.. but not specifically based on gender, we're supposed to be equal right? so I agree, children first, but gender is black and white for me

[Josh]

When that plane crash landed in the Hudson just this year, women were rescued first. What message does that send about men and women being equal?
I wonder what the reason was for that? At the point they were rescued, were they even in any danger? Was it cold and their tits were showing or something?

[Josh]

by the way, great article. A serious subject, but written in a light manner. Hope to see more of these about men's issues - father's rights, the draft, men's movement, not getting paternity leave, etc.

[Jack]

Survival of the fittest, baby, All the damn fat chicks better clear out of my way.