'Women and children first' is a myth, shipwreck study shows

[KansDem]

It's a question often asked: Is chivalry dead?

According to a recent study by two Swedish economists, that brand of gallantry is not only dead, it was buried at sea long ago.

Keen to test humanity's capacity for selflessness in times of scarcity and duress, the students of the "dismal science" reviewed survival data for some of history's worst shipwrecks.

What they found was that women and children were only half as likely as crew members and captains to survive maritime disasters.

Instead of "women and children first" and "the captain must go down with the ship," the rallying cry seemed to be "every man for himself," the authors wrote.

--more--
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-sinking-ship-manners-20120731,0,197854.story

Overall, the survival rate was--
61% for crew members
44% for captains
37% for male passengers
27% for women
15% for children

There were exceptions, the "Titanic" being one...

[MADem]

1. "Crew members and captains first!!!!"

Well, wasn't the Captain one of the first guys off that flipped-over cruise liner from Italy?

[KansDem]

2. Well, yes... But didn't he trip and fall into a lifeboat?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-captain-claimed-tripped-lifeboat-report/story?id=15386279#.UB58MTFYv_E

...and couldn't get out?

[Starry Messenger]

3. k&r

[Zalatix]

4. Sounds like what happens in an economic shipwreck.

Except the Captains (of industry) get out of trouble first, then their minions, and everyone else gets stuck in the bolt-locked steerage section.

[jwirr]

5. Women and children are already being pushed off the boat when it comes to austerity measures

in our present economic situation. Many of the programs we use are first cut.

[Poll_Blind]

6. Ah-ha! So WOMEN were pushing little children out of the way too, eh?! Bullshit.

The study doesn't really appear to have been about 'Women and children first' but about......whether women and children survive the experience. What the study appears to really have been measuring is whether or not women and children had a good chance of surviving the disaster, not whether they were necessarily given berths on the lifeboats as 'Women and children first' implies, or even whether the crewmembers, captains and male passengers treated them with deference or sacrificed resources in order to help them survive- whether in vain or not.

The high percentage of survival for crew members & captains is unsurprising: In almost all situations I've read about, at least one crewmember is required to man the lifeboat. After all, they're seamen, not the passengers. They're used to living at sea! The survivability percentage of men, women and children doesn't surprise me but the article doesn't seem to show that those statistics were related to whether or not they were given a berth of a lifeboat or anything like that.

Because being on a lifeboat doesn't ensure survival, especially in a situation where the conditions are harsh and/or the survivors are in the lifeboat at sea for any length of time.

The article seems to play with words intended to blur the situation. For instance:

In examining 18 shipping disasters dating to the 1850s, the economists found little evidence that men were inclined to surrender their survival advantage.

Surrender their survival advantage? Is that something someone can do, intentionally? It sounds as though men are pushing women and children aside and rushing into the lifeboats, but what appears to be happening is that the chivalrous nature of the people isn't being surveyed, or any of their acts or how selfless they were, but simply at the end of the day who lived and who died.

You could have a crewmember on a lifeboat with 10 children at sea for 10 days without food or water. Most or all of the children died of exposure, hopelessness, etc., and the crew member survived- but they could have sacrificed every resource available to them for the children.

PB

[PatSeg]

8. I was thinking pretty much the same thing

Crew members would have been more equipped to survive at sea because it was a world they lived in. Also they probably would have been physically stronger than most passengers.

[Poll_Blind]

9. Agreed. And not to mention how vomiting from seasickness would adversely affect the health of...

....a person in a lifeboat. What we normally think of as an inconvenience could become a huge life or death factor. And that's leaving other things out, such as exposure, mental state, etc.

PB

[4th law of robotics]

11. I'm curious, given the standards of the time period they're referencing, if swimming ability wasn't

a factor.

Someone with a lifetime at sea might possibly know how to swim.

An adult male might likewise be able to manage.

Women were always discouraged from such exercises for a variety of reasons.

And it's not like 1800s England was filled with swimming pools so I doubt many children were able to swim.

[PatSeg]

13. That would lead to major

dehydration in a short period of time. Children would especially be susceptible.

I am amazed at the amount of time and energy is wasted on studies like this. You'd think they would have more constructive things to do.

[4th law of robotics]

10. Yeah the study doesn't seem to jive with the conclusions

I guess they set out with a conclusion and found data to support it.

[hfojvt]

7. interesting

but even on the Titanic, they said they wanted crew members in the lifeboats - in order to steer and manage the lifeboats. Because even in a lifeboat in a cold and gigantic ocean, survival is not guaranteed.

And even on the Titanic, many 3rd class women and children perished, and perhaps more would have perished. These survivors told this story.

"At another barrier a seaman held back Kathy Gilnagh, Kate Mullins and Kate Murphy (On the Titanic all Irish girls seemed to be named Katherine.) Suddenly steerage passenger Jim Farrell, a strapping Irishman from the girls' home country barged up. "Great God, man!" he roared. "Open the gate and let the girls through!" It was a superb demonstration of sheer voice-power. To the girls' astonishment, the sailor meekly complied." "A night to remember" p. 40

Those three girls are on the survivors list - Farrell is not.

It also lists, 139 crew saved, 119 male passengers and 393 women and children.

It also mentions

"the Titanic's casualty list included four of 143 First Class women (three by choice) (note - they chose to stay with their husbands), 15 of 93 Second Class women ... and 81 of 179 Third Class women.

Not to mention the children. Except for Lorraine Allison, all 29 First and Second Class children were saved, but only 23 out of 76 steerage children." p. 61

But apparently also, some were not considered to be children at age 13.

Not if they were male.

"When Mrs. Ryerson led her son Jack to the window, Lightoller called out, 'That boy can't go!'

Mr. Ryerson indignantly stepped forward; 'Of course that boy goes with his Mother - he is only 13' So they let him pass, Lightoller grumbling. 'No more boys" p. 48

The age of this guy was not given.

"Another young man - no more than a boy - wasn't as lucky. Fifth Officer Lowe caught him under a seat in No. 14, begging that he wouldn't take up much room. Lowe drew his gun, but the boy only pleaded harder. Then Lowe changed tactics, told him to be a man, and somehow got him out....The boy was out now, lying face down near a coil of rope. But No. 14's troubles weren't over. Another wave of men rushed the boat. Seaman Scarrott beat them back with the tiller....Murdoch barely stopped a rush at No. 15." p. 44

"A shortage of trained seamen made the confusion worse...Now Lightoller was rationing the hands he had left - only two crewmen to a lifeboat." p. 37 Meaning that crewmen are put on the lifeboats to help the others survive.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. What an odd article.

Why is the concept of 'chivalry' even important? And how or why is it still tied to "women and children" first? They seem to be saying one thing, but trying to prove another.