Forum Overview :: Laurence Fishburne's Dance Dance Revolution :: equality is kinda inconvenient when people might die

[quote name="sdroa jists"]http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/why-wasnt-it-women-and-children-first/ [quote]The fact I see very little attention being given is that “Women and children first” is an incredibly disruptive way to load lifeboats. When a ship is sinking time is of the essence. The captain of the Costa Concordia in all likelihood saved incredible numbers of lives by not implementing this foolish policy. There were 4,200 passengers and crew on the ship (source), and so far we only know of 11 dead and 21 missing (source). Even if we assume that all currently missing are in fact dead, this still means that 99.24% of the passengers and crew made it out alive. Given this incredible survival rate alone, the complaints that not enough men chose to give up their seats on lifeboats is downright bizarre. I doubt those disappointed that more men didn’t die have really considered this. We know from historical implementations of the policy that it creates a great deal of additional complexity at a time when there is already more than enough stress and confusion. The Daily Mail describes the famous original implementation of the policy on HMS Birkenhead: Some women did not want to go on their own — they had to be torn away from their husbands, carried over to the bulwark and dropped over the ship’s side. The original Birkenhead drill was effective because the captain and crew were military and there was a way to enforce the order with lethal force. The idea that a civilian cruise ship crew could even enforce this kind of policy is laughable. While there are some accounts of crew members firing into the air on the Titanic to restore order, if a significant number of the men on board had chosen to disregard the policy it seems unlikely that the crew could have prevailed. Additionally, there is going to be enough confusion on a sinking ship. This call to add additional complexity to the process only makes sense if one is absolutely wedded to a rule which has only rarely been implemented. Keeping men off of lifeboats only throttles the lifeboat load and launch process. Put this practice in place on a sinking cruise ship, and you’ve just created over a thousand heart rending farewell scenes smack in the middle of your lifeboat staging areas. Unless the crew is prepared to forcibly pick up women and throw them physically into lifeboats as they did on HMS Birkenhead you had better hope you have plenty of extra time. The same problem came up on the Titanic when implementing this policy. Many lives were needlessly lost in order to achieve the desired sex ratio of survivors on the Titanic. The only answer given both the realities of feminism and the logistical nightmare of this policy is to acknowledge that this historically short lived practice is something from the past. This doesn’t mean that no men will ever sacrifice for women, but that men will not be expected to sacrifice for women, especially those women who have no obligation to the men themselves. Individual men will continue to protect their own, but the idea that men in general have an obligation to women in general is dead.[/quote]