Talk:Women and children first

Survival Rates on the Titanic

The phrase "although in reality more first class men survived than third class women" is misleading. Statistics on http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm show that "third class women were 41% more likely to survive than first class men," where the percentage of men saved from all classes was much lower than the percentage of women and children saved.

So no attention's going to be played to the feminist viewpoints on this degrading and patronizing practice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.125.29 (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately in the modern era, it has reverted to "every man for himself". The above is true. On the Titanic, many third class passengers were saved. The chivilry of the first class male passengers was well documented - God bless them! Wallie (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Every man for himself" is not the only alternative to "women and children first" - I think in the modern era it is actually "everyone must be saved" - for example there are now rules requiring that there be enough lifeboats for all passengers and, as Pink Elephant and I have commented below, "women and children first" actually IMPAIRS the efficiency of evacuating ships and (especially) airplanes. Johnnie Rico (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Formally part of evacuation procedures?

Has "women and children first" ever been formally part of evacuation procedures, or something left to a Captain's discretion? Have there been any modern examples of this policy? Personally I'd expect modern regulations to specifically warn against it if anything, since this is a hideously inefficient means of loading lifeboats (as sadly demonstrated by the Titanic). Can anybody expand the article on these points? GM Pink Elephant (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And an even worse way of evacuating an airplane (where you don't have the option of jumping over the side or floating off the deck) I presume that men waiting for women and children will get in the way and impede the flow and that evacuation in order of proximity to exits is the most efficient but cannot find any references to support this.I was horrified to hear that some passengers cried "Women and children first" on Flight_1549. In the worst case scenario - are 100 men supposed to sit quietly in their seats waiting for a woman and a snot-nosed brat to move the whole length of the aisle to evacuate before them?!??! You evacuate from the seats closest to the exit first!!! Johnnie Rico (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it an inefficient way to unload a craft Pink Elephant, it is also a clear as crystal case of overt gender bias and discrimination in an era when men and women are to be assumed equals. For these two compelling reasons, it should certainly not be part of the official protocal for evacuation. I agree that it would be good if someone were to find out for certain what Pink Elephant above is wondering. I might take a look around for it myself. Alialiac (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

For it to be said on Flight_1549 certainly is shocking! I'll give it a mention in the article. It goes to show what a moral knee-jerk reaction "women and children first" is, even today. Head count is all that matters in disasters, not gender politics. But people will conform to peer pressure rather than be rational. For one thing, women probably have better survivability in water, due to having more fat for buoyancy and insulation. However, this won't make a huge difference and the issue is that sorting people by sex at all in such a situation makes your evacuation so catastrophicaly inefficient.

"Male disposability" is a very valid evolutionary hypothesis, by the way, because you only need one male to fertilse mutliple females. But just because something's natural doesn't mean it's morally acceptable. Happily, we are beings of higher thought. Except maybe not in a disaster... GM Pink Elephant (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Alialiac, men and women aren't equal. This policy is based on men being more able to survive dangerous situations than women or children. If a man gets trapped in a sinking airplane, he has a better chance to survive than if a woman does, because men are generally more physically able. Some would also argue men are more suited to those situations for other reasons as well.

It has nothing to do with any 'Male disposability'. It was to do with honour and chivalry, as at the time, woman were regarded as 'the Gentler sex', and it was beholden on a 'gentleman' to ensure the safety of any women before he was able to think of his own safety. That was why woman were stopped from accompanying men on any dangerous expeditions, as any man would feel honour-bound to look after the women before he took care of himself. In difficult circumstances, where the man's own life may be in great danger, it was felt an unnecessary burden to allow women along who would, whether they liked it or not, impose an additional worry on the men involved. In short, a man couldn't concentrate on the task in-hand, or make an effort to save his own life, if woman were also present. To save himself before saving, or attempting to save, any woman present, would render him liable to be called a coward, and result in him being shunned by his peers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.248.218 (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Birkenhead Drill is not mentioned in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) which was a direct response to the Titanic tragedy. Probably because it proofed counter-productive. I couldn't find any evidence for the application of the Birkenhead Drill in a maritime disaster after 1912 (Lusitania 1915, Gustloff 1945, Estonia 1994, Lisco Gloria this morning). Maybe the Birkenhead Drill would have been long forgotten without the Titanic movies?? I don't see any ethical justification either. The male disposability theory is no justification either. Humanity is not at the brink of extinction and India has a major population growth even though the abominable killing of girls is widespread. I think that the statement that the Birkenhead Drill has never been offically part of Maritime Law is correct. But maybe it should be included that it is counter-productive in a case of emergency because it threatens to slow down the evacuation process? --Mk4711 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I for one really do not see the point of the "criticism" section of this article. It just seems like yet another editorialization from the men's rights crowd so common here on Wikipedia. Warren Farrell is a contemporary "thinker" (I'm being generous), and his opinions are totally irrelevant to how women and children were thought of and treated in 1912 and earlier. I doubt very much any man on the Titanic thought, "women and children first? just another example of male disposability! I can't believe these women are trying to get the right to vote. I'm the one whose rights are really being violated!" If anything, the "disposability" level on the Titanic was based on class, and not sex. Furthermore, this is an article about an historical and archaic phrase. No modern evacuation plan actually suggests evacuating women and children first. Anyone who's been on an airplane knows that you are supposed to put your oxygen mask on yourself before you help your child or anyone else. So I just don't understand the need for the masculinist editorializing, and propose that the entire "criticism" section be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.252.194 (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

At the relevant time women wore long voluminous dresses with corsets that restricted their movement and so the 'Women and children first' was nothing to do with gender-anything. If a woman went into the water the long dress would soak up water and she would sink and drown. The women were dependant on the men to help them. No 'Officer and Gentleman' would leave a ship if there were still women or children aboard. Other males might, but not a Gentleman. That's the point. It was to do with honour and chivalry.

BTW, 'Every man for himself' also has a specific maritime meaning, the Captain (or highest-ranking surviving officer) could give this order to the ship's company once it was obvious that the ship could not be saved and signified that the men had fulfilled all their obligations to the ship and himself and could now make their own escape the best they could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.177 (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Removal

Discussion The First

I concede my (now struck-though) comments (as 118.90.54.168) on aircraft evacuation probably violated WP:SOAP Perhaps, however, you should have made a comment reminding us of these policies and given me/us a chance to edit them rather than wholesale deleting several comments that ARE relevant to the article - that "women and children first" is still called for in evacuations, whether it impairs efficiency, whether it has ever been part of formal procedures, whether "every man for himself" is the only alternative, whether it is gender discrimination and its evolutionary context are all valid topics for article inclusion IMHO. Comments? Johnnie Rico (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion The Second

Blanking user comments on talk pages is vandalism, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not. (WP:VAND) Could you explain, please, why you think that all the comments you deleted are "not relevant to improving the article" otherwise "do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission." (Talk_page_guidelines) Johnnie Rico (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page edit warring (transferred from User_talk:Johnnie_Rico)

Before again reverting my deletion of the inappropriate content on talk:Women and children first (saying), kindly take note of editing comments, specifically the part that says:

“ Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages). ”

Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Before removing other editors' comments, kindly first suggest why they are inappropriate and how they could be improved.

"With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion." (Editting policy)

And enter into a discussion about it ...

"When reverting other people's edits, give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Do not ignore questions. If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes the same behavior in others, and gets you embroiled in an edit war." (Etiquette) and ...

"The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale." (WP:TALK)

I understand that comments not relevant to improving the article are liable to removal but I think that, although informally written, they represent a healthy, relevant discussion and all the comments contain valuable ideas which will evolve into more concrete suggestions and eventually be included. We should give them the benefit of the doubt - Perfection is not required. From WP:TALK: "There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation". A simple comment suggesting we turn the discussion points into article improvements would have been much more productive than wholescale deletion.

I have refactored this discussion to bring all comments into one place and removed your user name from the headings lest it be construed as a personal attack (WP:TALK#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages). That was not intended but if it was interpreted that way then I apologize.

I've notified the editors whose comments you're deleting (they may be quite happy to edit their comments) and, as I'm a newcomer, I've referred this for a Third Opinion.

Let's try and sort this out ... why do you think that none of the issues raised in these comments should even be discussed here on the talk page?

Johnnie Rico (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of this talk page

As per the template at the top of this talk page, discussion here should focus exclusively on how to improve this article. This is not a discussion forum or soapbox for personal views. See Talk page guidelines for further details. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing was conceded and removed. Other comments contain information useful to improving the article. Johnnie Rico (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - let's move forward. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Women considered to be minors

Captain Smith spent most of his life in the 19th century, at a time when women still had a legal status which approached that of a child. For instance, the Napoleonic code denies women to most property rights and orders them to legally submit to their husbands. It was only in the 1960s and 1970s that women got an access to purchasing cards, at a time when they were legally emancipated in most Westerm jurisdictions. It should also be noted that labour codes at the time considered women's labour to be roughly equivalent to the phenomenon of child labour. ADM (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Napoleonic Code was applied in France, not the UK. The status of women in the UK was not that of minors. The women and children first code was specifically British, thus the reference to the Napoleonic Code is irrelevant. The code was not generally applied because most ships were not British! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually at the time most of the world's shipping was British. In around 1900 nine out of ten of the world's merchant ships were British-built, and eight out of every ten were British-registered. In September 1939 when Britain went to war there were ~12,000 merchant ships on the British register flying the Red Duster, of-which around 4,000 were sunk in the period 1939-45. The next biggest ship-operator was Norway with around 2,000 ships. In fact the British merchant fleet was at least two or three times the size of all the rest of the world's merchant fleets combined. Britain still had the world's largest merchant fleet til as late as the 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.177 (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Biological basis

Given that one man may father children by many women at a time and one woman is basically limited to bearing a child for one man at a time, this practice is actually based in the biology of species survival. Khajidha (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you took the biological explanation serious you would have to save a young man instead of an old woman who can't give birth anymore. But this wouldn't go with the Birkenhead Drill. The biological theory reduces women and men to reproductive machines. Already in Ancient Egypt human society was far too complex to reduce the importance of a human being in the society to reproduction. This theory is even dangerous. It's not a long way and you have "perfect" explanations why to kill the handicapped an so on. On the other hand it implies that humanity would be on the verge of extinction. "We" have survived several ice ages and so on. So, what`s it all about? India has a long tradition of killing girls (which is abominable). It still has a high population growth. Anyway the Birkenhead Drill only works if respected on a voluntary basis. Otherwise refused men just block the way and reduce the speed of action. Time is essentional for saving lifes. Any selection takes time, especially when it has to be forced upon people. And what's the benefit of the Birkenhead Drill? Does it help to save more lifes? Looking at the Titanic disaster I come to another conclusion. Imagine the World Trade Center attack with a "women and children first" evacuation policy. Would it have helped to save more lifes? I therefore think that the biological explanation shouldn't be included in the article. --Mk4711 (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section doesn't really sound all that much like criticism; although, I do think that it could be expanded (and perhaps called something else, and have a proper 'criticism' added as well, if need be). I'm not sure it adequately explains the significance of "resulted in high numbers of widows or orphans who might then face economic and social difficulty" statement, unless I'm not understanding correctly. Is it saying that it was the wrong thing to do for that reason? Zujua (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

More notable examples

Can we search for more notable examples of this policy? They can put some light on gender discrimination. emijrp (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In 1841 a ship called William Brown went under. In one of the lifeboats all male passengers were thrown or otherwise coerced aboard to their death by the crew. All women except two survived. There's a film and a book about the incident. I don't think that this can be regarded as misogyny even if the principle was men first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.20.195 (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Other notable cases

The Costa Concordia sinking is given as another example where women and children were evacuated first. Problem 1 - Citation is to another Wikipedia article that makes no reference to "women and children first". Problem 2 - Initial reports by newspapers mentioned that some staff had insisted that families go first but it's not clear if this was a consistent policy (sorry can't find reference now)

Category "sex discrimination"

The article states "Dr David Benatar views the policy of "women and children first" (and conscription) as evidence of what Warren Farrell refers to as "male disposability," where preservation of a woman's life is given priority over preservation of a man's life." There is surely no more ultimate form of discrimination than with regards to matters of life and death. And it's not simply a concept with merely theoretical consequences, an examination of the survival statistics for the Titanic shows the potential end result, with men held back from lifeboats at gun-point simply due to their gender (some of the life-boats being half empty). My views on the appropriateness of this category is shared by at least one other so can people please not remove it without giving a reason. Thanks--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on that particular category, but, as it happens, I was planning on editing that sentence in the near future. Benatar's article appeared in the journal "Social Theory & Practice" with not one, but four rebuttal articles. This suggests that his opinions may not be widely held. I have skimmed Benatar's article and I can find no reference to Farrell. Benatar does write about the phrase "women and children first" more than once, but only in passing. This appears to be synthesis of two minority views. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Be very careful of edit warring here please. You have gone ahead and reverted again before any discussion or consensus on this page. I don't have a strong view on this subject, but agree with the comment above from Delicious carbuncle that this is a minority view. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not about the Titanic, but practice in general. Men are stronger and have higher survival capabilities than women and children and as such priority is commonly given to women and children. I don't think that a man shouting "Sorry, it's a sex discrimination" while making his way into a lifeboat with women and children has a good rationale. Brandmeister^talk 09:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't priority given to children because they are the future and to women because they are the limiting factor in replacing lost population? Generally speaking a woman carries only one child at a time while a man may father numerous children at the same time by multiple mothers. It's the same reason male birds are often brightly colored while females and young are often dully colored, the protection of females and young over adult males is basic biology.--Khajidha (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"Men are stronger and have higher survival capabilities than women and children" No, some men avec higher survival capabilities than some women and children. The (alleged) "Women and children first" is only about the sexgender and age, not about survival capabilities. Apokrif (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that humanity would have survived to become the dominant species on the planet if there hadn't been an instinct to protect women and in women to avoid danger. I use woman in the sense that she has the womb and nurtures infants. An example often used is WW1 and how little it affected overall fertility as men did most of the fighting and dying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.58.231 (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the criticism section, since it consisted of the questionable Benatar/Farrell synthesis and an unsourced statement about the high numbers of widows and orphans left by men dying on the Titanic. I think there is a valid criticism to be made on the basis of sex discrimination, but that wasn't it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion about this category can now be found here. Apokrif (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Article name

I don't think the article name is quite right - this is not a saying, but a protocol. Sayings are metaphorical (e.g. many hands make light work), whereas "women and children first" is usually meant to be taken quite literally. Options:

• Rename to "Women and children", and rename the existing dab page to "Women and children (disambiguation)". The other article's names are derived from this one, so it would make sense for the original term to point here.
• Rename to "Women and children (protocol)"

Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What are the other articles? Kaldari (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Album names - see Women and children first Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I wound favor having this be the default, and the disambiguation page be "Women and children first (disambiguation)". Kaldari (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kaldari. Rename the disambiguation page:

• "Women and children first (disambiguation)", and rename this page simply: "Women and children first",
• I do not agree with the actual "Women and children first (protocol)" nor the previous one. --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't suggest a name that you do like, so your comment is unfortunately not helpful. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the unnecessary disambiguator, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Kaldari (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good job, thank you! Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO muster station signal image

The caption for the IMO muster station signal images says that it illustrates the concept Women and children first, but I'm not seeing it. It looks to me like the center of the image shows a man, a woman, and 3 children. How does that illustrate Women and children first? Kaldari (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree - I've removed the image until a discussion is had here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

How can we discuss it if we can't see it? 98.26.28.41 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yer late :) Here's the image: File:IMO_Muster_station_sign.jpg. Kaldari (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Misandry" category

I think we've already covered this in the discussion about the "sex discrimination" category here (and elsewhere, although I can't recall where), but is it appropriate to add Category:Misandry to this article? I find the contention absurd that the naval tradition of "women and children first" is based on "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men", but my removal of the category has been reverted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote in edit comments, I can't see anything much relevant in this talk page. I have a very hard time understanding how it could not be an expression of "dislike, contempt or prejudice" against men to say that their lives are less valuable than women's. Apokrif (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there sources characterising the practice as sex discrimination or misandry? It doesn't matter what the tradition is based on; it only matters what the sources say. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

First, it's original research. Second, Apokrif's suggestion is absurd. "Women and children first" wasn't due to dislike of men, it was due to the fact that some people believed that men were superior to women and children and thus less vulnerable during a disaster. The idea wasn't to kill the men, it was to maximize the survivors, regardless of how misguided that idea might have been. Rather than recycling silly MRM propaganda, let's exercise a modicum of common sense here. Kaldari (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I categorized the article in Category:Sex discrimination instead. Apokrif (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

use of term "protocol"

'Protocol' implies an officially-sanctioned code of conduct. As "women & children first" has never been part of maritime (or any other) law, labelling it a 'protocol' in the article seems inaccurate if not misleading. Based on the data presented, "women and children first" appears to be more of a theoretical code of conduct (and one which originated in a work of fiction, rather than in real life practice). It therefore appears to be little more than a phrase (like "the captain goes down with his ship") and/or a theroetical code of idealized 'chivalric' conduct. Even as far as real life practice goes, we only seem to have the Titanic and the Birkenhead as substantial reference points for the application (or enforcing) of W&CF.

With regards to the disambiguation page, the same concerns apply: "*Women and children first, a protocol used in marine disasters that was established with the sinking of HMS Birkenhead" The number of times it was actually applied appears to be questionable, and to say that a concept originating in fiction and of uncertain (but apparently quite limited) real-life application was "established" at all seems unsupported by the available data.

--TyrS 10:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No, in this context it means "the accepted or established code of procedure or behaviour in any group, organization, or situation" Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That is only one among many senses of the word defined at the link you provided, Socrates2008. Even if we were to clarify in the article that this is the sense in which we're using it, it still implies a greater degree of actual real-life application than the available evidence supports.

The first listed meaning at the link you provided is:

"1 [mass noun] the official procedure or system of rules governing affairs of state or diplomatic occasions"

So yes, 'protocol' will be normally taken to imply something officially sanctioned and enforced most of the time, which clearly isn't the case here (unless/until sufficient evidence can be provided to the contrary).--TyrS 03:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"the accepted or established code of procedure or behaviour in any group, organization, or situation" (etiquette) it is comprised into the same point 1. Anyway the sentence «Women and children first» it is also a categorical imperative, a practice, consuetude and a procedure. I was noticed e.g. was applied during the sinking of the MS Sea Diamond. --Nicola Romani (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There is obviously more than one meaning to this word - the one being used here has the meaning in my quote above - synonyms are "etiquette" (the term that was linked in the article) or social "norm". The meaning that you are inferring is covered by the this article. Ironically, I think that the latest variation calling this a "code of conduct" suggests something enforced by some upper authority, rather than being voluntary behaviour. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I've read, "women & children first", when it was applied, was applied because the command to do so was given by the ship's captain (and men who didn't comply could be shot) so I'm not sure why "something enforced by some upper authority" (as you said you feel "code of conduct" implies) would be seen as ironic. And where does the assumption of voluntary behavior come in?

Regarding "protocol", personally that sounds much more offical and imposed-from-above than does "code of conduct". One is more likely, for example, to have a "personal code of conduct" than a "personal protocol", I think.--TyrS 10:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Would "tradition" get any !votes? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What do the sources call it? Protocol, tradition or something else? --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's see, we have (from weakest to strongest):

• Saying
• Protocol (in the social etiquette sense)
• Social norm
• (Maritime) custom/tradition
• Social practice
• Principle
• Code of conduct
• Duty (in the Victorian moral sense)
• Policy
• Rule
• Command, order (Murdock on the Titanic?)
• Regulation

At the top of the list, we're suggesting people did this because they thought it was the "right" thing to do, while at the bottom they were being told/coerced to. Which is it - I'm inclined to think it's somewhere near the top of the list, although in Victorian times when this practice originated, the implications of not doing what society expected were considerably greater than today. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

How about one of these:

• historical maritime code of practice
• historical maritime code of behavior
• historical maritime tradition
• historical maritime etiquette

?

"Policy", "rule" and "regulation" would (like "protocol") make it sound (to me) like something one would expect to have a basis in maritime law. Regarding 'protocol' wiki-linked to the 'etiquette' article as clarification of the sense in which we're using it, since we have so many other lexical options that don't require readers to read another article, it seems to me we're better off using one of those instead. I guess it comes down to what flavor the word "protocol" has to the majority of interested editors at the moment.--TyrS 10:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We can't call it "historical" because some people still hold this view, while "maritime" says this only happened at sea, which is not the case. Different factors have applied to different events at different points in time - it was sometimes voluntary and sometimes more coerced, but never made it into maritime law. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought "historical" and "maritime" would be helpful because of the term's origins but I think I can see what you mean. How would something like:

"Women and children first" is a code of behavior that originated in the Victorian era and prescribed that, in life-threatening situations such as disaster evacuations (typically abandoning ship, when survival resources such as lifeboats were limited) men were to put the lives of women and children first."  ?

(The mention of the Birkenhead Drill could be included later.) --TyrS 13:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I prefer: "Women and children first (or to a lesser extent, the Birkenhead Drill) is a practice and saying that originated in the Victorian era. In life-threatening situations such as disaster evacuations (typically abandoning ship, when lifeboats were limited) it proposed that men should put the lives of women and children first." Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Intro section

I have just reverted Socrates2008's move of the information regarding the phrase's first known appearance - I can't see how that edit is "per WP:LEAD". The first known appearance of the phrase is extremely relevant and belongs in the introduction.

"at this time was not associated with any specific event" doesn't really add anything meaningful to the article. In the context of this topic, the first use, wherever it may have occurred, of the phrase in question is a relevant event. Also, without quoting directly from 'Harrington: A True Story of Love' we can't really see what it might or might not have been associated with.

"Women and children first" clearly had its beginning in fiction, and partly was kept alive through works of poetry and other fiction. Moving all material that reflects that fact out of the intro section leaves the article with a palpable lack of balance and suggests POV.--TyrS 09:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the Manual of Style, the lead of an article is a summary, and therefore must not introduce information not in the main body of the article. Reverting edits like this and making pointy comments is not going to make you any friends with other editors and is likely to lead to an adventure with an administrator. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:LEAD#Relative_emphasis "not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text". I'm sorry you've taken personal offence but making threats and condescending remarks to me isn't likely to be helpful or constructive.--TyrS 09:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm familiar with that. The full story is "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." So the emphasis is actually on all the text you omitted. To help you avoid being sanctioned now for edit warring, I won't fix that summary just yet, but I suggest in the meantime that you go and ask someone if you are still unclear on this point of WP style. I'm trying to give you some space here, but it seems that you're not listening; where this goes to next is your call... Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Socrates2008, you yourself left "not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text" out when you quoted to me above "the lead of an article is a summary, and therefore must not introduce information not in the main body of the article", regarding what you see as being relevant here. When I quote a specific part of a guideline, that's to show exactly what I'm referring to, and there's nothing more sinister going on than that.

I'm a bit confused about when you write "So the emphasis is actually on all the text you omitted" - do you mean your emphasis?

About me getting into trouble for being naughty, I appreciate your concern but please don't trouble yourself too much on my account.

The information about the phrase's first appearance probably doesn't need to be repeated in the body, but it would be good to get some other editors' thoughts on all this. In regards to Wikipedia:LEAD#Relative_emphasis, I think the novel info would come under the description of exceptions ("Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles"), that is, if I understand that subsection correctly.--TyrS 10:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup or what? If the content in the lead is not repeated in the body of the article, then either write about it in one of the sections, or if you don't want to do that, just copy and paste it.--Joshua Issac (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Have just done the first suggestion. I hope no-one objects too much :) Personally I think it looks pretty good. --TyrS 14:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

p.s. thanks to Socrates2008 for their (sorry, I don't know the user's gender) recent work on the references --TyrS 16:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

References

The link for reference 6 doesn't lead to the paper anymore.Lucasgrange (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A bunch of the references don't lead to anything. Telstar2 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

First documented incident

• 1840, the ship Poland is the (at present) first documented application of "women and children first". GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 10:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The 2012 Uppsala study?

I hope I am doing this right, I read this entire article and it just made me angry that there were so many references to the 2012 Uppsala study, a study which in itself is a joke. It's just another one in a long line of "research" that try to turn chivalry into something that never existed. Should also look at Claes-Göran Wetterholms book from the same year, he even has the stomach to claim that there was no chivalry on the Titanic because "Just as many women and men were saved"....let's just say he is really bad with statistics, first of all he seems unable to count how many men and women there were on the Titanic, anyhow, back to the 2012 Uppsala study, why is it a joke? Well, mainly because the "researchers" compare completely different maritime disasters, they lift up the Estonia as their "proof" that maritime chivalry never existed, but when the Estonia sank there was really no time to do anything, it just tipped over, and some of the stronger people got out, it important to remember that the Estonia survival rate wasn't even close to the survival rate of the Titanic, so there really was no time for "women and children first".

What they basically are doing is comparing maritime disasters that can't be compared, maritime disasters in different cultures that can't be compared, and also in different time periods that can't be compared. Basically the entire study is just an attack on chivalry. Chronicler87 (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the points you are making. CSDarrow (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Osama bin Laden principle

This article and principle is about an idea near and dear to the heart of the bleeding-heart Islamic conservatives such as Osama bin Laden such as when he said, "The evidence overwhelmingly shows America and Israel killing the weaker men, women and children in the Muslim world[1]" and male politicians like Bill Clinton[2] or John Kerry pontificating.--24.248.74.254 (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent additions from John Paul Parks

@John Paul Parks: I reverted your edits because this source is the 100 year-old primary account of someone with a conflict of interest, which has been criticized as "whitewashed". It also somewhat contradicts the preceding paragraph which was sourced to more recent, independent sources. I removed the criticism section because it synthesized "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." PermStrump(talk) 16:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Grammar & historical perspective (1st sentence)

As the content of the article demonstrates, "women & children first" does not currently function as a norm in the majority of situations (if it ever did), therefore the wording "... a code of conduct whereby the lives of women and children are to be saved first in a life-threatening situation..." is anachronistic. The applicable verb is were, as "women & children first", as a code of conduct, is a phrase/phenomenon from the past. --TyrS 17:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@TyrS: The mixed tense in the current sentence is awkward. Saying it "is a code of conduct", but "women and children were to be saved first" sounds strange and may be confusing. Perhaps you could re-write it to provide more context. Kaldari (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kaldari: I've just tweaked the wording, adding the year to hopefully clarify that there is historical perspective involved. However, I don't agree about it sounding strange or awkward.

English grammar allows for mixed tenses so that situations like this can be described. I don't think we need to dumb down our wording too much. The reason the mixed tenses works is that, as a concept, W&CF exists now as it did before, therefore "is" makes sense. "Were to be saved first" makes sense both because it indicates that W&CF is a historical concept, and because it also functions as a subjunctive, suggesting the hypothetical situation of a disaster occurring (i.e. "if a disaster were to occur, w&c were to be saved"). Furthermore, having it as "w&c are to be saved first" makes it sound like Wikipedia is trying to claim that W&CF is currently a code of conduct, which the rest of the article shows to be untrue.--TyrS 20:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the previous version of the sentence had mixed tenses anyway: "...whereby the lives of women and children are to be saved first in a life-threatening situation, typically abandoning ship, when survival resources such as lifeboats were limited".--TyrS 23:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Misandry?

I'm not sure if we can consider this misandry in a neutral point of view so should we remove the Misandry category from the page? The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 11:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I second that. Calling that a misandry is a stretch-out. Brandmeister^talk 09:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Question?

I would like to ask, the article says that the method was used in the 21st century, but in the news I did not find information about why it was done so, so until now in a society where this gender equality is based there are cases of egregious discrimination, are there any articles that denounce this practice as a violation of human rights, and so on, why do femenists so wrestle.in advance I'm sorry I'm Russian and I can not write normally in English. Can you please give links to sources--Гривусинус (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Genders

The article only addresses men and women. Is there any information about what happens to e.g. agender people? Apokrif (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Well... there are only two. DerKarthager (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Historically agender people looked like either men or women, so this is moot. 102.65.55.236 (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Herndon and the SS Central America.

Hi User:JMOprof, I just reverted your mention of William Lewis Herndon and the sinking of the SS Central America as an example of women and children first, because I couldn't find evidence for this claim in any of the linked sources. I consulted Gentleman Boss and the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. I'd love to include it if we could find a source that supports it. Suriname0 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This article mentions Story of an American Tragedy, Survivors Accounts of the Sinking of the Steamship Central American, which quotes one of the passenger accounts as follows: "It was one of the noblest things in the world that all the women and children were saved…From the beginning to the end [Captain Herndon] forbade any man to get into one of the boats until all the women and children had been carried off." I don't have time to look up that book now, but it may very well be the secondary coverage we need if it substantiates that passenger account. Suriname0 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Take a moment to read the source before you blindly revert my updates. TEDickey (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:TEDickey, a gentle reminder to WP:AGF. For example, the claims you inserted (via revert) are completely unsourced. What "source" are you suggesting that I read? Re-adding challenged, unverified material to an article without a source should be avoided. I see that you added this source to the William Lewis Herndon article: is that the source you're referring to? That source, not currently cited in this article, says: "Her boats were lowered and filled first with the women and children." In your view, does that source support the added claim, that the sinking of the Central America is a "notable invocation of the concept" of women and children first? To me, that still sounds like WP:OR. However, thanks for finding that source! It looks like we should add the Central America to the main body of the article. Please let me know if I missed a source you added to this article. Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the source is misleading, because you're claiming that someone other than the captain of the ship gave orders for filling the boats first with women and children? TEDickey (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Tedickey, I'm a little confused by your response, as I didn't say and wasn't trying to imply that the source was misleading. Perhaps you can clarify your question? The unsourced claim that you added is that this particular sinking is a "notable invocation of the concept", which is not an argument that I see in that source (or the others I consulted), so it seems like WP:OR to me. Suriname0 (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:Notability is satisfied by the event being described in more than one reliable source. Since you apparently have decided that none of those are suitable, and that no source exists (you've not looked for one), go ahead and delete without regard for the guidelines TEDickey (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Tedickey, I continue to not understand your responses, which seem irrelevant to what I've written above. Please clarify your concerns, or even better: constructively provide sources so that we can make this article the best that it can be while adhering to WP:V! Suriname0 (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Unofficial or unwritten

Should it be called an "unofficial" or "unwritten" code of misconduct, or neither of them? I already made the change, but I wanna know the opinions. Wahakadha mustakhdim (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)