Honestly, if my cruise ship is sinking, I am running towards the nearest life boat. I don't care what I have in my pants.
Or is this a non-issue now? Do cruise ships make sure to have more than enough lifeboats to accommodate everyone?
Yes - there has been provision for all since the Titanic disaster, so it is not an issue. I did read that in emergency situations, the rule is that family's are prioritised in terms of boarding lifeboats, with others following them. Not sure how true that is, though.
share"Women and children first" was never an actual rule and was in fact rarely observed. Titanic was a notable exception, and perhaps because the Titanic story is well-known, people think that "women and children first" was a common practice. But it was not.
This article gives more details:
http://www.history.com/news/women-and-children-first-on-sinking-ships-its-every-man-for-himself
While ships have to have enough lifeboats for all today, that is no guarantee of safety, as in most sinkings, the ship rolls to one side and the lifeboats on that side are unusable. However, the readier availability of air and sea rescue manages to save people who would have perished for lack of lifeboats otherwise. Andrea Doria and Oceanos come to mind; there are many others.
It's a mystery why Titanic did not roll to one side, as so many others have done (Lusitania, Empress of Ireland, Costa Concordia, etc.).It listed somewhat, but not enough to prevent lifeboats from being lowered. Various authorities have speculated that the crew below decks were somehow keeping the ship upright, but no one appears to have any cogent explanation.
I think the list to port was caused when Lightoller ordered the crew to open the forward gangway door on the port side. The water then flooded Scotland road and the list to port increased significantly. Survivors said the officers and the Captain ordered them to the starboard side.
e.g. Mr. Hemming - "The Captain was there, and he sung out "Everyone over to the starboard side, to keep the ship up as long as possible."
Lightoller believed the weight of people moving to the starboard side would balance out the ship. They could not get the starboard collapsible up to the davits because of the list to port, and it meant dragging the collapsible uphill. I'm sure it was not an easy task. The list was so bad that Colonel Gracie thought the ship was about to roll over and capsize.
I would assume the flooding in Scotland Road happened before the water flooded through the open gangway door. Scotland Road being on E Deck would have already been flooding and responsible for the list to port - when the water reached D Deck I assume it continued as such.
The mystery to me is how the ship went back to a (kind of) even keel. Jack Thayer described that as did a number of other survivors, though it evened out in the last few minutes of the ship's life.
I think the ship was beginning to break up. Survivors heard an explosion and the people at the bow said the ship took a sudden plunge down and then rose up again. Lightoller said the bow was reeling from side to side and this could explain why the starboard bow went down and up again as the ship rocked left and right as it had lost buoyancy and was twisting free from the stern but still partially attached to it. Survivors heard two "explosions" in the ship and how the first one occurred before the bridge went under. George Brayton said: "I saw the waters reach the bridge after the vessel broke in two and the forward portion began sinking first." Lightoller said: "This explosion, or whatever it was, took place. Certainly, I think it was the boilers exploded. There was a terrific blast of air and water, and I was blown out clear." Ernest Archer tried to estimate the time between the two explosions - "I should say they would be about 20 minutes between each explosion. From the time I heard the first one until I heard the second one it would be about 20 minutes." Mr Brice believed the two explosions were from "8 to 10 minutes" apart.
This gives us a picture that the break up was not a quick event but a slow progressive one. Charles Joughin heard the sound of metal breaking before he made his way towards the stern. He believed the list to port was more noticeable than the downward tilt. This could mean the stresses on the hull were more concentrated on the port and starboard sides of the ship rather than on the keel itself. The port side would be compressing into itself and the starboard side would be ripping open. I imagine the weight of the engines in that area played some part in the break up as well.
What these explosions were is hard to say. Jack Thayer saw sparks shooting out of the second funnel as she broke in two. Other survivors saw huge amounts of coal shooting out and large plumes of smoke. Others said the explosion pushed them far away from the ship. Survivors heard up to 4 explosions. Charlotte Collyer said: "It came with a deafening roar that stunned me. Something in the very bowels of the Titanic exploded and millions of sparks shot up to the sky, like rockets in a park on the night of a summer holiday. This red spurt was fan shaped as it went up, but the sparks descended in every direction in the shape of a fountain of fire. Two other explosions followed, dull and heavy, as if below the surface. The Titanic broke in two before my eyes. The fore part was already partly under the water. It wallowed over and disappeared instantly. The stern reared straight on end and stood poised on the ocean for many seconds. They seemed minutes to me. It was only then that the electric lights on board went out. Cries more terrible than I had ever heard rang in my ears. I turned my face away, but looked round the next instant and saw the second half of the great ship slip below the surface as easily as a pebble in a pond. I shall always remember that last moment as the most hideous of the whole disaster."
I don't think it's all that hard. The explosions were clearly the sounds of the hull tearing apart and bulkheads and internal rooms collapsing from the break-up, which also would have severed electrical lines causing the sparks. The boilers on the sea bed are all intact, so it wasn't that, despite Lightoller's assumptions.
The break up was a very violent event, and must have sounded horrific. Without any other references (I doubt any of the survivors had ever heard a nearly 900 foot long ocean liner tear itself apart), they very easily would have attributed it to explosions.
The ship didn't capsize because unlike Lusitania and other ships because she lateral compartments which allowed water to disperse more or less evenly. The Olympic class ship were actually very well built compared to other ships of its time and modern ships. Britannic, which had a large hole in her and sank rapidly, but did not capsize. I highly doubt that there was much they could do to I n terms of the stability of the ship, and find it hilarious that they thought moving people to the opposite side of ship to counter balance it.They were merely very stable ships thank sank in a more ideal manner.
shareIt puzzled the British Inquiry. They asked 2nd officer Lightoller about it:
Lightoller
"....Mr. Wilde calling out “All passengers over to the starboard side.” That was an endeavour to give her a righting movement, and it was then I noticed that the ship had a list. It would have been far more noticeable on the starboard side than on the port....I think the ship righted. When the order was given to the passengers to go to the starboard side I am under the impression that a great many went over and the ship got a righting movement and maintained it, and then the passengers came back again in great numbers."
Q - You mean to say the shifting of the passengers on the deck would affect the list?
A - Yes, my Lord. At that height, and with that number of passengers, I think it would. Mr. Wilding would be able to decide that.
Q - It would have a very small effect, would it not?
A - I am under the impression the fact of her being low down in the water and the stern higher out of the water it would have more effect than if she were on an even keel under ordinary circumstances.
Q - Surely it would have more effect if she were high up out of the water?
A - I may be wrong, my Lord, but I think it would have more effect with her head down in the water and her stern out, suspended amidships.
I agree! It doesn't matter your gender - a Human life is at stake and worth everything.
I always found it so incredibly sad that just because they were men, that they couldn't somehow get the best chance they could to get off that ship - alive!
So many men had families, were the only bread winner, so I'm sure alot of broken families suffered without the husband/father.
Even those who were single men of any age, they, just like everyone else just wanted to
live!
In that situation, nobody's life should be worth less than somebody else's.
Well that doesn't make you sound like a complete coward at all [laugh]
It doesn't, dumdum. A man's life is worth as much as a woman's or a childs. Pretty sure you wouldn't go down "honorably" in that situation, would you, douche?
shareOf course I would, plenty of men would... sorry, should have said plenty of REAL men would. Of course a little pussy like you would be the first to run to the boat screaming and crying, right? Thats ok, some men were simply conceived from a weaker sperm. Its not really your fault.
I hope my reply doesn't hurt your feelings too much.
[deleted]
[deleted]
My name is Norman Dostal, Einstein. Is yours wozordoz? My point which flew over your head, is that skinny little twerps talk so brave and bad when theyre posting anonymously online.
the truth is, you cannot honestly answer that youd go down on the titanic unless it was really happening. You can pretend to know and assume a mantle of bravery, but most likely youd squeal and cry out and seek safety on a lifeboat like most normal people. The instinct is to live and there's nothing cowardly about that.
I take it you've never confronted death, never served in the military, right?
Ok wow you're name is Norman. Because that really proves who you are right, couldn't possibly be a fake name or anything. all I know about you is that your name is allegedly Norman, doesn't make you any less anonymous than me. If you had more than two braincells to rub together you'd know that.
Well thats a beautiful soliloquy but you don't actually know anything about me or most people in this world so just because YOU would take the cowardly way out on a sinking ship doesn't mean that we all would. Yes I have actually confronted death therefore I know exactly how I'd behave. If you didn't cry so much over my original comment I wouldn't have accused you of being a coward but now you've done a effortless sh!tty job of proving me wrong. Well done.
It's my name-again, what is yours?
It's not cowardly, stupid, as I said, its simply human to want to preserve your life. Why on earth would you call it cowardly to just be human?
Yeah, you've confronted death? That's just words, dude
Yeah 'just words', just as your name is just a name... dude.
So this is how you prefer to live your life, your opinion is right and everyone elses is wrong. Its wrong for me to call you cowardly, its wrong for me to claim I wouldn't do it and if I admit that I've confronted death then that must obviously be a lie too?
Man you really are an over-sensitive little sissy, aren't you. Go back to living in your bubble, I think thats where you are at your safest.
Youre gonna hurt yourself arguing in circles, little man.
Youre arguing poorly and stupidly. There is no bravery involved in elevating a woman or child's life over your own-it just means you think little of your own life's worth-are you not employed? No family or friends? Why the low self esteem?
ALL lives have value. The women and children "rule" wasn't even actually a rule if you look it up!
Human beings fight for life-thats not debatable. And there's no cowardice in being human, as I said.
....wtf did I just read? Are you sure you're not a woman 'Norman', you certainly sprout a lot of BS just like one. Oh don't worry, there's very little chance of ME hurting myself on here. I'm getting nothing but amused by your tireless efforts to try and get one over on me. You really must be desperate. And those are the classic signs of little man syndrome so once again there is more irony coming from you.
Who gives a fck if it wasn't an actual rule, man did you really go to those efforts to bring them into this argument. Lol woow you are sooo desperate it's actually laughable. So desperate to prove you're not a coward that it's actually making you look like a coward.
If only you knew when to stop...
Ohmygod, please stfu! You're like that bratty kid in the store that needs to be smacked. Are you a child?
shareSaid the crybaby coward.
[deleted]
In 1912, yes. Because this is years before the feminist movement and there was actually something called chivalry. Today? Women want to be men. DEMAND to be men. Now, I realize that in a sinking ship even the most die hard feminist would throw that out the window and play the "woman" card. But it does pose the question, would it be fair to do that anymore? Our society tells us gender doesn't matter anymore. Our society is messed up, but hey, that's what we are told.
shareAAAAAAAAAND as we approach Day FOUR of this electrifying deathmatch, the crowd wonders...... WHO will triumph? WHO will take home the gold? Who.....
shareFunny isn't it, how you chose to reply to me twice rather than the person I am engaging in this electrifying deathmatch with, so soon after he comments each time too. Hmm I wonder why that is... could you make yourself anymore obvious, or desperate, Normans-fake-account?
How about you and Norman both stfu and stop acting like little b!tches.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
Sock account no.3!
Getting waaaaaay desperate now, Norman
me? A sock?
Roflmao.... this is rich.
I guess only one person can ever say anything against you therfore anyone who says anything against you must be a sock?
You are fricking retarded you know that.
My post was for BOTH OF YOU to stfu.
The post was to you and not him because you're the most recent. Had it been him, I would have posted to him for BOTH OF YOU to stfu.
Calling me a sock just shows how fricking stupid you are.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
Whatever Norman the coward.
Bye now
AMAZING
shareA man's life is worth as much as a woman's or a childs
weird-why? what if the man is albert Einstein? child still more valuable?
as an atheist, all life is the same to me-if not, its kind of like creepy eugenics...
as an atheist, all life is the same to me-if not, its kind of like creepy eugenics...
Maybe that what the problem is, you need some sort of moral compass or faith in something higher.
I just personally think a defenseless child who hasn't had much experience in life should definitely have priority. Also, the fact he inserted that he is atheist probably wasnt a wise move. If I were ignorant or naive towards the moral conduct of an atheist I might consider them somewhat cruel and inhumane. I actually would love to see how he would handle a situation in actual practice. I cant help but think he would not honor his idea that aq children not being priority in an emergency. With that said a lot of people become believers in an emergency and turn to the help of a higher power even when they claim to not believe in one.
shareI just personally think a defenseless child who hasn't had much experience in life should definitely have priority.
Also, the fact he inserted that he is atheist probably wasnt a wise move. If I were ignorant or naive towards the moral conduct of an atheist I might consider them somewhat cruel and inhumane.
It shouldn't exist, unless feminists want to be hypocrites.
shareI don't get the comments about men's lives being as worthy as women and children's, that's not the point at all. Sure, a life is a life but it's about giving the 'weaker' ones a chance.
Granted some women are stronger than men, but overall, men are bigger, stronger and probably faster (especially if you consider what women wore at that time), so the "women and children rule" consists on giving their chance to those who'd be the last to get on the life boat if the applied rule was "every man for himself".
It's a matter of 'honor', maybe a word that is forgotten in our era.
Most of the guys who survived the tragedy lived in perpetual disgrace and were deemed as cowards, so, as archaic and old-fashioned as societies were, they didn't take lightly that a man would survive a tragedy where other women and children died.
Darth Vader is scary and I The Godfather
Agreed. No life is worth more than the other (unless it's children, imo) but, you're right. It's all about honor.
I'm sure the majority of the men on the ship wanted the women and children to go first instead of themselves.
Exactly. And we can't even judge those who couldn't resist the temptation to get to a life boat, what would have we done if we were in their shoes?
Darth Vader is scary and I The Godfather
You make a decent point. However, if I see an empty seat on a boat, and notice no women around me, of course I'd take it. I don't think it will be cowardly or dishonorable to do so, since I didn't shove a woman to get to it. Waiting for a woman (or anyone) to get to the seat is just a preposterous thing to do. I wouldn't call that "brave". Everyone has the right to save themselves.
Controversially, I believe that age matters more than gender. If I'm put in this predicament, I would prefer "rescuing" 21 year old men over 45 year old women. For starters, that man was a child 5 years ago. He probably still has the mind of a child and would react as such in these conditions. The woman would be more considerate and smarter in this situation, despite being "weaker". Your brain matters too, not just your physical body. Not to mention, she has lived long enough, whilst the 21 year old still has a life ahead of him.
Of course, this is a cruel idea (perhaps more inhumane than "women and children only"). But it's just a hypothetical scenario. Despite its acerbic characteristic, I would've used that rule instead of "women and children" first.
My regulation would go like this: Mother and her children first, elderly people, young men and women (16-25) and the rest (middle aged men and women). Is it bad? I don't know. But it's certainly no better than "woman and children only". The cut-off age was 14, I believe. So seriously, a 15 year old child is less "valuable" than a 50 year old woman? Isn't it more cowardly to let a 15 year old child die over an adult? It's rather ironic, no?
Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.
The women that survived the Titanic ought to be ashamed. 72% women survived, but 50% of children survived and 16% of men survived.
shareAshamed for being pushed into going on the boats? This was a time when women couldn’t just defy their husbands. They were expected to stay with the children and that was that.
shareBUT - there were so few women aboard (especially on crew), more of the survivors were male ultimately.
shareStraight up! It should be survival of the fittest in those situations. Why should men be discriminated against?
shareI'm with ya'.
Women actually compose 51% or 52% of the population, so nature made them a commodity.
Also, the world's already overpopulated, so they aren't really an asset for any given culture in terms of breeding capacity.
We just need to keep enough around for entertainment purposes until the fembots are perfected, after that, maybe we'll keep a few live ones in zoos as a reminder of what life was like.
Oooo, child!
shareImagine being this desperate to see your mom and grandmothers as a sex slaves. Incels are truly something else.
shareGo away.
share