Feminism and Women and Children First

With the recent cruise ship incident in Italy, I have heard many people talk about the navel tradition of women and children first in life boats.

I'm not sure how much this tradition was followed back in the day, it might be more of a nostalgic belief in the good old days then actual fact.

However, what we do know is that when the cruise ship started to sink, women and children were not first on the life boats, it was more of a first come, first serve basis.

Leaving aside the issue of children, is a woman's life more valuable then a man's?

The very idea of women and children first illustrates that a woman's life and a man's life are seen as having different value.

Either its a case of believing that women are precious and must be saved as all cost, or believing that a disaster is no place for a woman and better to get the women to safety so that the men can get to work saving the day.

It is probably a mixture of believing that women are the weaker sex and must be saved combined with a gentlemen's honour to never allow a woman to come to harm.

Either way, it is a bit condescending to the women involved.

Are women so helpless that they need special treatment during times of crisis?

From what I understand about feminism, its that men and women should be treated equally at all times and in all occasions.

That would also include being treated equally during a time of crisis.

So my final thought is, is the policy of women and children first a sexist policy that all people should oppose in the name of equality, or is the life of a woman more valuable then a mans?


Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry