[542354234235]

> Not that it would necessarily turn out that way now.

I doubt it would, and that is a good thing. The whole “women and children” thing was part of the whole “women are weak creatures that need to be looked after and protected like children” mentality.

[rossdavidh]

I doubt that very many of the women passengers on board the Titanic were objecting to the chauvinism inherent in "women and children first". In time of life-or-death crisis, if you don't have a "women and children first" ethic, you will most likely have an "every man for himself" attitude, in which case you will end up with a very male-favorable survival rate, as bigger and yes physically stronger men shove women and children out of the way to get to the lifeboats.

[542354234235]

> if you don't have a "women and children first" ethic, you will most likely have an "every man for himself" attitude

The fact that it has to be women and children to you is exactly what I was talking about. That women were, and I guess to certain extent still are, put into a separate category of lesser capability. “Save the children” is a perfectly valid alternative to “every man for himself”. Or children and them parents first. There are multiple ways we could have been “noble” in the face of tragedy, and part of what shaped the idea we did end up with stemmed from a sexist paternalistic idea about adult women.

[Igelau]

I thought it was more of a "protect the future" sentiment. It's probably shades of both.