do you think this still applies today? I was watching some news coverage and someone was outraged that men got into the cruise ships lifeboats before women and children, and it got me thinking, is it outrageous today? Why are women and children more precious?
Thanks Dave, it would have been better if I'd checked the words hadnt gone through auto correct first though. Plus, I better lay off the mars bar, what with the chunky thighs and all.
Emily Pankhurst would be tuning in her grave never mind the bra burners and womens lib movement. You wanted equal rights, cant pick and choose. Anyway I think there should be at least two men per lifeboat, they would have more chance of pulling people into the boat that had fallen overboard.
From experience, its thin young men who are most at risk in cold wet conditions.
Women have more protective subcutaneous fat and take longer to reach a hypothermic state. One of the most heart rending rescues was one in which a girl
realised that her man had died
women have more subcutaneous fat than men and therefore able to survive longer in the water, this women and children first thing only started late in the 19th century according to a piece I read in today's Mail (yes I read the mail only place I can find the Fred Bassett cartoon!)
As I said previously, it depends on the woman. I don't just mean good swimmer here or more able to survive. This woman and children and the disabled thing first means I also get off ahead of a fella who might have four kids and a sick Mrs at home... I've only got a cat. It would make absolutely no sense for a chap with kids at home to have to stay behind and let me go first.
Plus did I mention I'm a good swimmer? ;oP (And I got a good layer of that warming fat stuff unfortunately).
This is Bobjugs, I've just stolen NoMs phone.
I personally think order of evacuation should be based on arm-wrestling.
Failing that, it would be anti-feminist to put women ahead of me.
Won't somebody please think of all those bra's that were burned?