Should We Always Save Women and Children First?
Why do we stress women’s and children’s survival in emergencies over men’s?
In the context of the ongoing crisis, there is something I can’t stop thinking about.
News outlets are covering the current horrific crisis and the rising civilian death toll. But with all the atrocities, they don’t just mention the number. They go to great lengths to tell us how many women and children have been killed.
And I wonder: why is that emphasized? What about the men? Are their lives less important? Does the dying of women and children make a crisis more real?
There seems to be a consensus that women and children dying should move us more than men dying.
I asked my husband why he thinks we do this — why we save women and children before men. His immediate response was, “Well, of course, women and children are more valuable and need to be protected.”
I was shocked.
“So you’d gladly give your life to protect me?” I asked, and he replied, “Sure, you’re more important.”
When I asked him to explain why, he said that children need to be protected — agreed — and that women will take care of them and can have more children. As opposed to men.
I think one of the toxic tropes of patriarchy is that men should gladly sacrifice their lives for women — and children.
The latter makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, but why is the belief that men should sacrifice their lives for women so deeply ingrained in society?
My husband isn’t a traditional, patriarchal man, but for some reason, he’s also deeply convinced that he should give his life for mine.
I wasn’t aware that I was supposed to believe that women and children are somehow more valuable. But people talk about it as if it’s some natural law. In an emergency, women and children must be saved first. Men only when we get around to it.
I’m all for saving children — after all, they’re innocent and helpless. They need our support and protection — unlike adult women who are capable of taking care of themselves. Or not?
The mention of female casualties over male deaths reminds me a lot of the “women and children first” doctrine we’ve come to associate with emergencies and shipwrecks.
When all hell breaks loose, men are expected to ignore their own will to survive and save the women and children. And not just their own. Chivalry dictates that any random woman is more important than them.
Now, why would they agree to that? Is this realistic?
The only reason for our belief that I can see is that the patriarchal male ideal is a man who is strong, protective, and feels no pain. Who is willing to sacrifice his life for the weak.
Sounds pretty bogus.
Especially if you know that in a crisis, women and girls continue to be killed just because of their gender.
The UN reported this month: “Women and girls continue to be killed on the basis of their sex and gender, rendered more vulnerable to femicide when being women and girls intersect with other grounds or identities,”
But where does this “women and children first” idea come from? And what does this tell us about the patriarchy’s perception of women?
We’re supposed to believe that men are just naturally protective. This idea is also emphasized by the red pill male sphere in the “women need men to survive” debate.
Women are categorized as helpless little children because the narrative fits into the strong superior male gender trope.
Let’s take a closer look at this.
First of all, you must understand that the “women and children first” directive doesn’t formally exist. No law dictates that men have to sacrifice themselves. We only think this because we’ve heard certain stories repeatedly. Think about the sinking of the Titanic.
In truth, there were few times when “women and children first” was truly observed.
Most notably, the wreck of the HMS Birkenhead that gives the procedure its name. “Women and children first” is also known as the Birkenhead drill.
During the 1852 evacuation of the Royal Navy troopship HMS Birkenhead, all women and children were evacuated first, and the soldiers bravely died when the ship went under.
It is reported that King Frederick William IV of Prussia, for example, was so impressed by the bravery and discipline of the soldiers and crew of the Birkenhead, that he ordered an account of it to read at the head of every regiment of his army.
And with this, the spread of the myth was set in motion, for it is only a myth.
Even during the famous sinking of the Titanic, the instruction “women and children first” was interpreted differently by the people in charge.
Reasonable on one side of the ship, where men were allowed into the lifeboats if there was room. Not so reasonable on the other side, where men were turned away. And half-empty lifeboats were lowered into the water.
More men died on the Titanic than women. But this is an exception. In reality, there is no consensus on saving women and children first. When the shit hits the fan, it’s every man for himself.
Women and children are rarely given special consideration.
Economists Mikael Elinder and Oscar Erixon of Uppsala University also showed in their 82-page study that captains and their crew are 18.7 percentage points more likely to survive a shipwreck than their passengers.
“Our findings show that behavior in life-and-death situation is best captured by the expression `every man for himself’,” the authors wrote.
The researchers analyzed 18 incidents and found that 35% of the men but only 18% of the women survived the shipwrecks. In 3 cases, no women survived at all.
Women are quite capable of being part of the solution to a crisis. They can save and support weaker people, no matter the gender.
We know this because, in daily life, women constantly ensure that everyone is okay and taken care of. They don’t magically lose their abilities in times of crisis.
On the contrary, women excel at problem-solving and disaster recovery.
But women are portrayed as the weaker sex. Along with children, they must be saved and protected. That is what we are supposed to believe. And this benefits the system in times of crisis.
In a conflict, they can portray the killing of women and children as the greater evil.
But reporting on their death toll to shock us about the scale of a conflict seems hypocritical. In reality, women are often targeted intentionally. Women and children are often the first and most vulnerable victims of conflict.
But who cares about the sordid details?
Women’s pain is convenient for both sides. For the attackers, because they are trying to hurt the opposing men through their women — and children. And for the targeted because they can create outrage by showcasing their victimized women and children.
The death of men, women, and children is the price of wars, civil unrest, and climate change. It is a price that politicians are willing to pay to further their goals.
Each side in a conflict tries to influence our sympathy by reporting how many of its women and children have fallen victim to it.
Does it work?
I don’t think so. The constant cry of “Look at our dead women and children” and the valuing of one life over another makes people numb.
They no longer value each life, woman, man, child, or other the same. They choose sides based on affinity of race, religion, culture or worldview and stubbornly ignore the evil perpetuated by their side.
What we’re left with is a world where people argue about who has more right to kill civilian bystanders. They wonder if some deaths might be faked and argue about whether the exact number of killings is accurate.
This is the world we’ve created by pretending that one life needs to be saved over a another, instead of insisting that all lives are equally valuable.
If you’ve enjoyed this article and want to support my writing, buy me a cup of coffee! For more of my writing, subscribe to my newsletter or follow me on Linkedin.