Is "Women and Children first" in a rescue situation discrimination?
by 
Box of Chocolates
ANSWERS: 13
-
No
-
'Women' yes, 'children' no.
-
technically yes, it is (the "women" bit). But I think you have to take into consideration that having no "rule" would also be discrimination based on who was stronger. I'm for anything that keeps children out of harm's way as much as possible. Any rule that keeps people from fighting their way somewhere all at once, and gets kids out of the havoc asap, is fine with me... though I also think it's imperative to keep mothers with their children. So "women and children first" could be changed, but I still think that children and their parents - at the very least, their mothers - should be allowed to get out of the chaos first. If someone came up with a more efficient idea that was not discriminatory, I wouldn't reject it - as long as it had that same result.
-
No. they are our future. A child comes first, before anyone. i look at it this way. i have lived a geat life and in this described situation, i would want a child to have that same opportunity, as myself. Women and children first........always.
-
no
-
Yes, but it is usually 'constructive discrimination' in that you are providing a quicker service to the most vulnerable and those most in need. It's like having parking spaces reserved for drivers with 'handicap' plaques that are closer to stores than other parking spots.
-
i think the "women" part of it is discrimination, i think children and the less physically capeable (or mentaly capeable0 should get to evacuate first, but fully grown women shoudl not really get any special treatment just because they are a woman.
-
MEN ARE BUILT STRONGER PHYSICALLY ENABLEING THEM TO HELP THE WEAKER AND FEELING PROUD TO DO SO.
-
yes. It is assuming that adult women are not capable of looking after themselves and surviving as men. It portrays them as like children, weak and somehow not fully competant as men. When news reporters say "hundreds were killed, including 73 women and children" this reinforces the idea, when they really are talking about innocent bystanders- why not say that instead? The idea that the women are needed to look after the children is equally discriminatory. What about the father? Singling out mothers seems to say that this is women's role in society and they should be defined by it. I agree that in a rescue situation the vulnerable should be helped first, i.e. the injured, and that children are the future and should be saved first, and if a man offered to let me be saved first at risk to himself I'd probably let him BUT it is discriminatory to assumes that women are helpless, incapable and just there to look after children!
-
Children should always come first. As for women also coming first, that would be positive discrimination.
-
women and children are weaker and need quick help as compared to men.
-
Seems more like common sense to me rather than discimination.
-
Firstly, "discrimination" has a negative connotation. In rescue situations though, people are prioritized not only the two categories of their health and accessibility, but also how quickly they can be helped and how quickly they will get worse. This is especially true in mass casualty incidents (MCIs) where there are multiple patients who are all in various states of health. The "woman and children first" rule, in my opinion, is a bad one. For instance, if you have perfectly fine women and children and a man with arterial bleeding that are all equally accessible, you are usually going to treat the man first. However, there is some trueness to the so-called "rule". Women aren't built as strongly as men (fact), which leads to a slightly higher risk of injury. The children first can be true because children, especially young ones, definitely tend to be more at risk than adults due to their mental ability and their bodies. While the "woman and children first" shouldn't be a rule, it does hold a little bit of truth.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC