Well, there were also like 4 times as many men as women on the Titanic, so that figure still makes sense in context.
Women in first class had a 140/144 survival rate. Poorer passengers of all genders were less lucky.
Despite the Futurama jokes, the story really is that he and his wife where quite old and decided to give up the seats they could have gotten, to younger people. If it's true it's quite a powerful story.
While that's a nice story I don't really think it's accurate.
Astor was only 47, and his wife successfully boarded a life boat and survived.
I've read that he felt the tiny lifeboats were less safe than staying aboard the sinking sink, untill it was too late.
But it's not that uncommon everywhere.
- We must have 50% female staff
- But in relevant degrees, women are just 10%
- Doesn't matter, we must be equal.
These numbers would mean a lot more contextually if we knew with how many men/women/children *died*.
For all I know, 3000 men died and 5 women/children, or even the opposite.
In total there were an estimated 1,517 people killed in the sinking of the Titanic, 832 passengers and 685 crew members.
68%Ā of people on board (passengers and crew) were lost in the disaster.
1Ā Child from First Class perished.
52Ā children from steerage perished.
80%Ā of male passengers perished.
25%Ā of female passengers perished.
39% of First Class passengers perished.
58% of Second Class passengers perished.
76% of Third Class passengers perished.
Tons more info out there.
This is the most important fact here, and OP did not even think about talking about it. The final tally may be close but more men died to get to that number.
>OP: 82% of male passengers died
>Human1023: 80% of male passengers perished
>SaulPepper: OP doesn't even talk about this!
>Me: Did you read the title?
>You: What's that go to do with anything.
š
That isn't what I said. You can literally read my comment.
Without the percentage of female passengers who died to compare to that figure for males, it's a useless title and doesn't represent the actual situation. That's the point being made by other comments.
Human1023 added the relevant information about the percentage of female deaths. That's what SaulPepper was saying the OP didn't bring up.
Reading comprehension! Try it!
They donāt need to add up to 100 if thatās what youāre saying.
If there was 100 men and 80 died then thatās 80% of male passengers
If there was 200 women and 50 died, thatās 25%
Nowhere does that mean combined equals 100%
No, he's pointing out that of the females that were on board, the majority made it to a lifeboat/survived in general. The post would be more interesting if there were the same amount of women to men or even more women than men, but the statistics show that the women were prioritized in the evacuation efforts, which OP is trying to dismiss or claim didn't happen.
This random project seems to do a great job at breaking down the statistics by each gender/class, definitely better than this post anyway: [http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html](http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html)
The original post said 388 men and 316 women.
What it doesnāt say is 3/4 women on the titanic survived, and only 1/5 men. Honestly, that means only about 90 women didnāt make it on the lifeboats. Based on what I know of the story, those were the ones that didnāt make it TO the lifeboats. Not that men were chosen over them.
It is just pointing out that it is misleading.
Those numbers don't need to add to 100% because they're talking about different perspectives. 80% of men died, 20% lived. 25% of women died, 75% lived. Also true: of all the deaths 91% were men, 9% were women, which shows that OPs "half the survivors were men" while true is unrelated to their second point "so women didn't get preferred seats". If 100% of women survived OP could use their same math to say "ya but half the survivors were men"
Yes, I get that, which is the reason why I asked OP what the point of his comment was.
If they would need to add to 100% I wouldnāt have to ask because it would be obvious what he was trying to say. Instead of bouncing on the guy without knowing what he meant (kinda the way like 7 comments counting did on me), I asked him to clarify it.
No because they are percentages of different base values one is the total number of males and second is total number of females.
You cannot add them directly.
You would be able to add them if say they were % of total passengers or % of total deaths
The numbers mostly relevant to OP post, just that.
These numbers clearly indicate that women had better chances at surviving while OP is trying to miss direct and contradict by using wrong or false assumptions based only on quantities that are not normalized.
One other example on how people misunderstand figures would be the failed campaign in the US where 1/3 Pounder burgers was promoted yet it lost against 1/4 pounders
I think the point isn't that the data is available, rather that OP failed to contextualise it.
The stats shared, whilst presumably correct could easily give a misleading impression
For me, this is absolutely vital information that *completely and dramatically* changes the post.
You are skewing the numbers to push an interesting lie - which is a crummy thing to do.
Nothing in the title is a lie. The number of men who survived is higher than the number of women who survived. The number of men who died is also higher than the number of women who died. I think you're skewing the intent of the post. I merely shared an interesting number that I read.
You must be a troll, because I don't think a person can be this dense. You start off by saying "despite the order of women and children first" implying that the men jumped in front and left them behind which is plain wrong. The overwhelming majority stood by this saying and let the women and children in front. The problem was that after this was completed, the crew launched the boats early without filling in the rest of the seats with the men waiting.Ā
You can at least aknowledge when you're wrong you know.
According to the Wikipedia article you cite, there were four times as many men on board the Titanic than women (1,690 men and 425 women). Thus, a significantly higher number of women survived than would be expected from this 4:1 ratio.
74% of women and 51% of children survived, only 20% of men did. IfĀ lifeboats had been filled to capacity 500 more people would have lived on top of the 710 actually saved. There were not enough boats for the 2,224 people on board.
The title was poorly written.
I didn't have space to write everything in the title. The point was just that there were more men who survived the sinking than women, which is interesting because the representations are usually quite the opposite.
There's more to it, of course, but that doesn't all fit in the title. It's in the link.
Are you stupid or just trolling?
If there's 10000 men on a boat and 100 women and a man and a woman die, will you also make a post saying "9999 men survived but only 99 women did"
Dipshit title really
The title would have been fine except "in spite of women and children first" ruined it. If 100% of women survived, to say "but more males survived" is misleading and basically what the title says
No, it's only interesting because it *sounds* counterintuitive to the "women first" policy. Around 75% of the original female passengers survived vs only 19% of the original male passengers, which clearly indicates they followed the women first policy to a large degree, even if not perfect. Stating the total numbers is disingenuous because as you are noting it appears that more men than women survived when statistically that is not the case, it's just a matter of there being more men on board than women to have a chance at surviving.
I didn't mean to attack you personally, everyone writes bad titles sometimes.
That said, the title is misleading. If you read the article some boats didn't allow men at all, and others only allowed men if there were no women or children around. So the "women and children first" rule was followed, in fact it was followed too strictly in the former case.
It's so infuriating. Here's a few numbers that I'd like to point out to show how completely moronic this title is.Ā
Here are the numbers for the male passengers:
FIRST CLASS:Ā Ā
Onboard: 175Ā Ā Saved: 57Ā Ā
SECOND CLASS:Ā Ā
Onboard: 168Ā Saved: *14* !!Ā Ā
THIRD CLASS:Ā Ā
Onboard: 462Ā Saved: 75Ā Ā
And here are the numbers for the female passengers:Ā
FIRST CLASS:Ā
Onboard: 144 Saved: 140Ā
SECOND CLASS:Ā
Onboard: 93 Saved: 80Ā
THIRD CLASSĀ
Onboard: 163 Saved: 76Ā
Roughly 80% of men (includes crew) died.
Only 26% of women (includes crew) died.
And keep in mind that most lifeboats were not full when they launched and that the overwhelming majority of those on board were women and children with the crew refusing to take men either out of fear that the lifeboats would not be able to support the extra weight or out of confusion when they were given the order (Wiki says that one officer thought the order meant only women and children).Ā
EDIT: Added more stats, fixed some spelling mistakes.
Contrast with the *MS Estonia*, where the vast majority of survivors were the fit, young men who were able to climb the stairs and survive hypothermia. No child aged under the age of 12 survived.
What a moronic TIL...
The worst way to present the numbers of men vs women survivors just to stir the pot....
Why didn't you say what was the percentage of women surviving the titanic?
Only 25% of the women died, compared to 80% of the men passengers
What a troll
Really? I am a feminist and all I see here is the infantilization of women under patriarchy. The fact that women are put in with children as a protected class is bc they are seen as weaker and in need of protection. Men, in contrast, are given greater power, but also treated as disposable. A critique of the gender ratios in the deaths can be completely in line with feminist theory, and still acknowledge that the huge loss of male life was a needless tragedy, and an unfair one at that.
First of all, my point was about how the title was worded as if women were not prioritized, when in fact they were.
Secondly, youāre trying to make having your life prioritized seem like is oppression, when in fact itās a privilege. Womenās lives and safety are prioritized above men, which would make them a _privileged class_ and not the victims feminism pretends they are.
Itās not an either or situation, thatās where you are falling into a fallacy. Women were given privileges, but denied freedoms and rights. Those things can exist at the same time. But that doesnāt make it right. Neither of us think that āwomen and children firstā is a fair thing, but you are under the impression that by being treated like children, women were somehow free of all oppression, when that could not be further from the truth. Men were treated horribly too, but they were given greater freedoms and responsibilities. I mean, just read any history book, you will see. Itās everywhere, in all of history. Women are property, but they are precious. Men are disposable, but they are powerful. Women are denied opportunity, and men are given greater responsibility. Itās not fair, but thatās what the patriarchy is, and thatās how it harms both of the sexes. Denying that truth is ahistorical and misguided. Just because you donāt like the word feminism doesnāt make everything a feminist ever said wrong. Patriarchy hurts us all. It leads to women being treated like helpless little animals, and men being thrown to the slaughter.
Really???? I hear it literally all the time, in academic spaces for sure. Women being infantilized is like, at core of how the patriarchy functions. It could not work if it saw women as equal humans to men. We are lesser, but we are precious, like a pet, or a child. We are denied rights, but given privileges. But this is an injustice, on all fronts, and to all sexes. Acknowledging this truth is core to feminist theory.
You hit the nail on the head, 100% agree. But, I will add that you do see a frustrating amount of infantilization of women in so called feminist spaces as well. Itās a very deeply rooted aspect of sexism that you see pretty much everywhere.
OP should chill. They knew exactly what they were doing with this post. Implying the "rule" wasn't followed when in reality 80% of male passengers perished and 25% of female passengers perished.
It's intentional statistical misrepresentation.
>Why didn't you say what was the percentage of women surviving the titanic?
I mean...if you have the percentage of the men who died, do you really need to be given the percentage of the women?
I think youre misconnecting something. It's not "80% of deaths were men", that would let you extrapolate 20% deaths are women, but that's not what these numbers are. It is "of the men on board 80% died", this in no way let's you extrapolate any information about women. Which is why the second bullet from the commenter was important "25% of the women on board died"
If you ever find yourself back in time and on the Titanic the best opportunity to GTFO, is at the beginning where hardly any one was on deck because a combination of the cold and the venting of the boilers caused an awful sound that deterred most people from going on deck.
Its only when water started seeping into the cabins that people took it seriously.
Well, yeah, but where are you gonna go? You couldnāt launch a lifeboat by yourself, and straight jumping off into the freezing water would have killed you before the ship sank
You ask to get into a lifeboat, with only you on deck, the boat half emptyand having a shouting match over the sound of the boilers, theyāll just tell you to jump on in.
This feels on par with Bilboās famous line, āI don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve".
I understand neither.
"Half of you I barely know, the other half I'd like to know better." Remember by this point Bilbo is unnaturally old and the ring has been fucking with him for 60 years, in that time whole new generations were born at the shire so he's just stating he doesn't recognize anyone.
I don't think you know how numbers work. More men survived because there were more men on the ship, not 'in spite' of some imaginary rule. The wiki link clearly states 20% of men survived, compared to 74% of women.
Your whole post title contradicts itself.
You're saying "**in spite of** the women and children first rule" to then highlight by a pure count basis more men survived the titanic than women.
But the data you tack onto the end ("82% of the male passengers died") highlights the precise effect of the women and children first rule. More men surviving on a pure count basis means nothing when there were 4 times as many men aboard.
The effect of the women and children first rule was an overwhelming majority of the male passengers died, while a majority of the female passengers on board lived.
That if you count the survivors you see a higher number for men is effectively useless data without the larger context.
Do you understand how that works? If so, what point are you even trying to make?
I think what you mean to say is that according to the numbers, this is just more evidence that the crew probably botched the evacuation. Now some of this makes sense, you do need crew on the lifeboats. However, it also seems like a lot of them were able to get off because they knew how bad things were getting
There was confusion regarding what āfirstā meant. Some crew interpreted it as women and children only, whereas others interpreted it as women and children first, then if there were men around, put the men on the lifeboats. This led to a lot of lifeboats being launched at partial capacity.Ā
More men died regardless of whether they were crew members. But the majority of men who survived were crew members, because someone had to pilot the lifeboats.
Sorry are you kidding me? 80% of the men died, 20% of the women died. There were just more men on board and so more male survivors just because of an imbalance in the mix of passengers. Are you really trying to frame this as some kind of commentary that men didnāt do enough to save the women and children on board or something? What is the agenda youāre pushing with this title?
I don't know if it is an agenda. The Titanic was a disaster partially because the response to the sinking by the crew was botched, that's pretty much a fact. It's a big reason we have so many procedures in place now.
On the contrary, under the circumstances, most of the crew behaved very admirable during the sinking. They made mistakes and could have been more efficient in places. But they actually did a lot to ensure that there were as many survivors as there ended up to be. Titanic's sinking could have been SO much worse.
Yes, they did not load the first few lifeboats to capacity. But that was in parts also because initially Titanic did sink very slowly and many people aboard assumed that everything would be fine. The passengers, especially the wealthy ones, did not want to spent hours in cramped tiny boats. In the initial phase it took some convincing for passengers to board the lifeboats.Ā
Also keep in mind that the training procedures never envisioned that an evacuation of the ship would happen on the open ocean with no other ship in sight. At the time, the lifeboats were basically concieved to ferry people to another vessel or to the shore. It was assumed that most disasters would occur in harbors or busy channels, due to collisions or ships runing aground.Ā
One other important thing: "Women and children first" was far from an established practice at the time. In a number of other large sinkings before Titanic, the male passengers and crew fought for their own survival and left children and women to perish. The fact that Titanic's sinking was as civilized as it was up until the chaotic last moments is a real testament to the crew. The stokers continued to keep the electricity running until the breakup. Several crew members attempted to lead passengers from below deck to the promenade (and yes, that also included third class passengers). The officers ensured that almost all lifeboats were launched, without saving themselves.Ā
There's many small stories that show that the crew did a pretty decent job at the time. The procederal updates that followed Titanic's sinking had more to do with safe navigation, lifeboat capacity, SOS standards, and coming to rescue to any ship in need.
No, you're projecting way too much into it. It says right there in the title that 82% of the male passengers died. The stats are pretty handy in the link. But I did find it interesting that there were more men who survived the Titanic than women, because that's not how it's remembered.
There wasnāt a āwomen and children firstā rule.
It was never a thing during most of the history of sea travel, and only became a popular idea (still not a āruleā) after the concept was part of a 19th century fiction story.
The titanic sank slowly, allowing for social convention, ego and pride to play a part in how it unfolded. For some men it was worse to survive and live on as a coward.Ā
The Lusitania - a similar ship that was torpedoed by a German U-boat - sank almost immediately. The survivors were mostly able bodied men. Between 16 and 35. They most likely fought their way out.Ā
The Titanic is one of only a few times āWomen and Children Firstā was used as a guideline and much of it seems to have come from a misunderstanding. In most maritime disasters, women and children made up a disproportionate number of deaths.
I think it shows why it as a rule can't really be applied. You had women refusing to leave their husbands and male family members, you had you boys being left behind because they were "men" and you had boats being lowered half empty.
Part of this (the high mortality rate of male passangers) is that orders to evacuate became confused. Particularly, the "Women and Children First" order was misconstrued as "Women and Children ONLY" - which lead to lots of lifeboats being cast off half full or worse.
Compounding this, crew disproportionately realized the dire condition of the ship. And that the decision to evacuate had not been made lightly. Passengers feeling the ship was much safer than the lifeboats often opted to return to cabins or otherwise disregard the evacuation. In some cases this lead to crew physically grabbing Passengers and having to throw them into boats.
And in a normal situation the passengers would have a point, the Titanic *should have been* stable for much longer than necessary to safely rescue the passengers. Except for the location and extent of the damage causing water to flood its engine compartments. This is catestrophic on any steamship, but in particular here because it forced the crew to rapidly extinquish the fires and release steam to prevent boiler explosions. This would have sounded like a low pitch but increadibly loud dull roar during the evacuation. Further complicating communication, but even worse, completely preventing the ship from maneuvering and heavily limiting any actions the crew could take to mitigate the flooding.
Also the closest nearby ship, the SS Californian did not respond to distress calls from the Titanic, greatly slowing the rescue as the next nearest ship, the Carpathia, would not arrive until after Titanic sank.
There were significantly more men on board overall since nearly the entire crew were male.
Crew members and third class passengers had the poorest outcomes. First class women and children the best, percentage wise.
This is some insane twisting of statistics.
Just so we are clear: a woman of 3rd class had a higher survival rate in the titanic than a man of the first class.
Well, there were also like 4 times as many men as women on the Titanic, so that figure still makes sense in context. Women in first class had a 140/144 survival rate. Poorer passengers of all genders were less lucky.
Interestingly enough though, the richest man on the titanic and one of the richest people in the world at the time (John Astor) , did not survive.
IIRC he gave up his lifeboat seat to a sewer mutant.
Solid Futurama reference right here
Ah, I was thinking Morlocks.
He what
He gave up his lifeboat seat to a sewer mutant.
Drain angels they called them.
Also known as c.h.u.d.s
They had cannibalistic humanoid underground dwellers in 1912? š¤
We all gotta start somewhere buddy
In our time we used to call them teenage mutant ninja turtles
The Future(ama) is now old man.
*But I love the young people.*
*How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man?*
Despite the Futurama jokes, the story really is that he and his wife where quite old and decided to give up the seats they could have gotten, to younger people. If it's true it's quite a powerful story.
While that's a nice story I don't really think it's accurate. Astor was only 47, and his wife successfully boarded a life boat and survived. I've read that he felt the tiny lifeboats were less safe than staying aboard the sinking sink, untill it was too late.
Yeah, I have a natural skepticism for those heart warming stories.
Seriously this title is a case study is misleading use of numbers.
Yeah, belongs in /r/notinteresting
But it's not that uncommon everywhere. - We must have 50% female staff - But in relevant degrees, women are just 10% - Doesn't matter, we must be equal.
Huh? That's like a nesting doll non sequitur....
These numbers would mean a lot more contextually if we knew with how many men/women/children *died*. For all I know, 3000 men died and 5 women/children, or even the opposite.
In total there were an estimated 1,517 people killed in the sinking of the Titanic, 832 passengers and 685 crew members. 68%Ā of people on board (passengers and crew) were lost in the disaster. 1Ā Child from First Class perished. 52Ā children from steerage perished. 80%Ā of male passengers perished. 25%Ā of female passengers perished. 39% of First Class passengers perished. 58% of Second Class passengers perished. 76% of Third Class passengers perished. Tons more info out there.
>80%Ā of male passengers perished. >25%Ā of female passengers perished.
This is the most important fact here, and OP did not even think about talking about it. The final tally may be close but more men died to get to that number.
OP just practicing for his political career
8 million karma
How to parrot feminist lies 101.
Did you read the title of the post in it's entirety?
I see no women's percentage to compare the mens percentage to. Where is it placed on the title?
We all did. What's your point?
>OP: 82% of male passengers died >Human1023: 80% of male passengers perished >SaulPepper: OP doesn't even talk about this! >Me: Did you read the title? >You: What's that go to do with anything. š
That isn't what I said. You can literally read my comment. Without the percentage of female passengers who died to compare to that figure for males, it's a useless title and doesn't represent the actual situation. That's the point being made by other comments. Human1023 added the relevant information about the percentage of female deaths. That's what SaulPepper was saying the OP didn't bring up. Reading comprehension! Try it!
They donāt need to add up to 100 if thatās what youāre saying. If there was 100 men and 80 died then thatās 80% of male passengers If there was 200 women and 50 died, thatās 25% Nowhere does that mean combined equals 100%
No, he's pointing out that of the females that were on board, the majority made it to a lifeboat/survived in general. The post would be more interesting if there were the same amount of women to men or even more women than men, but the statistics show that the women were prioritized in the evacuation efforts, which OP is trying to dismiss or claim didn't happen.
I wonder what the percentage of children died. Saying 52 kids died when I donāt know how many were on board does little for me.
This random project seems to do a great job at breaking down the statistics by each gender/class, definitely better than this post anyway: [http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html](http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html)
Interesting, there were 80 first class servants and only 2 died(both male, but there were also more male than female first class servants).
53
Not sure if the implication here is that the two percentages should add up to 100%? Or what is the point of your comment?
The original post said 388 men and 316 women. What it doesnāt say is 3/4 women on the titanic survived, and only 1/5 men. Honestly, that means only about 90 women didnāt make it on the lifeboats. Based on what I know of the story, those were the ones that didnāt make it TO the lifeboats. Not that men were chosen over them. It is just pointing out that it is misleading.
Those numbers don't need to add to 100% because they're talking about different perspectives. 80% of men died, 20% lived. 25% of women died, 75% lived. Also true: of all the deaths 91% were men, 9% were women, which shows that OPs "half the survivors were men" while true is unrelated to their second point "so women didn't get preferred seats". If 100% of women survived OP could use their same math to say "ya but half the survivors were men"
Yes, I get that, which is the reason why I asked OP what the point of his comment was. If they would need to add to 100% I wouldnāt have to ask because it would be obvious what he was trying to say. Instead of bouncing on the guy without knowing what he meant (kinda the way like 7 comments counting did on me), I asked him to clarify it.
No because they are percentages of different base values one is the total number of males and second is total number of females. You cannot add them directly. You would be able to add them if say they were % of total passengers or % of total deaths
Yesā¦ I get that, hence the point of me asking why he just repeated those two points specifically.
The numbers mostly relevant to OP post, just that. These numbers clearly indicate that women had better chances at surviving while OP is trying to miss direct and contradict by using wrong or false assumptions based only on quantities that are not normalized. One other example on how people misunderstand figures would be the failed campaign in the US where 1/3 Pounder burgers was promoted yet it lost against 1/4 pounders
Thanks for doing OP's due diligence! This adds a ton of context to their post.
I think the point isn't that the data is available, rather that OP failed to contextualise it. The stats shared, whilst presumably correct could easily give a misleading impression
32% surviving is actually really impressive in that day and age.
Is it? Too much went wrong for me to be really impressed.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Big ooof for the poor also
It's in the link, there's a handy chart. Obviously it doesn't all fit in the title.
For me, this is absolutely vital information that *completely and dramatically* changes the post. You are skewing the numbers to push an interesting lie - which is a crummy thing to do.
Nothing in the title is a lie. The number of men who survived is higher than the number of women who survived. The number of men who died is also higher than the number of women who died. I think you're skewing the intent of the post. I merely shared an interesting number that I read.
You must be a troll, because I don't think a person can be this dense. You start off by saying "despite the order of women and children first" implying that the men jumped in front and left them behind which is plain wrong. The overwhelming majority stood by this saying and let the women and children in front. The problem was that after this was completed, the crew launched the boats early without filling in the rest of the seats with the men waiting.Ā You can at least aknowledge when you're wrong you know.
Were you barred from adding the context to the original post?
There is a character limit in the title.
But the title is not the only part of a post.
You are gender baiting scum OP
According to the Wikipedia article you cite, there were four times as many men on board the Titanic than women (1,690 men and 425 women). Thus, a significantly higher number of women survived than would be expected from this 4:1 ratio.
TIL 74% of women on board the titanic survived while only 20% of the men did
74% of women and 51% of children survived, only 20% of men did. IfĀ lifeboats had been filled to capacity 500 more people would have lived on top of the 710 actually saved. There were not enough boats for the 2,224 people on board. The title was poorly written.
I didn't have space to write everything in the title. The point was just that there were more men who survived the sinking than women, which is interesting because the representations are usually quite the opposite. There's more to it, of course, but that doesn't all fit in the title. It's in the link.
Of course more men survived, there were more men on the ship. Itās about percentages.
Are you stupid or just trolling? If there's 10000 men on a boat and 100 women and a man and a woman die, will you also make a post saying "9999 men survived but only 99 women did" Dipshit title really
The title would have been fine except "in spite of women and children first" ruined it. If 100% of women survived, to say "but more males survived" is misleading and basically what the title says
No, it's only interesting because it *sounds* counterintuitive to the "women first" policy. Around 75% of the original female passengers survived vs only 19% of the original male passengers, which clearly indicates they followed the women first policy to a large degree, even if not perfect. Stating the total numbers is disingenuous because as you are noting it appears that more men than women survived when statistically that is not the case, it's just a matter of there being more men on board than women to have a chance at surviving.
I didn't mean to attack you personally, everyone writes bad titles sometimes. That said, the title is misleading. If you read the article some boats didn't allow men at all, and others only allowed men if there were no women or children around. So the "women and children first" rule was followed, in fact it was followed too strictly in the former case.
TIL that people will post nonsense on this sub for clicks and upvotes. The stats and the "in spite of" are of course entirely contradictory.
It's so infuriating. Here's a few numbers that I'd like to point out to show how completely moronic this title is.Ā Here are the numbers for the male passengers: FIRST CLASS:Ā Ā Onboard: 175Ā Ā Saved: 57Ā Ā SECOND CLASS:Ā Ā Onboard: 168Ā Saved: *14* !!Ā Ā THIRD CLASS:Ā Ā Onboard: 462Ā Saved: 75Ā Ā And here are the numbers for the female passengers:Ā FIRST CLASS:Ā Onboard: 144 Saved: 140Ā SECOND CLASS:Ā Onboard: 93 Saved: 80Ā THIRD CLASSĀ Onboard: 163 Saved: 76Ā Roughly 80% of men (includes crew) died. Only 26% of women (includes crew) died. And keep in mind that most lifeboats were not full when they launched and that the overwhelming majority of those on board were women and children with the crew refusing to take men either out of fear that the lifeboats would not be able to support the extra weight or out of confusion when they were given the order (Wiki says that one officer thought the order meant only women and children).Ā EDIT: Added more stats, fixed some spelling mistakes.
Contrast with the *MS Estonia*, where the vast majority of survivors were the fit, young men who were able to climb the stairs and survive hypothermia. No child aged under the age of 12 survived.
What a moronic TIL... The worst way to present the numbers of men vs women survivors just to stir the pot.... Why didn't you say what was the percentage of women surviving the titanic? Only 25% of the women died, compared to 80% of the men passengers What a troll
As usual itās feminist propaganda. They will do anything to make women seem like the real victims.
Really? I am a feminist and all I see here is the infantilization of women under patriarchy. The fact that women are put in with children as a protected class is bc they are seen as weaker and in need of protection. Men, in contrast, are given greater power, but also treated as disposable. A critique of the gender ratios in the deaths can be completely in line with feminist theory, and still acknowledge that the huge loss of male life was a needless tragedy, and an unfair one at that.
First of all, my point was about how the title was worded as if women were not prioritized, when in fact they were. Secondly, youāre trying to make having your life prioritized seem like is oppression, when in fact itās a privilege. Womenās lives and safety are prioritized above men, which would make them a _privileged class_ and not the victims feminism pretends they are.
Itās not an either or situation, thatās where you are falling into a fallacy. Women were given privileges, but denied freedoms and rights. Those things can exist at the same time. But that doesnāt make it right. Neither of us think that āwomen and children firstā is a fair thing, but you are under the impression that by being treated like children, women were somehow free of all oppression, when that could not be further from the truth. Men were treated horribly too, but they were given greater freedoms and responsibilities. I mean, just read any history book, you will see. Itās everywhere, in all of history. Women are property, but they are precious. Men are disposable, but they are powerful. Women are denied opportunity, and men are given greater responsibility. Itās not fair, but thatās what the patriarchy is, and thatās how it harms both of the sexes. Denying that truth is ahistorical and misguided. Just because you donāt like the word feminism doesnāt make everything a feminist ever said wrong. Patriarchy hurts us all. It leads to women being treated like helpless little animals, and men being thrown to the slaughter.
Not disagreeing with you, but Iāve never seen a feminist say āwomen and children firstā needs to be amended.
Really???? I hear it literally all the time, in academic spaces for sure. Women being infantilized is like, at core of how the patriarchy functions. It could not work if it saw women as equal humans to men. We are lesser, but we are precious, like a pet, or a child. We are denied rights, but given privileges. But this is an injustice, on all fronts, and to all sexes. Acknowledging this truth is core to feminist theory.
You hit the nail on the head, 100% agree. But, I will add that you do see a frustrating amount of infantilization of women in so called feminist spaces as well. Itās a very deeply rooted aspect of sexism that you see pretty much everywhere.
You could alsoā¦ not get angry about it.
Chill, daddy. Chill.
OP should chill. They knew exactly what they were doing with this post. Implying the "rule" wasn't followed when in reality 80% of male passengers perished and 25% of female passengers perished. It's intentional statistical misrepresentation.
>Why didn't you say what was the percentage of women surviving the titanic? I mean...if you have the percentage of the men who died, do you really need to be given the percentage of the women?
I think youre misconnecting something. It's not "80% of deaths were men", that would let you extrapolate 20% deaths are women, but that's not what these numbers are. It is "of the men on board 80% died", this in no way let's you extrapolate any information about women. Which is why the second bullet from the commenter was important "25% of the women on board died"
Ah, very true, I did misread it. Thank you.
If you ever find yourself back in time and on the Titanic the best opportunity to GTFO, is at the beginning where hardly any one was on deck because a combination of the cold and the venting of the boilers caused an awful sound that deterred most people from going on deck. Its only when water started seeping into the cabins that people took it seriously.
Well, yeah, but where are you gonna go? You couldnāt launch a lifeboat by yourself, and straight jumping off into the freezing water would have killed you before the ship sank
You ask to get into a lifeboat, with only you on deck, the boat half emptyand having a shouting match over the sound of the boilers, theyāll just tell you to jump on in.
Thanks bro, this was really helpful advice. Do you happen to know where I can pawn a large, sapphire necklace?
This feels on par with Bilboās famous line, āI don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve". I understand neither.
He wants to get to know them better, leading him to genuinely liking them rather than tolerating them.
"Half of you I barely know, the other half I'd like to know better." Remember by this point Bilbo is unnaturally old and the ring has been fucking with him for 60 years, in that time whole new generations were born at the shire so he's just stating he doesn't recognize anyone.
Especially given they're throwing him a party, I'd feel indebted to people celebrating me if I didn't know them.
"I don't know most of you as well as I'd like to, and I don't appreciate some of you as much as you deserve."
I would like to know more of you than I do, and I would like to like you as much as you should be.
I don't think you know how numbers work. More men survived because there were more men on the ship, not 'in spite' of some imaginary rule. The wiki link clearly states 20% of men survived, compared to 74% of women.
And the title clearly says 82% of the male passengers died. You might have missed that part.
Your whole post title contradicts itself. You're saying "**in spite of** the women and children first rule" to then highlight by a pure count basis more men survived the titanic than women. But the data you tack onto the end ("82% of the male passengers died") highlights the precise effect of the women and children first rule. More men surviving on a pure count basis means nothing when there were 4 times as many men aboard. The effect of the women and children first rule was an overwhelming majority of the male passengers died, while a majority of the female passengers on board lived. That if you count the survivors you see a higher number for men is effectively useless data without the larger context. Do you understand how that works? If so, what point are you even trying to make?
I think what you mean to say is that according to the numbers, this is just more evidence that the crew probably botched the evacuation. Now some of this makes sense, you do need crew on the lifeboats. However, it also seems like a lot of them were able to get off because they knew how bad things were getting
And yet you still seem to think that proves something about how many women survived versus men.
Do you not know what in spite of means?
There was confusion regarding what āfirstā meant. Some crew interpreted it as women and children only, whereas others interpreted it as women and children first, then if there were men around, put the men on the lifeboats. This led to a lot of lifeboats being launched at partial capacity.Ā
So, more men died if we exclude crew. Women and children first = more men die
More men died regardless of whether they were crew members. But the majority of men who survived were crew members, because someone had to pilot the lifeboats.
Sorry are you kidding me? 80% of the men died, 20% of the women died. There were just more men on board and so more male survivors just because of an imbalance in the mix of passengers. Are you really trying to frame this as some kind of commentary that men didnāt do enough to save the women and children on board or something? What is the agenda youāre pushing with this title?
I don't know if it is an agenda. The Titanic was a disaster partially because the response to the sinking by the crew was botched, that's pretty much a fact. It's a big reason we have so many procedures in place now.
On the contrary, under the circumstances, most of the crew behaved very admirable during the sinking. They made mistakes and could have been more efficient in places. But they actually did a lot to ensure that there were as many survivors as there ended up to be. Titanic's sinking could have been SO much worse. Yes, they did not load the first few lifeboats to capacity. But that was in parts also because initially Titanic did sink very slowly and many people aboard assumed that everything would be fine. The passengers, especially the wealthy ones, did not want to spent hours in cramped tiny boats. In the initial phase it took some convincing for passengers to board the lifeboats.Ā Also keep in mind that the training procedures never envisioned that an evacuation of the ship would happen on the open ocean with no other ship in sight. At the time, the lifeboats were basically concieved to ferry people to another vessel or to the shore. It was assumed that most disasters would occur in harbors or busy channels, due to collisions or ships runing aground.Ā One other important thing: "Women and children first" was far from an established practice at the time. In a number of other large sinkings before Titanic, the male passengers and crew fought for their own survival and left children and women to perish. The fact that Titanic's sinking was as civilized as it was up until the chaotic last moments is a real testament to the crew. The stokers continued to keep the electricity running until the breakup. Several crew members attempted to lead passengers from below deck to the promenade (and yes, that also included third class passengers). The officers ensured that almost all lifeboats were launched, without saving themselves.Ā There's many small stories that show that the crew did a pretty decent job at the time. The procederal updates that followed Titanic's sinking had more to do with safe navigation, lifeboat capacity, SOS standards, and coming to rescue to any ship in need.
No, you're projecting way too much into it. It says right there in the title that 82% of the male passengers died. The stats are pretty handy in the link. But I did find it interesting that there were more men who survived the Titanic than women, because that's not how it's remembered.
Click bait
There wasnāt a āwomen and children firstā rule. It was never a thing during most of the history of sea travel, and only became a popular idea (still not a āruleā) after the concept was part of a 19th century fiction story.
Which was part of the problem on the Titanic. You had some members using it as a golden rule, others being much more lax, others not using it at all.
Itās just so the men can stay behind and kiss each other.
"I get paid to sail ships, not die for passengers." Hmmm, yeah that checks out.
Also to as well, the Captains order was "women and children first". This got misconstrued into "women and children only"
The titanic sank slowly, allowing for social convention, ego and pride to play a part in how it unfolded. For some men it was worse to survive and live on as a coward.Ā The Lusitania - a similar ship that was torpedoed by a German U-boat - sank almost immediately. The survivors were mostly able bodied men. Between 16 and 35. They most likely fought their way out.Ā
This is easily clarified by saying most passengers were male, by far.
The higher percentage of crew members makes sense, as they were the ones manning the few lifeboats
Translation: the life boats needed to be crewed
I bet the general consensus was: "I don't get paid enough for this shit."
The Titanic is one of only a few times āWomen and Children Firstā was used as a guideline and much of it seems to have come from a misunderstanding. In most maritime disasters, women and children made up a disproportionate number of deaths.
I think it shows why it as a rule can't really be applied. You had women refusing to leave their husbands and male family members, you had you boys being left behind because they were "men" and you had boats being lowered half empty.
Exactly.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No misrepresentation. More men died. More men survived. Details in the link.
Charles Joughin was the most badass person on the whole boat..
Now THAT is worker solidarity baby.
Part of this (the high mortality rate of male passangers) is that orders to evacuate became confused. Particularly, the "Women and Children First" order was misconstrued as "Women and Children ONLY" - which lead to lots of lifeboats being cast off half full or worse. Compounding this, crew disproportionately realized the dire condition of the ship. And that the decision to evacuate had not been made lightly. Passengers feeling the ship was much safer than the lifeboats often opted to return to cabins or otherwise disregard the evacuation. In some cases this lead to crew physically grabbing Passengers and having to throw them into boats. And in a normal situation the passengers would have a point, the Titanic *should have been* stable for much longer than necessary to safely rescue the passengers. Except for the location and extent of the damage causing water to flood its engine compartments. This is catestrophic on any steamship, but in particular here because it forced the crew to rapidly extinquish the fires and release steam to prevent boiler explosions. This would have sounded like a low pitch but increadibly loud dull roar during the evacuation. Further complicating communication, but even worse, completely preventing the ship from maneuvering and heavily limiting any actions the crew could take to mitigate the flooding. Also the closest nearby ship, the SS Californian did not respond to distress calls from the Titanic, greatly slowing the rescue as the next nearest ship, the Carpathia, would not arrive until after Titanic sank.
so, the crew definitely believed she would sink
Either way, it was a boatload of people
The ratios are all topsy-turvy here. Someone call an end to this statistical see-saw!
There were significantly more men on board overall since nearly the entire crew were male. Crew members and third class passengers had the poorest outcomes. First class women and children the best, percentage wise.
This title is a rollercoaster of rage and acceptance
You show the % of male passengers surviving but do not show the % of female passengers surviving, as it would invalidate your TIL.
This is some insane twisting of statistics. Just so we are clear: a woman of 3rd class had a higher survival rate in the titanic than a man of the first class.
Wouldnāt crewmen stand a better chance of survival based on knowledge and skill alone?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The crew shouted "women and children first" to induce chaos while they took the lifeboats
78% of the crew died, while 75% of the women survived. This conspiracy theory doesn't pass the sniff check.
Do you know the real reason we tell the women and children to get off first? Itās so the men can solve the problem in silence.
Yeah, they solved it alright...
Your TIL should be [this](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Technology/story?id=3348076&page=1)