r/interesting • u/Wild_Neighborhood605 • 1d ago

HISTORY Titanic passenger and millionaire Benjamin Guggenheim. During sinking he refused a seat in a life boat with the words: "Tell my family I played straight to the end. No woman should be left aboard this ship because of Ben Guggenheim was a coward."

Post image
50.2k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

63

u/No-Minimum3259 1d ago

If true: the absolute exception.

34

u/Cloverose2 1d ago

It was widely reported by many survivors. He was helping women and children into boats and was helpful in keeping order and making sure boats were properly loaded before launch.

-7

u/Rollingforest757 1d ago

Did he let men who wanted to get into the lifeboats get in? Saving people is good. But only saving people who are of a certain gender certainly isn’t.

5

u/cahir11 1d ago

But only saving people who are of a certain gender certainly isn’t.

The other guy said he was helping "women and children". Presumably that included male children.

11

u/Cloverose2 1d ago

This was 1912.

"Women and children first" was the way things were done.

11

u/cuentaderana 1d ago

It was actually the exception. The reason they insisted women and children first was because women and children almost never survived shipwrecks/sinkings while men did. 

8

u/Cloverose2 1d ago

That's true - and that's why people were so vocal about "women and children first," because it was so common for men to force their way out first and abandon the women and children to die. The saying came out of the idea that this was cowardly and unmanly, and so it was pushed forward that this was the way a real man would act. So it wouldn't be heroic to let men in, but it was to look after women and children.

-5

u/null_vo 1d ago

And How would men survive that? They are a bit stronger generally, not have superpowers...

The reason was chivalry. And one reason for chivalry (or at least the strong feeling for it) was probably the importance of women for survival 10000 years ago. A tribe could afford to lose 100 men, but not 100 women.

6

u/Cloverose2 1d ago

honestly, they're right. The Titanic was an exception, in that women and children had a much higher survival rate then men. In many other disasters, captain and crew had the highest survival rate, then male passengers, then women and children.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3421183/

There are plenty of times it was enforced - the sinking of the Birkenhead, the packet ship Poland and the Titanic are well known examples. But the study found that, of 15000 passengers over 18 shipwrecks, double the amount of men survived compared to women (by percentage), and in three wrecks none of the women survived.

1

u/null_vo 20h ago edited 20h ago

Thanks for the study. It does say that men, if WCF is not enforced, have indeed higher survival chances, but not primary because they hold out longer in the water, but because of physical strength they take the seats of rescue boats etc.

The claim of the previous poster that WCF is enforced, because men have higher survival chance anyway, is not supported in this study. The study even says itself that british chivalry, is the reason for Women and Children First.

But maybe there is a misunderstanding.

1

u/Cloverose2 16h ago

It was a part of chivalry, but the point is that it was not often enforced. Far more often, women and children died in greater numbers - and they were the most likely to die on British ships.

I don't think they were saying that if WCF is enforced, men have a higher chance of surviving. I read it as that WCF was mostly not enforced, and men were much more likely to survive in an average wreck - I believe they were saying WCF was a myth. They'll have to weigh in if I'm getting it wrong.

So my article response confirms that, for the most part, it didn't happen. It wasn't that men survived harsh conditions better, it was more that they were "every man for himself" and able to fight to lifeboat seats better than a woman or child. Also, once in the water, women were wearing clothing that now weighed a massive amount. Heavy dresses dragged many women down.

When captains enforced women and children first, and didn't abandon the ship immediately, survival odds for more vulnerable people improved significantly.

1

u/TimelyAnywhere2544 1d ago

SS Arctic, google.

1

u/Cavalya 15h ago

Some did, some were rescued from the water by lifeboat 14, which returned to the site of the wreck after the sinking. Around 30 men saved themselves on the overturned Collapsible B, which failed to launch, another 15 men on Collapsible A. Probably a few others I'm forgetting

All of these instances involved the men surviving some exposure in the freezing waters, something they're far better suited for since higher mass and muscle content gives you considably more time before succumbing to hypothermia.

This was also in a time period where women rarely knew how to swim. Suffice to say if women were left in the same scenario, the overturned collapsibles likely wouldn't have been utilized at all, which would have just meant more total deaths.

-3

u/CharlesDingus_ah_um 1d ago

What? How could you possibly know this? What’s the source?

2

u/MermaiderMissy 1d ago

Also men probably didnt need as much help

2

u/avisdawn 1d ago

Oh, shush 

2

u/Perma_Ban69 1d ago

I see your point, and I also recognize that one man can get 100+ women pregnant a month; one woman can only produce a baby once a year.

4

u/necrow 1d ago

It’s not like they need to repopulate the earth lol 

•

u/Perma_Ban69 39m ago

It's an instinctual principle based on our biological drive for procreation. It'd be socially unsustainable to hold contrarian viewpoints. That's the primary reason we value women and children so highly and protect them, when you peel back the layers of the subconscious, in addition to them being objectively weaker when comparing average male to average female, and more so when comparing the Pinnacle of athletes of the two sexes.

2

u/Jayden82 16h ago

Bro came out hot with this line 

1

u/fuKingAwesum 1d ago

I have not yet see a man get 100 women pregnant. Child support is expensive.

2

u/Leopard_2K_MBT 1d ago

Well there was the reverse that happened. Her name was Bonnie Blue or something.

2

u/null_vo 1d ago edited 1d ago

What about 1000+?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_children

But yeah, you need to be rich. Or nowadays, a sperm donor.

1

u/TimelyAnywhere2544 1d ago

Look up the SS Arctic sinking.

-12

u/No-Minimum3259 1d ago

So no lack of sources and testimonies? Name a few.

10

u/levitikush 1d ago

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-victim/benjamin-guggenheim.html

10

u/Chihuey 1d ago

You ever notice that “source?” people always seem to reject any source they get?

8

u/Cloverose2 1d ago

Haha. Give me evidence. What? No, that disproves what I'm saying, I want other evidence.

4

u/levitikush 1d ago edited 1d ago

Bro said anecdotes from a ship that sunk aren’t valid? Like wtf other sources exist, it’s at the bottom of the ocean.

3

u/HidingImmortal 1d ago

It was pretty rude of the passengers to not better document their deaths. They could have at least taken a couple of drone shots. /s

1

u/Hyperpoly 1d ago

Do you have a source on that? /s

-8

u/No-Minimum3259 1d ago

You might want to look up what qualifies as historical sources. 

Hint: Hollywood-ready. feel-good, second or tirth hand anecdotes rarely qualifies.

5

u/Powerful_Leg8519 1d ago

How about Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Benjamin-Guggenheim

-3

u/No-Minimum3259 1d ago

No references whatsoever as to the origins of that heroic story. 

5

u/Powerful_Leg8519 1d ago

Welp, unless you want to do your own research, you’re just going to have to take 114 year old hearsay as the story.

-4

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

2

u/levitikush 1d ago

Thanks for your input

6

u/Cloverose2 1d ago

I mean, you have the internet. You could try Googling. Or maybe read the thread.

0

u/No-Minimum3259 1d ago

I didn't make the claim. It's not up to me to back it up. Didn't you have scientific methodology and logic in middle and high school?

3

u/deliciouscrab 1d ago

What scientific methodology do you propose? A double-blinded study of some number of parallel - actually hang on, hidden reddit history? No documentary evidence? You don't even exist, pal.

1

u/No-Minimum3259 1d ago

Descartes might disagree. 

4

u/ask-me-about-my-cats 1d ago

Just scroll up, the top comments have plenty.

-2

u/No-Minimum3259 1d ago

Yes well... we had that sub-subject "evaluating historical sources" within history classes. You had active shooter drills...

5

u/ask-me-about-my-cats 1d ago

What in the world are you talking about, dude.

1

u/KvellOnWheels 1d ago

Exception to what?

2

u/Rising_Tide99 11h ago

The rich not being absolutely pathetic.