Titanic Centennial: Did Chivalry Go Down With The Titanic?

Just three days after the Titanic tragedy, Dr. Henry van Dyke, professor of English at Princeton University, penned a newspaper editorial which became the introduction to Logan Marshall's "The Sinking of the Titanic and Other Sea Disasters."  I've chosen a selection for discussion. The entire text is here. Whether you agree or not, here it is:

But there is more than this harvest of debts, and lessons, and sorrows, in the tragedy of the sinking of the Titanic. There is a great ideal. It is clearly outlined and set before the mind and heart of the modern world, to approve and follow, or to despise and reject.

It is, 'Women and children first!'

Whatever happened on that dreadful April night among the arctic ice, certainly that was the order given by the brave and steadfast captain; certainly that was the law obeyed by the men on the doomed ship. But why? There is no statute or enactment of any nation to enforce such an order. There is no trace of such to be found in the history of ancient civilizations. There is no authority for it among the heathen races to-day. On a Chinese ship, if we may believe the report of an official representative, the rule would have been 'Men first, children next, and women last.'

There is certainly no argument against this barbaric rule on physical or material grounds. On average, a man is stronger than a woman, he has a longer prospect of life than a woman, he is worth more than a woman. There is no reason in all the range of physical and economic science, no reason in all the philosophy of the Superman, why he should give his place in the life-boat to a woman.

Where, then does this rule which prevailed in the sinking Titanic come from? It comes from God, through the faith of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is the ideal of self-sacrifice. It is the rule that 'the strong ought to bear the infirmities of those who are weak.' It is the devine revelation which is summed up in the words: 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'

It needs a tragic catastrophe like the wreck of the Titanic to bring out the absolute contradiction between this ideal and all the counsels of materialism and selfish expediency.

______________________________

There is no statute or enactment of any nation to enforce such an order. There is no trace of such to be found in the history of ancient civilizations.

There is the story of Damon and Pythias as told by Aristoxenus in which Damon offers to be put to death for the crime of Pythias. This seems to antedate John 15:13.

There is no authority for it among the heathen races to-day. On a Chinese ship, if we may believe the report of an official representative, the rule would have been 'Men first, children next, and women last.'

This could be seen as inflammatory, but the heinous practice of sex-selective abortion (de facto not de jure) supports van Dyke's rhetoric.

There is certainly no argument against this barbaric rule on physical or material grounds. On average, a man is stronger than a woman, he is worth more than a woman, he has a longer prospect of life than a woman, he is worth more than a woman. There is no reason in all the range of physical and economic science, no reason in all the philosophy of the Superman, why he should give his place in the life-boat to a woman.

Van Dyke is clearly referring to Nietzsche with his Superman reference.

Where, then does this rule which prevailed in the sinking Titanic come from? It comes from God, through the faith of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Old Testament has the flood story in which a pair of each species is saved. But notice that the entire range of species was saved--the boat of salvation was not loaded with women and Noah's children--just his family.

The origin of "Women and children first" has its own Wikipedia entry: link The concept is linked to that of male disposability which is an interesting idea. Arguably, in an evolutionary sense at least, a population threatened with extinction can more quickly repopulate with fewer men and a surplus of women.

It is the ideal of self-sacrifice. It is the rule that 'the strong ought to bear the infirmities of those who are weak.'

Could this notion have any bearing on the modern interpretation of healthcare reform?

It is the devine revelation which is summed up in the words: 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'

John 15:13. I am reminded of the Mike Monsoor story, as portrayed in "Act Of Valor."

It needs a tragic catastrophe like the wreck of the Titanic to bring out the absolute contradiction between this ideal and all the counsels of materialism and selfish expediency.