We got a bunch of emails in asking us to address this issue. It's probably not something that often comes up nowadays: after all, most plane crashes don't allow time for evacuation, and it's a testament to the pilot's incredible skill, the crew's efficiency and the quick response of rescue workers that we even have the luxury of discussing this protocol, rather than mourning several hundred deaths. But it did ring strangely quaint — and to some, problematic — to hear such old-fashioned words amidst the setting of a very modern disaster.

First, a few words on the whole "women and children first" thing. It's not a tradition as ancient as the navy; in fact, it can be dated to the 1852 wreck of the British warship HMS Birkenhead. The ship was filled mostly with soldiers and sailors, but also carried 20 women and children on its voyage to South Africa. When the ship ran into a rock that hew the hull in two, the captain shouted, "Every man for himself." However, the soldier's commanding officers, Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Seton, drew his sword and ordered his men to stand fast — to rush the lifeboats might mean that the women and children aboard the boats would be swamped and would perish. Only about 200 people — of 600 — survived the wreck. So, this was a case in which you literally had exclusively soldiers - and then some incidental women and children, who, obviously, were going to take priority. The implementation of the protocol was regarded as a tribute to Seton's bravery, interestingly enough, rather than as a piece of gallantry. Of course, in addition to ingrained notions of protection, there were practical concerns: women's clothing was harder to swim and move in, and if there were children, it was considered preferable to keep them with their mothers.

To a degree, the latter is probably still part of the rationale: as with helping a neighboring child with an oxygen mask, kids need carers: most often, this will be the mother. I doubt anyone would argue that in cases of disaster, children's safety should be a priority. I'd assume too that the old-fashioned protocol serves as some means of organization: someone needs to go first, everyone's panicking - why not women and children? Of course, it doesn't really make sense — and does "women" include the flight attendants? Why, after all, should an able-bodied woman get help before an infirm older man, because of the residual perception of inherent weakness? I'd guess it's probably mostly just unexamined tradition - a lot of pilots are ex-military, and the military is, shall we say, fond of tradition. Yes, it's ludicrous: women and children first down the big slide? If people hadn't been worried about, you know, dying, probably a few of them would have chuckled at the incongruity of hearing those words on an air bus.

But that's the point, isn't it: people almost died! And they didn't die! And as interesting as semantics are, and as much inherent patriarchal nonsense there is in the fabric of society coming out all the time, I for one am not going to get exercised about something someone said — maybe off the top of his head — in an effort to successfully save several hundred lives. I agree that if this is indeed the airline protocol it bears questioning, or at least cogent, non-anachronistic explanation beyond some hoary gallantry. But yesterday what could have been a tragedy, wasn't. We know women and children were evacuated first because they — and the men who followed — lived to talk about it. I would be curious to hear what the women on that flight have to say about it — maybe in, say, a week. But, as Ecclesiastes and the Byrds would have it, for everything there is a season.

Investigators To Quiz Pilot Who Landed Plane In Hudson [CNN]
"WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST" — THE SILENT HEROES OF THE BIRKENHEAD [Historic UK]

Related: Dad On Flight: "It Was Like A Roller Coaster"

So, yes, obviously this is a contrived and cutesy concept for a piece - not that there's anything wrong with that. Various business types weigh in with executive strategies and toss jargon around in a kitchen context.

With a vision firmly carved out, the next task is what business leaders would call engaging key stakeholders and identifying their performance expectations. That means figuring out who are the most important people to you at the Thanksgiving table and asking what they really want from the day and from you, the host.“Your goal as the leader here is to grasp what other people actually expect of you versus what you think they expect of you,” he said. “Often, what people expect is less than what you thought.”

You get the idea: let's just say, the conceit gets old pretty fast. Style aside, it doesn't seem like a template like this is seriously going to change anyone's attitude — certainly not a day before Thanksgiving. And the draconian breakdown the piece jokingly suggests sounds kinda Gulag-like- everyone might do his share, but no one's happy. Besides, anyone compulsive enough to run a holiday meal like this already has it in hand and in any case, doesn't really seem like a personality type who'd be open to delegating.

And the truth is, the inequality of Thanksgiving labor is one of the horrible traditions of the holiday. Sometimes it's a question of space — a literal too-many cooks situation. Sometimes people's cooking styles don't mesh. A few are willing but incompetent. Occasionally good cooks are stressful kitchen companions. Some people are just really lazy and feel they've earned the right to do nothing but pig out. And then there are the kitchen martyrs who insist on full glory. As anyone who's helmed the meal knows, very rare is the kitchen helper who can slip in unobtrusively, stirring and chopping like a well-trained line cook, ceding full creative control to a tacitly-acknowledged chef de cuisine. More often, as a cook, you turn around to find some hippie blithely crumbling frankincense into a carefully-seasoned bowl of stuffing, or a well-meaning relative pestering you to know where mixing bowls are. Delegating requires trust, and in a family situation, not everyone has earned it.

Besides, why, in these financially troubled times, would anyone model herself on a bastion of capitalist industry? It's obviously A) hard and B) unrewarding. (The temptation to make some horrible gravy bailout joke is almost overwhelming.) So stick to the plan: you work, you shirk, everyone eats. Rinse — the same person who always gets stuck with dishes, that is — and repeat.

The C.E.O. of Thanksgiving Dinner [New York Times]
[Image via My Recipes]

Now, let me say for the record, my dear friend (who prefers her name not be mentioned, so we'll call her A.) was far from a Bridezilla, not that I could really translate that into German anyway. She and her now-husband have been together for 6 years and lived together for almost 2 and so she was ready to eschew some of the grander absurdities of wedding traditions — including letting her poor blogger friend crash in her living room for a week. But there is a fully functioning bridal magazine business attempting to sell more expensive dresses, bigger parties, larger cakes and the full range of pre- and post-nuptial activities for which American weddings have come to be known. There might not be wedding rehearsals, but they'll tell you how to have a rehearsal dinner. In a hilarious mistranslation in the "biggest" wedding planning book, Der Perfekte Hochzeitsplaner, the author tells brides that their dresses should match their mothers' (as opposed to matching the "colors" of the wedding or whatever horseshit they're pedaling in the States these days). The car that drove my friend and her new husband from the church on Saturday even came equipped with a "Just Married" sign...in English! There are gift registries (though hardly anyone actually uses them, since most people these days seemingly live together before marriage) table gifts and wedding cakes — and, as in America, literally everything that has "bridal" before it costs twice as much as the same thing for a normal party.

On the other hand, my German friends were shocked that anyone would have an afternoon reception that ends before dinner (as my sister has planned for the fall); my friend and her husband attended a wedding last year in which the ceremony started at 8:30 in the morning... and the reception went until 8:30 the next morning. There is no rest (or sex) for the wicked, and their reception went until 4:30 am on Sunday morning. Thankfully, such parties leave no time or energy for "official" brunches, but if they keep importing our made-up, WIC-propagated traditions, there are going to be a lot more unhappy, hungover Germans cursing American culture, let me tell you.

"Next time you tear up watching a beaming father walk his little girl down the aisle, remember that it’s just a tiny, barbaric little holdover from the days when daughters were nothing but dollar signs to daddy dearest," writes Jenn Thompson. "And that veil she’s wearing? Yeah, that was so the groom wouldn’t know if he was stuck with an uggo until it was time to kiss the bride and too late to back out on the transaction." Heartwarming! But here's the real question. Have these acts become divorced from their original meanings in a thoroughly modern world? I probably want my dad to walk me down the aisle when I get married, not because I think he owns me or because my husband-to-be is my "master", but because I really love my dad and I think it would be sweet to show our affection and connection in that ceremonial context.

If thinking about the patriarchy's influence on your beloved traditions has got you down, Thompson also describes some weird wedding laws that might cheer you up. My favorite is this one from Montana, which states that a couple can get married without even having to show up to court. "This miracle marriage is done by way of a 'double proxy' ceremony. Particularly popular with soldiers deployed overseas who wish to get married without coming home on leave, this type of marriage is arranged through a lawyer, who then hires two proxies (anyone with a free afternoon and a desire for some extra cash) to come sit before the judge, recite the vows and sign the marriage license on behalf of the absent bride and groom." Or, as Thompson points out, this kind of thing would be fantastic for the extremely lazy. Just picture it: you and your dude (or your lady), sitting on the couch in some nice A/C, wearing your skivvies, and getting married while watching Judge Judy.

The Bizarre Origins of 8 Wedding Traditions[Mental Floss]
Weird Wedding Laws Still on the Books [Mental Floss]

Earlier:Dude Says Diamonds Are "Profoundly Anti-Feminist," And Not Just Because He Can't Afford One [Jezebel]