If women should be treated equally to men, then why in times of great catastrophe like war and shipwrecks, are women included with children to be spared or helped before men?

This is an obselete idea.Furthermore, such a policy and mindset originated from that women are weaker. Thanks to what feminists have fought very hard for, such policies no longer exist.

Quit crying everybody. It's basic biology. A womb is rare. Sperm is common. And once the woman is impregnated, it takes nine months for her to bear the child, And she is needed to care for and nurture the child at least through the infancy, In and practice we know much longer.  Biologically, a man can be easily replaced by another man. Biologically, a woman is not nearly so replaceable. It is in the cause of the survival and perpetuation of the species, that women and their children with them, are the ones who are protected and preserved through practices created by men. All the various practices having to do with sexuality, reproduction, and the relationship between men and women, are based on these facts of biological common sense. I am always surprised at how so many people fail to see what is actually quite obvious, And men and women alike rage at the supposed injustice of practices dictated by biology and human condition.

It's not. Sometimes it's "every man for himself". :)

Feminist on Quora reporting in. Women and children first is a product of the patriarchal assumption (and in the 1800s, a self-fulfilling prophecy) that women require protection because they're so delicate. It's the 1800s equivalent of white-knighting. It's a demonstration of the structural oppression of women which prevented their access to equal opportunities while masquerading as concern for their welfare. It seems counter-intuitive, but it's not an indication that "women have it better". Not at all. Also, be aware of the fact that if you don't agree with someone's experience or definition of feminists, that doesn't make them "pseudo-feminists". That word doesn't mean anything.

What you are referring to is the concept of male disposability. A societies ability to replenish/recover from massive population loss due to war, natural disasters or disease will be  inversely proportional  by some factor to the percentage of women and children that have died in said event. Because a societies reproductive rate is limited by the number of women of childbearing age and even a very small male population can father children among many women.  Therefore even the most patriarchal societies value the lives of women and children more than men. What more liberal societies may perceive as acts of repression  of women may be perceived as acts/conventions of protection in others.

A man thought up that policy in consideration of his own bloodline/family name.  Women and children are in a better position to propagate the bloodline should the male family members (brothers, uncles, fathers, husbands) not survive (In some cultures it is common for a young widow to marry her brother-in-law upon her husband's death for this reason).

The world looks at women as being the "weaker sex".  It appears to come from chivalry or religion.  Children are viewed as not being able to help themselves, dependent on others for their well-being.   While I agree children are dependent,  I do not feel in 2014 that women are the "weaker" sex.  In many cases, the would not be as muscular but the are not at all mentally weak.  I have stopped thinking in that way.  Now they are equals.

As a man, I feel it's important for me to be a protector, a defender, and to ensure the survival of my species. Women and children are the ones to save. During battles or emergencies the first ones to vacate are the women and children. During death it's a given that men have died and that's why it's not specifically mentioned. Women and children get the spotlight because as they die, so does our outlook on overall survival.

Because you have been misinformed. Think of this! In a dire situation when your life is on the line? Will you willingly give up your life for a woman or a child (Except for your wife and child) ? Give an honest answer? Of course not! Because deep down we are all selfish.This myth that men died or sacrificed their place for women and children is all pervasive myth. Can you point out other than titanic? http://qz.com/321827/women-and-children-first-is-a-maritime-disaster-myth-its-really-every-man-for-himself/