Yes, my question is prompted from this TIL: http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/22vozt/til_the_only_japanese_who_survived_the_titanic/
Being that "women and children" were supposed to go into the lifeboats first, did any of the surviving men experience a social backlash for their survival as it is quite clear that not all the women and children were rescued before they were? Of course, I'm not claiming they were tearing women and children out of lifeboats all willy nilly, or that the persecution may have been just, it's more of a question if they were subject to social stigmas due to being a surviving male.
While I can't comment on the shame or backlash, the assumption in the question that
the general consensus has always been "Women and Children first"? is actually a bit of a myth.
A 2012 study found that out of 18 prominent maritime disasters in only two of them, the Titanic and the Birkenhead, was the survival rate of female passengers higher than that of men.
In the case of the Brikenhead this is partly due to the low number of women on board(~20 out of 640), most of whom were families of officers, and were given due privilege. This makes the case of the Titanic all the more exceptional, and the captains orders of "women and children in and lower away", as well as the threat of violence to enforce this order was part of what made the sinking of the Titanic such a media sensation. Not only had the unsinkable been sunk, but lifeboats were lowered with empty seats as the Captain and First Officer bravely went down with the ship. (Lord 1955, A Night to Remember.)
Of course what was lost in the chivalric story was that it was only first and second class women and children first, those in steerage were just as likely to be locked below decks as the men, but that's a whole other story. (Barczewski 2006, Titanic: A Night Remembered)