...including women and children

RobertKK

Are the lives of men somehow viewed as being somewhat lesser when it comes to reporting the deaths of people in conflict zones?
I see at the moment on Sky news 500 Yazidis including women and children killed and buried in a mass graves.

Does it really matter if there are women and children included given all the people are innocent and did not deserve what happened to them?

As a man I wouldn't view my life as being lesser to that of a woman or a child. I would view my life as having the same right to life as a woman or a child.
Surely it should be reported as 500 Yazidis killed which included men, women and children, or are we meant to believe when figures are given for deaths that they are automatically men who have been killed?

LowOdour

"War", conflict etc are seen as men fighting men...they would be expected to be killed...women and children are not.

Banjo String

Indeed.


The selfish pricks always get called first for lifeboats on a sinking ship too. :mad::mad:

Frosty McSnowballs

I think the use of the phrase "Women and children" is warranted. For me, it elevates the situation to something less "run of the mill". It highlights indiscriminate killings for whatever the purpose was. It is generally accepted that civilian women and children do not always carry arms or partake in fighting.

When I hear that phrase I automatically assume that non combatants have been killed, indirectly targeted or otherwise. It deepens the tragedy for me anyway.

Now, countering that. If it transpired that the women and children were armed and were justly killed in combat, well that's a different topic.

Amirani

LowOdour wrote: »

"War", conflict etc are seen as men fighting men...they would be expected to be killed...women and children are not.

No such thing as female soldiers or combatants? All the highly trained and professional women in the Irish army and others wouldn't like to hear you saying that.

No difference between a male and female civilian. Female deaths tend to be reported more prominently because it tends to invoke more emotion in the media's audience, with people like yourself.

Wibbs

Biologically males are generally the "disposable" gender. Females are biologically more valuable and offspring are gene packages for the future. For all sorts of reasons. Take a small tribe of a couple of hundred people in a jungle somewhere. Imagine war or disease kills off all but two or three of the women and most of the children. That tribe is now essentially extinct. Now imagine war or disease kills off but two or three of the men. There will be a period of cultural and sociosexual rejigging with more women pairing up with the remaining handful of men, but the tribe is far less likely to die out.

Frozencastle

Let's call a spade a spade, men are generally viewed as more expendable, that's why women and children are emphasised, not because civilians were killed. They could have just said civilians were killed then.

Amirani

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

I think the use of the phrase "Women and children" is warranted. For me, it elevates the situation to something less "run of the mill". It highlights indiscriminate killings for whatever the purpose was. It is generally accepted that civilian women and children do not always carry arms or partake in fighting.

"Civilian" does this just as well.

I think the issue is more with the reporting along the lines of "500 civilians killed, including 300 women and children". That's clearly placing a higher value on the deaths of one gender over another for no reasonable reason.

suicide_circus

"Women and children first" is the kind of sexist and ageist discrimination we could do without.

whirlpool

Considering the fact that 99.9% per cent of the time, it's men who started the war, it's men causing the violence and the deaths, it's men who volunteer to partake in the fighting, and NOT women and children - yes there is a huge difference!

Wibbs

Frozencastle wrote: »

Let's call a spade a spade, men are generally viewed as more expendable

Because biologically they are. Well most men are. Even when you look at the genetic history of our species you find that many more female lines have survived over time. Fewer male lines reproduced and a load died out. Nature of the beast. Those few male lines can have very large descendant populations. This has happened even in historical times. Ghengis Khan's Y chromosome is in many millions of Asian men and that's not that long ago. Even in Ireland the Niall of the Nine Hostages gene is in a large chunk of Irish men from the north east of the country.

LowOdour

Diego Simeone wrote: »

No such thing as female soldiers or combatants? All the highly trained and professional women in the Irish army and others wouldn't like to hear you saying that.

No difference between a male and female civilian. Female deaths tend to be reported more prominently because it tends to invoke more emotion in the media's audience, with people like yourself.

Read my post again....I said War", conflict etc ARE SEEN as men fighting men. I did not say war IS men fighting men.

That is the reason deaths of women and children get mentioned. I never said women and children are not involved in armies or that their lives are more important than men. I answered the question that was asked.

catallus

From a purely grammatical point of view I think it's just a concise way of counting the dead.

"1000 were killed, including 300 women and children" implies 700 dead men; you don't even need to think about it to figure that out.

Isn't that placing less value on the women and children, by lumping them together, and not the other way around?

That said, the children of today are the terrorists of tomorrow.

Wibbs

whirlpool wrote: »

Considering the fact that 99.9% per cent of the time, it's men who started the war, it's men causing the violence and the deaths, it's men who volunteer to partake in the fighting, and NOT women and children - yes there is a huge difference!

Well you might argue that men start and fight wars for resource gathering and protection and what do resources get you? More women and then more children. QV Ghengis Khan.

So logically it's all the women's fault*. I win AH. :D:D:D







*BTW that's a joke for those in the cheap seats.

Amirani

whirlpool wrote: »

Considering the fact that 99.9% per cent of the time, it's men who started the war, it's men causing the violence and the deaths, it's men who volunteer to partake in the fighting, and NOT women and children - yes there is a huge difference!

So killing males is more justified because other males start and participate in wars? Why stop at gender and age differences?

Do individual men bear a collective responsibility for the actions of their gender? That's quite a bizarre concept.

Frosty McSnowballs

Diego Simeone wrote: »

"Civilian" does this just as well.

I think the issue is more with the reporting along the lines of "500 civilians killed, including 300 women and children". That's clearly placing a higher value on the deaths of one gender over another for no reasonable reason.

Yes the use of "civilian" could be used just as well but hearing "women and children" has a different psychological affect on people.

In my own head the killing of innocent men, women and children is not acceptable but I would pay more attention when hearing "women and children". It allows me to see the true perceived horror of the situation and a glimpse of the type of person who thought it was acceptable to kill women and kids.

Amirani

LowOdour wrote: »

Read my post again....I said War", conflict etc ARE SEEN as men fighting men. I did not say war IS men fighting men.

That is the reason deaths of women and children get mentioned. I never said women and children are not involved in armies or that their lives are more important than men. I answered the question that was asked.

Sorry, that's fair enough. Apologies for the misinterpretation of your post. You're very much correct here.

eviltwin

I don't really understand it either, in a lot of conflict the men who are fighting are not trained soldiers, they are just normal men trying to protect their homes, families etc. They may kill but they often have no choice. They deserve the same respect as "civilians".

Frozencastle

whirlpool wrote: »

Considering the fact that 99.9% per cent of the time, it's men who started the war, it's men causing the violence and the deaths, it's men who volunteer to partake in the fighting, and NOT women and children - yes there is a huge difference!

What difference is there between a male civilian dying versus a female civilIan both of whom didn't start or have a combative role in the war?

RustyNut

Diego Simeone wrote: »

So killing males is more justified because other males start and participate in wars? Why stop at gender and age differences?

Do individual men bear a collective responsibility for the actions of their gender? That's quite a bizarre concept.

Neither ISIS nor Israel seem to care about the gender or age of the civilians they kill as long as killing them suits their cause.

Amirani

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Yes the use of "civilian" could be used just as well but hearing "women and children" has a different psychological affect on people.

In my own head the killing of innocent men, women and children is not acceptable but I would pay more attention when hearing "women and children". It allows me to see the true perceived horror of the situation and a glimpse of the type of person who thought it was acceptable to kill women and kids.

You're definitely not alone in that thinking, and I wouldn't criticise you for it. You obviously have a lot more experience than me in these situations too given your career background.

I do just find it fairly tragic though that innocent men - fathers, brothers, sons etc., who have no interest in war or conflict are killed and their lives devalued or they're judged as expendable purely because they're men. I find this equally as tragic as innocent mother, sisters and daughters being killed. Horrible, horrible thing.

biko

"women and children" are just to highlight that it's civilians suffering.
Although, in wars civilians are always involved, and sometimes even a target.

In the many African wars in Nigera, Sudan, Somalia etc civilians are often targets for cleansing, to take kids to be soldiers, or just to **** **** up.

Chattastrophe!

I do think it's particularly tragic when a child or baby is killed. They haven't even had a chance at life. It's not that their life is more valuable than an adults, it's just heartbreaking that they didn't have a chance at having a proper go at it. They didn't get to experience the sort of highs and lows that an adult will have gone through in their lives - even a young adult.

So, I do think it's relevant and understandable that children are mentioned separately in news reports.

As for women being mentioned separately - well, it depends on the context of the event, doesn't it?

For example, when tragedies such as the recent Malaysian Airlines crash occurred, you wouldn't have read reports such as "xxx amount of victims, including women and children." You'd be more likely to read reports such as "xxx amount of victims, of which xx were children." For the most part, those travelling on the plane were from societies in which there is an emphasis on gender equality.

But as for what's happening in the Middle East, well it's a very different society there. The reason it's "worse" that women were killed is that the men would at least have had the opportunity to fight back against the terrorists - whereas I'd imagine that a lot of the women, due to growing up in a society where men are the "protectors", would be about as inclined/able to defend themselves as the children involved.

I'm not generalising based on gender, I'm not saying women are incapable of fighting or of defending themselves. I'm saying that these particular women are a product of the society they grew up in. As a result, they would have been far more vulnerable and defenceless than the men. And I do think it's worth mentioning when those who are more vulnerable are murdered - it goes to show how ruthless these terrorists are. It doesn't necessarily mean that the women are more valuable than the men.

whatdoicare

I always thought that the women and children thing was because, obviously children are innocent and cant defend themselves and women would mean potentially pregnant or vulnerable women, maybe mothers opposed to soldiers.
I dunno, its probably used by media to emphasize that innocents are being killed whereas men or civilian might be interpreted as armed men and armed people. Women and children brings to mind a family at home, not fighting.

Frosty McSnowballs

Diego Simeone wrote: »

You're definitely not alone in that thinking, and I wouldn't criticise you for it. You obviously have a lot more experience than me in these situations too given your career background.

I do just find it fairly tragic though that innocent men - fathers, brothers, sons etc., who have no interest in war or conflict are killed and their lives devalued or they're judged as expendable purely because they're men. I find this equally as tragic as innocent mother, sisters and daughters being killed. Horrible, horrible thing.

I understand your viewpoint and it is always tragic.

However, I don't agree that the omission of "men" from "men, women and children" would deem that the men are classed as expendable or their lives devalued purely because it is not highlighted. I'm sure the use of "women and children" is not used in a way to devalue the lives of men but to highlight the situation.

I agree that any innocent casualty from any conflict regardless of age or gender should be equally abhorred.

anncoates

Frozencastle wrote: »

Why not highlight the situation by saying that men and children were killed?

The global feminazi media conspiracy

Amirani

anncoates wrote: »

The global feminazi media conspiracy

I think a lot of feminists would object to the "women and children" reporting. It often implies that women are more vulnerable and in need of protection by men/others, a situation reminiscent of patriarchal societies in the past.

catallus

Isn't it the point of the OP that we still are living in a patriarchal society?

Frosty McSnowballs

Frozencastle wrote: »

Why not highlight the situation by saying that men and children were killed?

It would still have the same effect on me.

Cantremember

I think it's probably rooted in patriarchal thinking and is used also for propaganda purposes. Most men above the age of 40 aren't used as frontline troops anyway.

blue note

Women and children are innocents. Men are not. Even if we haven't committed the crimes yet, we're rapists, child molesters, dangerous drivers, domestic abusers. And we ruined the country.