...including women and children

anncoates · 10-08-2014 2:02pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

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.

Women sure.

The slaughter of children in war is subjectively more emotive though.

10-08-2014 2:08pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

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.

In many of the societies suffering conflict at the moment, they are more vulnerable than men, given the restrictions on their lives would affect their ability to escape by driving, or to access money in bank account, or to travel alone in some cases. women may be breastfeeding mothers or have sole responsibility for caring for small children, as is often the case in the Middle East.

Civilians are civilians though, and in a Western context it would be quite outdated.

Women and children first on a sinking ship, not at all. Children before everyone I'd agree with, unless they are very young in which case a parent of either gender (breastfeeding aside) should accompany them. Then equally adults of both genders. Though I'd probably want pregnant women to go first, since it's two lives at stake.

anncoates · 10-08-2014 2:22pm

Saying for example that deliberately targeting a safe compound probably results in a disproportionate amount of women/child fatalities isn't a defacto support of the gender dynamics of war.

Plus the OP seemed more a moan that men are not valued as much hence my flippant comment

nicki11 · 10-08-2014 2:38pm

Candie wrote: »

In many of the societies suffering conflict at the moment, they are more vulnerable than men, given the restrictions on their lives would affect their ability to escape by driving, or to access money in bank account, or to travel alone in some cases. women may be breastfeeding mothers or have sole responsibility for caring for small children, as is often the case in the Middle East.

Civilians are civilians though, and in a Western context it would be quite outdated.

Women and children first on a sinking ship, not at all. Children before everyone I'd agree with, unless they are very young in which case a parent of either gender (breastfeeding aside) should accompany them. Then equally adults of both genders. Though I'd probably want pregnant women to go first, since it's two lives at stake.

blue note wrote: »

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.

whatdoicare wrote: »

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.

See this is exactly the problem with the statement, men should be valued equally with women and their losses and pain shouldn't be minimized either. What about a family with young children, house blown up kills everyone, horrible yet it would probably be reported as young mother with kids killed later mentioned the father died too. 18 year old boy engaged dies with his family but his death isn't as important as his six year old sister both died but he was about to start his own life have his own kids but the six year old is more important. Age or gender people are dead but we use certain phrases because news outlets think one is more important then the other to readers.

On the whole women and children first thing, if your ship crashes on a deserted island, the children are a liability as they are only mouths to food and both men and women are needed to contribute to the group as both have different strengths and weaknesses necessary for survival and both are perfectly capable of defending themselves especially as humans main strength is invention so pitfall traps and spears are used by both sexes. Procreation would probably need to be put off (but try enforcing that, especially as some passengers may already be pregnant) so only women or mostly women wouldn't work (shifts, strengths etc) so men are needed especially if one of them is a doctor (more men are doctors, theres usually at least 3 doctors on vacation). So men aren't expendable especially in your 20 man boat, with 5 pregnant women and 7 non-pregnant women.

Age and gender are important for survival because of the way we've been designed, we need each other and since we are equally valuable shouldn't we be treated as such.

citytillidie · 10-08-2014 2:41pm

It's today's media remember when those girls were kidnapped in Nigeria it was all over the media and you had celebs with the hash tag bring are girls home.

Well 2 months before there were boys killed while they and not a peep out of western media about it

EazyD · 10-08-2014 2:45pm

It makes a better, emotive headline. As wrong as it is, that's just the way it is.

Buona Fortuna · 10-08-2014 3:21pm

Banjo String wrote: »

Indeed.

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

Ah the Birkenhead drill

I'd like to post a feckin link but ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkenhead_drill

RobertKK · 10-08-2014 3:27pm

anncoates wrote: »

Saying for example that deliberately targeting a safe compound probably results in a disproportionate amount of women/child fatalities isn't a defacto support of the gender dynamics of war.

Plus the OP seemed more a moan that men are not valued as much hence my flippant comment

I am not having a moan, I just think the lives of all civilians are equal, and we shouldn't make out the lives of any one group who are innocent need to have a special shout out as in 'including women and children'.

It is a sheer tragedy whether it is a man, woman or child that is killed. Why were the old ignored who couldn't travel and were left behind to be attacked by the terrorist group. Men and women who had to stay behind and suffer their fate.

10-08-2014 3:28pm

citytillidie wrote: »

It's today's media remember when those girls were kidnapped in Nigeria it was all over the media and you had celebs with the hash tag bring are girls home.

Well 2 months before there were boys killed while they and not a peep out of western media about it

To be fair, the girls had been kidnapped days before the Western media took up the story, it was the efforts of the mothers of the girls to publicise the situation on social media that brought the kidnap to international attention.

In the case of the boys murder, there was no campaign of awareness by relatives. In this case it wasn't a media led case of discrimination, as neither the boys nor girls plight was considered newsworthy originally.

I would assume that the campaign of awareness of the kidnapping was started because the girls were still alive and could be brought back, but sadly the boys were killed and there was no bringing them back. Mourning parents are unlikely to campaign after the fact.

The Singing Beard · 10-08-2014 3:37pm

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

glimpse of the type of person who thought it was acceptable to kill women and kids.

So you're implying that it's worse to kill a civilian woman than a man?

Are men less deserving of human rights?

UCDVet · 10-08-2014 3:39pm

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not having a moan, I just think the lives of all civilians are equal, and we shouldn't make out the lives of any one group who are innocent need to have a special shout out as in 'including women and children'.

It is a sheer tragedy whether it is a man, woman or child that is killed. Why were the old ignored who couldn't travel and were left behind to be attacked by the terrorist group. Men and women who had to stay behind and suffer their fate.

I disagree. I mean, I'm fine with treating men and women equally - but I think the life of a child is more valuable than the life of an adult.

Let's be realistic, everyone has a very limited timespan. Let's say 100 years (very optimistic). If I'm 95 and I get killed in an accidental bombing well....that sucks. It's sad. It's a tragedy. But, on the other hand, I lived for 95 years. I would have died on my own in a short while.

If a five year-old is killed in an accidental bombing, well, that wasn't much of a life. That child lost 95 years of living, whereas I would only lose 5.

So, if I had to choose between a bus filled with senior citizens or a bus filled with small children to drive off a cliff - I'd take the old people. Because I think the life of a child is more precious.

Limevapour · 10-08-2014 3:42pm

UCDVet wrote: »

I disagree. I mean, I'm fine with treating men and women equally - but I think the life of a child is more valuable than the life of an adult.

Let's be realistic, everyone has a very limited timespan. Let's say 100 years (very optimistic). If I'm 95 and I get killed in an accidental bombing well....that sucks. It's sad. It's a tragedy. But, on the other hand, I lived for 95 years. I would have died on my own in a short while.

If a five year-old is killed in an accidental bombing, well, that wasn't much of a life. That child lost 95 years of living, whereas I would only lose 5.

So, if I had to choose between a bus filled with senior citizens or a bus filled with small children to drive off a cliff - I'd take the old people. Because I think the life of a child is more precious.

Also it would probably cause less emotional trauma to relatives if a 95 year old relative died compared to a 5 year old relative.

Drakares · 10-08-2014 3:45pm

Because women and children are generally more helpless than men.. Duh.

RobertKK · 10-08-2014 3:46pm

UCDVet wrote: »

I disagree. I mean, I'm fine with treating men and women equally - but I think the life of a child is more valuable than the life of an adult.

Let's be realistic, everyone has a very limited timespan. Let's say 100 years (very optimistic). If I'm 95 and I get killed in an accidental bombing well....that sucks. It's sad. It's a tragedy. But, on the other hand, I lived for 95 years. I would have died on my own in a short while.

If a five year-old is killed in an accidental bombing, well, that wasn't much of a life. That child lost 95 years of living, whereas I would only lose 5.

So, if I had to choose between a bus filled with senior citizens or a bus filled with small children to drive off a cliff - I'd take the old people. Because I think the life of a child is more precious.

That is still placing a different value on the life, and it says not all life is equal.

10-08-2014 3:51pm

RobertKK wrote: »

That is still placing a different value on the life, and it says not all life is equal.

Life is of equal value, but lifespan isn't.

Obviously a projected lifespan of 90 years is of greater value to a projected 5 years.

UCDVet · 10-08-2014 3:52pm

RobertKK wrote: »

That is still placing a different value on the life, and it says not all life is equal.

That's one way of interpreting it.
Another would be to say that all lives are equal. But when you kill someone you aren't 'removing' their existence, you are just prematurely ending their life. When you kill a child you are 'stealing' more years of life, so it's worse than killing an old person. Even though the lives of the two are equal, the number of years are a taking isn't.

So, it's less bad, to kill old people.

It's like stealing 30 iPhones from Argos after they get a new shipment in, verse stealing 5 iPhones from Argos two weeks after they got their last shipment. Stealing is wrong, in both cases, but by stealing a 'fresh' shipment, you are taking more goods than if you steal an old shipment.

Adamantium · 10-08-2014 3:55pm

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!

Da ****?

Frosty McSnowballs · 10-08-2014 4:00pm

Strawwwbreeezz wrote: »

So you're implying that it's worse to kill a civilian woman than a man?

Are men less deserving of human rights?

Ah so you are one of those people who only reads one of a posters posts and makes up the rest. Grand so.

Firstly, I am a man and I consider all genders to have equal human rights.....obviously!

Secondly, that post you quoted was meant to convey the idea that in a conflict situation it is generally "frowned upon" to target innocent women and children. My argument here is to lay out the psyche of the person/persons behind the acts. The fact that THEY have no moral issue with the acts.

My personal opinion, previously stated earlier in your quoted post incase you missed it is "..... the killing of innocent men, women and children is not acceptable...." And also again in a later post "....any innocent casualty from any conflict regardless of age or gender should be equally abhorred".

Thanks for contributing to the thread. What are your views on the subject.

BOHSBOHS · 10-08-2014 4:05pm

to quote arnie in running man ....
"I said de crowd iz un-amed. der r lotz of wimmin and children down der. All dey want is fut for gad sake. Da hell wid yeew. I will not faaar on helpless people."

padd b1975 · 10-08-2014 4:10pm

Banjo String wrote: »

Indeed.

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

It's one of my life's ambitions to trample over the likes of Germaine Greer and Nell McCafferty to get on a lifeboat.

Now that's equality, sisters.

Muise... · 10-08-2014 4:46pm

padd b1975 wrote: »

It's one of my life's ambitions to trample over the likes of Germaine Greer and Nell McCafferty to get on a lifeboat.

Now that's equality, sisters.

No, that's you being a total Captain Schettino and trampling over people to get on a lifeboat.

catallus · 10-08-2014 4:47pm

A real man wouldn't need a lifeboat, either.

Limevapour · 10-08-2014 4:49pm

catallus wrote: »

A real man wouldn't need a lifeboat, either.

What's a "real man"?

Muise... · 10-08-2014 4:54pm

Limevapour wrote: »

What's a "real man"?

an inflatable one.

Czarcasm · 10-08-2014 4:59pm

Muise... wrote: »

No, that's you being a total Captain Schettino and trampling over people to get on a lifeboat.

Back and better than ever!

RobertKK wrote: »

Are the lives of men somehow viewed as being somewhat lesser when it comes to reporting the deaths of people in conflict zones?

You're being incredibly petty tbh when it's not the fact that human beings have been killed by their fellow human beings that bothers you, but the quality of the news report and how you feel slighted by what you perceive to be gender bias.

The fact it's Sky News should've told you all you needed to know, not exactly a bastion of unbiased news reporting.

tritium · 10-08-2014 5:06pm

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.

I don't think a bomb tends to discriminate. Would it be better or less horrific to target a men's club for example? BTW its rethorical, I know you don't actually think so, but the context of relative horror does beg the question

padd b1975 · 10-08-2014 5:13pm

Muise... wrote: »

No, that's you being a total Captain Schettino and trampling over people to get on a lifeboat.

Obviously I would behave differently if I was the actual captain.

I didn't realise I needed to qualify my throwaway remark.

Frosty McSnowballs · 10-08-2014 5:15pm

tritium wrote: »

I don't think a bomb tends to discriminate. Eouldit be better or less horrific to target a men's club for example?

That is entirely your own opinion.

Bombs and bullets obviously do not discriminate, you are correct. However, the person behind such life taking inanimate objects can and do.

Just saw your edit:

No, the innocent killing of men, women and children is horrific in any singularity or context.

spook_house · 10-08-2014 5:19pm

RobertKK wrote: »

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?

Some victims are more worthy than others when it comes to public discourse

spook_house · 10-08-2014 5:26pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

Even when male casualties are marginalized , we are guilty of misogyny

...including women and children

Comments