If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

Women (always) worst hit by wars: Hillary Clinton & now UN

  • 13-03-2022 3:27pm
    Registered Users Posts: 4,878 ✭✭✭

    Hillary Clinton:

    "Women have always been the primary victims of war."


    "The Ukraine war — like all conflicts — will hit women and girls the hardest, UN warns"

    This is despite the fact that men aged 18-59 can't leave Ukraine due to conscription.

    There are threads on Ukraine/the Ukraine war specifically but I'm suggesting a more general discussion about the claim that women (and girls) are affected worse by wars and related issues.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,409 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure

    "Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons, in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. Women are again the victims in crime and domestic violence as well."

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,181 ✭✭✭✭Strumms

    Seeing as more men are killed in wars… im not in agreement with the statement, be it said by Clinton, the UN, Ms Woke of Wokington or the Archbishop of Torremolinos…

  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,903 Mod ✭✭✭✭shesty

    Don't know if "worse" is what I'd say.

    Women keep going, try to keep kids safe, put that safety before their own, do whatever it takes to push on and try and find peace and keep life going.

    Men stay and fight.

    Neither station is better or worse, I think.Both are pretty crap.

  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]

    Did you not already start a thread on this op?

  • Registered Users Posts: 11 Nsonowa

    There's already a thread for woke shite - which this is.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33 Jackoflynn

    He's insane.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,628 ✭✭✭Feisar

    IMHO these types of statements are bullshity woke battle of the sexes woke nonsense. Those that are at the coal face aren't thinking like that. Does anyone think that there are women and men in Ukraine that are thinking, "jaysus the men/women have it handy compared to us."

    I've only one personal experience of a tough situation, when the young lad was being born it was a rough ride, I'm lucky they made it. When things were going South, she said, "whatever happens, stay with the boy". She wasn't thinking, "oh he has it handy there".

    Dunno exactly what point I'm making, suppose that men and women are a team, these divisive comments are sad.

    First they came for the socialists...

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,878 ✭✭✭iptba

    As I think you know as you posted on the original thread, I started a thread entitled "The Ukraine war — like all conflicts — will hit women and girls the hardest, UN warns" on another forum. It was shut down with the reason "We already have a thread discussing this war".

    I have tried to make it crystal clear in the title and original post here that this isn't a thread specifically about the Ukraine war. I'm sure it won't stop some people trying to get it shut down.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭Jequ0n

    You seem to have some issues, OP…

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,878 ✭✭✭iptba

    People are free to not find a topic of interest that they don't want: there are lots of threads on this site and some will be of interest to some people but not others. It's disappointing that some people feel the need to engage in personal insults.

    Personally I find it interesting that a spokesperson for the UN, no less, would make such a claim to the media that all conflicts, including the one in Ukraine, “exact the highest price from women and girls". I think it may be ignoring men's sacrifices, suffering, etc.

    I think it also brings up other issues where it is often claimed that things are/were worse for women (the Covid pandemic, the recession just over a decade ago, etc.). It seems there is a tendency to make these claims and for many to accept them at face value.

  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Why? I'd say you might have a bigger issue if you can't appreciate the blatant stupidity of stating that women bear the worst cost of war.. Or the agenda at play to promote such viewpoints, constantly reinforcing the impression that women are always the ultimate victims in every scenario.

    Especially when someone like Hilary Clinton who was referring to American women (campaign speech, if I recall correctly) whose country was never invaded, and so, the "cost" for them would be removed from the actual conflict. Hmm... who is worse off? The guy missing his legs, and suffering PTSD, or the women in his life? Would it really be so hard to admit that it's likely the guy...? Or hell.. why even try to suggest that either party has it worse off at all?

    The UN statement is equally stupid for different reasons. In that men are being forcibly conscripted to fight against a militarily superior enemy, face a wide range of serious problems if captured while fighting the Russians, and face the very risk of getting body parts blown off, leaving them. Women being seen as non-combatants, and allowed or even encouraged to leave combat zones, whereas men wanting to leave would be treated as "cowards" or traitors.

    Just as the Irish media and various spokespeople came out with the utter nonsense that women were affected more by COVID. Why would anyone even make such a statement?

    IMO The OP has a problem with the blatant sexism and double standards that tends to be promoted in modern society.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭Jequ0n

    Can you calm down again, please?

    If you bother to check you can see that I agreed with the OP on his original thread. I really can’t see what purpose a second identical thread serves apart from being shut down again.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,878 ✭✭✭iptba

    The first thread was stopped after less than 17 hours. I reckon a lot of people hadn't had their chance to have their say and/or for a discussion to properly develop. Of course, perhaps I'm wrong and we won't see any more posts on this thread.

    It's a timeless topic: I don't see it as being out of date even if the UN spokesperson's comments are now a day older.

    Post edited by iptba on

  • Registered Users Posts: 33 Jackoflynn

    Completely insane.

  • Registered Users Posts: 33 Jackoflynn

    You will see more posts.

    See mine.

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,717 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous

    I think it must depend very much on the type of war or conflict.. in a straight up conventional war then it's going to be worse for men on the front lines, but in a Congo War style low intensity ethnic conflict I'd imagine that will affect woman worse..

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,839 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject

    I don't think anyone has a better or worse outcome in a war.

    Yes, men are at the front line. Many will die, many will sustain life-changing injuries. I've no doubt all the men involved will have lifelong psychological issues from the trauma they witness and experience.

    Women will lose their fathers, sons, brothers, partners and husbands, or have a different version of that person return home. They will lose the life they had, their home and the version of their life they had before.

    Children will witness horrors they can't comprehend, lose their fathers, grandfathers, uncles and older brothers. They will witness the women in their lives feeling terror and despair.

    No one wins, no one has a cushy number. It's war, not a competition.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Can you calm down again, please?

    You might want to re-examine your post that I responded to... you set the tone.

    As for why the second thread, the OP explained it. The previous thread was shutdown prematurely, for reasons other than the intent/direction of the thread itself.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭bluefinger

    Using this rational could men be hit worse by breast or cervical cancer than women?

  • Registered Users Posts: 271 ✭✭bejeezus

    Hillary seemed to want to highlight the fact that the rape of the women left behind in conflict wasn’t discussed or named as war crime per se. I believe she went too far to say that women are the primary victims of war. In her defence, she was trying to convey the pain and suffering of these women that is often overlooked.

  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]

    I always thought that comment from Hillary was stupid, but had a read through the speech there and it's fine in its context. It was given in El Salvador in 1998, before any notion that it would be widely shared and that context lost.

    Fact is the only American women raped in war are soldiers by their fellow male soldiers. But historically and in other parts of the world, women obviously have had horrid times during war. The rape of Nanking being a notable 20th century example of what has happened countless times in history. Horrific stuff happened in Vietnam, as well, and I know people who have war rape in their heritage.

    It's a tough debate, and one barely worth having. I'm sure plenty of women have wished for a swift death like that of a soldier.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭Jequ0n

    I do not need to to re-examine anything. I would say the same to anyone who felt the need to post the same content/ links in at least three different threads on the same day.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    So, saying that the OP has some issues, or pointing out that a thread shouldn't be continued (because it was closed previously), is a sign of support for his position?

    Right.... Grand. Whatever.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    In her defence, she was trying to convey the pain and suffering of these women that is often overlooked.

    You're joking, right? The idea that women's suffering is overlooked (unless the argument is that most people are desensitised to others suffering) is to ignore the reams of organisations (institutionalised, and NGOs) out there whose sole purpose is to represent women's issues around the world. Women's suffering tends to get far more attention than men's suffering both in the Media, and from publications.. in that men's suffering is seen as the automatic/nature result of such conflicts, and barely worth mentioning.

    Consider the reports coming out from Afghanistan these days... it's all focused on the issues that women (and by extension, children) are suffering, but nothing about what it's like for men. Just as most reports would have focused on what women experienced (as non-combatants) in Iraq, or any number of other wars out there, and little to no, attention given to reporting or investigating the thoughts of men not directly involved in the conflicts.

    That's not to say that attention shouldn't be given to such situations. They definitely should be reported, and people encouraged to know what's happening.. but we really do have to consider what bias is at play here and why that bias might continue to exist, in a world that supposedly is pursuing equality of the genders in society. As long as such attention is given, without comparable attention being given to men, does that really promote equality among the genders, or is it more the case that we're equal in some select situations, and in others, not so much? How do we want societal perspectives to evolve when we elevate one gender over another in importance, or whatever... It makes little sense to me from a practical pov.

    As for Hilary, she was playing to the crowd, and her demographic of female voters.. She's a shark. A dedicated, experienced and manipulative politician. I wouldn't be speaking any kind of defence for her, because I wouldn't believe anything that comes from her mouth as being heartfelt and authentic. The blame really goes to her speechwriter, and the analyst who suggested that such a stance would win her votes.

  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]

    This resolution is over 20 years old, at the time it was the first resolution to mention the impact of conflict on women. So, the impact has only really been acknowledged for a relatively short period of time.

    It is not a competition as to which gender suffers most during times of conflict. Everyone suffers.

    The suffering can be different depending on someone s role. There is no need to try and twist everything into a competition between men and women. Everyone suffers.

  • Registered Users Posts: 29,160 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78

    whats the craic with the misogynists' threads on here!

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik

    Everything there that you saids about women and children applies to the men fighting too. They will lose fathers, brothers, have relatives return home with catastrophic injuries and have to see the horrors of war. They will lose the life they had. They will surely witness terror and fear too.

    Plus they may lose their lives or become catastrophically injured themselves. They certainly have the worst of it.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,268 ✭✭✭thefallingman

    are we including transwomen here ?

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    I have never seen any post by @iptba saying hateful or derogatory remarks about women. Yes, he posts to threads such as men's rights, and highlights the discrepancies in western "equality", but where are all these horrible posts of his?

    Perhaps you could provide some links to his posts that are so riddled with hate? Cause honestly, I think you're full of shite in making such an accusation.

  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    What's misogynistic about this thread? Where is the hate/fear/contempt represented in the posts here about women?

    Or is simply that any criticism directed towards the place of women in society is misogynistic?