to think that this is sexism?

[RuleBritannia]

We hear about tragedies in the news such as the shootings in Syria. We are always told that x number of people were killed including women and children. Don't men count enough to be mentioned?

Or is it patronising to mention women because they are 'weaker' than men are?

Does it matter so much that women have to be mentioned separately?

I think the report should say something like 'x people were killed including y children'.

Suppose men have always been more involved in combat so more likely to die.

It's a good point. Why not write to the BBC and ask why?

Think they are trying to emphasise they were civilians and not military. Pisses me off when there is a disaster abroad and they talk about how many British people were involved.

Cassettetapeandpencil

Of course atrocities are dreadful but what can we, as ordinary people do about them? I was simply commenting on the way some elements are reported not the atrocities themselves. It could have been a car crash somewhere with five dead, two of whom were women. We work out that three were men because children would have been mentioned as well.

Well, generally when your news source reports that it's all the facts they were given. If the doctor (say) or mortuary attendant supplies the journalist on the ground with figures, that is what will be reported. So it would be pointless (most of the time) asking the BBC to source different figures as it might be an Associated Press / Agence France Press reporter who got those figures.

And of course, the inference when you say women and children were killed is you're saying there was definitely collateral damage.

No, I don't think that ever happens with car crash stories, sorry

Yes cassette because actually I'm equally upset by foreigners and men as I am British people and women and children being harmed and the emphasis implies some are more important than others.

And actually I think we are conditioned to believe some are more important than others in British society. I HATE the term "collateral damage"... Really hate it...

YABU. 'Women and children' is convenient shorthand for 'defenceless civilians'. If the victims were all male the report might mention that they were unarmed to get across the same message. Not sexist, just reporting convention.

Why did you choose that name Offred? I've been meaning to ask you.

Handmaid's tale narked.

I know where it's from, just wondered why you wanted it. It always gives me the shivers.

Ah, because I identify with it I suppose!

Women are not necessarily defenceless civilians, though - in some countries there are women in the military; in other places female civilians will be involved in uprising, terrorism or rioting, possibly armed. And of course men may be defenceless civilians; many men are older or disabled and an old man may be physically weaker than a healthy young woman.

So I think the 'women and children' phrasing is based on a somewhat false dichotomy.

If women were with children, the implication is that these women were there in a civilian capacity, rather than military/insurgent.

Agree Melpomene. Also dislike the implication that military/insurgent deaths are insignificant or expected.

Yes I hate it too.

I'm sure the defenceless civilian women and children who were butchered in Syria would have been extremely narked to discover the reporting was apparently 'sexist'.

this isnt sexisim as such it is to highlight that civilians are being killed and TBh i am a bit worried that all you can think of is is this sexist when humans are being murdered,

Didn't we do this exact thread about a week ago? Or have I had some sort of premonition?

rhonda we have had a is women and children first sexist thread a few weeks ago

or maybe months it was something to do with the titanic

They say it as women and children are seen as defenceless and innocent I think. Rightly or wrongly (some) people feel worse if they are the victims in an atrocity. It's all sad if you ask me .