“women and children” in war

[Diolchynfawr]

Just catching up with Any Questions on R4. Much talk of ‘women and children’ being bombed in Gaza, and who were slaughtered on October 7th.

Laying aside one for one moment (if such a thing is possible) the appalling horror and tragedy of the current situation, I can’t quite pinpoint how I feel about this little snippet of rhetoric.

My first response is to feel as though I’ve been transported back to an era when women, like children, where kept and cared for by men. I hear echoes of the Titanic and cries of ‘save the women and children’. Sort of feels regressive in this day and age, why not speak of civilians, or of ‘children, the elderly and infirm’, if wanting to highlight the plight of the vulnerable?

In the next moment I’m reflecting on how it must feel to be a young man these days, to hear outcry at the death of women and children, but little said about fathers and brothers. I wonder if it is any coincidence that it is young men who are shooting and stabbing each other in our inner cities, and what the value our society places on their lives.

Not really an AIBU, but what do you think? Should ‘women and children’ still be a phrase we use today and why/why not?

I'm also uncomfortable with it. I dislike the connotation that the lives of men are less valuable than the lives of women, and that should a war break out here, I'd be shielded while my husband would be expected to go out and die. On a macro level I suppose it's true that a population can withstand the deaths of far more men than it can women, but all the same, I don't want my husband to die. I love him.

From a purely selfish perspective, though, I'm also quite glad. At least it's much less likely that my daughters will ever be called up for war than if I'd had sons.

In some places, including Gaza, women and children have far fewer choices than their adult male relatives.

Yes I think it should. In any kind of fight a women is never going to beat a man. The idea that women are physically weaker is not regressive it's biology. I agree that the elderly and infirm should be included though.

Also it's also never women starting these hideous fucking wars is it.

I think men are mostly to blame for everything bad in this world. A simplistic view and a generalisation, but that is why this kind of narrative doesn’t get my back up. I can’t imagine anything worse than trying to protect my child from war atrocities as a mother.

Isn't it children that are the point here, with the assumption that women will care for them?

I think it depends on how you choose to interpret it.

For me any loss of life is appalling. Regardless of age or sex .

I am also very aware of the fact they physically many women and pretty much all kids are highly vulnerable in conflict in a way men are not. Due to their sex and/or age.

Rape and trafficking is still a actual weapon of war.

Please read "The War on Women " if you still believe this narrative is sexist and outdated.

Abso fucking loutly this

Do you know how rape works ?

In the next moment I’m reflecting on how it must feel to be a young man these days, to hear outcry at the death of women and children, but little said about fathers and brothers. I wonder if it is any coincidence that it is young men who are shooting and stabbing each other in our inner cities, and what the value our society places on their lives.

Men have been shooting and stabbing each other since the dawn of time and it’s precisely fuck all to do with how “valued” they feel, especially when for millennia men have been far more value to society than women.

Women are particularly vulnerable in times of war as they are almost always physically weaker and often caring for vulnerable children. They are also susceptible to sexually motivated war crimes in a way men are not. This is particularly true in areas of the Middle East where many women are controlled by the male members of their family and don’t have full access to money etc. Nobody is saying it’s not sad when men die, but very very clearly women and children are a more vulnerable group. I find it astounding anyone can think otherwise and I’m getting thoroughly sick of the “poor menz” attitude.

OP it's men who have caused this war (on both sides). Women and children are the victims of men's need for power and violence. I do agree that elderly and infirm should be included though.

It's not about women and children being more important. It's about them being physically weaker and more vulnerable as a group. Now of course, there are other vulnerable groups but men as a whole would not be viewed as vulnerable in general.

Women and children never start or escalate these wars do they? They are nearly always victims who get caught up in the midst of it all. If Netanyahu and his govt or Hamas were female, would all this be going on? No.

Being female in a war zone automatically puts you at additional level of risk. Women are more vulnerable due to risk of gender based violence or being trafficked. Rape is often weaponised to psychologically torment the enemy. Female biology makes women more vulnerable, as there's the risk of women becoming pregnant due to rape in war. There will be women fighting on the front lines but it's important to recognise how women often suffer in a particularly cruel way during conflicts. So yes separating women and children into a more vulnerable category from the men in a war zone does make sense.

What they mean is non-combatants.

And as much as it makes some people uncomfortable, in a conflict any able bodied male can potentially be a combatant. But generally women won't be.

What this means from a military POV is that actions that result in the deaths of men can be ambiguous, in terms of whether they are military targets, whereas actions that result in the death of women and children are less ambiguous that way. Those cases generally involve targeting civilians, or errors.

Nothing has changed. Women and children are disproportionately impacted by war, in ways that men are not. This will always be the case.

I agree, OP. It also sounds to me a little like all men are automatically thought about as perpetrators /combatants. Many, many men are fathers, husbands brothers, sons, and just men - innocent, holding their families down, vulnerable, and deserve as much to be valued and saved.

That's sweeping, I think it should be possible to have a discussion on a broad topic rather than sweeping generalisation about a particular community.

Women and children are far more vulnerable than men in wars. Think about it.

I agree with you OP. I have 2 sons and 1 daughter. All are currently covered under the heading "children" but one day will my sons' lives be worth less than their sister's? I understand that women have the added risk of rape which is terrible, but its generally not considered worse than death. And while men aren't usually at risk of rape they are at equal or possibly increased risk of other forms of torture. it's true that women don't generally start wars, but let's not pretend they're all sweet and into fluffy kittens. Our recent history of UK home secretaries has proven that.

My god women and children have it worse. Women have their sexually weaponised against them. They don’t tend to strip young men and parade them around I front of gangs of rapist. They do horrific things to women. It’s a totally different ball game. I shudder thinking of how these poor women and girls will be treated. Sorry I think this post is quite upsetting. The kids, well how can anyone not think that they bear the brunt of it. Seeing their mothers tortured.

I think in many circumstances rape IS worth than death.

Women and children are vulnerable in war. They face rape, they find it harder to travel, they attract attention. They may even need adult male permission to travel or cross borders. They are more likely to be ignored. They are less likely to have access to finances. They are more likely to be seen as collateral damage.
Realistically very very few wars occur in societies with western female equality. Or western female rights. Most war happens in countries and societies where women are vulnerable before the onset of war, then war compounds it.

I'm uncomfortable with it too. I do understand about children being innocent and women having specific vulnerabilities. But those vulnerabilities are less relevant to bombs and collpasing buildings or lack of water. They come in to play when there are forces on the ground though.
I also see men are more likely to be involved in actual combat so a legitimate target in war, but i also think how much choice do they all have. If you are a peace loving man in a war zone do you get a chance to be peaceful.

There is a minute chance of your children being in an active war though isn’t there. It’s not relevant to what is actually happening, just a thinking game for you. Women though around the world do not have the privilege of your children. They are vulnerable

Exactly my thoughts