“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 saw a video of a man crying saying he was thankful his 7 year old daughter had died and hadn’t been kidnapped because death was the best of the awful possibilities. That poor man, I can’t imagine. I’ve linked the video. There are fates worse than death especially for women and children in war zones.

You are more likely to have a job, finances and no children to weigh down your travel. You are likely to be strong enough to force your way to overcrowded transit out of area. You are more likely to be able to sustain travel on foot. You probably had better access to healthcare which shored up your natura advantage too. You’ll not need to ask a relative to sign your travel documents. You can more likely drive. You will be able to access male networks or illegal papers more easily, such as getting false papers or posing as a truck driver etc.
Basically men, on average, have far far more opportunities than the average woman and far less barriers. No one is going to find it easy, but a determined male can fake an army medical, escape a country etc easier than a woman can avoid being raped, travel or move children with her.
Wars are not rountinely taking place in western democracies. Even when they do take place in wealthier countries it’s a protective factor for all. Something like 95% of deaths in the current conflict are Palestinians. It’s not because Isreal are nasty, it’s because it’s a poor country that’s 50% children with few opportunities to escape. And those who do get out do tend to be young males

I agree with this. Women and children are the ones who disproportionately suffer at the hands of men's actions, and I think it is important to acknowledge that in conversations, particularly in the context of war.

It's men who make and fight in wars, women and children always pay the price. You are very naive if you don't realise this and not recognising that fact by using language such as civilians takes away their voices.

No, your daughter's will just be raped, tortured and murdered while trying, often unsuccessfully, to save their children, much better 🤔

'Women and children' is also shorthand for women, children, the elderly, mentally ill, disabled etc. Anyone especially vulnerable. There are women combatants, there are vulnerable men. Its a figure of speech to put across the situation of innocent people less able to protect themselves.

To be fair my view is somewhat based on having two female ukrainians living with us, whilst the husband/dad is not living with us, but is in ukraine. And thinking its a bit shit for him. But i guess if they were also in ukraine it would be even shitter which is why they left.

I think it shows a very sheltered life if your first thought upon hearing of the violence against women and children in war is about how the poor men must feel.

It goes to show how normalised and invisible violence against women and children is, and how safe OP is hearing about it through the radio and unable to imagine the vulnerability to threat and physical violence in that situation.

there are so many films and books you could engage with that centre women and children in times of war/dangerous situations created by men. A particularly harrowing film that stayed with me is “Imagining Argentina”

women and children are powerless in a war zone. Men are historically combatants. So have some power of attack of resist. Maybe there are more women as combatants now, but they are still vulnerable if captured in all the same ways a non-combatant is. The elderly aren’t as valued as they aren’t the future population/able to give birth to the next lot of male combatants.

Did you know that a soldier will often rape the women of their enemy not just because they can but do potentially make her pregnant. She is then carrying the child of the enemy which often leads to being ostracised.

I think everyone on this thread can agree that the lives of our sons are equally as important as those of our daughters.

But it's important to acknowledge that rape and trafficking are not just used as a physical weapon against women and children but psychological too.

Actually I'd agree with this too

I'd encourage anyone to read War on Women

Yes, I agree. The headlines recently about 40 babies being beheaded (can't remember now whether it was proven false or not) was jarring for me, as they seemed to suggest that killing babies was worse that other killing. Sure, the babies were innocent victims. And most - not perhaps all - women will be innocent victims. But so will many men.

Yes, the points above about life in difficult times (@SweeetFemaleAttitude) are valid, and yes, men start most of this crap (is it just testosterone talking? or is it that these men don't actually care about other people?) - but men can be victims too.

This.

I think the shock factor here is what kind of person is able to behead a baby. Not that their deaths are any more or less important than another’s. It takes a real monster to behead a n infant that we are socialised and biologically predetermined to protect and care for.

Golda Meir rejected the best chance of peace that region has had since the modern state of Israel came in to being.

She also said Palestinians don't exist.

And Thatcher, she wasn't exactly shy when it came to what to do in the Falklands was she? (even though she was correct). She also allowed the US access to Royal Air Force bases when they bombed Libya, with The Sunday Times releasing a story by the Queen that she was an "uncaring" Prime Minister.

Remember WW1 when women would wave white feathers at men on the street who didn't go off to be cannon fodder in a senseless war.

Society has meant to have moved on from then and the sexes more equal.

These women are the exception not the rule, and seem to be held to a much higher standard than men in similar positions.

the existence of Margaret thatcher means FA to the experience of a civilian woman in a war zone.

We know women are just as intelligent and capable as men. We can resist and fight. However each native population of women and men is socialised and politicised differently to think of sex, individual and group. For every gun toting Zapatista there is a woman who has been told she cannot say no to men. This is about physical domination and power situations where you are being attacked in a war zone.

These women are the exception not the rule, and seem to be held to a much higher standard than men in similar positions.

Jesus of course they're the exception. But then warmongering men like Putin are also the exception.

I do kind of agree, and have thought similar myself over the last few weeks. On the other hand, I am so sick of men starting wars and women and girls being raped and traumatised.

I think of the impracticalities of having to change my pad + tampon every couple of hours because of my flawed physiology - this is just one of the challenges without having children .
I always see men in the streets of Gaza in most of the coverage, there's a reason for that.

But ask yourself who is using the phrase “women and children” and why? It is not people who necessarily care about women and children but people who want to garner sympathy and using the phrase “women and children” is an internationally recognised sign meant to indicate innocent civilians.

If only men would admit their own vulnerability. There isn’t a definite point at which a vulnerable child turns into an invincible child. It is not women (or rather mothers) pushing this narrative because WE all know and love our sons for the vulnerable creatures they are.

Isn't part of the issue WHY the men are still there?

Why is it that they expect men to stay and fight for the country, but women and children are being sent to safety?

Sexism? Or something else?

In a nutshell it’s always men who cause the wars. Always.
Personally I think it’s fine for women to join the military.
Doesn’t change the fact that almost all that is bad in the world is a result of nasty men.

It’s been bothering me too! Feels really 1950s. As though we women are weak and childlike and need special protection. I mean, it doesn’t matter if I’m 5’3 or 6’4 if my hospital is bombed or someone shoots at me.

And yes, the implication is that the loss of an 18 year old male’s life is somehow less sad than a 60 year old woman’s. It makes no sense to me and I find it a bit offensive.

Wrong. Please educate yourself. Google will help.