“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?

Also wrong. Please educate yourself really recent studies.

I think this is important.

I do generally say “civilians”, but it’s also important that women as a class don’t have much say in what happens in Gaza

As PM of Israel Golda Meir (that's a woman btw) rejected a peace agreement in 1971 that would have seen the pre 1967 borders reinstated.

"When the committee (formed by Meir) unanimously concluded that Israel's interests would be served by full withdrawal to the internationally recognized lines dividing Israel from Egypt and Syria, returning the Gaza Strip and, in a majority view, returning most of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Meir was angered and shelved the document. The United States was infuriated by the cool Israeli response to Egypt's proposal, and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Joseph Sisco informed Israeli ambassador Yitzhak Rabin that "Israel would be regarded responsible for rejecting the best opportunity to reach peace since the establishment of the state."

No one individual is responsible for the conflict, but no question she is one of the prime reasons it has gone on this long.

Women and children never start or escalate these wars do they?

Children no, not, of course.

Women can and do. Heard of Margaret Thatcher? Falklands war.

Kind of feeds into the question, who owns which land where people live.

Brit empire fucked up Palestine too.

Don't see Rishi dealing with it. Of course, he comes from the very empire it spawned, he's just taking care of his gazillions...

Women are more vulnerable in war. Denying that helps no one.

But that does not mean that therefore women should have less social, political or economic power in general. The problem is when less physical strength is equated with social, political and economic strength.

Perhaps the term is old fashioned, but is old fashioned always bad?
I think the term is more of a catch all for the cared for, vulnerable, and their carers. Equality doesn't come into it, if there is a scramble for survival it'll be the strongest who survive, and 90% of the time this will mean the men. The "save the women and children" catch all tries to ensure that the less physically strong are also given a chance.
We also know that life for unprotected women and girls under Jihadist rule is pure hell.

I don't think it's sexism/1950s thinking so much as shorthand for innocent people. The vast majority of Hamas operatives will be adult men.

In saying that 70% are women and children, they mean at least 70% of those killed are innocents. Most men will be too, but any 'legitimate targets' that Israel is going after are likely to be within the adult male demographic.

That is am interesting question op

Firstly women fight in wars too these days (both Hamas and Israel have female fighters) definitely not as many as men. However why do we assume all women lost in conflict are helpless little housewives. It is a very old fashioned view because even in places where women cannot fight officially they may be near the war zone doing other work to help.

Secondly we in the west have a very different view of childhood compared to other places around the world. We view childhood as up to the age of 18. In some parts of the world children work fra very young age, though I would argue they are still children. However a working 17 year old with a wife and two kids is still classed as a child under western views and the UN children's rights act. I think some us us would argue that this 17 year old should be counted as a man. However it really is a grey area.

I do think “women and children” is outdated. It should be switched to “civilians and children” to count deaths of non-combatants.

Both IDF and Hamas have female combatants and leaders. Our female physical limits are pretty much null and void when you’re using advanced weaponry. https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-769134

Considering we don't see many women on the streets fighting or at the forefront of terrorist groups, I think its a fair phrase to use.

So we should discount Thatcher and Co because they are the exception to the rule but not discount Putin and the like? Posters are essentially saying its fair for men to die because something like 0.000001% of men on the earth have the power to (and do) start wars in which other men are often forced to fight and die/risk their lives which posters don't like but also are disregarding the lives of those that don't fight because of the actions taken by 10s/ 100s of men in a population of billions.

And yes I know there'll be more that rape women and that's unacceptable but it doesn't make others lives forfeit

Children yes absolutely is a separate thing but I am sick of this women are more precious than men thing

And yes I am a woman

Its recognition of the heinous female specific tortures. Did you not see that Irish guy celebrating when his 8 year old daughter was found dead rather than captured? He honestly believed it to be the kindest, safest option for his baby.

Men shouldn’t start wars if they want their lives to be considered valuable. After the images of raped women coming out of Israel I’m not surprised people are concerned about what’s happening to women and children.

99%of the posts here are missing the point: as @Rudderneck and one or two others have said, it means "groups who are definitely not soldiers".

Didn't click on the link recently posted but I imagine v few of Hamas fighters are female?

Of course women start and escalate wars.
Only recently there was a documentary of an IRA terrorist who was a woman.
No doubt the posters who spout this think female suicide bombers are pressured and don’t want to do it but don’t think the same applies to men.
It’s a really odd statement that it’s fine for all the men, who largely are very young, are caught up in war because a privileged few have the power to make decisions like war.
What does a conscripted 18 year old have to do with the person who orders a city to be bombed into oblivion?

Are people actually pointing to ONE woman - Thatcher - as some kind of evidence that women are as warmongering as men? We all know who causes almost all the violence in this world so why some women insist on pretending otherwise, is beyond me.

These are men's wars and women and children are ALWAYS the innocent victims. Always. You cannot say the same for men.

And if your first thought, when hearing about the torture and murder of women and children is to feel sorry for MEN, then I have nothing to say to you.

Not that I'm a fan of Thatcher but seeing as here name keeps popping up I suspect some don't have a scooby do about what led to the Falklands conflcit.

Ironically if the Thatcher administration had appeared more warmongering in late 81, early 82 it's highly possible the Argentine Junta wouldn't have made the decision to invade the Islands.

For all those saying women have started as many wars as men, please name all the wars. Then we can tot up your scores against those atrocities started by men.

You've missed the point completely. It's about vulnerability not importance.

Hmmmm looking at those attacking the plane that landed yesterday, yes the baying crowds were all women weren’t they. Every single one was a woman wanting to kill Jews.
Oh sorry no, it’s the other way round I didn’t see one female, the baying mob was predominantly male. The females I saw were staff begging the mob to please stop.
Of course there are women terrorists/ freedom fights/military personnel, so what?
Again prove to me that the majority of wars and violent crimes are committed by women.

Women and children are physically weaker. Most can’t fight off a man trying to rape, kill or kidnap them, even if they have a weapon.
That’s literally it. Women get out in the vulnerable category with children and elderly because we are.

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.

This. In fact, my impression is that when men are more valued that’s when brutality increases. When brutality increases, men are more valued. Perhaps it’s the knowledge and experience of treating an entire population like dirt that enables and trains them to practice on their own. Men gain from a society with decent ethics

It was largely men who attacked the concert and the homes of civilians. It was largely men who killed, tortured and kidnapped Israeli citizens.

And it's largely men who are ordering the bombardment of Gaza, the totalling of homes despite the catastrophic loss of human life and refusing a ceasefire.

The phrase 'women and children' stands for a reason.

I think people are missing what is probably the most basic point here. I asked up-thread - why in the Ukrainian conflict, are women and children allowed to leave, but men aren't?

It's not just that women and children are more vulnerable. And it isn't just that men like fighting and are war-mongers, or that they aren't scared and even vulnerable. Being captured and tortured isn't really that much better for men, and it's not like systematic rape of male soldiers isn't a thing too.

The fact is that the reason Ukrainian men are not allowed to leave, is that this is seen as a dereliction of their duty to fight to protect their people. If they are a member of the state, claim its care and name and citizenship, they are considered to have a moral duty to protect it when the chips are down. Not duck out and run and leave others, some professional fighting force, to do the work for them.

We aren't so used to this thinking in the west, but the legal capacity to enforce this kind of thing where circumstances warrant exists here too. And historically when things get that bad, people have very strong feelings about people who try and get out of that kind of duty.

The role of women has never been seen as the same, and it's mainly because women are mothers. Without mothers, there is not a people to fight for, their is no future existence. So yes, we do see occasional women who directly fight, particularly ones without children. And along with caring for children, women often are the ones who keep the infrastructure going, which is in a way a similar role.

In a total war where people want to really wipe out the enemy, or subjugate them, they are not going to just want to kill soldiers. They want to subjugate the future as well, the women and kids. A conflict where that is going on is particularly nasty. It's not a "professional" war with neat political boundaries, the stakes are their existence as a people, as a nation state with an identity.

That's the kind of conflict going on in Israel and Palestine, and between Ukraine and Russia. It's not neat, and can't be, as far as those involved are concerned the stakes are too high. And under those circumstances you see a very basic division in the role of the sexes emerge. Neat professional wars are actually the exception.