“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?

There was a study that concluded women rulers are just as likely as men rulers to start wars. They excluded wars where the woman ruler had been attacked by an aggressor. Of course it won’t be an even number because so few women have been rulers. But likelihood relates to the odds of whether your country will start a war is about the same whether you are ruled by a man or a woman.

I'd honestly prefer they used the term adults and children (and in war situations children would definitely be up to 18 and not 16, and if in doubt of exact age then err toward them being children). I have also heard a lot of 'men are the ones who cause wars' sort of statements, but there have been a lot of evil women over the centuries too.

I suggest you read up on war crimes in Bosnia and Rwanda, for starters, if you think men aren't susceptible to rape and sexual assault in war.

In my opinion it's power, and the kind of person who seeks power, that's correlated to warmongering. And as you say far fewer women have been in power throughout history so there's no substantial data set to compare to men who start wars.

I would note that most male warmongerers have had high-profile women backing them to the hilt. Would I feel more comfortable if Margarita Simonyan was the Russian president instead of Putin? Or if Lauren Boebert or Sarah Palin had been president instead of Trump? Or if, heaven forfend, Suella Braverman was our PM? Would I hell.

The key phrase here is "in a way that men are not." Men are certainly victims in war, most recently in Ukraine there have been men who are victims of rape, although I'm not sure about Israel/Hamas.

However, it cannot be compared to the sheer scale of rape that women are subjected to, everyone knows this.

It's short-hand for non-combatants, but more human way of saying it. Could also say "The Very young, disabled, very old and their carers" but that's more words.

Do you know how good manners on social media works?

And the men who were abducted by IDS soldiers, stripped and abused and one reported sexual assault. Possible that more were sexually assaulted but reluctant to admit it?
I'm not sure on the relevance of being physically weaker if you are blown up or shot.

UK went to war with Argentina when we had a female PM and a female head of state. We were attacked though.

I really do not understand the hyper focus on rape.

It is one of many forms of torture. Girls/boys, men/women are all vulnerable to torture by enemy soldiers. Combatants captured, whether male or female are also vulnerable to torture including rape (Abu Grahib?, Guantanamo?).

So the females can be raped argument doesn’t wash for me as to why casualties are listed as a total with this many women and children. The only guaranteed non-combatant innocents are children in my opinion. Adults should be split into civilian non-combatants and combatants (soldiers), not by male or female because that is based on traditional and outdated sex roles.

With apologies to @marmaladeandpeanutbutter, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.

The Falklands War would have been excluded by the study. I think though that the numerous invasions & colonisations under Queen Victoria would have been included.

I agree with this

I totally agree with you OP. If we want equality for women, it has to be for the better and say the worse.

There seems to be a vision that by virtue of their sex, men are supportive war and fighting when the majority are as distressed by it all as women.

Some also seem to forget that many women have joined the forces in Israel.

This.

Yabu OP not to acknowledge that it's women and children who suffer disproportionately in times such as this.

Women are 2nd class citizens to begin with in Gaza and their suffering is amplified now at the hands of men. Its always men.

I’m sick of hearing women and children too. There are only some men who are choosing war, the rest are gravely impacted by it and will suffer trauma the rest of their lives.
and my goodness it annoys me about mothers of only daughters who somehow feel superior that they would not have to send their daughters to fight. It’s not 1914

Dumbest comment I've read in a long time.

Israel has conscription for all females.

Certainly not on the scale of women they aren't.

The Uk was pretty indifferent to the lives of German women and children during the war. the bombing raids on e.g. Hamburg, Dresden, etc, intentionally killed thousands. Plus the fire raids on Japanese cities and of course the two nuclear weapons.

I dislike the term "women and children" because of the assumption that it conveys - women and children are innocent, men are guilty. Lots of Israeli women are in their armed forces. Lots of women and children are supporters of terrorism. The (valid) arguments that "it's men that start wars" and "women in general are weaker than men" don't cancel out the fact that women and children can be just as dangerous as adult men.

On average a man would be able to "defeat" a woman if similarly "tooled up". But a woman with a gun would be able to defeat an unarmed man. A child with a bomb would be able to kill unarmed pensioners.

I like the term PP used - non-combatants. That encapsulates the innocent, whatever their age or gender. Or just call them innocent people.

Ah such a compliment. No way to mount a persuasive counter argument so you go for the ad hominem. Must mean I have made some very convincing points.

Grouping women by default with children infantilises us. We are fully capable of bearing arms for our countries, and many of us have for over a century. Grouping men or even teenage boys by default with combatants blurs the line between warring with combatants or breaking international law by targeting civilians or other non-combatants like medics, aid workers, press or UN officials.

Saying this is “the dumbest thing” you have “ever heard” in your “life” erases the many female veterans- those that have sacrificed their lives for their country, those currently serving and those that have retired from service.

We don’t suffer disproportionately. It’s men that are tortured and are killed at a much higher rate. Rape isn’t a fate worse than death.

Do posters who think women have it so much don't think husbands, father's, sons are significantly affected by seeing their family killed in horrific circumstances?

Men come back from war suffering from PTSD that often affect life forever, and that's with their family safe at home.

It's not a fight over who is more traumatised. War traumatised everyone one way or the other. Battling over who has it worse is pathetic in the scheme of the traumas wars cause.

Generally agree, I don't like the phrase women and children etc.

But when you think about it, women are often the caretakers of children (when men are fighting) so the idea of women also being targeted is pretty awful.