“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 very sorry you went through that and I sincerely hope your results come back clear. Still, and this is harsh of me I realise, you don't speak for all women, indeed, and I sincerely hope you weren't ostracised or divorced or your husband never touched you again because of your experience, or your family did not have to observe it.”
Thank you for your kind words and understanding my perspective.

"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 think this phrase connects with very deep, atavistic human instincts, which are genuine, and 'good', but perhaps hard to define.

Some random musings:

Women and children are the future of any society (obviously some men are required too...) As such, they occupy a special, even privileged position in the minds of a society under threat from war. To safeguard women and children is to safeguard the continuation and prosperity of all that one holds most dear. I think men have demonstrated this protective instinct throughout history.

Any framing of women as 'different' from men is always going to provoke a knee-jerk 'feminist' reaction, and an assumption that to admit of differences between the sexes is also therefore to insert a hierarchy, in which either men are better/more important/more powerful than women, or vice versa.

I think war highlights the unarguable differences between men and women (and children, at one further remove). Feminism will never be able to dispense with the physical reality of human biology, ie most men are bigger and stronger than most women, so in a combat situation, women (and children) must rely on men for protection, whether they fits with their worldview or not.

In an era where girls and women are constantly told they can do everything that a man can, and generally do it better as well, to be reminded that women are actually at the mercy of men's choosing to behave well towards them, in a civilised manner, is a little hard to accept - particularly by those of us fortunate enough never to have got close to the harsher realities of war, in which for sure women and children are physically more vulnerable (because weaker) than men.

This is OF COURSE not to say that men do not suffer in war, nor that they are not also vulnerable to all kinds of horrific violence. The vast majority of men do not want to fight in wars, yet do so anyway when called upon to protect their wives/children/way of life/society/civilisation. I am very grateful to the many millions of men who gave their lives for my country in both World Wars of the last century (in which my grandfather also fought, and from which experience he never recovered.)

As far as I can see there's a great deal of outrage about the rapes of the adult females during the massacre.

But the phrase is applied to all wars, not just Israel and Hamas so the principle of it has to be extended further, which makes the Israel/Hamas conflict a very small proportion of conflict situation.

Israel is the only country in the world (I think) that has female conscription, and even there only 7% of the front line troops are women. Front line or not, if you're in the military forces the concept of 'women and children' can't apply to you. But it could apply to the rest of the women, ie the majority.

Couldn't find any information on what proportion of HAMAS fighters are female. I'd guess a very low proportion but that's all it is, a guess.

So given the relative proportions at least in Israel, and presumably with less female fighters in Gaza, I can't see that there's all that much difference- and that is, as said, a really small proportion of the conflicts that the phrase 'women and children' apply to.

eh, @Rudderneck said it better yesterday at 10:37

also, I think @HBGKC has the galling truth of it just above :(

In an era where girls and women are constantly told they can do everything that a man can, and generally do it better as well, to be reminded that women are actually at the mercy of men's choosing to behave well towards them, in a civilised manner, is a little hard to accept - particularly by those of us fortunate enough never to have got close to the harsher realities of war, in which for sure women and children are physically more vulnerable (because weaker) than men.

"Our female physical limits are pretty much null and void when you’re using advanced weaponry"

This is just not true. Yeah, there's probably no difference between a female and a male drone pilot, but female infantry are a rarity because of the very many disadvantages; females are slower and weaker - less able to carry and handle heavy weaponry, easily disarmed. In close combat women would just be canon fodder.

@Delpf in terms of reflexes are women and men roughly equal? Men are faster presumably.

The reason women can’t be conscripted in modern times and didn’t used to be allowed on the front lines until quite recently is because they/ we can become pregnant. Specifically, if raped by the enemy. Men also suffer rape and sexual assault in war but crucially can’t become pregnant.

It’s not because we’re weaker, not for a long time.

No one is saying it is but instead are acknowledging that due to biology women are at risk in a very different way and that rape is not solely used as a way to inflict physical long term pain.

Hopefully my mentioning the R word again wont make you too cross

Tutu just read your further posts and I'm sorry you went through that. I'm also sorry if my last sentence reads as dismissive of this as it wouldn't have been my intention.

I'm a victim also and was a wee bit riled by your post before that.

But we are all different in how we respond to trauma and I think it's important not to downplay how rape is used in war and it's long term effects.

This doesn't at all take away the disgusting waste of all human life

Oh ffs.

Almost all violence is by men.

So yes it is sad that women and children bear the brunt of it.

YABU.

I disagree, female infantry are only a rarity because society sees women as slower, weaker, more vulnerable and is not willing to envision women coming home in flag draped caskets or body bags from a war like they are perfectly desensitised to men KIA coming home that way.

It takes a kg of pressure to pull a trigger- toddlers have pulled triggers. We are at no disadvantage in a small arms fire fight. We are at no disadvantage driving a tank or piloting a fighter jet, helicopter or drone. We would only be at a disadvantage at hand to hand combat which is not the usual form of combat in modern day warfare. Everyone on the battlefield is equally “canon fodder” if by that you mean vulnerable to mortar shells, air strikes, tank fire and 50 cal machine guns. Men do not have any advantage in surviving those sorts of explosives over women.

Women have been barred from combat and special forces roles for decades due to this societal perception, but in those military forces where a small % of women have been permitted to engage in front line combat and special forces roles, they have proven themselves to be just as capable as men.

Thats not the message I am getting. It’s more than acknowledging rape is the one form of torture that women disproportionally suffer which I have done, there is an insistence that it is fair to extrapolate from this one thing that women suffer overall more than men in war and are overall more vulnerable than men in war. When factually, more men are injured and die in wars than do women.

Furthermore, there is a view that women are weaker, slower, and cannot possibly be in combat roles - when the truth is that those female troops that have been permitted into combat roles have more than proven themselves. I have posted 2x the article on the all female squad of 13 IDF soldiers who beat at least 100 Hamas fighters just two weeks ago. These women were outnumbered by 7 to 1. There are many more examples of Kurdish female battalions beating ISIS. Women have been in combat roles for over decade and in the past five years, they are now being allowed to join special forces. We now have females in the SAS. In the past, it wasn’t that women failed the fitness tests or combat exercises, it was that they were not even allowed to try out. As soon as the gatekeepers let women try for these roles, women have volunteering and been passing the tests.

It’s the same sort of shift that happened when society started letting women try out for police and firefighting.

Yes obviously an untrained and unarmed woman is no match for a trained, armed male enemy soldier, but it’s the same for an untrained and unarmed man. It is more the lack of military training and lack of arms that puts us at a disadvantage these days- along with enduring sexist bias that paints us as damsels in distress at the mercy of men at arms who need knightly protection.

I’m sorry it looks as though I am downplaying, that isn’t my intent. It’s more that I can’t agree that our disproportionate suffering from rape therefore makes us suffer more than men in war as a blanket generalisation. War causes untold suffering on everyone caught up in it, but to my mind children are the most vulnerable. We women, while still vulnerable, are not as vulnerable as a child and so should not be lumped in with children.

*war highlights the unarguable differences between men and women (and children, at one further remove). Feminism will never be able to dispense with the physical reality of human biology, ie most men are bigger and stronger than most women, so in a combat situation, women (and children) must rely on men for protection, whether they fits with their worldview or not."

How often is modern warfare unarmed hand to hand combat? A woman can fly the plane that drops the bomb or launch the missile as easily as a man. A man can die in the explosion or buried in the rubble as easily as any woman.

I can't see that the war between Israel and Hamas has much to do with men being bigger or stronger.

"How often is modern warfare unarmed hand to hand combat? A woman can fly the plane that drops the bomb or launch the missile as easily as a man. A man can die in the explosion or buried in the rubble as easily as any woman.

I can't see that the war between Israel and Hamas has much to do with men being bigger or stronger."

Still quite a significant amount of it, apparently.

"A 2014 study found that, amongst US soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan between 2004 and 2008, 19% reported the use of hand-to-hand techniques in at least one encounter, in a variety of circumstances and contexts (such as close combat, prisoner handling, crowd control and security checkpoints), supporting prior research that indicated that, despite advances in technology, hand-to-hand combat remained a persistent aspect of modern warfare.[8]"

The weight of the kit that soldiers need to carry varies, obviously (not least on the climate and the amount of water they need to keep with them), but it ranges from approx 25kg (half my body weight) to 45kg (a few kilos off my weight). I am a particularly petite woman, but women as a group are smaller and lighter than men as a group. I stand by my point.

I read an article recently by a soldier who'd fought hand-to-hand clearing villages in Afghanistan, saying that Israeli forces would likely end up in similar situations trying to clear militants out of Gaza, who would rather die defending their territory than retreat.

Not all wars are big countries dropping bombs from the sky at a great distance. Smaller rebel forces/guerilla/civil wars are happening all over the world, and some close combat is the exception rather than the rule.

How often is modern warfare unarmed hand to hand combat?

I can't see that the war between Israel and Hamas has much to do with men being bigger or stronger.

Russia is sending absolute masses of low-armed or literally unarmed soldiers forward around Avdiivka for the last weeks. On many days around 800 - 1000 are dying /being seriously wounded.

In clearing trenches there is indeed quite some hand-to-hand stuff, from the clips I've seen - and I've seen a lot now.

One aspect of the male/female soldiers thing is that in cultures where the roles between women and men are more differentiated, male soldiers can respond differently to women enemies in that some will find it harder to shoot/kill them.

Tbf, most wars nowadays aren't fought in melee combat - my sister has honorary rank of Captain due to working in military intelligence. Also, the men on the front row aren't the ones starting the wars. You won't see Putin up front with a machine gun anytime soon.

Another question is whether you actually owe it to others to risk your life on account of being better equipped to fight?

Were the 19% unarmed?

I find it hard to believe that soldiers go into war with no weapons. It isn't 1939 with Dad's army training with broomsticks.

Googling this shows they aren't being used to fight, they are digging trenches and carrying equipment.

I would love to be as sheltered as you are.

I find it hard to believe that soldiers go into war with no weapons. It isn't 1939 with Dad's army training with broomsticks.

Yes, they are. Ive been following the Ukraine war closely for 18 months.

Russia has actually managed to get to the end of its incredible number of missiles, tanks and other weopons, including smaller arms. Hence why they are getting masses from North Korea now.

But the convict-soldiers and ones who are sent to the punishment batallions, the storm-Z units, have terrible or no equipment https://www.newsweek.com/russia-storm-z-penal-battalions-ukraine-1837234 quoting the UK govt. A rather notable oldie was this https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1716118591827751064 from the 1930's being sent into battle, but there are references to some rifles from pre-1900.

Over the months I've on several occasions seen references to Storm Z soldiers going forward with literally no weopons at Bahkmut. Not many, but some.

War is not tidy and neat, especially wars that grind on. Russia expected to take Ukraine over in 3 days. Now it's over a year and a half and they've run out of equipment in many (not all areas).

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1708983532326990202

one of quite a few examples, though Im not going to search back through them all. They run out of ammunition and then are told to go forward anyway. Chechen and Wagner forces in Bahkmut would shoot Storm Z soldiers who refused. They used the heaps of their own dead to get closer to the Ukrainian positions, a little closer each time, before sending the next wave over the raised mounds of the dead.

Men also get raped in war. It's not a homosexual thing so much as a humiliation thing. I actually saw a link to exactly this in the Ukraine war but didn't really fancy watching it.