“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?

Most Ukrainian women have left the country now anyway I thought?

Come on get real. DS has a similar role and tbf neither him or your sister should ever find themselves on the front line and if they do something has gone very wrong indeed. But if they do it's not DS who is going to be the victim of sustained sexual violence. And he's never going to find himself pregnant or be given away as a wife. Even peacekeeping in bloody Kosovo who are our allies he walked freely wherever he fancied and the women soldiers were harassed all the time.

It's not entirely easy to be sure as Russia controls 20% of the country and there aren't any reliable censuses.

But in 2021 there were, it's believed, ~ 22 million women and now there are ~13million, plus whatever is in the Russian controlled area.

So plenty still there.

Wow, so I'm guessing a lot more than I thought stayed to defend the country - I knew it was a fair few but didn't realise how many. I don't think that would happen here tbh.

Get real about what?

That women can be of value in technical roles, that most war isn't melee combat, or that the frontline soldiers aren't usually the instigators of war?

I still stand by all three statements.

I've been wondering whether women are also at risk from their own side in a way that men arent during war.

It's been known yes. At massively lower levels than from enemy soldiers ofc. There have been quite a lot of incidents of rape and sexual coercion by UN 'peacekeepers'; those are only the reported ones.

@LadyThatLaunches
Wow, so I'm guessing a lot more than I thought stayed to defend the country - I knew it was a fair few but didn't realise how many. I don't think that would happen here tbh.

Actually, most are just getting on with their ordinary lives. Many left at first and then came back once it was clear Russia wasn't going to be able take all of Ukraine over. Many more work in industries that support the army than used to, even if it's only making warm socks at home - not to be underrated for soldiers in the trenches. Some are making camoflage netting and gear. But Kyiv still has nightclubs and cafes and life goes on; it's just that you know people who have been conscripted and then some of them die. I get the impression that people take life less for granted and the losses make living seem much sharper and less certain.

There are about 5,000 women on the front line in Ukraine. Another 55,000 not on the front line. Of the front line women, I have the impression that a fair percentage are snipers. Many more medics of course. What happens to them if they are captured does not bear thinking about. After the first couple of incidents I tried very hard to avoid it. It seems that captured women get much more intense attention than captured men in some cases.

@Iwasafool "Were the 19% armed?"

This is the Abstract of the study referenced:

"Despite technological advances, hand-to-hand combat remains a persistent aspect of the contemporary operating environment Wojadkowski, 2007. To develop a more detailed understanding on the use of hand-to-hand combat, the researcher analyzed 30 Post-Combat Surveys administered to US Army Soldiers from 2004 to 2008 after their return from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. 216 out of 1,226 Soldiers 19.0 reported using hand-to-hand combat skills in at least one encounter. The Soldiers descriptions indicated that hand-to-hand combat occurred in a variety of tactical situations and that the most common skills employed were grappling techniques 72.6, followed by the use of weapons e.g., rifle butt strikes 21.9 with striking as the least reported skill i.e., punching and kicking 5.5. These results further reinforce that hand-to-hand combat remains a relevant demand and the US Army should continue such training with an emphasis on grappling skills practiced across a variety of performance settings."

Grappling was the most common form of melèe combat. There's a reason we don't allow mixed-sex boxing matches, even at the same weight class (see Fallon Fox for a cautionary tale of what can happen when we do).

So do you think they questioned a cross section of military personnel? Or if you wanted to know what might happen when you come face to face with the enemy they might select people that is likely to happen to? So would they ask the catering corp well behind the lines, the nurses and doctors or communication personnel well behind the lines or would they ask the ones who are you know on the front line?

They still appear to be armed though, I don't know why an armed, trained soldier is deciding to use grappling techniques but if women aren't suited to grappling there are plenty of other roles where they won't be needed.

"They still appear to be armed though, I don't know why an armed, trained soldier is deciding to use grappling techniques but if women aren't suited to grappling there are plenty of other roles where they won't be needed."

"IF women aren't suited to grappling" WITH MEN....?? You really think there's some doubt on that point?

No-one's arguing that there aren't plenty of other roles for women to play elsewhere; plenty of us are arguing that the front line is not a good place for women or children to be, because they are fundamentally, biologically, physically more vulnerable (as a generic group). I'm sorry if this reality doesn't fit with your worldview, but it's u arguable

*unarguable.

I think children and other dependents who can't make any decisions for themselves compared to adults of any sex. I do not think a man's life has less value than a woman's nor do I think the physical advantages of being a man matter much when a bomb drops on your home. A man dying is as tragic as a woman dying. And men and women both train as soldiers, including in the IDF. Many aspects of this war - setting off bombs and mortars doesn't require brute physical strength. There are many roles for women in a war. I do think the view that men are disposable and have little value is a problem. I also think people often ignore and deny that men also have complex emotions and can love and be attached to people and truly suffer during wars as well. It seems they are expected to not really be affected or to only be aggressive, angry, and violent. I pretty much put all adults together and see any of their deaths as tragic.

Men start wars, not women.

Green777 · Yesterday 21:50

Men start wars, not wome

This is such a shitty comment. A tiny minority of men start wars. So we blame them all? They're all just expendable because of the actions of 1 or 2 men at a particular point in history? I'm sure most men hate war just as much as women do. Why wouldn't they? They're the ones who'll be sent to the front lines and potentially lose their lives or be forced to kill.

So men start wars and women wave white feathers at men who don't go off to die in them.

I'm actually in favour of women being able to go into front line combat, if it is very clearly spelled out what might happen. As this thread shows, there's a very considerable naivety about the level of horror that can be inflicted on a captured woman. But if women then decide they'll accept that risk, and if they are the best fit for the relevant role, then imo that should be fine.

But it will always be a very small proportion overall of women who go into front line combat. To bring it back to the original thread question about is the phrase "women and children" still relevant, yes I think it is. When it comes to soldiers advancing on unsuspecting civilians who then have to run for as has literally just happened in Israel on 7th October, then if rescue is only available for a proportion of the victims then the decent thing is to save the slowest/weakest first - the children, the old people and the majority of women.