24 replies to this topic

[General]

Before start : Do not prejudice before fully understand my post.

In war , terrorist attack , in military operations or in disasters ; when children or women killed its presented to public as something even more horribly done than killing a man . But they do not think mans which killed have lifes too and they were child once and maybe they was have tens of years to live .
I do not count when a psychopath killer massacres babies or womans but I am talking about such group killings or whatever its named in language.

I mean if someone kill my father now I will pissed much as they kill my mother or my brother , there is not a lot of difference but some peoples tell it like it does so .

Edited by General, 09 August 2007 - 17:11.

[Rayburn]

Sorry but it's kinda hard to comprehend what you mean, but I'll give it a try.
Are you saying that the media portrays the killing of women and children as something more horrible than the killing of men? As in some sort of bias?

Anyways, I guess you wanted this to be in the PhilCo, so I'm moving it

Edited by Rayburn, 08 August 2007 - 20:02.

[Whitey]

I agree with this, I think.

Why always the women and children? Well actually, I understand the children, and pregnant women on account of their baby(s). Children haven't had the amount of time to live that women and men have had. But why always "SPARE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN!!!"? We don't live in a time where women need a balance for their lack of rights. They want to have the same treatment as men, no? Let them go to war, let them work, let them die the same. It is sexist to say that they have more right to live than men, so long as they are not pregnant.

[Soul]

Boidy, on 8 Aug 2007, 17:45, said:

I agree with this, I think.

Why always the women and children? Well actually, I understand the children, and pregnant women on account of their baby(s). Children haven't had the amount of time to live that women and men have had. But why always "SPARE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN!!!"? We don't live in a time where women need a balance for their lack of rights. They want to have the same treatment as men, no? Let them go to war, let them work, let them die the same. It is sexist to say that they have more right to live than men, so long as they are not pregnant.

QFT!

[Overdose]

Indeed, indeed.

[Commander Abs]

On the back of my discussions with Blaat in the Games forum about the portrayal of women in skimpy clothes as opposed to the men in full battle armor, it's a very interesting point.

I *can* understand making a point over the deaths of children, that stuff just isn't good ever, even if it is a gun-toting 6 year old as you always see in videos from somewhere, even warlords who use child militia are a too-hard basket thing.

But yeah, I don't know,, I'm loathe to comment on this because I've seen very stark differences in opinion from my female friends. One one hand I have

- "Men and women should be 100% equal, no ifs, buts or maybes"

to - "Men and women have fundamental differences, and equality is finding a balance between those differences", which still unequivocally says "Men are better at some things, women are better at others", and still entrenches some inequality.

and to - "I don't want to go to University, I want to marry a man who will look after and care for me, I want to be a kept house-wife", which puts major slants to saying things like "Men should be the bread winners, with employment, women should stay at home", but also to a degree "Men should be subservient to women"

I remember when I was at uni, there was a reasonable amount of protest from women when they appointed a "Mens support officer" to the student council to mirror the role of "Womens Support Officer". Personally, if people *want* equality, they should have both of these roles, or neither of these roles. If people are going to accept there are fundamental differences between them, then sure, only have one.

Back to the topic. IF we live in *real* equality, people shouldn't give a stuff whether its men or women killed. Both are equally as tragic.

In an unequal (or equal, with differences) world, men are traditionally seen more as the "defenders", and so killing women is a bit of an uncalled for "laying in the boot" action,,, ergo the old days of "Kill the men, rape the women and plunder the riches". To an extent, women were percieved as part of the "plunder" I guess, and to kill women is like throwing the riches into the river.

NOTE: None of this is my actual perception of women. In fact, I have no perception of women or men. I role with the persons preference. If they want to be treated like an equal, I'll treat them like an equal and expect exactly the same things I would out of a man. If they want to be specially considered for their gender, I'll do that too.

EDIT: Boidy is 100% right on the pregnancy part, purely for the fact you're not considering just a woman anymore.

Edited by Commander Abs, 09 August 2007 - 00:17.

[Golan]

Children and women are usually seen as not capable of defending themselfs, thus attacking, injuring or even killing them is regarded as a totally unnecessary act of useless violence.

Also, men are much more expendable.

[Dauth]

IIRC you get 103 boys born for every 100 girls born so men are more expendable.

We are different, you cannot say apples are as good as oranges, men and women have different talents therefore true equality is impossible.

and just to give an example of the differences, women have far wider peripheral vision than men, hence me liking my 'wrap-around' sunglasses but my gf hating them because she feels blind in them. however i can spot movement and find the source of sounds far faster and more accuratly than her.

Think we are cavemen in posh clothes, the women would be in a cave looking after the family, where a wide peripheral vision would suit, however a man would be out hunting and spotting that animal first is the difference between life and death.

[Whitey]

Yeah, except peripheral vision and self-awareness shouldn't factor into life or death. In a day where women want to be treated the same, let them be treated as just that, the same.

[Golan]

They do factor in a fight though. The average male is a much better fighter than the average female. Thus, in a situation where people die because of an attack, people see women as the personification of the innocent civilian.

And it´s not like every woman would be running around the streets, fighting for equality 24/7. There are many that don´t want this "equal at all cost" bullshit.

[Vaughan]

The reason that we cry out, "Save the women and children" is because they're not the ones in the front lines with battleaxes.. Think about it, if all women fight, and we always screamed "Save the Men and Children", then the population would die out. Guys and Guys don't make .. Other guys.

This all originates from Medival times, etc., when Women didn't fight.

~V.

[Whitey]

Well women and women don't make women either. This is modern times, not medieval. We need to adapt society, not stall it. Also, we aren't just talking about fighting. Hostage situations, shipwrecks, rescues (fire, etc).

[General]

Most of you ares missed the tiny point I trying to say I think or my language is not so good to make it clear ( I think second option more possible )

I not talking about killing woman and children with intention , I mean without it . I shall give a few example :

* Breaking News : Bomb blasted ; 83 deads , 2 of them children and 10 of them women *
* In last earthquake thousands of children died , so do not tell me God have mercy on us *

etc etc

[Whitey]

Oh.

Well thats bullshit media trying to whore attention and screw people over. Half the time, the statistics are bloated and they don't mention the men that died. "ZOMG a US bombing run killed 35 women and 86 children ***End broadcast*** but also 169 enemy combatants"

That is just media bullshit for you.

[Razven]

In modern times, Women and Children =/= Civilians.

In olden times, able bodied men were supposed to defend their wives and children from whatever that was attacking their village. So the "women and children" signified "civilians" or "Not battle worthy". Killing them would be seen as killing "civilians" regardless of intention or lack of it. And the public does the predictable outrage over non-combatants killed.

[Eddy01741]

Well, to take a very literal standpoint that my friend pointed out:
A woman can give birth every 9 months until she is in her 40s-60s.
A man can "fertilize" over 1000 women in the span of 9 months (if neccesary).

So if there were 1000 women, and only one man left on earth, Humans would live on.



Other than that quite gruesome and sick point that my friend pointed out. I agree, we are at a time where we have almost reached the equalitiy of the genders, there are less housewives and more working moms, and also, more house-husbands (or whatever you wanna call them), than ever. Both genders should be treated absolutely equally. All innocent lives should be equal, casualties for women are the same as casualties for men unless for the points cboidy pointed out if the women are pregnant. Women don't deserve to live more than men do.

[Whitey]

That would be a disturbingly true point, except for the fact that it doesn't really apply to any real-world scenario.

[General]

Its not all about war you know , I also give a non-war example about the subject and this one bother me much as war does .

[AllStarZ]

Mmmm I dunno, maybe the women and children are generally innocent? And the fact that sociologically and physically, they are both weaker?

But mostly the thing is societal. They represent the fairer aspects of life while men are shown as brutes who would fight over something as questionable as honour.


P.S.
By the way, don't try to justify killing of women and children. Leave that to terrorists, they've got their whole entire line of philosophy that says why.

[DreadNot]

Boidy, on 8 Aug 2007, 16:45, said:

I agree with this, I think.

Why always the women and children? Well actually, I understand the children, and pregnant women on account of their baby(s). Children haven't had the amount of time to live that women and men have had. But why always "SPARE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN!!!"? We don't live in a time where women need a balance for their lack of rights. They want to have the same treatment as men, no? Let them go to war, let them work, let them die the same. It is sexist to say that they have more right to live than men, so long as they are not pregnant.

I personally think the reason behind it is worse to kill women and children because it has always been that way. It was viewed as more brutal and ruthless to kill women and children since, in most societies, those two groups were either not of age to fight or not allowed in the military at all. And since then, it has just become human nature to view it in that manner.

[Whitey]

Yet in the modern era, it just isn't right.

I mean recently we've gone from Catholicism into bajillions of different religions.
We've begun to support homosexuality.
We've developed LCD screens.

Tradition is bullshit according to life. So lets get with the times.

[AllStarZ]

Boidy, on 16 Sep 2007, 1:18, said:

Yet in the modern era, it just isn't right.

I mean recently we've gone from Catholicism into bajillions of different religions.
We've begun to support homosexuality.
We've developed LCD screens.

Tradition is bullshit according to life. So lets get with the times.

Some things are not "tradition". The killing of women children is a moral crime that has extended further back than the penalization of homosexuality or the development of Catholicism.

I already thought over this once before, and my answer to myself is, then why live in society? I might as well go buy a one-way ticket to the Fiji Islands, a canoe, and an axe. Because if we question a moral institution based solely on the fact that tradition is invalid, then society is useless, or we may as well turn to Fascism, where an individual's life is worthless compared to the interests of the state.

Edited by AllStarZ, 16 September 2007 - 14:17.

[Nerdsturm]

AllStarZ, on 16 Sep 2007, 7:09, said:

... or we may as well turn to Fascism, where an individual's life is worthless compared to the interests of the state.

That's really more Communism, most Facist states were capitalist... but anyways, even though I do believe that all people's lives ought to be treated equally, unless on some criteria of age, I do see where people are coming from when saying killing women or children is worse than men. Women, well I don't distupt their ability to defend themselves, do tend to not be as inclinded towards combat and it is less likely that they were enemy combatants. However, I still don't think the deathes of adults should be seperated by the press.

[Eddy01741]

Uhm, actually, communism, all people are to be treated equally and all that equality stuff. Fascism is where a dictator has absolute power and makes whatever decision he wants to. RUssian communism is basically a terrible combo of facism and communism.

[Areze]

I guess the reason everyone announced "WOMEN AND CHILDREN KILLED IN GENERIC CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE" is because they are always thought to be less able to defend themselves then the younger men (18-40). Children especially since I consider children to be younger then 10 years old.
It's a habit from the older ages where the men did the heavy lifting and soldiering and the women and children took care of the home. Children couldn't help defend against attacks due to the fact they were so young (10 or younger was a child. 12+ was considered a young man and capable of starting military training from what I heard). The average women's natural body structure wasn't capable of putting up with the amount of physical abuse the average man's body did. Both weren't partial to being chopped or stabbed with a big pointy sharp thing (sword or pike or arrows/bolts), but the man's could take a little more then the women's. This is according to the scientific facts I have learned.
In todays age, it's mostly a habit we kept from the old days because it's known that old habits die hard. Even women's naturally fragile bodies can use a gun, or with decent body armor, take a bullet. Though today the "civilians/defenseless/etc." is more of the children and older people of both genders. The ones who need more defense to me is now based solely on age and pregnancy for women.
Then there is just the media. Who can be described as racist/sexist/arrogant/ignorant/lying/etc.. I think they should have a nice slice of the pie in the issue.