Women and Children?

Why is it that everytime we try to make things look grim, we say "women and children were killed!!!", as if men and youths are of lesser importance?

 

Historically women and children were considered 'lesser beings' or at least incapable of surviving and sustaining on their own. To kill the old, disabled, children, and, in historical context, women - who were all in some way incapable of defending themselves - was therefore more of a taboo.

Back in the stone age men went to hunt for food, fought wild animals and died in the process while the women were stay-at-home-nurturing-the-family-type. This mentality is still prevalent. Men are expected to wage war and face the dangers. Women and children are still kept under maximum security as a mean to protect them from outside harm. So any attack on them unprovoked is considered worse than the same done to a man.

Personally, I think that for the most part we have gone past that stage. Children should still be protected more by adults as they are incapable of protecting themselves all alone. But loss of men should not be considered anything less. A human life is still a life.


Edited by Beyond_the_Veil - 16 November 2012 at 12:30pm

I'm a female. When I was a kid, I was singled out for being one. Now I am a woman of kinds and I am singled out for being one, again. If you see it my way, I am perennially going to be treated with this partiality. I will be offered seats in public transports and if I am injured along with a dozen boys, I will be in news the next day stealing all the frigging limelight. No cookies for guessing why I am not thrilled by that. 

If women or children get killed in a natural calamity I dont think it makes it look more grim! The TM does  have a point where the killings would be a result of a raid or a terrorist attack as women and children are generally believed to be innocent victims in such cases, not that the men who get killed are  in anyway responsible for their fate. The fact is in any mass killings it is almost always the innocent  who get killed regardless of their gender or age.

The death of the breadwinner in the family (usually the male) is in no way taken lightly. The general impression I have gathered is that his death is mourned more than the woman's. Most families in India even today would go all out to treat a sick or dying young man in the family whereas a woman , child, old , disabled is generally  considered replaceable/disposable.

 So what chivalry are we talking about?              

The chivalry in thinking woman. old people and children first before young men as well ... all are equally important to be saved.

Well, in some cases like negotiating the release of hostages the trend is to get the children, the infirm, old and women to be released before the negotiators  get the hijackers or kidnappers to release the healthy menfolk. This is not because some lives are felt to be more precious but because it is felt that some may not be able to withstand the rigours as well as the others. The ideal is to get each one released but since not everyone is going to be released at one go the negotiators buy time and try to get the wounded , sick... released first  (those needing immediate medical attention, and could otherwise succumb). I think the captors too would prefer to have them off their hands and therefore usually end up releasing them first. This way there is better chance of saving more lives eventually.

During mass casualties the situation gets reversed. The idea is then is to make best use of limited resources and save maximum lives. The triage system is followed here. Those who have maximum chances of being saved are given priority over those who have little or no chance  of being benefitted by the aid available. I think these situations do have a rationale behind the preferences that are practised.

The problem is  where wilful discrimination is followed based on blind beliefs or traditions and at times due to legislation . The less capable person ends up getting  preference over a better candidate  be it due to gender, age, religion, domicile, financial position, connections or any other reason.