Why is killing women wrong?

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Heard on the Radio last night (so no link) comments about Syria saying that the Govt was also killing Women and Children (I guess the Syrians haven't discovered "smart" weapons - which only generate collateral damage, which is apparently ok ).....and the comments suggested that this was bad.....and by implication worse than killing men.

I can understand the argument that killing folks who are trying to kill you is ok, just seems a bit sexist to suggest that killing men who are not doing that is Ok, but doing same to women is not

What say the collected wisdom of you all?

[klr]

Heard on the Radio last night (so no link) comments about Syria saying that the Govt was also killing Women and Children (I guess the Syrians haven't discovered "smart" weapons - which only generate collateral damage, which is apparently ok ).....and the comments suggested that this was bad.....and by implication worse than killing men.

I can understand the argument that killing folks who are trying to kill you is ok, just seems a bit sexist to suggest that killing men who are not doing that is Ok, but doing same to women is not

What say the collected wisdom of you all?

Yes, it's sexist, but It makes for a good headline-grabber ... or at least some people think it does. There was a time when it really would have generated mass shock, but nowadays most of us tend to look beyond that.

[Gallstones]

I think that there is a modicum of legitimacy to that statement.
It isn't always true, but I think it is likely true that in Syria and other highly patriarchal societies, it is the men who do the war business. The women and children are collateral even to them. The women, have the added threat of being raped.

[MiM]

Who needs men? Society can always survive with a a bare minimum of males. If you take out the women that will lead to real trouble.

[hadespussercats]

I always wondered, when I was little, about the "save the women and the children" line that would always come up in old disaster movies.

I think the idea is that children are innocent and helpless, so you need to save them, and women take care of them (and beyond that, are also innocent and helpless) so you save them, too.

No real place in this format for single fathers.

[hadespussercats]

Although, as MiM was pointing out, on an evolutionary level you only need a few men to keep society going-- the stallions in the herd.

Maybe this dictate is adaptive-- keeps the men, who generally could beat out women to the lifeboats or the high ground or what have you, from just saving themselves.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

I always wondered, when I was little, about the "save the women and the children" line that would always come up in old disaster movies.

I think the idea is that children are innocent and helpless, so you need to save them, and women take care of them (and beyond that, are also innocent and helpless) so you save them, too.

No real place in this format for single fathers.

I think that was a fairly modern invention - back before lifeboats were the norm for passenger vessels (and the ship had only a couple of small boats - whose use was nothing to do with being lifeboats) it was the norm that those considered fittest / most likely to survive would get onboard - even if that was decided on a Darwinian basis

The Law of the Sea - based on the Law of the Jungle.

[hadespussercats]

I always wondered, when I was little, about the "save the women and the children" line that would always come up in old disaster movies.

I think the idea is that children are innocent and helpless, so you need to save them, and women take care of them (and beyond that, are also innocent and helpless) so you save them, too.

No real place in this format for single fathers.

I think that was a fairly modern invention - back before lifeboats were the norm for passenger vessels (and the ship had only a couple of small boats - whose use was nothing to do with being lifeboats) it was the norm that those considered fittest / most likely to survive would get onboard - even if that was decided on a Darwinian basis

The Law of the Sea - based on the Law of the Jungle.

Whoever managed to get in belonged there? They might have saved a pretty girl or two, even by those standards.

[camoguard]

I don't kill anybody. And on top of that, I've been entertaining the idea of viewing gender as a choice since it really doesn't matter to me what pronoun suits a person better. I'm still going to treat them individually and not kill them collectively.

[Drewish]

What if I only kill somebody's inner child?

[hadespussercats]

I don't kill anybody. And on top of that, I've been entertaining the idea of viewing gender as a choice since it really doesn't matter to me what pronoun suits a person better. I'm still going to treat them individually and not kill them collectively.

I've heard some useful pronoun mashups lately-- "zie" instead of "he" or "she", "hirs" instead of "his" or "hers."

[Drewish]

Why not just use 'they' for both singular and plural?

[hadespussercats]

Why not just use 'they' for both singular and plural?

That's what I do, generally-- but there is the issue of singular vs. plural.

[Drewish]

Why not just use 'they' for both singular and plural?

That's what I do, generally-- but there is the issue of singular vs. plural.

Obscurity is not a flaw of language, it's a feature

[hadespussercats]

Why not just use 'they' for both singular and plural?

That's what I do, generally-- but there is the issue of singular vs. plural.

Obscurity is not a flaw of language, it's a feature

Can be. But it's nice to have an option of varying precision.