Do we value female life more than male life?
"10 people, including a woman, have so far been reported dead following the Sunday's earthquake"
"4 US soldiers, including a servicewoman, were killed in the most recent bombing in Afghanistan"
Those are some typical headlines found in the media in the aftermath of a natural disaster or terrorist attack, and every time I see one of those I can't help but wonder why the author felt the need to specify the fact that there were a number of women among the casualties. Women have been serving in militaries around the world since ancient times. Similarly, female casualties are to be expected in any natural disaster. So, my question is this: Do we subconsciously value female life more than male life? I'm only asking that, not because I attach any linguistic significance to such an emphasis in those headlines, but because it demonstrates an underlying attitude towards men's lives as being disposable.
Remember the kidnapping of Nigerian schoolgirls by the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram back in 2014 and the global outrage it provoked in the form of the #BringBackOurGirls movement? You can't imagine the joy I felt after seeing the world unite in disgust for those Islamic thugs. But at the same time I couldn't help but wonder how the whole thing could have been prevented had more attention been paid to the hundreds of male students who had been killed in Boko Haram's previous attacks:
The Islamists only wanted to get the attention of the media. But they weren't getting any when they were slaughtering boys, because the victims were being described as "people" and "students" in the media.
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
12 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
no, those headlines are not indicative of our valuing female life over male. they indicate the opposite, pointing out that wow, even a female was in battle, for example. anyone who pays the least bit of attention to real daily life knows that males are still valued more highly than females in the western world if not worldwide.
g
genessa
Level 8
Nov 30, 2018
0
I think you have a point. If I ever volunteer for service there is an equal chance for me to get killed or amputated as my male comrades and I don't want anyone to mention me specifically because I happen to be a woman.
LilyProudAtheist
Level 4
Nov 30, 2018
1
That's a difficult question to answer objectively. Biologically, generally males are more dispensable. Typically, sex ratio at birth favors males as it is expected that fewer of them survive to adulthood. Historically, men are in the provider role whereas women are in the nurturer role. Men have been valued more for their actions, which might involve getting them killed for the benefit of their family /community whereas women have been valued for their reproductive capability. A man not performing to the expected masculine standards is hence a wuss and a loser while a woman having no sexual standards is a slut. In this framework, it is plausible that men are more dispensable. This is my non-academic understanding, so please feel free to poke holes here ?
Spongebob
Level 7
Nov 30, 2018
3
There'd be no reason to footnote women in those headlines if they were considered truly equal.
It's more complex than simply that women are more or less important or that there's patriarchal assumptions involved. One patriarchal assumption for example is that women are "less than", but also, that they have certain entitlements and/or needs that men don't, such as being "protected". So depending on which of those assumptions was prominent behind the author's calling out a separate count of female casualties, I'd feel somewhat differently about the fact that it was done. But in an ideal world, "including x women" would never come up.
mordant
Level 8
Nov 30, 2018
5
Men are the default. They would never say 5 soldiers killed, including 3 men, because we're always expected to assume men. Women are the other, so thus mentioned.
Count_Viceroy
Level 7
Nov 30, 2018
2
I guess I'm a little bit confused about some of the feedback this post has been receiving. The question I'm asking is not meant to deny the existence of misogyny throughout the world. Women in my country have had to fight against SYSTEMATIC misogyny by Islamic fascists for the past 40 years, so that's not where I'm coming from at all. I was just expressing my disappointment at how 200 girls needed to be kidnapped for the whole world to see what was going on in Nigeria, when hundreds of boys had already been slaughtered or burned to ashes. Don't you honestly see how the kidnapping could have been prevented had the world equally cared about the fate of those boys?
This is supposed to be a community of free thinkers. If I can't share my doubts and questions with the people I more closely identify with, then we should never bitch about how believers stay within their bubble without questioning things.
Darius77
Level 6
Nov 30, 2018
1
The world doesn't care about children, in general, either.
The crisis of child soldiers has been around for a LONG time, yet, no one has done anything about it.
ALL governments have always looked the other way.
When Boko Haram kidnapped those girls, it was seen as a good marketing ploy to get other parts of the world to pay attention.
At this point, most of the world has already forgotten about those girls, as well. These things never hold the world's attention for very long.
The powers that be don't give a flying rat's ass about children, male or female, except for when it's convenient to their agendas.
Let me quote you my favorite French man: "The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding." That's Al Camus. I am sure you have great intentions. It is ok for you to express them. However, that doesn't mean that you will always receive choral approval on your perspective, or the conclusions that you reach. As you said, free thinkers, right? We will disagree. You have questioned, and I have questioned your question, and the answer. Not your intentions.
But as Camus said, it isn't the intentions that matter. It is the understanding.
@KenChang Oh, I didn't expect any approval at all! That's not why I'm here. I'm more than happy to see disagreements to my propositions. You provided an explanation, and a very good one at that. It's just that I don't appreciate it when people try to "read between the lines" and arrive at conclusions that were never there in the first place.
@Darius77 You are an intelligent young man. I don't mean to patronize you (but I probably am doing it and my apologies for that). And what you said reminded me of a Aesop's tale. That might be a bit of a hyperbole, but it does drive the point. It goes like this:
Some boys were playing one day at the edge of a pond in which lived a family of Frogs. The boys amused themselves by throwing stones into the pond so as to make them skip on top of the water.
The stones were flying thick and fast and the boys were enjoying themselves very much; but the poor frogs in the pond were trembling with fear.
At last one of the frogs, the oldest and bravest, put his head out of the water, and said, “Oh, please, dear children, stop your cruel play! Though it may be fun for you, it means death to us!"
The moral of the story, IMHO, is that while this might have been a bit of intellectual exercise for you, but for some, a reminder of all the crappy b.s. they may have received as a result of their gender, and the seeming indifference and ignorance of men who, with good intentions, say stupid things.... I know. I have been, and still am, one of those men who say and think stupid things. I am trying to be a bit more self-aware, is all.
@KenChang You're not patronizing me at all. I appreciate words of wisdom, no matter how harsh they may appear.
To me, questioning things is the essence of being a human. We have all gone through horrific situations in our respective lives, irrespective of our gender. Vietnam veterans suffering from PTSD might very well get upset about anyone who has valid questions about that war, but that doesn't mean that questions should not be asked because it might bring bad memories. That's how I see it, anyways. Thank you!
@Darius77 Exactly. And my point is that if a vietnam vet gets upset when you bring up the bad memories, I am simply saying don't be surprised.
When you say "irrespective of our gender" it shows me that you still haven't gotten the point. I get a lot of people who tell me "I don't see race." Well, it's the same argument, and I am getting tired of making it. There is a definite power imbalance between the genders. And still, the male enjoys the benefit of that power imbalance.
@KenChang I completely understand where you're coming from. I just refuse not to ask questions because it might disrupt the comfort zone of certain groups of people. It's not that I don't see race or gender, I just don't believe in sweeping things under the rug.
@Donotbelieve You are right about respecting one another. As I said earlier, I don't have any problem with opposition or correction. I'm not that conceited to pretend to know the answer to everything. And my "bitching" reference was not directed at anybody in particular. Believers are often accused of staying within their bubble without questioning things. If we, as the free thinker community, are not able to get out of our comfort zones and ask the difficult questions, then I don't know how we are different from them. There are certain things that I feel extremely passionate about, but I would go out of my way to understand the opposite perspective. I know that I'm still biased with respect to a lot of things. Anyways, I apologize if I offended you in any way.
I think that we value women less. That's why we pay them less to do equal work. That's why it took them so long to get the vote. That's why it took them so long to be able to own property. That's why they were thought of as their father's or husband's property for so long.
Stephanie99
Level 8
Nov 30, 2018
4
@Morganfreeman My comment applied to equal work, not working the front office versus glass repair.
@Morganfreeman I'm sorry, I don't understand your statement.
@Morganfreeman [hrdive.com]
[aauw.org]
[forbes.com]
@Morganfreeman Did you look at the links? One even has a picture of the United States, you wouldn't have even needed to read. I can see how you believe that your individual experience outweighs other individuals extensive research and data.
@Morganfreeman I have an example of a couple of chemists getting postdoctoral positions at the same university. The woman's supervisor found out that her offer was higher than her husbands and lowered it to the same level as his. This was after they had both accepted and moved there.
Another example was when I interviewed for a job as the supervisor of older men. I was told that they were impressed with my qualifications and liked me, but would not hire me because the men would not listen to me as their supervisor since I was younger and an attractive woman.
Personal examples are just anecdotal evidence which is meaningless if you are a critical thinker. Research and data is much more compelling.
Actually, there is a quite simple explanation. This is what is called the softer side of the patriarchy. They see women as a "weaker sex" and when they are hurt, we are to mourn it more, because they are more vulnerable than men. You know, like a child. It is taught that men are stronger and better and therefore it is their duty to protect women and children. You know, how the wonderfully civilized europeans had to protect the child-like savages who were living in peace with their surroundings before they were "discovered" by white europeans....
There is a lot of this softer side of patriarchy still remaining, in men's and women's subconsciousness as well. This is the same twisted logic that you see in "all lives matter" and "I don't see a race" attitude. The oppressors (actually the less powerful oppressors. Beta oppressors?) feeling somehow victimized by the power imbalance in their favor.... Ok. Enough. I don't need to go on.
AtheistReader
Level 7
Nov 30, 2018
9
@Donotbelieve All this made me think about the possible connection between the idea of chivalry and the incel attitude.... Ok... no... seriously. I am going to stop thinking about this. LOL!
@Donotbelieve Oh, I hear ya. Been there. Done that. Somedays I feel more reasonable than others.
Well, that saved me a lot of typing!
We are in the middle of the me too movement which is calling a lot of attention to the problems people faced. It also is the result of the thinking that women could not care for themselves and that they needed a man to care for them. When a woman's death occurred it was somehow unnatural that a man did not save them. Men somehow were looked upon as hero's or just in the wrong spot at the right time and overcome by the situation. We always looked out for children and women dating back hundreds of years. Remember the knights and the favor they showed to women and children.
Marine
Level 8
Nov 30, 2018
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
World Music
1359 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.