Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Crust or bust.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                                                           

Take the women out of 'women and children'

A step towards deobjectifying women
  (+1)
(+1)
  [vote for,
against]

Very simple really. A law to ban the use of the phrase "women and children" as a measure of tragedy in news media. Such a phrase promotes gender inequality and has no place in modern society. Women are not a precious commodity to be protected from all harm anymore, especially given how many countries are sending them into combat these days, and every time the phrase "women and children" is used to measure the level of tragedy when a large group of people are killed reduces the importance of men in society and objectifies women. It's not fair to either gender and needs to be done away with.
21 Quest, Aug 15 2012

I may be crazy, but I ain't reckless... http://www.youtube....watch?v=I0mknY1l2AU
Hahahahahahahaha, oh, oh my belly, ah jeez [2 fries shy of a happy meal, Aug 15 2012]

Women & Children First? http://pjmedia.com/...en-first-originate/
"There are three things I like about Italian ships. First, their cuisine, which is unsurpassed. Second, their service, which is quite superb. And then, in time of emergency, there is none of this nonsense about women and children first."
Winston Churchill
[DrBob, Aug 21 2012]

Crying http://www.youtube....watch?v=j7OHG7tHrNM
Picture this, but children instead of litter. And me, crying, and I look just like that Indian dude. [bungston, Aug 21 2012]

Here's what I'm talking about http://www.bbc.co.u...rld-africa-19371622
// But according to Amnesty International, nine people, including one woman, were removed from their prison cells and executed on Thursday night. // [21 Quest, Aug 24 2012]

[link]






       So now it's just 'and children?'
RayfordSteele, Aug 15 2012
  

       [+]
  

       Actually, the whole concept needs a thorough rethink.
  

       Pre-teen children are quickly and easily replaced, and have not yet been the recipients of substantial resource investment.
  

       The most valuable carbon units are those who have received an expensive education and are economically productive; these should be prioritised for rescue.
  

       Any suggestions for a new phrase ?
8th of 7, Aug 15 2012
  

       I've only heard that phrase recently when discussing events in cultures where it still means "non-combatant" by definition. And even then rarely. "Civllian" is much more common.
MechE, Aug 15 2012
  

       I would rather see "men, women, and children". Longer, but giving everyone humanity in the same way.
4and20, Aug 15 2012
  

       //The most valuable carbon units are those who have received an expensive education and are economically productive; these should be prioritised for rescue.
  

       Any suggestions for a new phrase//
  

       Doctors and investment brokers first?
RayfordSteele, Aug 15 2012
  

       1) Category other: [general] ? That's as good as it gets?
  

       2) We need another law? Really?
  

       3) What [rcarty] said.
  

       4) How about just saying something like "our peeps" ?
normzone, Aug 15 2012
  

       Sorry, I had the Public category selected... I'll move it. And we do need another law, because the use of that phrase in news media carries legal consequences. A jury who is deciding the fate of a man accused of, say, a mass shooting or a public bombing, is going to be unfairly influenced on an emotional level by journalists saying things like 'He is accused of shooting/blowing up 27 innocent people, including women and children.' Using overly graphic rhetoric to stir up emotions is already illegal in certain circumstances, but using the phrase 'including women and children' never seems to draw any fire and it should.
  

       Shooting children, I agree, is a far more heinous crime than shooting adults. It just is. They aren't old enough to have done anything or made any political statements or even voted against your view on a sensitive issue to warrant killing them. But adults are adults. Why is shooting an unarmed woman in the chest or face considered somehow less honorable than shooting an unarmed man in the back?
21 Quest, Aug 15 2012
  

       I knew this was your idea from the title.
Just sayin.
  

       Women lack testosterone and so do children making them on average much less agressive than males. This makes crimes against them more heinous in my book. ...and furthermore, when it comes to life-rafts it should still be women and children first.
  

       //The most valuable carbon units are those who have received an expensive education and are economically productive; these should be prioritised for rescue.//
  

       Isn't that the way it is now?   

       Men lack estrogen, which makes them on average much less bitchy than females. This makes crimes against them much more perplexing in my book.
21 Quest, Aug 15 2012
  

       // Isn't that the way it is now? //
  

       Yes, of course it is; but there's this pretence that it isn't, which is dishonest, misleading, and wrong.
8th of 7, Aug 15 2012
  

       In case of an emergency it's a man's job to flee last. This is because men live by a code. It's the one thing universally shared by all men on the planet.
  

       If a female car mechanic gets a flat tire we offer her to change it.
  

       If a female olympic gold medallist in weightlifting has heavy groceries we offer her to carry them for her.
  

       We do not piss against the wind.
zeno, Aug 15 2012
  

       Sorry misunderstood the idea here. It's actually about measuring tragedy, hmmm
  

       No sorry still a - it is actually worse if a woman or child is hurt. Yes defenitely part of the code there.
zeno, Aug 15 2012
  

       //If a female car mechanic gets a flat tire we offer her to change it//
  

       And risk getting slapped, punched, or hit with a tire iron because you've offended her pride.
  

       //If a female olympic gold medallist in weightlifting has heavy groceries we offer her to carry them for her. //
  

       Ditto the above quote. I also seem to recall someone on the HB (Auscan, I believe) saying that an Australian woman will knock a man flat on his ass for offering to buy her a drink, because you're implying a woman can't work and thus has no money of her own. Stereotypes have no place in modern society. Mind you, I'll still hold a door for a lady any time. I'll hold the same door for a man walking behind me because it's just the courteous thing to do. And if I'm on a sinking ship with my girlfriend and her kids, you bet your ass they're getting on the boat first and I'll throw anybody else off, man or woman, who tries to get there first because they are my loved ones. I will then promptly follow them on, then allow others to board behind us.
  

       In other words, you can take that code and blow it out your ass because it doesn't belong in any society that also boasts gender equality.
21 Quest, Aug 15 2012
  

       non-combatants still not good enough?
WcW, Aug 15 2012
  

       Good enough for me.
21 Quest, Aug 15 2012
  

       Maybe, to show "gender equality" if that's important to you, we should refer to men, wo and children?
UnaBubba, Aug 15 2012
  

       Then why not simply say 'people including children' or 'persons including children'? My point is, it shouldn't matter what the gender of the victims is/was. You should feel equal sympathy/empathy/sadness for all innocent human beings who meet an untimely demise.
21 Quest, Aug 15 2012
  

       yes, noncombatants.
WcW, Aug 15 2012
  

       //Men lack estrogen, which makes them on average much less bitchy than females.//
  

       I dunno, hasn't stopped you none... : ]
Kiddin-I'M KIDDING, don't look at me like that, just, yes that is a very pretty knife, all glinty... I really don't need to see it so closely... is that a chip on the edge?
  

       Hey! <smacks forehead> There's a theme song for this. [link]
Ok that might be taking it a bit too far but I laughed my ass off the first time I saw it so, maybe you will too... and then you can show me your gun collection.
  

       Seriously though. It's hard-wired in all of us critters. It only takes a single male to father an entire generation. Fifty men on an island with only one female though is nothing more than a long-drawn-out bar-brawl, without enough booze...
~That's~ the code.
  

       //this pretence that it isn't, which is dishonest, misleading, and wrong.//
  

       Ah, I thought it was the pretense that it isn't wrong which was dishonest and misleading. See, I've got my proirities backwards. My futilitance is all resisty, and I think I may have been assume-ilated.   

       I agree with this idea but the reality of my observation is that men react very differently to seeing a woman in a bodybag. Reconfiguring that instinct may not prove to be easy.
Phrontistery, Aug 16 2012
  

       //men react very differently to seeing a woman in a bodybag//
  

       Do women react differently to seeing a woman in a bodybag? I believe news media is for both sexes, n'est pas?
  

       There are an awful lot of instincts men still hold, such as to save the ladies, save the babies; but perhaps to achieve true equality, those instincts must be allowed to dissipate*. Do phrases such as "including women and children" perpetuate these instincts? We're all of generations that taught us to hold the door open for women – specifically – even if we do so for men as well out of politeness, so from a very early age we are indoctrinated with this level of subconscious sexual favoritism.
  

       Anyway, bun for interesting observation, and because I don't think the idea deserves the number of bones it's accrued. Sort of an equilibribun, if you will.
  

      
  

       * Whether we WANT these instincts to dissipate is another question. Do we have those instincts for good reason?
theleopard, Aug 16 2012
  

       Hmm. That didn't last long...
theleopard, Aug 16 2012
  

       I'm talking about real life, not seeing bodybags on TV.
Phrontistery, Aug 16 2012
  

       I suspect the reaction to the women in bodybag image he was thinking about was the the one involving the strong primal urge to find and pummel the living shit out of the bastard responsible.
RayfordSteele, Aug 16 2012
  

       //Do women react differently to seeing a woman in a bodybag? I believe news media is for both sexes, n'est pas?//
  

       I don't know, but it's not only men who use the phrase. I think it seems incredibly selfish when I hear a woman saying 'this was particularly heinous because it included women and children'.
  

       //I suspect the reaction to the women in bodybag image he was thinking about was the the one involving the strong primal urge to find and pummel the living shit out of the bastard responsible//
  

       A stranger is a stranger, and my reaction to a dead stranger is the same regardless of gender. No, what I suspect is the cause of this so-called 'chivalry gene' is in fact an innate urge to flirt with the opposite sex at every given opportunity. You hold doors open for women so you get to smile at a pretty lass as she walks by and you feel good when she smiles back. You also get a nice view of her ass as she passes by. There's a reason you are taught to hold the door for a lady, and not for just any woman. Take note of the difference.
  

       That, I suspect, is the root of the issue. Men started being chivalrous because they discovered you attract more flies with honey. Plain and simple. Nothing noble about it, that's just the excuse. That urge to find and pummel the man who hurt an injured woman before you is driven by a primal instinct to challenge that man to a dominance fight. You want to impress that woman in the hope (either conscious or subconscious) that she will want to have sex with you. Let me ask, would you have the same urge to pummel another woman if she was the one who murdered the one in the body bag? If not, then you know that what I've said is true.
21 Quest, Aug 16 2012
  

       Would you kindly refrain from sharing the secrets of manhood with women? While they still believe we have good intentions.
  

       (allthough I have a suspicion they just pretend to believe in our good intentions and underneath they are just as vile and kinky as we are and they actually want us to defile them)
  

       Oh, and the weightlifting lass will take me to bed because I'm cute and all women are basically prostitutes [ducks for cover] as much as all men are good and true [checks if it's safe to get up again]
zeno, Aug 16 2012
  

       Oh please, how may women do ya figure we have in our group? My guess is 4 or 5.
21 Quest, Aug 16 2012
  

       Well, yes but there's at least one with power.
zeno, Aug 16 2012
  

       I can come up with three, including Jutta, but I'm sure there are more.
MechE, Aug 16 2012
  

       I was thinking Jutta, Blissy, Xandram, and Pericles. I always thought Squeak was a gal, too, but I'm not as certain. xSarenkax pops in from time to time, as well. But that's about it as near as I can tell, and Pericles hasn't shown her face in ages.
21 Quest, Aug 16 2012
  

       Po, I think?
MechE, Aug 16 2012
  

       [po], [blissmiss], [jutta], [xandram], [froglet] (retired), [lewisgirl] (retired), [Pericles] (retired), [madradish] (retired), [xSarenkax] (retired), [corylus] (retired) & [catriona fisher] and [sarah somich]. I can't recall the actual usernames of the last two.
  

       I'm sure there are many others whom I've forgotten.
UnaBubba, Aug 16 2012
  

       Back to the idea. Over here on the BBC we do this via command of the English language:
"News just in. 1 Englishman and 139 Malaysians were killed today in a freak Tsunami. 14 Belgians were also killed but it appears that their English was not very good."
With apologies to (I believe) the Monty Python team.
gnomethang, Aug 16 2012
  

       Ah, of course po... knew I was leavin one out. Isn't Catriona retired, as well? I can't remember the last time I saw her name anywhere other than Facebook.
  

       As to the idea, why is it so controversial, on the HB of all places, to propose a step toward gender equality? 7 fishbones, really? Must gender equality always mean putting men down or excluding us?
21 Quest, Aug 16 2012
  

       'Oh please, how may women do ya figure we have in our group?' Interesting point... can you tell from posts alone?
Phrontistery, Aug 16 2012
  

       I saw a story on Australia's SBS news last night... "More than 50 civilians, including 14 children, were killed in an attack by Syrian military forces today."
  

       I watched the commercial news bulletins this morning on two other channels. One said "More than 50 civilians, including children." The other said, "At least 50 civilians, including women and children."
  

       Given that most of these stories are generated or brokered by about a dozen major agencies (AP, PA, Thomson Reuters, AFP, UPI, Business Wire, Hugin, GlobeNews, etc) then it's likely a default option to mention "women & children" in the stories stems from the original writer/editor team in the agency.
UnaBubba, Aug 16 2012
  

       There is at least one female halfbaker missed and I bet many more who don't feel the need to specify their gender.
//why is it so controversial, on the HB of all places, to propose a step toward gender equality? 7 fishbones, really?//
Because there are obvious differences between the sexes. True equality can only be adopted in areas of actual equality, namely mental, which I agree should be equalized. Any other scale would be un-true.
True is true after all... Right?
  

       p.s. none of those fishbones are mine.   

       //True equality can only be adopted in areas of actual equality, namely mental//
  

       Not necessarily. There are a lot of women who would sue the pants off any company who refused to hire them because they supposedly can't do the same physical work as a man, and it has happened many times. Women work in construction, they serve in combat (as I stated in the post). No no, they claim they are fully equal in all areas of society and they are taking legal action to enforce that believe, misguided or not. If that's what women want, then fine, but they don't get the social and financial benefits of full equality AND special protection status in times of crisis, and that's the point of my idea.
21 Quest, Aug 17 2012
  

       How about this idea? : take the word 'cats' out of the expression 'it's raining cats and dogs', so that it's only raining dogs.
xenzag, Aug 17 2012
  

       Anyway, wasn't there a study recently looking at shipwreck survival rates that found that the whole "women and children first" thing didn't actually happen in most disasters anyway?
  

       (edit: spelling)
prufrax, Aug 17 2012
  

       At least not in Italy...
RayfordSteele, Aug 17 2012
  

       Women and children first is out in shipwrecks now anyway. The preference is for complete families.
MechE, Aug 17 2012
  

       + It should be *humans*!
xandram, Aug 17 2012
  

       "Weak people"
phundug, Aug 17 2012
  

       //if I'm on a sinking ship with my girlfriend and her kids, you bet your ass they're getting on the boat first and I'll throw anybody else off, man or woman, who tries to get there first because they are my loved ones. I will then promptly follow them on, then allow others to board behind us.//
  

       That could be a problem if I were on that same ship. Becasue as you 'attempted' to toss me overboard for not letting you take the seat of a woman or child... more women and children would board in your place. Then, if you succeeded in overboarding me, (I admit, it is a possibility), you'd have to deal with the next guy like me and such rough-housing would hardly expedite an evacuation.   

       Xenzag, a closer analogy to the idea at hand would be 'it's raining pets'.
21 Quest, Aug 17 2012
  

       I think there’s an atavistic, instinctual reason for the preference women and children are given in “pick who survives” scenarios like shipwrecks, and from that, why killing them is considered worse than killing adult men: killing many men in a community increases the time it takes to reproduce to the pre-killing population less than killing many nubile women and female children.
  

       This doesn’t explain why the “women and children first” preference includes male children. Perhaps the preference is really “women and whoever they pick to take with them”, so male children are included per the “my offspring first” atavism.
  

       I’ve an only vaguely substantiated impression “women and children first” doesn’t apply to old women: I think there’s something archetypally heroic about senior of both genders “with less of their life ahead of them” sacrificing themselves for the survival of their juniors; and I’ve known some women who became much more brave and self- sacrificing in their old age than when they were young.
CraigD, Aug 17 2012
  

       How about "regrettably killing a lot of hot babes and some not-so-hot ones as well"?
normzone, Aug 17 2012
  

       I heard my name, yesterday. Slow to respond. This idea is silly, btw.
blissmiss, Aug 17 2012
  

       Babes are the whole reason.
rcarty, Aug 17 2012
  

       //I’ve known some women who became much more brave and self- sacrificing in their old age than when they were young.// I think it's quite widely accepted that menopause is a specific biological adaptation, unique to humans - a switch from child-bearing to an altruistic, 'grandmother' role. It would make perfect sense for there to be associated behavioral changes.
  

       [spidermother] is not a woman - nor a spider. Hi [blissmiss]!
spidermother, Aug 18 2012
  

       HI Spidie. The voice of reason, amoungst a bunch of nonsense.
blissmiss, Aug 18 2012
  

       Oh, there's always a lot of non-sense in this place. Much of it is misogyny, like this idea, sadly.
UnaBubba, Aug 18 2012
  

       Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. I don't dislike them , I just don't think they deserve special treatment. So please retract your erroneous statement, UB.
21 Quest, Aug 18 2012
  

       Where's my anno ese? Don't you know I'm loco?
rcarty, Aug 21 2012
  

       Always wondered, what does the word "ese" mean?
theleopard, Aug 21 2012
  

       I think I have a book on that somewhere let me look for it.
rcarty, Aug 21 2012
  

       This inevitably leads to assessments of worth; imagine if we all had to justify our worth to some kind of panel weighing up where we should belong on the basis of our history and potential. Chilling.
Phrontistery, Aug 21 2012
  

       The weather seems to have taken a turn for the cute, it appears to be raining kittens and puppies out there.
PainOCommonSense, Aug 21 2012
  

       Given that female Olympic swimmers are under certain circumstances exceeding their male counterparts, I suspect the time for women and children first, has gone.
  

       Odds are that the statistically speaking the kids and mothers probably have more time to dedicate to swimming than their husbands, tirelessly slaving away in some energy sapping office environment at their gender stereotyped role as breadwinner.
  

       Non Combatants doesn't sound like the sort of person I might meet on my way to the supermarket. In my biased view Non-combatants sound like people who generally cant afford to live in a safe area and have perhaps been driven to fanatical religious beliefs.
  

       People on the other hand sounds more like the sort of people I might meet at the halfbakery counter, where I buy my par-baked loaves.
  

       So are we agreed on the title "people including children"?
PainOCommonSense, Aug 21 2012
  

       Remind me to take extra note when we find something that 21 actually, truly, finds a giddy sense of joy in. I'll mark it on the calendar. Seriously dude, go dance naked in the rain, sing loudly in the shower, skydive, something.
RayfordSteele, Aug 21 2012
  

       Xenzag, I'm sorry I deleted your annotation. It was entirely accidental, and you are encouraged to repost it.
21 Quest, Aug 21 2012
  

       Not to worry - was only commenting that I prefer it when people stick to annotations about the actual ideas and not personal remarks about the people posting them, even though I'm sure I have been guilty of this myself in the past.
xenzag, Aug 21 2012
  

       When the purpose behind the puropose of the place is to lighten up your day, I find that sometimes such remarks are necessary.
RayfordSteele, Aug 21 2012
  

       //A law to ban the use of the phrase ...// Didn’t notice this before. Clearly, in the US, such a law couldn’t withstand challenge on 1st Amendment grounds, so to avoid this being a non-starter, we must replace “law” with “cultural taboo” or some such.
CraigD, Aug 21 2012
  

       As I stated, limits on speech designed to stir up emotions during already-emotionally-charged court cases are, and have frequently been, implemented and upheld.
21 Quest, Aug 21 2012
  

       The poor children. Left all alone. Some of them can barely walk! I am shedding a tear for those children left without their women, just like that Indian guy in the old anti-litter commercials.
bungston, Aug 21 2012
  

       Good [link] DrBob.
  

       But to stand an’ be still to the Birken’ead drill
is a damn tough bullet to chew,
An’ they done it, the Jollies — ‘Er Majesty’s Jollies –
soldier an’ sailor too!
Their work was done when it ‘adn’t begun; they was younger nor me an’ you...
  

       Vivre le code!   

       Please to be removing or at least obfusticating my sister's name from your annotation UnaBubba.
calum, Aug 22 2012
  

       Why the bones?
  

       Because in my book, any idea that starts with 'a law that restricts...' has taken at least one step backwards, and comes across as curmudgeonly takes 3 more.
RayfordSteele, Aug 22 2012
  

       An idea that calls for a step towards equality only comes across as curmudgeonly to someone who would rather keep women in their current place, for whatever reason you may have. The fact is, chivalry objectifies women and has no place in modern society. The fact is Chivalry, didn't originally apply to all women. To quote WIkipedia, //The Knight's Code of Chivalry was a moral system that stated all knights should protect others who can not protect themselves, such as widows, children, and elders.//
  

       Widows, not women. Notice the difference. It used to be that an unmarried adult woman was incredibly rare. If a woman was unmarried, she lived with her parents, and enjoyed the protection and chivalry of the man of the house, ie her father. If she was married, the responsibility of protecting her fell to her husband.
  

       These days, women choose to be single longer. They know the dangers of the modern world, and choose to forgo the protection/chivalry of a husband because modern weapons (ie, handgun, taser, pepper spray) can be carried and wielded by a woman just as easily as a broadsword could be carried and wielded by a knight.
  

       Thus, chivalry could have a place in modern society by being directed towards children and the elderly, but to apply it to all women who don't have a man at their side is a bastardization of the concept.
21 Quest, Aug 22 2012
  

       it's just about the tone. Nothing more. It's not fair! is the realm of angst-ridden teenagers.
RayfordSteele, Aug 22 2012
  

       Pointing out an inequality in the status quo is the realm of anyone with a legitimate grievance.
21 Quest, Aug 22 2012
  

       Linguistic relativity runs amok through the legislature! Bills banning saying "not bad" in response to "how ya doin?" Congressmen bursting in unannounced on drafting meetings - doors swinging into walls, papers thrown aloft by the draft - to demand that the wording in this year's finance act be more avowedly aspirational. Rebranding of the entire executive branch as the "Supercool Awesome Gang" and the Judiciary renamed as the "MEGADUDEZZZ", cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria.
  

       This is a peeve dressed up as an idea.
calum, Aug 22 2012
  

       Accepting life as a perpetual series of inequalities not all of whom are worth addressing is the realm of the wise.
RayfordSteele, Aug 22 2012
  

       Do people really think that chivalry is only directed towards women? That seems bizarre, but then I'm a medievalist, and a bit out of touch.
  

       Anyway, while I agree with the sentiment (men, women, and children is also irksome, for different reasons), isn't this advocacy / punish those who do X?
spidermother, Aug 22 2012
  

       Are you suggesting that gender inequality is one of those inequalities that is not worth addressing, ray?
21 Quest, Aug 22 2012
  

       No, I'm suggesting prozac.
RayfordSteele, Aug 22 2012
  

       (marked-for-tagline)
  

       I'm suggesting prozac
normzone, Aug 24 2012
  

       [Marked-for-Tagline] seconded.
21 Quest, Aug 24 2012
  

       Oh what-the-heck, thirded.   
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle