Comments on: Women + Children = Pathos

By: Kate

Kate — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 16:31:03 +0000

It’s constant reference to children as being more important than anyone else that gets on my nerves. The death of a child is terrible, but no more so than anyone else, surely? And let’s face it, it’s quicker to replace a child than adult.

By: jenofiniquity

jenofiniquity — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

oh, yes. that little bit of propaganda has irritated me for a long time…you know, we must protect the life-givers at all costs. this usage reduces women to their reproductive function.

By: Tony Patti

Tony Patti — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Turn it around, and it also clearly means that killing men is unremarkable and condoned, even. So it’s bad from any point of view – in addition to patronizing women, it makes all murder less important.

By: Jim McCulloch

Jim McCulloch — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I suppose I’m getting too conspiracy-minded, but maybe our government _prefers_ that only two categories of Afghan (or Iraqi) casualties get reported, “terrorists” and “women-and-children.” Everyone knows we don’t kill women-and-children deliberately, so if women-and-children died, it follows that we didn’t do it on purpose. Thus, patriots can deduce that all casualties are either justified, or unavoidable accidents.
Or am I reading too much into it?

By: cadence

cadence — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Hi I Blame the Patriarchy, Just came across your blog, I’m looking forward to reading more in the future.

And of course you are being callus, and shame on you for not seeing the tragedy in the lose of innocent life. A guilt trip for which the patriarchy is also to blame.

I have to admit though I am concerned about children imparticular in general, especially as far as the war is concerned. I do not agree with this war, and I do not mean to suggest that any death is more tragic than another, but rather that the people who are kids now will be the ones who rebuild Iraq.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Myself, I’m always annoyed when anyone is compared to children, because it’s always an offence to children. If white dudes are the default fodder, children are always the default tragic loss.

Don’t get me started on the grownupiarchy.

By: Josh Narins

Josh Narins — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Just so I can keep things straight, the children part was fine, but the women was not? Or were both offensive?

Would you prefer “children under 5″ mentioned separately, and those over 5 not?

I ask because it’s obvious there are no three year old suspected terrorists. Most any woman or 12 year old can pick up a gun and fire at soldiers.

By: Tony Patti

Tony Patti — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

“Just so I can keep things straight, the children part was fine, but the women was not? Or were both offensive?”

I find this question offensively stupid.

You can say to someone that lumping together women and children makes women seem as helpless and innocent as children, yet they will, after years of indoctrination by talk radio and other worthless forms of pseudo-debate, caome back with a question that has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THIS SIMPLE POINT.

I weep for the world.

By: frobisher

frobisher — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

What about the film “Titanic” where it was women and children in the lifeboats first?

By: Twisty

Twisty — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I’m not sure, Cadence, how you came to make the deduction, based on this post, that I am somehow oblivious to the horror of pointless murder. So, just to clear up any confusion, I assure you that I am against pointless murder. This post is not about pointless murder, though. It is about our culture’s tiresome habit of putting adult women on a par with helpless little kids.