start wars.

YMMV.

the idea that women and children are less likely to be able to defend themselves, and less likely to be soldiers and active warriors. Also, it may be perceived that they are more likely to die from the same attack than men, even though that may not be true.

And, you'll notice, a car accident or murder is always considered more tragic if a pregnant woman is killed.

There is a hierarchy:

Children
Pregnant women
Women
Men

I don't agree as it really is just another way to label women as "the weaker sex".

Woman and children are essentially the status quo for an emotional rendition of the word "non-combatant", which in most societies is still true.

But even here, some lives matter more.

not sure why, might just be an emotional reaction, but I think it has to do with the fact they are vulnerable and less able to protect themselves.

And they are cute.

And I love them.

It happens all the time, everyday, and everywhere.

Funny how Western media never show graphic details of their killings in other people's homelands..

I'm sick of them all.

To me personally, some lives are worth more, but age and gender do not factor in. On the other hand, my concerns about the taking of lives have nothing to do with their value. Children are innocent creatures and should never be killed.

Killing children is extra special fucked up.

than killing ANY uninvolved civilian?

So when they are the victims of terrorists they are innocent victims. Of course men can be innocent victims too.

Same reason the ASPCA tends to show puppies and kittens rather than full grown pit bulls and mangy cats. They are working your tear ducts.

Pathos is one of many rhetorical appeals. Just think of it as an emotional appeal. Since women and children are weak and vulnerable (according to the stereotype), then their audience will feel more sympathy towards them than men. I was just showing an analogy between the way the news uses the phrase "women and children" and how ads like the ones the ASPCA put out are overtly geared toward making people cry. They chose the saddest looking cats and dogs (women and children) instead of the older, tougher animals (men).

Hitler Youth or Dr. Strangelove.

Only a few males are required to produce the next generation. Survival of the group, tribe, or whatever requires protecting and preserving as many of the women and children as possible. The very old and very young are also expendable, depending on the nature of the threat.

Women and children aren't a threat, as far as they are concerned.

And women and children are often their victims. I believe it is acceptable verbiage and outlines that women and children are simply collateral damage in what is a male dominated industry.

women have all the power, all the money, and use war to oppress men.

Children are killed in a horrific and barbaric way, and you are concerned about men?

WTF?

I don't think that's what the OP is saying.

At least in this context. Men are supposed to take care of them. Their safety is an indication of how strong the masculine element is.

In other contexts they're the insurers of immortality, genetic line, civilization.

Life is life and every one is equally precious but there are lots of things to think about.

Once we contribute our seed we are useless.

Men, and more specifically fathers, should be considered as more than just contributing seed.

But, if you have a simplistic view, well, ...

Sincno one else answered the question in a simple way, I thought I would.

Practically speaking, it has to due with repopulating after the disaster. It's easy for a few guys to make a whole bunch of babies with a lot of women. It's not the same for a few women to repopulate with a whole bunch of guys.

From a purely ethical standpoint, the lives men and women should have exactly the same worth.

So yes, females are worth more. Men can't give birth. Females do not need a male. They can access sperm banks. Males must get a female if they want babies.

Women and children were supposed to be saved first in a disaster, but as a practical matter, disasters that unfold quickly favor men. Only the ones that are slow enough to allow planning save the future (children) with their caretakers (women).

Destroying an enemy's future by focusing on bombing schools would be considered the most heinous of crimes, probably a hair's difference from complete genocide.

The loss of life in Syria was mostly women and children, who were indoors napping after being kept awake all night by the bombing in the area. Men were in their fields or working in a neighboring village. Women and children weren't targeted, just hapless civilians. They were most of the fatalities only because they were there.

Warfare that specifically targets civilians started with WWI. Up until the blockade of Germany by the UK and Germany's answer to them of sinking the Lusitania, civilians were allowed to escape, leaving their property behind to be stolen. War against civilian populations culminated in carpet bombing in WWII and the dropping of nuclear bombs on largely non military targets, i.e. targeting civilians specifically.

While so many young men find glory in war and so many old men live out their fantasies vicariously by starting wars, this will happen.

Hug your kids. If war comes, you might not have them for long.

They are only "worth more" as propaganda tools to exploit when it serves their purpose. Other than that, they don't give a shit about them. "Look over here: Boo hoo. Those big, bad Syrians are killing women and children. Pay no attention to the cuts we want to make to Medicaid, WIC, Planned Parenthood, and all the other programs that will kill far more American women and children than died in that gas attack."

why would any man be upset at the news reporting horrific and tragic loss of the lives of children?

Why would a man then question why no one was speaking about the men?

Why would a man believe he is so important, that he feels he deserves more recognition than a child?

I don't think women should be considered a protected non combatant defenseless class in warfare. women out there just as bad and dangerous as men.

Women are far more likely to physically abuse young children at home.

then by the mother.

"Fathers are more likely to kill. Men killed six out 10 children, most often beating or shooting them. Fathers were at fault in 75% of cases when children were shot to death by a parent and in 64% of cases when a child was beaten. "Violence is a masculine pursuit," says Jack Levin, a Northeastern University criminologist. "

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/10/parents-kill-children-fbi-data/15280259/

" Overall, fathers were the accused murderer 57.4 percent of the time."

https://news.brown.edu/articles/2014/02/filicide

"women out there just as bad and dangerous as men..."

What is the ratio of wars declared by women vs. that of men? What is the ratio of violent deaths at the hands of males vs. that at the hands of females? And from where are you getting the objective, peer-reviewed numbers for that ratio?

Then re-evaluate your statement... and hopefully learn a lesson. But I doubt it.

1. The "women and children" part is there because a) it's factual, and b) highlights the depravity of the perpetrators. (i.e. It's not a statement about the "worth" of the victims. It's not part of a quantitative or qualitative measurement of atrocity.)

2. "Women and children" strongly implies civilian non-combatants. Sure there could be child soldiers or female adult combatants but my expectation is that would be made explicit (i.e. not described as "women and children".)

men could be considered part of the resistance or other "enemies." Women and children are not part of the enemy groups - they are considered innocents, traditionally speaking.
Women and children first onto lifeboats is meant to protect the more vulnerable while the men would be stronger to survive - traditionally speaking.

So YES, their lives ARE worth more.

Male: 5 Quatloos
Female: 6 Quatloos
Youngling: 7 Quatloos

When in doubt, ask a Triskelion...

wait, what was the question again?

I think it is using a perception of women and children being more defenseless in any circumstance, not true, in many cases any human is defenseless, but it plays in a learned belief to emphasize the horror of a situation.

I have issues with a person's parental status being used in place of "man" or "woman" (or person), such as saying "a mother of three was killed today....". As a child free person I don't exist in the minds of society as a full person.

I'm sure it will go viral.

Men are tough and men live a rough life. Men love this image of being invulnerable and cultivate it. And now you complain that nobody is noticing your hurt feelings.

Of women and children who they perceive are weaker than they are. They are seen here as extensions of the men. They are valuable to men as the reproduction of their genes. That is where that comes from.