50% of the population suffers 40% of the loss.
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
49 points (90.2% liked)
World News
259 readers
506 users here now
Rules:
- Be a decent person
- No spam
- Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
This point falls apart when you consider how it's usually men fighting. Ideally it'd be 100% combatants, which would result in 90%< men. Of course men can also be civilians, but you'd still expect the ratio to lean a bit more than that towards men.
Sure, but in the article they are talking specifically about civilian deaths. So combatants aren't counted here.
Yeah fair enough. The article contradicts itself on that point but that would make more sense.
The article also mentions other types of suffering by these women with lifelong consequences like rape with sexual assault increasing by half sinceast year and subsequent denial of healthcare due to mysogynistic laws. That's salt in the wound. Do we need men to experience this as well to equal the playing field? It also talks about how women have a tiny representation among those in power and as leaders in peace negotiation efforts, stripping them of their agency entirely.
No need for cherry picking and fooling yourself into thinking that men are the only ones shouldering the worst of war as if to insinuate that anyone needs to contribute more to the suffering.
Do we need men to experience this as well
Being dead kind of prevents that, in addition to being by far the worse outcome.
Being dead kind of prevents that
I'm talking about the living, since, you know, the ratios are off.
by far the worse outcome
Yeah, life long trauma is like whatevs.