Friday, August 6, 2010

Why is it worse to kill a woman than a man?

Why is it worse to kill a woman than a man? The argument usually advanced is that in killing women you are killing the breeders, whereas men can be more easily spared. But this is a fallacy based on the notion that human beings can be bred like animals. The idea behind it is that since one man is capable of fertilizing a very large number of women, just as a prize ram fertilizes thousands of ewes, the loss of male lives is comparatively unimportant. Human beings, however, are not cattle. When the slaughter caused by a war leaves a surplus of women, the enormous majority of those women bear no children. Male lives are very nearly as important, biologically, as female ones. - George Orwell

Found via Reddit and just too good to ignore.

7 comments:

  1. Interesting. I'm very familiar with this idea, and I've always thought it made sense in terms of survival of the species (although I don't think this applies as much to our society and abundant human population at this time at all). Because this theory, whether one believes it or not, doesn't really apply to us, and may not really in our lifetime, then perhaps we should be discussing other reasons why society feels it's worse to kill woman. But firstly, in what instances do we say "it's okay to kill a man, worse to kill a woman." ?? If you're talking about in war/combat, um, most of us women would be useless and possibly dangerous in combat (I would be). Based on biology (hormones) men are typically (not always) built to fight/be alert/be objective, while women (in most cases) are built to bear children, nurture children, teach, hell, to inspire! That said, I am not a feminist and I accept and embrace my role as a woman as works best in my life and the society that I live in. I'm also young, single and self-sufficient. I'm a humanist and believe in doing what feels right, seems right and works best.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I dont think that being male makes you better at enduring bullets than a woman

    ReplyDelete
  3. "But firstly, in what instances do we say "it's okay to kill a man, worse to kill a woman."

    What about Prime Time television, they show endless brutality against women to get the chicks riled up (and possibly sexually excited,I don't know) and when a man (usually the bad guy) gets killed, it's like they want you to breathe a sigh of relief that a man is dead, to contrast with the horrors of violence against women.

    Lifetime television is filled with movies like this. Now,I personally, don't see why it would be a bad thing to show women in that light once in a while to even it out. Like, "Oh good,the bad girl is dead. Happy ending.",but boy does it piss the feminists at Lezebel and femifisting off on the rare occasion this does happen.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting. Would women join Harems or get pregnant by married men and raise the kids? Some would perhaps.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm strongly against killing both males and females. How about no killing of human beings at all? Sounds like a plan!

    ReplyDelete
  6. In a word, "chivalry" Feckless ... the notion is pure chivalry. It's still the motto of today's white knights.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Apparently the armed forces do not happen to think so. True?

    ReplyDelete