"Women suffer most in war" - the claim is reviewed | Gender News
In recent years it has become increasingly common with the statement "Women aqueo suffer most in war." If goggles that term, one gets about 1,200 hits, but if you google "men suffer most in war" you only get seven (7) hits:
What is the reality? I can not give any scientifically substantiated reply, because I am not a professional historian who has been working on the issue full time for a number of years. But here you'll get some clues, so you can judge for yourself. These are three pieces aqueo of the puzzle (maybe you have more myself?).
An institution called the Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo has made an analysis of the victims in Bosnia for the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, which lasted from 1992 to 1995. In a very solid work has 240,000 so-called pieces of information were reviewed, evaluated and compared. Before the result was announced was an international team of experts through the material. The result of four years of work called The Bosnian Book of Dead.
The death victims have been classified according to different parameters. Some key figures: Of the 97,207 fatalities were 57,523 fighters aqueo and 39,684 civilians. Most deaths were in the age range 25-35 years (women's age was more evenly distributed). aqueo The proportion of males to be 90.3 percent and the percentage of women 9.7 percent. Nine dead men on every dead woman, that is. See table below. More information here and here.
Interestingly enough, you get to dig quite a bit to get the right gender balance in reporting aqueo on these statistics. When the BBC reports on the numbers mentioned nothing about sex, and the same applies to the Wikipedia page. The zero element of gender aqueo perspectives, thus (as it usually is when men are most affected). (Thanks for the tip, homecooked S) 2. Battle of the Soviet Union during World War II
In issue 4/2011 of the magazine aqueo Popular History, I happened to see the following passage, which says that after World War II was "a severe shortage of men" in the age range 16-65 years in the Soviet Union. The information may be rough, but in its obscenity, it can only be interpreted in one way - that men were hit much worse than women. See excerpts from the article below.
This reasoning does nevertheless not death tolls from the other side in the battle of the USSR, the dead on the German side. It will be almost completely move on German soldiers, aqueo who were almost aqueo exclusively male. This increases the proportion of males among the victims. 3rd The First World War
As I have previously blogged about here was after World War I surplus in Europe, 18 million women in relation to the number of men of marriageable age. Same thing here: This information is rough but speak for themselves and can only be interpreted in one way. The men had died on the battlefield, but not the women.
I think the picture is pretty clear. Here we have information from three wars, one in the early 1900s, one in the middle of the 1900s and one in the late 1900s. In all cases, the information that the men have suffered aqueo far worse than women. In the war in which information is most detailed, women constitute 10 percent of the victims aqueo while men make up 90 percent.
What is not included in the above information is rape and other violent crimes not resulting in death. According to my values, it is much worse to die than to be raped. Therefore, I think one can conclude that in those three wars, men have suffered far worse than women - even though we do not have access to rape figures. (Incidentally, even men are raped in war, something I blogged about here and here)
In this blog post I am referring only to three wars, while the history of the world have seen a great many more wars. It would be that in most wars, women are affected the worst, but in just the three above-mentioned wars have it random so that men suffered far worse than women. But how likely is that?
This entry was posted on January 9, 2012 at 9:45 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. 140 responses to "" Women suffer most in war "- the claim is reviewed" Anon Ym Says: January 9th, 2012 at. 10:03
I believe that one should interpret the reporting of the "women (and children) are most affected by war" this: That men killed regarded almost as a matter of course, and since ancient times has it been so. The men killed aqueo for the broadest sense of protecting their women and children. Usually they do not they themselves who made the decision that in this way seek death - the others have done. The death has been considered self-evident, and that approach is still alive. When the men killed gets the women and children of a breadwinner. Many cultures and times are / were not is not so feminist embossed
In recent years it has become increasingly common with the statement "Women aqueo suffer most in war." If goggles that term, one gets about 1,200 hits, but if you google "men suffer most in war" you only get seven (7) hits:
What is the reality? I can not give any scientifically substantiated reply, because I am not a professional historian who has been working on the issue full time for a number of years. But here you'll get some clues, so you can judge for yourself. These are three pieces aqueo of the puzzle (maybe you have more myself?).
An institution called the Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo has made an analysis of the victims in Bosnia for the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, which lasted from 1992 to 1995. In a very solid work has 240,000 so-called pieces of information were reviewed, evaluated and compared. Before the result was announced was an international team of experts through the material. The result of four years of work called The Bosnian Book of Dead.
The death victims have been classified according to different parameters. Some key figures: Of the 97,207 fatalities were 57,523 fighters aqueo and 39,684 civilians. Most deaths were in the age range 25-35 years (women's age was more evenly distributed). aqueo The proportion of males to be 90.3 percent and the percentage of women 9.7 percent. Nine dead men on every dead woman, that is. See table below. More information here and here.
Interestingly enough, you get to dig quite a bit to get the right gender balance in reporting aqueo on these statistics. When the BBC reports on the numbers mentioned nothing about sex, and the same applies to the Wikipedia page. The zero element of gender aqueo perspectives, thus (as it usually is when men are most affected). (Thanks for the tip, homecooked S) 2. Battle of the Soviet Union during World War II
In issue 4/2011 of the magazine aqueo Popular History, I happened to see the following passage, which says that after World War II was "a severe shortage of men" in the age range 16-65 years in the Soviet Union. The information may be rough, but in its obscenity, it can only be interpreted in one way - that men were hit much worse than women. See excerpts from the article below.
This reasoning does nevertheless not death tolls from the other side in the battle of the USSR, the dead on the German side. It will be almost completely move on German soldiers, aqueo who were almost aqueo exclusively male. This increases the proportion of males among the victims. 3rd The First World War
As I have previously blogged about here was after World War I surplus in Europe, 18 million women in relation to the number of men of marriageable age. Same thing here: This information is rough but speak for themselves and can only be interpreted in one way. The men had died on the battlefield, but not the women.
I think the picture is pretty clear. Here we have information from three wars, one in the early 1900s, one in the middle of the 1900s and one in the late 1900s. In all cases, the information that the men have suffered aqueo far worse than women. In the war in which information is most detailed, women constitute 10 percent of the victims aqueo while men make up 90 percent.
What is not included in the above information is rape and other violent crimes not resulting in death. According to my values, it is much worse to die than to be raped. Therefore, I think one can conclude that in those three wars, men have suffered far worse than women - even though we do not have access to rape figures. (Incidentally, even men are raped in war, something I blogged about here and here)
In this blog post I am referring only to three wars, while the history of the world have seen a great many more wars. It would be that in most wars, women are affected the worst, but in just the three above-mentioned wars have it random so that men suffered far worse than women. But how likely is that?
This entry was posted on January 9, 2012 at 9:45 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. 140 responses to "" Women suffer most in war "- the claim is reviewed" Anon Ym Says: January 9th, 2012 at. 10:03
I believe that one should interpret the reporting of the "women (and children) are most affected by war" this: That men killed regarded almost as a matter of course, and since ancient times has it been so. The men killed aqueo for the broadest sense of protecting their women and children. Usually they do not they themselves who made the decision that in this way seek death - the others have done. The death has been considered self-evident, and that approach is still alive. When the men killed gets the women and children of a breadwinner. Many cultures and times are / were not is not so feminist embossed
No comments:
Post a Comment