Making Female Deaths More Tragic Is Sexist

I have long been annoyed with the never ending news reports of tragedies and massacres that give prominence to the deaths of females and children, whilst seemingly discarding the tragic loss of male lives. It serves as a constant reminder that the balance of power between the genders is a hugely uneven one, with one gender receiving much greater value as individuals than the other. The death of a male is as important as the death of a female, it is a tragedy either way. To continually allude to it being otherwise is yet another example of the media's sexism. The MRA's would claim it is because women are afforded more rights and are valued higher than men, the opposite is true, they are actually reporting their deaths more prominently because of the patriarchal structure of society.

When a reporter chooses to highlight their deaths in a headline, such as "'Dozens' of refugees, including women and children, killed by rocket fire in Ukraine", they are placing the female in a subordinate position to their male protectors. The inclusion of female life alongside children of all genders, although this can be different at times too, alludes to the perceived gender roles in conflicts and dangerous situations. The male has always been the protector of the female and of the children, it is timeless and unchanging, it is the natural order of things. Women and children alike are seen as weak, easily harmed, and much more vulnerable than men to the rigours and adversity associated with disasters and wars. This just is not true, the average woman in times of crisis will perform as competently in defending herself as the average man would (not that you can defend yourself from unexpected rocket attacks). It is likely that neither the average man or woman would have received training in counter-terrorist survival tactics, or natural disaster survival methods, or any of the other news stories of tragedies that you are likely to see this sexism highlighted in. It is the old sexist myth of 'women and children first' rearing its head, children should survive with their mothers to look after them, and men should display the macho heroism of self sacrifice to ensure this happens. When this does not happen it is considered by some as an affront to the natural order of things, that it is inappropriate behaviour for men to seek self-preservation, and that chivalrous (sexist) behaviour is dead.

Often people will claim that the reason for the perceived superiority of the female life is not because women are characterised by society as being weaker, they claim that it is purely biological. They might point to female reproductivity as a resource that needs protecting more than male reproductive rights. To them it is simple mathematics that justify this increased attention to female deaths, 50 males and 1 female = 9 months per child vs 1 male and 50 females = 9 months per 50 children, so to them "each woman matters because women have a much more limited reproductive potential". This attitude that biology should determine the relative importance of male and female lives is not without sexism. It is implying that a females worth to the planet or a particular society is measurable purely by their capacity to be reproductive. It is measuring a woman's worth through her ability to reproduce. Those who claim that the relative importance of a woman's continued existence is so they can fulfil their primary function, to be mothers, are being sexist. This attitude may have been excusable in a pre-modern society in which childbirth, alongside diseases and famine, would ravage populations making female reproduction key to the survival of a society. However, in today's society population levels are not as fragile, if anything child birth is too common. For the proponents of this biologically deterministic view, that female life will always be inseparably linked to reproduction, supporting this means ascribing to the notion that the feminine and domestic sphere are also inseparable. That the woman's place is in the home, all safe and secure.

This gendered sexism does sometimes even extend to the group being repeatedly mentioned that would require an uneven level of protection, children. One notable and recent example of this is the abductions of boys and girls by Boko Haram in Nigeria. The media coverage between the abduction of 300 girls and later 100 young men, many boys, is a perfect example of this. No one would have missed the vast news coverage of the abduction of 300 girls from their school in Chibok, with everyone from Michelle Obama and David Cameron to some 'celebrities' I have never heard, of all joining in on a huge twitter campaign (#bringbackourgirls) to raise awareness. A few days ago Boko Haram struck again this time taking 100 males from a village in Nigeria to be forced to serve as soldiers for them, yet it has not received a fraction of the media coverage that the girls received. There is no #bringbackourboys, no celebrity news coverage calling for their safe return, there is no rolling news reports, and there is barely comparable number of articles having been written about it. The only reason I can think of is because 'men are strong' and are meant to defend themselves, being kidnapped is seen by many (including those in Boko Haram) as being their own fault. Not an attitude that would have been expressed towards the female captives. Whilst they are both considered victims the coverage tells a different story. They are in the eyes of the world's media not equal. The teenage boys are their own victims, the girls are victims of the aggressors. Females are always considered weaker and more in need of defending from the evils of the world by men, even as children.

It is sexist to highlight tragedies of one gender more than others. Doing so trivialises male tragedies, makes women seem weak and powerless, and it does not help anyone in the long run.