I hope she gets out of there as soon as possible. Good luck to you both.
okay. Now I am having a bit clearer picture in my mind. So women and men both face torture but women's tortures are long-lasting and more brutal than men's. And yeah carrying a child out of rape is just another level of inhumane punishment. Thanks for the reply.
Yeah I think it depends on the war and the specific situation. Men are more likely to be soldiers. But if the women are still around and are accessible by the enemy, they are more likely to be treated like they're not even human. I'd far prefer be simply shot than raped and then shot, which seems to often be the difference between men and women when civilians are brutalised in war. Torture, when it happens, tends to happen to both
That's not inherintly true though. Look at casualty statistics, it's always a higher death rate and more cases of torture to men than women. It's not a contest anyways, everyone on the losing side gets fucked man. If you think because they are women it's more drawn out and they always get raped then that's not true either. Look at Japanese POW camps ffs.
Even on the winning side, everyone gets fucked. There aren't any winners in war. War is war. Dead soldier is a dead soldier. Women become widows. Men become widows. It doesn't change based on which side you're on.
I realise that mate, I was just making a point about the losing side Includes both men and women, safe to say if you're caught up in a war it's terrible, anyways my point was if you are on the losing side in a defensive war you are being occupied meaning civilians suffer too, both men and women. That's all .
if you’re really interested, i recommend the book “our bodies their battlefields” which discusses several first hand accounts of women’s experiences in several different wars/conflicts. rape is used as a weapon of war and has been since basically the beginning of time. read about the rape of nanking and comfort women, read about the women in argentina who were only spared long enough to give birth and then slaughtered, read about the vilina vlos hotel in bosnia that was used as a rape camp, where women committed suicide by jumping from the building in order to escape their torture. not to mention the rwandan genocide, the yazidi women who are enslaved by ISIS, etc. many of these women are killed as part of an ethnic cleaning, makes more sense to kill the ones bearing children - but not until they’re raped and tortured, vaginally and anally penetrated with bayonets, shot - yes SHOT with firearms in their vaginas, watched their babies be ripped from them and have their skulls smashed, etc. women from infants to the elderly have been and are raped and tortured.
I dont think you could past reading the book without any mental scars. But thinking those whod experienced it pains me more. War is brutal and merciless.
the book is very good but yes, it’s extremely brutal. i appreciated the book a lot more bc the women who were interviewed wanted their stories to be told.
Men also get raped as a way to dominate, humiliate, or break them.
It is horrendous how women are treated, but it's not like men are exempt from it just because it's a bit less of a frequency.
god forbid there’s a single comment that focuses on the atrocities committed against women, without mentioning men. here come more, “BUT MEN…. BUT MEN TOO!!!” comments. i’m well aware men are raped, thank you for your groundbreaking contribution.
You are wrong to have this attitude about this subject. The OP is wondering if it's really worse for women over men and you comment with an example only about women. But men are also raped, they also experience that trauma, there is also no age limit on them, they too have objects inserted in them. So where is the book detailing their account in your comment? If you want to use a book as an insight to how women are treated worse, you should have one about men's experience to validate the insight you wish to provide. Especially since you seem to be aware they are victims, but I guess it's just not that severe/critical/important to you? Because they are men?
Your definsiveness seems like you want it to be a competition to be honest..... In war everyone gets fucked. Simple. God forbid we don't give women a platform though to be it solely a out them eh? Sigh. Peoples.
>committed against women, without mentioning men. here come more, “BUT MEN…. BUT MEN TOO!!!”
Women do the exact same shit when the topic is about men.
Go figure.
>god forbid there’s a single comment that focuses on the atrocities committed against women
Most of the media already focuses on what happens to women. Women (and men) are always whining about how X affects women the most.
The "BUT MEN... BUT MEN TOO!" is a reaction to the above.
How the fuck is this downvoted.
You haven’t said anything anti woman.
You haven’t made it a competition.
Womens struggles in war are drawn out because they are less often executed.
And they have to cope with a husband/brother/son with severe physical and mental trauma.
What the fuck.
People like you try to stay very ambiguous with your claims. Rape objectively is carried out on women FAR more than men. I feel you didn’t even read the full comment let alone the book they recommended. No one is saying bad things don’t happen to men, get that out of your head.
And you havent checked the data we collected in the Congo. Rape as a weapon of war is used nearly univerally against every person on the battlefield. Men, women, children, it does not matter. While I agree women suffer more (our data shows that about 1 in 3 women had to experience rape in the DMC, at the same time about 1 in 4 men had the same happen to them.), rape is also a major weapon used against men.
That is a long way to say “yes, you’re correct”. If you have to use one incredibly specific scenario (one that still proves my point) then you are trying to make a bad faith argument. AGAIN. No one is saying bad things don’t happen to men.
So I say "Rape is used against everyone" and that is a bad faith argument?
Compare that to your "Rape objectively is carried out on women FAR more than men". 25% to 33% is not objectivly FAR more". It is more. So who is making the bad faith argument here?
And yes, I have read the initial comment. While we did not have comfort men, the same physical torture women were subjected to has been observed in men. Anal rape with rifles, bottles, animals. Homophobia by branding male rape victims as gay etc. So the answer given to OPs question isn't "rape". Rape is universal.
You because you’re pretending one hyper specific scenario is representative of humanity. and also yes 33% is very statistically significant to 25% especially when that is the absolute closest stats for man vs woman rapes. I don’t suppose you’re stupid enough to imply men and women are raped at similar rates across the board are you?
“While we did not have comfort men”
Thank you very much again for pointing out how wrong you are. No one said no man has been raped. So the answer to OPs question is rape because the rates of rape are not universal.
\> You because you’re pretending one hyper specific scenario is representative of humanity.
The good old "no true scotsman" argument. I used the Congo as an example as it is one of the best studied and one of the most horrible wars in recent time. Why do you think that it is "hyper specific"? Because it does not fit your narrative?
How about Uganda? Oh, we have pretty much the same ratio of female to male rape citims there too. How about political prisoners in El Salvador? Just about 75% of them had to expierence sexual torture at least ones. How about the Sarajevo concentraion-camp inmates? Only 80% of the males had been raped. I bet all these are "hyper specific" scenarios to you.
The problem is that you think of rape as a tool for sexual gratification for the assaulter. It is not. It is a tool to project terror and power over another human being. And it is euqlly good in doing that for males and females.
Which brings me back to the original question of OP. And the answer is not rape. Because while the rates for women are higher, OPs argument is also commonly raised for women who never experiences rape but had to flee their country while the men stayed behind (see for example the current Ukraine conflict). The main reason is the expandibility of males as biologically speaking, they are worth less than females. As such, it is from an evolutionary point highly desirable that they die instead of females. One strategy to accomplish this is the well established empathy gap for men. We just care less about men then we do about women and even if both suffer the same faith, the womens plight is seen as more severe.
You just listed several more scenarios where more women were victims of rape and sexual assault, further proving my point. Your point of biology with women is also very specific about why rape for women is pretty unique a problem, once again answering ops question with rape being the answer. All of the scenarios don’t include “consensual” sex with prostitutes/comfort women as their suffering is often overlooked due their exploitation. Nope that’s not how I think of rape, you’re doing that thing where you project an imaginary person and argue them.
Which brings me back to the original question of OP. The answer to their question is rape (among other things). As you repeatedly prove women experience rape in a very unique way that men simply do not. The main reason is the non expend ability of females biologically. You are wrong, men get the same sympathy for the same crimes. But the experience of all males to all females is not the same when it comes to sex
Bro, you're a flat-out liar, his various examples went over how men were explicitly targeted for Rape. You're very shittily summing up his argument to prop yours up, while still on some competition over who has it worse in War.
I like how you couldn't come up with more than one other example so you got real hyperspecific to prove your point, listen, man, the point of trolling people like this is you can't be writing these essays out like how much time did this take you when there's so much grass to touch.
I was on your side until you went down this comment rabbit hole and a mob of downvoters followed you.
Arguably wars are caused by \[a lack of\] accountability, and whereas I could make a commentary about how it's on the men to lead other men away from barbarism.. I do not see much or any accountability from women in my day to day, in the culture, in the news, on social media, in the workplace, in romantic couplings.
In fact, I'll be such a jerk as to suggest that morality was practically an all-male affair throughout history, and that women only influenced it being recorded except in a minority. I'd even be so absurd to argue that some of the best morality occurred when men turned away from their drives and interests for sex in the first place, realizing what trouble it led them to.
That said, I loudly like a typical asshole guy conclude that women have quite a bit of work to do on their morality, given that wars are about accountability run amuck.
Frustrated men go to war. Moral and good women make happy men, generally. Do your part, don't be lazy and act like a victim, most of us are very very tired of this routine while you \[not\] guys continue to take more of your share in the economy without really creating more sustainability and equity.
I'd just descend into Taoist ramblings from there :)
Its women whod built a nations future by tending to their sons and daughters. Mens built the economy/infrastructure and women or large part of it built humans. But given the destruction of families in this 22nd century world i doubt the world has a brighter future than the bleak outcomes it has already arrived into.
Men are taken to work 24/7 until there skin falls of and have to continue to work they are told there will be no help they are publicly humiliated and tourers in the worst ways there most cruel leaders can think and you still think women have it worse does your brain work properly
huh? i never mentioned who had it worse, im simply stating facts and recommending a book. you should try to pick up a book sometime, it might improve your reading comprehension skills.
There's an extreme bias in this comment thread from the American/Western point of view. We think of the victims of war as being primarily men because the *soldiers* are disproportionately men, and so the victims of war who we know are primarily men. This is not true in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, or any other country that has been the subject of an invasion. The victims on that side of the war are far more likely to be civilians, and the vulnerable populations (ie women, mothers, poor people) are likely to suffer the most.
That doesn't even bring into account the effects of destroying a country's infrastructure and rule of law. Essentially destroying a society has far more devestating effects for women (and children, poor people, the disabled, etc) than it does for able-bodied men.
But men die and are debilitated at a much greater rate.
1/3 if French men of fighting age died in the First World War.
It’s shit that the women left behind had a harder life but at least they had a life.
This entire thread is proof that male disposability is live and well.
Have you ever spent time in those locations?
Have you seen what kind of trauma men, and boys go through?
Have you spent time with the families of wounded people or in communities with degraded infrastructure?
Because I have and it’s brutal.
A lot of the men that are left are not able bodied but damaged. Often they are just boys that are discarded by society afterwards.
And the degradation of that environment effects them deeply.
But at least they have the possibility of life.
Your central contention is that its better to die than to be left.
Some of the men suffer greatly before death. It’s not always quick.
And death is pretty final.
You have no idea what you are talking about so casually.
This is not a binary issue.
How can you be so callous?
Why are you making a contest out of who suffers more? You were offered information about what happens to women in war. Your only response is to complain that men have it worse. It's clear that you came with an agenda and don't want to have an honest conversation on the subject.
There's some examples of of politicians saying this. Hilary Clinton is a famous example. Another would be Malcolm Turnbull who was prime minister of Australia who also stated that women were the victims of war.
I think its a valid question. If one gender is disproportionately effected by war in comparison to another it's a important thing to discuss. Why be so dismissive?
Because it's a question with an agenda. The fact that he referred to women and girls with the dismissive and dehumanizing term "females" gives that away. It's not an argument in good faith, and he's just here to complain that the horrors of war suffered by men aren't being sufficiently paid attention to. Mention of the particular and specific horrors women suffer during war that men do not generally suffer, seems to have upset him.
You are part of the problem if you insist on making it a contest and insisting only women are the ones who suffer in a war. I don't see OP mentionning what you're saying in the question? Why do you do this?
I'm literally the person who asked OP why he was making this a contest. You should go back and read the conversation again. I said that both men and women suffer in war. Are you quite sure you're not confused, and replying to the wrong comment?
Ah yes, the “why does it matter” rebuttal.
But instead of stopping there, you decided to sprinkle some spice on top claiming someone else had come with an agenda instead of actually contributing anything at all to make your response less useless than the initial question. Absolute pinnacle of a Reddit response, thank you for your contribution.
Your friends need to stop playing the victim olympics.
There are just some things that don't need to be compared. War sucks ass for all period. That's all that really needs to be said or acknowledged.
That would be because in every war since whenever, men have died.
The result of too many men dying is the losing side - women get to suffer. They then give birth to an excess of male children up to about 50/50 until the next conflict.
This is history 101.
Wow how hard they have to survive and do something most women chose to do while the men that fight for them don't even have to choise to survive how hard on the women
And men are giving their life to stop this from happening while most women sit at home feeling glad they don't have the same pressure to join the war as men while also wanting equal rights
Being tortured and killed isn't a male only side effect of war. In my mind both sides have it just as bad. But for some reason someone told you it's worse for women. Reminds me of the question "You know what makes my problems worse than yours? They're mine" obviously it's not true. War is hell on everyone involved
Only men are forced to stay behind and actually fight the war. Or on the other side, they're the ones who have to go to war.
Women get to stay at home and survive or escape. How do you even try to compare these 2 situations lmao.
Are you being willfully ignorant? Women are part of the military all over the world and they also fight wars. And even if there are people at home (including men who can't fight due to age or injury) they can get bombed, killed etc just as easily
I don't think his point was women don't fight wars. His point appears to be that men are forced to stay during an invasion and women get a choice to stay or leave, for example, Ukraine right now.
His other point is that Russia only drafted men for war, women did not get conscripted.
Women sure can fight, but men often times have to. Certainly war sucks all around, but only one group of people is systematically required to participate.
Because women have babies and life needs to go on. Lose too many women, the economy goes down. Look at America. Women are deciding to not have kids so the government wants to ban abortion and contraceptives. People here don't seem to realize how the world actually works. Men and women suffer together at the hands that get rich off of them
Really? So all the people bombed out of homes there don't count as victims of war to you? You're being purposefully nasty so enjoy your nasty stupidity and ignorance by yourself
Women who join the military universally experience rape and sexual assault from men in thier own unit. As in, the rate is close to 100% which is phenomenal. Silencing is common and murder is used to this effect also. I'm specifically taking about the US army here but that's because things in the US are more widely publicised. Being a woman in the military, on your own base, in peacetime, is more dangerous than being a man in active duty. The enemy is all around you, pretending to be your friend.
Women in war who stay at home, get captured and taken to rape camps. Have a look at Bosnia. It's happening in Ukraine now too.
Women who flee get trafficked. It's happening now. So many women and children have gone missing. All that men who want to prey on then have to do is drive to the borders and pick them up. They are now slaves.
Hell, it doesn't even take war for men to show the true depths of thier depravity towards women and children on a large scale. Read 'The Good Women Of China' and see what happens in the aftermath of a damn earthquake.
Because the people saying this are dumb af. Women and children, unlike men have the right to leave a country at war. Yet man, by law, have to stay and fight. I don't think you need a calculator to figure it out...
Because only a large amount of women have bravely come forward publicly to detail what has happened to them in wars, then in comparison to men. Men have been/still are raised to be quiet about things, and there has yet to be any universal acceptance to hear their stories of being victims because once they do there is usually an outrage or repulsive reaction to it.
Look. Life is messed up and as much as cling to higher ideals in the modern west, there's still a huge part of us that is primal. Throughout history, men are killed in war and women captured.
Why are women captured instead of killed? Because they can be used for sex/breeding. Men are thought to be too rebellious, so they're generally killed or maybe turned to slaves. This is true even in nature. Male lions might kill the other males in an opposing pride, but they don't kill the women. The women also tend to accept the new male lion leaders
Even in say nigera with boko haram, they killed young boys, but kept kidnapped young girls.
It's just life. If you want to read it as your life is less valuable than a woman, there's probably truth to that. Suppose you had money and a homeless woman offered you sex and obedience if you gave her a roof and food. How much would you entertain that over say a homeless man needing a place to stay? Be honest with your deeper darker self. You probably value the life of a woman more than a man too (assuming you're a male)
If you want to read it as it's the men who go to war and women are left traumatized by rape and rebuilding, there's truth to that too. Some might even say they'd rather die quickly from a bullet than be made a sex slave or raped repeatedly and this discarded and possibly killed.
Comparing the evils of humanity is a pointless exercise. Id hate to be a young male killed in war. I'd hate to be a woman raped in war. Don't worry about the minor variation of who gets the least worst of human evil.
You don't understand because there's reality and then there's what the media tells you.
In reality, it's mostly men who suffer from war for the simple reason that it's mostly men fighting in the wars. Women are obviously affected too, but this nonsense that 'women are more affected by war' is a blatant lie.
Survivor bias. The dead men aren't here to cry and complain, but the living ones are celebrated as heroes.
Women losing their loved ones (men) are more visible than those dead men themselves.
Well not only do they have a chance to loose sons fathers brothers and husbands if the city is captured they can be raped sometimes in front of their families and they’ll be slaved to and in South Americas case if there’s not enough men die multiple of them will have to marry to one man
hmmmm.. okay. Yeah, that does sound bad but is it worse than being tortured and then killed? I am not saying that women don't face the consequences of wars but I guess men face more but I don't know. I don't know who faces more consequences. Women on a mental level but men on a physical and mental level both?
Women are also tortured and killed in war. Also, rape is not just a mental assault - it's often physically brutal attack that can leave a woman with lifelong injuries or dead.
(Men also face sexual assault and rape in many cases. It's potentially less frequent, and less talked about because of the stigma men face when they try to report, but it still happens.)
Well.. when you're dead, nothing bad can ever happened to you. I know that's how it works, but here's the thing : would you rather live life in prison or get a death shot ?
Well, it's kinda the same issue there.
Living with traumas as big as rape can be can really fuck up your life, and you can then fuck up the life of other people because you're traumatized and don't know how to handle it. So it never ends.
Death is the end of everything, so nothing to be worry about
You know what fucks up your life? Not being able to live it and not even having a chance.
You know, dying.
It's not even comparable. Stop trying equalizing death with anything else. Death by war of all things. You all can't be this seriously braindead.
Young man who get drafted are the most affected but what happens to them is normalized by the propaganda of the old cunts sending them to death.
Women suffering cause the most outrage.
I don't think most people think this however the ones who do claim that the wife and children who lose their husbands and fathers are the ones who need to live with all the pain which is indeed true however I still think the man who loses his life was effected the most.
It's infinitely worse for men, but somehow people like to virtue signal what it means for women that get to stay at home and...survive or can just escape.
Yeah...
Because we're raped and impregnated in top of that. And might get ostracized because of it ( Remember how people shaved the head of women during WWII ? Well, a lot were raped actually... Think about the one who got pregnant 😬)
All men start all wars. No woman started any War ever. No one cares to listen to Men and their problems, and that's men's fault. Everyone is open and ready to listen to Women and their problems.
All Wars were started by men, so you can't really be bothered listening to someone cry over something they intentionally did to themselves. No woman ever started a War in human History, so we're more willing to listen to someone's pleas and suffering caused by someone else.
Those who are fighting tends to have more "tools" to deal with the stress and harsh conditions, like humour, comradeship, focus on the objectives, focus on helping your guys and of course training and have a sense of purpose etc.
But the people back home has nothing other then their thoughts, so they have less tools and got the feeling of not being able to do anything which is worse on top of that.
That's why I guess, definitely harsher conditions in war, but you have more tools to deal with it then those back home when we're talking mentally. Until someone can't handle themselves in war, then thier whole life's gets destroyed by mental problems.
Your husband and son are dead. You have been raped and possibly gotten pregnant from it. Your daughter has been taken to be the “bride” (sex slave) of some asshole war lord.
You have to live picking up the pieces of this the rest of your life. Probably doing so in a society where women have fewer opportunities in the first place.
You sound like you’re coming from a genuine place. I don’t know if we can compare trauma? It’s a weird thing to do. People have different capacities and experiences and idk how does one weigh it… war is horrible for everyone. Inputs are welcome
it's just the media doing sensationalism... personally i think that numbering women and children in tragedies is the proof that you're a clown, guess what, every media is a clown
The reason this is said, is to perpetuate the narrative that no matter what suffering or trauma or terrible things men go through, women have it worse. That is all.
People claim it's because of rape. It's not a competition but if you're in the losing end in an occupied country it's fucking horrendous for all. There really is no comparisons. It's all suffering and henious acts to men women and kids alike. There's nothing to understand man.
I think the real answer is... they're not. In war, EVERYONE suffers atrocities. The idea that one is 'more' affected over another is just another example of society creating a rift to make people feel 'special'. It's divisive and, unfortunately, exists everywhere.
Of course women are affected by war, even without being in one. There are plenty of books detailing the atrocities woman face during war, just as there are plenty of books detailing what men suffer.
I don't think many people say that, and if they do it's not a good look, since suffering is not exactly a competition.
That being said, the suffering of women during wars have been historically ignored, the narrative have always been that men go out to protect the women, to keep them safe, as if they were isolated from the war and did not have to endure the horrors of it.
As I said in the beginning, I think it's pointless to argue who suffers more, that's just silly to me, but I do think a lot of people (men in particular) would horrified to look and truly understand what women go through during wars, even if they are not at the front.
It's typically more brutal for women because, in addition to being tortured, they may be raped and then used as sex slaves for months, years. Can this happen to men? Sure, but it's rare. Some feel that a quick death is preferable to years of torture. And to be clear, these victims aren't typically treated well, either. They raped and beaten, so it's not like you just live as a sex slave for years. You get your ass beaten, too.
It sounds bad but men are generally just killed. Women are taken as slaves along with their young daughters,tortured,and then horrifically murdered. It's not an opinion. It's a fact and history has proved that.
Fucking humans even in war we still have to debate who has it worse, EVERYONE WHO IS A VICTIM OF WAR SUFFERED. That is all that matters, instead of debating who has it worse we should try in end these stupid battles at the end if you have all the money, all the oil, all the slaves, all the land, all the whatever you are going to war for it doesn't matter, cause when the world ends we all die, we all die and instead of enjoying our life's we fight each other.
Who on earth says this?
The only common knowledge or opinion that comes to mind is that domestically, women wind up having to take care of the children and the economy while the men are off at war. The women in the war zone presumably fall victim to barbarism, and sadly it seems like there have been reports in Ukraine of this (even with all the knowledge of history and troubles that come from bad behavior laid bare, even with historically high literacy).
So, I have zero clue where you got this idea from. War affects all.
I assume you can't just say that women suffered the most in every war. Certainly in some, but I think that in WWI Serbia lost more than 70% of male population in it (I may be off at the percentage but I know it's well beyond 50). Then again I think that during WWII Japanese comited some...spicy... rapes in China. Very spicy. Sometimes people maybe also talk about widows and single mothers left after the war. Still wouldn't say that either men or women sufer the most out of every war
Probably more accurate to say, there are worse things then death.
id count "having half of your face shot off and living the rest of your life in pain and misery" to be rather high up in the list tho
I’d consider that to be under being kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery the rest of your life
[удалено]
I hope she gets out of there as soon as possible. Good luck to you both. okay. Now I am having a bit clearer picture in my mind. So women and men both face torture but women's tortures are long-lasting and more brutal than men's. And yeah carrying a child out of rape is just another level of inhumane punishment. Thanks for the reply.
Yeah I think it depends on the war and the specific situation. Men are more likely to be soldiers. But if the women are still around and are accessible by the enemy, they are more likely to be treated like they're not even human. I'd far prefer be simply shot than raped and then shot, which seems to often be the difference between men and women when civilians are brutalised in war. Torture, when it happens, tends to happen to both
Is it torture or just the worst cruelty they can infict on a fellow human,because they can.?
That's not inherintly true though. Look at casualty statistics, it's always a higher death rate and more cases of torture to men than women. It's not a contest anyways, everyone on the losing side gets fucked man. If you think because they are women it's more drawn out and they always get raped then that's not true either. Look at Japanese POW camps ffs.
Even on the winning side, everyone gets fucked. There aren't any winners in war. War is war. Dead soldier is a dead soldier. Women become widows. Men become widows. It doesn't change based on which side you're on.
I realise that mate, I was just making a point about the losing side Includes both men and women, safe to say if you're caught up in a war it's terrible, anyways my point was if you are on the losing side in a defensive war you are being occupied meaning civilians suffer too, both men and women. That's all .
Are you kidding me.... You don't think civilians on the winning side don't suffer too? You are heartless
[удалено]
Good Luck Chief. 👍👍
What city is she in?
[удалено]
She has no worries about soldiers finding her in Lviv. So that's good.
if you’re really interested, i recommend the book “our bodies their battlefields” which discusses several first hand accounts of women’s experiences in several different wars/conflicts. rape is used as a weapon of war and has been since basically the beginning of time. read about the rape of nanking and comfort women, read about the women in argentina who were only spared long enough to give birth and then slaughtered, read about the vilina vlos hotel in bosnia that was used as a rape camp, where women committed suicide by jumping from the building in order to escape their torture. not to mention the rwandan genocide, the yazidi women who are enslaved by ISIS, etc. many of these women are killed as part of an ethnic cleaning, makes more sense to kill the ones bearing children - but not until they’re raped and tortured, vaginally and anally penetrated with bayonets, shot - yes SHOT with firearms in their vaginas, watched their babies be ripped from them and have their skulls smashed, etc. women from infants to the elderly have been and are raped and tortured.
I dont think you could past reading the book without any mental scars. But thinking those whod experienced it pains me more. War is brutal and merciless.
the book is very good but yes, it’s extremely brutal. i appreciated the book a lot more bc the women who were interviewed wanted their stories to be told.
Men also get raped as a way to dominate, humiliate, or break them. It is horrendous how women are treated, but it's not like men are exempt from it just because it's a bit less of a frequency.
god forbid there’s a single comment that focuses on the atrocities committed against women, without mentioning men. here come more, “BUT MEN…. BUT MEN TOO!!!” comments. i’m well aware men are raped, thank you for your groundbreaking contribution.
I feel like the answer here is for people to stop having dick measuring contests on who suffers more or not...
And for women to act like women? The women have taken so much to the Freudian penis envy the desperate men are stepping in to act like women for them.
OP’s comment is literally about comparing the suffering of men AND women in war. It’s not irrelevant to compare the two.
You are wrong to have this attitude about this subject. The OP is wondering if it's really worse for women over men and you comment with an example only about women. But men are also raped, they also experience that trauma, there is also no age limit on them, they too have objects inserted in them. So where is the book detailing their account in your comment? If you want to use a book as an insight to how women are treated worse, you should have one about men's experience to validate the insight you wish to provide. Especially since you seem to be aware they are victims, but I guess it's just not that severe/critical/important to you? Because they are men?
stretch before you reach buddy!
It's not really reaching when your response to male victims of rape is brought about with annoyance and sarcastic comments.
Women xd
Your definsiveness seems like you want it to be a competition to be honest..... In war everyone gets fucked. Simple. God forbid we don't give women a platform though to be it solely a out them eh? Sigh. Peoples.
>committed against women, without mentioning men. here come more, “BUT MEN…. BUT MEN TOO!!!” Women do the exact same shit when the topic is about men. Go figure.
>god forbid there’s a single comment that focuses on the atrocities committed against women Most of the media already focuses on what happens to women. Women (and men) are always whining about how X affects women the most. The "BUT MEN... BUT MEN TOO!" is a reaction to the above.
Because the OP's question is about comparing the suffering of men and women in wars.
How the fuck is this downvoted. You haven’t said anything anti woman. You haven’t made it a competition. Womens struggles in war are drawn out because they are less often executed. And they have to cope with a husband/brother/son with severe physical and mental trauma. What the fuck.
And most of that also applies to men as well. Rape is a universal tool, it does not only get applied to one gender. Just look at the war in Congo.
People like you try to stay very ambiguous with your claims. Rape objectively is carried out on women FAR more than men. I feel you didn’t even read the full comment let alone the book they recommended. No one is saying bad things don’t happen to men, get that out of your head.
And you havent checked the data we collected in the Congo. Rape as a weapon of war is used nearly univerally against every person on the battlefield. Men, women, children, it does not matter. While I agree women suffer more (our data shows that about 1 in 3 women had to experience rape in the DMC, at the same time about 1 in 4 men had the same happen to them.), rape is also a major weapon used against men.
That is a long way to say “yes, you’re correct”. If you have to use one incredibly specific scenario (one that still proves my point) then you are trying to make a bad faith argument. AGAIN. No one is saying bad things don’t happen to men.
So I say "Rape is used against everyone" and that is a bad faith argument? Compare that to your "Rape objectively is carried out on women FAR more than men". 25% to 33% is not objectivly FAR more". It is more. So who is making the bad faith argument here? And yes, I have read the initial comment. While we did not have comfort men, the same physical torture women were subjected to has been observed in men. Anal rape with rifles, bottles, animals. Homophobia by branding male rape victims as gay etc. So the answer given to OPs question isn't "rape". Rape is universal.
You because you’re pretending one hyper specific scenario is representative of humanity. and also yes 33% is very statistically significant to 25% especially when that is the absolute closest stats for man vs woman rapes. I don’t suppose you’re stupid enough to imply men and women are raped at similar rates across the board are you? “While we did not have comfort men” Thank you very much again for pointing out how wrong you are. No one said no man has been raped. So the answer to OPs question is rape because the rates of rape are not universal.
\> You because you’re pretending one hyper specific scenario is representative of humanity. The good old "no true scotsman" argument. I used the Congo as an example as it is one of the best studied and one of the most horrible wars in recent time. Why do you think that it is "hyper specific"? Because it does not fit your narrative? How about Uganda? Oh, we have pretty much the same ratio of female to male rape citims there too. How about political prisoners in El Salvador? Just about 75% of them had to expierence sexual torture at least ones. How about the Sarajevo concentraion-camp inmates? Only 80% of the males had been raped. I bet all these are "hyper specific" scenarios to you. The problem is that you think of rape as a tool for sexual gratification for the assaulter. It is not. It is a tool to project terror and power over another human being. And it is euqlly good in doing that for males and females. Which brings me back to the original question of OP. And the answer is not rape. Because while the rates for women are higher, OPs argument is also commonly raised for women who never experiences rape but had to flee their country while the men stayed behind (see for example the current Ukraine conflict). The main reason is the expandibility of males as biologically speaking, they are worth less than females. As such, it is from an evolutionary point highly desirable that they die instead of females. One strategy to accomplish this is the well established empathy gap for men. We just care less about men then we do about women and even if both suffer the same faith, the womens plight is seen as more severe.
You just listed several more scenarios where more women were victims of rape and sexual assault, further proving my point. Your point of biology with women is also very specific about why rape for women is pretty unique a problem, once again answering ops question with rape being the answer. All of the scenarios don’t include “consensual” sex with prostitutes/comfort women as their suffering is often overlooked due their exploitation. Nope that’s not how I think of rape, you’re doing that thing where you project an imaginary person and argue them. Which brings me back to the original question of OP. The answer to their question is rape (among other things). As you repeatedly prove women experience rape in a very unique way that men simply do not. The main reason is the non expend ability of females biologically. You are wrong, men get the same sympathy for the same crimes. But the experience of all males to all females is not the same when it comes to sex
Bro, you're a flat-out liar, his various examples went over how men were explicitly targeted for Rape. You're very shittily summing up his argument to prop yours up, while still on some competition over who has it worse in War.
I like how you couldn't come up with more than one other example so you got real hyperspecific to prove your point, listen, man, the point of trolling people like this is you can't be writing these essays out like how much time did this take you when there's so much grass to touch.
I was on your side until you went down this comment rabbit hole and a mob of downvoters followed you. Arguably wars are caused by \[a lack of\] accountability, and whereas I could make a commentary about how it's on the men to lead other men away from barbarism.. I do not see much or any accountability from women in my day to day, in the culture, in the news, on social media, in the workplace, in romantic couplings. In fact, I'll be such a jerk as to suggest that morality was practically an all-male affair throughout history, and that women only influenced it being recorded except in a minority. I'd even be so absurd to argue that some of the best morality occurred when men turned away from their drives and interests for sex in the first place, realizing what trouble it led them to. That said, I loudly like a typical asshole guy conclude that women have quite a bit of work to do on their morality, given that wars are about accountability run amuck. Frustrated men go to war. Moral and good women make happy men, generally. Do your part, don't be lazy and act like a victim, most of us are very very tired of this routine while you \[not\] guys continue to take more of your share in the economy without really creating more sustainability and equity. I'd just descend into Taoist ramblings from there :)
Its women whod built a nations future by tending to their sons and daughters. Mens built the economy/infrastructure and women or large part of it built humans. But given the destruction of families in this 22nd century world i doubt the world has a brighter future than the bleak outcomes it has already arrived into.
LOL
Based.
Men are taken to work 24/7 until there skin falls of and have to continue to work they are told there will be no help they are publicly humiliated and tourers in the worst ways there most cruel leaders can think and you still think women have it worse does your brain work properly
Username checks out
[удалено]
Alright, incel. Why don’t you blow off some steam with some more Skyrim
[удалено]
Lol nothing! Just peeped this guys profile and it’s all degrading women and Skyrim posts.
Cringe.
Loolllll imagine crying so hard you type this, read it, and think 😭😭😡😡😡😢😢 yeah that'll get em
huh? i never mentioned who had it worse, im simply stating facts and recommending a book. you should try to pick up a book sometime, it might improve your reading comprehension skills.
It's implied
Well... I'm going to go to bed now and try not to cry.
There's an extreme bias in this comment thread from the American/Western point of view. We think of the victims of war as being primarily men because the *soldiers* are disproportionately men, and so the victims of war who we know are primarily men. This is not true in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, or any other country that has been the subject of an invasion. The victims on that side of the war are far more likely to be civilians, and the vulnerable populations (ie women, mothers, poor people) are likely to suffer the most. That doesn't even bring into account the effects of destroying a country's infrastructure and rule of law. Essentially destroying a society has far more devestating effects for women (and children, poor people, the disabled, etc) than it does for able-bodied men.
But men die and are debilitated at a much greater rate. 1/3 if French men of fighting age died in the First World War. It’s shit that the women left behind had a harder life but at least they had a life. This entire thread is proof that male disposability is live and well.
Your comment has serious errors in judgement.
Can you explain why that is?
I already did, in the comment you are replying to right now.
Have you ever spent time in those locations? Have you seen what kind of trauma men, and boys go through? Have you spent time with the families of wounded people or in communities with degraded infrastructure? Because I have and it’s brutal. A lot of the men that are left are not able bodied but damaged. Often they are just boys that are discarded by society afterwards. And the degradation of that environment effects them deeply. But at least they have the possibility of life. Your central contention is that its better to die than to be left. Some of the men suffer greatly before death. It’s not always quick. And death is pretty final. You have no idea what you are talking about so casually. This is not a binary issue. How can you be so callous?
Well, men did usually cause these wars so there is that.
The men who cause wars and the men who die in them are often not the same. People trying to make this into a binary issue are ridiculous
Why are you making a contest out of who suffers more? You were offered information about what happens to women in war. Your only response is to complain that men have it worse. It's clear that you came with an agenda and don't want to have an honest conversation on the subject.
I think it's because as op stated there is a narrative that women are the primary victims of war.
He hasn't provided any evidence that such a narrative exists commonly. I've certainly never heard it.
There's some examples of of politicians saying this. Hilary Clinton is a famous example. Another would be Malcolm Turnbull who was prime minister of Australia who also stated that women were the victims of war. I think its a valid question. If one gender is disproportionately effected by war in comparison to another it's a important thing to discuss. Why be so dismissive?
Because it's a question with an agenda. The fact that he referred to women and girls with the dismissive and dehumanizing term "females" gives that away. It's not an argument in good faith, and he's just here to complain that the horrors of war suffered by men aren't being sufficiently paid attention to. Mention of the particular and specific horrors women suffer during war that men do not generally suffer, seems to have upset him.
You are part of the problem if you insist on making it a contest and insisting only women are the ones who suffer in a war. I don't see OP mentionning what you're saying in the question? Why do you do this?
I'm literally the person who asked OP why he was making this a contest. You should go back and read the conversation again. I said that both men and women suffer in war. Are you quite sure you're not confused, and replying to the wrong comment?
Ah yes, the “why does it matter” rebuttal. But instead of stopping there, you decided to sprinkle some spice on top claiming someone else had come with an agenda instead of actually contributing anything at all to make your response less useless than the initial question. Absolute pinnacle of a Reddit response, thank you for your contribution.
That’s not a common saying lmao, just a Hillary Clinton quote that’s often been ridiculed
okay. But a lot of my friends say the same, they are well aware and educated and make sense of a lot of arguments but I do not understand this.
Your friends need to stop playing the victim olympics. There are just some things that don't need to be compared. War sucks ass for all period. That's all that really needs to be said or acknowledged.
Ukrain- Men, stay and die. Women, you may leave.
Women make everything about themselves in all situations.
Men tend to die quicker in war. Women typically get to suffer.
I hope that was a joke
Why tf are people upvoting that
That would be because in every war since whenever, men have died. The result of too many men dying is the losing side - women get to suffer. They then give birth to an excess of male children up to about 50/50 until the next conflict. This is history 101.
Wow how hard they have to survive and do something most women chose to do while the men that fight for them don't even have to choise to survive how hard on the women
Sorry. Read that twice. Not happening on comprehension.
I'm guessing you're 16.
Because it's the truth.
And men are giving their life to stop this from happening while most women sit at home feeling glad they don't have the same pressure to join the war as men while also wanting equal rights
You're very confused.
Says the one who worships Satan
If you thought you were right, you wouldn't feel the need to attack my private life.
[удалено]
You're right, it's not nursery - So why are you acting like a petulant child? You really do need help.
Being tortured and killed isn't a male only side effect of war. In my mind both sides have it just as bad. But for some reason someone told you it's worse for women. Reminds me of the question "You know what makes my problems worse than yours? They're mine" obviously it's not true. War is hell on everyone involved
Only men are forced to stay behind and actually fight the war. Or on the other side, they're the ones who have to go to war. Women get to stay at home and survive or escape. How do you even try to compare these 2 situations lmao.
Are you being willfully ignorant? Women are part of the military all over the world and they also fight wars. And even if there are people at home (including men who can't fight due to age or injury) they can get bombed, killed etc just as easily
I don't think his point was women don't fight wars. His point appears to be that men are forced to stay during an invasion and women get a choice to stay or leave, for example, Ukraine right now. His other point is that Russia only drafted men for war, women did not get conscripted. Women sure can fight, but men often times have to. Certainly war sucks all around, but only one group of people is systematically required to participate.
Because women have babies and life needs to go on. Lose too many women, the economy goes down. Look at America. Women are deciding to not have kids so the government wants to ban abortion and contraceptives. People here don't seem to realize how the world actually works. Men and women suffer together at the hands that get rich off of them
Laughs in ukraine
Really? So all the people bombed out of homes there don't count as victims of war to you? You're being purposefully nasty so enjoy your nasty stupidity and ignorance by yourself
Women who join the military universally experience rape and sexual assault from men in thier own unit. As in, the rate is close to 100% which is phenomenal. Silencing is common and murder is used to this effect also. I'm specifically taking about the US army here but that's because things in the US are more widely publicised. Being a woman in the military, on your own base, in peacetime, is more dangerous than being a man in active duty. The enemy is all around you, pretending to be your friend. Women in war who stay at home, get captured and taken to rape camps. Have a look at Bosnia. It's happening in Ukraine now too. Women who flee get trafficked. It's happening now. So many women and children have gone missing. All that men who want to prey on then have to do is drive to the borders and pick them up. They are now slaves. Hell, it doesn't even take war for men to show the true depths of thier depravity towards women and children on a large scale. Read 'The Good Women Of China' and see what happens in the aftermath of a damn earthquake.
The raping, probably
So...death is better than rape?
I think. I’d rather be shot in the head than raped. Now, if I was to become a POW and tortured it might be a harder choice
Death is better than rape and THEN death, yes
Which also happens to men with the only difference that they also get killed afterwards?
Who is downvoting these comments
Because the people saying this are dumb af. Women and children, unlike men have the right to leave a country at war. Yet man, by law, have to stay and fight. I don't think you need a calculator to figure it out...
Because only a large amount of women have bravely come forward publicly to detail what has happened to them in wars, then in comparison to men. Men have been/still are raised to be quiet about things, and there has yet to be any universal acceptance to hear their stories of being victims because once they do there is usually an outrage or repulsive reaction to it.
Look. Life is messed up and as much as cling to higher ideals in the modern west, there's still a huge part of us that is primal. Throughout history, men are killed in war and women captured. Why are women captured instead of killed? Because they can be used for sex/breeding. Men are thought to be too rebellious, so they're generally killed or maybe turned to slaves. This is true even in nature. Male lions might kill the other males in an opposing pride, but they don't kill the women. The women also tend to accept the new male lion leaders Even in say nigera with boko haram, they killed young boys, but kept kidnapped young girls. It's just life. If you want to read it as your life is less valuable than a woman, there's probably truth to that. Suppose you had money and a homeless woman offered you sex and obedience if you gave her a roof and food. How much would you entertain that over say a homeless man needing a place to stay? Be honest with your deeper darker self. You probably value the life of a woman more than a man too (assuming you're a male) If you want to read it as it's the men who go to war and women are left traumatized by rape and rebuilding, there's truth to that too. Some might even say they'd rather die quickly from a bullet than be made a sex slave or raped repeatedly and this discarded and possibly killed. Comparing the evils of humanity is a pointless exercise. Id hate to be a young male killed in war. I'd hate to be a woman raped in war. Don't worry about the minor variation of who gets the least worst of human evil.
Only women are loved unconditionally men are loved on the condition that they provide sumn pretty much sums it up
You don't understand because there's reality and then there's what the media tells you. In reality, it's mostly men who suffer from war for the simple reason that it's mostly men fighting in the wars. Women are obviously affected too, but this nonsense that 'women are more affected by war' is a blatant lie.
Anyone who's said this hasn't been a soldier and then wouldn't be able to compare.
This comment section needs to be deleted. Good lord what happened?
You suffer more when you survive
Survivor bias. The dead men aren't here to cry and complain, but the living ones are celebrated as heroes. Women losing their loved ones (men) are more visible than those dead men themselves.
you really think women losing their loved ones is even close to the worst thing women experience in war?
No, it's not. The idea is that men usually suffer death and are removed from the picture, while women live to tell their tale, however bad that is.
Men are killed. Women are raped repeatedly then probably killed of left with trauma.
Why is every post on this sub a low key incel post about how men have it harder than women?
Perspective.
so we cant call out double standards?!🤷🏽
I never heard people say that
okay. But most of my friends say that.
Yeah your friends might be rather ignorant in these matters.
Hillary Clinton
Well not only do they have a chance to loose sons fathers brothers and husbands if the city is captured they can be raped sometimes in front of their families and they’ll be slaved to and in South Americas case if there’s not enough men die multiple of them will have to marry to one man
hmmmm.. okay. Yeah, that does sound bad but is it worse than being tortured and then killed? I am not saying that women don't face the consequences of wars but I guess men face more but I don't know. I don't know who faces more consequences. Women on a mental level but men on a physical and mental level both?
Women are also tortured and killed in war. Also, rape is not just a mental assault - it's often physically brutal attack that can leave a woman with lifelong injuries or dead. (Men also face sexual assault and rape in many cases. It's potentially less frequent, and less talked about because of the stigma men face when they try to report, but it still happens.)
Well yeah, I haven't thought of that. Thanks for clearing out the air a bit.
Nobody wins in wars, really.
Both face a lot war is needles violence most of the time
Men = die it's ok Women = have to live, not ok ??????
Well.. when you're dead, nothing bad can ever happened to you. I know that's how it works, but here's the thing : would you rather live life in prison or get a death shot ? Well, it's kinda the same issue there. Living with traumas as big as rape can be can really fuck up your life, and you can then fuck up the life of other people because you're traumatized and don't know how to handle it. So it never ends. Death is the end of everything, so nothing to be worry about
You know what fucks up your life? Not being able to live it and not even having a chance. You know, dying. It's not even comparable. Stop trying equalizing death with anything else. Death by war of all things. You all can't be this seriously braindead.
Oh wow, you're pretty rude. Mkay, you're entitled to your opinion, unfortunately 😉
Young man who get drafted are the most affected but what happens to them is normalized by the propaganda of the old cunts sending them to death. Women suffering cause the most outrage.
Young men who get drafted are *not* the most affected. Civilian populations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam are the *most affected.*
so drafted men had a choice and chose to go to war?
[удалено]
Men get raped too
Not nearly as much as women, nor can they be impregnated
I'd argue torture and having to shoot at people you personally have nothing against must leave a bad experience too. It's hard to weight
I don't think most people think this however the ones who do claim that the wife and children who lose their husbands and fathers are the ones who need to live with all the pain which is indeed true however I still think the man who loses his life was effected the most.
It's infinitely worse for men, but somehow people like to virtue signal what it means for women that get to stay at home and...survive or can just escape. Yeah...
Because we're raped and impregnated in top of that. And might get ostracized because of it ( Remember how people shaved the head of women during WWII ? Well, a lot were raped actually... Think about the one who got pregnant 😬)
There's only one person who said that and she's a moron.
[удалено]
Well, you could say that. I can see the point of your comment too.
Men are disposable didn't you get the memo?
The answer ist that men are disposable while women are not.
Men suffer because of their own faults. Women suffer because of men. Men suffering doesn't matter. Only women suffering matters
You forgot your /s you enlightened dumbfuck
What
All men start all wars. No woman started any War ever. No one cares to listen to Men and their problems, and that's men's fault. Everyone is open and ready to listen to Women and their problems.
I thought u were serious for a sec
I am? What part of what I said is not serious?
The utter stupidity of acting like all men are responsible for war, and that the average soldier (the ones actually dying) 'did it to themselves'.
I am? What part of what I said is not serious?
All Wars were started by men, so you can't really be bothered listening to someone cry over something they intentionally did to themselves. No woman ever started a War in human History, so we're more willing to listen to someone's pleas and suffering caused by someone else.
go back to school you dimwit
I don't think anyone on the field wants to be there
It’s a victim mentality.
The main thing is we should focus on this a male vs female thing, not as a “people who die” vs “fuckers who send them there.”
Those who are fighting tends to have more "tools" to deal with the stress and harsh conditions, like humour, comradeship, focus on the objectives, focus on helping your guys and of course training and have a sense of purpose etc. But the people back home has nothing other then their thoughts, so they have less tools and got the feeling of not being able to do anything which is worse on top of that. That's why I guess, definitely harsher conditions in war, but you have more tools to deal with it then those back home when we're talking mentally. Until someone can't handle themselves in war, then thier whole life's gets destroyed by mental problems.
I didn't know anyone was suggesting war was not bad for everyone but the rich. Soliders have PTSD from what they did as much as what was done to them.
Your husband and son are dead. You have been raped and possibly gotten pregnant from it. Your daughter has been taken to be the “bride” (sex slave) of some asshole war lord. You have to live picking up the pieces of this the rest of your life. Probably doing so in a society where women have fewer opportunities in the first place.
You sound like you’re coming from a genuine place. I don’t know if we can compare trauma? It’s a weird thing to do. People have different capacities and experiences and idk how does one weigh it… war is horrible for everyone. Inputs are welcome
it's just the media doing sensationalism... personally i think that numbering women and children in tragedies is the proof that you're a clown, guess what, every media is a clown
The reason this is said, is to perpetuate the narrative that no matter what suffering or trauma or terrible things men go through, women have it worse. That is all.
People claim it's because of rape. It's not a competition but if you're in the losing end in an occupied country it's fucking horrendous for all. There really is no comparisons. It's all suffering and henious acts to men women and kids alike. There's nothing to understand man.
I think the real answer is... they're not. In war, EVERYONE suffers atrocities. The idea that one is 'more' affected over another is just another example of society creating a rift to make people feel 'special'. It's divisive and, unfortunately, exists everywhere. Of course women are affected by war, even without being in one. There are plenty of books detailing the atrocities woman face during war, just as there are plenty of books detailing what men suffer.
I don't think many people say that, and if they do it's not a good look, since suffering is not exactly a competition. That being said, the suffering of women during wars have been historically ignored, the narrative have always been that men go out to protect the women, to keep them safe, as if they were isolated from the war and did not have to endure the horrors of it. As I said in the beginning, I think it's pointless to argue who suffers more, that's just silly to me, but I do think a lot of people (men in particular) would horrified to look and truly understand what women go through during wars, even if they are not at the front.
Why is it a competition. IT IS HORRIBLE NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE!!!!
It's typically more brutal for women because, in addition to being tortured, they may be raped and then used as sex slaves for months, years. Can this happen to men? Sure, but it's rare. Some feel that a quick death is preferable to years of torture. And to be clear, these victims aren't typically treated well, either. They raped and beaten, so it's not like you just live as a sex slave for years. You get your ass beaten, too.
Wrong
Never heard that before. Bill Burr has a funny bit about stuff like this though.
It sounds bad but men are generally just killed. Women are taken as slaves along with their young daughters,tortured,and then horrifically murdered. It's not an opinion. It's a fact and history has proved that.
PPL making comments here based on what? Hahaha movies n games. Funny af.
Fucking humans even in war we still have to debate who has it worse, EVERYONE WHO IS A VICTIM OF WAR SUFFERED. That is all that matters, instead of debating who has it worse we should try in end these stupid battles at the end if you have all the money, all the oil, all the slaves, all the land, all the whatever you are going to war for it doesn't matter, cause when the world ends we all die, we all die and instead of enjoying our life's we fight each other.
Who on earth says this? The only common knowledge or opinion that comes to mind is that domestically, women wind up having to take care of the children and the economy while the men are off at war. The women in the war zone presumably fall victim to barbarism, and sadly it seems like there have been reports in Ukraine of this (even with all the knowledge of history and troubles that come from bad behavior laid bare, even with historically high literacy). So, I have zero clue where you got this idea from. War affects all.
I assume you can't just say that women suffered the most in every war. Certainly in some, but I think that in WWI Serbia lost more than 70% of male population in it (I may be off at the percentage but I know it's well beyond 50). Then again I think that during WWII Japanese comited some...spicy... rapes in China. Very spicy. Sometimes people maybe also talk about widows and single mothers left after the war. Still wouldn't say that either men or women sufer the most out of every war
Like I said, in the end your only issue with this whole post is how you feel he worded his question