The Parrot Cry "Save the Women and Children" during wars and crises is impractical and unreasonable. Apparently men are a less valuable social resource. Children to a certain age are helpless and also the future, so I agree adults should compensate for this through favoring them during crises. But I fail to see the practical value behind including women in the same category as children.
First, let's assume this theory is actualized in a real-world setting. A post-war society of predominantly women and children does not guarantee a prolific, diverse future. For those of you who don't know, babies are made after sperm and ovum merge, not two ovum. So either the Parrot Cry endorses pedophilia, or whoever thought of this paradigm really wasn't thinking about the future, yet their own egos in the present. Thus, exclusively validating the death of men during crises jeopardizes the present and the future of the culture and species, whereas a random death-sample of both men and women simply jeopardizes the present yet preserves the future.
Second, men and women aren't very different when it comes to fundamental capacities. Both can problem solve, communicate, learn, become leaders or followers, and are capable of making ethical choices. This whole zeitgeist of women being more emotional than men is a moot point, because as a pretty emotional man I can still make objective choices, despite entailing deliberate effort. Women may be smaller on average in stature, but that too isn't a demarcator considering someone with a smaller frame and musculature who understands space will be able to manipulate it better than someone with a larger frame and musculature who is spatially inept. Doesn't matter the gender. And I've met many women who are more forthright, confident, adaptable and responsible than men, despite those traits often described as "manly." These are prejudicial limitations. Physical and emotional strengths and limitations are thus chosen.
Now, it's often believed that women are more suited to take care of children because of their "motherly instincts" and emotional availability. Again, there are plenty of men more emotionally available than women, and plenty of women with not a care to raise or nurture a child. Hence, even the theory of saving women and children first is built upon the faulty premise of a natural bond between mother and child. I'm not going to dismiss a bond when it does exist, however I think it's fair and just to point out that men can have a comparable bond.
As you see, this gender-based Parrot Cry is teeming with logical flaws and implications. Civilization should just drop it and lick its wounds.
I think if we are going to send a sample of the population to war, it'd be more effective to send the religious. First off, they're paying for a life in heaven with a mortal life of sacrifice and service (read: proselytism) anyway, so what better way than to physically battle for their community? Plus, death to them--at least in theory--isn't the end, yet a reward. Third, there is no gender discrimination for who can believe in religion, despite the biases each particular religion has toward gender orientation and expression. So in war there would be no disproportionate elimination of either sex; it'd be random. That randomness would increase the probability of post-war human proliferation.
A more plausible and effective Parrot Cry during wartime would thus be "Save the Secular." For beginners, the secular choose reason over faith, enabling them to be more adaptable to new and pressing stimuli and environments. Who wouldn't want children (the future of humankind) to have those traits? Seculars also don't work at forcefully converting believers into seculars, because their fundamental premises are individual freedom, capability of reason, and development of the present time frame. They argue you can't predict the future, but you can prepare yourself to deal with adversity through strengthening your mind and reasoning skills. Values are capable of being understood and changed. Again, who--other than sadistic people--wouldn't want children to have those traits? This isn't an argument of religious genocide but an extension of premises that already exist within both secular and religious schools of thought. Thus, the Parrot Cry based in gender discrimination is insufficient at bearing valid, realistic post-war effects, however, the new Parrot Cry seems to produce what both seculars and religious believers already want in the first place.
Click the RSS FEED button below to receive notification of new Orwell 365 posts.