@Universalshadow:
I don't even see how this makes sense.
In a disaster everyone's first priority is to get away and cover their own ass. The last thing would need to worry about is rape.
Rape is used as offensive tactic during the wars. The topic only surface during Yugoslav Wars in Nineties. And Since then both researchers and Humanitarian organisations.
But fear of the rape, that may happen to women was present much longer and was used in propaganda for example during Spanish revolution to encourage men to enlist in the army.
Do you even acknowledge that men get the short straw in this situation and are treated as more disposable.
That's only true as long as you ignore deeper structure.
No. Men experience more physical violence than women do. We're more likely to be victims of violent crime.
I'm familiar with this date. I'm also aware that research this statistic is based wasn't intersectionary, for one thing - likelihood of victimization differs depending not only from sex, but also race and age.
Moreover domestic violence is largely omitted. And sexual violence is also not accounted for.
The percentage of women who fall victim to physical violence towards women who use violence is much more disproportionate than percentage of men who fall victim to violence towards men exercise violence against others.
And that's only for America. It's reasonable to assume, that in countries and communities, where exist even bigger gap in social status between genders than in America statistic are much worse, but I'll live it at that since for now I haven't gained access/found statistics yet. I'm only basing this on fact, that in egalitarian communities disproportion of victimization doesn't happen.
No. Men are stronger and more durable than women are.
The whole women having more tolerance to pain is also more made up bullshit.
That coming from the person who claimed that men live shorter due to historical circumstances of being main participants in the wars?
I've never encounter anyone that claimed that women are less durable than men basing on scientific data.
Moreover men are only stronger when you presume definition of strength that favours men. Men and women have different bodies and have predispositions to develop different muscles. Men develop upper body muscles quicker and have bigger capacity for them, women develop muscles in abdomen and hips quicker. ]
Difference in strength we usually observe has cultural background - women (at least in middle class) are (and were) discouraged or at least not encouraged to train their bodies. However physical strength is part of male gender role and boys are and were always encouraged to work for it, and shamed if they fail.
Moreover most fighting techniques and equipment were designed with thought that the ones using it would have male bodies, so for female bodies they are more challenging and harder.
No it wasn't.
Ok. I give you that. I've been to caught in the moment. Infant mortality for different reasons was more common, or plaque when it attacked - but women were just as likely to be affected.
Better than slowly burning or drowning to death.
Have it occurred to you that extreme violence is nor only used in times of war.
Now say it to the face of all women who were burned as witches or were burned as widows, or were stoned to death after they were caught at adultery or after someone raped them.
@Universalshadow:
I will apologise for saying this though.
Sorry.
No, this is what they taught me at regular history, or what they learned myself during me studies.