Imagine it happening to billions of women [and *only* women], is it genocide now?
2006-12-21 21:19:18 · 8 answers · asked by smile 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Semantics dear Kitti.
2006-12-21 21:24:38 · update #1
Hey Devan, that argument was lost at the Nuremberg trials.
2006-12-22 00:30:09 · update #2
It's not genocide it's sexism. Genocide refers to the targeted killing of a specific ethnicity.
2006-12-21 21:22:04 · answer #1 · answered by vampire_kitti 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let me make some order for those who do not know the history of female participation in wars (except as whores which is not participation, or as victims but not fighters).
The Crimean War (1853-6) brought women their first opportunity ever to participate, as nurses - in a war near a battle field "Florence Nightingale's most famous contribution came during the Crimean War, which became her central focus when reports began to filter back to Britain about the horrific conditions for the wounded. On October 21, 1854, she and a staff of 38 women volunteer nurses, trained by Nightingale and including her aunt Mai Smith, were sent (under the authorization of Sidney Herbert) to Turkey, some 545 km across the Black Sea from Balaklava in the Crimea, where the main British camp was based." (Vikpedia)
This lead to the participation of women in WW1 as nurses and drivers and other auxiliary services.
I have no idea what Genocide has to do with only men wars? Were men exterminated because of women? Who instigates war? Men usually and history proved it. So what is the purpose if this question or remark, is beyond me.
2006-12-22 13:27:42 · answer #2 · answered by Josephine 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it is genocide, as you think, then it was male-inflicted genocide, because it was a man who decided that only men can fight in wars. Women have been fighting for the right to fight on the front line for years, it's only men who stop them.
2006-12-22 05:55:36 · answer #3 · answered by JoKnowsThisOne 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is your question? Gotta really lay off the crystal meth! Women have been involved in wars in many ways over the centuries. Genocide is an over used word.
Peace
2006-12-22 05:23:53 · answer #4 · answered by JVHawai'i 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Women have been involved in wars since the age of antiquity. And even when they don't fight in the wars, they are affected by them.
So no, it's not genocide.
2006-12-22 06:07:16 · answer #5 · answered by willow oak 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
O my lord you are sooo right!!!! Except the only difference if in order for it to be a genocide then the other opposite party has to kill you.
2006-12-22 05:46:08 · answer #6 · answered by 0_0 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps you should put your question to those who make up the majority of casualties in a war. Namely the civilians of whom at least 50% would be female.
2006-12-22 05:24:07 · answer #7 · answered by Ted T 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Still the continuity of human race will survive.
2006-12-22 06:34:01 · answer #8 · answered by Brahmanyan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋