When Did We Learn to Expect Men to Die?

Accessible Text / Transcript

THE ANCIENT RULE

Men were inside the violence.

“47 people were killed, including 12 women and 9 children.”

Why are those two categories singled out?

What are we being asked to infer about the others?

THIS DISTINCTION IS ANCIENT

Long before modern journalism, ancient sources already show adult men being categorized differently from women and children in warfare.

DEUTERONOMY 20:13–14 [1][2]

An ancient biblical law distinguishes the males of a conquered distant city from its women and children: the males are to be killed, while women and children are categorized separately and may be taken as plunder. [1]

The composition of Deuteronomy is complex. Modern scholarship commonly connects an important stage of the text with the 7th-century BCE reforms associated with King Josiah rather than assigning the entire book one simple date. [2]

MYTILENE, 427 BCE [3]

After Mytilene revolted, the Athenian assembly initially voted to kill the entire adult male population and enslave the women and children.

The Athenians reconsidered most of that decision the following day. [3]

MELOS, 416 BCE [4]

After Melos surrendered, Thucydides says the Athenians killed the grown men they captured and sold the women and children into slavery. [4]

THIS DID NOT MEAN MEN WERE UNMOURNED

Ancient literature could grieve dead men intensely.

In the Iliad, Achilles is devastated by the death of Patroclus, and Troy publicly mourns Hector. [5]

The distinction was not that a man's death did not matter.

A man's death could matter enormously — and still be treated as an expected consequence of his social role.

MEN WERE NOT OUTSIDE SOCIETY'S CIRCLE OF SYMPATHY.

THEY WERE INSIDE SOCIETY'S MACHINERY OF VIOLENCE.

Accessible Text / Transcript

THE EMOTIONAL WEAPON

How “women and children” became a powerful signal of atrocity.

As European warfare changed, women and children increasingly acquired recognizable noncombatant status while warriors developed conventions of surrender and ransom. [6]

That was partly a humanitarian development.

But it also gave the deaths of women and children a new rhetorical force: their deaths could signal that ordinary violence had crossed a moral boundary.

1852 — HMS BIRKENHEAD [7]

When HMS Birkenhead sank, soldiers remained aboard while women and children were placed in the available lifeboats.

Of roughly 638 people aboard, 193 survived — and every woman and child survived. [7]

The men's deaths were not treated as meaningless.

Their discipline and willingness to accept danger became celebrated examples of masculine duty and self-sacrifice. [7]

The man's value could be demonstrated by his willingness to make himself expendable.

1857 — CAWNPORE [8][9]

During the Indian Rebellion of 1857, British women and children captured at Cawnpore were massacred.

Newspaper coverage circulated vivid and often sensationalized atrocity stories. Some of the most lurid allegations were later unsupported or impossible to verify. [8]

The victims' identities were central to the rhetoric.

Their deaths were presented not simply as wartime casualties, but as evidence of barbarism.

Cawnpore became associated with public outrage and calls for retaliation. [8][9]

1914–1918 — WORLD WAR I [10][11]

During the First World War, Allied propaganda repeatedly emphasized Belgian women and children who had been killed, abused, starved, or taken into captivity.

Some atrocity accounts were well founded. Others were exaggerated or fabricated. [10]

The emotional purpose was consistent: portray the enemy as uncivilized and mobilize men to fight.

One British recruiting poster made the appeal explicit:

“WILL YOU STAND FOR THIS?” [11]

The protected victim becomes a recruiting device for the expendable protector.

A SELF-REINFORCING LOOP

Women and children are harmed.

Their suffering signals that a moral boundary has been crossed.

Men are called upon to protect or retaliate.

More men enter the machinery of violence.

Male casualties become increasingly expected.

Harm to women and children becomes even more exceptional.

And the cycle reinforces itself. [6][7][8][10][11]

Accessible Text / Transcript

THE BIAS IS MEASURABLE

This is not only old-fashioned language.

Modern experiments and media research find measurable differences in how male and female vulnerability are perceived.

1 — MORAL TYPECASTING

Moral typecasting distinguishes between:

AGENTS

people perceived primarily as doing things

and

PATIENTS

people perceived primarily as having things done to them. [12]

Gender enters that distinction.

Across six studies involving 3,137 participants in four countries, people more readily associated men with agency and perpetration, and women with victimhood and suffering. Participants also detected female victimization more readily. [13]

Seeing someone primarily as an agent can make it harder to see that person fully as a victim. [12][13]

2 — THE SAME HARM, A DIFFERENT REACTION

In experiments using descriptions of intimate-partner violence with the victim's perceived gender changed, violence experienced by male victims was judged more severe when participants believed the victim was a woman. [14]

A separate set of studies found female victims were perceived as suffering more from both sexual coercion and nonsexual financial coercion. [15]

The asymmetry is not limited to one form of violence.

3 — WHEN PEOPLE MUST CHOOSE

The Moral Machine project collected roughly 40 MILLION DECISIONS from participants across 233 COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES. [16]

Among the globally detectable preferences was a preference for sparing females over males. [16]

This does not mean every participant made the same choice. It means the preference was measurable at population scale.

PREFERENCE TO SPARE FEMALES

Both male and female respondents showed a preference for sparing females over males, with female respondents showing the stronger preference. [16]

4 — THE NEWSROOM FOLLOWS A SIMILAR WEIGHTING

An empirical analysis comparing U.S. missing-person data with online news coverage found that missing men were less likely to receive coverage and tended to receive less intense coverage when they were covered.

White women and girls were especially overrepresented. [17]

A 2026 scoping review of 76 empirical studies of gun-violence coverage found that shootings were more likely to receive substantial coverage when they involved multiple victims and, in particular, women and/or children. [18]

THE MEDIA DID NOT INVENT THE HIERARCHY.

IT DISCOVERED THAT AUDIENCES RESPOND TO IT.

And in doing so, it can help reinforce it.

Accessible Text / Transcript

THE LONG SHADOW

The old distinction still shapes how death is counted, interpreted, and reported.

1 — “WOMEN AND CHILDREN” AS A PROXY FOR CIVILIANS

In an Associated Press analysis of Gaza casualty data, the proportion of women and children among the dead was used as the best available proxy for civilian casualties because the available data did not separately identify combatants and civilians. [19]

AP also explicitly noted the limitation: many civilian men were killed as well. [19]

When “women and children” becomes shorthand for civilians, adult male civilians become less visible inside the category.

2 — THE SUSPICION OF THE MILITARY-AGE MALE

Council on Foreign Relations analysis summarized reporting on Obama-era drone-strike casualty assessments in which military-age males in strike zones could effectively be counted as combatants unless later evidence established otherwise. [20]

That methodology was specific and contested, not a universal rule.

But it illustrates a broader wartime pattern studied in recent scholarship: civilian men and boys may be selectively targeted because they are perceived as potential fighters. [21]

The causes and intensity of that pattern vary by conflict. [21]

3 — WHY MIGHT THIS PATTERN PERSIST?

There is no single established explanation.

Researchers have proposed several contributing mechanisms.

STATUS AND RISK

Male status competition and risk-taking are disproportionately associated with violent conflict, particularly among young men. [22]

COALITIONAL COMPETITION

Experimental work on the “male-warrior” hypothesis finds that intergroup competition can increase male cooperation with an in-group. [23]

DIVISION OF DANGER

Anthropological accounts have examined how reproductive asymmetries and gendered divisions of labor may have contributed historically to men being assigned higher-risk roles. [24]

These are proposed contributors — not a complete explanation.

4 — THE FEEDBACK LOOP

Gender stereotypes encourage people to see men more readily as agents and women more readily as patients or victims. [12][13]

Those perceptions influence whose suffering is most easily recognized. [13]

News systems then give disproportionate visibility to some victim categories, including women and children. [17][18]

Repeated exposure can reinforce the same expectations.

GENDERED ROLE

↓

DIFFERENTIAL RECOGNITION OF VULNERABILITY

↓

DIFFERENTIAL MEDIA ATTENTION

↓

REINFORCED GENDERED ROLE

5 — TWO SIDES OF THE SAME MODEL

Women and men can face different harms, but they can emerge from the same underlying model.

WOMEN AS PATIENTS

more readily perceived as vulnerable

more readily perceived as innocent

more readily perceived as needing protection

less readily granted agency [12][13]

MEN AS AGENTS

more readily perceived as powerful

more readily perceived as responsible

more readily perceived as dangerous

less readily recognized as vulnerable [12][13]

These are not identical harms. But they can emerge from the same underlying model.

A CULTURE DOES NOT NEED TO SAY:

“MEN'S LIVES MATTER LESS.”

IT ONLY NEEDS TO TREAT THEIR DEATHS AS MORE EXPECTED.