I think it has to do with the idea that women are more obviously noncombatants. But they should have been talking about civilian deaths, or at least (depending on the time period and place) included deaths of men who were not of fighting age.

Because typically it's the males who engage in aggressive, violent behavior, while the females stayed at home taking care of the children. To say that the majority of the victims were women and children implies, I think, that the majority of the dead were innocent victims who did not engage in violence.

Came in here to say what has been said. I doubt it would be used when describing an attack on a modern city or something, where a large portion of the men are civilians.

Why only women and children? Are women of the same innocense level as children? Are men somehow less innocent victims of an attack?

Well, if we're talking about warfare in a historical content, then the phrase "women and children" is nearly synonymous with "non-combatants". Nearly, but not quite, as (again, historical context) men who were not active combatants could be drafted/enlisted into active combat, while women and children were usually not, unless the population was severely depleted.

Why is it sadder for a woman to die than a man? Again, on a historical perspective, killing all of the adult men of a population means it is deprived of combatants, and is a tragedy. Killing all of the adult women of a population means the end of that population within a few generations. The death of women carries a reduction in the ability for a population to sustain itself far higher than the loss of a man.

Even being in the 21st Century, there is still very much the "man takes care of the woman" whether it is a father protecting his daughter, a son defending his mother, a man taking care of his wife, or a brother over-seeing his sister. When women are raped or killed, it reflects on the men who feel the need to protect them. In this "man's game" of war, it is a harder hit to the enemy to harm those they have been socialized to feel they have to protect vs any other tactic.

I agree that this is a historical use of the phrase which is gradually changing, but it's still the norm to view women as more vulnerable, and thus to lump them in with children.

Just the other day I heard a politician say of the homeless problem in the park here, "We need to make this place safe for all taxpayers. And women and children."

So not only are we not taxpayers, we're not homeless, and we're only as safe as children.

It's a phrase that irritates the bloody hell out of me.

And when I complained to people around me, I got, "Oh, now you know that's not what he meant". *sigh*

Oddly enough, one of my professor's was discussing this in class the other day.

The reason why death's of women and children are so high and coupled together, is that in war even non-combatant men are more likely to run off and hide, while women are slowed down because they won't leave children and any elderly family members in their care behind.

While it may not be true 100% of the time, it does make sense. Since most non-combatants tend to be women, how many women are going to go running off, leaving behind their children or anyone else in their care, knowing that without her help they will likely be slaughtered? Unfortunately, it often ends up the case they are killed as well and while I admit it is generally seen as sexist to say women are the caretakers, historically they have been.

I understand what everyone is saying. But my point is that in a civilian area, where everyone is noncombatant then men are not seen as innocent as the opposite gender, and women are seen as weaker.
I wasn't really asking for a long explanation as to why it is. I understand why it is. I just think its bullshit.