Historically wars frequently involved one side razing the others city and murdering and enslaving all of their non-combatants. Not exactly out of harms way.

The death rate for men in wars is far, far, far higher than for women.

How so? The last century saw the civilian death rate in war increase fast, such that something like 90% of war deaths a civilians. The overall stats are not skewed much by the overwhelmingly male make up of most armies. Or are you arguing that male civilians die in wars a lot more than female ones?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio

The 90% figure is disputed, and includes refugees. A more reasonable figure in the article is:

"On the average, half of the deaths caused by war happened to civilians, only some of whom were killed by famine associated with war...The civilian percentage share of war-related deaths remained at about 50% from century to century."

That implies roughly 3/4 of the deaths are men.

I agree that 90% seems to be the upper end, but 50% is the extreme low end and is a dated figure and the other sources seem to show this. Notably that quote you cite was written in the early 80s, and according to most those sources, wars are getting more deadly for civilians and less deadly for combatants (drones and other remote killing methods?).

UNICEF et al cover this at length. https://www.unicef.org/graca/patterns.htm

https://www.iraqbodycount.org

Edit: Intersting discussion here, suggesting much of the difference comes down to how you measure and when you stop measuring. The longer you measure, the worse it is for civilians and in particular, women. https://files.prio.org/Publication_files/Prio/Armed%20Confli....

True. But the reason for this is because if you lose 90 percent of your men to war, you can enact polygyny and rapidly repopulate. But no matter how many men a woman sleeps with, it takes 9 months to complete a pregnancy. Whereas a man can father children on multiple women at the same time.

Not does that alone justify keeping them in poverty.

True -- except maybe for the "at the same time" part; with a few minutes break in between I'll agree :) But yes, I agree also that it doesn't justify poverty. I think partly due to the inherent assymetries (like the biological one you mention), historically we have had a mix of advantages and disadvantages for the two genders. As the situation changes, maybe the "deal" becomes more favorable for one, less for the other. (e.g. Women are expected to work now, also to take care of children, whereas a chivalrous behavior towards them is worth much less in 21th century).

The mainstream opinion today seems to be that the current "mix" is less favorable to women (I happen to disagree with this), but I think it is a good basis for a civil discussion, more so than the insistence on equality at all levels which seems unattainable to me. (EDIT: last few words added)