Women and girls, but not men and boys?

In a piece of the Newscast From TV3, we report on singer Ana Belén's performance at the Terramar Gardens. The journalist's voiceover explains that, on her new album, the singer "wanted to give a shout-out to the women and girls who are suffering the war in Gaza with one of her new songs." And then we see her, up on stage, talking about herself. The phrase we hear, which she refers to, says: "They are sick, hungry, exhausted..."

I understand and agree that, for example, people talk specifically about "the women" of countries like Iran, because, although there are restrictions and a lack of freedom for men, women suffer much greater prohibitions. They have to be covered from head to toe, they can't go out alone, they can't study, etc. But why must we talk specifically about the women of Gaza? Don't men and children "suffer the war"? The women and girls of Gaza—and we keep talking about it these days—are "sick, hungry, and exhausted." True. But they are no more sick, hungry, and exhausted than men and boys.

I know there's no ill intention in the phrase, on the contrary, but ignoring, not highlighting that they too suffer equally, seems to me an unintentional and flippant banality. Speaking, in a context of war (where men and women suffer equally, in different places, on different fronts), only about women and girls, I don't understand, nor do I find it useful in terms of equality. Don't they faint or die in the grim lines waiting for men to find food? Do hunger and misery distinguish between female and male babies? Don't the bombs that fall on hospitals kill men and boys?