How are you explaining to your boys about only men being conscripted in Ukraine?

[MiniDaffodils]

I have both girls and boys. We have always brought them up to understand that whilst boys may be physically stronger, girls can undertake the same roles in anything as boys can.
My boys are upset at the thought that only men are being made to fight in Ukraine and not women. They think it’s very unfair.
I think they are imagining themselves in that same situation. Obviously I have explained in this country both men and women would be called up to fight. My boys are gentle souls and the thought of only men having to kill others is disturbing them.
My girls are relieved at the idea that women in Ukraine are not called to fight despite usually them being very vocal about the fact boys and girls are equal in all things.
My main question is how to explain this to my sons, rather than my daughters (who don’t seem as bothered by the issue).
Thanks

@Zerogravity

I don’t feel comfortable saying that actually women can’t go onto the forces because they are physically weaker

You don't feel comfortable saying something which is a fact? Do you really think women are as strong as men? I would also add that this was is being decided on by men, being directed by men and has nothing to do with women who have had no say at all.

I imagine conscription is hell for most people concerned to be honest, but war is generally worse for women as other posters have pointed out.

'I would also add that this was is being decided on by men'

It also has nothing to do with 99.99999% of men, this war is directed by ONE lunatic of a man, so don't blame men for this action.

'but war is generally worse for women as other posters have pointed out.'

Worse than having your legs blown off, seeing your friend bleed out in front of you, sat in freezing temperatures for days on end with no food?

It is not a race to the bottom....

I do not get why these are always bundled together, insinuating that women are as helpless as a young, undeveloped human.

Look at it as a society protecting its assets. Any societal group wants to survive into the future. One man can impregnate multiple women but a woman can only birth one (occasionally two or three, but statistically one) new group member at a time.

So the value of the women and children is higher - they are necessary for the continued existence of the society. The value of men is lesser as there is not a need for as many of them.

Imagine two groups go to war. At the end of the war, Group A has 30% of adult males left, and 80% of women and children left. Group B has 80% of adult males and 30% of women and children left.

Which group is going to be able to repopulate faster? Which group is going to have to more stable society from which to rebuild?

@etulosba

Also I doubt a woman would start a war. I have read somewhere in recent days that historically war was always caused by men and I am not surprised.

In the period 1480 to 1913, Europe’s queens were 27% more likely than its kings to wage war, according to a National Bureau of Economics study.

That’s interesting, but I wonder how many female reigning monarchs were actually in charge. And all of them would have been surrounded by an all-male crew I’d advisors I’d imagine.

Honestly, women as a group have to put up with so much shit in life. Men really aren't disadvantaged because of a very small change that they might end up being conscripted. Beside, it's men and their egos who mostly cause war. Women generally just want to get on with peaceful day-to-day living.

And many men enjoy hurting women. They get a kick out of it. You only have to look at the cases of Sarah Everard, Sabina Nessa and all the other women killed during lockdown, either by their partners or strangers. If you force women to go to war as active combatants, you're putting them in a situation where they're sitting and legitimate targets for men's violence and sadism.

When women start wars then I could get on the side of female conscription.

I know that sounds flippant - but we already do so much of the labour created by men and the patriarchy, I honestly think that (as with almost all acts of aggression) war is a male issue.

Plus - there is the added element that men use rape as a weapon of war against women. Captured soldiers being raped and forced to bear children of the aggressors isn't going to be helpful in a war, or for the future prognosis of the country.

I have brought them up to think that periods shouldn’t hold any one back

Why did you lie to them?

My dd is hardly out of her teens and has a coil as a last resort having been through all kinds of options to try to control her periods.

She’s seriously considering ablation if this doesn’t work. She’s 20. She cannot function in society with the level of periods she has - pads and tampons don’t touch the sides, and she’s severely anaemic. She’s been through so many options (started with trans acid etc through so so many pills). None work.

But you don’t want to hear her experience because it doesn’t suit your narrative.

Besides, all this talk of bodies and it doesn’t take much physical strength to pull a trigger on a gun. Even a 2yr old can do this, so I think even women in the throes of those extreme period pains that seem to be constantly used as an excuse could manage.

Modern warfare makes physical strength and bladed weapons skill obsolete. It mattered in the days of sword and spear, but not so much now when we even have women flying Armed drones from thousands of miles away and blowing up entire convoys full of soldiers.

I’m just shocked at how weak MNers are painting women.

When women start wars then I could get on the side of female conscription.

We do start wars. An historical study found that female queens/leaders in Europe were 27% more likely to start wars than male kings/leaders.

Not painting them as weak, just weaker than men. 99% of the time that's an absolute fact.

Modern warfare makes physical strength and bladed weapons skill obsolete.

Interesting. I'll let my ex-para friend know that the bayonet he carried round at the end of his rifle for two tours of Afghanistan was a useless paper weight shall I?

@EmpressCixi

Besides, all this talk of bodies and it doesn’t take much physical strength to pull a trigger on a gun. Even a 2yr old can do this, so I think even women in the throes of those extreme period pains that seem to be constantly used as an excuse could manage.

Modern warfare makes physical strength and bladed weapons skill obsolete. It mattered in the days of sword and spear, but not so much now when we even have women flying Armed drones from thousands of miles away and blowing up entire convoys full of soldiers.

I’m just shocked at how weak MNers are painting women.

I’m not even talking about physical pain. I’m talking about extreme bleeding and anaemia as a result of that (and folic acid depletion and other minerals).

She’s as white as a sheet with no strength to do jack shit. She’s 5ft tall and a size 2 or 4 in uk terms. She couldn’t lift a rifle.

And yes. She is in extreme pain to the point of vomiting as well. But leaving that aside.

My kids are older and we have no problems with understanding.
I can see the issue if like that dopey historian you have been feeding children false narratives like British Women flying in combat roles WW2.

Honestly this hasn’t come up. They know about the war but not lots of details.

I would probably explain that because there are lots of families, it’s an easy way of ensuring children get taken care of. If you conscripted men and women then some would have children, some would be pregnant etc. In a time of war administering that would be impractical. So it’s a fairly quick way of ensuring children have a parent and pregnant women are protected.
However there probably are young, single women involved in fighting.

@SirSamVimesCityWatch

Modern warfare makes physical strength and bladed weapons skill obsolete.

Interesting. I'll let my ex-para friend know that the bayonet he carried round at the end of his rifle for two tours of Afghanistan was a useless paper weight shall I?

This.

It also has nothing to do with 99.99999% of men, this war is directed by ONE lunatic of a man, so don't blame men for this action.
No, not just one man actually. Women are massively underrepresented in governents and diplomatic corps around the world. Women rarely get a place at the table when solutions to conflict are discussed. All of this has an effect.

@AchillesPoirot
“I have brought them up to think that periods shouldn’t hold any one back”

Why did you lie to them?

That not a lie. Yes a small % of women will be ineligible for military service due to medically extreme periods. But this isn’t the majority of women or all women. Building a narrative that all women cannot serve in combat because what less than 1% suffer as your daughter do, that would be a lie. The statement periods shouldn’t hold anyone back is generally true. Every statement always has a few exceptions, that doesn’t make it a lie.

Women may not be called upon to fight in a war, but there are lots of jobs/professions where women don't work, or choose not to work. Eg binmen (bin people), fishermen (people), taxi drivers. Women are not physically as strong as men, they may have children to look after (and yes I know father's have DC, but even now they are less likely to step up).

No doubt someone will be along to tell me if I'm wrong but looking back at human history on earth the majority (if not all) of wars have been started by men. As a woman I'm frankly not sure how I'd feel about myself or my daughter being dragged to the army to fight in another war started by yet another aggressive willy waving man - rightly or wrongly that's how I feel about it. Doesn't mean that I want to see anybody, male or female, conscripted to fight in an army if they don't want to be, but I can't help but think that if all world leaders were female there would be a hell of a lot less war mongering than there actually is. That may not be politically correct but that's how I see it, and I resent it. There is always some power mad arsehole wanting to start a fight and dragging other people into it who just want to be left to live in peace.

@SirSamVimesCityWatch

Modern warfare makes physical strength and bladed weapons skill obsolete.

Interesting. I'll let my ex-para friend know that the bayonet he carried round at the end of his rifle for two tours of Afghanistan was a useless paper weight shall I?

Why not ask him how many enemy he stabbed to death with it? That will tell you if it was useless or not. We sent horses into WWI and they were useless. Just because we still have a few things standard issue, doesn’t mean it’s a critical piece of kit.

Women aren’t excluded because of periods for gods sake. We are excluded because we might come up against a man in single combat with the same training as us and quite frankly he would kill us. If you think single combat is a thing of the past and you just need to point and press then you need to go talk to a serving soldier.

@MiniDaffodils

I have both girls and boys. We have always brought them up to understand that whilst boys may be physically stronger, girls can undertake the same roles in anything as boys can. My boys are upset at the thought that only men are being made to fight in Ukraine and not women. They think it’s very unfair. I think they are imagining themselves in that same situation. Obviously I have explained in this country both men and women would be called up to fight. My boys are gentle souls and the thought of only men having to kill others is disturbing them. My girls are relieved at the idea that women in Ukraine are not called to fight despite usually them being very vocal about the fact boys and girls are equal in all things. My main question is how to explain this to my sons, rather than my daughters (who don’t seem as bothered by the issue). Thanks

How do you know women would be called up?

As well as rape perpetrated by the enemy, women are often raped by men on their own side during war - just another reason why war is hell for women and why selling patriotism to women is particularly sickening.

I don’t get the angst really. ‘That’s what they do in Ukraine.’ Oh you don’t like it? Lucky you’re not Ukrainian then.

This. I'm not really seeing the issue- you've brought your children up to believe men and women can do exactly the same roles but clearly not everyone in the world thinks this. I feel you want to justify it to your DC but don't think it's justifiable- why not just say that, perhaps adding that people are doing their best in a horrific situation.

I also think it's best not to present the women trying desperately to get their children and the elderly and vulnerable to safety as having an easy option or as in any way copping out.

[quote EmpressCixi]@AchillesPoirot
“I have brought them up to think that periods shouldn’t hold any one back”

Why did you lie to them?

That not a lie. Yes a small % of women will be ineligible for military service due to medically extreme periods. But this isn’t the majority of women or all women. Building a narrative that all women cannot serve in combat because what less than 1% suffer as your daughter do, that would be a lie. The statement periods shouldn’t hold anyone back is generally true. Every statement always has a few exceptions, that doesn’t make it a lie.[/quote]
The op stated shouldn’t hold anyone back.

Any. One.

That is a lie.

@LizBennet

Not painting them as weak, just weaker than men. 99% of the time that's an absolute fact.

But not so weak we cannot engage in modern warfare. Come on, we have child soldiers in many parts of the world. (Which is abhorrent). But since even children ARE fighting in wars, how can we argue with a straight face that adult women are too weak to fight? Being weaker doesn’t mean too weak.