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

@ancientgran

I'd rather stay and fight than give birth alone by the side of the road in minus 20° whilst trying to look calm and okay to stop the 2 small children I already have from being even more terrified than they already are. As a woman you would have the choice, that's the point of the OP isn't it, that men don't have a choice.

@ancientgran

How is this scenario - giving birth on a roadside - a choice? Do think the the women could just cross her legs and hold it in for a more convenient moment, while getting in a few potshots?

There have been some very silly and ill-informed posts on this thread, and this is certainly up there.

There are very few choices in wartime for men or women. Read through the thread, its laid out.

Reading some of the comments on the thread, one is reminded of some of the suffragettes, who having won the right to vote, minus the draft, turned around and handed out white feathers to cowardly men who wouldn’t fight (or sometimes just totally random men) with glee.

There are not plenty of women serving as front line troops in the UK or anywhere. Only a limited number of women have the physical strength to pass the entrance tests.

This is just rubbish, there are thousands of women in the armed forces in the UK, one you have enlisted, you can apply for roles including front line infantry in the British Army in you want to.

There are also thousands of women on the British Navy serving on Battle ships, destroyers, frigates , subs, aircraft carrier etc, in the event of a sea war all those would be on the front line

I don’t think being in a ship in the navy is the same as being front line infantry is it?
How many women ARE front line infantry?

[quote MuppetNet]@tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz

I will copy and paste your post again below, because it is one of the best posts I have seen here on this topic. I'd love to hear what @MiniDaffodils and her sons would have to say. It's not fair? Men's lives matter less than women's? That is ignorant nonsense.

--------

The first thing is to tell them is that few people want to kill, but because there’s been an invasion, the government is conscripting as the UK did in WW2. And just as the UK then, the first priority is frontline fighters. If the war (god forbid) goes on, wider groups are likely to be conscripted, including women without kids.

Secondly, lot of women are staying to fight or support by running things like power stations. If they are mothers that means leaving to drop off their kids with relatives in neighbouring countries and coming back. The story of all women leaving is being over emphasised.

The reasons women are not conscripted for frontline frighting are:

• no one would want children to loose both parents
• women carry most caring responsibilities for older relatives also
• countries (and once upon a time tribes) need to prioritise the survival of young women, because they will carry the next generation. You just don’t need as many young men.

• some women are strong enough to pass eg US/UK Marine entry tests, but far fewer than men, so they aren’t as effective as front line troops
• countries that do conscript women tend to use them as support troops. This may well happen in Ukraine.
• women are vulnerable in a war zone because rape is used as a weapon of war (if you want to explain all this to them, you can’t avoid this). Rape is an effective weapon because it demoralises the whole community and makes a country easier to defeat. This means that women and men are concerned about women being in a war zone. (Just for your info Previous threads include an article stating that pornhub already has a section on the rape of Ukrainian girls, which appears to be footage uploaded by Russian troops. Also been reports that only 5 of the 11 women know about have survived it.)

• As the war develops we’ll hear a lot more about women who have stayed to help the war effort. Some of these women will be killing directly, others will do so indirectly by keeping infrastructure going, eg working power stations just as women in the UK did in WW2

Lots of UN reports explain how women’s economic and physical health is impacted more than men’s overall, because they are more vulnerable to the economic and social breakdown that comes before and after it. So women have a a very rough time in war, it’s just not visible in the same way.[/quote]
Muppet it is indeed an excellent post but I can't take credit ... I quoted another poster. I'm glad you repeated it though, as although it may not sit comfortably with posters twisted view on equality (not all soldiers are rapists, or similar) its s horribly uncomfortable fact of war.

I'm an averagely short, fitter than average 40yo woman.
In a world of male-dominated design, not a lot fits me, if I go to an event, I slip through the neckhole of hi-viz vests because I'm not a male unisex size small. Going backpacking, it was always a struggle to get a rucksack small enough to fit, but big enough to carry what I need which is only marginally smaller than the volume of DH's gear as it's only a marginal difference on clothing volume smaller. Many larger vehicles are harder and tiring to drive because they're not designed to be driven by people with size 2 feet and a 26" inside leg. When things don't fit in a war zone, you're less efficient, slower, tired, less protected (bullet proof vest rather than hi-viz) and that means you'll take more down before you go down.

Males are more consistent in biology. Their hormones are stable (no periods/ pains/ PMS/ peri-menopause) They're easier to allocate equipment too without those awkward breasts/waists/hips. Then there's birth injuries which can lead to permanent difficulties

In an emergency conscription situation, it's much simpler to equip and train men with more efficient outcomes.

We're also once again underestimating the importance of caring.

If one parent had to be conscripted and the other care for our DCs, I'd be the better carer. DH is a loving father and could do it if he had to, but given a choice the DCs gravitate to me for comfort. Maybe it's that due to umpteen circumstances I've ended up as the SAHM, but also from the very first feed, I could give them the comfort of milk in their first 1-2 years, and again biology can't be ignored. The first bond in infancy is usually the mother and that predates birth.

In peace time there can be reasonable adjustments to even up outcomes for women to men. There isn't the time to work that out in a sudden invasion.

While I'm fitter than DH and can run half-marathons, he would be better in the military. As a male he'd gain greater strength and speed and do it faster than me. Stand at the finish line at parkrun and it's predominantly men finishing faster than 22mins. The sexes don't become balanced until closer to 30mins and females dominate the slower participants. My stamina's good, but that's little use if I was shot because my sprint is limited.

The two sexes are not identical.
The patriachy also favours the logistics of catering for men in military/ combat roles.
It's more practical to conscript men.
Don't underestimate the importance of caring roles and the dangers faced by civilians and refugees.

@Thereisnolight

I don’t think being in a ship in the navy is the same as being front line infantry is it? How many women ARE front line infantry?

The UK lost 6 war ships during the Falklands war, due to enemy fire, try telling those sailors they were not on the front line, the navy has about 3500 serving females, just imagine if British Ships were sent to the Black Sea to support Ukrainian forces from the Russian Navy, those sailors would absolutely be on the front line

Still don’t think being in a ship is the same as front line infantry.

Not even close.

I thought women still weren't allowed to be front line infantry in the UK. Has that changed?

@girlmom21

I thought women still weren't allowed to be front line infantry in the UK. Has that changed?

That changed 3/4 years ago iirc

@girlmom21 www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2018/10/women-in-ground-close-combat-roles/

@girlmom21

I thought women still weren't allowed to be front line infantry in the UK. Has that changed?

Changed in 2016

www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2018/10/women-in-ground-close-combat-roles/

The British Army is about 80,000 strong with about 13,000 women, all of which could apply for a front line combat role

Thanks both. I probably could've just googled it but knew someone would know!

@BigOlDingleSlinger69 your logic is a wee bit flawed there; if a woman is already in the army she has made the commitment to fight if needed already and she should know there are appropriate other carers in place (as should men with dependents or caring responsibilities doing the same)

This is about unplanned conscription; who’s going to be able to check a set of complicated criteria around who doesn’t abs doesn’t have caring responsibility like @ancientgran suggests when the buildings are literally being bombed around you? If you aren’t already signed up to be a soldier and it’s conscription, it’s got to be a blunt instrument.

All of the things you both say are right and work with planning time but have you seen the actual state of the country? In the majority women are still primary carers. They haven’t been conscripted. Women who have signed up are already commited and any woman who wants to volunteer is welcomed. There’s no capacity for anything more complicated at this moment.

I have that bsvk to front - I’m the majority primary caters are still women sorry

One thing that concerns me is that in the Ukraine boys aged 16-18 are not allowed to leave the country and have to fight. These are kids.
Girls aged 16-18, despite having no additional caring responsibilities, are allowed to leave.
My knowledge of these age groups is based on sports involvement, and the girls in this age range is just as fit and able to fight (and in swimming, just as flipping aggressive) as the boys.

Mothers who spent the last 16+ years arguing that their daughters were just as able as boys, instilling in these girls a sense of strength power and equality with the boys, would now try to claim that other mother's children should be sent to die simply because they are boys while their daughters are safe at home because they are not strong enough, not fit enough, not robust enough. FFS.

@nepotismisrife

One thing that concerns me is that in the Ukraine boys aged 16-18 are not allowed to leave the country and have to fight. These are kids. Girls aged 16-18, despite having no additional caring responsibilities, are allowed to leave. My knowledge of these age groups is based on sports involvement, and the girls in this age range is just as fit and able to fight (and in swimming, just as flipping aggressive) as the boys.

They're the next generation of caregivers. Nurses and teachers etc. Carers for the elderly residents and those injured in war. Yes that's sexist but they'll be needed in the months and years to come.

@nepotismisrife

One thing that concerns me is that in the Ukraine boys aged 16-18 are not allowed to leave the country and have to fight. These are kids. Girls aged 16-18, despite having no additional caring responsibilities, are allowed to leave. My knowledge of these age groups is based on sports involvement, and the girls in this age range is just as fit and able to fight (and in swimming, just as flipping aggressive) as the boys.

Are they insisting 16 to 18 year olds stay? I thought it was just 18 years and older.

Certainly these 16-18 yo girls are fitter and stronger than the old men frequently seen in the photos from Ukraine. I don't know why a 16-18 yo boy should be seen as more expendable other than the kind of sexism that parents of girls have spent years trying to reverse and eliminate, but now it suits them fine. Other people's boys can die, their daughters are too special.
I guess I'd do the same if I had daughters, doesn't stop it being evil.

@nepotismisrife

Mothers who spent the last 16+ years arguing that their daughters were just as able as boys, instilling in these girls a sense of strength power and equality with the boys, would now try to claim that other mother's children should be sent to die simply because they are boys while their daughters are safe at home because they are not strong enough, not fit enough, not robust enough. FFS.

All young people in the Ukraine are currently in danger, whether conscripted into military service or not. In the UK, we are unlikely ever to see conscription, and if we ever did then it would likely be for both sexes with roles given out based on individual capabilities.

Equality doesn't mean pretending that there are no physical differences between men and women, ffs.

The mass rape of women and girls in war is evil. There's a really bloody obvious reason to send the 16-18 year old girls away. As has been pointed out multiple times on this thread, even troops on their own side will rape them, let alone the enemy.

@nepotismisrife

Certainly these 16-18 yo girls are fitter and stronger than the old men frequently seen in the photos from Ukraine. I don't know why a 16-18 yo boy should be seen as more expendable other than the kind of sexism that parents of girls have spent years trying to reverse and eliminate, but now it suits them fine. Other people's boys can die, their daughters are too special. I guess I'd do the same if I had daughters, doesn't stop it being evil.

How many posters do you think have girls and boys? I have both 🤷🏼‍♀️

What makes people more likely to rape during war time?
It makes me think that they want to do it any time and wait on standby for wars to happen