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

@MiniDaffodils

Some very interesting arguments on both sides. My boys are 12 and 15. Like many children the boys have been upset by the war and the unfairness of the men being conscripted and women not is something I still really don’t have an answer for. Their ages mean, if it came to it (and I pray that it won’t), they aren’t too far away from the age of being called up. It seems a very relevant discussion for them. They can see the unfairness of making men but not women kill other humans - something they cannot comprehend doing. They also feel mens lives are not valued in the same way.

I can’t get on board with the whole “girls are such delicate flowers they cannot fight on the front line like the men” as that’s blatantly not true. Physical strength is not the issue for today’s soldiers as they use weapons rather than brute force.
I have brought my children up to think that girls can do any job a man can and also that child rearing is equally a man’s job as much as a woman’s.

If a woman has just given birth or is breast feeding (but not many women do breast feed in this country) then i imagine there would be a medical exemption, but after the first few months, I think it is just as valid for the father to be the main carer and stay at home as it is for the mother.

I have decided just to focus on the fact that in the past our country also used to view women as not suitable to be in the armed forces but now they are more enlightened and do serve on the front line. Ukraine will perhaps change its position over time.

I will also focus on the fact that in this country both men and women would be conscripted if needed and that there will be many men and women (me included) who would be terrified and horrified at the thought.

I don’t know if it’s possible to refuse to kill others and serve in another way but I am going to sugar coat things and tell them it is.

Anyway, as I say, some very good points on both sides - thanks all.

Why not tell them that men's violence is at the root of most wars and men are responsible for most aggressive and violent crime? And that men as a group suffer from incredible entitlement towards women and women's bodies. Hence, putting women in a lawless combat situation with men, where the usual legal safeguards don't apply and there is no escape, often ends in appalling violence towards those women, whether they are soldiers and civilians.

Conscription is a difficult topic for me. I know this particular war is seen as plucky ukraine fighting the invaders. But perhaps time will show those 18 year olds were just pawns in some political game, just like all those soldiers in ww1. Harry Patch, the last uk ww1 veteran from the trenches, said ww1 was concluded round a conference table not on the battlefield and that could have happened earlier.

@MiniDaffodils

I have brought them up to think that periods shouldn’t hold any one back. That child rearing is shared equally between men and women (except for the first few months when the women is possibly breast feeding). Also that whilst men are physically stronger that isn’t necessarily a disadvantage in modern combat which relies more on weapons than brute strength.

I don’t feel comfortable saying that actually women can’t go onto the forces because they are physically weaker and have periods - I don’t think that it holds weight as an argument anymore.

I assumed as men and women are both serving in the forces now that both sexes would be conscripted if needed in this country.

Well you've bought them up to believe a fantasy of your own making then poor kids, now try explaining how the real world works and they may be able to make some sense of what they see around them 🙄🙄🙄

@Onionpatch

Conscription is a difficult topic for me. I know this particular war is seen as plucky ukraine fighting the invaders. But perhaps time will show those 18 year olds were just pawns in some political game, just like all those soldiers in ww1. Harry Patch, the last uk ww1 veteran from the trenches, said ww1 was concluded round a conference table not on the battlefield and that could have happened earlier.

But what is the alternative? They are being attacked and nothing at the moment will stop putin, so they have to defend. Do they sit there and let him abliterate the country and hope he stops?

@SirSamVimesCityWatch

The men of Ukraine do not have a roughly equal chance to defend themselves from the Russian army, far from it. Make no mistake if there’s a long combat or occupation very bad things will happen to quite a few of the men who don’t die quickly which will be just as horrifying as the rape of women.

There are a multitude of destabilising tactics used - it’s just that we’re used to and accept the ones that are used to break the spirits of the men who are defeated but are somehow drawing the line at women - ok, but not remotely in line with modern ideas of equality and based firmly in women being more delicate and needing protection. Again ok - but not coming from people who argue till blue in the face for gender equality in other areas (childcare, pay gap etc) the rest of the time.

There’s a possible explanation which is much for this aside from all the justifications and trying to make it jive with modern “equality” viewpoints:
Men are better at fighting and killing and women more inclined to run from it. There’s no deep thought about women being needed to repopulate or rape being used as destabilising tactics behind it - just instinct, men fight and women avoid men fighting. Perhaps it’s just that simple.

@RJnomore1

If both men and women are all called up to fight, who is going to take on the caring responsibilities that women are still left with 90% of the time?

Your boys might be happy to do it but on a societal and worldwide scale it doesn’t happen.

This.

Did you start this conversation as a way to point fingers with a perceived GOTCHA! at feminists? Because it kind of reads that way.

@SirSamVimesCityWatch

No different to chimps making combat or our distant human tribal ancestors.

just instinct, men fight and women avoid men fighting. Perhaps it’s just that simple

Except no it's not. Cripes some people will go to great lengths to minimise the additional challenges women would face when placed in the same situation as men. Also there are lots of women, both who have volunteered or who are members of the armed forces already, who are not avoiding men fighting; they are defending their country just as the men are.

@Telebonn - I think many people would stay and fight anyway without conscription.
I dont know the full value of forcing an 18-60 year old with no experience and no desire to fight to stay and fight.

Why not tell them that men's violence is at the root of most wars and men are responsible for most aggressive and violent crime? And that men as a group suffer from incredible entitlement towards women and women's bodies. Hence, putting women in a lawless combat situation with men, where the usual legal safeguards don't apply and there is no escape, often ends in appalling violence towards those women, whether they are soldiers and civilians.

This, this and this again and again! Perfectly put.

At least then you'd be telling the truth for once, OP.

@Telebonn

The additional challenges are tied up with the instinct just as they are in similar animals. Wouldn’t make sense for a weaker female to challenge some male animal for dominance if she was sure to lose so the instinct isn’t there. When shit hits the fan we’ve always seen the same from humans and can see plenty of justification of it even on these boards with a high percentage of women who most likely push for gender equality. It is what it is.

[quote Onionpatch]@Telebonn - I think many people would stay and fight anyway without conscription.
I dont know the full value of forcing an 18-60 year old with no experience and no desire to fight to stay and fight.[/quote]
What if no one wanted to? Would you offer money- meaning more poor families would decide to send their children to fight? Perhaps filter out by health- something out of most people's control? There isn't really a freedom of choice free of different situations and conditions informing and pressuring decisions people make, doesn't feel much 'fairer' than conscription. War is a leveller in many ways unless you are super rich.

[quote BigOlDingleSlinger69]@Telebonn

The additional challenges are tied up with the instinct just as they are in similar animals. Wouldn’t make sense for a weaker female to challenge some male animal for dominance if she was sure to lose so the instinct isn’t there. When shit hits the fan we’ve always seen the same from humans and can see plenty of justification of it even on these boards with a high percentage of women who most likely push for gender equality. It is what it is.[/quote]
Not even sure what you're on about now, but guessing it means you aren't sure what you're on about either :)

Only 4 countries in the world have 50% or more women in their parliaments. Maybe we should fight for our equal right to lead our citizens into these wars before we fight for our equal right to die in them.

You are entirely wrong though, physical strength is still incredibly important. My husband has to carry 40kg in his bag for 4km and then run 2km with 25kg. I can barely even lift the bag. This is the minimum standard. There are obviously some women that can, but many can’t and therefore aren’t going to be conscripted to fight in the front line.

Realistically most women cannot do this. You aren’t helping your children by pretending otherwise.

@Telebonn

Perhaps you should read more carefully. The point is that the men fighting and the women leaving isn’t based in something logically thought out - it is pure instinct which makes sense practically, hence it being instinct.

But you still haven’t answered why the killing, torture and slow death of men (and potential rape) is more acceptable and less horrible than the rape of women. Which was your moral justification for women not being on the front lines in the first place.

@elbea

You think all the old men are being asked to carry bags that heavy? No. They’re just being handed guns and ammunition which women could easily hold.

I don’t agree that women should be there but the heaviness of a makeshift Ukrainian armies equipment is not the reason why.

@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.

Girls have the potential to bear children. That’s why they are a precious resource to any people or nation. They can also stand in as carers for other women’s children if necessary, before they have any of their own. However, many young women and girls in combat zones have chosen to fight, as is their prerogative.

@Telebonn - well if no one wants to fight for their country then they obviously would prefer to live under the invaders rule.

In ukraine it looks like most are willingly and would volunteeer - with men returning from abroad to fight and women who could leave, remaining and also fighting.

Someone has to look after the children.. can't just send them off while all the adults stay behind. The men are bigger and the women may be pregnant so it just makes sense that the women go with the children.

Any women who WANT to stay and fight are allowed to.

It seems to me that a lot of people are tying themselves up in knots trying to explain this away. Square pegs and round holes!

[quote BigOlDingleSlinger69]@Telebonn

Perhaps you should read more carefully. The point is that the men fighting and the women leaving isn’t based in something logically thought out - it is pure instinct which makes sense practically, hence it being instinct.

But you still haven’t answered why the killing, torture and slow death of men (and potential rape) is more acceptable and less horrible than the rape of women. Which was your moral justification for women not being on the front lines in the first place.[/quote]
Why are you separating the killing of men from the rape of women?

It's not an either/or. Death or rape. Do you think woman walk away from these types of gang rapes slightly traumatised but physically injured? When actually they're often left with horrific internal injuries or dead in a ditch.

@elbea

You are entirely wrong though, physical strength is still incredibly important. My husband has to carry 40kg in his bag for 4km and then run 2km with 25kg. I can barely even lift the bag. This is the minimum standard. There are obviously some women that can, but many can’t and therefore aren’t going to be conscripted to fight in the front line.

Realistically most women cannot do this. You aren’t helping your children by pretending otherwise.

That’s only for front line Army infantry, SAS and SBS doesn’t apply to the rest of the military’s combat positions. No backpack in the cockpit of a fighter jet or on a destroyer....

@ChocolateMassacre

I’m not separating them - those who are saying women should be separated from the men who fight and die because they might be raped are separating them.

I’m saying why is the possibility that these women might be raped justification to keep them from combat given all the horrible possibilities that are now playing out for the men? Why is the rape and death of women where the line is drawn? Is it worse than mutilation, slow death and torture of men?
Why does this one additional (although men can and are raped in war) horror somehow go to far and women can’t be included because of it?

If you want to fight for the existence of your country then it seems absurd to say “we’re willing to suffer any horror of death or torture but not women being raped”. I don’t believe rape is inherently worse than those other things (they’re all terrible) and it just seems convenient reasoning to excuse the obvious sexism.

Again I’m not saying I think Ukrainian women should fight but there’s a lot of mental gymnastics going on here to rationalise it as somehow being within gender equal or feminist ideals that they don’t when that is pure hypocrisy.