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

I thought the same @SemperIdem as well as digging into the annals of history! Not exactly 21st century!

It’s not really comparable to view Putin against female queens from 100s of years ago. I’d hope our modern leaders would be held to a higher standard but not invading a democratic country for spurious reasons and bombing children. The only modern comparison was Thatcher and she effectively went to war as a result of an invasion in a British overseas territory. Not really quite the same.

@ToiletPoster

No the PP isn’t overegging testosterone and no the physical strength difference between men and women has not changed. Men have about 40% more upper body strength and 30% more lower body strength than women. They have more stamina (mostly due to more red blood cells), when they train they also have the capacity to build more muscle at a rate and to a degree women cannot. This is why, for example, when the US Marines opened their entrance test las to women fewer than 5% passed, whereas more than 85% of male candidates passed.

A man might look weak to you, but if he’s under 50, unless there was something seriously wrong with him he could beat you to the ground in no time.

We forget this because luckily most of us don’t have to deal with too much violence, but it remains true.

There are many reasons women don’t get conscripting into frontline fighting, but pretending there isn’t a vast different in the physical strength of men and women is silly.

[quote BigOlDingleSlinger69]@Stompythedinosaur

I see you are coming to this through the “opression” lens and discussion will be useless. However you misunderstood one point of my post - I was not saying men would say that women were privileged 99% of the time - what I said was if men agreed that they (men) were privileged 99% of the time but that 1% of time were women were privileged and wanted to remain privileged (this kind of war situation) was the worst percentage to not be priveleged in and saw that women who were supposedly all for equality and wanted men to give up that other 99% privilege were indignant at being asked to give up their privilege - then why should men be understanding or accommodating to the women asking them to be so, in giving up their privilege and take on more caring roles? - given that those exact women asking the men to do that are not willing to give up their own privilege and risk their lives?[/quote]
@BigOlDingleSlinger69

Well firstly, for reasons listed extensively on this thread, women in general aren’t effective as front line troops, so I don’t think most men would be especially up for fighting alongside women in those circumstances, because it would be less safe for them.

Secondly, women aren’t especially privileged in wartime. There are plenty of UN reports that will tell you that women’s health and economic well-being are disproportionately hit by the social and economic chaos during and after war.

Thirdly, none of this is about men or women giving up what you perceive to be privilege, it’s about what’s best for society overall. In peacetime, society is best served if all adults can contribute their skills and experience, people are best served by not having to work excessive hours, and children are best served by having active input from both parents. In wartime, unfortunately, a society needs to defend itself, both against immediate attack and in terms of protecting the next generation, and this means biological sec differences come into play.

I find it strange that your sons are not saying “conscription is wrong”.
Instead they are saying “why aren’t women conscripted?”
There’s a difference and it’s not showing them in a very good light.

I disagree. One is a statement and one is a perfectly valid question from a child. Just because they ask why (and is it any wonder they ask this if they haven't really been told about how big the sex differences are in reality?) It's just men, doesn't mean they don't also think it's wrong.

I remember learning about the Taliban and them banning girls from education. I thought that was wrong. I also asked "Why don't they ban boys too?". Of course nobody should be banned. But they are reasonable questions about why is it one way and not the other? It doesn't really imply anything to me.

As a child I'd probably have been the same "Why just men? Women can do it too?" They are just questions and why things are a certain way, they aren't judgements on what is right of wrong, and you can ask questions and still feel something is wrong.

In U.K. military chaplains do not carry weapons or use them. They are trained in first aid and fire fighting. I haven’t seen it, but Hacksaw ridge is about a pacifist who I think was conscripted in WW2. I would encourage my kids to do things like this.

@ChocolateMassacre

Again none of those specific injuries cause by rape is inherently worse than a specific injury caused by mutilation or torture or having ones Iambs blown off.

If these terrors can be braved if the cause demands it, the possibility of rape shouldn’t be the one line which cause people to flee and give up their otherwise all important cause.

In ancient times people fought in the face of enslavement and crucifixtion and certain torture - and yet they fought. Why is it that they were able to do that but women must flee when rape becomes possible?

@tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz

It doesn’t need explains that women are raped in war, everyone knows it. That poster has chosen to keep on repeating it as though it proves that women can’t fight in war when in fact it doesn’t.

If death, death by torture, maiming, mutilation etc. are all on the cards for men (plus rape) then there is no special reason why the rape of women is such a horrible thing compared to theses that women must avoid fighting.

There are many psychological destabilising tactics which are used on society after war to break the spirit of the population - and often used successfully and yet they are braves to fight the conflict and here people are saying rape can’t be? Why not?
Either way it’s going to be extremely bad after you lose.

Women being raped or bearing children is just a flimsy reasoning for women not fighting, but it isn’t a conscious choice as much as those trying to make it seem like one say it is so it jives with their gender equal ideas.

The reality is women are worse at fighting and more inclined to flee from it and in a crisis like this one that instinct plays out quickly. It’s got nothing to do with wanting to avoid the long term destabilising tactics of women being raped. That’s a dubious excuse when men are braving all manner of horrors.

@Luredbyapomegranate

And all of those UN reports are bs, because they are talking about the aftermath of war and not including the war itself in the effects. When thousands of men are dying (or millions In other wars) I think it can be said that their health is taking a somewhat worse hit than women’s in that they go from being alive to dead at a much larger number. But for whatever reason the UN and yourself doesn’t factor this into war being worse for men’s health.

You say this isn’t about men or women giving up privilege? You are the one who brought up men being privileged in the first place. Now the discussion has taken a turn you don’t like your saying to disregard privilege as it’s not important? Why bring it up then?
It’s odd and convenient that what you think best for society just happens to be women having full equality and privilege at all times except when it’s unconveinent for them to do so (and there have been those that argued those things weren’t best for society but no doubt the same women arguing for women not fighting argued against that).

The reality is there are things women could do. Setting up mines, throwing grenades etc.

But again, I’m don’t think women should be on front lines as I agree they’re not that good at it and would get in the way. But all this about it being a conscious choice for fear of rape or (childless) women needing to protect children is justification for something which makes a purely animal instinct. There was no time for that thought - men were more inclined to fight and women to flee from it - just as it’s always been. That might be an uncomfortable truth but it is the truth. Obviously that makes biological sense but don’t pretend it jives with any gender equal of feminist beliefs because it really doesn’t.

Patriarchy does men a disservice as well as women. Men have to fight in service of patriarchal wars. The best thing they can do is fight patriarchy.

There's an argument that physical strength matters less in modern warfare which is much less about 'boots on the ground' - but they'll have noticed that isn't really the case in Ukraine, where an old fashioned mud and tanks war is going on.

On rape- if you're a woman in the armed forces you are much more likely to be raped by a member of your own military than the opposing side, sadly. Rape as a weapon of war is usually used against civilians. It's especially likely to be used against women who campaign or push for peace or who are politically outspoken.
Being a combatant is somewhat protective.
Domestic violence also shoots up during a conflict- so women are also in danger at home.

You could tell your kids about the all female Kurdish militias- the YPJ- (although they no longer take married members because guess what- the unpaid care work is impossible to combine). They could have a think about why Kurdish women felt it necessary to have all female units- why don't they want to share space with men?

www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jul/19/came-to-fight-stayed-for-the-freedom-why-more-kurdish-women-are-taking-up-arms

[quote SemperIdem]@whynotwhy

That’s a short list given the number of wars throughout human history 🙄[/quote]
They were off the top of my uneducated head. I'm not a military historian or even an historian.

Annoyingly women haven't often been the rulers so have not often had the opportunity to wage (or prosecute to use Tony Blair's sanitised verb) war or rule in peace.

That is why I posted the link (admittedly not a working one - but most of us know how to google) to an article I found online, but I repeat I am not a historian and I don't know if the article is respected/peer-reviewed etc or just some nonsense made up by men with an axe to grind. I was hoping someone more knowledgeable would take the debate forward.

Conscription is horrible for anyone but the fact is men and women are different. Even as small boys they rough house, wrestle, kick and punch. Girls generally aren’t interested in that kind of play. In a war females haven’t got the testosterone that gives men that desire to fight others and protect their country. Women are better at the caring side of war - helping children and elderly, providing background support.

You can call all men. Women will be more complex as you need to pick out ones who haven’t got young children, aren’t pregnant, haven’t got family relying on them for caring needs. I’m sure there are plenty of women volunteering but makes less sense to conscript.

Historically men are the fighters and protectors of their women, children and elderly because of those physical differences. Men and women are not the same no matter how much we try to pretend otherwise.

Seems you're bringing up your boys to resent women for being biologically different to them OP.
Why not be truthful instead of sugar coating it, they are not babies.

I'm gobsmacked a 15 year old doesn't understand the differences to be honest.
Has he not studied any wars at school? That's highly doubtful.

He's either incredibly sheltered and naive - which you need to sort quickly - or he's being a pedantic arse and is mocking your teachings.

A teenage boy will never have had to deal with periods and probably doesn't speak to many girls about them. If his sister doesn't have any issues with hers and his mother tells him they never incapacitate women in any way, it's not surprising that he thinks that. Though it'll be embarrassing when he finally learns the reality at 25 or whenever. It's not helpful or feminist to deny the realities of a female body.

I never thought that male-only front lines were about casting men as the protectors and women as the protected (although historically, recruitment campaigns have certainly played on that feeling). I thought they were for the simple, obvious and practical reason that you need your fastest and strongest on the ground to increase your chances of winning (sorry OP, but even modern weapons and equipment are quite heavy), and that's almost always going to be the men. Even if they're out of shape when they sign up, men lose fat and build muscle faster than women so after basic training or whatever it is, that'll still hold true.

The threat of rape is something an army has to consider for similar practical reasons. Obviously men can be raped too, but in a war zone it's much more likely to happen to women and then you have pregnancy as an additional complication. It's nothing to do with which kind of rape is "worse", it's just a strategic concern. You want your soldiers to be as difficult to incapacitate as possible.

None of this means that men's lives don't matter. War is always a failing. War films vary, but I think people nowadays tend more towards the ones that make it clear what a horrible, indescribable human cost there is to having generations of young men wrecked by war, and of course older ones too. It's truly heartbreaking.

[quote BigOlDingleSlinger69]@ChocolateMassacre

Again none of those specific injuries cause by rape is inherently worse than a specific injury caused by mutilation or torture or having ones Iambs blown off.

If these terrors can be braved if the cause demands it, the possibility of rape shouldn’t be the one line which cause people to flee and give up their otherwise all important cause.

In ancient times people fought in the face of enslavement and crucifixtion and certain torture - and yet they fought. Why is it that they were able to do that but women must flee when rape becomes possible?[/quote]
There's not much else to say then, if you think it is acceptable for women to face these additional risks from male violence (including from their own side), on top of normal combat risks.

You could also explain to them that the last time the UK was on a war footing although women did not fight on the front line younger unmarried women (IE those without children to look after) were required to do war work.

Women in WWII were in the military but not on the frontline. Others drove ambulances, joined the land army, worked in hospitals or munitions factories, they manned search lights, they acted as translators and code breakers, some flew spitfires, some were even spies.

Not all men who were conscripted fought on the frontline and not all men were conscripted. Many men stayed at home to carry out vital war work (farmers, miners, railway men, aero engineers, etc) but were called cowards because they weren't fighting.

Use it as an opportunity to teach them about the brave women of the second world war and that war is not just about the battles.

It is likely that if the UK were in a position to need conscripts again both sexes would be conscripted and roles would be assigned based upon physical fitness and skills. But conscription is unlikely in an age of modern warfare.

It's quite clear that "BigOl..." despises women in general for what he perceives as weakness and a lack of desire to get involved in violent conflict. And he somehow seems to think that not being as strong as men and being more likely to want to avoid conflict and look after others is against "gender equality" or feminism. As if we deserve to be second class citizens due to the biological differences between men and women, and for being considerably less violent and aggressive overall.

Another thought...I've heard from various accounts by soldiers that there is usually a very strong sense of brotherly comradeship and togetherness in an army unit. Not hard to see why. Friendships forged in fire and all that. It's possible that introducing women into the environment would ruin that sense of male bonding and absolute unity that I can imagine would be very important in helping to secure a victory.

Hey @BigOlDingleSlinger69, why don't you worry about teaching men not to rape rather than telling women that they should be willing to continue in any situation regardless of the risk of rape?

I don't much like arguing over whose rape is worse, but, but, but...

With women there's the added issue of pregnancy and also the fact that they have an extra passage that can be forced, ergo twice the capacity for injury. It's quite a lot of added vulnerability and capacity for harm.

You really don't need a huge amount of imagination to realise this. Although he likes to call himself BigOlDingleSlinger69, so it's clearly quite the imagination he's got.

@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

Why on earth are your boys upset about such a thing!? How do you explain that only boys/men play premier league football?

Why on earth are your boys upset about such a thing!? How do you explain that only boys/men play premier league football?

This is a good question I'd be interested to know the answer to.

As much as I'm sure OP is aiming for a feminist upbringing for her kids, it actually sounds like her sons are leaning more towards becoming the kind of men whose primary focus in that regard is "well if women want equality they should be doing x, y and z, modern life is so unfair towards men" which is... not that helpful and in many cases worse than men who just don't care about the subject.

I think the root of the problem is that op has taught her children equality when she should have taught them equity.

The military are well aware of the necessity of breeding another generation. Whenever there is military rule, the role of motherhood is put on a pedestal and there are rewards/honours given for having larger families.