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

Men age 18-80 are being conscripted in Ukraine.
A women in her 20s/30s/40s/59s is going to be stronger than a man in his 70s/80.
If an 80 year old man is expected to fight then obviously women are string enough.

I do have girls too. I have 2 girls. I would be just as devastated with my girls or boys being called up (or myself or my husband). I don’t think mens lives are cheaper than womens.

Boys/men are already more disadvantaged in education, physical health, life expectancy, mental health and suicide.

I don't think it's a good idea to pretend to children or teenagers that there are no material differences between men and women.

When we're talking about inequality between men and women, there are two factors at play. The first is gender stereotypes. The second is the biological reality of the difference between adult male and female bodies and strength. These differences are real and there's no point in shying away from the fact that men have a massive physical advantage. The reality is, if things descend into hand-to-hand fighting (and they could), women will die and be injured disproportionately to their male counterparts.

In everyday life, having periods shouldn't hold women back from anything they want to do (although for many it does, because women's healthcare is often so woeful, but that's another thread.) But that's assuming that you are in a place with access to the things you need to manage your period. In a war situation like the one in Ukraine, you wouldn't necessarily have that.

Men age 18-80 are being conscripted in Ukraine.

No they're not. It's 18-60.

You're now saying men are disadvantaged in life but before you were saying you taught your children everyone's equal.

So your periods can't hold you back if you're a girl but depression can if you're a man?

@MiniDaffodils

Men age 18-80 are being conscripted in Ukraine. A women in her 20s/30s/40s/59s is going to be stronger than a man in his 70s/80. If an 80 year old man is expected to fight then obviously women are string enough.

I do have girls too. I have 2 girls. I would be just as devastated with my girls or boys being called up (or myself or my husband). I don’t think mens lives are cheaper than womens.

Boys/men are already more disadvantaged in education, physical health, life expectancy, mental health and suicide.

But we're not talking about long-term advantages or disadvantages, this is a very specific situation where most men DO have a distinct physical advantage. In an emergency situation like this, you have to do what's practical. Russia is not sending women in to fight. If a female conscript goes head to head with a male Russian soldier, in the vast majority of cases, she will be killed.

You said you started the thread for advice on how to explain the conscription to your boys because they were upset but now you're just arguing about why you think they're right.

Also disagree with you that men are more disadvantaged generally than women, but I'm sticking to your example of armed combat.

@MiniDaffodils

Men age 18-80 are being conscripted in Ukraine. A women in her 20s/30s/40s/59s is going to be stronger than a man in his 70s/80. If an 80 year old man is expected to fight then obviously women are string enough.

I do have girls too. I have 2 girls. I would be just as devastated with my girls or boys being called up (or myself or my husband). I don’t think mens lives are cheaper than womens.

Boys/men are already more disadvantaged in education, physical health, life expectancy, mental health and suicide.

Men don't get drafted because their lives are worth less than women's. They get drafted because men on the front line have a much better chance of winning than women or a mixed company. This is for reasons that are obvious from space but have been amply explained to you on here. I'm sure the people of Ukraine would love to have you explain your view on life to them, including your magical world where women never experience health problems or incapacitation of any kind due to periods or menopause. But first they need to win the war, or else you're just kind of pissing in the wind. And do you know what happens when women try that?

@JesusMaryAndJosephAndTheWeeDon

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.

Yes, JMJ I have known 4 women who were single and childless at the beginning of WW2. 2 were in reserved occupations (teaching and nursing) and 2 were not. One of the latter 2 had to give up the training she was doing and do approved "war work" in England. The other went into the services. I don't know whether she had a choice about that. I should have asked. She did support work, i.e. office work, in Britain and in the Middle East. Incidentally, the army's way of training you to type in those days was to give you a blank keyboard and get on with it. As periods have been spoken about on this thread, I will add that the woman who was sent to the Middle East said that the ATS girls were not issued with sanitary protection as such. They had to make their own pads from cotton wool and gauze. Some of their number were volunteers who came from that sometimes-hot region and they made tubes rather than pads, and put the tubes of cotton-wool-in-gauze inside themselves, probably nicer in the climate. Women took men's places in factories, not only in munitions, and when the war was over they were expected to give up that work so that the "boys who came back" would have jobs.

I think it's also really important to state the risk of sexual violence in war. Not only is that an appalling fate for female fighters, but torturing and raping women can be used as a tool to break the morale of the men alongside them. It's easy for us to sit here and say 'but men and women should be equal, always' when we're in a situation where we're not facing these threats directly. This is not a normal situation, and that throws the biological differences and vulnerabilities between men and women into sharper contrast than they usually are.

Can I ask a genuine question apologies if it's stupid. In a situation where there was a 28 year old woman and a 41 year old man with a few kids is there a risk that if conscription did happen at any point in the next 20 years that the younger woman would be sent to fight and the older man to stay home with the kids?

@inthemuddle

Can I ask a genuine question apologies if it's stupid. In a situation where there was a 28 year old woman and a 41 year old man with a few kids is there a risk that if conscription did happen at any point in the next 20 years that the younger woman would be sent to fight and the older man to stay home with the kids?

No, for all of the reasons listed. Most 40-something men will still be more physically able in war than most 20-something women.

@RoseslnTheHospital

It’s not clear at all because it’s not true. I don’t blame women for not wanting to and not being inclined to fight in the war (or any war) and I don’t think it’s logical that they should. I blame Putin and his circle for their crappy war and those who carry it out with glee. They are infinity lower in my eyes than any woman (or man) who won’t fight a war she didn’t choose even if her desire not to isn’t born from having caring duties or a well thought out reason.

What I have said is that women not fighting is more of an immediate and instinctual reaction than a well thought out and reasoned one that has anything to do with pregnancy and rape or birthing the next generation, it’s just instinct and the instinct is completely reasonable given that they’re likely to be far worse at fighting.

I have merely pointed out the absurdity of all this rationalising of this totally understandable instinct to somehow fit within a gender equal framework, especially as just a little before this war started many posters on this site were claiming that women would be fighting. And on top of that the absurdity of claiming women can’t fight because they may be raped, when men in this war will also endure horrors and men in the past have face enslavement, crucifixition, being put on stakes etc. but have still fought. As though that is the one horror which is worse than all others simply because it happens to women more.

I don’t mind women wanting men to fight the war and not being inclined too - I just hope they’re not the same women wanting men to take more paternity leave and look after babies or pushing for more women in the armed forces. Because that would be pretty rich.

@inthemuddle

Can I ask a genuine question apologies if it's stupid. In a situation where there was a 28 year old woman and a 41 year old man with a few kids is there a risk that if conscription did happen at any point in the next 20 years that the younger woman would be sent to fight and the older man to stay home with the kids?

I doubt it, but I don't see why it would be a matter of choosing between those two people. It wouldn't be a case of 'shall we send Bob or Sandra.' There would be certain people exempt from conscription regardless of their age or sex, and as it's a hypothetical situation, I have no idea if having children to look after would exempt the man. Perhaps if there was no one else to look after them.

But I still can't envision a situation where women would be conscripted for frontline combat. Conscripted for other important work, but I can't see how conscripting women would be practical given that the opposing army would almost certainly be all men.

@inthemuddle

As this thread shows women for equality will fight tooth and nail against being conscripted so I wouldn’t worry about that.

So many people are anti war these days. I'd be killed before I could bring myself to kill another that likely doesn't want to be there either. Could it ever happen in the way it did? Surely so many people would just refuse? Or are you arrested or something if you do?

I hope I'm wasting my time worrying about this and it won't happen in my or my boys lifetimes but it all seems too real at the moment.

[quote BigOlDingleSlinger69]@inthemuddle

As this thread shows women for equality will fight tooth and nail against being conscripted so I wouldn’t worry about that.[/quote]
Apparently so will men...

"It's not fair because the women don't want us to rape them so won't join in the war."

Grow up.

[quote BigOlDingleSlinger69]@RoseslnTheHospital

It’s not clear at all because it’s not true. I don’t blame women for not wanting to and not being inclined to fight in the war (or any war) and I don’t think it’s logical that they should. I blame Putin and his circle for their crappy war and those who carry it out with glee. They are infinity lower in my eyes than any woman (or man) who won’t fight a war she didn’t choose even if her desire not to isn’t born from having caring duties or a well thought out reason.

What I have said is that women not fighting is more of an immediate and instinctual reaction than a well thought out and reasoned one that has anything to do with pregnancy and rape or birthing the next generation, it’s just instinct and the instinct is completely reasonable given that they’re likely to be far worse at fighting.

I have merely pointed out the absurdity of all this rationalising of this totally understandable instinct to somehow fit within a gender equal framework, especially as just a little before this war started many posters on this site were claiming that women would be fighting. And on top of that the absurdity of claiming women can’t fight because they may be raped, when men in this war will also endure horrors and men in the past have face enslavement, crucifixition, being put on stakes etc. but have still fought. As though that is the one horror which is worse than all others simply because it happens to women more.

I don’t mind women wanting men to fight the war and not being inclined too - I just hope they’re not the same women wanting men to take more paternity leave and look after babies or pushing for more women in the armed forces. Because that would be pretty rich.[/quote]
I don't understand this. It's not at all absurd to say that women can't fight because of their biological disadvantage and the increased risk of rape. A fight between a woman and a man is not a fair fight, and there will only be one victor unless the woman concerned has extraordinarily unusual physical strength.

Even if you're saying that women should accept the risk of rape because men also have atrocious things done to them during wars, as I said above, rape is often used as a tool to subdue populations. There are many examples of soldiers torturing and raping women to break men's willpower and get them to surrender.

@shreddednips

He didn’t write men were more disadvantaged- he said they were more disadvantaged in certain areas. He’s certainly right about education, health and mental health are suicide are debatable, Id say it may be down to inherent differences.

@MiniDaffodils

Men age 18-80 are being conscripted in Ukraine. A women in her 20s/30s/40s/59s is going to be stronger than a man in his 70s/80. If an 80 year old man is expected to fight then obviously women are string enough.

I do have girls too. I have 2 girls. I would be just as devastated with my girls or boys being called up (or myself or my husband). I don’t think mens lives are cheaper than womens.

Boys/men are already more disadvantaged in education, physical health, life expectancy, mental health and suicide.

Do you seriously think boys and men are already more disadvantaged in life?

I worry for your daughters if so.

I really don't think anyone's saying men's lives are genuinely cheaper, there are just many practical reasons why many women of a decent fighting age would not be able to fight without leaving children with nobody to care for them and that makes it impractical to conscript them.

You're not really addressing those parts, just the comments about periods and strength. Why is that?

@shreddednips

You really need to read posts better. Once again I have said that the gender difference in strength and fighting ability (and agression) means it is entirely logical than women shouldn’t fight (so in this I agree with you), but I have said this isn’t a well thought out plan as many are rationalising it to be, it simply happens the way it always has out of instinct and the modern world can’t change it.

But hypothetically if this were not so the point is The increased risk of rape shouldn’t be enough to stop women fighting (if not for the fact they would lose anyway) if the cause is important enough. There are all kinds of things done to subdue and break men’s willpower - killing family members, torture, destruction of sacred and cultural sites - and yet men still fight, if the cause is important enough to them. Women are not choosing to flee out of a well thought out decision that their rape may break the male armies willpower, that is pure post facto rationalising of women fleeing simply because they are women, weaker and that’s what they do because they’re next to useless in the fight so they leave it to men. Now one justification could be that they look after children and that is fair - but childless women are also fleeing so obviously it’s not just that.

Take for instance the situation of recent in Afghanistan where men didn’t want to fight the Taliban because they didn’t care about the cause (more Americanised society like that of their previous invaders I guess?) they would have been fighting for enough to risk life and limb. We have heard that some women there hated the Taliban and life under them would be unbearable - and yet those women didn’t fight. Why? Yes they would have lost and died - but for those who didn’t flee life under the Taliban was obviously more preferable than a horrible death and possibly rape and torture before hand if they formed a resistance and fought. In the same instance if the men had a cause they cared enough for they would have fought even if death and atrocity being done to them was certain - so the men’s sex differences would have been no advantage to them them anyway if defeat was inevitable. We’ve seen that throughout history men will fight to certain death and horrors (look at Spartacus, Braveheart or anyone tribal fighting the Roman Empire etc for famous examples) yet we never see it from women.
The only logical explanation is that it’s simply against women’s instinct to fight in this way and they would rather flee or surrender. And all the feminism or gender equal ideas in the world can’t paper over it. I’m not upset by it and it doesn’t make me think less of women, but I’m pointing out the mental gymnastics some here are doing in trying to logically explain why women won’t fight when it t really comes down to thoughtless instinct.

@Etinoxaurus

How old are your children? It’s all a bit whiny and me me me. I’d shut them up by pointing out that the Russians have a horrible track record of using rape as a weapon.

This, also considering maternity and children's hospitals seem to be a prime target for the Russian Army at the moment do your sons have anything to say about that?

Also as PP have said this is a really odd thread.

Yeah OP's comments just aren't ringing "true". Pretty odd 🤷🏼‍♀️

@MiniDaffodils

Men age 18-80 are being conscripted in Ukraine. A women in her 20s/30s/40s/59s is going to be stronger than a man in his 70s/80. If an 80 year old man is expected to fight then obviously women are string enough.

I do have girls too. I have 2 girls. I would be just as devastated with my girls or boys being called up (or myself or my husband). I don’t think mens lives are cheaper than womens.

Boys/men are already more disadvantaged in education, physical health, life expectancy, mental health and suicide.

Wow there's a load of misogynistic gaslighting crap on this thread, thankfully in the minority. But this takes the

OP, raising your kids that men and woman are equals in combat, child rearing etc isn't the good deed you think it is. It is so important to make our children aware of equality, but a key part of equality is making sure everyone is treated fairly. Equality doesn't perfectly translate to treating everybody exactly the same. You can say they are, but it doesn't change the fact an equal men/women conscription would be sending a significantly larger amount of women to the slaughter. You can teach your boys to be good, hands on, attentive fathers but it doesn't change the fact that is women who carry them for 9 months, breastfeed for years, we give an amount of ourselves that men just don't. How many women's careers suffer from becoming a mum? Now how many men? How many women feel lost after having children as they forgot who they even were outside of them? Now how many men? Of course some, but definitely not an equal amount.

Not an attack, it's clear you are trying to raise your kids to be good, well rounded people. As are the majority of us. I just think it's important to be aware of our differences and work towards equality in the sense of rights, opportunities, but blindly ignoring the differences between sexes won't progress us.

@BigOlDingleSlinger69 your posts massively glorify the instinct to fight over the instinct to flee, as though it's a given that this is superior.

We do not NEVER see women choosing to fight, you need to take a closer look at history if you think that. They are just much less regularly expected to.

That's not automatically bad. Personally I'm against anyone being conscripted.