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

Yes, the more I think about it, the weirder it is that any woman would think it fit to tell her children that there's nothing about menstruation that might cause women disadvantages in any sphere of life.

I'm lucky that mine have never posed me any serious issue, but even I have had to take the odd day off with unusually bad cramps. And I know enough of women's experiences to know that many women experience endo, serious depression related to their cycles, flooding, PCOS and severe camping requiring prescription painkillers, among other things. Most women don't have serious problems, but a significant number have. And there's nothing feminist about pretending they don't exist and never need any kind of assistance or allowances.

In fact, who benefits from spouting such arrant nonsense?

Tbh the instinct of soldiers (especially poor bloody conscripts) to flee is something of a taboo subject. Not dwelt upon too often.

I've been off MN for a while but I have to rephrase this particular question:

Is it fair that by default, it is the women who need to find escape routes in between bombs with dogs, cats, grandma, grandpa and multiple children on her back whilst also dealing with either pregnancy or periods and making sure her children don't watch her be raped, after which she has to find shelter, food, safe haven and eventually income for everyone in her escape party whilst dad is out fighting?

Putting the focus on the conscription and minimizing the other work going on makes this a loaded question.

Should any of these be default roles? no I don't think so. In war, can we trust people would make honest decisions to do either one (knowing that some would abandon their kids or comrades to save their own skin given a choice) possibly not. so the world came up with a bad solution that works. kind of.

Nothing is fair in war. I salute all the men, women and children either fleeing or fighting in Ukraine.

stop trying to make women feel weak so that you can feel better about treating them like shite when there is no war on. Being physically weaker doesn't imply women can't get on with life.

@aSofaNearYou

I wasn’t glorifying it, I was noting it. I made no moral judgement on anyone in this situation other than those who actually called for and wanted the war (and to a lesser extent those carrying it out, getting lesser the further down the Russian military food chain they are)

I agree with you, OP, I have been thinking that saying the boy has to kill because he was born with his sex is exactly the same as to say the girl has to clean the house and take all caring duties because she is born with her sex. [this is also inverted to say men cause wars; hence new fresh men need to be trained to kill and into a mentality to cause wars] This is patriarchal and this thread just shows how deeply ingrained patriarchy is and how toxic it is

@aSofaNearYou

And yes some few certain women have chosen to fight or (possibly more often) martyr themselves (which can lead to similar consequences as fighting a losing battle) and they have done so despite the threat (and often certainty) of rape, which only makes the explanation that the consequences are to dire for women to do this if the cause is important to them all the more hollow.

To use menstruation in this context is exactly the same it was used to say women can't take leadership roles and professional roles because they menstruate; it renders them unreliable, they can't think, etc.

Some women have very difficult menstruation but some men also have complex health problems with which they wouldn't be able to join the army

@RobinBlackbird

Tbh the instinct of soldiers (especially poor bloody conscripts) to flee is something of a taboo subject. Not dwelt upon too often.

That's presumably where being shot at dawn came from. I'm absolutely not saying it's ok, just that it's proof of the desire of soldiers to flee. Who could blame them? I don't want to run into enemy fire or landmines either.

But thinking about it dispassionately, as I guess war leaders have to, you're just much more likely to win with men on the front line than women.

@microbius

To use menstruation in this context is exactly the same it was used to say women can't take leadership roles and professional roles because they menstruate; it renders them unreliable, they can't think, etc.

Some women have very difficult menstruation but some men also have complex health problems with which they wouldn't be able to join the army

It's more the context of an OP who has told her children it never presents a problem for women. That's demonstrably untrue.

@Barbarantia

I've been off MN for a while but I have to rephrase this particular question:

Is it fair that by default, it is the women who need to find escape routes in between bombs with dogs, cats, grandma, grandpa and multiple children on her back whilst also dealing with either pregnancy or periods and making sure her children don't watch her be raped, after which she has to find shelter, food, safe haven and eventually income for everyone in her escape party whilst dad is out fighting?

Putting the focus on the conscription and minimizing the other work going on makes this a loaded question.

Should any of these be default roles? no I don't think so. In war, can we trust people would make honest decisions to do either one (knowing that some would abandon their kids or comrades to save their own skin given a choice) possibly not. so the world came up with a bad solution that works. kind of.

Nothing is fair in war. I salute all the men, women and children either fleeing or fighting in Ukraine.

stop trying to make women feel weak so that you can feel better about treating them like shite when there is no war on. Being physically weaker doesn't imply women can't get on with life.

👏👏👏

[quote Luredbyapomegranate]@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]
People are posting as if endogenous testosterone means there is no overlap between the capabilities of men and women.

Yes, take the average strength of men as a whole and it will be greater than the strength of women as a whole, however, there is a minimum physical standard required to be useful in a combat situation.

This is not the same as male marine fitness standards. If it was conscription would not be a thing because the vast majority of men would not pass

The question is whether a significant amount of women could meet that minimum bar for usefulness and I think they could. The average 30 year old woman would likely be more useful in most physical situations than the average 60 year old man.

A vast part of fighting now is sitting at the screen and pushing a button. The ultimate horizon is the nuke where there is no upper body strength needed, and it comes from nowhere, and everyone instantly dead.

All the justification about women rendered unable by their biology is exactly the same why there are so few pilot women (civil aviation, not to mention military), and not very recently these was used to justify that women shouldn't drive trains/ vehicles / tanks

because PCOS

[quote BigOlDingleSlinger69]@aSofaNearYou

And yes some few certain women have chosen to fight or (possibly more often) martyr themselves (which can lead to similar consequences as fighting a losing battle) and they have done so despite the threat (and often certainty) of rape, which only makes the explanation that the consequences are to dire for women to do this if the cause is important to them all the more hollow.[/quote]
You are, at this point, quite bizarrely focused on the rape element of the conversation.

It's been mentioned a couple of times, primarily because it can occur amongst people on the same side and the kind of resulting discord is not conducive to an effective, united group of fighters, and because it can result in pregnancy, which is another added complication that makes for bad soldiers.

But regardless, it is one reason among several that makes conscripting women less practical. Why are you so focused on that one? Why does it bother you so much that people mentioned rape?

A vast part of fighting now is sitting at the screen and pushing a button.

Have you seen any news coverage of what's going on in Ukraine?

Lots of people on here, still thinking of war as hand to hand combat.
Not only is this thread dripping misogyny, I think the glorious colonial eras are still lurking around.

A physically fit woman who is not pregnant can carry around a 5 year old for more than a few hours at a time. we all do this routinely (Mummy i can't walk any more... eye roll.) She will most likely do this whilst fleeing as kids don't walk that far.

That's the weight of a MANPAD. That's all she might need to do strength wise in combat. She doesn't have to be the strongest woman alive for that. or stronger than any other man.

She will very rarely be in a position of hand to hand combat and therefore needing to fight hulk hogan. if anything, fleeing the war gives her more chance of coming into hand-to-hand combat situations where she is most likely going to be beaten to a pulp, as you say.

She will very rarely be in a position of hand to hand combat and therefore needing to fight hulk hogan.

You think a man has to be built like Hulk Hogan to beat the average woman? Oh dear.

@aSofaNearYou

Ignoring the fact that you have conveniently ignored the main points of my reply to you, the reason I mentioned rape specifically was because it had been brought up specifically by others as a gender specific reason as to why the women couldn’t fight in addition to the “equal” horrible outcomes which they would share with men - as though if it were not for the rape the women would fight. To which my point was why is that one horror the disqualifyer amongst so many others, to which I still haven’t received a coherent answer.

Why does it bother you I addressed that?

Anyhow once again because you haven’t seemed to realise it I’m not arguing for women to be conscripted or fight. I don’t think women should fight because of the simple biology of the genders and their (overall) lack of instinct for it which makes them so much worse at it and just mean they will get in the way. But were all things equal in that regard and should women be naturally as good as fighting as men the additional possibility of rape shouldn’t be enough to keep them from the front when there are so so many other horrible things also happening.

[quote BigOlDingleSlinger69]@aSofaNearYou

Ignoring the fact that you have conveniently ignored the main points of my reply to you, the reason I mentioned rape specifically was because it had been brought up specifically by others as a gender specific reason as to why the women couldn’t fight in addition to the “equal” horrible outcomes which they would share with men - as though if it were not for the rape the women would fight. To which my point was why is that one horror the disqualifyer amongst so many others, to which I still haven’t received a coherent answer.

Why does it bother you I addressed that?

Anyhow once again because you haven’t seemed to realise it I’m not arguing for women to be conscripted or fight. I don’t think women should fight because of the simple biology of the genders and their (overall) lack of instinct for it which makes them so much worse at it and just mean they will get in the way. But were all things equal in that regard and should women be naturally as good as fighting as men the additional possibility of rape shouldn’t be enough to keep them from the front when there are so so many other horrible things also happening.[/quote]
What did I ignore? That comment was entirely about the rape issue.

It doesn't bother me that you have mentioned it but you have mentioned it SO MUCH when it is not even close to being the main reason people have suggested, which you've only really addressed as an afterthought. It is an odd thing to be so zeroed in on. Ironically you've ignored the reasons I've just suggested as to why rape is more of an issue than other things. You just keep asking the same question over and over even when people do answer it.

The rest of your comment is just plain obnoxious.

girlmom21 and what, there were not burned vehicles, shelling, rockets, launchers, all kinds of military equipment and arms destroyed? do you think they were destroyed by hand? Oh you think entire russian army is taking knives and running towards entire ukrainian army and they beat each other up?

Fact of the matter is men are stronger than women and men shouldn't logically want women fighting on the battlefront with them.

If you're a male eligible to be enlisted, then you're being enlisted no matter what, and you're chances of survival are greatly increased if you're fighting alongside other males rather than females who are weaker. We can also pretend we're better than animals and biological influences all we like, but the reality is men are more aggressive and less risk averse, and will fare better in a fight for that reason.

In war you don't have the luxury of treating everyone individually, pragmatism is key. Like in healthcare, do you fund research into the disease that kills 1/100 or the disease that kills 50/100? I say and agree with that as a person with a condition that no one researches because too few people get it and it doesn't kill, even though it's really bloody painful.

Ukranian army would not conscript women because it is a normal patriarchal country like all other around it, with conscription normally excluding women, and feminism not very advanced (in terms of sharing care etc). This is not to say anything bad about Ukraine, this is just normal, how it is, and perviously there was hope it could improve. So I can clearly see why Ukraine will not conscript women. For me, it's not even a question. What was surprising was to see the volume of women here using mysogynist patriarchal arguments about women in general and how their biology makes them so weak, which is out of patriarchal book.

@LizBennet You think a man has to be built like Hulk Hogan to beat the average woman? Oh dear.

No. I believe she will have a higher probability of being beaten to death trying to protect her fleeing party than if she stayed to fight. I was calling out the mental picture being painted in the posts above mine.

Women are weaker than men as a sex class. Women are not weak.

Some on here like to classify anything women do as what the weak ones do. and i am calling out the bullshit. What the women are doing is not the weak side of this fight.

Women have the strength to flee and to fight but their ability to do this varies in ways which are not visible to all. It is therefore up to the woman to know what her body is capable of at any time and to know which part she can play.

This is just astonishing. I should tell my son then that he is naturally aggressive and tell my daughter that she is weak and should be in bed in pain. Oh stupid me, I was thinking we could raise boys non-aggressive and raise girls as able

the fate of biology, ah? hormones determine everything, not society, culture, politics. so I should tell my son he should look for his killer instinct otherwise he is a mummy boy