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 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.

///

Where has this been said?

You would struggle to get any more misogyny in these sentences

@BellatrixOnABadDay

I am merely responding to posts claiming that the possibility of rape alone should keep women from war - but the possibility of death of all manner and torture isn’t enough to keep men from war or women if it wasn’t for the possible rape.

We’re posters not arguing this? Yes they were. Again why are these things to be braved but not rape (which often happens to men and there are many awful stories from various African wars)

Likewise, rape has been actively used as a tool of war in terms of genocide, to get the women pregnant with "war babies". As has been discussed in other threads, there was a grim history in the last century of Russian soldiers being particularly sexually violent to women of a conquered people.

The knowledge that women are being treated in this way is a weapon against their countrymen as well, it is a tool to break people's spirit.

BigOld my lovely dad served for 22 years and says you're talking tosh

@tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz

Talking tosh about what specifically?

@tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz

And I don’t believe it gives me any special authority but I have served my country as well so I don’t bow down to his.

[quote BigOlDingleSlinger69]@tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz

And I don’t believe it gives me any special authority but I have served my country as well so I don’t bow down to his.[/quote]
Oh of course you have 🙄

Army cadets and playing a trumpet on Remembrance Day doesn't count.

@girlmom21

Believe what you will I really don’t give a shit. None of it is relevant to what’s being talked about.

The thing is, TexBigDingle69, this might make a bit more sense if you were arguing for women to be called to front line combat duty. But you're not. You don't think they should be there either. All you want to argue about is rape and why the implications of it aren't as serious as women say they are. And you'll argue it forever if we let you. It's a big, big issue for you.

That alone is creepy enough. The fact that you're also from a very, very long production line of men with screen names like BigBalls and SwingingDick, who seek to correct women about rape, raises the creep to weapon level (see what I did there?).

I guess what I don't understand is why this always seems to surprise and offend you lot. If you aren't trying to be creepy by calling yourself TexBigDingle69 and lecturing women about why they're wrong about rape, what effect are you all going for?

Hmm, actually, TexBigBollocks, on second thought, don't tell me. It occurs to me that I really don't want to know.

@DrSbaitso

I’m not going for any “effect” and I really couldn’t care less about a “creep level” or being called a creep because someone disagrees with me on the internet. In my eyes that’s a quite pathetic tactic of someone who is easily upset and becomes irrational when confronted with an argument they don’t like.

In full honesty it’s not a particular big issue any more than any of the others but people haven’t kept arguing or got offended by me disagreeing with it not being about other things so I’m not responding to comments that aren’t there - and you can choose to accept that or try to make something more of it. it is however an issue which has been raised as a reason for why women shouldn’t hypothetically fight, which I disagreed with as it’s not like the other horrific outcomes (and they really are) are any better in my mind whether they happen to men or women.

The fact you have taken such issue with my disagreement that the whole tone of your comments has changed to attempted insult shows more what a big issue it is for you, so I’m not sure why you who are also still arguing the issue are trying to make it seem wrong that I do so.

Obviously we disagree and there’s little more to say.

This is a really odd thread, lots of incredibly detailed and informative responses, yet OP is still shrugging their shoulders and just doesn't know how to explaine. O_o

Right... the hysterical women have disagreed with big ol' 69er dickus who came to tell us what war really was like because he has been in it dontcha know? and how we were all pussies for being so scared of rape that we didn't want to be conscripted.

Not sorry women are happy to tell you rape is only one aspect of this and actually most of us agree women can and should fight, just not all women can and segregating which women can is much harder than for men.

but you do you and keep believing women are all scared of fighting and very happy to feed their men to war as canon fodder and especially keep pitting the work women do as inferior to enforced male conscription. seems to not get you far which is exactly where you need to be.

I really couldn’t care less about a “creep level”

Just as well!

@microbius

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

Of course because biology means men are I'll equipped to hoover or dust. Must be those big flappy hands

@DrSbaitso

The threat of rape is one reason why women are worse at fighting and less aggressive.

There is something indescribably creepy about a bloke calling himself 69erBigDingle or whatever it is, flapping around for a day and a night on a predominantly female website about why rape isn't as bad as women say it is.

Quite

[quote BigOlDingleSlinger69]@tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz

And I don’t believe it gives me any special authority but I have served my country as well so I don’t bow down to his.[/quote]
Does that inform you of why rape is not such a bad thing as women make it out to be?

[quote BigOlDingleSlinger69]@tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz

And I don’t believe it gives me any special authority but I have served my country as well so I don’t bow down to his.[/quote]
Erm, why conscription of women isn't a bad idea.

He's seen enough Bad Stuff during his service to know during war all bets are off. It's you or the other person. The odds of me no matter what training I've had coming up against even a 50 year old man in a combat situation aren't good for me and that's even if sexual violence isn't a factor.

Plus your argument just keeps coming back to the fear of rape not being a great excuse so I guess on that basis I shall leave you to it.

*There are other reasons other than women being worse than fighting as to why it would be less practical for women to fight - but all of them are irrelevant as there has never been a conscious choice of “should we send women to the front lines or not for x,w, z reasons” it has always simply happened that men have fought and women fled if neccassary and the reason for that is simply because men are much better at it and it comes more naturally.

If women and men had the same physical attributes and mental nature but it just happened that women gave birth women would be fighting in much larger number and there wouldn’t be any excuses unless they were pregnant or similar. The simple truth is it’s only women being very comparatively bad at fighting by nature and less inclined to it which has meant it’s always been entirely natural that men fight. There’s nothing more to it.*

How the fuck can you claim to know there is "nothing more to it"? Are you a historian?

Historically, there are LOTS of reasons why women didn't fight other than that they were bad at it. Some of them practical, and others based on the outdated standards of the time. Some of those traditional views still influence our approach to things today, which I'm not arguing is a good thing, but it is sure as hell more complex than just "there is nothing more to it than that women are bad at fighting, there has never ever been more to it, DickSlinger says so so everyone else needs to stop sharing their own more nuanced insights because the expert has spoken".

Is shit slinger in any way related to shit poster? Or do they just sound the same?

I think a significant number of men and women have a tendency to run away - it’s a survival instinct. One could argue that it has evolutionary advantage for those who are weaker. You can argue that more women than men would run away - I would not be surprised.

But if you rank people by strength and their predicted chance of winning (ie strong men on side with the smaller army or weak men/women on the side of the bigger army), I wonder what it would be. Live to fight another day may well be a ‘better’ strategy overall (in terms of casualties or with a long term view) - though as a pacifist I would argue for non violent resistance (which can also be dangerous - Sophie scholl, Hans scholl and friends).

The average 30 year old woman would likely be more useful in most physical situations than the average 60 year old man

I’d dispute that based on experience in a sport including both sexes and involving recreational participants. An averagely fit 60 yo man will vastly outperform an averagely fit 30 yo woman any day, being (generally) bigger and stronger.

@borntobequiet

The average 30 year old woman would likely be more useful in most physical situations than the average 60 year old man

I’d dispute that based on experience in a sport including both sexes and involving recreational participants. An averagely fit 60 yo man will vastly outperform an averagely fit 30 yo woman any day, being (generally) bigger and stronger.

This is a research finding and lots of this sort of thing about for those who want to Google it ...'Men of seventy-five still have seventy percent of their original muscle power, which makes them just as strong as young women.' etc etc. Men aged 60 are loads stronger than women aged 30. This is why the mediocre middle aged male cyclists can beat the champion women

@borntobequiet

The average 30 year old woman would likely be more useful in most physical situations than the average 60 year old man

I’d dispute that based on experience in a sport including both sexes and involving recreational participants. An averagely fit 60 yo man will vastly outperform an averagely fit 30 yo woman any day, being (generally) bigger and stronger.

My view is based on my own experience of (combat) sports. Younger women train with a wider range of people than older men. The older men are generally riddled with injuries and age-related vulnerabilities that make it difficult to keep up with younger participants whilst remaining relatively safe even if noone is actively trying to hurt anybody.