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

Long live MRAs, my dear pathetic loser :)

Regarding OP's question, the answer is very simple: sexism. Ukraine is a sexist, backward country unworthy of being considered civilized, and it is showing it once again. There is, obviously, no reason whatsoever to conscript only men and not women; physical differences do not prevent women from fulfilling support roles (even if we consider all women unsuitable for combat roles, which is obviously a stretch), and modern armies have more support roles than combat roles. Israel, which has been drafting women since 1948, has an extremely effective and historically successful army, "despite" women accounting for one-third of its troops. In fact, its army has historically been far more successful than those of the countries of origin of individuals who try to persuade others that women aren't suited for the Army due to biological differences.

Women having to care about children is likewise drivel. Prime conscription age is 18-25, and Western women don’t have children at that age, the age of motherhood in Europe and North America varies between the late 20s and over 30, depending on the country. Women having to give birth to children and their death thus harming the survival of a country is likewise drivel; when a war is over, polygamy is not made legal and surviving men do not suddenly start having children from multiple women. Some women have children with the surviving men, the others remain nubile and childless. Once again, Israel has been drafting both sexes since its birth in 1948, and its more economically and socially thriving, and has been more military successful, than all of the countries where old farts keep repeating the same childish objections against female conscription while trying to sound tough and look like they are presenting “harsh truths”. This is the only “harsh truth”.

Thankfully, more and more countries have addressed this issue in the last few years. Norway and Sweden, two of the few European countries with still active conscription, have extended it to women in 2013 and 2017, and the Netherlands, where conscription exists but is "suspended", changed its law in 2018 so that in case of reactivation of conscription, it will apply to both sexes. The United States are also trying, as they should, to extend selective service obligation to women; this is only opposed by the same relics of the past which recently banned abortion. If there will ever be another draft in this country, it will be for both sexes, and there will be no outcry; on the contrary, there would be an outcry if the draft would be only for men, which is obviously inacceptable. Young men have no interest whatsoever in getting killed for a country that discriminates against them; even in backwards Ukraine thousands and thousands have surrendered, deserted or fled abroad to avoid dying for a misandric regime, the same would happen here on even a greater scale, much to the displeasure of some backwards individuals who posted in this discussion.

Men are generally seen as expendable. A man dying is rarely seen as a tragedy outside of those who know them. They are for many seen to be the protector role and therefore expected to encounter danger and be harmed.

Suicide deaths, workplace deaths, war / conflict deaths, homicide victims. There are many areas where men die in far greater numbers than women but there is no action to change that or to care about those deaths as it is seen as part of being a man. Men are expected to put themselves in danger for women. Whether it be walking nearest to the road, dealing with danger in the home (intruder, animal), women and children first, taking on the dangerous jobs (heights, mines, firefighting etc) etc. There is an expectation that a man protect the others at this own expense and should he be harmed - well that is part of being a man.

You almost never seen any concerns for the safety of men or concerns about issues that lead to harm and death to men. It is still societally acceptable for men to die.

Apart from the whole men are stronger than women fact, women are the child bearers, they are a country's most precious resource. You don't send women to be canon fodder because you need them. One man can impregnate many women so you need fewer men.

....in backwards countries like Ukraine. Thankfully things are changing in Europe, see Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands extending conscription to women.

Drivel. In the real world, one man does not impregnate many women. You need as many men as women to keep a real society going, countries that allowed their male population to be slaughtered in war historically took decades to recover. The answer to the original question is very simple; sexism and backwardness. Men are not more expendable than women, they are only thought as such by individuals living in the 18th century. That is why more and more countries have been addressing and fixing the obvious issue of the sexist discrimination that is male-only conscription. Ukraine, as it happens, is a extremely backwards country and that will be their undoing.

Drivel. In the real world, one man does not impregnate many women. You need as many men as women to keep a real society going, countries that allowed their male population to be slaughtered in war historically took decades to recover. The answer to the original question is very simple; sexism and backwardness. Men are not more expendable than women, they are only thought as such by individuals living in the 18th century. That is why more and more countries have been addressing and fixing the obvious issue of the sexist discrimination that is male-only conscription. Ukraine, as it happens, is a extremely backwards country and that will be their undoing.

I know this thread was written a little while ago but I felt the need to contribute. I have found so many of the comments here out dated and reliant on sweeping generalisations about the role of men and women and on their apparent strengths and skills. If we want a truly equal society, then conscription ( if it had to happen which I pray with all my heart it doesn't) would need to disregard gender and be of those who are best placed to serve. While men do often have greater physical strength this is not always the case. I have two sons one of them has co - ordination difficulties and the other was born very small and is not particularly strong- the simple fact of the matter is that there would be lots of girls who would physically out perform them. in very cold terms surely countries would need the best defence possible rather than just saying that being male is the only necessary quality. I also believe that we need to do everything we can to reduce stereotypical notions particularly those that lead to boys feeling they need to be tough and less emotional, my view is that conscription of just men does not help this. Of course there would be a need to take into consideration the role that people play in terms of looking after children and other dependents but I think it is crucial that we don't fall into the outdated trap of thinking view that this role must fall to women. In my personal and work life experience I have seen real equality between men and in terms of caregiving roles and where this happens I have seen children thrive and stronger healthier relationships between all concerned. I know that I there is more to be done in this area and I am sad that this is not the experience of everyone on this thread but I truly believe that conscription based just on gender just sets us back too far.

I don’t think extending conscription to women is the sign of an advanced society at all. Far from it. Why do some women here seem to take it as a compliment that women would be conscripted?

Conscription forces the expendable to be cannon fodder. The most intelligent men are not sent frontline to do the dirty work.

Unless by conscription you mean asking people to contribute in other ways - medical, rebuilding, food supplies. That’s just contributing to society which everyone should be doing anyway.

By the way, most men are stronger than most women. Always think it strange how some women on MN genuinely seem to think that’s not the case.

I don't see conscription as a compliment at all and I think it's a pretty horrific process that is hard to justify. But I'm you can not have an equal society if just one gender is conscripted and not the other.

Yes most but not all. Plus this does not take into account reaction times co ordination and numerous other skills that would be more crucial to modern warfare than brute strength.

Let’s make war fairer eh?

That's a bit of weak response. War is always horrific but surely every decision a country makes has to be guided by its values and principles. Surely if a desire for equalitand fairness is one of our values ( which I believe it to be) then this has to apply to all decisions we make, including conscription
. Although I will reiterate in my view war and conscription need to be a avoided at all costs.

Women having to care about children is likewise drivel. Prime conscription age is 18-25, and Western women don’t have children at that age, the age of motherhood in Europe and North America varies between the late 20s and over 30, depending on the country.

The AVERAGE age to have your first child in Ukraine is much younger than the rest of the west. The figure I've just looked up (data from 2013) is that its 23.1. Remembering what AVERAGE means here.

Btw its over 27 for Israel, possibly because of long term conscription, playing a role in delaying pregnancy, however you can't undo all the Ukrainian women who have already had their kids in the middle of a war...

23.1 is slap bang in the middle of the premise of your argument. And pretty much kills it stone cold dead for Ukraine.

www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/People/Mother's-mean-age-at-first-birth

Bit horrified quite honestly at the thought of these boys upset that women won't be on the front line of a battle because "it's not fair". Do they have no sense of chivalry? Are they being brought up to actually respect women? I don't envy their future partners.

Clearly OP disappeared a while back,but given the atrocities we've seen over there happening to men women and children, aside from the fact that there are wome fighting on the front line over there. I wonder if hers or her children's feelings have changed?

It's nice to have an abstract conversation about these things but the reality is people are losing everything over there and bombs don't discriminate between men and women.

I think there can be and in actual fact are exemptions for people to be exempt from conscription because they need to look after young children ( this could be mother or father depending on circumstances) . I don't think that women having children is reason for them to be exempt from conscription it it has to take place. I just can't see a single reason why conscription should be purely based on gender it feels outdated and cruel. War is beyond awful but insisting all men under a certain age be conscripted regardless of other factors seems unjustifiable.

So conscripting women to make things equally (or let’s face it, since they ARE physically weaker, even more) awful for them is the answer?

The best answer is no wars but if your country is invaded the best answer doesn't actually work.

I don't think conscription necessarily means you will be in the front line, there are many roles and some of them would probably see women safer than being left in their bombed out homes. Doctors and nurses (male and female) would be more use in hospitals, engineers (male and female) would be more use in their own roles (might be planning repairs to bridges or other things for say electrical or mechanical engineers.)

People, male and female, can have caring commitments and they should of course be taken into consideration but based on the needs of the person cared for rather than the sex of the carer.