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

@mum2bee2022

Perhaps explain that men have a duty to protect the women and children in their lives and in their community.

Why is it men that have that duty though? That’s OP’s whole point! This doesn’t help at all, and even a primary aged child will challenge that with their most basic of responses: why?

If we are experiencing the start of WW3 and it drags on for years (assuming no-one goes nuclear) surely the UK's sons and daughters will be called up to fight.

Would there be an element of (female) society that has a baby to avoid call-up ? Would there be a generation of draft-dodger babies ?

Also I doubt a woman would start a war. I have read somewhere in recent days that historically war was always caused by men and I am not surprised.

In the period 1480 to 1913, Europe’s queens were 27% more likely than its kings to wage war, according to a National Bureau of Economics study.

I would tell them that war is quick and brutal, it breaks down effective lines of communication and makes it difficult to develop nuanced policies.

In an ideal world conscription wouldnt exist. In a less ideal world where it has to exist it would take into account children who only have a father, children with two fathers and no mother, children where the mother is fitter and better equipped to fight than the father. But those are complex nuanced decisions that take time to consider and debate, and a country being invaded doesnt have the luxury of going to that level of detail.

The ukraine made the decision not to effectively orphan its child population. The quickest, easiest way to do that is to allow women to leave and men to stay. It covers the vast majority of senarios. Its not foolproof, but it protects the children.

There are women staying to fight, many of them. But can you imagine the level of beauracracy it would create to determine at an individual level who stays and who goes,whilst there is an army killing your civilians and cutting off escape routes? More people men, women and children would die.

Its easy to demand perfection of policies when you are not being shot at.

Excellent points from mpsw. In the past more men died during wars because they were the ones involved in the actual fighting. In the 2nd World War, single women and childless widows aged under 30 were conscripted but had non combat roles. Of course some women who worked for the Special Operations Executive were involved behind enemy lines and did amazing acts of bravery. Other women volunteered for ambulance services or fire watching etc and so put their lives at risk that way.

Modern day war involves fewer casualties for the armed forces. If you look at places like Syria, the heaviest casualties are among civilians. The way the Russians operated in Syria and now in Ukraine are intended to impact civilians - eg blockading towns to deprive residents of food and clean water, bombing residential areas. In these circumstances men, women, children are all at risk of being killed.

The terrible thing about war is that we are all affected. It's not like being in a job in which we expect men and women to be treated equally. Yes women in Ukraine have been able to leave more easily than men but many women have not chosen to leave or are unable to leave, including those who are caring for parents.

@MiniDaffodils

I have brought them up to think that periods shouldn’t hold any one back. That child rearing is shared equally between men and women (except for the first few months when the women is possibly breast feeding). Also that whilst men are physically stronger that isn’t necessarily a disadvantage in modern combat which relies more on weapons than brute strength.

I don’t feel comfortable saying that actually women can’t go onto the forces because they are physically weaker and have periods - I don’t think that it holds weight as an argument anymore.

I assumed as men and women are both serving in the forces now that both sexes would be conscripted if needed in this country.

Why do you think nobody was ever demonstrably affected by their periods? Is that a forward looking approach for women who suffer from menstruation-based health issues?

Why do you think brute strength and speed don't matter to soldiers? Weapons still need to be lifted and carried.

Why do you think a woman can just stop breastfeeding and the experience will never have any impact on her psychologically?

You've ignored the realities of natal sex and now you can't explain them.

(I believe women would be conscripted here but not to front line combat duty. Happy to be corrected.)

@Thereisnolight

On the other hand I don’t support conscription…just saying it makes no sense to conscript women.

I agree with this, but what would the alternative to conscription be?

I agree with a pp that men do have a duty to protect women and children. The Ukraine appears to be a very traditional society and they obviously believe in this principle. Good for them.

@etulosba

Also I doubt a woman would start a war. I have read somewhere in recent days that historically war was always caused by men and I am not surprised.

In the period 1480 to 1913, Europe’s queens were 27% more likely than its kings to wage war, according to a National Bureau of Economics study.

Did you just c & p this statistic without analysis?

The patriarchy that usually works in favour of men has a down side for them occasionally too 🤷🏻‍♀️

In general men only seem to care about equality when women's issues or brought to the forefront or they feel they are being treated unfairly, the rest of the time they don't seem to give a fuck.

It would have helped if you hadn’t brought them up on fairytales to start with. But in general, what most people are saying ^^

And yes it does seem lots of women are fighting too. Good for them but on the whole the women are having to take care of children and the elderly

Genuinely think you should have a read of this and discuss it with your boys.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/25/two-thirds-of-women-in-uk-military-report-bullying-and-sexual-abuse

You could say, do you think it’s safe for women to be conscripted to our Army, when their comrades on the same side gang rape them? (no reports of female soldiers gang raping the males, btw)

The problem is, if women are conscripted to the front lines, the poor menz will be distracted. Imagine not being ready to advance in time, because you were too busy raping your own sister-in-arms?

also that whilst men are physically stronger that isn’t necessarily a disadvantage in modern combat which relies more on weapons than brute strength
Do you understand at all how heavy weaponry and supplies actually are?

@TeaForTiger

Slightly off topic, but are people really teaching their sons that:

• Women only need to breastfeed for a few months.
• periods are nothing and shouldn't hold women back.
• it doesn't matter that men are stronger than women.

I don't think this is how to raise a feminist and just seems all wrong to me!

Surely you teach your DS's that periods can be painful/ (mentally and physically) exhausting and women may need more help than usual. To be aware that men are much stronger than women and can hurt them easily etc? That men should support women by calling out the unacceptable behaviour of other men, not leaving them to get on with it 'cos equality'.

That's what I'm teaching mine.

I was thinking this too.

Periods can be painful and exhausting.

Women need time to recover and feed their babies. NHS and WHO recommend 2 years plus for breastfeeding.

It does matter that men are stronger. It's what puts women at a massive disadvantage, and why we should teach our sons to stand against other men who are misogynistic and intimidating.

OP I appreciate you think their attitudes are probably very good towards women, but biological differences can be seen and recognised without it being anti-feminist.

Tbh I think you're causing the ansgt here. Just tell them how it is. That's Ukraine, that's how they've decided to do it.

@MiniDaffodils
I don’t feel comfortable saying that actually women can’t go onto the forces because they are physically weaker and have periods - I don’t think that it holds weight as an argument anymore.
You absolute muppet

I’m not explaining. It’s barn door obvious that men are stronger than women and having sisters has made that more obvious, not less. Teaching boys that periods are no big deal can’t can be dealt with as easily as a man pissing against a wall and that rape is used as a weapon of war in a truly intersectional and gender inclusive way is just fucking bizarre. My fighting age son is especially aware of what would happen to his sisters if captured by enemy fighters. “Why don’t you want all your children sent to slaughter” is one of the weirdest takes ever.

But op is talking about the 'unfairness' as if her sons think that the women and children are skipping off into the sunset leaving the men to stay behind on the frontline.

The reality of this particular situation is that everyone is on the 'frontline' and most can't leave. (And if they do leave, they are stuck in limbo somewhere).

So probably useful to take the language of 'unfairness' out of the equation and talk about how difficult war is for everyone (especially those who did not want to be 'rescued' by the Russians and were perfectly happy thank you very much going to school and ballet classes and brownies and the library and football practice...)

Some points me, husband and the eldest came up with -

That for the majority of the world the women give birth and care for children. This is easy for us to understand as my husbands family is traditional. So women run with the kids to safety to protect the next generation. As my son pointed out with the bombing of corridors and the news of hand to hand combat that hardly means women are not exposed or that they may need to fight. My husband pointed out if you think of Kosovo war then many women did arm themselves to try and escape or protect there sons / all boys regardless of age were shot as part of the plan to wipe out the race.

Women are more likely to be raped especially if captured as part of a fighting force. ( didn’t say this in front of child) - And it will be filmed for certain men to wank over on pornhub - probably the woke lefties from places like the guardian.

Men still don’t like to fight women - husbands point.

The average man is still taller / stronger than the average woman so even if they just saw each other as soldiers and disregarded sex what would happen?!

Final point - women can be there behind the scenes working the intelligence and organising / defence is more than fighting.

@Cocomarine

"Why is it men that have that duty though?
That’s OP’s whole point!
This doesn’t help at all, and even a primary aged child will challenge that with their most basic of responses: why?"

Every adult has a duty to protect other people, particularly those that are more vulnerable than themselves. In the case of men, that will include nearly all women, some men (eg elderly, unwell, disabled) and children. In the case of women, that will include some men (eg elderly, unwell, disabled) and all children. I don't think that's hard to explain, or some kind of contradictory or unfair position.

Talk to them also about logistics - where the constricted army are going to sleep. Who has time, in a war zone, to have his n her tents going up?
And why do we have a society that would put women in a separate tent?
Because the men on their own side rape them, that’s why.

Whether we like it or not, men are physically stronger than women. They have a considerably higher ratio of muscle:fat. So for purposes of operating heavy machinery / fighting during a war, men will cope better than women.
That’s assuming OP thinks women should join men on the frontline rather than be in supportive roles.

Historically I think it’s as much to do with population as strength. Ultimately men just aren’t as valuable when it comes to rebuilding your population. So if a society lost a large number of women of childbearing age it could take generations to build numbers up again. Not true with men.

No the able bodied men have the unfair advantage. Women are disadvantaged by this.

How so? The generally stronger (by no fault of their own) males are forced to stay and fight while the generally weaker females get a choice whether to or not.

Isn’t having a choice an advantage?