I don't think all men 18-60 should be forced to fight and not allowed to leave Ukraine. It should be the choice of individual men and women.

[Jjjayfee]

I just saw a young father in tears as he said goodbye to his wife and baby. He is not allowed to leave Ukraine, but has to stay and fight. I think it should be a choice of individual men and women.

Mandatory conscription is awful.

War is worse. They're just reacting to the crisis they've been dealt. I can't judge Ukraine for that, especially when their president is actively leading the country from the front line and hasn't taken the offer to run away.

I don't think you can impose detailed criteria. I mean, if you said men between 18 and 60, with BMI below 30, who has time to weigh them all at the border when you're potentially about to get bombed? Something as basic as age and weight is easier to manage.

I can't believe it's 2022 and a war like this is going on, with no one intervening. The stories of civilians dying are just devastating, especially the ones of the little children.

This world is just terrible. Terrible.

@vickyc90

Honestly I would make it all men and woman who do not have children. I would also make it so those of limited benefit to society go to the front line firsts. So prisoners etc are used first, over a father with a good education and professional job as that who you need left to rebuild.

Interestingly both me and DH come from military families and none of them support national service

How the fuck would you decide who is 'of unlimited benefit to society'? Those who are in prison, or those who are physically/mentally incapable? Or will it be those you are predujuced against, because you clearly have criteria established in your mind... You have no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding someone's reason for being in prison, so why should you judge them to be cannon fodder. Let's hope none of your family ever have a brush with the law

**limited, not unlimited

well said, @BoredToTiers !

I think it's absolutely disgraceful and making a horrendous situation even more unbearable, not only for the men having to fight but also for the women terrified for their husbands and children terrified for their fathers. Truly awful and unacceptable.

Studies have shown that women are much more successful at protecting and keeping children alive, especially small children. It makes sense that they care for the children but have the choice to fight if they wish. We have been blessed with peace. My parents were in cities being bombed during WW2 and were evacuated as small children. Both my granddad and great grandad were conscripted and fought in WW2 and WW1.

To be honest, considering the war came with two weeks notice (or more) and has been going in for 10 days, it looks like the vast majority of men and women have stayed put.

It must be terrifying to be told you have to stay and fight and cant leave and i am not surprised some men want escape. Particularly if you feel the war wont be won or that it should have been prevented by diplomacy over the last few years.

@vickyc90

Honestly I would make it all men and woman who do not have children. I would also make it so those of limited benefit to society go to the front line firsts. So prisoners etc are used first, over a father with a good education and professional job as that who you need left to rebuild.

Interestingly both me and DH come from military families and none of them support national service

You can't start using complicated rules in a war zone.

As a mother of a 10 year old son, this is my worst nightmare.

Of course your right but the reality is Gender equality is an artificial construct which was only remotely possible after the industrial revolution. As soon as there’s even the slightest breakdown in society things start to revert to what they always were in terms of gender roles.

This is what makes the whole “men have always oppressed women” absurd - whenever there’s any kind of breakdown in the industrialised well functioning society it becomes clear that gender roles are just something naturally followed when they are needed, not forced.

You can see that in the upset reactions here - despite the belief in equality here, the idea that should it be truly dangerous instead of desirable, women will take on the same roles as men - is a offensive idea to most of Mumsnet.

That’s the same reason there was no push for gender equality until society was relatively safe - the truth is gender equality is only desirable to most women when the amount they gain outweighs the amount they potentially lose and there’s a vast safety net to support them in it. It’s a phony equality basically.

[quote karcar]@LibrariesGiveUsPower
Plus, I can't speak for the Ukraine but at least here the majority of caring responsibilities are with women. Children and the elderly. [/quote]
not just caring responsibilities.....its a very very very old concept...I mean first settlements old. In order to keep a civilisation going with its belief sets, genes and so on, it needs more men than women. One man can impregnate many women but one woman can only usually bear one or two children at a time and it takes 9 months to make one and many years for it to grow up....so you protect the women and send the men....same with horses, you don't send your mares into battle unless its essential and you ear the bulls first if you need meat......I said it was an old concept.

sorry, I mean of course "it needs less men than women"

@Jjjayfee

If it happened here would it not be fairer if men and women had to stay behind then?

Women are fighting in Ukraine but they do have a choice . It is men who don't have a choice but actually the rules say if a man has 3 children or more under 18 they can leave too. I imagine if they are the sole carerer for children they might be able to leave as well though I am not sure . The rules are about making sure there are enough people to fight whilst their vulnerable citizens are also taken care of

As for conscription , a lot of men might choose to leave ( I don't blame them at all) but if they did Ukraine would have fewer fighters. The government knows people need a nudge sometimes to be brave in such dangerous circumstances. I know that if I had a choice I'd try to get to safety but if not I'd try to fight rather than hide a d many will feel the same .

@BigOlDingleSlinger69
*Of course your right but the reality is Gender equality is an artificial construct which was only remotely possible after the industrial revolution. As soon as there’s even the slightest breakdown in society things start to revert to what they always were in terms of gender roles.

This is what makes the whole “men have always oppressed women” absurd - whenever there’s any kind of breakdown in the industrialised well functioning society it becomes clear that gender roles are just something naturally followed when they are needed, not forced.*

Pretty much. Which is also why historically men have always preferred male leaders, too. If someone is going to tell me to prepare to go and fight and probably die, I expect to see them (ie another man) doing the same. In modern times, that’s symbolised by Zelensky’s action of “staying to fight” which raises the morale of the male fighters and has women worldwide gushing about his heroism.

@DickVanDyke26

As a mother of a 10 year old son, this is my worst nightmare.

It gets worse when they are 17 b

@MrsTerryPratchett
War being part of the patriarchy. Any wars fought between two female leaders? Like, ever?

This is why some people don’t take feminism seriously. Throughout history, women in positions of power have been every bit as bloodthirsty as men.

I understand if you have kids, but no way would I leave my boyfriend here to fight on his own

@BigOlDingleSlinger69
"That’s the same reason there was no push for gender equality until society was relatively safe "

What society are you talking about? Women in other cultures, way before the industrial Revolution took part in decision making (early politics). In Norman times sex equality was higher than in later years, for example. But sex equality would vary around the world and within tribes. Look at the Egyptian example compared with what was happening elsewhere at the time. The difference in sex equality within religions. Sex equality starts with a right to life, which is denied many girls and then it goes on a scale.

I know it's often denied on here and in RL, but male bodies are more efficient fighting machines and as said, on average women keep vulnerable people alive more efficiently during a crisis.

@vickyc90, you think that it's the professionals that rebuild war torn countries? The world can supply professional input etc what's needed is grunt workers, those with building skills and people who can keep those people fed and clean up after them. Professionals being needed are way down the list, unless medically trained.

I imagine the majority of them stay behind voluntarily. No one is forcibly sending men to die on the front lines in Ukraine. There's no reason to give a gun to someone who doesn't want it, there are more volunteers than weapons at the moment, Ukrainians are coming back home from all over the world. Plenty of childless women and women with adult children stay behind too.

@godmum56

That’s an easy justification for modern times - the much simpler and more obvious explanation is that men are both much better at fighting (on the whole) and women are inclined to avoid it.

It’s not like there have been meetings in olden times where sending women to battle has been discussed and decided against because they bear children - it’s much simpler than that, it’s just natural gender instincts playing out.

The truth is that only societies where people are prepared to fight for their patch get to have a country - and often not even then if a bigger army comes along. Women are always asking why men are so violent, well this is why. So that they are prepared to fight off other men to protect what is "theirs".

@Ponoka7

None of that equals a push for gender equality - it’s just women in their feminine roles having more power in specific societies as compared to others societies. Norman times were hardly an example of gender equality pre industrial revolution, cmon.

It’s like the difference between being ruled over by the Taliban and not being able to go anywhere without an escort and not being able to show your face - as opposed to being a woman in Victorian England. One is more impressive than the other but neither have anything to do with equality.

Women in war isn't equal. Women are at a disadvantage in the services.

Physically were less strong.
Rape is used as a weapon.
Body armour is made for men.
The guns provided are made for men.
Sexual assault & harassment in mixed barracks
Coping with periods.
And that's without the other social stuff e.g. being needed to repopulate, caring responsibilities.

Women WILL stay, women WILL be in support roles, but don't kid yourself that a woman on the battlefield is 'equal opportunities'.

She's in an arena made for men & at a disadvantage.

‘Er, only when it suits us, thanks. Definitely not when it might involve getting shot at, which sounds horrid. So we’ll leave that to the men.’
Incredible that you throw this criticism at Ukraine, which had one of the highest female participation in armed forces in the world, and not just tokenistic - there's a female general, for example. Of course, the situation that is ridiculed by the Russian propaganda. And the language evolved to include a "sister-in-arms" term, used by women and men.