[Closed] Ukraine Men 18-60 Only why?

Abandon ship - women and children first?

Edit - Eastern Europe is very male dominated and antiquated in it's approach to women. I don't think they're really interested in changing peoples attitudes toward different genders at the moment.

Abandon ship – women and children first?

Hmm my wife and I have talked about this, if it was here in the UK my wife would stay and I would take our son to somewhere safer.

I don’t think they’re really interested in changing peoples attitudes toward different genders at the moment.

Completely agreed, but to me it was more of a note on really in reality how the world as not moved on

Knowing what horrendous acts often happened to women civilians in war e.g. Bosnia, Nanjing etc, I'm perfectly happy with women leaving tbh as sexist as that sounds.

Knowing what horrendous acts often happened to women civilians in war e.g. Bosnia, Nanjing etc, I’m perfectly happy with women leaving tbh as sexist as that sounds.

And that is a very fair point that I had in honesty forgotten about

The Russian army (or indeed any invading force) aren't known for treating male and female prisoners "of war" equally.
Mass rape stories may be not always be true but it happens.

I fear Stevet1 has it - I think think women who have served in the army are being called up as reservists from reports earlier in the week, but women are not facing conscription.

As the father of a teenage daughter, the terror of parent must be horrendous.

Sorry to break it to you but women are not equal to men and vice versa, despite all the do gooders will have you believe, in certain situations you need the attributes of one and not the other and that is just the way it is
Runs and hides

Edit.. everyone should be treated equally but that does not mean they are the same

I'm pretty sure women are as capable as men in many military roles.

The issue is they are subject to different levels of abuse if captured.

Traditionally, women are held to be more valuable than men so aren't used as soldiers.

Eastern Europe is very male dominated and antiquated in it’s approach to women

Which western nations have conscripted women to front line roles?

Sorry to break it to you but women are not equal to men and vice versa, despite all the do gooders will have you believe

Your point has merit, don't spoil it with the 'Do gooders' bit.

And to your point - equally is not the same as fairly. Of course we don't treat people equally, we give more help to those that need it when they need it, because that is fair. In the light of points like Steve1's, then yes it is fair to protect women more than men in the face of an approaching occupying army.

Would you rather be raped or have all your teeth pulled out, electricity passed through your gonads or water boarded? The idea that one is worse than the other is of course a ridiculous Hobson's choice but illustrates the point that we still value men's lives less than women's/regard women as weaker than men (there's two ways to see the same problem but equality if a fickle beast).

I’m pretty sure women are as capable as men in many military roles.

There are numerous countries with women serving in front line combat roles; the problem is less to do with physical capability (after all if you can pass the physical you can pass the physical right, assuming that the requirements are the same), the problem is more as highlighted above. We still have very different standards as to what we can tolerate happening to a man versus a woman and that makes commanding a mixed gender unit very challening. I'm not saying those standard are right, far from it; I think that the sooner we are comfortable with both men and women losing limbs, being eviscerated in a muddy field, suffering extreme PTSD and falling into mental dispair and homelessness, or indeed, coming home in a bag, the sooner we are to give up on the idea of war and conflict all together.

The problem, more acurately put, is that we are still comfortable with those things happening at all and thus war is still regarded as a reasonable means of solving disputes.

Which western nations have conscripted women to front line roles?

Israel?
.
.
Also, we here it on the news a lot. Eg "50 civilians were killed, mostly women and children" They obviously think the difference is worth pointing out

my wife pointed out yesteday that afghan women might have held out more effectively against the returning taliban when the west pulled out

Repopulation may have a historical influence.

A woman's part in repopulation is 9 months plus with a considerable level of risk and recovery. For men, it's 5 minutes effort and a nap.

Someone once gave a good example with submariners. A man might be called on to close a hatch and drown his mates to save the boat. Would he be as willing if there was a woman on the other side of that hatch?

No it's old fashioned views / values that men are better at fighting than women & women are better at looking after kids. I'm sure in Ukraine that generally it's true.

Plus the risk of rape. Invading soldiers are more likely to rape a female POW than torture a male one by a massive margin.

Also I wonder do boys in Ukraine have military training?

Someone once gave a good example with submariners. A man might be called on to close a hatch and drown his mates to save the boat. Would he be as willing if there was a woman on the other side of that hatch?

I don't see it making a difference.

I found while in the army serving in conflicts and also even on nights out males act differently in the protection or perceived protection of females within the group ober males.
This also happens in the fire service when we are attacked by groups, I think its just bred into males to protect females from an early age, be this right or wrong , most of them didn't want or need any protection as they have enough about them to sort it themselves but I think that's just the way we are wired

Look, lots of debate but we all know why don't we? the notion that men hunt, kill, and fight is ingrained in our DNA. Doesn't mean it's right, but when the pressure is on people will lean on that default. I'm sure the longer this goes on, by necessity that default will give way to a needs based requirement.

As for the analogies, they're shit. Codemining the people you live with, eat with and work with on an almost 24/7 basis for long periods of time to death would be hard no matter the gender.

Most of the fallacies come from a place of physical confrontation, but armed action is very different. I've trained some exceptionally tactically aware and proficient women in my time as well as men. The tools & tactics are the leveller that help overcome any reduction in physical size or strength.

https://twitter.com/kiraincongress/status/1497264543428448260

Someone once gave a good example with submariners. A man might be called on to close a hatch and drown his mates to save the boat. Would he be as willing if there was a woman on the other side of that hatch?

That isn't a good example I'm afraid, but the answer to your question is yes.  The reason why it's a poor example is it massively underestimates the bond that exists between serving personnel, particularly those who have trained, served or fought together.  It's a lifelong thing that far outlasts their actually service and is perhaps difficult for those who haven't experienced it to understand.  The idea that they would be happy to throw their male comrades under a bus, but save the female ones is nonsense.

Good trigger discipline there.

Isn't it just about who is most likely to have had basic military training?

Would you rather be raped or have all your teeth pulled out, electricity passed through your gonads or water boarded?

Not entirely sure it's the same thing. Men might get tortured in specific situations - waterboarding takes time and organisation. Women get raped for the hell of it for the enjoyment of men.

I get the feeling here that the government has to be seen to be traditional here by only asking the men but I doubt they'll turn away the women who do want to fight.

Like many former Soviet states, Ukraine has had national service for boys and men for decades - they started to increase it for certain fields for women last year too.

So it makes sense they're talking about "men 18 to 60" as they'll be trained in combat. It's not a sexism thing, or valuing more over the other, it's gathering together a previously trained militia.

So not a thread about ageism then?

I had heard that they had removed the upper age limit.
That was on the radio, will Google a source a for that.
.
[Edit] no, that was the age joining the reservists, not for leaving.

The Russians ever invade Dundee they are in for a trauma inducing lesson on gender equality.

Worth pointing out to Dunc that in the Ukraine he wouldn't be leaving with the kids. Also most of the civilians will have been thro' national service , so the civilians getting guns aren't quite the equivalent of the Home Guard

The idea that they would be happy to throw their male comrades under a bus, but save the female ones is nonsense.

Shame that's not what was actually said.

Oh, and the example about the submarine came from a discussion involving serving offices. It may not be the only opinion, but if people have reason to consider it and form that opinion, then it's valid whether yours agrees or not.

Eastern Europe is very male dominated and antiquated in it’s approach to women. I don’t think they’re really interested in changing peoples attitudes toward different genders at the moment.

It's the kind of issue whose solving comes to societies after they've settled more pressing needs. Keeping warm comes before sustainable energy, security comes before gender equality and "wokeness" issues.

We still have very different standards as to what we can tolerate happening to a man versus a woman and that makes commanding a mixed gender unit very challening.

This hits me even watching the DH racing when one of the women crashes, hair flowing out of the helmet while getting slammed into a tree or bouncing down a rocky track. When I see photos of Ukrainian civilian women picking up guns, my gut feel is, let guys handle this.

The reason why it’s a poor example is it massively underestimates the bond that exists between serving personnel, particularly those who have trained, served or fought together. It’s a lifelong thing that far outlasts their actually service and is perhaps difficult for those who haven’t experienced it to understand.

I guess it's a much stronger version of what you get from participating in dangerous team sports/work with others, or making it out of some dangerous mountain/sea situation with them.

Just because they're allowed to leave doesn't mean they have to or want to.

Because on average men are physically stronger and better suited to front line soldiering.

In a former job they introduced a fitness test for a particular role which involved basically dressing in full PPE and helmet and jogging a few hundred metres while carrying a large perspex shield followed by a few exercises while holding the shield overhead. Pre fitness test it was roughly 80% male. Post fitness test it was roughly 95% male. Most of the females couldn't pass the test.

Obviously it doesn't take any strength to pull a trigger but humping gear and weapons around a battlefield would still be physically demanding I would imagine.

From what I've seen they're not, they're mostly in very light order. I'm not entirely convinced a lot of the body armour even has plates in.

Obviously it doesn’t take any strength to pull a trigger but humping gear and weapons around a battlefield would still be physically demanding I would imagine.

 

Some people have strange views about stuff like this, a bit surprised people have forgotten what happened to the female German population with the Russians in WWII.

Also the fact that mass rape is used as a form of ethnic cleansing and means of subjugating civilian populations. Happens today in conflicts today, Sudan and Ethiopia etc.

All for gender equality, but I think in this case focusing on previous military personnel that are trained (regardless of gender) and men that might have a shorter readiness curve in terms of physical capabilities might get them better prepared sooner. Also leaving a smaller stick for them to be hit with in terms of reprisal threats.

Obviously a horrific situation, wish armed conflicts were a thing of the past and agree that we need to do something different or we will just keep repeating the same patterns leading to broken people.

Deary me, the lack of awareness of female involvement in the Soviet army during WW2 is really rather sad. There were female tank crews, there were female fighter squadrons, and at least two Soviet snipers with among the highest kills in Stalingrad were female.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/night-witches-russias-female-fighter-pilots-world-war-ii-186237

https://www.wonderslist.com/deadliest-russian-female-snipers-world-war-ii/

https://www.rbth.com/history/329236-soviet-female-tank-crews

Isn’t it just about who is most likely to have had basic military training?

Yes, as on the other thread every man between 18 & 60 will have done national service. Women who have served in the forces have already been recalled.

@countzero - Counterpoint is the involvement of the Soviet army “with females” in WWII. A staggeringly dark end to an already terrible part of history, that isn’t ever really mentioned.

Not saying women can’t be good soldiers at all, but putting those examples in without the wider context from the time of what the larger majority of the forces did is a bit one sided.

I will get off my soap box, but I will be interested to hear what comes out in the news over the next six months if it is fully occupied and progressively annexed.

That sniper link was interesting and quite dark reading.

despite all the do gooders will have you believe

*Waves*

Although that's now what I and probably not what many people believe.

Anecdote:
I go to the gym with a friend, she can out bench, squat and deadlift me.

Statistic:
1 in 4 men have a criminal record for crimes that required a trial at crown court (i.e. not just a FPN for speeding and a trip to the magistrate). For women, that's less than 1 in 20.

It's a logical leap that a proportion of at 1 in 4 are the one's you'd back in a fight.

It's wrong to assume gendered stereotypes, it's occasionally right to make pragmatic decisions.

Is it the case that males 18-60 can't leave if they choose to? Also a discussion point, surely?

Anecdote:
I go to the gym with a friend, she can out bench, squat and deadlift me.

But the average man is stronger than the average woman. The best women are up there with the pretty good men, but the best men will be stonger/faster/whatever.
For example, in my running club the six best runners are men, the seventh best is a woman. She is a better runner than about twenty blokes but cannot compete with the best men.
.
However, this does not preclude women from fighting in this case. As someone said above there is a lot more to it than physical strength - tactical nous, fortitude, resilience, motivation, etc, etc and the genders are pretty equal in terms of these mental aspects, if equally well trained. Most of those I saw in Kiev queueing for their weapon were men but there were quite a few women there too

1 in 4 men have a criminal record for crimes that required a trial at crown court

Source?

Source?

BBC R4, More or Less, 9th feb 2018, about 16 minutes in.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5TqXiHPSUid4vL2jnPw3Um?si=7TRW4nzfT_ee85IBKY_bEg&utm_source=copy-link

However, this does not preclude women from fighting in this case. As someone said above there is a lot more to it than physical strength – tactical nous, fortitude, resilience, motivation, etc, etc

I'd agree on most of that, but we're talking on a population level, reportedly they have 18,000 weapons and a population of some 44million. If you to need find a group of people with the motivation to comit murder, then the simplest way to start whittling it down is to pic men.

"More or Less" seemed fairly unconvinced by the claim - although the stats aren't there to disprove it.

I wonder how we find a jury if 25% of men are convicted criminals.

That 18,000 figure was guns being handed in Kiev, population 2.8m.
That's 2.8 before all this kicked off, so less anyone in the military or reservists who have been called up and are either elsewhere and/or already have a weapon, less minors, the infirm, etc, etc.
That's still only 18,000 weapons between, what, 1/2m people?
If the queue I saw on the new was typical then it's about a 90/10 split male/female, predominantly men in their 40s and 50s by the look of it, I guess those a bit old to have been called up but young enough to join in

1 in 4 men have a criminal record for crimes that required a trial at crown court 

Or are there enough convictions to equate to 1 in 4 men, cos looking around my circle of friends, someone somewhere has more than their fair share!

Assuming we are representative of the population as a whole (🤣) how many of us have one?
I've got one for some animal rights activities but it will become spent later this year

1 in 4 men have a criminal record for crimes that required a trial at crown court (i.e. not just a FPN for speeding and a trip to the magistrate). For women, that’s less than 1 in 20.

Do you really believe that figure? Because even without looking it up, if you spend any time thinking about it you realise that it's patently absurd. It has to be otherwise how would societies remain stable over time?

However, it is absolutely true that men commit the overwhelming majority of all crimes, serious or otherwise, but the total percentage of the male population accounting for this is more like 4%. Ifg you're likely to commit one transgression, then you're almost certainly going to commit many more because the behaviour is to a large extent pathological (to men).

There is a very simple (personality) explanation for this - men are generally less agreeable than women, by about two standard deviations. We’ve measured this across populations all over the world and it holds stable for all cultures and contexts (I work as a business psychologist BTW, testing and measuring people for senior job applications usually at senior level, so know this subject reasonably well. yes I know it's fraught with error and very high confidence intervals but so is life 😆).

The most disagreeable people in any population are overwhelmingly male and they overwhelmingly account for all the crime committed in a given society. The reason that very low levels of agreeableness is so strongly with crime is because that personality trait results in a disregard as to what other people think of you. A lot of our behaviour is moderated by the social pressure of what others think of us and the need/desire to be accepted; the higher your experience of that phenomenon, the higher your agreeableness (and the more your behaviour will be seen as something that is pleasing to others). When you do not experience this pressure, it’s much easier to be quite the nasty SOB.

BTW this lack of agreeableness (you could also call it empathy) in men compared to women is also the cause of a whole lot of other problems and challenges that have been exposed more recently, not least war, violence, harrassment, nuisance like behaviour etc.

I've not heard anyone on here hang quite so much on the idea of agreeableness for quite some time!

I disagree.

Do you really believe that figure? Because even without looking it up, if you spend any time thinking about it you realise that it’s patently absurd. It has to be otherwise how would societies remain stable over time?

Initially no, just like the presenter didn't. But when you dig into it a bit and ask the obvious questions (like; is this actually number of convictions divided by population rather than the proportion of the population), and they looked at how it was arrived at (it's based on a sample because it wasn't possible to find the overall figure*). The conclusion seems to be it stands up to enough scrutiny to be believable even if there is a margin for error that isn't given.

*Which doesn't help either argument, you can't argue with any validity that it makes it higher or lower because that's a 50/50 chance.

Assuming we are representative of the population as a whole (🤣) how many of us have one?
I’ve got one for some animal rights activities but it will become spent later this year

Presumably outside our demographic bubble the stats lean more the other way?

I was thinking the same when I was listening to it, then remembered one of my colleagues (in an office of 3 people) has a convictivtion (Afray, ABH, something allong those lines). So it seemed less far fetched.

Just because civilians have gone through national service doesn't mean they are effective infantrymen. They might know enough not to slam the lever down fully on their AKs if they need to fire full auto. They might even remember what to do.

National service is generally good for a country, as it idiologicially brainwashes those taking part thus lowering social issues when they rejoin society.

National service is seen as generally bad for a volunteer professional army.

It's lucky in a way here so far, that the home forces, whose moral is high, are fighting inadequately trained and equipped troops who were lied to on this deployment. Also, I think they're getting some outside advice on where and when to use those generously donated javelins/manpads.

I'm not sure if you know what people get up to on National Service, but I work with people who've done it (colleagues and one of my kids is going in) seem pretty clued up and know how to use a gun effectively. Also how to drive vehicles, tanks, provide intel, use comms equipment etc.

National service is good because people come out with a realistic opinion of the army, and reduces the hero worship of it that seems common in the UK.