4 ms·

In this context, they are. Not every facet of society has caught up to idealized equity. There is compulsory military service for Ukrainian men, and it should b

In this context, they are. Not every facet of society has caught up to idealized equity. There is compulsory military service for Ukrainian men, and it should be fair to say that those without military training are objectively more vulnerable during a conflict.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
b112 5y ago
Right, because the men involved are not vulnerable to harm, while being shot at? And because a 50 year old man, is alway more able than a 20 year old woman? Because he was trained 30 years ago? Maybe? Come on. The context was "women and children" as the vulnerables. And the order is, men must stay, not military trained men. I bet there are loads of "vulnerable" women who have stayed to fight.
- boston_clone 5y ago
  You're welcome to play armchair general, but it's becoming obvious that you don't have much military experience. > the men involved are not vulnerable to harm [...]? That's not what I said. I'll restate my thought more plainly: in any kinetic conflict, you are more vulnerable without military training. Full stop. Again, service is compulsory for men in Ukraine. So, generally speaking, yes - a 50 year old man with a few years of military experience will be more capable in a conflict than a 20 year old woman with no military experience whatsoever. The ability to shoot, move, and communicate - under extreme pressure, and hopefully coordinated with others - is not something you can muster up on-the-fly. Are there exceptions to that? I'm sure of it. But we should try not to argue a position which hinges largely on outliers. > I bet there are loads of "vulnerable" women who have stayed to fight. You should feel welcome to find and provide data to support your assertion.
  - b112 5y ago
    Women can't have military training unless it is compulsory? And all women in the Ukraine are born there? Your attempts to explain away bias, are not very convincing. Not to mention the fact: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/12/27/ukraine-requires-women-register-military-conscription-russia-threat-looms.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/12/27/ukraine-requi... and https://nypost.com/2022/02/10/meet-ukraines-gun-toting-female-soldiers-fighting-the-propaganda-war-with-russia/ https://nypost.com/2022/02/10/meet-ukraines-gun-toting-femal... But yeah, sure, it's never sexist to think a woman can't possibly be doing something, right? Women are not vulnerable. Stop with the shifting sands, attempt to reframe the statement. Women are not vulnerable.
    - boston_clone 5y ago
      Anyone in a war zone is vulnerable - woman or man, child or elder. Training helps makes it less so, but it's never zero. Recognizing that most of an army is comprised of men is not automatically sexist; clearly the Ukrainian military doesn't prohibit women from joining. Encouraging people with no military background or ability to leave a conflict zone is not sexist, neither is it ageist or ableist. It is purely a matter of survival. On that note, I'm going to take some breaths and be thankful for the privilege to argue about nuance on the internet.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

b112 5y ago

Right, because the men involved are not vulnerable to harm, while being shot at? And because a 50 year old man, is alway more able than a 20 year old woman? Because he was trained 30 years ago? Maybe? Come on. The context was "women and children" as the vulnerables. And the order is, men must stay, not military trained men. I bet there are loads of "vulnerable" women who have stayed to fight.

boston_clone 5y ago
You're welcome to play armchair general, but it's becoming obvious that you don't have much military experience. > the men involved are not vulnerable to harm [...]? That's not what I said. I'll restate my thought more plainly: in any kinetic conflict, you are more vulnerable without military training. Full stop. Again, service is compulsory for men in Ukraine. So, generally speaking, yes - a 50 year old man with a few years of military experience will be more capable in a conflict than a 20 year old woman with no military experience whatsoever. The ability to shoot, move, and communicate - under extreme pressure, and hopefully coordinated with others - is not something you can muster up on-the-fly. Are there exceptions to that? I'm sure of it. But we should try not to argue a position which hinges largely on outliers. > I bet there are loads of "vulnerable" women who have stayed to fight. You should feel welcome to find and provide data to support your assertion.
- b112 5y ago
  Women can't have military training unless it is compulsory? And all women in the Ukraine are born there? Your attempts to explain away bias, are not very convincing. Not to mention the fact: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/12/27/ukraine-requires-women-register-military-conscription-russia-threat-looms.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/12/27/ukraine-requi... and https://nypost.com/2022/02/10/meet-ukraines-gun-toting-female-soldiers-fighting-the-propaganda-war-with-russia/ https://nypost.com/2022/02/10/meet-ukraines-gun-toting-femal... But yeah, sure, it's never sexist to think a woman can't possibly be doing something, right? Women are not vulnerable. Stop with the shifting sands, attempt to reframe the statement. Women are not vulnerable.
  - boston_clone 5y ago
    Anyone in a war zone is vulnerable - woman or man, child or elder. Training helps makes it less so, but it's never zero. Recognizing that most of an army is comprised of men is not automatically sexist; clearly the Ukrainian military doesn't prohibit women from joining. Encouraging people with no military background or ability to leave a conflict zone is not sexist, neither is it ageist or ableist. It is purely a matter of survival. On that note, I'm going to take some breaths and be thankful for the privilege to argue about nuance on the internet.