Some people are fighting back, mostly young men of somewhat courageous disposition. Also 1,2 million Ukrainians have already fled the country which far exceeds the number of Ukrainian combatants. I'm sure some of them would see surrender as a better outcome than loosing their homes and home country. I also heard stories about men between 18 and 60 who weren't even allowed to leave the country, so that number would be even higher if this demographic was given a free choice.
Whether people like it or not, people talk about patriarchy also being bad for men, this is why. In the traditional value systems, as a man you have duties and roles you have to fill which aren't open to women which can be quite beneficial and if not might be valorised and mythologised - but there's a reason why it's set up like that. To create social and legal expectations that you "should" be strong and loyal and accept being fed into a warmachine. This becomes much less easy to sell in more equitable value systems because you have to either enforce it equitably (and then who's left in a war like this to escape and do the non combatant roles?).
So if people don't like men being specifically singled out here, welcome to the feminist movement. Whether you think everyone or noone should be caught in this is a different question
To be clear, in no way the bloodshed that Russia is causing in Ukraine can be justified. But to claim that this invasion has got nothing to do with the policy of the West to expand NATO in the direction of Russia is nonsense.
Don’t think for a moment that if NATO was still in West Europe only that Russia wouldn’t steamroll the other eastern european countries when they have a chance. Russia already took other satellite states like Chechnya and Georgia earlier. Russia is an aggressor.
While forcing even more people to fight would obviously be even worse, the exclusion of one sex makes it feel worse because of its fundamental unfairness and the sexism it perpetuates. Perhaps it's illogical, but I actually feel better about being from a country with equal conscription where twice as many people are at risk of being forced to kill and die for the state, although I would of course prefer if the state relinquished its claim to its citizen's lives and gave everyone a choice.
Defending is like paying taxes. Everyone has to do their part, and the day of payment coming due for enjoying the citizenship is too late to decide "maybe I want to change citizenships".
It's frankly dishonest to try to reduce and equate everything to "forced to participate in war".
Just because the local mob accepted my protection money and left me alone doesn't mean I have a moral obligation to defend them against a competitor.
There is no place one even could choose to live that doesn't have some sort of communal shared structure and resources, which everyone benefits from, and everyone must contribute to, and so "didn't choose" is yet again, not an argument.
Not just young men. If a man is between the ages of 18 and 60 currently then they would be defending their country. They are also accepting men from outside their country and have relaxed the visa requirements.
no way to opt out
Probably not legally. One would have had to find a way to flee the country while that was still possible. This is not unique to Ukraine. Many people fled the US that were opposed to participating in the Vietnam war.
As a side note, I think it is about to get interesting in the United States of America as the Selective Service is slowly moving in the direction of accepting women into the process. [1][2] I would expect this to become a popular headline once ratified.
[1] - https://www.sss.gov/register/women/background/
[2] - https://rollcall.com/2021/10/05/congress-moves-toward-requir...
It's a Russians invasion, not from the west. A country should be free to decide what they want.
If you have stomach for this game, then go to frontline and replace somebody young here, please, so (s)he will not die.
You expect “the country” to do things for you ( while you pay taxes), now “the country” expects you to do things for it.
That’s how it has been working for many centuries and applies to any society, even the stable and peaceful ones.
Now let me dose it with gasoline: Not many hardcore “feminists” around.. where did they go? :)
Also, anyone who want men but not women to be forced to fight is not a feminist.
I would guess many are fighting or supporting the war effort and their country in other ways. Also leaving with your kids doesn't mean one is less feminist, just that you want less of your family to die. Compliance doesn't equal agreement.
While compliance doesn't equal agreement, let's not fall in the trap that non-compliance will solve the problem. The enemy ( which is what it is atm ) isn't some old fat C-suites that rollover when "their twitter explodes" and they have to work on the weekend instead of go boating.
Second, China is between two belligerent nuclear powers and yet doesn’t show the same outward anxieties as some NATO members. Instead, something about the island of Taiwan preoccupies China. Taiwan must be into something. Replace Russia on the UN Security Council with Taiwan.
Third, people murmur about the amount of money extracted and stashed in the Caribbean. Take any balance above, say, 1mm usd and replace it with a peace bond that can only be cashed, in person, under a DEFCON zero.
If this is just humor, I apologize, because it's hilarious, but I don't dare upvote it because holy quackenbarkers.
> so that number would be even higher if this demographic was given a free choice.
Sounds like they did have a choice
What if Russian soldiers were given a free choice? How many would choose to invade Ukraine?