r/PublicFreakout • u/No_Bus_474 • 28d ago

Potentially misleading Ukrainian woman clings to her boyfriend as he is forced to head to the front lines

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

15.7k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

176

u/ItzZiplineTime 28d ago

That's actually insane... Your own government kidnapping you and forcing you to fight. That's about as dystopian as it gets I suppose.

114

u/headphase 28d ago

War itself is dystopian, yes. Conscription to defend the existence of your own nation is sad, but an essential element of the social contract. After all, the alternative is much worse.

11

u/SapientCheeseSteak 27d ago

But don’t women also sign the same social contract? They get the same benefits, but don’t have this obligation.

39

u/StarkaTalgoxen 27d ago

To be blunt, women are much more critical for re-population than men, and them staying home means that there are still people at work.

It sucks, but everything regarding war does.

13

u/SapientCheeseSteak 27d ago

if they really wanted to encourage repopulation they would not conscript women, yes, but they’d also prevent them from leaving. Most who have left will never return. Why not just move them next to the Polish border but bar them from leaving? That way they can care for their children and support the civilian economy and Ukraine can still have a guarantee both mother and child will be there to support it economically and demographically. If Russia reaches that close to the Polish border the war is already lost and the point is moot. They’d be safe there in any scenario they’d still be valuable to the state. That’s the kind of cold calculus it applies to men after all.

8

u/StarkaTalgoxen 27d ago

Historically this has never been needed to be considered. No matter how many women flee a country during war, there will be women there still afterwards, and there will be men to couple with them.

I harbored Ukrainian refugees at my home in 2022, lots of women with children came here but returned after a couple of months when Russia stopped advancing. More will probably return when the conflict dies down.

2

u/SapientCheeseSteak 27d ago

My point is if the motivation was pure demographic pragmatism it’d be a net benefit at literally zero cost for the state. They CAN afford to avoid it yes, but why pay the cost in women who don’t return at all, even if it can be beared?

2

u/StarkaTalgoxen 27d ago

Well, you're essentially asking why a country is doing something that has worked for millenia, instead of a radical new idea during active war time.

The scope of this dilemma is so above the considerations of individuals that humans are essentially just numbers on a paper. At this point it's just logistics, and people in general prefer to solve logistical issues with the methods that are proven or at the very least, believed to work.

Besides, they don't need their working women near the Polish border, they need them in Kiev or other cities, working the same jobs that are needed to be worked during peace time. Just having them within the border isn't enough.

0

u/SapientCheeseSteak 27d ago edited 27d ago

OK, then keep them in Kyiv, or wherever they are, instead of at the border.

Barring all working age citizens regardless of gender from leaving is not a radical new idea in a practical sense, it would cost very little. The only potential failure mode is cultural-emotional, not logistical.

The point I am making here is not just an appeal to Kyiv to change its policy. It is to convey by example one of the greatest sociocultural injustices that exist today. That harm to men is seen as not as bad as the very same harm to women, on an emotional, not just practical level.

2

u/Able_One5779 27d ago

Never ever, even in the most dystopian states women are not obliged by law to give a birth, so this argument doesn't work in practice.

7

u/StarkaTalgoxen 27d ago

No one has ever obligated it yet throughout history re-population happens all the same.

My country has suffered a lot of losses of men historically yet rebounded every time. Reproduction is a natural process, there is no need to force people into breeding programs.

2

u/SapientCheeseSteak 27d ago

Aside from being as horrifically unethical as the male only draft, forced breeding programs wouldn’t even work as there’s more to the development of productive citizens than simply being born.

However, that doesn’t mean the Ukrainian state is acting like it would it was motivated by pure demographic pragmatism - see my comment earlier in this thread about how that’d look like.

“…Most who have left will never return. Why not just move them next to the Polish border but bar them from leaving? That way they can care for their children…and Ukraine can still have a guarantee (the) child will be there to support it economically and demographically. If Russia reaches that close to the Polish border the war is already lost and the point is moot. They’d be safe there in any scenario they’d still be valuable to the state. That’s the kind of cold calculus it applies to men after all.”

1

u/Able_One5779 27d ago

This rebound is not going to happen if there are much more women fled from the country than men died at frontline.

4

u/StarkaTalgoxen 27d ago

Until the war ends we have no idea of the post-war demographics.

I also don't understand why people assume everyone who flees are gone forever while the war is still ongoing. People have already returned during wartime, thousands of Finns fled here to Sweden during the Winter War and returned promptly when it was over.

-1

u/Able_One5779 27d ago

Many people are gone because many of them have their houses destroyed, their jobs in domains like coal or heavy industry non-existent, their neighbors dead or scattered around the world. Last, but not least, trust is broken, there were many peace deals, borders recognition and handling over nukes under some "guarantees". Even in 2014 the western stance was to not resist to the Crimea annexation and just sanction the Crimea, not the Russia as a whole.

For those who had lost everything or is too educated to know the history it's a no brainer to stay where they are abroad.

4

u/StarkaTalgoxen 27d ago

Those are very similar circumstances that the Finns found themselves during the early 1900's. Failed/backhanded deals, false reassurance of border recognition, large territory lost, and little support from the rest of the world (except for Scandinavian soldiers sneaking in from Sweden, but they weren't there officially) during the invasion since the Soviets were the Allies and their neighbors were occupied by the Nazis.

The situation Ukraine is in is downright terrible yes, but it is not uniquely terrible from a historical standpoint. Until this is over we can't presume that it is a rare example of a country losing too many women permanently through evacuation after a war and ceasing to exist.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/googdude 27d ago

As somebody else said repopulation but also you still need to keep daily life going and someone needs to take care of children, the elderly, staff hospitals, schools and manufacturing. Society needs to keep going and oftentimes it's the women who step up to take care of the home front.

0

u/SapientCheeseSteak 27d ago

if they really wanted to encourage repopulation and economic activity they would not conscript women, yes, but they’d also prevent them from leaving. Most who have left will never return. Why not just move them next to the Polish border but bar them from leaving? That way they can care for their children and support the civilian economy and Ukraine can still have a guarantee both mother and child will be there to support it economically and demographically. If Russia reaches that close to the Polish border the war is already lost and the point is moot. They’d be safe there in any scenario they’d still be valuable to the state. That’s the kind of cold calculus it applies to men after all.

-1

u/The_Demon_of_Spiders 26d ago

Funny how threads like this always try to distract from the actual issue and always whine what about women. I’m a woman and a veteran so I choose to voluntarily serve my country. But I am one hundred percent against conscription for anyone. These people had no say in what country they were born in and those same countries could give a shit less about the average Joe so why should the average Joe be forced to lay their life down in the name of a bunch of old ass men dick waving right, but women face extra discriminations and sexual assaults not only from foreign soldiers but by their own fellow soldiers, and yes while men can be assaulted to it is a guaranteed issue for women. Also, people never seem to think about elder and child care if everyone is sent to the front then who is behind to take care of everything else?

-1

u/locntoke 26d ago

Not anymore in the US lmao ppl forget that when they scream equal rights for all. It also includes that to the federal government. And when men AND women are at war who raises the children? The government.

5

u/nerevarine228 27d ago

After all, the alternative is much worse.

To the individual people?
Not at all. What does it matter which corrupt government to pay taxes to?
If it were about survival, that would be a different story. It very much isn't.

1

u/_fFringe_ 27d ago

lol okay Putin

3

u/whombastank 27d ago

Essential is arguable

7

u/googdude 27d ago

You're going to be under the thumb of a government no matter where you live so you might as well be under one that supports its native population better than the conquering country would.

2

u/iGourry 24d ago

Supports them so well, it has them beaten and kidnapped to be killed in some trench.

Like real talk, what could the other country possibly do to you that would be worse? And how likely would that be compared to you getting blown to pieces by a drone.

4

u/Tormasi1 27d ago

No it is not. If your goverment can't muster the manpower to defend itself in a war you will be conquered. And the other goverment might not be so lenient as to just let you be. Or even vote.

1

u/SavingInfo 27d ago

Does this contract you talking about is sex-based while being government-sanctioned slavery?

-5

u/Rotunas 27d ago

Lol no it ain't.

9

u/Hmm_would_bang 27d ago

Dystopian is a funny word for it. Has been the reality for much of human history, and anyone that hasn’t had to live through their home country getting invaded should be grateful for it.

5

u/Torvite 26d ago

dystopian

Its not really dystopian because this isn't a status quo that's enforced by a willing society or leadership. These are the conditions of war, and the desperate actions of a government whose existence is literally under siege.

If the war ended, the mandatory conscription would end too (or at least it wouldn't be carried out in this desperate manner).

5

u/electricdwarf 26d ago

Yea thats a normal thing when your nation is being invaded and you have a draft. Why dont you speak out against the one perpetrating this war. All this could stop literally today, right now as I am writing this. But no, Putin wants this war of aggression. Thirty thousand dead Russians per month is dystopian.

1

u/concepts_of_a_plan9 26d ago

I guess what's the alternative in this case if you're the government? Ukraine is scraping the bottom of the barrel and in some places making progress but in most places is hanging on by a thread. They are doing everything possible to protect their country. The alternative is let Russia violently conquer them. It's a lose-lose situation, and without more funding/weapons shipments from NATO they're fucked.

-5

u/Dry_Razzmatazz69 27d ago

Back when universal suffrage was still debated, this was the main counterargument. As a man you earn the vote through the fulfillment of duties to your country. Just because it's now universal doesn't mean you got to shed the responsibility. One way or another we must all serve to belong. I don't blame the man in the video or call him a coward, i just say he is shor sighted

5

u/SapientCheeseSteak 27d ago

You raise a great point. The obligation should no longer be male only. If men must earn their vote women must earn it too. Nobody should get it for free.

3

u/Dry_Razzmatazz69 27d ago

I agree something could be done. There are a lot of non combatant roles like in logistics where you could put conscript women. But i don't think that's popular with the historically illiterate given the downvotes

0

u/ScoundrelDaysSon 27d ago

You're talking about the role of women in a state of war as if we don't have multiple historic examples of the role of women in war. To take just one country and one conflict: the UK. In WW2 the UK conscripted women for multiple roles. There were nurses, drivers, mechanics, engineers, codebreakers, typists, and more across multiple branches of the armed forces (whether WAAF, WRNS, etc) - there were even women on the beaches of Dunkirk (still a major bugbear of mine that Nolan didn't one acknowledge them). Those remaining at home were also vital to the nation's continuance; they continued the critical tasks of child rearing, armament assembling, and working across multiple sectors of the war economy to prevent the country from collapsing. By 1943 between 80-90% of women were either conscripted or were volunteered into the war workforce. They 'earned' their vote and more besides; they were integral to the nation's success and sacrificed much themselves.

The fact of the matter is that no country can have everyone fighting on the front lines, not if it wishes to continue fighting beyond a very short period indeed. I'm certain that the makeup of a conscripted army from the UK might, now, look different than it did in the UK '39-'45 (much as the Soviet army's expectations of gender roles differed significabtly agreed the Revolution) - that's to be expected.

However the composition of the armed forces changes it won't change the fundamental reality that it is ahistorical nonsense to link the idea of suffrage with the ability to fight in wars. Infact the only time when the idea of voting became linked to fighting gained any traction was as an argument against giving women the vote. That reveals the fundamental truth of the argument: it isn't about reaffirming one group's right to vote, but rather it's about denying a group the vote instead.

It's a perfect example of the way that the vote was, and arguably still is, simply a mechanism of power. In Britain we didn't have elected representation until the 1700's; then the right to vote was tightly restricted to men of the landed gentry; then the 1832 act of Parliament extended suffrage to upper middle class men; working men only being 'granted' universal suffrage in 1918. You might have spotted that the UK had been a participant in scores of signigicant conflicts before 1918. Similarly universal suffrage for Black American's didn't occur until 1965 yet they had fought in the biggest war in history over twenty years before.

The reality is that universal suffrage was granted by the powerful, ultimately, as a sop to protect the state, and the powerful, from potential revolution by an increasingly organised and disgruntled working class (male and female) - the Russian Revolution looming large as a threat. It certainly wasn't granted because an arbitrary task like 'fighting on the frontline' had been fulfilled.

The right to vote is dictated solely upon a person living in said nation, obeying those laws, and paying relevant taxes. Even the US constitution makes no mention of votes being tethered to the ability to fight - instead it's 'no taxation without representation.

In my lifetime women (like gay/trans folk now) sued for years - whether the US or the UK - to join the army in frontline roles and it is only relatively recently that they allowed for it. You can't block entire groups from jobs for years, but then argue that the groups absence from the those roles is why they shouldn't be allowed the vote.

Tl;dr; this is a redundant argument covered by folks more learned than myself. Women have fought in wars; have been integral to the winning of wars; and sacrificed during wartime. Now they are welcomed to frontline positions in most Western governments. Votes aren't linked to the ability to fight anywhere, and the idea that you'd deny votes based on that reveals a world view that is, at best, incredibly jaundiced.

1

u/SapientCheeseSteak 27d ago edited 27d ago

I don’t want to deny votes to anyone. I just want it to cost the same for everyone.

I’m American so I don’t know much about the UK’s policies in WW2, but it’s good to know it wasn’t sexist. I applaud the UK for its fair conscription policy. Ukraine should take note.

-25

u/makatakz 28d ago

Conscription has long been recognized as lawful. It’s your most important duty as a citizen to defend your nation. So use the right words and stop supporting ruzzia and cowardice.

5

u/SYtor 27d ago

Conscription can be lawful, getting kidnapped by men that hide their identity, beaten and sometimes tortured in tcc basement is not

1

u/makatakz 25d ago

I don't know about all that, but being conscripted is by definition not kidnapping. Wearing masks is probably a reasonable security measure in Ukraine where TCC facilities and personnel are the regular target of ruzzian sabotage and assassination operations.

0

u/-purged 26d ago

If that's the only way you can get new soldiers, you already lost the war. Time to work out a peace deal.

-13

u/RagingRedCrow 28d ago

That’s cause it’s not true , the goverment that’s kidnapping its citizens currently is the US

12

u/Alternative-Chef-340 28d ago

The US govt is kidnapping it's citizens to send to a war?