Flat White

Ukraine’s ‘disposable’ men

Bettina Arndt

Getty Images

9:0 AM\

The tragic video of the Ukrainian father breaking down when saying goodbye to his family was heart-wrenching. But even as it attracted attention across the world, no one seemed to be asking the obvious question:

How come the life of this young father is considered expendable whilst most fit, capable Ukrainian women are being hastily shipped off, out of harm’s way?

Where is feminism’s demand for the equal treatment of women when every male aged 18 to 60 are being forced to stay and ‘defend his country’?

One lone male voice on TikTok dared to call out the feminist silence. He attracted a wave of criticism and his video was removed. TikTok user @notpoliticalspeaking had the temerity to point out that the reported 32,000 women in the Ukrainian military weren’t all that many given that – according to his estimation – the country has 17 million women of age.

Social media ran hot with dozens of articles claiming the TikTok-er was being ‘called out for his ignorance and misogyny’. People piled on with comments pointing out how many courageous women were now enlisting, showing photographs of women soldiers and grandmothers with machine guns.

None of this refuted the point the TikTok-er was making. It is revealing that there has been so little intelligent commentary on the way the Ukraine crisis is exposing the glaring hypocrisy of feminism today, where feminists talk about equality but happily exploit old-fashioned chivalry, which demands only men are disposable in war.

‘Women are too valuable to be in combat,’ said Caspar Weinberger, when he was the US Secretary of Defence. It was said back in the 1980s at a time when military leaders were allowed to say such things. Now, feminists muzzle these comments and demand women have access to front-line combat roles – yet they sit in silence as Ukraine forces their entire adult male population to defend their country while the valuable women are safeguarded.

11 March 2022

Traditionally, this has been justified using the evolutionary argument – that is, the size of the next generation is constrained by the number of fertile females. A species can tolerate the loss of males more easily than the loss of females.

No one dares point out that this reasoning hardly applies to all those forty-something single women past childbearing age that we watched scrambling to get on crowded trains leaving Ukraine.

The other arguments for offering women special protection don’t hold water anymore. The active role played by women in the military puts paid to traditional arguments about women’s lack of strength. Gender-based strength for civilian fighters is irrelevant when facing most modern weaponry.

Let’s face it – whilst no one would quarrel with the need to protect children and arguably their mothers, the view of women as a protected class is simply a legacy of traditional, chivalrous thinking which is far too useful for feminists to discard. So they have their cake and eat it, taking every possible opportunity to pretend that this isn’t all about exploiting men by claiming women suffer too – perhaps even more than men.

Here’s our very own Michael Flood, the Australian academic who has built his career on denigrating men.


Published by Nelle

I am interested in writing short stories for my pleasure and my family's but although I have published four family books I will not go down that path again but still want what I write out there so I will see how this goes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: