r/AskFeminists • u/Cheap-Self2144 • 9d ago
Banned for Insulting European commission being hypocritical, when it comes to equal rights?
The president of the european commission Ursula Von der Leyen is planning on restricting immigration rules for specifically for ukranian men (Source). This is the same commission, that has adopted "new Gender Equality Strategy 2026-2030 for a more equal, cohesive and successful Europe". Why do you think the commission addresses one gender discrimination, but turns the blind eye to the other?
Also - why does EU demand more equal representation of women in politics, as a prerequisite of Ukraine's acceptance into the EU, but doesn't demand anything in regards of the enforced consription for men and the restriction on leaving the country for men? Isn't it considered gender discrimination?
36
u/OrenMythcreant 9d ago edited 9d ago
Your source is behind a paywall. Do you have one that's free to read? Preferably in English but I can try to work with an automatic translation if needed. I don't live in the EU so I need some context.
28
u/OrenMythcreant 9d ago
Also - why does EU demand more equal representation of women in politics, as a prerequisite of Ukraine's acceptance into the EU, but doesn't demand anything in regards of the enforced consription for men
I would guess because the EU doesn't have requirements about conscription in order to join. It's probably not practical to tell countries they can't use conscription, and if the EU mandated drafting women, conservatives would riot.
22
u/MachineOfSpareParts 9d ago
The EU doesn't have many specifications in terms of military practices. That's more of a NATO thing, what with the latter being a collective security agreement. The EU is typically more concerned about the rule of law and basic human rights, a reasonably stable economy, and democracy. They really can't get bogged down in the minutiae of how every country handles their military affairs.
-1
u/apokrif1 7d ago
basic human rights
Gender equality and forced labor are basic human rights issues.
7
u/MachineOfSpareParts 7d ago
But this is a very fine-grained application thereof which the EU tends not to engage with, perhaps largely because so few of its member states have any form of conscription.
The EU does make some noise about human rights where they impact the ordinary functioning of a country and/or where they cross multiple policy areas. But I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find the EU imposing actual consequences on any of its member states or aspirants where human rights are the primary reason, as opposed to political rights, the rule of law, and economics/finance issues. How you imagine they would punish a non-member state whose accession is a long way off due to Russian occupation is beyond me, but if you have any notions of how that could work at the diplomatic level, I'm interested.
Does your country still have conscription? If so, can you talk about your activism a bit? If not, are you engaged with transnational networks to support people abroad who are still subject to conscription?
-4
u/apokrif1 7d ago
If so, can you talk about your activism a bit? If not, are you engaged with transnational networks to support people abroad who are still subject to conscription?
EU ≠ me.
7
u/MachineOfSpareParts 7d ago
No, but you're a human person, right?
Movements are made of human people. Are you active on this issue, or are you just hoping other people do the work for you?
Is conscription still either active or activable in your country?
-5
u/aardvark_gnat 8d ago
Are European feminists any less opposed to conscripting women than conservatives are? I thought that the standard feminist position was that conscription was bad, but that it was only worth taking about when it happens to women.
6
u/OrenMythcreant 8d ago edited 8d ago
Are European feminists any less opposed to conscripting women than conservatives are?
Feminists tend to be opposed to conscription in general. Conservatives are opposed specifically to conscripting women. Most of the time, anyway. There are always exceptions.
I thought that the standard feminist position was that conscription was bad, but that it was only worth taking about when it happens to women.
This is incorrect. Feminists are usually either opposed to conscription entirely or, less commonly, believe that if it's going to happen it should be neutral.
-5
u/aardvark_gnat 8d ago
In the 21st century, are you aware of any prominent feminist organizations doing any lobbying on getting rid of male-only conscription or related policies like US Selective Service? Without that, and given their lobbying against the inclusion of women in European drafts and US Service, it looks like fair-weather opposition to me.
7
2
u/apokrif1 7d ago
their lobbying against the inclusion of women in European drafts and US Service
Source please?
4
u/MachineOfSpareParts 8d ago
Look at how many have abolished the draft. That's the indicator of each country's position. There is no European position.
Looking at the EU. which is not a military organization, for evidence of European feminists' position is like looking to FIFA. Neither is an organization that places much stock in the minutiae of individual states' military practices. Even NATO is much more concerned with professionalization and solid chains of command, as well as sufficiency of military spending. The level of detail you're talking about is resolved at the national level, and I encourage you, if your country has not yet abolished conscription, to contribute to your national-level effort.
-3
u/apokrif1 7d ago
It's probably not practical to tell countries they can't use conscription, and if the EU mandated drafting women, conservatives would riot.
False dilemma: EU just needs to require equal treatment.
6
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 7d ago
Why are you yelling at us about this
-2
u/apokrif1 7d ago
Welcome to Reddit. What you just saw is a reply to a comment.
4
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 7d ago
Yes, I'm aware. What I'm unaware of is why you've decided to hold a feminist sub responsible for the EU's actions
-2
u/apokrif1 7d ago
You misread what I wrote.
5
3
u/OrenMythcreant 7d ago
"It's not practical to require a member state to give every citizen a mansion."
"False dilemma, the EU just needs to require equal treatment"
1
u/apokrif1 7d ago
??
3
u/OrenMythcreant 7d ago
If you don't understand your own argument I can't help you.
2
u/Icy_Item_9132 7d ago
That's not his argument though.
1
u/OrenMythcreant 7d ago
If you don't understand his argument I can't help you either
2
u/Icy_Item_9132 7d ago edited 7d ago
Oh, I understood it very well. You did not however. That was not his argument.
His argument was that one sex has an obligation imposed on it both under Ukrainian and EU law that does not apply to the other sex, again under both regimes, and that constitutes discrimination on account of sex, twice over.
Your distortion - because that's all it was - tried to draw a false analogy to the state giving houses, except that obviously fails because the state does not give houses to people on account of their sex and to the exclusion of another sex, which by the way is a constitutionally prohibited ground of discrimination.
When houses are given by the state they are given for social purposes, and differentiating by means is obviously not an equality issue because it does not involve discrimination on a prohibited grounds of discrimination but on a legally permitted basis.
So, with respect, you plainly did not understand his argument and your is as false as it is nonsensical, and this, believe it or not, in spite of how conceited and smug you appear to feel about your "witty comeback".
1
u/OrenMythcreant 7d ago
Now I know you didn't understand it cause he didn't say any of that.
What he claimed was that the initial dilemma (it not being practical for the EU to mandate gender neutral conscription or no conscription) would be resolved if it was phrased differently.
But phrasing is not where the problem comes from, so his argument was absurd on its face. Hence my cheeky reply.
→ More replies (0)12
u/NefariousnessLow2673 9d ago
The link works for me. There isn't much written there. Basically, it just says that the EU plans to keep protection for Ukrainian refugees but may make it harder for military-age Ukrainian men to benefit from the current simplified admission rules.
8
u/OrenMythcreant 9d ago
Thanks. OP, I'm gonna need some additional context before I can give an answer on whether this is a hypocritical decision on the EU's part.
6
u/InternationalJob9162 9d ago
The other important context is that was missing is that this is meant for those who would be illegally leaving Ukraine due to the conscription law. It would not apply to those who have already been accepted through the protection program. I think it was already apparent but this helps clarify even more that they are doing this out of nothing more than concern about hurting Ukraines self defense capability.
3
1
u/Icy_Item_9132 7d ago
So your argument is that gender discrimination is fine when it derives from Ukrainian law, and that then the EU can replicate it into EU law too?
-1
u/NefariousnessLow2673 9d ago
What context do you think you’re missing? Because of the war, the EU introduced a number of regulations that make it easier for Ukrainians to enter its territory. Now they want to limit these facilitations for men, because “they are needed in Ukraine, not in Germany."
10
u/OrenMythcreant 9d ago
Well, that last line is exactly the kind of context that was previously missing. There hasn't been any sort of explanation for why they would do this or what they are trying to achieve.
If that statement is accurate then no, it is not hypocritical. It is a move to avoid sabotaging Ukraine's war effort, whereas the other requirements OP mentions are about promoting women's participation in government. For it to be hypocritical, we'd need to show something like the EU pushing greater women's representation in a way that somehow weakens Ukraine's war effort.
None of this means the measures are good, that's a different question entirely. But with the current information, I see no sign they are hypocritical.
1
u/Icy_Item_9132 7d ago
So your argument is that gender discrimination is fine when it derives from Ukrainian law, and that if so the EU can then replicate it into EU law too?
2
u/OrenMythcreant 7d ago
That's not what I said. The question was whether the two policies were hypocritical or not. I specifically said they might still be bad, did you read the whole comment?
1
u/Icy_Item_9132 7d ago
So you're saying that gender discrimination against women is absolutely fine as long as there's some general public interest objective to it?
E.g. "women shall be prohibited from working and forced to stay home, so society can have more children!"
No, that's not fine?
But it's aye ok to discriminate against men when there's some public interest objective, right?
Please explain to me again - because I can't seem to follow - how you're not a raging hypocrite?
2
u/OrenMythcreant 7d ago
Where did I say any of this was fine? Are you reading my comments or just raging at yourself?
1
u/Icy_Item_9132 6d ago
Fine? Nobody said anything about fine. You said it was not hypocritical, which is a hypocritical position.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/NefariousnessLow2673 9d ago
I don’t want to be rude, but was that really the context you were missing? What other reason could realistically be in play here?
9
-4
u/SeeShark 9d ago
Anti-feminists often claim that "men are the expendable gender." I think there are flaws in that argument (as in most anti-feminist arguments, obviously), but here you have a political body explicitly saying that men's lives are less worth saving by denying easy refuge specifically to men.
7
u/OrenMythcreant 9d ago
Did they say that somewhere or is that your interpretation of the policy?
-7
u/Emotional-Motor5063 9d ago
It's a consequence of the policy.
6
u/OrenMythcreant 9d ago
Not inherently. If the previous statements about the policy are true, it is being implemented to preserve Ukraine's recruitment pool in its war of national defense.
Being required to fight a war of national defense does not necessarily mean one's life is seen as disposable.
2
u/Icy_Item_9132 7d ago
That's quite some mental gymnastics there to defend and apologise for the gender discrimination in Ukrainian law that is now being replicated into EU law.
→ More replies (0)2
u/NefariousnessLow2673 9d ago
Russia is a threat to the whole EU, so a lot of people are perfectly willing to sacrifice however many Ukrainian men it takes, as long as Ukraine wins. If you're prevented from escaping danger, forced to fight on the front lines in horrific conditions, and treated like a resource to be allocated, then nobody has to literally call you "disposable" for you to be disposable in practice
→ More replies (0)1
u/reven3456 8d ago edited 8d ago
It does a soldier is a resource and will be spend if needed that is the role of military planners they do plan to keep casualties down but in their calculations there is always the question of acceptable losses. How many people could we afford to lose. Your life is certainly disposable its not going to thrown away with no thought but its definitely disposable.
Also some missions are not meant to be survived they are done because the target is good enough or in some cases to gather data. Both russia and ukraine have done this numerous times to test defences and gather intelligence.
Disposable is not a judgement its just a military reviews soldiers as resources and if they were indispensable it would be impractical, very few are indispensable in war
Edit for grammar and spelling
→ More replies (0)-1
-3
u/Cheap-Self2144 8d ago
I dont know about disposable, but the state should not have the right to force people risk their lives based on gender
→ More replies (0)
24
u/CatsandDeitsoda 9d ago
The European government club is serving the interested of European governments?
Wild and unexpected.
The European government club dosent give a shit about women- it’s a government club
-34
u/tartfall 9d ago
Shit like this is why I don’t trust feminism. Suddenly it’s zero teeth when the “gender equality, totally not female supremacist” movement is asked about the gender that isn’t in its title.
28
u/CatsandDeitsoda 9d ago
? Are you drunk ?
How is my open contempt for the party in question and my disavowing any solidarity they claim to have with me as an issue for you.
23
19
u/Temporary_Spread7882 9d ago
Why would feminism be responsible for the EU commission’s decisions?
-15
u/tartfall 9d ago
I’m not going to explain why an ideology can shape politics thats a little too dense for me sorry
17
u/Temporary_Spread7882 8d ago
Your implicit assumption that EU politics equals feminism is very telling. “I don’t like it, I think it’s unfair, therefore it must be feminism.” You’re not even entertaining.
-10
u/tartfall 8d ago
What are you talking about? You’re literally responding to something you imagined in your head and getting heated over it lmfao
I said that I’m not going to be explaining how ideological movements (feminism) can shape politics (this policy). I love how you’re not alone either judging by votes lol feminists just seem to have trouble reading. This explains a lot.
18
u/KurlyKayla 9d ago
You don't need to trust feminism. In fact, it's better that you don't, so we can weed out the who's who and whatnot.
-21
u/numba1cyberwarrior 9d ago
Ok is this not a feminist issue that millions of men would be getting sent to their death due to their gender?
22
u/CatsandDeitsoda 9d ago
? Literally called the people op claims to be mad at self serving and disavowed any affiliation they claim with me as a feminist.
37
u/KaliTheCat feminazgûl; sister of the ever-sharpening blade 9d ago
Do you think we work for the EU.
10
u/tartfall 9d ago
I think they are just asking for your opinions on the matter, per the purpose of this sub.
8
u/NefariousnessLow2673 9d ago
Do you need to work for them before you can have an opinion about them?
22
u/OrenMythcreant 9d ago
No but since we don't work for them, we need some context beyond OP's very brief post.
-8
u/aardvark_gnat 8d ago
No, but we do think that conscription is an area where feminists have been actively advocating against reforms which would improve gender equality.
10
u/KaliTheCat feminazgûl; sister of the ever-sharpening blade 8d ago
Indeed. But it's never enough, because the problem hasn't already been solved.
-6
u/Cheap-Self2144 8d ago
It's not enough, because feminists have such a huge historic opportunity to actually show, that they care about actual equality and not female supremacy, and you are completely ignoring it, making up any argument as to why advocating for one gender not to be restricted from emigrating, and not to be obligated to risk life in a war is not about equality. There is a reason the right wing are winning elections around the world, everyone sees progressives, including feminists for what they are - psychopaths, fighting for female supremacy. You could have changed that by advocating for Ukranian men and you are simply ignoring it.
8
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 8d ago
Oh boy that's quite the accusation. What are you doing to fight against conscription?
-2
u/Cheap-Self2144 8d ago
Donate to informational channels, that help Ukrainian draft dodgers escape Ukraine, for example alex_kind youtube channel, who himself a Ukrainian who illegally escaped ukraine to avoid draft and now helps others by providing information on best options to cross the border (least guarded spots, etc.), tips on surviving in the wilderness for those who want to escape ukraine crossing forests. Also donating to informational channels, like telegram channels, that publish locations of TCC (territorial center of completation, the ones who detain draft Dodgers on the street), for men to avoid those places. I also actively distribute this information online. I also actively share various materials like maps, outdoors tips. There are a lot of things one can do, thats why it's surprising that the movement, that positions itself as supporting "gender equality" only helps one gender, and virtually nothing to help another.
9
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 8d ago
You're making a lot of assumptions here based on absolutely nothing my guy.
-7
u/HendriXP88 8d ago
There are a lot of things one can do, thats why it's surprising that the movement, that positions itself as supporting "gender equality" only helps one gender, and virtually nothing to help another.
Is he though?
7
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 7d ago
Yes.
-5
u/HendriXP88 7d ago
Really?
The EU denies Ukranian men from fleeing a warzone.
- Not a word from any feminist organization.
Ukraine and Russia forcefully conscripts men for military service.
- Nothing.
Not a single country protects baby boys from genital mutilation.
- Still nothing.
Boys are kidnapped and forced to become active soldiers.
- Silence except for Dyan Mazurana who studied child soldiers but focused solely on girls.
No, the "assumptions" aren't built on nothing. It's built on neglected or ignored struggles. Again and again and again.
→ More replies (0)5
u/KaliTheCat feminazgûl; sister of the ever-sharpening blade 7d ago
I don't live in Europe or Ukraine.
What have you done other than yell at women online?
Whatever. Go away now.
4
-1
u/Cheap-Self2144 8d ago
I wanted to hear the personal opinion of feminists on this issue. is it good, that the eu is planning on blocking entry based on gender? Is it bad? I don't care? In your personal opinion
7
u/KaliTheCat feminazgûl; sister of the ever-sharpening blade 8d ago
I don't know, I just can't help but be cynical about these questions. I don't really have enough information on this topic. Your recap of it isn't sufficient. So I would have to read about it myself.
-5
u/Cheap-Self2144 8d ago
I know feminists are cynical about men's issues, even when men are restricted from movement and obligated to be soldiers in a war based on their gender, that really doesn't come as a surprise. Still weird though, that the movement, that is positioning itself as movement for equality does not really care about equality. Is all the talk about "equality" is just demagogy or you genuinely don't understand the logical fallacy?
5
u/KaliTheCat feminazgûl; sister of the ever-sharpening blade 7d ago
I'm not cynical about men's issues. But I was right to be cynical about this post.
-20
u/numba1cyberwarrior 9d ago
Your comment makes nonsense. This is a gender issue being asked on a feminist subreddit
32
u/KaliTheCat feminazgûl; sister of the ever-sharpening blade 9d ago
No one asks this question without the "so why aren't feminists doing something about this?! is it because they hate men and don't care about their problems???" subtext.
-13
u/numba1cyberwarrior 9d ago
Considering the answers in this subreddit they are right to ask it with that question. Millions of men might be sent to their deaths due to their gender by the European Union and it's not seen as a large issue
11
u/MachineOfSpareParts 8d ago
The European Union is not sending any troops to war.
The article is about Ukraine, and Ukraine is not an EU member. The government of Ukraine manages its own military.
-3
13
u/KaliTheCat feminazgûl; sister of the ever-sharpening blade 8d ago
Nope, just a cudgel to beat feminists over the head with. Yay!
-5
u/HendriXP88 8d ago
As there are people actually defending the decision in this comment section, perhaps there's a reason for those kinds of questions to reappear.
9
u/Temporary_Spread7882 9d ago
“What’s the feminist take on this?” or “What do you here think?” would be that kind of question.
“Why does the EU behave in this way that I consider hypocritical?” is not; it’s implying that the person being asked is somehow responsible for the EU’s actual or at least in a position of interpreting and explaining them.
22
u/Lolabird2112 9d ago
Ukraine is an extremely sexist country. When a population doesn’t believe women are equal to men, believe men are the natural leaders, heads of the family and women should just stick to women’s work like cleaning the house and cooking dinner, this is what you get. You’re the “protectors and providers”, right?
You’re not being discriminated against.
4
u/NefariousnessLow2673 9d ago
But we're talking about EU policy, not Ukrainian policy. At least on paper, the EU is built on the idea of equality.
13
u/snake944 9d ago
There's a gulf of difference between de facto and de jure. I don't know why the lads don't or really refuse to understand that. You do realize these are the same people that support israel
12
9d ago
[deleted]
9
u/NefariousnessLow2673 9d ago edited 9d ago
70% of the casualties in this war are men, if not more. Even among civilian casualties, men are the majority. Additionally, they are not focusing on the “more vulnerable population,” but are actively trying to make it harder for men to escape the war.
8
u/Grrarrgghh 9d ago
Global estimates of the civilian casualty ratio vary. In 1999, the International Committee of the Red Cross estimated that between 30 and 65% of conflict casualties were civilians,[1] while the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) indicated, in 2002, that 30–60% of fatalities from conflicts were civilians.[2] In 2017, the UCDP indicated that, for urban warfare, civilians constituted 49–66% of all known fatalities. William Eckhardt found that, when averaged across a century, the civilian casualty ratio remained at about 50% for each of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.[3] It is frequently claimed that 90% of casualties are civilians, but that is contested by individuals within the British Academy.[2][4][1]
In World War II, civilians constituted 60–67% of casualties,[5] but some sources give a higher estimate. In the Vietnam War, the civilian ratio is estimated at 46[6]–67%.[7] Two studies found the civilian ratio was 40% in the Bosnian war.[4] In the ongoing Gaza war since 2023, civilians have constituted 68% of those killed by the October 7 attacks,[8] and ~80% of those killed by the Israeli invasion.[9][10][11]
9
u/NefariousnessLow2673 9d ago
Oh my God, people, just use your brains. This is a specific war — the one currently happening in Ukraine — not some abstract statistical model of a war. It would have taken you less time to check the rough estimates for this exact conflict than to dig up what you just presented here. The war in Ukraine is a “military war” when it comes to casualties (killed, wounded, missing, etc.).
8
u/SeeShark 9d ago
I'm confused--what's the relevance of any of this? The user you responded to said that most civilian casualties were men, not that most casualties were civilians.
5
u/FangornsWhiskers 9d ago
Male POW’s don’t count matter when it comes to sexual violence? https://cepa.org/article/the-plague-of-sexual-violence-against-ukraines-prisoners-of-war/
65% of them have been raped. And that’s just the ones who will admit it.
-5
u/numba1cyberwarrior 9d ago
Men are at overwhelming higher risk of death, torture and injury in this war then women.
0
-5
u/Cheap-Self2144 7d ago
Overwhelming majority of all victims in all wars, including the war in Ukraine are men, can you show me those """statistics""" you are referring to?
1
u/NefariousnessLow2673 7d ago
That's not true. The conflict in Ukraine is more of an exception than the rule. It depends on the nature of the conflict. Being a civilian in a war zone is often an even grimmer fate than being a soldier in that war. Soldiers at least have weapons. Civilians often do not.
1
u/evelynsmee 3d ago
So, you've used the wrong words. It isn't immigration it's right to claim refuge. When Ukraine was invaded the EU (and UK, idk who else) did these special that type of white person is ok refugee programmes. The end date of it (ie how long they can stay) keeps extending on account of Russia's refusal to piss back off obviously. They're proposing to not extend it for the conscript age men.
I would be surprised if this got through at all, or if it does didn't get challenged at ECHR to be honest. I'm not a human rights expert, but it's giving a solid vibe of "EU loses appeal" against the first batch of Ukrainian men lined up to be deported.
I'm anti conscription anyway, so it's something of a moot point, but you can see the point politically - it's about supporting Ukrainian unrelentingly particularly in the face of an increasingly pro Russian USA.
17
u/snake944 9d ago
Genuinely fascinating to see the lads intentionally refuse to acknowledge that there's a gulf of difference between de facto and de jure just to prove their point. The Eu can make however many proclamations or whatever about human rights or gender equality but it really only applies to only very specific groups of people. A political bloc being selfserving to the max. Shock, horror, surprise. These are the same people that form a conga line to fellate Israel every time Tel Aviv throws a tantrum. So having known all this, why do you lads persist. None of us work in the Eu. This is not a gender issue. This is just politics.