By Wera Hänsch Mauritzson

Borders are not neutral spaces. They determine who gets to move freely and who does not. This became particularly clear during the war in Ukraine. As millions of people fled, women and children were allowed to cross into the EU with minimal restrictions. Meanwhile the Ukrainian men between 18 and 60 were required to stay behind and fight. At first glance this might seem like a simple wartime necessity, but it actually reveals much more about how borders and security policies reinforce traditional gender roles. This divide reflects deeper societal assumptions, that women are seen as victims in need of protection, while men are seen as fighters and defenders. However, this logic fails to recognize the complexity of people’s experiences and the fact that not all women are passive victims, nor are all men willing or able to fight. 

The “Good Refugee” and the Gendered Politics of Protection

From the start of the war, Ukrainian women were framed as deserving refugees, vulnerable individuals in need of shelter and assistance. The media plays a significant role in shaping this narrative, depicting women and children as helpless victims of war and emphasizing their need for immediate international protection. This framing was not accidental, it aligned with long standing ideas about who should be protected in times of conflict. 

Feminist security research warns that such portrayals can actually be deeply controlling. When women are viewed only through the lens of vulnerability, they often face policies that limit their agency rather than empower them. While Ukrainian women were granted easier access to the EU than many other refugees, they also became more vulnerable to exploitation. Reports quickly emerged about women being targeted by human traffickers, being forced into low-wage caregiving jobs, or being coerced into sex work under the guise of “assistance”. 

Additionally, this discourse ignored the fact that not all women wanted to flee. Many women took on active roles in Ukraine’s defense, volunteering in medical brigades, joining the military or organizing humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, many men who wanted to escape were unable to do so, as Ukrainian law prevented men of military age from leaving. 

Militarizing Masculinity as the Border 

While women and children were encouraged to flee, men of fighting age were expected to remain behind. This policy was framed as necessary for national defense, but also reflected the militarization of masculinity. 

Borders became spaces where traditional gender roles were not just visible but actively enforced. Men were not seen as individuals with the right to seek safety, they were expected to be warriors, prioritizing duty over personal well-being. Feminist security studies have shown that in war, masculinity is often constructed through violence, sacrifice and militarization. Men who refuse to fight, or who seek protection instead of participating in combat, are frequently stigmatized or excluded from refugee policies. 

This pattern extends beyond Ukraine. In many refugee contexts, men are seen not as victims but as potential threats. This double standard means that while women are framed as “deserving” of asylum, men are often met with suspicion, rejected or criminalized. 

Who Gets to Be Safe? Gendered Security Policies in Practice

The way Ukrainian refugees were treated starkly contrasts with how other groups of displaced people have been handled in recent years. It also raises important questions, why are some groups seen as “legitimate” refugees while others face endless bureaucratic hurdles, detention or deportation?

Security policies often reflect societal norms rather than universal principles of protection. In this case, the idea that Ukrainian women were “deserving” refugees aligned with traditional gendered and racialized understandings of victimhood. Meanwhile male refugees continued to be viewed primarily through a security lens, as either potential fighters or potential threats. 

What this tells us about borders and security

The war in Ukraine and its refugee crisis reveal that borders are not just about keeping people in or out, they also determine whose lives are valued and protected. They reinforce long standing gender roles and create policies that trap people in expectations rather than offering real choices. 

Feminist security studies challenge these assumptions by asking critical questions: Why do we assume women need more protection than men? Why do we expect men to fight but not women? To create a more just and humane approach to migration and security, we must rethink these assumptions. Protection should not be conditional on fitting a specific gender role. Borders should not function as sites where masculinity and femininity are policed. Instead, security policies should be designed to recognize individual needs and vulnerabilities, regardless of gender. The war in Ukraine shows that borders are not just lines on a map. They are sites of power, control and exclusion. If we want a security system that truly prioritizes human rights, we must question and dismantle the gendered assumptions that underpin it.