Similar model in Austria, chose civil service wasting 9 months with 300€/month. That did not even cover basic necessities, so its pratically slavery. We also had a vote on this and guess what, elder shitheads were worried about their care without a system based on slave labour, so they decided to keep it.
If a man is not fit for service (about 20% of Swiss men are not fit enough) then you have the option to enter the civilian service which is more or less like volunteering. You do work for police, fire, or health departments, for example. If you don’t do either then you pay the 3% tax.
Can a fit man opt in to civilian service or are the only options for him the military or incarceration taxation?
Since 2010 you can choose civil service instead of military, no questions asked. The former is close to 2x the time commitment compared to military though
People determined unfit for service, where fitness is defined as "satisfying physically, intellectually and mentally requirements for military service or civil protection service and being capable of accomplishing these services without harming oneself or others",[10] are exempted from service but pay an additional 3% of annual income tax until the age of 37, unless they are affected by a disability.[11]
Almost 20% of all conscripts were found unfit for military or civilian service in 2008; the rate is generally higher in urban cantons such as Zurich and Geneva than in the rural ones.[12]Swiss citizens living abroad are generally exempted from conscription in time of peace,[13] while dual citizenship by itself does not grant such exemption.[14]
Since 1996, conscripts who are found to be sufficiently fit for regular military service, but who object for reasons of conscience, can apply for civilian service. This service consists of various kinds of social services, such as reconstructing cultural sites, helping the elderly and other activities removed from military connotations. Civilian service lasts 340 days, 50% longer than a soldier's regular army service.[15]
Conscripts found to be sufficiently unfit for regular military service, but not for exemption, take part in civil protection, where they may be called on to assist the police, fire or health departments, as well as natural disaster relief and crowd control during demonstrations or events with large attendances.[16]
There's basically a 3-tier system, based on your physical and mental fitness:
You are deemed fit for military service (245 days, increases with higher ranks); However, you can switch to civil service based on ethical / conscience reasons. Civil service takes 1.5 times as long as military service
You are deemed fit for civil protection service; that's where you assist police / fire / etc. This has the same duration as military service.
You are deemed unfit for service; You pay 3% of your yearly income, or at least 400 Swiss francs. If you are unfit because of a disability, you're exempt from this tax.
Edit: there is - of course - a 4th tier:
You're a woman, so you get to enjoy your early 20s free of charge.
​
Edit 2: added exemption from extra tax based on a disability.
I mean I don’t entirely disagree with forcing the people to protect the people. Seems to make sense to me, but yeah women need to be included in that.......
Shit I don’t even care if it’s not a forced fighting role. If they’re forced into the military and they can do things like cook or clean, tech stuff like IT things or communications, medical officers etc. at least that is something and supporting their men and country.
But I’m pretty sure, Sara going to Starbucks in the morning and then laying out on the couch all day watching TV and browsing Twitter, while Brandon is in active combat training because of “fair laws” is like straight cancer...
so being female = a disability to them.
unironically probably why women weren't conscripted originally. I'm sure the conscription rules been around ages
The system itself isn't the focal point of the critique; there's a very strong argument in defense of compulsory military service especially in states like Switzerland and S. Korea where homeland defense is a top priority culturally or geographically.
The issue is that only men are required to serve their country in any facet.
I disagree, conscription is a form of paid slavery that can lead the victim into being murdered or killed in an accident, its morally repugnet. The Swiss in 2020 are at no risk of being invaded. Its time to end this barbaric practice.
Believing someone is at no risk of being invaded is just plain stupid, there is never not a time where evil is lurking in the shadows and waiting for the perfect moment to strike.
Consider it the final stage of school. Americans are so divided that the sides don't even talk to each other anymore. Living and working together with all the ladders of the economic pyramid for a short time wouldn't hurt. We could also do some Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) type projects at the same time.
First off, not many people die in the Swedish military. Second off, suicide rates of Swedish veterans were generally on par with the non-deployed ones, so obviously they’re doing something right. Thirdly, that’s why there are other options, one can enter the military and never see any combat.
You could say that about a lot of things, taxation, educations, I personally don’t think something that’s as beneficial to their country as military service, considering they’re surrounded by potential threats, should be abolished, but I do believe women should have to as well.
Edit: to add on to that, the only reason the US can get people to sign up for the army is by preying on the lesser educated and poorer people, if everybody had to do service, than those closer to power could see if there was issues and make a change, and it would also make it so everyone has training experience, which would most likely lead to a higher overall fitness level for the entire country.
As a regular soldier it's pretty shit if you weren't employed before starting your service. If you had an employment contract before starting military service, you're entitled to compensation for the salary you're missing in the amount of 80% of your salary, this is capped to a certain amount but I don't remember how much.
However, few people already have a work contract before starting, because most of us start at 18-19 years old, straight out of highschool or apprenticeship. So yeah most of us are stuck with the shitty minimum pay.
If you decide to (or are forced to, yeah, you can be forced) rank up and become a Sargeant or something, the pay goes up considerably, but the length of service does too.
Not really, you can postpone it if you're in the middle of something like an apprenticeship or studying, but when you finish highschool or the apprenticeship you're supposed to go.
As a result, most women in Switzerland start and finish University one year earlier than men.
A lot of young men in Switzerland have finished an apprenticeship by 18/19/20. So they are trained carpenters, eletricians, cooks etc. And they get 80% of the salary, that they would receive on the open market.
Of course it is worth pointing out that while Israel is fairer than other countries with conscription, it still favors women. Historically men have had to serve for a year longer than women, though as of 2020 it has been reduced to six months longer than women. And among the grounds for exemption, getting married exempts women from service but not men (which famously is what women like Bar Rafaeli use to get around service).
I got sick in the military because of food poisoning and because of that I had a infection in my heart. After weeks of being in Military Hospital they decided to kick me out. Few months later they sent me a letter stating that I had heart problems before I started military service and it went worse while I was there. Therefore I don’t have to pay for 2020 but after that year I have to pay 3% extra tax until I am 30.
I had an doctors appointment with a military doctor, he looked through my papers and after 20 minutes, he just said you aren’t able to continue the service anymore and that was it. I tried to dispute it but hopeless. Before you go to the military there is a checkup and they test everything from your heart to mental health and everything was fine there. But when I tried to dispute it, they said I had this condition probably before I came to the military and I cannot prove them wrong because the MRI I did in the checkup phase isn’t available anymore. And I never had heart condition or something like this, I pretty healthy and I did martial arts for pretty long tho.
You’ll be put under a certain PES (physical employment standard) status. So if you’re handicapped ie lost a leg, you’ll most probably be forced to serve in an admin role.
Just saying, there are autistic kids with excuse INSURBORDINATION who are still forced to serve. And yet women aren’t (yet male PRs are still forced to serve too?!?)
WOW that's extreme, sorry to keep bugging you but I'm really interested, how is this system of conscription viewed in your country are people for or against it, and how long does it last?
When it first started long ago there were a bunch riots (as expected) but through years of propaganda, a lot of people believe its a “right of passage for males”. (But the younger generation understands the need for it and many believe it should be both gender, well other than a number of selfish or elitist people)
And far too many of the older generation have the mentality of “Since I have it this hard, the next generation should have it as hard” sort of mentality. Nothing progressive. Very conservative nation.
Main conscription is 2 years, after that there r reservice cycles of like about a few weeks per year? Which lasts either 10 more years or 20 more years depending on your rank/vocation.
No worries! I’m glad to share such issues, I mean we are all egalitarians for gender equality anyways!
My country is not at war. If it was at war, we would be in our various vocations we trained in during conscription (or what we call National Service). I’ll be a Commando if you’re asking about my specific vocation.
That's untrue! You'll be PES F if you have a leg missing, i.e., you will not need to serve at all, and this applies to severe physical and mental disabilities, illnesses etc as well.
Hmm maybe my example may be too extreme. But to obtain the coveted pes F is so rare its insane. And as mentioned, there r autistic people who are excused insurbordination which still serve. Even those with brain cis have to serve (but under pes E)
(There are regulars who have missing limbs and are not pes F so...)
I was a PES E soldier, so I do know what you're saying. I know a couple of soldiers who became PES F due to mental conditions, but the majority of them were still very capable of contributing meaningfully in admin roles.
As for the regulars, I really don't think it's a good comparison since they chose to stay in service afterwards! And I believe the SAF does take good care of them.
Ahhh I guess so, but do u know of anyone with missing limbs who are pes F? Usually Pes F is given to those with mental conditions or whole body paralysis kind. The army alsays finds a way to make you useful no matter what condition u’re in.
(I’m not saying the saf treats the regulars like trash, I’m saying that if they’re able to serve, they can easily force nsfs with such conditions to serve as well)
I had no idea your millitary structure was based on ours.. and yeah men and women are obligated to do service for the millitary but men have to do 32 months while women are doing 24, women have more choises of jobs in the millitary while men dont and they are allowed to keep their hair at whatever length they want while we dont.
Apart from historical reasons, Singapore doesn't need to conscript women because (unlike Israel) it isn't in constant conflict. It's mainly for deterrence, and in that same vein, diplomacy.
Looking at the manpower shortage and the sheer amount of problems conscription bring (along with sexism), Singapore is bound to have to conscript women one day. (Its very obvious if u’ve went through this, they even conscript PRs. Not just 2nd generation PRs like we’re told by the way)
The main reason why they’re not doing anything about NS now is as mentioned in a previous comment, it won’t affect their votes and they don’t want to have their votes affected if they were to conscript females
You are right, I do believe Singaporean women will be conscripted as well someday. Right now the SAF is looking into technology as a solution instead.
While you are also correct in pointing out the political implications, do note that a big factor is also the economic factor. More manpower in the military (in the form of women) = smaller workforce = lower GDP and competitiveness in the global market.
Yup thats true, but its the same issue with the beginning of the conscription for men. But there are ways to combat it such as reducing NS to 1.5 years. Just simply doing this makes many people move a year ahead in life as we’re able to enter uni a whole year earlier instead of wasting our life doingn nothing for 9 months (Its definately possible look at the system).
I believe the main reason for not doing so is votes. Everyone knows there are plenty of issues with conscription right now. But no one’s doing anything at all.
In practice if shit goes down most of them (99%) won't see the battlefield.
Also in military you must have cold blood.
Imagine you are ordered to kill 200 people with a missile.
Not easy to do even for men.
Yes you are right, also men have to cut their hair and women do not, as a male with long hair I really dont want to but if I wont i'll probably go to jail..
That's some bullshit. I'm sorry you have to deal with that.
I thought it was bullshit that I had to cut my long hair when I joined the US Navy, but the women could keep theirs long. I'm not sure how they think typical military haircuts look "professional".
I could have protested by not joining, but I really wanted to join. It was a necessary evil to cut my hair. I don't have a lot of sympathy for myself, cause I knew what I was getting into and chose it anyway.
You guys that have conscription, I feel for you. You have to go through the bullshit whether you want to or not. That's some fucked up shit.
One journalist wrote an article pointing that out, but a feminist journalist was quick to counter that "conscription doesn't control mens bodies". It was disgusting.
You can't say that a part of the population can't vote on something just because it doesn't affect them. They are still part of the country and are entitled to their opinion. Especially the presence of a strong military is something that affects the entire country.
That's like saying that everyone above a certain age can't vote because they don't have to live with the consequences.
I agree with you. All citizens should be allowed to have a say on subjects impacting society, including conscription and abortion. To divide the population into subgroups, each with tailored freedom and legal accountability, is a tactic used by cultural marxists to destroy the social fabrics of Western nations.
This is a tactic used by the ennemy, and we should fight it by adhering to classic liberals values.
T'was was a day of immense feats of mental gymnastics for the Feminists.
I got quickly what third wave feminists would say : "well, all men should be paying that tax anyway to even things with women due to their privilege, their whole lives".
Except this is all put in place by men. The Swiss Left, with women on leading positions and the major organisation against the army is lead by a majority of women/feminists.
While it is not said that no feminists voted for a yes, it is not said that every woman is automatically a feminist.
The swiss are pretty conservative people and keeping this imbalanced role for men means also keeping unfair roles for women.
I am from austria, when my younger brother was born my parents decided that my father would take maternity leave to take care of him.
This was so unheard of and so unusual that the second biggest newspaper printed him with an article as the "person of the week" on a whole page.
You can guess the year if you want.
Check out “bachelor taxes”, which have been imposed on single men over a certain age at various times though history, most recently in various US states.
But of course, we’re constantly told it was only women who had it rough in the past. Despite sexually discriminatory laws like this any others (such as military drafts and being responsible for the debts of their wives).
That’s because it’s a consensus, quite rightly so, that “woman’s body = woman’s choice”.
But suddenly it doesn’t work for men, and their body can be used by military. And their property which they make by working their body, oh that’s a whole different story right?
It's even worse that the alternative was Trump. Voting should have a "none of the above" option where if that wins you get a new vote with other candidates.
You can vote third party, but people seem stupidly allergic to that. You could also write in something like Bugs Bunny, but those aren't counted. Write-in candidates still have to be officially on the list and running to be counted.
Surprised that an exemplary developed nation is employing such a blatantly sexist policy. Why are Swiss Feminists not pouring onto the streets with signs saying "I can defend my country as good as any man" and demanding conscription applies to all women as it does to all men??
Oh yeaaaaah cuz army life isn't nice or glamours so doesnt cut the list of things that they want handed over on a silver platter simply by virtue of them being a women, 'the oppressed sex'...
Don't overestimate the swiss. The right for women to vote was only introduced in 1971. Swiss people like their old laws and don't want to change much. It doesn't help the people keep getting older.
Why are Swiss Feminists not pouring onto the streets with signs saying "I can defend my country as good as any man" and demanding conscription applies to all women as it does to all men??
They are too busy protesting income inequality (a lie) and lack of female executives.
Unlike what some of my compatriots here have been saying, the swiss population with university education is an absolute festering wound of feminist propaganda.
Even the least sophisticated comparison of overall swiss income of men and women is half the gap usually touted by local feminists. From there, thr gap melts down to the usual 0-3% once the factors of experience, worked hours, specialization etc are factored in.
To be fair, you can have an 11% pay gap even in identical pay situations. The main factors were men working more overtime, having a lower turnover rate, and taking less unpaid time off. There's a similar situation with Uber wages.
Also, thanks for your input here. I hate to see you downvoted, since you're raising valid concerns and this sub can be pretty echo-chambery at times. I do feel like there's progress to be made with gender pay (since studies show that employers offer higher wages to men with identical resumes). I just wanted to throw in my two cents about this issue.
Women work far less hours, work less overtime, work easier jobs, commute less, take more holidays, take more sick leave and are more likely to quit or take extended career breaks.
Women are more likely to pick a job due to things like personal preference, enjoyablity etc and are far less likely to compromise on distance, unpleasentness of job etc
Why are Swiss Feminists not pouring onto the streets with signs saying "I can defend my country as good as any man" and demanding conscription applies to all women as it does to all men??
Because they want to get rid of the conscription as well. Unfortunately the voting population of Switzerland is pretty conservative which is why it failed. And that's a perfectly reasonable position to have when it comes to equality between genders.
Men in Switzerland in that regard are sitting in a hole full of shit. You are asking why the women who want to help aren't jumping in so they share the pain, while they are outside and trying to get them out but not enough people pitch in.
Typical outrage without facts. It's a feminist organization that proposed to hold a vote to stop the conscription. But yeah, let's just make up a strawman to diss instead of focusing on actual problems men face.
maybe you're just unaware but it would be difficult to not notice it with how often you see stuff about it talked anywhere from the radio to protests in ZH etc
edit: there are radical feminists, sure, but that doesn't mean that feminism is inherently a radical belief. just like a minute percentage of MRA identifies as incels, but does that mean men's rights activism is inherently incel-driven?
What are your definitions for 'feminist' and 'radical feminist', and what do you think their relative proportions are. There are so many definitions out there that it's pointless to have a discussion on the topic without the terms being defined specifically for any given discussion.
Incel ideology has nothing to do with Men's Rights. Your analogy is flawed.
Feminist: someone who believes in advancing women's rights in areas where women have been historically neglected/oppressed, in taking a step towards gender equality.
Radical feminist: someone who believes that in order to advance women's rights, men have to be actively oppressed, e.g., through name-calling, discrimination.
Based on first-hand experiences, less than 5% of feminists sincerely believe in and participate in radical feminist behaviour (according to my definitions above).
I do believe that certain aspects of incel ideology overlaps with men's rights activists (especially on this sub), such as the belief that women are much more privileged than mainstream media depicts them to be. I am not saying that isn't true, but neither am I saying that that is completely true.
I would need definitions of 'oppressed' and 'gender equality'; because, again, these terms enjoy such broad definition that if we were to jump into a discussion using them it's guaranteed that we'd immediately be talking past each other. For example, does 'oppressed' mean "has a list of grievances", "substantially worse off in most or all major aspects of life", or something else? Does being a member of the oppressor class require knowing, active participation or is one born an oppressor?
As for 'gender equality' does it mean absolute equal gender representation in all facets of society or a fair distribution of control of society and its resources in aggregate? There are plenty of definitions of 'gender equality' that allow even the fundamentalist religious to support the concept.
Your definition of radical feminist is very narrow given the breadth of what constitutes feminism, but even still I would say that the behavior you describe gets at least tacit support (including failure to take it seriously or oppose it) from a far larger percentage of feminists than you say. It also enjoys a substantial amount of overt support among powerful feminists.
Even by your own definitions radical feminists are a subset of feminists and incels, at best, share an overlap with MRAs in the vaguest of terms. All radical feminists claim to be (the only) feminists. Almost no incels claim to be MRAs - the two groups are not pursuing the same goals.
My idea of 'oppressing' is to engage in behaviour that removes power from a party through unjust hardship. As for 'gender equality', I definitely believe that men and women are not completely equal and should not be completely equal in all aspects of society, but the unjust inequalities (on both sides) should be rooted out, e.g., emotional support for men, rape culture.
I totally get where you're coming from, and I'm glad we're having this discussion. I do consider myself a feminist, but not an activist for any side. Mainstream feminism is not out for the blood of men, but rather it seeks to address the parts of society which unfairly favour men over women, e.g., women's and black suffrage, domestic violence, sexuality. None of which requires men to be put at a lower section of the totem pole.
With that in mind, I have a few questions:
What is your (and this sub's) definition of feminism?
What is your (and this sub's) definition of radical feminism?
Why do more readers (judging from my comment scores) believe that feminism is a radical belief?
Do you think one can simultaneously be a men's rights activist and an activist for feminism without being a hypocrite?
Mainstream feminism is not out for the blood of men, but rather it seeks to address the parts of society which unfairly favour men over women, e.g., women's and black suffrage, domestic violence, sexuality. None of which requires men to be put at a lower section of the totem pole.
Does mainstream feminism include the National Organization of Women which goes around the country lobbying against equally shared parenting and alimony reform?
What is your (and this sub's) definition of feminism?
I can only speak for myself: "a movement that advocates for women under the unexamined belief that they are disproportionately oppressed by men for men's benefit and the bigoted belief that women are inherently superior to men."
What is your (and this sub's) definition of radical feminism?
Myself again: "feminists who acknowledge and broadcast their motivations."
Outside of the above two groups everyone else is a useful idiot gynocentrist mindlessly giving a thumbs up to the facile soundbite definitions we're all familiar with (.e.g. "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people") and providing cover for a hateful movement.
Why do more readers (judging from my comment scores) believe that feminism is a radical belief?
Because this subreddit is intimately aware of the things feminists do, far more than even most feminists. When I talk to self-avowed feminists about the anti-male (and anti-female by those same feminists' own accounting) things feminists have actually accomplished they are often genuinely surprised to hear about them.
Do you think one can simultaneously be a men's rights activist and an activist for feminism without being a hypocrite?
No. Feminism is a bigoted, anti-male ideology. It actively opposes equal rights across society which I touched on above.
Edit: Forgot the intro paragraph, sorry.
My idea of 'oppressing' is to engage in behaviour that removes power from a party through unjust hardship.
Based on that definition of 'oppression' I wouldn't say women have ever been oppressed by men. Both genders deal(t) with unique hardships, some caused by the other gender but most caused by nature. For 99.9% of people who have ever lived (including most alive today) mere survival is the only hurdle worth significant consideration. In fact when it comes to alleviating hardships women's are usually given first priority.
As for 'gender equality', I definitely believe that men and women are not completely equal and should not be completely equal in all aspects of society, but the unjust inequalities (on both sides) should be rooted out, e.g., emotional support for men, rape culture.
Those are the kinds of nebulous issues that casual feminists (by which I mean the ones who aren't writing and enacting public policy) love, because they require no concrete action that might run afoul of other feminists. One can feel a sense of accomplishment entirely through internal mental "activism" - a feminism of the mind. If you're feeling really adventurous you can even go so far as to tweet some platitudes. It doesn't require you to ask anything of anyone else or of the social system.
Here's how I want to address 'rape culture' (by which I mean the systematic denial and excuse of rape and its effects) from a MR perspective: gender-equal sentences for women convicted of statutory rape (and every other crime...) mandated by appropriate civil rights legislation and an end to gender-based prosecutorial discretion, possibly through the same means.
I would also point out that the MAJORITY OF MEN also voted to keep these rules. There is actually no evidence that a majority of women voted for this, for all you know it was down to men's votes that this vote passed...dumbass
There isn't evidence of how men voted. But the statement frames the result of the vote as the result of only womens votes rather than as the result of an entire nation, which includes around 50% men.
In Greece it's the same with the difference that the man has the right to pay 6000 euros if he reach 33 yo if he hasn't entered yet and it is 9 months instead of 3. There's a way to not enter though by saying that you have psychological problems, but then you can't work for the government and if you go to court, it can be used against you. There was a divorce case where the wife had fucked half the city, the husband was about to win the case, but it was later proven that he didn't enter the army for psychological reasons, so it got used against him and the wife won full custody, child support and she didn't allow him to see the children.
If you guys don't think women should be voting on things that only affect men you're gonna hate when you find out who's writing the abortion laws in America right now
This is the same in Finland :( I don't want to go to the military, I'm going out of the country when I'm 22 (can be delayed to after university) and I'm not coming back till I'm 30, fuck this shit, America it is
I live in finland too. I went to military at 18 y/o, 4th of january in 2016. I was there for a week and then I had to talk to my captain because I have mental issues that prevent me from even going to the grocery store or walking anywhere outside that has more than 6 people. my captain tried to make me stay by offering me weaponless training and I could go home every end of the day and get back there every morning. then he called to get the lieutenant colonel to his office and they decided to double-team me.
at the end of that shitshow, I was allowed to leave the next day. then not even a month later, the civil service contacted me via an envelope and I had to go to their shitty facility in lapinjärvi. couldn't even do the 1 month introductory period and had to leave the next day when I had an appointment to the facility health check-up. they determined that I was in need of therapy and psychiatric help so I got out with that.
I'm still on drugs and do therapy but at least I was notified that my conscript had (finally) come to an end in the beginning of this year. I'd never leave finland to a shittier country though - if you're a millionaire and can live in the u.s without getting fucked, good on you.
Not a millionaire, I'm a 14 year old, I want to be a python coder or engineer when I grow up and learn a bit of investing, America is full of opportunities, and there isnt so much fucking tax to give 600€ to lazy useless fucking pieces of shit who smoke drugs and sleep all day, I don't want to go to the military because I don't want to be the guy who has to run over protesters in a fuckin tank (parents where Chinese lol) I just want to live a good life here without having to deal with a shitshow, i wish women had to go to the military too, since they always say they are so strong and powerful, then go to the military ya lazy fucks
What the fuck. This is infuriating. How do people rationalize decisions like these, especially with the overt lip service to gender equality everywhere now?
It's good to point out this hypocrisy wherever it can be found.
I have family in Switzerland and my cousin did Civilian Service in lieu of Military conscription. I like the premise, but I think the additional tax should be done away with
Swiss guy here who luckily got around the military service.
First of all, the vote was held in 2013 and it wasn't about compulsary military service for men, but compulsary military service in general.
The military and the concept of "armed neutrality" are very important in Switzerland, which is why military service is compulsary in the first place. That is also why only 26% voted that the military service should no longer be compulsary. 73% of the population wanted a compulsary military service.
So it's not like women want to force men to go to the military. If the military service was no longer compulsary, the swiss military would shrink drastically amd the Swiss are proud of their army. But it's still unfair that only men have to go to the military.
And you can't say that a part of the population can't vote on something just because it doesn't affect them. They are still part of the country and are entitled to their opinion. Especially the presence of a strong military is something that affects the entire country.
Lol, I'm swiss too and of course your comment with the actual information got downvoted. I hate the military argument against feminists because the people who care most about it are the right-wingers that tend to be anti-feminists while the left want to get rid of it all together. Everyone's entitled to their opinion but that argument is just stupid to me
Thanks for this info! Totally agree in the last point, saying women don't deserve an opinion is no better than radical feminism. Despite only directly affecting conscripted men, the entire country is affected indirectly by maintaining a larger force.
It seems to me that roughly 50% of the population is sufficient for their needs and the most effective way to lottery that is by gender.
So, I served in the military for 14 years. My disabilities from that service make finding gainful employment extremely difficult, especially considering I physically cannot work within my skill set. I've tried for years, and submitted my resume thousands of times, trying to find employment. I also don't pay taxes, because my disability benefit is tax-free.
Don't build an edge cases to argue a general concept. We're talking the 95% of people who can work and a general idea, not the law you'd write to represent it.
By the same token swiss women lost their citizenship until 20 years ago, for marrying non-swiss men. Not a particularly "modern" country any way you look at it.
After reading the comments, it doesn't seem too bad. In the pursuit of equality, a portion of women who can serve should. Instead of 20% of the men deemed unable to serve, make it 40% by adding those whose careers would suffer from conscription. Do the same with women. Basically, proof that you have plans for your life that doesn't leave room for the military that benefits the country, like going to college and studying in the STEM field or doing an apprenticeship in a high-demand field as an alternative to conscription seems fair as all options benefit the country.
I do need to do some research on the difference of the lives of men and women between conscription currently and compare to see if this solution is actually beneficial.
Military services is a good thing teaches a lot about formalities, leadership and is just really good kickstart to true adult life. Also getting people to realize how easy day to day life is something most westerners need to be reintroduced too.
Same thing in estonia, but you don't even get paid minimal salary. Basically, you work 16 hours a day, get paid 1/3 of minimal salary (about 125 euro/140 usd a month) and literally 0 benefits. Absolutely ridiculous. Service is voluntary for women.
So you're telling me that Switzerland, a country neutral in any conflict unless it's defending itself from another country invading it has a law in place that all Swiss men must do military service? Where's the logic?
So women shouldn't go to military service? I thought they were just as strong as men! If they are strong enough to compete with men, then they are strong enough to go to the military, if they aren't strong enough then they aren't as strong and they shouldn't compete in things men compete in, and they shouldn't body how strong they are
First of all, a caveat: Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world (GDP per capita 90% of that of California), and also, if you exclude for the super rich (oil sheiks, Tina Turner) 0.5% - one of the MOST equal. I live here, and my cleaning lady makes 30 an hour - not much, but she manages to live on half of it and send the rest home. So my sympathy here is constrained by the simple fact that we are talking about some of the, for other reasons than gender, privileged people in the world.
There is a strong military tradition here - it is a country that managed to stay independent from empires to the east (Habsburg Austria), north (Holy Roman Empire and Germany), and west (lets call it france), and whose terrain make basic military training long and intensive. That is why conscription is mandatory and long. I do not support it, but the history is important to keep in mind.
There have been several attempts to extend conscription to women. But a coalition of women and conservative men have opposed it, some pointing to the anachronistic argument that women have a duty to bear children instead (!).
What I like, however, is the recent proposal to make conscription optional - you either join, or you pay an extra tax. That, I submit, is a good balance between freedom of choice and state force for the common good. AND, once they have that in place, the argument NOT to give the same options to women looks much stronger (by all means, let them skip the tax if they have children).
Any thoughts? Basically, I agree with the claim in the thread, just trying to add a bit of nuance and some reflections as a foreigner living in the country working on developing country problems, in comparison to which those of Swiss men blanche (and women).
BTW - might be interesting for the polarised and to us bizarre US debate on gun rights: I think Switzerland has a gun per capita ratio of almost 1 - more than one gun per household. Yet gun violence is among the lowest in the world, and I have not seen a civilian carry one. This is because conscripts are required to have them in their homes until they turn.... 65 or something. So ownership of guns is not the only reason gun violence remains such a problem in the US...
What I like, however, is the recent proposal to make conscription optional - you either join, or you pay an extra tax. That, I submit, is a good balance between freedom of choice and state force for the common good. AND, once they have that in place, the argument NOT to give the same options to women looks much stronger (by all means, let them skip the tax if they have children).
The whole point of conscription, is that everyone does it. The billionaire's son and the farmer's son share the same shitty toilets and food. They both get sent off to war.
It's a civic duty like serving on a jury or voting. It bridges the class divide like public schools and universities.
Make it optional and you lose all of this. You fill the military with poor people.
Plus there is the minor point of not being guaranteed enough personnel to fight a war.
Not particularly inclined to argue here, as I do not feel particularly strongly about this issue (apart from that men and women should be treated equally). But an important point is perhaps missing here: conscription in Europe started in the first world war for obvious reasons, and have persisted in many countries since.
But warfare is different now. We have much better technology, and hordes of non-specialists combatants are becoming less and less important. Besides, quality matters: people joining against their will by force are not likely to make the extra effort.
So large armies are becoming obsolete. Technology and the right skills will matter more and more. In such a context, does conscription make sense?
Some argue, however, for a third option: a year of mandatory military OR social service for everyone. I actually find this idea attractive: investment bankers who have spent a year teaching in rural schools in Malawi might go about his job in a healthier way than many did in the run-up to the financial crisis. It brings nations together, as they share the same experience.
The reason Switzerland is so rich is because it's a tax haven. The only reason countries are rich is because of oil and being a tax haven. It's not a "freedom of choice" if you had to pay a tax if you don't do a certain activity
Income tax here is about 40% in most cantons, albeit with a large 35 k deduction. Lower than in France if you count payroll taxes, but far from a haven. And we get quite a bit for our taxes: impeccable roads, hundreds of trains going up mountains, some of the best public schools in the world, very little visible poverty (though mostly through ample jobs rather than transfers), and remarkably responsive public services - when I lost my drivers license, I paid 50 CHF and got a new one in two minutes (compare that to US DMVs...).
Their wealth is rather because they have managed to find a range of highly specialised, high value-added niches - some pharmaceuticals, precision equipment, Rolexes, and, ironically, a world monopoly on machines that print paper currency. And, of course, finance and exchange: Geneva alone accounts for 80% of world trade in oil, diamonds, and a range of rare earths (they do not actually pass physically through Geneva, but Geneva has the specialised exchanges and clearing houses for the transactions).
The military industrial complex divides genders and kills men. It should be abolished. No person should have to die based on their genitals.
Feminism is against the military industrial complex and recognizes how many boys and men it kills. Note that a US court has ruled the SS discriminatory and unconstitutional. The judge who makes the rule advocated abolishing the draft. In order for male people to qualify for any loans, they must sign up for the SS. Another way poverty is systematized for many marginalized men/ men who distrust government.
The people y’all hate call themselves a third wave feminists. Feminists understand gender specific rights and need for communities to advocate for their rights. You should direct your comments to this judge and his commission. This case has potential to go to the Supreme Court. I have lost faith in RGB due to a terrible decision allowing a pipeline through indigenous land.
My great grandfather had to get married by proxy because the government had accused him of skipping out on his civil duties (even though as the 3rd son he was exempt - apparently) he came to England to be a coal miner and to build a life for him and his bride to be but he was warned not to return to Sicily for their marriage as he would be arrested. He was at a church in England and she in Sicily when they got married. Kinda lovely but sad at the same time
Well maybe it's a little bit revenge on the women's side for not getting the vote in the whole of Switzerland until 1972. Karma's a bit wicked wouldn't you say.
If you think you can justify discrimination against men purely because of historical grievances then why should men give a fuck about women? You come across as incredibly petty.
It's not like they have to go to war. It's Switzerland for god sakes. They just have an army in case one day the world wises up and asks for all that nazi gold back.
In all honesty I couldn't care less about what the Swiss do. I was just curious about what you find so abrasive about national conscription in a country that hasn't been to war in 200 years.
No, I'm sticking to the original post. You are literally cherry picking other countries to continue your point. America hasn't had a draft since 1973? If you got an axe to grind ensure you have the knowledge to do so.
I think conscription is a good thing for Switzerland but the fact that women are exempt is just blatant sexism. Same rules for both genders, that’s what equality is right?
Yeah this is bad and blatant discrimination. Even worse, if you are disabled you still have to pay.
However what annoys me even more here in Switzerland is the fact that my retirement age is 65 because I am male (life expectancy 81), while women (life expectancy 85) get to retire at 64.
Covers all the common FAQ questions, common rebuttals etc
Can conscription be a gender injustice against men if those in power who implement the policies are mostly men themselves?
At least in a democracy, you can’t simply blame policies on the government with no regard for the population that puts the government in power. In some countries the population even voted directly to support conscription in a referendum. Conscription was supported by 60% of voters in Austria and 73% in Switzerland. That can’t be only men.
I can’t find a gender breakdown from those countries, but a 2011 Pew poll in the U.S. found that men were 1.4× more likely than women to want to activate the draft (23% versus 16%). On the other hand, a 2016 Rasmussen poll in the U.S. found that men were 1.6× more likely than women to want to extend draft registration to both sexes (61% versus 38%).
Even if we’re discussing a country where conscription is entirely the fault of a mostly male group of rulers, that doesn’t stop it from being a gender-based injustice. It’s entirely possible for them to discriminate against or mistreat men, especially (but not only) if they themselves are exempt. Them being male doesn’t mean they necessarily feel any sort of gender-based solidarity with the male part of the population they’re ruling over. It’s possible for them to have attitudes that we could refer to as “internalized misandry” (by analogy with the concept of “internalized misogyny” for women).
If a system of gender-discriminatory conscription is upheld in a referendum (or is just known to be widely supported in the country), does that legitimize it?
I think that gives it democratic legitimacy, which is better than not having democratic legitimacy, but it doesn’t make the policy exempt from criticism on other grounds like gender equality or individual rights. Ireland had a referendum on abortion in 1983, which the anti-abortion side won with 67% of the vote. This gave the ban on abortion democratic legitimacy. Should that have made people who support abortion give up their criticisms? If they had given up, maybe the 2018 referendum on abortion wouldn’t have been held or won by the pro-abortion side this time (with 66% of the vote).
Forty-five countries conscript only men, including:
Austria requires male citizens to do six months of military service or nine months in the alternative civilian service working in places like hospitals and retirement homes. 22,000 men are drafted each year; conscription was upheld in a 2013 referendum (BBC).
Finland has compulsory service for men that lasts for 165, 255, or 347 days. Conscripts receive a small daily allowance (€5.15 to €12.00). 70% of men end up serving in the military, while most of the rest do civilian service and a small number each year go to jail for completely refusing (YLE). 80% of Finns in a 2009 poll wanted compulsory service to continue to apply to only men.
In Switzerland, men must serve 245 days in the military (18 weeks of initial training, followed by yearly recalls). 20,000 men are conscripted each year. An alternative civilian service exists, with longer time requirements. Men who do not perform either service pay 3% of their income as a Military Service Exemption Tax for ten years. Conscription was upheld in a 2013 referendum. Women are exempt, aside from a mandatory “information day” about military service (starting in 2020) to encourage more to volunteer.
South Korea conscripts 230,000 young men each year for two years of service. There is no option for conscientious objection or alternative civilian service, and fewer than 45 people receive exemptions each year.
Singapore conscripts most men for two years of service in the army, police force, or civil defense force. Deferments are possible for educational reasons, but exemptions appear to be rare, limited to severe physical or mental disabilities.
Russia calls up 135,000 conscripts each year for 12 months of service. Possible deferments or exemptions include being a university student, a single father, or a father of multiple children. In 2019 the government announced plans to abandon conscription, although one geopolitics think tank expressed skepticism given similar plans made as early as 2001.
Swiss guy here, personally I think removing mandatory military service would be retarded however making it mandatory for women too would be fair plus it would help the military too.
White feathers were just a bunch of women trying to shame men. If you think that's bad, this is institutionalized sexism, backed by the weight of the law.
It could be argued that mandatory military service (as long as its done fairly) is kind of a good thing, lets you keep a smaller permanent army, allows a very functional militia if you are ever invaded, builds skills and teamwork in a age group that frequently have very little, and most importantly lets warhawks actually have a point of reference for the next time they start clamouring for war.
From an individual perspective it sucks, but from a national standpoint its very beneficial.
Depends on the country, Isreal and south Korea come to mind as countries that have mandatory military service, and they both have hostile neighbors. It might not be a factor for the Swiss right now, but who knows what tommorow might bring, being prepared is always better than being reactionary on matters of national defense.
Slaves imply they aren't compensated for their services and have no other alternatives doesn't it? But yeah your right... its not like Germany, or Italy have had ever had any sort of authoritarian leadership and especially not within living memory.... Oh wait thats right they did, there was a was a world war about it, might have even been a sequel if I remember correctly.
Political climates change very rapidly, thinking things will stay the same today as they will be in 30-50 years is naive at best and downright dangerous at worst.
The world has changed drastically the last 100 years. I doubt we'll see a war in between western countries for hundreds of years. Even the more savage countries are starting to chill out.
The world has changed rapidly, and will continue to do so, if you have a crystal ball that says global warming causing climate exodus and water shortages won't lead to another war between civilized countries then I would love if you could give me the winning lottery numbers so I can build a bunker and prepare for the possibility.
Most people thought a global pandemic like covid wasn't a possibility either, after all medical has progressed light years since the 1918 pandemic, yet here we are, unprepared and overwhelmed.
Nobody can predict the future with any real accuracy, every nation on earth has tried since the dawn of man. Each one thought we are special! We are the one to break the mold! Yet every one of them fell and are only remembered by history books. Not being prepared for unlikely events is just slow suicide because it's never a matter of if something bad will happen so much as when.
The difference is that experts have told us repeatedly every decade that a pandemic is still a possibility (plus bioweapons). On the other hand, experts are claiming this is the most peaceful time ever, especially in the West.
Experts are also claiming we will begin seeing massive climate change and water shortages, alongside an automation crisis leading to mass unemployment. All of which sound like events that potentially could lead to resource wars.
Because nations still need to be defended and volunteers don't cut it in a lot of places.
If the US got itself into a situation where it needed to recruit a large percentage its the young male residents or face total genocide, we'd be absolutely fucked. We are obese and completely unfit. Getting young men when they are fresh out of high school as young adults for a short time to teach them some independent, highly disciplined living away from their parents probably isn't a bad thing either, really.
That's why a lot of swiss try to get a double citizenship.
I don't really see why people are arguing about women voting on this matter. I think the main issue is why this is not extended to women as well, simply suppressed, or changed (in France for example they would have one day, for men and women of something, I did it but can't remember what they told us lol)
Both men and women should be treated equally. How's it fair that just because you happen to be born a male you need to either put yourself into service or pay extra money? But women just so happened to be born women and don't have either of these pushed upon them
Here in South Korea, military service is also compulsory for men only. It's been a while since the government got rid of military service incentives because it was 'sexist'. I really don't get how military service incentives are sexist since it is given to anyone who participate. Also, it is much more easier for women to get to a higher rank because the standards are greatly lowered. Talk about male privilege...
I'm by no means a trump supporter, with that being said, it gets me so angry when women try to belittle him for dodging the draft. It's easy to say people should be forced to go to war when there isn't a chance that you will.
It was compulsory here in Germany too. Either that or you'd do social work I think. I was freaked out as a kid but luckily it got removed before I turned 18
Sounds a lot like men being able to vote on abortion while not being able to carry a child. in my opinion, neither mindset is right. But this seems like a pretty equally problematic issue, all around the world, and the wrong hill to die on for equality. If you on on here and support anti-abortion legislation, or anti-birth control legislation and you think this post is a singularly valid argument, you are wrong.
Damn, it’s almost like men in America get to vote on reproductive right of women.....and maternity leave for women......and whether or not a woman can be fired because she missed work due to having a child, etc.
Same in Finland. Men automatically have to go to military basic training when they turn 18 (or after high/vocational school if they do not want to pause studies). There are exemptions when it comes to health (disabilities, illness, sometimes even just allergies). To women military is voluntary.
I think every Finnish citizen should attend some form of training whether it is some civilian/social/defense training to prep them for possible wars or disasters and to have individuals choose from 2-4 different types of training (one of which is basic military training).
If the majority of women voted to keep the conscription, and they're half the population, then the majority of men also voted yes. I'm not saying it's fair, it isn't, but this is nothing like the SS obligation in the US because Switzerland fights absolutely no one and no one has tried to fight Switzerland in decades.
This just isnt a good way to prove your point.
Also this sort of "where's my male privilege for dying on the battlefield" and "where's my white privilege for being an Appalachian coal miner" shit just tells people "you can't talk about sexism against women because sometimes men are mistreated." Especially for a country where women couldn't vote until the '70s.
the problem is that women are voting on the fate of men when its a male-orientated problem, and are exempt from the same treatment as men because of “traditional” conscription practices.
I think it's better to see it as a citizen voting on the fate of another citizen. To me it seems reasonable, I would be okay with this in my country but I guess I cant relate since I am not from Switzerland myself.
I agree. Women should have the right to vote on this but if that applies, men should also be allowed to opine on women issues, which they're not. Also, why isn't the conscription compulsory for women? And why was it not put up for vote?
Lol men are voting on things that only concern women constantly. A few decades ago women weren't even allowed to vote on things that only concern women. For fucks sake, women suffrage in Switzerland was granted in 1971. In 1990, women were allowed to vote everywhere in Switzerland.
And it's not okay. And no one over here is supporting it. But if you condemn that, how can you accept this? Infact, the worst part in this entire episode is that women aren't conscripted and that aspect isn't even put up to vote. If it were, then everyone should be allowed to vote for or against it, irrespective of gender.
Thanks for this. What issues are men not allowed to opine on? I think it's an old traditional law but I am not sure. I just dont see it as a problem, is it degrading? Or are people just against compulsory military service?
Being treated as a canon folder who must give his life to his country because you have a dick and being pas punished if not is degrading. It like sending 18 yo girls to a camp to teach them ti be mother and housewives.
Well the very fact that we have a term called mansplaining. Literally every other issue that women face. If you put up a point it's termed that you're mansplaining. And I guess you can't deny the hypocrisy whereby women are exempt from conscription but still get to vote on it.
They are exempt and get to vote but I dont see that as a problem, again I like to view it as one society and one law affecting a group of the society ultimately affects everyone. Your first point I agree with, about mansplaining, however it isn't a law or a rule and a different matter- but still a valid contribution.
I would urge you to turn back to my first comment: the law shouldn't discriminate between men and women. So if women are allowed to vote for or against conscription for men, men should also be allowed to vote whether conscription should be compulsory for women or not. If the latter isn't there, the former also doesn't deserve to be there, by symmetry.
I do not know swiss law or their countries political discussions, however if the male population saw it as an issue can they not campaign and demand a vote on such a matter? There doesnt need to be a vote for everything and if the populus want a vote I'm sure one would be heard. I see the point you are making, I just think they can be treated as separate issues and not have to be affected by one another.
Well I can't really argue on that. But the hypocrisy of it still enrages me. But then again, I'm a [insert cruel word here] so I guess it doesn't matter
The majority of men voted to keep it so it isn't like women are forcing men to do something. Considering women only got the vote on national matters in the 70s and in one case for local matters in the 90s it maybe isn't the best country to be chasing the privilege argument in.
There might be an argument for not letting people not affected by something vote on it, but this cherry picking bollocks isn't the way to go about it.
That only really works if see only voting blocks, not people. Men who have gone through military service are likely to think "I've gone through this, why shouldn't other people like me go through it".
As a comparison, in countries where FGM is practiced it is mostly done by women. Men tend to be neutral or negative towards the practice. Does that make it more moral? I'd say no.
If you are correct in saying the majority of men voted in favour, then I think this post is misleading and harms any discussion on mens rights. This post leads one to believe that only woman voted in favour, if men are for this then there is no obvious problem and a waste of discussion. Again, only if this statement is true. This is my opinion anyway
There is a point to be made here, but you have to be mature enough to admit it cuts both ways across the genders on different matters and not present it in such a one sided way.
This is also why the men's right movement isn't taken seriously. This sub makes the front page around once a month, and it's almost always for stupid shit like this, which is almost always not even true. It's a movement about complaining, not doing.
Men have the reigns of power in pretty much every government in the world for pretty much all of recorded history. If we're having problems we need to organize and force systematic change. You know, like feminists do
If the majority of men voted for it,then listen to democracy and let it stay. On the other hand,why is conscription not compulsory for women and why is it not put up for vote?
Moartem 4y ago
Similar model in Austria, chose civil service wasting 9 months with 300€/month. That did not even cover basic necessities, so its pratically slavery. We also had a vote on this and guess what, elder shitheads were worried about their care without a system based on slave labour, so they decided to keep it.
jycjycjycjycjycjyc 4y ago
i dont care how many times i see this posted. i will upvote every damn time
Need_job_coder 4y ago
what is the conclusion of this i mean does this continue or does this get scraped ?
and can we men's rights group do something about it ?
Chocolate_fly 4y ago
If a man is not fit for service (about 20% of Swiss men are not fit enough) then you have the option to enter the civilian service which is more or less like volunteering. You do work for police, fire, or health departments, for example. If you don’t do either then you pay the 3% tax.
But yes, women are exempt from all of the above.
Diss1dent 4y ago
Similar in Finland. Or you can refuse altogether, in this case you go to prison for 12 months.
BraveNewNight 4y ago
Don't forget that civilian service is 50-100% longer than military service. Women during that year usually travel and ride the carousel
amey_wemy 4y ago
Firefighting isn’t easy though :/ In Singapore they’re required to be as fit as those in service!
EddardNedStark 4y ago
What if you just leave Switzerland?
kadivs 4y ago
Also you can be double-unfit for service which means you have to pay no matter what
TraumaJeans 4y ago
Don't forget it's often frowned upon in society "what are you, a weakling?" "Are you a man or what?"
yesat 4y ago
It's not.
locks_are_paranoid 4y ago
Is it really volunteering if they're forced to do it?
Moofooist765 4y ago
You aren’t forced to do it though, no ones holding a gun to your head here.
locks_are_paranoid 4y ago
Just to be clear, if an able-bodied person refuses military service and refuses civil service, is the only penalty a 3% tax?
jack93885 4y ago
Can a fit man opt in to civilian service or are the only options for him the military or
incarcerationtaxation?BraveNewNight 4y ago
Since 2010 you can choose civil service instead of military, no questions asked. The former is close to 2x the time commitment compared to military though
MikeLanglois 4y ago
Sorry did I miss the part that said they would go to jail if they didnt join the military? I dont remember seeing that?
jack93885 4y ago
you are correct. i let my presumptions take over my actual eyes. something must be wrong with me lol, I'll edit ti now
MikeLanglois 4y ago
Thats cool I was just worried I had missed something when reading! I know some countries use jail as an alternative unfortunately
Fidei_Virtuti 4y ago
they stopped that practice in 1996
Bellidkay1109 4y ago
It would make a lot of sense that they're able to choose civilian service, but as we know, laws don't always make sense.
I decided, after writing that, to just Google it and know for sure. According to Wikipedia:
So yeah, they can choose civilian service.
RealTechnician 4y ago
Maybe as a summary of the wiki
There's basically a 3-tier system, based on your physical and mental fitness:
Edit: there is - of course - a 4th tier:
​
Edit 2: added exemption from extra tax based on a disability.
Decent_Priority 4y ago
I mean I don’t entirely disagree with forcing the people to protect the people. Seems to make sense to me, but yeah women need to be included in that.......
Shit I don’t even care if it’s not a forced fighting role. If they’re forced into the military and they can do things like cook or clean, tech stuff like IT things or communications, medical officers etc. at least that is something and supporting their men and country.
But I’m pretty sure, Sara going to Starbucks in the morning and then laying out on the couch all day watching TV and browsing Twitter, while Brandon is in active combat training because of “fair laws” is like straight cancer...
Bellidkay1109 4y ago
Nice summary, though I would add that if you're deemed unfit for both services, but have a disability, you're exempt from paying the 3% added tax.
Kryto-Kun 4y ago
so being female = a disability to them. unironically probably why women weren't conscripted originally. I'm sure the conscription rules been around ages
RealTechnician 4y ago
I agree, adding it now.
LokisDawn 4y ago
As a note, it's involuntary, but not unpaid. The pay isn't even that bad, if it was voluntary I'd be all on board.
ThreeLF 4y ago
The system itself isn't the focal point of the critique; there's a very strong argument in defense of compulsory military service especially in states like Switzerland and S. Korea where homeland defense is a top priority culturally or geographically.
The issue is that only men are required to serve their country in any facet.
omegaphallic 4y ago
I disagree, conscription is a form of paid slavery that can lead the victim into being murdered or killed in an accident, its morally repugnet. The Swiss in 2020 are at no risk of being invaded. Its time to end this barbaric practice.
Decent_Priority 4y ago
Believing someone is at no risk of being invaded is just plain stupid, there is never not a time where evil is lurking in the shadows and waiting for the perfect moment to strike.
FrivolousTracklights 4y ago
Consider it the final stage of school. Americans are so divided that the sides don't even talk to each other anymore. Living and working together with all the ladders of the economic pyramid for a short time wouldn't hurt. We could also do some Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) type projects at the same time.
omegaphallic 4y ago
Its not school and I won't pretend it is. Alot of other countries don't have conscription and don't end up like America.
haagendaas 4y ago
First off, not many people die in the Swedish military. Second off, suicide rates of Swedish veterans were generally on par with the non-deployed ones, so obviously they’re doing something right. Thirdly, that’s why there are other options, one can enter the military and never see any combat.
clabove 4y ago
Wrong country. Swedish = Sweden. Swiss = Switzerland.
haagendaas 4y ago
Wowowowow I am stupid. Anyways I hope? My third point still stands.
omegaphallic 4y ago
Its still being forced against their will, its unacceptable attack on men's liberties and its not needed.
haagendaas 4y ago
You could say that about a lot of things, taxation, educations, I personally don’t think something that’s as beneficial to their country as military service, considering they’re surrounded by potential threats, should be abolished, but I do believe women should have to as well.
Edit: to add on to that, the only reason the US can get people to sign up for the army is by preying on the lesser educated and poorer people, if everybody had to do service, than those closer to power could see if there was issues and make a change, and it would also make it so everyone has training experience, which would most likely lead to a higher overall fitness level for the entire country.
omegaphallic 4y ago
You haven't convinced me its required to sacrifice the liiberties of men.
mhandanna 4y ago
Whats the pay?
massi95 4y ago
As a regular soldier it's pretty shit if you weren't employed before starting your service. If you had an employment contract before starting military service, you're entitled to compensation for the salary you're missing in the amount of 80% of your salary, this is capped to a certain amount but I don't remember how much. However, few people already have a work contract before starting, because most of us start at 18-19 years old, straight out of highschool or apprenticeship. So yeah most of us are stuck with the shitty minimum pay. If you decide to (or are forced to, yeah, you can be forced) rank up and become a Sargeant or something, the pay goes up considerably, but the length of service does too.
crypto_sui 4y ago
Yes, if you dont get a nice contract from your employer you are pretty fucked up.
mhandanna 4y ago
Can you choose what age to do it?
massi95 4y ago
Not really, you can postpone it if you're in the middle of something like an apprenticeship or studying, but when you finish highschool or the apprenticeship you're supposed to go. As a result, most women in Switzerland start and finish University one year earlier than men.
mhandanna 4y ago
Oh so it doesnt make sense how you can get 80% of your salary, as you wont have a job at 18.
How much is it paid?
itstrdt 4y ago
A lot of young men in Switzerland have finished an apprenticeship by 18/19/20. So they are trained carpenters, eletricians, cooks etc. And they get 80% of the salary, that they would receive on the open market.
Meme-Police18 4y ago
If you dont have a job you will get paid roughly 1800 chf per month but i have no clue where that number comes from
Kryto-Kun 4y ago
I honestly think if it was changed up a but & made compulsory for both genders it could be a good idea.
would give the population at least an incentive to not get fat
Chocolate_fly 4y ago
Israel has mandatory military service for all men and women. Seems to work fine for them.
gprime 4y ago
Of course it is worth pointing out that while Israel is fairer than other countries with conscription, it still favors women. Historically men have had to serve for a year longer than women, though as of 2020 it has been reduced to six months longer than women. And among the grounds for exemption, getting married exempts women from service but not men (which famously is what women like Bar Rafaeli use to get around service).
aki2273 4y ago
I got sick in the military because of food poisoning and because of that I had a infection in my heart. After weeks of being in Military Hospital they decided to kick me out. Few months later they sent me a letter stating that I had heart problems before I started military service and it went worse while I was there. Therefore I don’t have to pay for 2020 but after that year I have to pay 3% extra tax until I am 30.
Diligent-Throat111 4y ago
Wow! Just wow!
whitestguyuknow 4y ago
Are you able to fight that? That's screwed up
gariant 4y ago
They tried, women said no.
aki2273 4y ago
You can forget it, the court costs would surpass the amount I will pay in the future
kornbrot 4y ago
No way! Did that happen in the swiss military? Sounds unreal...
aki2273 4y ago
https://www.google.ch/amp/s/www.srf.ch/article/17386146/amp
aki2273 4y ago
Quarantine recruit school: 43 recruits are ill Thats the headline
aki2273 4y ago
Yes just google „Jasbach Lebensmittelvergiftung“
kornbrot 4y ago
Man that's crazy... Seems like it was a pretty big thing. Were there a lot of sick people?
aki2273 4y ago
43 people 3 in badly condition including me I was hospitalized
MaxPap20 4y ago
I think this is what they are talking about on this article
kornbrot 4y ago
Couldn't you just say that you want to continue your service? Did you talk with your sergeant? I mean, they can't just kick you out out of nowhere..
aki2273 4y ago
I had an doctors appointment with a military doctor, he looked through my papers and after 20 minutes, he just said you aren’t able to continue the service anymore and that was it. I tried to dispute it but hopeless. Before you go to the military there is a checkup and they test everything from your heart to mental health and everything was fine there. But when I tried to dispute it, they said I had this condition probably before I came to the military and I cannot prove them wrong because the MRI I did in the checkup phase isn’t available anymore. And I never had heart condition or something like this, I pretty healthy and I did martial arts for pretty long tho.
aki2273 4y ago
The next step would be go to court but doesn’t seem really realistic for a student...
amey_wemy 4y ago
I’m from Singapore, if I don’t go for conscription, I get jailed. And then sent for conscription
hikari-boulders 4y ago
Just like in Switzerland. Except that Switzerland consider these practices a violation of human right when it's done to people from Eritrea.
amey_wemy 4y ago
Well, there aren’t many activists in Singapore due to all the strict laws, and most people can’t be bothered as those voting are either:
Oceansnail 4y ago
In North Korea conscription is 10 years, if you dont go you and your extended family are shot.
amey_wemy 4y ago
And its for both genders so erm, true gender equality? (Technically not because I know women still have to serve less sentence).
And also Singapore is a first world country like Switzerland, unlike North Korea.
Quinnloneheart 4y ago
What happens if you have medical conditions that would prevent you from joining?
Nagi21 4y ago
Jail. Not healthy enough, jail. Too healthy, also jail.
zkryl 4y ago
If you joined the army but developed an illness during service, believe it or not, also jail.
amey_wemy 4y ago
You’ll be put under a certain PES (physical employment standard) status. So if you’re handicapped ie lost a leg, you’ll most probably be forced to serve in an admin role.
Just saying, there are autistic kids with excuse INSURBORDINATION who are still forced to serve. And yet women aren’t (yet male PRs are still forced to serve too?!?)
Quinnloneheart 4y ago
WOW that's extreme, sorry to keep bugging you but I'm really interested, how is this system of conscription viewed in your country are people for or against it, and how long does it last?
amey_wemy 4y ago
When it first started long ago there were a bunch riots (as expected) but through years of propaganda, a lot of people believe its a “right of passage for males”. (But the younger generation understands the need for it and many believe it should be both gender, well other than a number of selfish or elitist people)
And far too many of the older generation have the mentality of “Since I have it this hard, the next generation should have it as hard” sort of mentality. Nothing progressive. Very conservative nation.
Main conscription is 2 years, after that there r reservice cycles of like about a few weeks per year? Which lasts either 10 more years or 20 more years depending on your rank/vocation.
No worries! I’m glad to share such issues, I mean we are all egalitarians for gender equality anyways!
Reddit_IsPropaganda 4y ago
Are you at war? What do you do when you are in?
amey_wemy 4y ago
My country is not at war. If it was at war, we would be in our various vocations we trained in during conscription (or what we call National Service). I’ll be a Commando if you’re asking about my specific vocation.
Kirinfal 4y ago
That's untrue! You'll be PES F if you have a leg missing, i.e., you will not need to serve at all, and this applies to severe physical and mental disabilities, illnesses etc as well.
amey_wemy 4y ago
Hmm maybe my example may be too extreme. But to obtain the coveted pes F is so rare its insane. And as mentioned, there r autistic people who are excused insurbordination which still serve. Even those with brain cis have to serve (but under pes E)
(There are regulars who have missing limbs and are not pes F so...)
Kirinfal 4y ago
I was a PES E soldier, so I do know what you're saying. I know a couple of soldiers who became PES F due to mental conditions, but the majority of them were still very capable of contributing meaningfully in admin roles.
As for the regulars, I really don't think it's a good comparison since they chose to stay in service afterwards! And I believe the SAF does take good care of them.
amey_wemy 4y ago
Ahhh I guess so, but do u know of anyone with missing limbs who are pes F? Usually Pes F is given to those with mental conditions or whole body paralysis kind. The army alsays finds a way to make you useful no matter what condition u’re in.
(I’m not saying the saf treats the regulars like trash, I’m saying that if they’re able to serve, they can easily force nsfs with such conditions to serve as well)
R4MKOL 4y ago
Israel too
amey_wemy 4y ago
Yup, but Israel forces both genders, Singapore forces one. (Even though our military structure was based on Israel’s?!? I don’t understand)
R4MKOL 4y ago
I had no idea your millitary structure was based on ours.. and yeah men and women are obligated to do service for the millitary but men have to do 32 months while women are doing 24, women have more choises of jobs in the millitary while men dont and they are allowed to keep their hair at whatever length they want while we dont.
amey_wemy 4y ago
So still kinda sexist but somewhat less? I don’t know what I said about military structure is just rumours, nothing’s ever truly released
Kirinfal 4y ago
Apart from historical reasons, Singapore doesn't need to conscript women because (unlike Israel) it isn't in constant conflict. It's mainly for deterrence, and in that same vein, diplomacy.
amey_wemy 4y ago
Looking at the manpower shortage and the sheer amount of problems conscription bring (along with sexism), Singapore is bound to have to conscript women one day. (Its very obvious if u’ve went through this, they even conscript PRs. Not just 2nd generation PRs like we’re told by the way)
The main reason why they’re not doing anything about NS now is as mentioned in a previous comment, it won’t affect their votes and they don’t want to have their votes affected if they were to conscript females
Kirinfal 4y ago
You are right, I do believe Singaporean women will be conscripted as well someday. Right now the SAF is looking into technology as a solution instead.
While you are also correct in pointing out the political implications, do note that a big factor is also the economic factor. More manpower in the military (in the form of women) = smaller workforce = lower GDP and competitiveness in the global market.
amey_wemy 4y ago
Yup thats true, but its the same issue with the beginning of the conscription for men. But there are ways to combat it such as reducing NS to 1.5 years. Just simply doing this makes many people move a year ahead in life as we’re able to enter uni a whole year earlier instead of wasting our life doingn nothing for 9 months (Its definately possible look at the system).
I believe the main reason for not doing so is votes. Everyone knows there are plenty of issues with conscription right now. But no one’s doing anything at all.
WolfShaman 4y ago
But Israel conscripts men AND women, correct?
If a country does it fairly for everyone (while taking handicaps into consideration, of course), I see no real issue with it.
mhandanna 4y ago
Yeah but women are shorter legnth... also in practice women are deployed to easy milatry posts that are low risk
heyyy-kiddo 4y ago
In practice if shit goes down most of them (99%) won't see the battlefield. Also in military you must have cold blood. Imagine you are ordered to kill 200 people with a missile. Not easy to do even for men.
xNOM 4y ago
Also Israel is in constant danger of being invaded and is desperate for personnel.
R4MKOL 4y ago
Yes you are right, also men have to cut their hair and women do not, as a male with long hair I really dont want to but if I wont i'll probably go to jail..
mhandanna 4y ago
Bald? Yeah thats common in many countries
R4MKOL 4y ago
No, but i think less than 1 cm..
WolfShaman 4y ago
That's some bullshit. I'm sorry you have to deal with that.
I thought it was bullshit that I had to cut my long hair when I joined the US Navy, but the women could keep theirs long. I'm not sure how they think typical military haircuts look "professional".
SynchroGold 4y ago
When I joined in 2009 girls still had to get their hair cut, I wonder why they changed it.
R4MKOL 4y ago
Thanks dude.. I know, it really sucks and unfortunately there is very little to do about it
WolfShaman 4y ago
I could have protested by not joining, but I really wanted to join. It was a necessary evil to cut my hair. I don't have a lot of sympathy for myself, cause I knew what I was getting into and chose it anyway.
You guys that have conscription, I feel for you. You have to go through the bullshit whether you want to or not. That's some fucked up shit.
Lion_amongst_gods 4y ago
If Kamala Harris were Swiss, this would've been a great answer to her question "Can you think of a law that lets women control men's bodies?"
Razorbladekandyfan 4y ago
That applies to the US too. The have the Selective Service.
Lion_amongst_gods 4y ago
Kavanaugh should've said that right to her face, during the senate interview.
Razorbladekandyfan 4y ago
One journalist wrote an article pointing that out, but a feminist journalist was quick to counter that "conscription doesn't control mens bodies". It was disgusting.
Lion_amongst_gods 4y ago
Whose bodies does it control, then? What a stupid thing to say...
Hannubal 4y ago
T'was was a day of immense feats of mental gymnastics for the Feminists.
Half-kratos2 4y ago
yeah like why is women allowed to vote on this it is from men not women
redgarnetamaranth 4y ago
Just trust me, once men stop being misogynists it’ll all be different, I promise /s
mdedian 4y ago
I still think taxpayers should vote on budget issues alone...
Hannubal 4y ago
Because women are more peaceful and so they should have a say in military matters to prevent war and oppression... Oh wait.
dorballom09 4y ago
I only understood the "Oh wait" part ._.
mcavvacm 4y ago
Saying women are more peaceful, while they're supporting mandatory conscription into a military service, the opposite of peace, is ironic.
Hannubal 4y ago
Haha, sorry if it was unintelligible. u/mcavvacm explained my point well though :)
xNOM 4y ago
For the same reason men are allowed to vote on aborti... oh wait.
Artosirak 4y ago
You can't say that a part of the population can't vote on something just because it doesn't affect them. They are still part of the country and are entitled to their opinion. Especially the presence of a strong military is something that affects the entire country.
That's like saying that everyone above a certain age can't vote because they don't have to live with the consequences.
psilorder 4y ago
What if there was a vote on "All women have to birth at least 1 child or else pay extra tax", should men be allowed to vote on that?
Khufu2589 4y ago
I agree with you. All citizens should be allowed to have a say on subjects impacting society, including conscription and abortion. To divide the population into subgroups, each with tailored freedom and legal accountability, is a tactic used by cultural marxists to destroy the social fabrics of Western nations. This is a tactic used by the ennemy, and we should fight it by adhering to classic liberals values.
plainwalk 4y ago
Feminists say men should have no say on abortion laws because they don't get pregnant. It's a double standard.
Artosirak 4y ago
Exactly! But men should have a say on abortion laws, just like women have a say on military service for men.
sampete1 4y ago
So true. Everyone should have a say in everything.
plainwalk 4y ago
As in many things, I don't overly care as long as it is consistent.
PerpetualUselessness 4y ago
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/024/574/Screen_Shot_2017-11-06_at_12.41.31_PM.png
GaySage 4y ago
fuck you, deplorable piece of shit
SageBus 4y ago
I got quickly what third wave feminists would say : "well, all men should be paying that tax anyway to even things with women due to their privilege, their whole lives".
yesat 4y ago
Except this is all put in place by men. The Swiss Left, with women on leading positions and the major organisation against the army is lead by a majority of women/feminists.
benderXX 4y ago
Are you kidding me, that they were put in a position to vote is a part of rape culture.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
bjv2001 4y ago
Way to be a class example.
mustachedino 4y ago
Women get paid less than men because it gives me an incentive to settle down and get married.
Why hello there 1950s.
Hannubal 4y ago
Take it easy brother. If we get angry, they win :)
girraween 4y ago
I agree, it just gives others ammo against this sub.
slayerx1779 4y ago
I can't wait until someone takes this comment out of context and conveniently ignores the down votes and the replies decrying its aggressive attitude.
sircocklord 4y ago
God you're a proper asshole aren't you.
Diligent-Throat111 4y ago
Couldn't agree more
weaselwurstbanana 4y ago
While it is not said that no feminists voted for a yes, it is not said that every woman is automatically a feminist. The swiss are pretty conservative people and keeping this imbalanced role for men means also keeping unfair roles for women.
Drakane1 4y ago
either explain or stfu
silsool 4y ago
Get outta here with your facts and logic
WolfShaman 4y ago
What unfair roles for women? I'm honestly curious.
weaselwurstbanana 4y ago
I am from austria, when my younger brother was born my parents decided that my father would take maternity leave to take care of him. This was so unheard of and so unusual that the second biggest newspaper printed him with an article as the "person of the week" on a whole page. You can guess the year if you want.
yogibearandthekid 4y ago
Nothing ever changes, nothing changes at all, we all return to the start of the song and we all sing along like before.
hunterdog228 4y ago
Unpopular opinion: don’t draft the women, but make them pay the exemption tax.
WeranioRacker 4y ago
BuT tHaTs UnFaIr
RingosTurdFace 4y ago
Check out “bachelor taxes”, which have been imposed on single men over a certain age at various times though history, most recently in various US states.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_tax
But of course, we’re constantly told it was only women who had it rough in the past. Despite sexually discriminatory laws like this any others (such as military drafts and being responsible for the debts of their wives).
AlessandoRhazi 4y ago
That’s because it’s a consensus, quite rightly so, that “woman’s body = woman’s choice”. But suddenly it doesn’t work for men, and their body can be used by military. And their property which they make by working their body, oh that’s a whole different story right?
locks_are_paranoid 4y ago
I still remember Hillary Clinton saying that woman are the primary victims of war. It's scary how close she came to becoming president.
RingosTurdFace 4y ago
It’s obscene isn’t it.
Imagine the apoplectic media uproar if a male politician said the primary victim of cervical cancer is the men who are left to bring up the children.
PaulHarrisDidNoWrong 4y ago
It's even worse that the alternative was Trump. Voting should have a "none of the above" option where if that wins you get a new vote with other candidates.
RingosTurdFace 4y ago
Can you spoil your votes in the US?
In the UK spoilt votes are counted and can (to an extent) act as a mild form of political protest in a -
“I bothered to turn up and cast a vote, but for no-one as they were all bad choice”
Kind of way
JcbAzPx 4y ago
You can vote third party, but people seem stupidly allergic to that. You could also write in something like Bugs Bunny, but those aren't counted. Write-in candidates still have to be officially on the list and running to be counted.
locks_are_paranoid 4y ago
I suppose you could leave it blank, but I'm not sure what that would accomplish.
zeppy457 4y ago
My body my choice
Ankeedu 4y ago
Surprised that an exemplary developed nation is employing such a blatantly sexist policy. Why are Swiss Feminists not pouring onto the streets with signs saying "I can defend my country as good as any man" and demanding conscription applies to all women as it does to all men??
Oh yeaaaaah cuz army life isn't nice or glamours so doesnt cut the list of things that they want handed over on a silver platter simply by virtue of them being a women, 'the oppressed sex'...
redditor_aborigine 4y ago
Why are you surprised? They have sex quotas for Parliament.
JuliDerMonat 4y ago
Don't overestimate the swiss. The right for women to vote was only introduced in 1971. Swiss people like their old laws and don't want to change much. It doesn't help the people keep getting older.
BraveNewNight 4y ago
They are too busy protesting income inequality (a lie) and lack of female executives.
Unlike what some of my compatriots here have been saying, the swiss population with university education is an absolute festering wound of feminist propaganda.
AntiVision 4y ago
How is it a lie?
BraveNewNight 4y ago
Even the least sophisticated comparison of overall swiss income of men and women is half the gap usually touted by local feminists. From there, thr gap melts down to the usual 0-3% once the factors of experience, worked hours, specialization etc are factored in.
As in most western countries.
AntiVision 4y ago
so there is a gap then?
BraveNewNight 4y ago
Not a statistically relevant one, no.
sampete1 4y ago
To be fair, you can have an 11% pay gap even in identical pay situations. The main factors were men working more overtime, having a lower turnover rate, and taking less unpaid time off. There's a similar situation with Uber wages.
Also, thanks for your input here. I hate to see you downvoted, since you're raising valid concerns and this sub can be pretty echo-chambery at times. I do feel like there's progress to be made with gender pay (since studies show that employers offer higher wages to men with identical resumes). I just wanted to throw in my two cents about this issue.
nordicpolarbear 4y ago
Yes a gap in how many hours women work. They work less, therefore earn less
AntiVision 4y ago
why do you think they work less? I thought you said there was still a gap even with worked hours factored in?
practicingsolo 4y ago
The general concept is that women work less hours over their lifetime than men and that is a big reason for the difference
AntiVision 4y ago
yes and why do they work less?
practicingsolo 4y ago
Fire a variety of reasons.
mhandanna 4y ago
Women work far less hours, work less overtime, work easier jobs, commute less, take more holidays, take more sick leave and are more likely to quit or take extended career breaks.
Women are more likely to pick a job due to things like personal preference, enjoyablity etc and are far less likely to compromise on distance, unpleasentness of job etc
morerokk 4y ago
Because women aren't being pressured to out-earn their (potential) partners.
Syndic 4y ago
Because they want to get rid of the conscription as well. Unfortunately the voting population of Switzerland is pretty conservative which is why it failed. And that's a perfectly reasonable position to have when it comes to equality between genders.
Men in Switzerland in that regard are sitting in a hole full of shit. You are asking why the women who want to help aren't jumping in so they share the pain, while they are outside and trying to get them out but not enough people pitch in.
silsool 4y ago
Typical outrage without facts. It's a feminist organization that proposed to hold a vote to stop the conscription. But yeah, let's just make up a strawman to diss instead of focusing on actual problems men face.
meuh32 4y ago
I am swiss, and a woman. Feminism is not so much a thing there compared to Australia or the US . At least it wasn't when I left 4 years ago.
RealTechnician 4y ago
It's getting worse, feminist talking points are more and more creeping into the mind of the public (by the media) and accepted as facts.
redditor_aborigine 4y ago
What about the quotas in politics?
*Crickets.
randomnameuser1232 4y ago
What? This is a load of BS
maybe you're just unaware but it would be difficult to not notice it with how often you see stuff about it talked anywhere from the radio to protests in ZH etc
meuh32 4y ago
Never seen those (but haven't been there for four years). Don't come to Australia then, it is so much worse haha
Ankeedu 4y ago
That's good!! Radical beliefs are not good in any form
meuh32 4y ago
Couldn't agree more
AntiVision 4y ago
Radical? How is it radical?
mhandanna 4y ago
Rape and statutory rape: 1) Feminists in India oppose making rape laws gender neutral 2) Feminists in Israel are against charging women with rape because then according to them, women would be afraid to charge men with rape. 3) Influential rape researcher Mary Koss claims male victims of female rapists aren’t real rape victims in radio interview 4) Michele Elliott OBE is an author, psychologist, teacher and the founder and director of child protection charity Kidscape. Due to her work in exposing the issue of child sexual abuse committed by women, she was subject to a lot of hate and hostility from feminists 5) The feminist and journalist Barbara Ellen said in an article in the Guardian that a female teacher sleeping with a male pupil is not on a par with a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil, and that the female teacher doesn't deserve prison. 6) Feminist Avital Ronell, a world-renowned female professor of German and Comparative Literature at New York University, was found responsible for sexually harassing a male former graduate student, Nimrod Reitman. So a group of scholars from around the world, including prominent feminists, sent a letter to N.Y.U. in defense of Professor Ronell. One of them even was disturbed cause according to her and her colleagues Mr. Reitman was using Title IX, a feminist tool, to take down a feminist.
Father’s rights: 1) NOW fighting against joint custody in Michigan 2) NOW oppose joint custody in new york 3) NOW, the National Organization for Women oppose joint custody of the children and alimony reform bill in Florida., [2] 4) Propaganda by Michigan NOW against Father’s rights groups, because they proposed a bill for joint custody which NOW oppose 5) In 2005, Michigan's chapter of NOW opposed Bill SB 436 ("The Paternity Act") which aimed to increase putative ("unmarried") fathers rights and redefined "child born out of wedlock".
Rights of accused men of rape in the courts of law and public opinion, and false accusations: 1) Feminist Emily Lindin, Founder of Unslut Project, said that she's not all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations. 2) Feminists in Canada proposed a bill that compromises an accused's rights in sexual assault cases, so now, if the defence has a record that shows the complainant is lying or misrepresenting the evidence, that record must be disclosed in advance. A lawyer is then appointed for the complainant who is granted standing to argue for suppression of the defence evidence,[2]; And even though this bill compromises an accused's rights In sexual assault cases, Pamela Cross, a Canadian feminist lawyer and feminist advocate said that even though Bill C-51 is a good start, it's still not enough. 3) London Feminist Network objecting to granting anonymity to rape defendants 4) Campaign group Women Against Rape said they were glad the government dropped the rape charge anonymity pledge 5) Men now who are accused of rape are presumed guilty under the gender equity law known as Title IX, which addresses sexual harassment and sexual violence in campus. The burden of proof, say several lawyers representing students who have been found responsible for sexual assault, is too low, letting colleges rule against alleged perpetrators on very slim, sometimes conflicting evidence. Ms Judith Grossman, a feminist who said that she would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act, until the time came when her son was falsely accused of rape in campus. 6) Feminist Jon Krakauersaid that we shouldn't weaken Title IX campus sex assault policies, even though it ignored due process, abused and discriminated against many men by expelling them and destroying their future when they were actually falsely accused.
mhandanna 4y ago
https://youtu.be/D9vZXTnzrRY
http://archive.is/AWSEN
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/h8za7e/scientific\_study\_feminsm\_makes\_you\_more\_man/
mhandanna 4y ago
Domestic violence: 1) 2nd wave: Erin Pizzey, who became internationally famous for having started the first domestic violence shelter in the modern world, Chiswick Women's Aid, in 1971, the organisation known today as Refuge. She has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her research into the claim that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally capable of violence as men. Pizzey has said that the threats were from militant feminists. 2) 2nd wave: She wrote an article in which she talk about male domestic violence, how feminist journalists and radical feminist editors in publishing houses controlled the flow of information to the public, and how the feminists in America, their strangle hold over the shelters and access to government and state resources was almost absolute. She talked to about how the feminists shot her dog to threaten her. 3) 2nd wave: Richard J. Gelles, along with, Murray A. Straus, and Suzanne K. Steinmetz formed the team at the Univ. of New Hampshire that first researched family violence in the early 1970s. He is today one of the nation's foremost researchers into family violence. After finding out that the rate of female-to-male family violence was almost equal to the rate of male-to-female violence all three of them received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where they were scheduled to present. Suzanne received the brunt of the attacks - individuals wrote and called her university urging that she be denied tenure; calls were made and letters were written to government agencies urging that her grant funding be rescinded.. 4) 2nd wave: At the University of Delaware professor Suzanne Steinmetz published an article called the "The Battered Husband Syndrome." After culling the findings from five surveys on domestic violence, Steinmetz reached the conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses. So the feminists leveled threats against Steinmetz and her children. Sponsors of her speaking engagements started to receive threatening phone calls. Finally, a bomb threat was called in to a meeting where Steinmetz was scheduled to speak. 5) An article about how feminists abused and distorted statistics and data on female victimization so that we believe that domestic violence is the most common cause of injury to women, or how battered-women's advocates claim that those women who kill their husbands do so only out of self-defense. 6) The Justice Department has known now for years since the publication of Christina Hoff Sommers’s USAToday op-ed that two of Eric Holder’s speeches in 2009 contained erroneous and false information about intimate partner homicide being the leading cause of death for black women ages 15-45. They promised Glenn Kessler and the Washington Post that the false information on the DOJ websites would be corrected “in the coming days.” It has not been corrected. 7) the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, said about domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls.", [2] 8) Feminists Disrupt a Forum About Battered Husbands 9) Feminist and american sociologist Dr Michael Kimmel, who runs the Stony Brook University's Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities. NOMAS, the organization that he founded and leads, claims that men are not victims of domestic violence or abuse.., and even though he's one of the most prominent feminists that talk about ''toxic masculinity'', In 2018 he was publicly accused of sexual harassment by professor Bethany coston 10) The duluth model which is the most common batterer intervention program used in the United States. It completely neglecte male victims and female perpetrators of abuse. The program insisted that men are perpetrators who are violent because they have been socialized in a patriarchy that condones male violence, and that women are victims who are violent only in self-defense. 11) Before the VAWA(violence against women act) There was Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, it was replaced in 1984 by the VAWA, in which until now they didn't bother to include men as victims in the title. And even though the language that they used in the VAWA is gender neutral in addressing victims of domestic violence, the domestic violence programs discriminate against male victims. 12) Feminist and University of Ottawa law professor Elizabeth Sheehy, wants to place battered women above the law. Professor Sheehy’s thesis is that battered women should have the right to kill their husbands pre-emptively — in their sleep, say, or when they least expect it — without fear of being charged with murder., [2] 13) The Canadian federal government’s The Transition Home Survey (THS) “identified 627 shelters for abused women that were operating across Canada on April 16, 2014”. There was one for men and it closed due to lack of funds and support which led to his suicide, [2] 14) Feminists Disrupt a Forum About Battered Husbands
mhandanna 4y ago
Reproductive rights and forced fatherhood: 1) Feminist Cristy Clark, a legal academic and chair of the Feminist Writers Festival, said that we shouldn't accept financial abortion and give men reproductive rights and a choice to decide to be a parent like it is for women, cause according to her if we accept financial abortion for men, we would be punishing women for not having an abortion when a man wanted them to, and that reeks of the kind of coercive control that has no place in the feminist movement. 2) Feminist and New York Times best selling author Gabrielle Blair has put the whole blame of unwanted pregnancies on men and propose either castration as a punishment or get men to be required by law to get a vasectomy as prevention 3) An article in Jezebel trivializing forced fatherhood, saying that what's only required from fathers is to pay money and that forced fatherhood is not as unfair as forced motherhood, forgetting that women at least have the chance to abort and to opt out of parenthood 4) another feminist against financial abortion said in an article in SALON that there's no such thing as forced fatherhood, and that men nowadays don't have less reproductive autonomy than women
Toxic masculinity: 1) Feminist professor at Occidental College Lisa Wade rejects the notion of "toxic masculinity," saying it is time to recognize that "it is masculinity itself that has become the problem and argue that men must renounce their masculinity and denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it. 2) Feminist Jenna Price one of the co-founders of the feminist action group, Destroy the Joint , said in an article that she wrote for the Sydney Morning Herald that all masculinity is toxic and not just parts of it, and that men need to be chaperoned. 3) Feminist professor at Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada, Erin Dej published a book where she Slams ''Hegemonic Masculinity'' of Homeless Men. This feminist was awarded at least $185,000 by the Canadian government to research homelessness since 2009 (which could have been instead invested to actually help homeless men by giving them food or building more shelters), interviewed 27 homeless men and spent and additional 296 hours spying on them in homeless shelters. Instead of looking for ways to help these vulnerable men to have a better life, a house or a career, she explains that the goal of her research was to assess the ways hypermasculinity is performed among men experiencing homelessness.
Kirinfal 4y ago
TIL feminism is a radical belief
edit: there are radical feminists, sure, but that doesn't mean that feminism is inherently a radical belief. just like a minute percentage of MRA identifies as incels, but does that mean men's rights activism is inherently incel-driven?
lasciate 4y ago
Kirinfal 4y ago
Feminist: someone who believes in advancing women's rights in areas where women have been historically neglected/oppressed, in taking a step towards gender equality.
Radical feminist: someone who believes that in order to advance women's rights, men have to be actively oppressed, e.g., through name-calling, discrimination.
Based on first-hand experiences, less than 5% of feminists sincerely believe in and participate in radical feminist behaviour (according to my definitions above).
I do believe that certain aspects of incel ideology overlaps with men's rights activists (especially on this sub), such as the belief that women are much more privileged than mainstream media depicts them to be. I am not saying that isn't true, but neither am I saying that that is completely true.
What are your thoughts on this?
lasciate 4y ago
I would need definitions of 'oppressed' and 'gender equality'; because, again, these terms enjoy such broad definition that if we were to jump into a discussion using them it's guaranteed that we'd immediately be talking past each other. For example, does 'oppressed' mean "has a list of grievances", "substantially worse off in most or all major aspects of life", or something else? Does being a member of the oppressor class require knowing, active participation or is one born an oppressor?
As for 'gender equality' does it mean absolute equal gender representation in all facets of society or a fair distribution of control of society and its resources in aggregate? There are plenty of definitions of 'gender equality' that allow even the fundamentalist religious to support the concept.
Your definition of radical feminist is very narrow given the breadth of what constitutes feminism, but even still I would say that the behavior you describe gets at least tacit support (including failure to take it seriously or oppose it) from a far larger percentage of feminists than you say. It also enjoys a substantial amount of overt support among powerful feminists.
Even by your own definitions radical feminists are a subset of feminists and incels, at best, share an overlap with MRAs in the vaguest of terms. All radical feminists claim to be (the only) feminists. Almost no incels claim to be MRAs - the two groups are not pursuing the same goals.
Kirinfal 4y ago
My idea of 'oppressing' is to engage in behaviour that removes power from a party through unjust hardship. As for 'gender equality', I definitely believe that men and women are not completely equal and should not be completely equal in all aspects of society, but the unjust inequalities (on both sides) should be rooted out, e.g., emotional support for men, rape culture.
I totally get where you're coming from, and I'm glad we're having this discussion. I do consider myself a feminist, but not an activist for any side. Mainstream feminism is not out for the blood of men, but rather it seeks to address the parts of society which unfairly favour men over women, e.g., women's and black suffrage, domestic violence, sexuality. None of which requires men to be put at a lower section of the totem pole.
With that in mind, I have a few questions:
lasciate 4y ago
Does mainstream feminism include the National Organization of Women which goes around the country lobbying against equally shared parenting and alimony reform?
I can only speak for myself: "a movement that advocates for women under the unexamined belief that they are disproportionately oppressed by men for men's benefit and the bigoted belief that women are inherently superior to men."
Myself again: "feminists who acknowledge and broadcast their motivations."
Outside of the above two groups everyone else is a useful idiot gynocentrist mindlessly giving a thumbs up to the facile soundbite definitions we're all familiar with (.e.g. "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people") and providing cover for a hateful movement.
Because this subreddit is intimately aware of the things feminists do, far more than even most feminists. When I talk to self-avowed feminists about the anti-male (and anti-female by those same feminists' own accounting) things feminists have actually accomplished they are often genuinely surprised to hear about them.
No. Feminism is a bigoted, anti-male ideology. It actively opposes equal rights across society which I touched on above.
Edit: Forgot the intro paragraph, sorry.
Based on that definition of 'oppression' I wouldn't say women have ever been oppressed by men. Both genders deal(t) with unique hardships, some caused by the other gender but most caused by nature. For 99.9% of people who have ever lived (including most alive today) mere survival is the only hurdle worth significant consideration. In fact when it comes to alleviating hardships women's are usually given first priority.
Those are the kinds of nebulous issues that casual feminists (by which I mean the ones who aren't writing and enacting public policy) love, because they require no concrete action that might run afoul of other feminists. One can feel a sense of accomplishment entirely through internal mental "activism" - a feminism of the mind. If you're feeling really adventurous you can even go so far as to tweet some platitudes. It doesn't require you to ask anything of anyone else or of the social system.
Here's how I want to address 'rape culture' (by which I mean the systematic denial and excuse of rape and its effects) from a MR perspective: gender-equal sentences for women convicted of statutory rape (and every other crime...) mandated by appropriate civil rights legislation and an end to gender-based prosecutorial discretion, possibly through the same means.
Olive-dont 4y ago
I would also point out that the MAJORITY OF MEN also voted to keep these rules. There is actually no evidence that a majority of women voted for this, for all you know it was down to men's votes that this vote passed...dumbass
Razorbladekandyfan 4y ago
If there's no evidence how women voted, where did you get the evidence of how men voted?
Olive-dont 4y ago
There isn't evidence of how men voted. But the statement frames the result of the vote as the result of only womens votes rather than as the result of an entire nation, which includes around 50% men.
AndreilLimbo 4y ago
In Greece it's the same with the difference that the man has the right to pay 6000 euros if he reach 33 yo if he hasn't entered yet and it is 9 months instead of 3. There's a way to not enter though by saying that you have psychological problems, but then you can't work for the government and if you go to court, it can be used against you. There was a divorce case where the wife had fucked half the city, the husband was about to win the case, but it was later proven that he didn't enter the army for psychological reasons, so it got used against him and the wife won full custody, child support and she didn't allow him to see the children.
omeretalla 4y ago
Women couldn't vote until 1971 in Switzerland
d4m4s74 4y ago
Men under 30 weren't even born before 1971.
omeretalla 4y ago
Tf, it is pretty late, what do you say about saudi arabia,
"oh dear, men under 5 weren't even born before 2015. "
d4m4s74 4y ago
If what happened before 2015 is being used as an excuse to specifically target boys under 5, yes.
juliaHel 4y ago
What a dumb system
redditor_aborigine 4y ago
People think it’s only North America and the UK, but the EU countries seem almost as bad.
WeranioRacker 4y ago
Switzerland is not EU
redditor_aborigine 4y ago
True, and no longer want to join because ‘only crazy people want to.’
I mostly meant to exclude Eastern Europe.
VanIsleThrowaway1 4y ago
Fuck that's awful
mr_wisermeister 4y ago
If you guys don't think women should be voting on things that only affect men you're gonna hate when you find out who's writing the abortion laws in America right now
Tepa_Tassuliini 4y ago
Abortion is killing a child regardless of what you think, being sent to service or get taxed 3% more because of your gender is sexism
dont-believe-me- 4y ago
Oh no they don't like it when you say stuff like that here. Not a very accepting bunch..
Drykanakth 4y ago
The fuke
Auntie_Hero 4y ago
How long is the required term of service? 2 years or 4?
Auntie_Hero 4y ago
Something a little less eye-bleeding, please. Whoever made this meme is an idiot.
i8noodles 4y ago
FEMINIST COME AND FIGHT THIS BLATANT DISREGARD OF GENDER INEQUITY!
Flyingcar13 4y ago
This is the same in Finland :( I don't want to go to the military, I'm going out of the country when I'm 22 (can be delayed to after university) and I'm not coming back till I'm 30, fuck this shit, America it is
GaySage 4y ago
I live in finland too. I went to military at 18 y/o, 4th of january in 2016. I was there for a week and then I had to talk to my captain because I have mental issues that prevent me from even going to the grocery store or walking anywhere outside that has more than 6 people. my captain tried to make me stay by offering me weaponless training and I could go home every end of the day and get back there every morning. then he called to get the lieutenant colonel to his office and they decided to double-team me.
at the end of that shitshow, I was allowed to leave the next day. then not even a month later, the civil service contacted me via an envelope and I had to go to their shitty facility in lapinjärvi. couldn't even do the 1 month introductory period and had to leave the next day when I had an appointment to the facility health check-up. they determined that I was in need of therapy and psychiatric help so I got out with that.
I'm still on drugs and do therapy but at least I was notified that my conscript had (finally) come to an end in the beginning of this year. I'd never leave finland to a shittier country though - if you're a millionaire and can live in the u.s without getting fucked, good on you.
Flyingcar13 4y ago
Perekele vasataa nytt
/s
Flyingcar13 4y ago
Not a millionaire, I'm a 14 year old, I want to be a python coder or engineer when I grow up and learn a bit of investing, America is full of opportunities, and there isnt so much fucking tax to give 600€ to lazy useless fucking pieces of shit who smoke drugs and sleep all day, I don't want to go to the military because I don't want to be the guy who has to run over protesters in a fuckin tank (parents where Chinese lol) I just want to live a good life here without having to deal with a shitshow, i wish women had to go to the military too, since they always say they are so strong and powerful, then go to the military ya lazy fucks
InfrequentBowel 4y ago
Can we admit this is a problem while also admitting that in most regardsen have unneeded power over women....?
nebno6 4y ago
Surely the ECHR would see this as discrimination, this is a disgrace!
Half-kratos2 4y ago
shush shush it is towards men so it doesn't count
asdjkljj 4y ago
What the fuck. This is infuriating. How do people rationalize decisions like these, especially with the overt lip service to gender equality everywhere now?
It's good to point out this hypocrisy wherever it can be found.
Boon_Doc 4y ago
Yikes
JudgementalChair 4y ago
I have family in Switzerland and my cousin did Civilian Service in lieu of Military conscription. I like the premise, but I think the additional tax should be done away with
TheRikari 4y ago
THIS IS WHAT MALE PRIVILEGE LOOKS LIKE
LordOnyx0 4y ago
How the fuck is that a privilege???
Artosirak 4y ago
Swiss guy here who luckily got around the military service.
First of all, the vote was held in 2013 and it wasn't about compulsary military service for men, but compulsary military service in general.
The military and the concept of "armed neutrality" are very important in Switzerland, which is why military service is compulsary in the first place. That is also why only 26% voted that the military service should no longer be compulsary. 73% of the population wanted a compulsary military service.
So it's not like women want to force men to go to the military. If the military service was no longer compulsary, the swiss military would shrink drastically amd the Swiss are proud of their army. But it's still unfair that only men have to go to the military.
And you can't say that a part of the population can't vote on something just because it doesn't affect them. They are still part of the country and are entitled to their opinion. Especially the presence of a strong military is something that affects the entire country.
Don-Linto 4y ago
Don't forget it was a left-wing organisation, that proposed this initiative
shadythrowaway9 4y ago
Lol, I'm swiss too and of course your comment with the actual information got downvoted. I hate the military argument against feminists because the people who care most about it are the right-wingers that tend to be anti-feminists while the left want to get rid of it all together. Everyone's entitled to their opinion but that argument is just stupid to me
seedorfj 4y ago
Thanks for this info! Totally agree in the last point, saying women don't deserve an opinion is no better than radical feminism. Despite only directly affecting conscripted men, the entire country is affected indirectly by maintaining a larger force.
It seems to me that roughly 50% of the population is sufficient for their needs and the most effective way to lottery that is by gender.
BraveNewNight 4y ago
That's exactly how voting should work. If you have no stake, you don't get a vote. Otherwise it's the wolves voting to eat the sheep.
You shouldn't even be able to vote if you're not a net tax contributer.
But no, we had to introduce universal suffrage in switzerland, and now we're irrevocably fucked.
WolfShaman 4y ago
So, I served in the military for 14 years. My disabilities from that service make finding gainful employment extremely difficult, especially considering I physically cannot work within my skill set. I've tried for years, and submitted my resume thousands of times, trying to find employment. I also don't pay taxes, because my disability benefit is tax-free.
I shouldn't be able to vote?
BraveNewNight 4y ago
Don't build an edge cases to argue a general concept. We're talking the 95% of people who can work and a general idea, not the law you'd write to represent it.
Borisqq 4y ago
By the same token swiss women lost their citizenship until 20 years ago, for marrying non-swiss men. Not a particularly "modern" country any way you look at it.
cubingstorm012 4y ago
After reading the comments, it doesn't seem too bad. In the pursuit of equality, a portion of women who can serve should. Instead of 20% of the men deemed unable to serve, make it 40% by adding those whose careers would suffer from conscription. Do the same with women. Basically, proof that you have plans for your life that doesn't leave room for the military that benefits the country, like going to college and studying in the STEM field or doing an apprenticeship in a high-demand field as an alternative to conscription seems fair as all options benefit the country.
I do need to do some research on the difference of the lives of men and women between conscription currently and compare to see if this solution is actually beneficial.
divoclevon 4y ago
I'm so tired of male lives meaning nothing...
we need to start adding in extras
​
like we get nothing in a separation...
but we get to do our ex's best friend,
the hot one she's always asking if you like.
​
Yes, that one. by law.
SaffellBot 4y ago
State mandated rape is super good and well thought out idea. I'm proud of you.
ObjectiveAmbassador9 4y ago
I really hope you’re joking
GreatBayTemple 4y ago
Unfortunate for you guys I guess.
DeuxChad 4y ago
Military services is a good thing teaches a lot about formalities, leadership and is just really good kickstart to true adult life. Also getting people to realize how easy day to day life is something most westerners need to be reintroduced too.
WeranioRacker 4y ago
And either way it shouldn’t be required
mark2517 4y ago
Same thing in estonia, but you don't even get paid minimal salary. Basically, you work 16 hours a day, get paid 1/3 of minimal salary (about 125 euro/140 usd a month) and literally 0 benefits. Absolutely ridiculous. Service is voluntary for women.
SF1NX_CZ 4y ago
So you're telling me that Switzerland, a country neutral in any conflict unless it's defending itself from another country invading it has a law in place that all Swiss men must do military service? Where's the logic?
AE74Fj73 4y ago
the tax is stupid and the fact that women could vote, i'm pro conscription and i think it should be compulsory for men and women
GaySage 4y ago
dumbass.
Flyingcar13 4y ago
So women shouldn't go to military service? I thought they were just as strong as men! If they are strong enough to compete with men, then they are strong enough to go to the military, if they aren't strong enough then they aren't as strong and they shouldn't compete in things men compete in, and they shouldn't body how strong they are
AE74Fj73 4y ago
ok, why?
GuodanT4 4y ago
I am from Switzerland and have no problem with it.
Svenskbtch 4y ago
First of all, a caveat: Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world (GDP per capita 90% of that of California), and also, if you exclude for the super rich (oil sheiks, Tina Turner) 0.5% - one of the MOST equal. I live here, and my cleaning lady makes 30 an hour - not much, but she manages to live on half of it and send the rest home. So my sympathy here is constrained by the simple fact that we are talking about some of the, for other reasons than gender, privileged people in the world.
There is a strong military tradition here - it is a country that managed to stay independent from empires to the east (Habsburg Austria), north (Holy Roman Empire and Germany), and west (lets call it france), and whose terrain make basic military training long and intensive. That is why conscription is mandatory and long. I do not support it, but the history is important to keep in mind.
There have been several attempts to extend conscription to women. But a coalition of women and conservative men have opposed it, some pointing to the anachronistic argument that women have a duty to bear children instead (!).
What I like, however, is the recent proposal to make conscription optional - you either join, or you pay an extra tax. That, I submit, is a good balance between freedom of choice and state force for the common good. AND, once they have that in place, the argument NOT to give the same options to women looks much stronger (by all means, let them skip the tax if they have children).
Any thoughts? Basically, I agree with the claim in the thread, just trying to add a bit of nuance and some reflections as a foreigner living in the country working on developing country problems, in comparison to which those of Swiss men blanche (and women).
BTW - might be interesting for the polarised and to us bizarre US debate on gun rights: I think Switzerland has a gun per capita ratio of almost 1 - more than one gun per household. Yet gun violence is among the lowest in the world, and I have not seen a civilian carry one. This is because conscripts are required to have them in their homes until they turn.... 65 or something. So ownership of guns is not the only reason gun violence remains such a problem in the US...
xNOM 4y ago
The whole point of conscription, is that everyone does it. The billionaire's son and the farmer's son share the same shitty toilets and food. They both get sent off to war.
It's a civic duty like serving on a jury or voting. It bridges the class divide like public schools and universities.
Make it optional and you lose all of this. You fill the military with poor people.
Plus there is the minor point of not being guaranteed enough personnel to fight a war.
Svenskbtch 4y ago
Not particularly inclined to argue here, as I do not feel particularly strongly about this issue (apart from that men and women should be treated equally). But an important point is perhaps missing here: conscription in Europe started in the first world war for obvious reasons, and have persisted in many countries since.
But warfare is different now. We have much better technology, and hordes of non-specialists combatants are becoming less and less important. Besides, quality matters: people joining against their will by force are not likely to make the extra effort.
So large armies are becoming obsolete. Technology and the right skills will matter more and more. In such a context, does conscription make sense?
Some argue, however, for a third option: a year of mandatory military OR social service for everyone. I actually find this idea attractive: investment bankers who have spent a year teaching in rural schools in Malawi might go about his job in a healthier way than many did in the run-up to the financial crisis. It brings nations together, as they share the same experience.
Extra_Emu_8956 4y ago
The reason Switzerland is so rich is because it's a tax haven. The only reason countries are rich is because of oil and being a tax haven. It's not a "freedom of choice" if you had to pay a tax if you don't do a certain activity
Svenskbtch 4y ago
Income tax here is about 40% in most cantons, albeit with a large 35 k deduction. Lower than in France if you count payroll taxes, but far from a haven. And we get quite a bit for our taxes: impeccable roads, hundreds of trains going up mountains, some of the best public schools in the world, very little visible poverty (though mostly through ample jobs rather than transfers), and remarkably responsive public services - when I lost my drivers license, I paid 50 CHF and got a new one in two minutes (compare that to US DMVs...).
Their wealth is rather because they have managed to find a range of highly specialised, high value-added niches - some pharmaceuticals, precision equipment, Rolexes, and, ironically, a world monopoly on machines that print paper currency. And, of course, finance and exchange: Geneva alone accounts for 80% of world trade in oil, diamonds, and a range of rare earths (they do not actually pass physically through Geneva, but Geneva has the specialised exchanges and clearing houses for the transactions).
At any rate, this is not my area of expertise, so if you are interested... voila. https://www.quora.com/When-how-did-Switzerland-become-so-rich-It-seems-that-a-century-ago-the-country-wasn%E2%80%99t-so-well-off
Samlikesreddit13 4y ago
The military industrial complex divides genders and kills men. It should be abolished. No person should have to die based on their genitals.
Feminism is against the military industrial complex and recognizes how many boys and men it kills. Note that a US court has ruled the SS discriminatory and unconstitutional. The judge who makes the rule advocated abolishing the draft. In order for male people to qualify for any loans, they must sign up for the SS. Another way poverty is systematized for many marginalized men/ men who distrust government.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.military.com/daily-news/2019/02/26/no-women-dont-have-sign-draft-yet-heres-whats-next.html/amp
The people y’all hate call themselves a third wave feminists. Feminists understand gender specific rights and need for communities to advocate for their rights. You should direct your comments to this judge and his commission. This case has potential to go to the Supreme Court. I have lost faith in RGB due to a terrible decision allowing a pipeline through indigenous land.
Women are not your enemy.
Bergatario 4y ago
I'd join the Swiss army just gor the knives!
jack93885 4y ago
My great grandfather had to get married by proxy because the government had accused him of skipping out on his civil duties (even though as the 3rd son he was exempt - apparently) he came to England to be a coal miner and to build a life for him and his bride to be but he was warned not to return to Sicily for their marriage as he would be arrested. He was at a church in England and she in Sicily when they got married. Kinda lovely but sad at the same time
WeranioRacker 4y ago
Wait what do you mean the third son is exempt?
Are you telling me this bullshit is that fucking old?
jack93885 4y ago
Sorry I took so long to get the info but he moved to the UK in 1951. So not that old
WeranioRacker 4y ago
Ah
Shrike01 4y ago
As Swiss citizen i can confirm vut you still have other two options for avoid the tax... But still
HumansDeserveHell 4y ago
How bad are your brain worms to think this is a bad outcome
allquckedup 4y ago
Well maybe it's a little bit revenge on the women's side for not getting the vote in the whole of Switzerland until 1972. Karma's a bit wicked wouldn't you say.
Lethn 4y ago
If you think you can justify discrimination against men purely because of historical grievances then why should men give a fuck about women? You come across as incredibly petty.
allquckedup 4y ago
It was a joke based on historic fact. My Swiss wife thought it was funny enough to put up so I did so. Have a nice weekend.
Lethn 4y ago
It's just a prank bro.
allquckedup 4y ago
Thanks for the followup. Have a good weekend.
MEGACITY4 4y ago
It's not like they have to go to war. It's Switzerland for god sakes. They just have an army in case one day the world wises up and asks for all that nazi gold back.
Lethn 4y ago
Why are you trying to justify conscription?
MEGACITY4 4y ago
Why not?
Lethn 4y ago
Guess you don't give a shit about messing with peoples' lives like that then.
MEGACITY4 4y ago
In all honesty I couldn't care less about what the Swiss do. I was just curious about what you find so abrasive about national conscription in a country that hasn't been to war in 200 years.
Lethn 4y ago
What about countries like South Korea then? You're cherry picking, there's also America which actively punishes men that don't sign up for the draft.
MEGACITY4 4y ago
No, I'm sticking to the original post. You are literally cherry picking other countries to continue your point. America hasn't had a draft since 1973? If you got an axe to grind ensure you have the knowledge to do so.
Guimanfredi 4y ago
In my country, there's also that, but instead of paying a tax, you basically become an inanimate object. You can't even find a job!
Manonfire009 4y ago
Cry me a river.... bouhouhou.
killerwolfs2000 4y ago
I think conscription is a good thing for Switzerland but the fact that women are exempt is just blatant sexism. Same rules for both genders, that’s what equality is right?
Lalulale 4y ago
Yeah this is bad and blatant discrimination. Even worse, if you are disabled you still have to pay.
However what annoys me even more here in Switzerland is the fact that my retirement age is 65 because I am male (life expectancy 81), while women (life expectancy 85) get to retire at 64.
mhandanna 4y ago
Great article on this issue, from a fantastic webiste, I could not recommend enough:
https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2020/06/07/conscription-a-gender-based-injustice-around-the-world/
Covers all the common FAQ questions, common rebuttals etc
Can conscription be a gender injustice against men if those in power who implement the policies are mostly men themselves?
At least in a democracy, you can’t simply blame policies on the government with no regard for the population that puts the government in power. In some countries the population even voted directly to support conscription in a referendum. Conscription was supported by 60% of voters in Austria and 73% in Switzerland. That can’t be only men.
I can’t find a gender breakdown from those countries, but a 2011 Pew poll in the U.S. found that men were 1.4× more likely than women to want to activate the draft (23% versus 16%). On the other hand, a 2016 Rasmussen poll in the U.S. found that men were 1.6× more likely than women to want to extend draft registration to both sexes (61% versus 38%).
Even if we’re discussing a country where conscription is entirely the fault of a mostly male group of rulers, that doesn’t stop it from being a gender-based injustice. It’s entirely possible for them to discriminate against or mistreat men, especially (but not only) if they themselves are exempt. Them being male doesn’t mean they necessarily feel any sort of gender-based solidarity with the male part of the population they’re ruling over. It’s possible for them to have attitudes that we could refer to as “internalized misandry” (by analogy with the concept of “internalized misogyny” for women).
If a system of gender-discriminatory conscription is upheld in a referendum (or is just known to be widely supported in the country), does that legitimize it?
I think that gives it democratic legitimacy, which is better than not having democratic legitimacy, but it doesn’t make the policy exempt from criticism on other grounds like gender equality or individual rights. Ireland had a referendum on abortion in 1983, which the anti-abortion side won with 67% of the vote. This gave the ban on abortion democratic legitimacy. Should that have made people who support abortion give up their criticisms? If they had given up, maybe the 2018 referendum on abortion wouldn’t have been held or won by the pro-abortion side this time (with 66% of the vote).
mhandanna 4y ago
Forty-five countries conscript only men, including:
Austria requires male citizens to do six months of military service or nine months in the alternative civilian service working in places like hospitals and retirement homes. 22,000 men are drafted each year; conscription was upheld in a 2013 referendum (BBC).
Finland has compulsory service for men that lasts for 165, 255, or 347 days. Conscripts receive a small daily allowance (€5.15 to €12.00). 70% of men end up serving in the military, while most of the rest do civilian service and a small number each year go to jail for completely refusing (YLE). 80% of Finns in a 2009 poll wanted compulsory service to continue to apply to only men.
In Switzerland, men must serve 245 days in the military (18 weeks of initial training, followed by yearly recalls). 20,000 men are conscripted each year. An alternative civilian service exists, with longer time requirements. Men who do not perform either service pay 3% of their income as a Military Service Exemption Tax for ten years. Conscription was upheld in a 2013 referendum. Women are exempt, aside from a mandatory “information day” about military service (starting in 2020) to encourage more to volunteer.
South Korea conscripts 230,000 young men each year for two years of service. There is no option for conscientious objection or alternative civilian service, and fewer than 45 people receive exemptions each year.
Singapore conscripts most men for two years of service in the army, police force, or civil defense force. Deferments are possible for educational reasons, but exemptions appear to be rare, limited to severe physical or mental disabilities.
Russia calls up 135,000 conscripts each year for 12 months of service. Possible deferments or exemptions include being a university student, a single father, or a father of multiple children. In 2019 the government announced plans to abandon conscription, although one geopolitics think tank expressed skepticism given similar plans made as early as 2001.
Egypt requires men to serve in the military for one to three years, depending on their level of education. Hundreds of thousands are conscripted each year. Possible exemptionsinclude medical reasons, being an only son, or being gay.
k3rn3lhack3r 4y ago
No penis, no opinion.
dorballom09 4y ago
You mYsOgYnIsT!!!
k3rn3lhack3r 4y ago
I wear the title like a badge of honour.
Freaky-Boi 4y ago
Swiss guy here, personally I think removing mandatory military service would be retarded however making it mandatory for women too would be fair plus it would help the military too.
Razorbladekandyfan 4y ago
Why is removing it bad? who is invading you?
Freaky-Boi 4y ago
Well take a guess at why we didn’t get invaded in WW2
Razorbladekandyfan 4y ago
But who is invading you now?
Freaky-Boi 4y ago
Nobody
Razorbladekandyfan 4y ago
In any case, if conscription is to be continued in Switzerland, it shouldn't be for men only. That is disgusting.
Freaky-Boi 4y ago
That’s what I said.
Razorbladekandyfan 4y ago
I agree with you.
BraveNewNight 4y ago
This is my country. It's 3.5% - in my case I pay ~0.5% due to leftover service time before I left.
Women also continue to vote against equal age of retirement and further censorship in favour of minorities.
Despicable children.
WeranioRacker 4y ago
How is any of this legal? Doesn’t the constitution explicitly ban any kind of gender discrimination?
BraveNewNight 4y ago
You're new to this sub, aren't you?
It's not discrimination when it favors women.
AggressiveResult2 4y ago
But you know feminists would pitch a fit if Switzerland had an abortion vote and men got to vote on it.
auMatech 4y ago
The modern day white feather movement
Tmomp 4y ago
White feathers were just a bunch of women trying to shame men. If you think that's bad, this is institutionalized sexism, backed by the weight of the law.
shrek1234567810 4y ago
Hey, do you wanna risk your life? Oh, you can't? Then pay up, loser. Oh, her? She doesn't have to due to the lack of balls.
im_just_dreamy 4y ago
I hate this planet
Calimancan 4y ago
The planet is fine. People not so much
Half-kratos2 4y ago
me to
mexicomasala 4y ago
metoo*
whitestguyuknow 4y ago
me too*
gogoskiller2 4y ago
Why do they have conscription in the middle of the western world
Zumbert 4y ago
It could be argued that mandatory military service (as long as its done fairly) is kind of a good thing, lets you keep a smaller permanent army, allows a very functional militia if you are ever invaded, builds skills and teamwork in a age group that frequently have very little, and most importantly lets warhawks actually have a point of reference for the next time they start clamouring for war.
From an individual perspective it sucks, but from a national standpoint its very beneficial.
gogoskiller2 4y ago
Invaded by whom?
NohoTwoPointOh 4y ago
Ask Ukraine.
Brehmes 4y ago
Zee Germans.
sobrius 4y ago
Ze Germans.
whathidude 4y ago
Well, any countries in war. By having a decent military, it made so no country would invade them. Like in WW2.
gogoskiller2 4y ago
That was 80 years ago
whathidude 4y ago
You can still set it as an example of war, where no country really actually cares about neutrality.
Maxstrongarm451 4y ago
And I’m sure 80 years ago there were smart asses saying the army was dumb because the last war was forever ago.
Bet they’re glad no one listened to them.
Zumbert 4y ago
Depends on the country, Isreal and south Korea come to mind as countries that have mandatory military service, and they both have hostile neighbors. It might not be a factor for the Swiss right now, but who knows what tommorow might bring, being prepared is always better than being reactionary on matters of national defense.
gogoskiller2 4y ago
Yeah sure. Use young men as slaves because surely Italy France Germany Austria or Liechtenstein will invade...
Zumbert 4y ago
Slaves imply they aren't compensated for their services and have no other alternatives doesn't it? But yeah your right... its not like Germany, or Italy have had ever had any sort of authoritarian leadership and especially not within living memory.... Oh wait thats right they did, there was a was a world war about it, might have even been a sequel if I remember correctly.
Political climates change very rapidly, thinking things will stay the same today as they will be in 30-50 years is naive at best and downright dangerous at worst.
livelauglove 4y ago
The world has changed drastically the last 100 years. I doubt we'll see a war in between western countries for hundreds of years. Even the more savage countries are starting to chill out.
TomSaylek 4y ago
The USA sure doesn't have a problem waving it's oil thirsty dick around. Or does that not count for you?
livelauglove 4y ago
USA goes under "savage countries", but they are getting better.
Zumbert 4y ago
The world has changed rapidly, and will continue to do so, if you have a crystal ball that says global warming causing climate exodus and water shortages won't lead to another war between civilized countries then I would love if you could give me the winning lottery numbers so I can build a bunker and prepare for the possibility.
Most people thought a global pandemic like covid wasn't a possibility either, after all medical has progressed light years since the 1918 pandemic, yet here we are, unprepared and overwhelmed.
Nobody can predict the future with any real accuracy, every nation on earth has tried since the dawn of man. Each one thought we are special! We are the one to break the mold! Yet every one of them fell and are only remembered by history books. Not being prepared for unlikely events is just slow suicide because it's never a matter of if something bad will happen so much as when.
livelauglove 4y ago
The difference is that experts have told us repeatedly every decade that a pandemic is still a possibility (plus bioweapons). On the other hand, experts are claiming this is the most peaceful time ever, especially in the West.
Zumbert 4y ago
Experts are also claiming we will begin seeing massive climate change and water shortages, alongside an automation crisis leading to mass unemployment. All of which sound like events that potentially could lead to resource wars.
TalosSquancher 4y ago
Slaves? It's not slavery if you can pay to say no, after every single person in the country knows.
What, you think they show up when you're 19, throw a bag over your head, and kidnap you into special forces?
You think their military personnel don't get paid? As far as I know slaves weren't compensated for their work.
Maybe you could use some service. Might help you gain a little perspective.
kremleyy 4y ago
You could argue it is still forced labour.
TalosSquancher 4y ago
You could argue that, since nothing in the world is free, every single job is circumstantially forced labour because you need money to survive.
You can argue a lot of chopped up logic, that doesn't make it true
JcbAzPx 4y ago
Slaves were technically compensated with food and shelter. Changing that to a monetary equivalent doesn't really make it better.
TalosSquancher 4y ago
So what system do you have in mind?
JcbAzPx 4y ago
Volunteer armies seem to work pretty well in peacetime. Maybe they could try that.
TalosSquancher 4y ago
If it's peacetime, shouldn't there be no army?
elebrin 4y ago
Because nations still need to be defended and volunteers don't cut it in a lot of places.
If the US got itself into a situation where it needed to recruit a large percentage its the young male residents or face total genocide, we'd be absolutely fucked. We are obese and completely unfit. Getting young men when they are fresh out of high school as young adults for a short time to teach them some independent, highly disciplined living away from their parents probably isn't a bad thing either, really.
meuh32 4y ago
That's why a lot of swiss try to get a double citizenship.
I don't really see why people are arguing about women voting on this matter. I think the main issue is why this is not extended to women as well, simply suppressed, or changed (in France for example they would have one day, for men and women of something, I did it but can't remember what they told us lol)
whitestguyuknow 4y ago
Both men and women should be treated equally. How's it fair that just because you happen to be born a male you need to either put yourself into service or pay extra money? But women just so happened to be born women and don't have either of these pushed upon them
shymeeee 4y ago
How nice. So they adore equal rights everywhere except conscription.
WeranioRacker 4y ago
Yeah like how is conscription even legal?
shymeeee 4y ago
Constipation is positively illegal, since you aren't aware. Enema bags also illegal. Just deal with it.
WeranioRacker 4y ago
What
shymeeee 4y ago
Well that's the law in most countries I'm pretty sure. They need people to fight wars.
petrhie 4y ago
Here in South Korea, military service is also compulsory for men only. It's been a while since the government got rid of military service incentives because it was 'sexist'. I really don't get how military service incentives are sexist since it is given to anyone who participate. Also, it is much more easier for women to get to a higher rank because the standards are greatly lowered. Talk about male privilege...
Xevamir 4y ago
should men have a vote on abortion then?
SilencedTruthSeeker 4y ago
I'm by no means a trump supporter, with that being said, it gets me so angry when women try to belittle him for dodging the draft. It's easy to say people should be forced to go to war when there isn't a chance that you will.
0mnica 4y ago
Become a women, on paper, checkmate.
leftajar 4y ago
Defending the homeland is the job of the men of the tribe. No hypocrisy here.
MassiveMD 4y ago
Muh protection
beesnoopy2231 4y ago
Serious question, what if I indentify as a woman? Do I not pay the extra tax?
BraveNewNight 4y ago
Doesn't exist in Switzerland - especially not at that age, you get drafted at 18-21.
Half-kratos2 4y ago
idk but you probably do ''because um you have a penis in your pants obviously you dumbdumb #killallmen'' woo equality
beesnoopy2231 4y ago
Did you just assume my gender? I'm suing you for not using my correct gender pro noun, this is legit a gate crime.
Cya in court sweetie.
YU5AKU 4y ago
It was compulsory here in Germany too. Either that or you'd do social work I think. I was freaked out as a kid but luckily it got removed before I turned 18
RoastedReviews 4y ago
And here i thought it was only the United States that treated men as second class citizens
AggressiveResult2 4y ago
Many other “gender egalitarian” countries are worse for men than the US is.
Wickedpissahbub 4y ago
Sounds a lot like men being able to vote on abortion while not being able to carry a child. in my opinion, neither mindset is right. But this seems like a pretty equally problematic issue, all around the world, and the wrong hill to die on for equality. If you on on here and support anti-abortion legislation, or anti-birth control legislation and you think this post is a singularly valid argument, you are wrong.
xdzgor 4y ago
What's the argument? Men can't carry a baby, so women can't carry weapons?
neph441 4y ago
We have this in greece too its a disgusting sexist ass thing luckily if youre studying abroad you dont have to go
i_hate_mayonnaise 4y ago
*you can't return to the country and stay longer than 90 days though
Not sure if 90 days is 100% accurate
buddah72704 4y ago
Damn, it’s almost like men in America get to vote on reproductive right of women.....and maternity leave for women......and whether or not a woman can be fired because she missed work due to having a child, etc.
Riksunraksu 4y ago
Same in Finland. Men automatically have to go to military basic training when they turn 18 (or after high/vocational school if they do not want to pause studies). There are exemptions when it comes to health (disabilities, illness, sometimes even just allergies). To women military is voluntary.
I think every Finnish citizen should attend some form of training whether it is some civilian/social/defense training to prep them for possible wars or disasters and to have individuals choose from 2-4 different types of training (one of which is basic military training).
omegaphallic 4y ago
What Swiss women collectively to their men was disgraceful. My country of Canada hasn't had conscription since WW2 and no apetite to change that.
GltyUntlPrvnInncnt 4y ago
Empathy gap in action.
anonuem1 4y ago
Fun fact: If a women wants to go to the military she can. But if she doesn't pass the test she has to pay the 3% extra tax until the age of 30.
WeranioRacker 4y ago
That sounds like a great way to stop women from joining the military
Reanga87 4y ago
Oof
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
xdzgor 4y ago
Are you on drugs? Do you geography?
morfeuzz 4y ago
Didn't surprise me at all.. They will do anything to save thier assess for being the privileged people.
dont-believe-me- 4y ago
And are men or women making this law?
NidoBurrito 4y ago
If men shouldn’t be able to vote about abortion, then women shouldn’t be able to vote about that conscription
ToKeepAndToHoldForev 4y ago
If the majority of women voted to keep the conscription, and they're half the population, then the majority of men also voted yes. I'm not saying it's fair, it isn't, but this is nothing like the SS obligation in the US because Switzerland fights absolutely no one and no one has tried to fight Switzerland in decades.
This just isnt a good way to prove your point.
Also this sort of "where's my male privilege for dying on the battlefield" and "where's my white privilege for being an Appalachian coal miner" shit just tells people "you can't talk about sexism against women because sometimes men are mistreated." Especially for a country where women couldn't vote until the '70s.
Plus this meme frames the issue as women just thinking men deserve conscription when they frequently volunteer. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/duty-calls_swiss-army-ponders-conscription-for-women/43298362
nameisfame 4y ago
Whoops looks like we found where the braincels ended up
tmone 4y ago
you tried
critical-thoughts 4y ago
Same in Greece
neph441 4y ago
Can confirm
crypto_sui 4y ago
Swiss here. Yes thats true.
BlackKojak 4y ago
They want to call men heroes but don't want to be heroes themselves. At the same time, we shouldn't see women as damsels in distress.
idealcastle 4y ago
They don’t want to call men heroes anymore. “Being a mom is the hardest job in the world.”
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
ASheepOnFire 4y ago
I do not see much of a problem here, what's the idea?
Salwazowski 4y ago
the problem is that women are voting on the fate of men when its a male-orientated problem, and are exempt from the same treatment as men because of “traditional” conscription practices.
ASheepOnFire 4y ago
I think it's better to see it as a citizen voting on the fate of another citizen. To me it seems reasonable, I would be okay with this in my country but I guess I cant relate since I am not from Switzerland myself.
Dynged 4y ago
You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?
ASheepOnFire 4y ago
Have I missed something?
Souradeep_28 4y ago
I agree. Women should have the right to vote on this but if that applies, men should also be allowed to opine on women issues, which they're not. Also, why isn't the conscription compulsory for women? And why was it not put up for vote?
Snf4le 4y ago
Lol men are voting on things that only concern women constantly. A few decades ago women weren't even allowed to vote on things that only concern women. For fucks sake, women suffrage in Switzerland was granted in 1971. In 1990, women were allowed to vote everywhere in Switzerland.
Souradeep_28 4y ago
And it's not okay. And no one over here is supporting it. But if you condemn that, how can you accept this? Infact, the worst part in this entire episode is that women aren't conscripted and that aspect isn't even put up to vote. If it were, then everyone should be allowed to vote for or against it, irrespective of gender.
ASheepOnFire 4y ago
Thanks for this. What issues are men not allowed to opine on? I think it's an old traditional law but I am not sure. I just dont see it as a problem, is it degrading? Or are people just against compulsory military service?
SamaelET 4y ago
Being treated as a canon folder who must give his life to his country because you have a dick and being pas punished if not is degrading. It like sending 18 yo girls to a camp to teach them ti be mother and housewives.
cl0wnloach 4y ago
I’m generally against being shot without my consent but that’s just an opinion I can’t vote on
Souradeep_28 4y ago
Well the very fact that we have a term called mansplaining. Literally every other issue that women face. If you put up a point it's termed that you're mansplaining. And I guess you can't deny the hypocrisy whereby women are exempt from conscription but still get to vote on it.
ASheepOnFire 4y ago
They are exempt and get to vote but I dont see that as a problem, again I like to view it as one society and one law affecting a group of the society ultimately affects everyone. Your first point I agree with, about mansplaining, however it isn't a law or a rule and a different matter- but still a valid contribution.
Souradeep_28 4y ago
I would urge you to turn back to my first comment: the law shouldn't discriminate between men and women. So if women are allowed to vote for or against conscription for men, men should also be allowed to vote whether conscription should be compulsory for women or not. If the latter isn't there, the former also doesn't deserve to be there, by symmetry.
ASheepOnFire 4y ago
I do not know swiss law or their countries political discussions, however if the male population saw it as an issue can they not campaign and demand a vote on such a matter? There doesnt need to be a vote for everything and if the populus want a vote I'm sure one would be heard. I see the point you are making, I just think they can be treated as separate issues and not have to be affected by one another.
Souradeep_28 4y ago
Well I can't really argue on that. But the hypocrisy of it still enrages me. But then again, I'm a [insert cruel word here] so I guess it doesn't matter
travel_ali 4y ago
Idea is to get angry over a non issue.
The majority of men voted to keep it so it isn't like women are forcing men to do something. Considering women only got the vote on national matters in the 70s and in one case for local matters in the 90s it maybe isn't the best country to be chasing the privilege argument in.
There might be an argument for not letting people not affected by something vote on it, but this cherry picking bollocks isn't the way to go about it.
LokisDawn 4y ago
That only really works if see only voting blocks, not people. Men who have gone through military service are likely to think "I've gone through this, why shouldn't other people like me go through it".
As a comparison, in countries where FGM is practiced it is mostly done by women. Men tend to be neutral or negative towards the practice. Does that make it more moral? I'd say no.
ASheepOnFire 4y ago
If you are correct in saying the majority of men voted in favour, then I think this post is misleading and harms any discussion on mens rights. This post leads one to believe that only woman voted in favour, if men are for this then there is no obvious problem and a waste of discussion. Again, only if this statement is true. This is my opinion anyway
travel_ali 4y ago
There is a point to be made here, but you have to be mature enough to admit it cuts both ways across the genders on different matters and not present it in such a one sided way.
SaffellBot 4y ago
This is also why the men's right movement isn't taken seriously. This sub makes the front page around once a month, and it's almost always for stupid shit like this, which is almost always not even true. It's a movement about complaining, not doing.
Men have the reigns of power in pretty much every government in the world for pretty much all of recorded history. If we're having problems we need to organize and force systematic change. You know, like feminists do
Souradeep_28 4y ago
If the majority of men voted for it,then listen to democracy and let it stay. On the other hand,why is conscription not compulsory for women and why is it not put up for vote?
travel_ali 4y ago
The public could create a referendum to vote on whether to make it mandatory for women. Men alone could do that if they wanted.
Souradeep_28 4y ago
Yeah and I'm still pissed off that it hasn't been done yet. But maybe I'm just a [insert cruel word here]. Never mind, let the men keep dying.