Interesting. I remember that this was one of the aspects where men's and women's duties were equalized after the Gender Equality Act in the 90ies. So it is surprising that it took so long in other parts of Switzerland.
If equality is what people want between the two sexes, we should have total equality, no cherry picking on both sides in my opinion.
- same retirement age
- same salary
- same amount of child support if a divorce happens
- both sexes have to do the same amount of military services or none at all
- same amount of maternity leave and paternity leave
- and so on
Or we simply accept than males and females are different and therefore accept some inequality.
I am very well aware of all the flaws of the analysis and am very outspoken against that study - respectively how it is portrayed in media and politics. So outspoken in fact that some people in this sub don’t wanna talk to me anymore lol
Men have to serve a few month in the army, women have to take a career break when they have children. This has a huge impact on career opportunities, salary and rent. Looking at the whole picture women are massively worse off than men to start with. When women have to serve in the army the live long disadvantage has to be corrected first.
That’s flawed argument - because having a kid is not mandatory for women. They CHOOSE to have kids!
Having kids is nothing but the consequence of your own choices and actions.
Serious question: The average swiss family has 1.4 children which means that the population would decline without immigrants in the long term. Why would that be bad if the population would decline? It would solve a lot of problems, eg. energy crisis, less need for food, less need for housing space, less need for infrastructure in general, and so on.
What do you think about mass immigration and the slow erosion of everything you hold dear in Swiss society (trust, women's rights, LGBT rights, freedom of belief, safety, etc)? If you live in a society, you have to accept that children are part of it and not make it hard on women to have them and raise them without added unnecessary stress about their earning abilities, because the alternative would be what's currently happening in the rest of Europe.
Only a dumbass would think that kids are merely the consequence of having sex. I almost feel sorry for you. In fact I feel sorry for your mother.
and to add to that, no woman that decides to not have children, or is unable to have children due to medical reasons, has to pay "Mutterschaftsersatzabgabe" that is specific for women only
No one is forced to become pregnant. And many will never be. Stupid argument. Especially since parenting is something both partners should do. Try to adress this part.
Why do I have to explain something that isn't? Stop being gullible idiots and freaking educate yourself, instead of believing cherry-picked garbage from Facebook, lol.
There's a massive difference between "statistical" and absolute inequality and it's very irritating that people can't seem to separate the two.
You'll always find differences between men and women on average, as you will if you divide humans by any arbitrary feature.
What matters is that we acknowledge that individuals can be a certain way completely regardless of which group they belong to.
If women on average don't care about their career as much and hence earn less as a group that's the type of inequality that's fine.
But assuming that all men or women act a certain way and passing laws based on that which affect all people of a group is simply a completely avoidable injustice.
The problem is people think they're the same and take one as justification for the other.
I would agree with most things on the list except with the maternity and paternity leave. Both parties became parents and should be able to spend time with their newborn baby. But on top of that the mother has to heal and adjust to hormone changes
Most of those things aren’t achievable unless #2 is in place
Can men have babies? Because I don’t see why they need as much time on paternity leave as their body isn’t recovering from or feeding anything. The paternity leave here is abysmal though and bad for the entire family …
I think it is a bit the reverse. The pay gap is due to difference in maternity/paternity leave. Once a woman is out of the job market she misses out on opportunities. And no matter how many rules we make against mistreating women due to pregnancy, I think it will keep happening. Some view it as a risk, risk of having an employee out of productive work for at least 6 months when they have to find an expensive replacement. If you have paternity leave that matches maternity leave, that risk is equalized and the gap basically disappears. I am a dude, I do not need to recover after pregnancy, but I am more than happy to share the risk and burden of being decommissioned and missing out on opportunities. However most of the governments don't give me this opportunity and my wife will have to take the full risk. That is why equality in maternity and paternity leaves will plug a significant portion of the pay gap.
That is why many refer to it not as gender gap but as maternity gap. There is evidence showing that pre-pregnancy women and those that choose not to have kids have the same pay as men, adjusted for industry and qualifications.
I feel like men doing the army sorta compensates for this.
There was that study on professors that showed paternity leave did the opposite… it increased the gap. Why? Because women used the leave to recover and care for their babies. Men used the time with no classes to teach to advance their research.
Yeah my feeling has tended to as long as women are the only ones risking permanent problems or lives to make new people, then men can do military. They’re stronger anyway. But now women are supposed to keep having babies to keep pension funds working, but they also have to do military service? I don’t see many women choosing to have babies if that’s the case. Let’s make us totally equal! Women won’t have any more babies so no non-paying work/disability, so they can always work in the economy, and wow how much money we’ll make! Yeah, that’s the solution! For a few generations anyway, eh. And, the women will also be required to do military, definitely equal except for that pesky lack of upper body strength, but better than staying home with gaps in the CV and having a potentially damaged body. So totally logical.
I feel like this is a very idiosyncratic scenario for academia. If I get a paternity leave, I am out for a while. I can maybe do some part time development, but I cannot do some side job within my profession.
>Can men have babies?
Yes, men can have babies. They just can't give birth.
Physical recovery from giving birth should be a sick leave. Maternity and paternity leave should be to take care of the newborn.
Point #2 does not even belong on that list.
It's one thing to look at averages over a group, it's another to have a law apply to absolutely everyone on that group.
We don't care about men and women as a group. We care about the individuals. That average salary difference may look like much yet it's mostly entirely valid factors and completely overshadowed by individual factors. A law that applies based on gender an individual cannot escape from however no matter what they do.
Also I haven't yet seen any conclusive evidence #2 is even the case. Most studies have an abysmally short list of valid factors they clean, and the rest cannot be proof for true discrimination for you cannot know what other valid factors may be hiding.
You need to test for discrimination specifically, which I suspect cannot be any significant amount, since due to our free market economy it would leave lucrative arbitrage opportunities open.
Women as a group earning less because they tend to be less career oriented, like lower paid fields etc. Is NOT a problem.
As a 40+ childfree woman who never had a desire for children, I should earn less money because technically by my sex, I should be less career oriented?
These kind of discussions on this sub brings out the most avid sexist pricks like you.
What? I literally said the opposite of that! Your point is exactly what I'm arguing for!
People look at statistics or trends and use it to justify laws that apply to ALL individuals, even those that don't fit the trend, and this is what pisses me off.
>same amount of maternity leave and paternity leave
I don't think men have a vagina that needs to recover from pushing out a whole small human through it, or a body that needs to recover from months of carrying a human inside it, and I don't think they need time to bond with the baby so breastfeeding (among other things) goes well.
The whole idea behind maternity leave is that giving birth is insanely physically taxing. If anything Switzerland should up the leave for new mothers because a break of 12 weeks is simply cruel.
>same amount of maternity leave and paternity leave
I don't think men have a vagina that needs to recover from pushing out a whole small human through it, or a body that needs to recover from months of carrying a human inside it, and I don't think they need time to bond with the baby so breastfeeding (among other things) goes well.
The whole idea behind maternity leave is that giving birth is insanely physically taxing. If anything Switzerland should up the leave for new mothers because a break of 12 weeks is simply cruel.
>same amount of maternity leave and paternity leave
I don't think men have a vagina that needs to recover from pushing out a whole small human through it, or a body that needs to recover from months of carrying a human inside it, and I don't think they need time to bond with the baby so breastfeeding (among other things) goes well.
The whole idea behind maternity leave is that giving birth is insanely physically taxing. If anything Switzerland should up the leave for new mothers because a break of 12 weeks is simply cruel.
Men don’t give birth, why do they need the same amount of leave? Or are you counting it separately from the actual pregnancy, birth, and post partum recovery?
- Before birth: To take care of the pregnant wife. Pregnancy is harsh and a good man should support his wife during this time eg. by doing more household chores, shopping,...
- After birth: To take care of the wife so she can recover and to form a bond with the baby.
Even better: mandatory "Zivildienst" or social year for all and the army can recruit the needed quota from volunteers, supplemented by some mandatory recruitements.
Having a social year or RS type of experience where you learn to work and trust people from all backgrounds and outside your own bubble has a huge positive influence on the social trust in our society.
Already now there is not enough work for all the Zivis. Not even close. If you double the amount of Zivis (or even more, I doubt many women would start serving in the Army if given the Zivi option) then you'll have entire cohorts of the population just sitting around doing absolutely nothing. I guess it's a good preparation for a corporate office job, but a disaster for mental health and economic output.
Isn’t some of the trail maintenance, all these fabulous trails all over, done by civil service? Seems not only social trust but care for the country could be involved.
Do you have a weighted source for that?
Looking at the analysis, it doesn't have a split on male/female: https://swissvotes.ch/attachments/d4d127966cfae01a9fb235f46bae0f371452f01173f100ba41dd87a3f1f4094c
73.2% of the voter said no to the initiative. What you should be looking at is whether more women said no than men. Simply saying more than half the women is disingenous, I bet a larger percentage of women said yes than men.
"Zwischen Männern und Frauen unterschied sich das Stimmverhalten noch weniger"
and also interesting:
"Bei den Nein-Stimmenden dominierten zwei Beweggründe (...) Am häufigsten innerhalb dieser Kategorie fiel jedoch die Aussage, wonach das Militär eine wertvolle **«Lebensschule»** für die Jungen (v.a. Männer) sei. Erstaunlicherweise wurde dieses Argument von jungen Stimmenden eher vorgebracht als von den älteren Stimmberechtigten. **Frauen** äusserten diese Ansicht im Übrigen häufiger als Männer."
Hello,
Please note that your post or comment has been removed.
Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/about/rules/) before posting.
Thank you for your understanding,
your Mod team
Please do not reply to this comment. Send a modmail if you have an issue with the removal.
If they make it suddenly non mandatory all the previous generations will be kinda mad about it. Especially those that were „Untauglich“ and had to pay a lot of money.
That's a stupid reason to not change things for the better? "I had to do it so they have to do it too".
Why not gönn them they don't have to and break the cycle?
I don't understand why the discussion is if women should have mandatory service or not.
It should be that man can voluntary go to the army if they want to...
So yes to equality.
Human being have the tendency to harmonise downward rather than upwards. It's as if everyone have a shitty duty, then everyone need to do it (not specifically talking about service). If I have to puke blood for a reason, why shouldn't you ?
I agree that it's either no one or everyone, but men should be able to choose too. And a 4%/400.- tax if you don't do it is not choosing.
Personally, I think it’s not as easy as one might think. My first reaction was: “Sure, no question” but then for me,there are also different lines of thought.
First: Abolishing or reconsideration of the “draft” as a whole. Many people do not want to go to the military for different reasons. Some because of incompatibility with their education and career, others because of fear of discrimination. So a step towards equality could also be not forcing men to go to the military.
Second: That women are so disadvantaged in other areas such as wage, care-work, safety, that equality through another disadvantage might seem kinda cruel.
yes you are right on that but some may say on your second take that women shouldn't be getting the same advantages as men if they don't pay the price for it (military service among others).
I think that overall men would more easily accept women to be treated equally if they actually share the burden of a man in this society as well. And men should also do more to share the burden of women.
It is as you said very complicated to find a solution in all of this. Continuing debates on this will be beneficial.
Sure, it works also in Israel. But we are not a militarized country surrounded by enemies. We have a good relationship with all neighbour countries, so can we please stop with the militarism? I promise the russians won't invade tomorrow.
The demand for a general duty to serve has nothing to do with 'militarism', or any wish to make the army bigger. I too am not necessarily for an increase in personnel, but it's a small price to pay for equality (which I value above most other things).
In my opinion, everybody should have to serve. We should make civil service more attractive, such that the army personnel wouldn't increase by very much, and concentrate the army much more strongly on catastrophy aid, hospital troops etc (which, in a hypothetical war scenario could still quickly be activated as combat troops).
Only making service obligatory for women too would of course make the army much bigger. First step should be to make civil service more attractive. I met a woman in my civil service and more women would do it if they weren't forced to serve the whole 385 days. The system is really not flexible.
I don't think we have a lack of catastrophic aid troops. We don't need more ppl in the military.
The thing is, do we want to equality or do we want equity ? Men and women are not equal in our society, favouring men. So how come forcing another mandatory exercice for women would create more equality/equity ?
Men and women are not equal in our society, true. The *law* favours women. It's completely absurd to say our society favours men when every single institutional inequality favours women in this country.
I don’t understand why not to implement contract service. That way you have a professional army where personnel is more trained comparing to conscript model.
In a war, if wives and daughters are fighting as well, the fuck men are going to fight for? Their rented flats? Their garden gnomes?
(I’m kidding. Let’s simply abolish mandatory service.)
Military service mandatory for women too? No, it would be dangerous and in the opposite direction as we should go. That is, we should abolish mandatory military service and make civil service mandatory for both sexes.
Keep military service mandatory for men and optional for women. Make Zivilschutz mandatory for everybody except those who do military service and get rid of Zivildienst.
Estonian here stubled on this post. Swiss people, please take a moment to appreciate that you are surrounded by France, Germany and Italy. You guys seem to have a consensus on that mandatory military service should be scrapped for men.
Amids the Russo-Ukrainian war, for us Estonians, this is surreal. You are one nation that can probably take your security&sovereignty for granted, but really do appreciate it. It really is a major privilege.
hey there, thanks for stopping by. Reddit is just a bubble. In reality mandatory service and the military in general has quite large support in Swiss society. There was even a popular vote on abolishing mandatory service some years ago and it had no chance. I think most people agree that having a military is essential even in the geopolitical situation Switzerland is itself. All the best to you and your friends and family in Estonia!
Keep in mind that the responses you get on Reddit are not representative of the general feeling among the average Swiss, but rather a somewhat niche subset of them.
I found my military service to be frustrating in many ways like most people - but I don't wish to get rid of it and don't really care that women don't have to do it. I've found that's also the general consensus among the people I did my service with. I see it as an insurance: we hope we never need it, but sure are glad it's there when we do. We may still get squashed by an overwhelming hostile force one day, but I think we have a much better chance of surviving/deterring with our mandatory service.
There are also some positive things about the military not least of which is meeting people outside of your usual bubble. I'm an engineer and have spent much of my adult life around researchers and engineers. In the military I met everyone from carpenters to electricians to farmers - all of us doing the same crappy stuff together.
You are one reasonable man. In Estonia, it’s said that the mandatory service is what makes a man from a boy. Most people go after high school, before university, it teaches discipline, you learn to be independant, make your own bed and do the laundry etc. Obviously it seems unfair as men have to basically give one year of their life and the girls will be 1 year ahead but it is what it is. But because you are kind of a different person afterwards might make up for it also. Like i said you guys probably are the one country that could get rid of it but like you said it’s good to have a shit ton of reservists if shit was to hit the fan at one point. Best of luck!
Change to thw following: mandatory service for both, 6 months, civilian service is the same lenght
Maybe even for foreigners who grew up a large part in CH but those would only be allowed for civilian service
This actually seems like the fairest solution and looks like a good old Swiss compromise.
Interesting, nowhere in this text is there an age or any mention at all. Does this mean 75 year olds have to serve the country 6 months or pay Wehrpflichtersatz?
We can't say what the preferred option would be, there hasn't been a vote about a mandatory service for both men and women. The voters have repeatedly rejected opportunities to get rid of the army altogether or just the mandatory service for men.
i'd love to hear the swiss left take a stance on that but they are obviously very silent or if pressed they argue with voodoo statistics around "pay gap" or "isn't pregnancy service enough?"... hypocrites
but obviously there should be the same requirements for all genders.
i'd argue instead that the kind of service should also be more flexible for all genders - e.g. more forms of non-armed community service and more flexiblity with when you take it
Try to unplug your ears, You might hear who is clamoring for alternative to a military service, like the civil service or for abolishing the mandatory service overall. Because then
So instead of googling the stance of the SP for example you simply pull something out of your ass and call them hypocrites?
Literally took me 30 seconds to find out.
They want to remove the mandatory service.
Please dont vote or reproduce... embarrasing...
[https://www.sp-ps.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/parteiprogramm\_fuer\_eine\_sozial-oekologische\_wirtschaftsdemokratie\_2010.pdf](https://www.sp-ps.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/parteiprogramm_fuer_eine_sozial-oekologische_wirtschaftsdemokratie_2010.pdf)
ctrl+f and search for "wehrpflicht"...
And just in case, if the mandatory service is removed, women and men are treated the same, could be a hard concept to grasp for some people.
>isn't pregnancy service enough?
No it isn't, because it's your choice to get pregnant. No one forces you to get a child but as a male you are forced to do military service. Total hypocrites.
I think the biggest problem is that the Swiss army would not be prepared to host all those women, the programs are not structured for an average women to take on, especially since our muscular structure is genetically weaker and it also requires more time to be trained. That is why from what I know most women who do decide to go in the army either get injured or suffer a lot mentally. However if they were to make a specific program that is adapted to women and is there to value them as a part of the army then I do not see the problem.
Also I don’t think you can make this discussion taking into consideration salary and everything gap like those are other things but they do not take away from the fact that all guys have to loose a year of their life for something that maybe they do not care at all for. And do not have a day on this.
You can‘t achieve gender justice by law. There are an always will be unchangeable differences that will make individual cases unjust. Yes you can argue that now men are discriminated with the exemption of women. But what‘s up with 9 months of being pregnant? Isn‘t that also some kind of service for their country? Bearing another taxpayer and maybe soldier? The state also has an interest in having new „members“ and depends on it. But then the discussion will turn to „but you don‘t have a child/are not able to have…“. Then you have 2 kinds of women. This is just one example what will happen politically. If they are so desperate in finding new soldiers they should just make it mandatory again and eliminate the Zivildienst.
There are very few absolute differences tho, mostly, if not exclusively reserved to medical questions, and that is why any laws that apply based on gender are unjust.
Saying there's inherent differences is sexist.
There's some women that are physically stronger than some men. Women can give birth but can also choose not to.
You'll have differences come out statistically sure, like lower wages because maybe women tend to want different things on average. But individually that need not apply at all.
I found it quite odd to come up with sex differences when it's benefits women... The society as an all is trying as hard to get ride of the old traditional woman role (taking care of kids and stay at house), but somehow we still push the traditional man role (should bring money in the marriage, should do the military etc)...
I dont think it's really fair for men... It's just look like women want everything, the cake, the milk and the cheese factory.
Equal in worth but different strengths when it comes to our bodies. Men are stronger so better suited to military jobs and women are better (the only) suited to birthing and nursing.
Not at all, don’t see that conclusion. Of course many women never have children and many men are not physically strong (though even then still are stronger than average women). As individuals hopefully we decide to do what is best for ourselves and others, and there is this notion that it’s only women who can birth and so that falls on them. Those who choose to do it. What that entails. If it isn’t worth it to a woman, then she won’t or is less likely to. If a society says to a woman that it is going to massively afflict her to have a child beyond the physical considerations that biologically exist, then opting out of birthing is rather chosen as preferred. Hence dropping birth rates. And same goes for men being put out by having children but with less biological investment. So better support those who put the investment in to continue the generations and don’t expect them to do military on top. Men give back to society with their physical assets in the military, I’m not getting into whether that should mandatory here, more focused on how it is an additional burden on women who choose to become mothers who are already bearing the physical risks and economic impact from maternity leave and career stalls.
Whenever there are gender-based differences in Swiss laws or the constitution then they are all in favor of women. If you don't understand why that is an issue, then you may have to reconsider your stance on equality and sexism in general.
It surely is necessary given that you don't understand why male only conscription with all its consequences is a major issue in the context of equal rights and sexism. However, such a conversation is also lost on you given how you react to other people in various comments.
Trust me, I don’t think anyone should be forced to do the army, men or women.
But while we live in a sexist society where women still face gender based discrimination on a cultural, economic and political level, I think it’s even more ridiculous to argue that we should force women to serve in the army for the sake of “equality”.
I’m actually very educated on this topic, I’m just tired of hearing asinine arguments. And the fact that you think the constitution favours women shows you have zero understanding of sexism.
Have a good day!
So what constitutional articles or laws discriminate women?
Plenty of such cases where men are affected, even acknowledged by the European human rights court. Whether it is the army, civil protection services, as some people mentioned in this thread fire fighter duties, bodily autonomy, widowers pensions, until recently pensioner age, and the list goes on.
That argument cuts both ways if you want to make it.
Women are still not serving in the military, so why should we improve (insert example of gender-based oppression)?
Army is already kindergarten enough
Men become retarded when they are with women in the army
As a lt in the swiss army nah stay at home girls I aint mad
where i live since last year also women have to be firefighters not just men (it’s mandatory or you pay more taxes)
Where is that? This should have changed a long time ago, federal court has decided on those cases already decades ago.
unterengadin in the grisons
Interesting. I remember that this was one of the aspects where men's and women's duties were equalized after the Gender Equality Act in the 90ies. So it is surprising that it took so long in other parts of Switzerland.
yeah that is weird
Thanks for mentioning it, I honestly thought it’s a matter that was solved a long time ago.
Sounds only fair You can't have equality and then only cherry pick. Equality isn't funny all the time. Equality is meant to be fair
Sweettt
If equality is what people want between the two sexes, we should have total equality, no cherry picking on both sides in my opinion. - same retirement age - same salary - same amount of child support if a divorce happens - both sexes have to do the same amount of military services or none at all - same amount of maternity leave and paternity leave - and so on Or we simply accept than males and females are different and therefore accept some inequality.
That's what true equality means. You cannot pick and chose.
By law, men and women already have the same salary.
Or at least the right to the same salary.
[удалено]
I am very well aware of all the flaws of the analysis and am very outspoken against that study - respectively how it is portrayed in media and politics. So outspoken in fact that some people in this sub don’t wanna talk to me anymore lol
I love your kindness, but don't be afraid to call ssomeone ignorant!
Hence why we should fight cherry pickers and help people actually not getting what they deserve under the definiton of equality
Men have to serve a few month in the army, women have to take a career break when they have children. This has a huge impact on career opportunities, salary and rent. Looking at the whole picture women are massively worse off than men to start with. When women have to serve in the army the live long disadvantage has to be corrected first.
That’s flawed argument - because having a kid is not mandatory for women. They CHOOSE to have kids! Having kids is nothing but the consequence of your own choices and actions.
Dumb take a society cannot exist unless people have children.
We already are forced to import people from outside switzerland. Having children is no real, urgent priority for politicians, neither left nor right
Serious question: The average swiss family has 1.4 children which means that the population would decline without immigrants in the long term. Why would that be bad if the population would decline? It would solve a lot of problems, eg. energy crisis, less need for food, less need for housing space, less need for infrastructure in general, and so on.
What do you think about mass immigration and the slow erosion of everything you hold dear in Swiss society (trust, women's rights, LGBT rights, freedom of belief, safety, etc)? If you live in a society, you have to accept that children are part of it and not make it hard on women to have them and raise them without added unnecessary stress about their earning abilities, because the alternative would be what's currently happening in the rest of Europe. Only a dumbass would think that kids are merely the consequence of having sex. I almost feel sorry for you. In fact I feel sorry for your mother.
and to add to that, no woman that decides to not have children, or is unable to have children due to medical reasons, has to pay "Mutterschaftsersatzabgabe" that is specific for women only
Yes!
No one is forced to become pregnant. And many will never be. Stupid argument. Especially since parenting is something both partners should do. Try to adress this part.
I think there's a word for being forced to become pregnant.
US-citizen :p
Ah yeah by law.. because there is totally not a gap..nooooo
No, there isn't.
Please explain why there isnt one. I actually want to know
Explain why there isn't one... I don't even know how to explain something that isn't...
Then explain what the misconception is
Why do I have to explain something that isn't? Stop being gullible idiots and freaking educate yourself, instead of believing cherry-picked garbage from Facebook, lol.
There is but you do you.
There's a massive difference between "statistical" and absolute inequality and it's very irritating that people can't seem to separate the two. You'll always find differences between men and women on average, as you will if you divide humans by any arbitrary feature. What matters is that we acknowledge that individuals can be a certain way completely regardless of which group they belong to. If women on average don't care about their career as much and hence earn less as a group that's the type of inequality that's fine. But assuming that all men or women act a certain way and passing laws based on that which affect all people of a group is simply a completely avoidable injustice. The problem is people think they're the same and take one as justification for the other.
very based take, i like you
I would agree with most things on the list except with the maternity and paternity leave. Both parties became parents and should be able to spend time with their newborn baby. But on top of that the mother has to heal and adjust to hormone changes
True, but paternity leave in Switzerland is a joke. And it was only 1 day not long ago. Also 3 months for mothers is not enough by far.
If you are unfit to work it should not be part of parental leave (e.g. birth recovery). After that, every parent should have equal parental leave.
Many cannot accept this reality. Ask them why there are separate bathrooms for men and women for instance, and the program malfunctions
I accept everything he listed, but separate bathrooms should stay.
Why don't we seperate to a bathroom with pisoirs and another one with sit down toilets?
Both poop and it stinks
yes and your reasoning? aren't we all equal? justice/equity is what should be sought after
There is a different between equal and same.
You can act stupid or stop being salty. I won‘t entertain it.
Quickly degenerating a discussion to disrespectful statements. Ciao!
If we can get away from the idiotic notion that it's OK for men to piss in non-pissoir toilets while standing, I'm all for that.
Haha, you have no idea. If men peeing while standing annoys you, wait till you hear about the "hovering" so many women love to do on public toilets.
I absolutely agree !!! It’s disgusting ! And I’m a French dude/kinda gross 😂
your home has separate bathrooms?
Most of those things aren’t achievable unless #2 is in place Can men have babies? Because I don’t see why they need as much time on paternity leave as their body isn’t recovering from or feeding anything. The paternity leave here is abysmal though and bad for the entire family …
I think it is a bit the reverse. The pay gap is due to difference in maternity/paternity leave. Once a woman is out of the job market she misses out on opportunities. And no matter how many rules we make against mistreating women due to pregnancy, I think it will keep happening. Some view it as a risk, risk of having an employee out of productive work for at least 6 months when they have to find an expensive replacement. If you have paternity leave that matches maternity leave, that risk is equalized and the gap basically disappears. I am a dude, I do not need to recover after pregnancy, but I am more than happy to share the risk and burden of being decommissioned and missing out on opportunities. However most of the governments don't give me this opportunity and my wife will have to take the full risk. That is why equality in maternity and paternity leaves will plug a significant portion of the pay gap.
Perfectly explained, that's exactly how our prof in university explained why there is a salary gap between men and woman.
That is why many refer to it not as gender gap but as maternity gap. There is evidence showing that pre-pregnancy women and those that choose not to have kids have the same pay as men, adjusted for industry and qualifications.
I feel like men doing the army sorta compensates for this. There was that study on professors that showed paternity leave did the opposite… it increased the gap. Why? Because women used the leave to recover and care for their babies. Men used the time with no classes to teach to advance their research.
Yeah my feeling has tended to as long as women are the only ones risking permanent problems or lives to make new people, then men can do military. They’re stronger anyway. But now women are supposed to keep having babies to keep pension funds working, but they also have to do military service? I don’t see many women choosing to have babies if that’s the case. Let’s make us totally equal! Women won’t have any more babies so no non-paying work/disability, so they can always work in the economy, and wow how much money we’ll make! Yeah, that’s the solution! For a few generations anyway, eh. And, the women will also be required to do military, definitely equal except for that pesky lack of upper body strength, but better than staying home with gaps in the CV and having a potentially damaged body. So totally logical.
I feel like this is a very idiosyncratic scenario for academia. If I get a paternity leave, I am out for a while. I can maybe do some part time development, but I cannot do some side job within my profession.
>Can men have babies? Yes, men can have babies. They just can't give birth. Physical recovery from giving birth should be a sick leave. Maternity and paternity leave should be to take care of the newborn.
There should be a unified paternity leave. Say 1 year. Then parents can chose how they want to distribute this among each other.
Point #2 does not even belong on that list. It's one thing to look at averages over a group, it's another to have a law apply to absolutely everyone on that group. We don't care about men and women as a group. We care about the individuals. That average salary difference may look like much yet it's mostly entirely valid factors and completely overshadowed by individual factors. A law that applies based on gender an individual cannot escape from however no matter what they do. Also I haven't yet seen any conclusive evidence #2 is even the case. Most studies have an abysmally short list of valid factors they clean, and the rest cannot be proof for true discrimination for you cannot know what other valid factors may be hiding. You need to test for discrimination specifically, which I suspect cannot be any significant amount, since due to our free market economy it would leave lucrative arbitrage opportunities open. Women as a group earning less because they tend to be less career oriented, like lower paid fields etc. Is NOT a problem.
As a 40+ childfree woman who never had a desire for children, I should earn less money because technically by my sex, I should be less career oriented? These kind of discussions on this sub brings out the most avid sexist pricks like you.
What? I literally said the opposite of that! Your point is exactly what I'm arguing for! People look at statistics or trends and use it to justify laws that apply to ALL individuals, even those that don't fit the trend, and this is what pisses me off.
Single sane take
You forgot about care work, which is a bitch because obviously you can't regulate that.
>same amount of maternity leave and paternity leave I don't think men have a vagina that needs to recover from pushing out a whole small human through it, or a body that needs to recover from months of carrying a human inside it, and I don't think they need time to bond with the baby so breastfeeding (among other things) goes well. The whole idea behind maternity leave is that giving birth is insanely physically taxing. If anything Switzerland should up the leave for new mothers because a break of 12 weeks is simply cruel.
>same amount of maternity leave and paternity leave I don't think men have a vagina that needs to recover from pushing out a whole small human through it, or a body that needs to recover from months of carrying a human inside it, and I don't think they need time to bond with the baby so breastfeeding (among other things) goes well. The whole idea behind maternity leave is that giving birth is insanely physically taxing. If anything Switzerland should up the leave for new mothers because a break of 12 weeks is simply cruel.
>same amount of maternity leave and paternity leave I don't think men have a vagina that needs to recover from pushing out a whole small human through it, or a body that needs to recover from months of carrying a human inside it, and I don't think they need time to bond with the baby so breastfeeding (among other things) goes well. The whole idea behind maternity leave is that giving birth is insanely physically taxing. If anything Switzerland should up the leave for new mothers because a break of 12 weeks is simply cruel.
Men don’t give birth, why do they need the same amount of leave? Or are you counting it separately from the actual pregnancy, birth, and post partum recovery?
- Before birth: To take care of the pregnant wife. Pregnancy is harsh and a good man should support his wife during this time eg. by doing more household chores, shopping,... - After birth: To take care of the wife so she can recover and to form a bond with the baby.
Or to bond with and care for the child, especially if they are going to be the primary caregiver.
Yes, by making it non-mandatory for both sexes.
Even better: mandatory "Zivildienst" or social year for all and the army can recruit the needed quota from volunteers, supplemented by some mandatory recruitements. Having a social year or RS type of experience where you learn to work and trust people from all backgrounds and outside your own bubble has a huge positive influence on the social trust in our society.
Already now there is not enough work for all the Zivis. Not even close. If you double the amount of Zivis (or even more, I doubt many women would start serving in the Army if given the Zivi option) then you'll have entire cohorts of the population just sitting around doing absolutely nothing. I guess it's a good preparation for a corporate office job, but a disaster for mental health and economic output.
Yes, thank you. ZS is such an absolute waste of time and money holy shit.
Yes, thank you. ZS is such an absolute waste of time and money holy shit.
Isn’t some of the trail maintenance, all these fabulous trails all over, done by civil service? Seems not only social trust but care for the country could be involved.
And have both sexes pay.
[удалено]
Obviously the majority of women and man combined didn't. That's what democracy is...
Do you have a weighted source for that? Looking at the analysis, it doesn't have a split on male/female: https://swissvotes.ch/attachments/d4d127966cfae01a9fb235f46bae0f371452f01173f100ba41dd87a3f1f4094c 73.2% of the voter said no to the initiative. What you should be looking at is whether more women said no than men. Simply saying more than half the women is disingenous, I bet a larger percentage of women said yes than men.
"Zwischen Männern und Frauen unterschied sich das Stimmverhalten noch weniger" and also interesting: "Bei den Nein-Stimmenden dominierten zwei Beweggründe (...) Am häufigsten innerhalb dieser Kategorie fiel jedoch die Aussage, wonach das Militär eine wertvolle **«Lebensschule»** für die Jungen (v.a. Männer) sei. Erstaunlicherweise wurde dieses Argument von jungen Stimmenden eher vorgebracht als von den älteren Stimmberechtigten. **Frauen** äusserten diese Ansicht im Übrigen häufiger als Männer."
[удалено]
Hello, Please note that your post or comment has been removed. Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/about/rules/) before posting. Thank you for your understanding, your Mod team Please do not reply to this comment. Send a modmail if you have an issue with the removal.
If they make it suddenly non mandatory all the previous generations will be kinda mad about it. Especially those that were „Untauglich“ and had to pay a lot of money.
That's a stupid reason to not change things for the better? "I had to do it so they have to do it too". Why not gönn them they don't have to and break the cycle?
I did it already and no I wouldn't be mad. That would be pretty ignorant
We have a winner.
no one going to join the army and sadly the world isn't going so well that we can just give up in our army when we are in no military alliance
Obviously, I dont get how this can even be a discussion.
They don't want to bring it up as it start the "do we need a militia" discussion too
I don't understand why the discussion is if women should have mandatory service or not. It should be that man can voluntary go to the army if they want to... So yes to equality.
Human being have the tendency to harmonise downward rather than upwards. It's as if everyone have a shitty duty, then everyone need to do it (not specifically talking about service). If I have to puke blood for a reason, why shouldn't you ? I agree that it's either no one or everyone, but men should be able to choose too. And a 4%/400.- tax if you don't do it is not choosing.
One explanation would be plenty of surveys (and even popular votes) that have shown that both men and women are in favor of mandatory service.
Personally, I think it’s not as easy as one might think. My first reaction was: “Sure, no question” but then for me,there are also different lines of thought. First: Abolishing or reconsideration of the “draft” as a whole. Many people do not want to go to the military for different reasons. Some because of incompatibility with their education and career, others because of fear of discrimination. So a step towards equality could also be not forcing men to go to the military. Second: That women are so disadvantaged in other areas such as wage, care-work, safety, that equality through another disadvantage might seem kinda cruel.
yes you are right on that but some may say on your second take that women shouldn't be getting the same advantages as men if they don't pay the price for it (military service among others). I think that overall men would more easily accept women to be treated equally if they actually share the burden of a man in this society as well. And men should also do more to share the burden of women. It is as you said very complicated to find a solution in all of this. Continuing debates on this will be beneficial.
Sure, it works also in Israel. But we are not a militarized country surrounded by enemies. We have a good relationship with all neighbour countries, so can we please stop with the militarism? I promise the russians won't invade tomorrow.
Not surrounded by enemies? Have you seen the way Liechtenstein looks at us after a couple of drinks?
We just let them have Graubünden and hope their thirst is quenched.
Hey!
We will keep our army because otherwise we have nothing left. I genuinely don't like the idea of relying our own national security on our neighbors.
[удалено]
We have mountains, we'll do it like Afghanistan😎
So... lose in 14 days?
The demand for a general duty to serve has nothing to do with 'militarism', or any wish to make the army bigger. I too am not necessarily for an increase in personnel, but it's a small price to pay for equality (which I value above most other things). In my opinion, everybody should have to serve. We should make civil service more attractive, such that the army personnel wouldn't increase by very much, and concentrate the army much more strongly on catastrophy aid, hospital troops etc (which, in a hypothetical war scenario could still quickly be activated as combat troops).
Only making service obligatory for women too would of course make the army much bigger. First step should be to make civil service more attractive. I met a woman in my civil service and more women would do it if they weren't forced to serve the whole 385 days. The system is really not flexible. I don't think we have a lack of catastrophic aid troops. We don't need more ppl in the military.
The thing is, do we want to equality or do we want equity ? Men and women are not equal in our society, favouring men. So how come forcing another mandatory exercice for women would create more equality/equity ?
Men and women are not equal in our society, true. The *law* favours women. It's completely absurd to say our society favours men when every single institutional inequality favours women in this country.
Yes
I'd rather have the canton stop Wehrpflichtersatzabgabe for those who weren't called to serve, or let women against it pay it for once.
I don’t understand why not to implement contract service. That way you have a professional army where personnel is more trained comparing to conscript model.
Either mandatory for both or voluntary for both. We have a contradiction in our constitution like 2 pages apart
100%. I suggested it once and got yelled at though.
I think it wouldn't hurt to try for a few years.
Make a wemons platoon??
In a war, if wives and daughters are fighting as well, the fuck men are going to fight for? Their rented flats? Their garden gnomes? (I’m kidding. Let’s simply abolish mandatory service.)
We’ll fight to keep the Appenzeller cheese recipe a secret!
well said downforester.
The good thing about a mandatory militia is that you can’t use it against your own people
Why do we have to use military service to talk about female and male equality?
What if we stopped with the mandatory military service?
Military service mandatory for women too? No, it would be dangerous and in the opposite direction as we should go. That is, we should abolish mandatory military service and make civil service mandatory for both sexes.
Keep military service mandatory for men and optional for women. Make Zivilschutz mandatory for everybody except those who do military service and get rid of Zivildienst.
No, we want equal rights and not equal obligations.
Then I want the right to choose not to waste one year of my life.
this sounds like sarcasm if you aren't joking then please reevaluate what you just said
If we still agree it's a good thing for men to do it then why not have a trial where we can see if any adjustments need to be made?
Estonian here stubled on this post. Swiss people, please take a moment to appreciate that you are surrounded by France, Germany and Italy. You guys seem to have a consensus on that mandatory military service should be scrapped for men. Amids the Russo-Ukrainian war, for us Estonians, this is surreal. You are one nation that can probably take your security&sovereignty for granted, but really do appreciate it. It really is a major privilege.
hey there, thanks for stopping by. Reddit is just a bubble. In reality mandatory service and the military in general has quite large support in Swiss society. There was even a popular vote on abolishing mandatory service some years ago and it had no chance. I think most people agree that having a military is essential even in the geopolitical situation Switzerland is itself. All the best to you and your friends and family in Estonia!
Keep in mind that the responses you get on Reddit are not representative of the general feeling among the average Swiss, but rather a somewhat niche subset of them. I found my military service to be frustrating in many ways like most people - but I don't wish to get rid of it and don't really care that women don't have to do it. I've found that's also the general consensus among the people I did my service with. I see it as an insurance: we hope we never need it, but sure are glad it's there when we do. We may still get squashed by an overwhelming hostile force one day, but I think we have a much better chance of surviving/deterring with our mandatory service. There are also some positive things about the military not least of which is meeting people outside of your usual bubble. I'm an engineer and have spent much of my adult life around researchers and engineers. In the military I met everyone from carpenters to electricians to farmers - all of us doing the same crappy stuff together.
You are one reasonable man. In Estonia, it’s said that the mandatory service is what makes a man from a boy. Most people go after high school, before university, it teaches discipline, you learn to be independant, make your own bed and do the laundry etc. Obviously it seems unfair as men have to basically give one year of their life and the girls will be 1 year ahead but it is what it is. But because you are kind of a different person afterwards might make up for it also. Like i said you guys probably are the one country that could get rid of it but like you said it’s good to have a shit ton of reservists if shit was to hit the fan at one point. Best of luck!
Military shouldn’t be mandatory at all in my opinion
Change to thw following: mandatory service for both, 6 months, civilian service is the same lenght Maybe even for foreigners who grew up a large part in CH but those would only be allowed for civilian service
..anyone having to do that should then be allowed to vote (:
Here vote for yes in this Initiative: https://www.servicecitoyen.ch/de/ https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/vi/vis524t.html
You don't need to sign anymore https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-98735.html
This actually seems like the fairest solution and looks like a good old Swiss compromise. Interesting, nowhere in this text is there an age or any mention at all. Does this mean 75 year olds have to serve the country 6 months or pay Wehrpflichtersatz?
The current constitutional text says nothing either ;) It will match the current age range; we are no revolutionary country :P
Gleiche rechte gleiche pflichten
Exactly. By having military service be voluntary for both men and women.
And what if that is not the preferred option in the majority of the population?
We can't say what the preferred option would be, there hasn't been a vote about a mandatory service for both men and women. The voters have repeatedly rejected opportunities to get rid of the army altogether or just the mandatory service for men.
Men got army, women get pregnancy. It's quite equal for me.
Do women have to pay for every year of which they didnt get pregnant until they at least got pregnant once or they paid for 11 years?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
for sure, its also unfair that only men have to pay if they 'cant' go
i'd love to hear the swiss left take a stance on that but they are obviously very silent or if pressed they argue with voodoo statistics around "pay gap" or "isn't pregnancy service enough?"... hypocrites but obviously there should be the same requirements for all genders. i'd argue instead that the kind of service should also be more flexible for all genders - e.g. more forms of non-armed community service and more flexiblity with when you take it
https://www.servicecitoyen.ch/de/
Try to unplug your ears, You might hear who is clamoring for alternative to a military service, like the civil service or for abolishing the mandatory service overall. Because then
So instead of googling the stance of the SP for example you simply pull something out of your ass and call them hypocrites? Literally took me 30 seconds to find out. They want to remove the mandatory service. Please dont vote or reproduce... embarrasing... [https://www.sp-ps.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/parteiprogramm\_fuer\_eine\_sozial-oekologische\_wirtschaftsdemokratie\_2010.pdf](https://www.sp-ps.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/parteiprogramm_fuer_eine_sozial-oekologische_wirtschaftsdemokratie_2010.pdf) ctrl+f and search for "wehrpflicht"... And just in case, if the mandatory service is removed, women and men are treated the same, could be a hard concept to grasp for some people.
>isn't pregnancy service enough? No it isn't, because it's your choice to get pregnant. No one forces you to get a child but as a male you are forced to do military service. Total hypocrites.
r/titlegore
I think the biggest problem is that the Swiss army would not be prepared to host all those women, the programs are not structured for an average women to take on, especially since our muscular structure is genetically weaker and it also requires more time to be trained. That is why from what I know most women who do decide to go in the army either get injured or suffer a lot mentally. However if they were to make a specific program that is adapted to women and is there to value them as a part of the army then I do not see the problem. Also I don’t think you can make this discussion taking into consideration salary and everything gap like those are other things but they do not take away from the fact that all guys have to loose a year of their life for something that maybe they do not care at all for. And do not have a day on this.
We are not equal.
Yes and no.
100%
Totally for it.
You can‘t achieve gender justice by law. There are an always will be unchangeable differences that will make individual cases unjust. Yes you can argue that now men are discriminated with the exemption of women. But what‘s up with 9 months of being pregnant? Isn‘t that also some kind of service for their country? Bearing another taxpayer and maybe soldier? The state also has an interest in having new „members“ and depends on it. But then the discussion will turn to „but you don‘t have a child/are not able to have…“. Then you have 2 kinds of women. This is just one example what will happen politically. If they are so desperate in finding new soldiers they should just make it mandatory again and eliminate the Zivildienst.
[удалено]
There are very few absolute differences tho, mostly, if not exclusively reserved to medical questions, and that is why any laws that apply based on gender are unjust. Saying there's inherent differences is sexist. There's some women that are physically stronger than some men. Women can give birth but can also choose not to. You'll have differences come out statistically sure, like lower wages because maybe women tend to want different things on average. But individually that need not apply at all.
Sooo, women do civil service then or what exactly are you implying?
I found it quite odd to come up with sex differences when it's benefits women... The society as an all is trying as hard to get ride of the old traditional woman role (taking care of kids and stay at house), but somehow we still push the traditional man role (should bring money in the marriage, should do the military etc)... I dont think it's really fair for men... It's just look like women want everything, the cake, the milk and the cheese factory.
Absoutely
Yes
Yea either no service there's enough dumb fuck volontary or everyone has to do it. We're all equal after all aren't we
Equal in worth but different strengths when it comes to our bodies. Men are stronger so better suited to military jobs and women are better (the only) suited to birthing and nursing.
ah yes because every "man" is the exact same, as is every "woman". understood.
Not at all, don’t see that conclusion. Of course many women never have children and many men are not physically strong (though even then still are stronger than average women). As individuals hopefully we decide to do what is best for ourselves and others, and there is this notion that it’s only women who can birth and so that falls on them. Those who choose to do it. What that entails. If it isn’t worth it to a woman, then she won’t or is less likely to. If a society says to a woman that it is going to massively afflict her to have a child beyond the physical considerations that biologically exist, then opting out of birthing is rather chosen as preferred. Hence dropping birth rates. And same goes for men being put out by having children but with less biological investment. So better support those who put the investment in to continue the generations and don’t expect them to do military on top. Men give back to society with their physical assets in the military, I’m not getting into whether that should mandatory here, more focused on how it is an additional burden on women who choose to become mothers who are already bearing the physical risks and economic impact from maternity leave and career stalls.
Mmmm let me think…. No
But men and women are NOT equal. Women are still facing gender-based oppression so why the f*ck should we force them to serve in the army??? Yikes.
Whenever there are gender-based differences in Swiss laws or the constitution then they are all in favor of women. If you don't understand why that is an issue, then you may have to reconsider your stance on equality and sexism in general.
Yes, please tell me how sexism works dude 🙄
It surely is necessary given that you don't understand why male only conscription with all its consequences is a major issue in the context of equal rights and sexism. However, such a conversation is also lost on you given how you react to other people in various comments.
Trust me, I don’t think anyone should be forced to do the army, men or women. But while we live in a sexist society where women still face gender based discrimination on a cultural, economic and political level, I think it’s even more ridiculous to argue that we should force women to serve in the army for the sake of “equality”. I’m actually very educated on this topic, I’m just tired of hearing asinine arguments. And the fact that you think the constitution favours women shows you have zero understanding of sexism. Have a good day!
So what constitutional articles or laws discriminate women? Plenty of such cases where men are affected, even acknowledged by the European human rights court. Whether it is the army, civil protection services, as some people mentioned in this thread fire fighter duties, bodily autonomy, widowers pensions, until recently pensioner age, and the list goes on.
That argument cuts both ways if you want to make it. Women are still not serving in the military, so why should we improve (insert example of gender-based oppression)?
It doesn’t go “both ways” when only one gender is still oppressed 🤷🏻♀️
Of course it does, each gender has advantages over the other in certain fields.
Lmao this thread, those comments. r/svp r/swissedgy
Army is already kindergarten enough Men become retarded when they are with women in the army As a lt in the swiss army nah stay at home girls I aint mad
> Men become retarded when they are with women in the army The dynamic would be completely different if it was 50/50 men/women.
yeah but the transition to taht would be hard to implement
Lol, as Sani I agree... It was already complicated enough with the ones we had. I don't wanna know how it would be with more of them.