3 ms·
In 2006, the Federal Administrative Court justified the absence of compulsory military service for women in a ruling, citing, among other reasons, that women fa
by croes 7mo ago
In 2006, the Federal Administrative Court justified the absence of compulsory military service for women in a ruling, citing, among other reasons, that women face greater burdens in the domestic sphere than men and that this alone would justify their exemption from military service obligations.
So military service is seen as a service like healthcare and care services where women already do most of the work, mostly privately and unpaid.
- guerrilla 7mo ago> unpaid Right, completely unpaid, which is why most women are homeless and starving on the street.
- croes 7mo agoRight, completely unpaid, which is why most women who take care of family members don’t acquire any pension and social security benefits for that work. That’s why many of them don’t have the time for a full time paid job and either work part time or don’t have a job at all.
- guerrilla 7mo agoThey have a job and they are paid for it. They also do have pensions and social security benefits: through their husbands. If the husband remains alive, they continue to be paid as they were before retirement. If he dies, they often inherent his pension and assets. It's a terrible system and we need to modernize it but you're still wrong on all of your points.
- croes 7mo agoNo, they are not paid. Their husbands get paid, they have all the pensions and social security benefits, not them. Means total dependence on their husbands. If they get a divorce they have nothing.
- throwawaypath 7mo ago[flagged]
- Zetaphor 7mo ago[flagged]
- AlexeyBelov 7mo ago[flagged]
- dudul 7mo ago[flagged]
- croes 7mo ago[flagged]
- pixxel 7mo ago[dead]
- throwawaypath 7mo ago[flagged]
- throwawaypath 7mo agoAnti-feminist != "never supportive of women and equality"
- throwawaypath 7mo ago[flagged]
- guerrilla 7mo ago> If they get a divorce they have nothing. In a divorce, they typically get half of all assets, child support and alimony. Like I said, it's a terrible system, but you're also terribly misinformed.
- allan_s 7mo agoBut then we also can't request 50% of CEOs being women or any job with that arguments ? Wouldn't it be more fair to be excused if you actually can prove that you're taking care of familly members regardless of man/woman ? Why would a perfectly able 20 year old woman be excuzed by default based on her sex ?
- croes 7mo agoYou are excused from military service if you have to take care of family members, but it’s so rarely done by men compared to women that it is less work to handle the exceptions than changing the law and create more paperwork
- dudul 7mo agoYou got to admire the fantastic mental gymnastic some people are able to pull off to evade the arrows of accountability and integrity...
- croes 7mo agoI more astound by the mental gymnastics how people can point at every single thing where women get an advantage but at the same tome ignore all the others where they are still disadvantaged
- dudul 7mo agoThe difference is the "de facto" advantages - provided by nature for example - and "de jure" advantages - when the law is not the same for everyone. I happen to believe it is pointless to "fight" the former, while governments/societies who put in place the latter are just hypocrites. But hey, don't let facts and logic stop you in your crusade :)