Why are Cyprus, Greece, Austria, Switzerland and Finland not criticised for sexism?

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

In the aforementioned countries, ALL able bodied men must perform between 6 months to 18 months of national service. This must be done between the ages of 17 and no later than 27 in most circumstances.
After completion of the national service in most of these countries men are liable to be called upon until their 50th birthday to perform service for their country.

Certain countries such as Greece will allow men to avoid it by paying €8,000 up front. A lot of Greek men cannot afford this.

Cyprus has the longest conscription at 16 or 18 months. Until men are 25 they have to get an exit visa to board any plane or boat out of the country or cross the land border into Northern Cyprus.

Finnish men are deprived of applying for a driving licence or passport if they evade their conscription. There is no legal means of avoiding it. When a Finnish man turns 18, he must register and attend a pre-conscription event. Failure to attend will result in the arrest of him and jailing with no parole possible.

All of the aforementioned countries force men against their will to serve in the army. I wonder why the EU in all its "egalitarianism" hasn't put a stop to that or told them to extend to women or abolish altogether.

Switzerland had an advisory referendum a number of years back (or maybe it was Austria) in which just over 50% of the population voted to retain conscription. But here's the funny part, women voted too in it and they had nothing to lose by voting to retain it. Imagine a country where people voted whether women should continue serving their country for free.

In all of the aforementioned countries, men who choose not to join the army must do alternative civilian service. So the argument that the army might be too physical for women is moot.

Why does the world shrug their shoulders at this blatant case of sexism? It's funny how the West gets their collective knickers in a twist about women being forced to wear hijabs in Iran etc but ignores the fact that men are being openly discriminated against in our European neighbours.

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

ALL abode bodied men

Built like a house?

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Built like a house?

What?

Your Face

I shrug my shoulders because I don't care.

banie01

Because, now be careful with this information op...
Quite often, sexism only gets called out when it's to advantage of one gender over the other.

Maybe the ladies of those states don't want to be dealing with bootcamp?
Maybe that's a man's job?
And maybe those lovely equality shouters, like it that way?

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

Your Face wrote: »

I shrug my shoulders because I don't care.

If it was women forced into it there would be mass protests worldwide and you'd probably be attending them.

You'd have worldwide figure heads getting their spokes in.

The fact that men's issues is a figure of ridicule says it all really.

banie01

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Built like a house?

I'm gutted I missed that!

Can't go to war sir, my extension is playing up :pac:

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

banie01 wrote: »

Because, now be careful with this information op...
Quite often, sexism only gets called out when it's to advantage of one gender over the other.

Maybe the ladies of those states don't want to be dealing with bootcamp?
Maybe that's a man's job?
And maybe those lovely equality shouters, like it that way?

So why can't they do alternative civil service?

banie01

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

So why can't they do alternative civil service?

Ask the governments of the states whom have twisted your knickers so?

Rather than a group of Irish folk who in the main don't really care?

Go to the heart of the matter, chase down each minister of defence involved and beat it out of them!

corner of hells

banie01 wrote: »

I'm gutted I missed that!

Can't go to war sir, my extension is playing up :pac:

Theres no foundation for that argument.

Your Face

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

If it was women forced into it there would be mass protests worldwide and you'd probably be attending them.

You'd have worldwide figure heads getting their spokes in.

The fact that men's issues is a figure of ridicule says it all really.

No I wouldn't have time nor the inclination for attending mass protests. Probably because I have a career and that gives me a sense of control over my own life.
Maybe if I didn't work I would have the time for the full-time quest for obscure outrage porn.

Allinall

OP. I haven’t heard one complaint from anyone in any of those countries.
Have you?

It looks like you are the one person in the whole of Europe that sees a problem.

I wish you well in your quest to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

God speed.

Funkfield

If you were looking for intelligent debate or discussion you posted in the wrong place OP.

corner of hells

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

In the aforementioned countries, ALL able bodied men must perform between 6 months to 18 months of national service. This must be done between the ages of 17 and no later than 27 in most circumstances.
After completion of the national service in most of these countries men are liable to be called upon until their 50th birthday to perform service for their country.

Certain countries such as Greece will allow men to avoid it by paying €8,000 up front. A lot of Greek men cannot afford this.

Cyprus has the longest conscription at 16 or 18 months. Until men are 25 they have to get an exit visa to board any plane or boat out of the country or cross the land border into Northern Cyprus.

Finnish men are deprived of applying for a driving licence or passport if they evade their conscription. There is no legal means of avoiding it. When a Finnish man turns 18, he must register and attend a pre-conscription event. Failure to attend will result in the arrest of him and jailing with no parole possible.

All of the aforementioned countries force men against their will to serve in the army. I wonder why the EU in all its "egalitarianism" hasn't put a stop to that or told them to extend to women or abolish altogether.

Switzerland had an advisory referendum a number of years back (or maybe it was Austria) in which just over 50% of the population voted to retain conscription. But here's the funny part, women voted too in it and they had nothing to lose by voting to retain it. Imagine a country where people voted whether women should continue serving their country for free.

In all of the aforementioned countries, men who choose not to join the army must do alternative civilian service. So the argument that the army might be too physical for women is moot.

Why does the world shrug their shoulders at this blatant case of sexism? It's funny how the West gets their collective knickers in a twist about women being forced to wear hijabs in Iran etc but ignores the fact that men are being openly discriminated against in our European neighbours.

Its because all these countries are liable to be invaded at the drop of a hat.
First and foremost, Greece and Cyprus are always a target because of their success in the Eurovision.

Finland , clearly having Russia as a neighbour is a reason to have conscription.

Austria, now that's a surprise, I'd imagine it would be difficult to get Aussies to give up surfing and regular episodes of Neighbours and Home and Away to wear a uniform.

Anyway back to your original question, none of these countries fight well except for the Swiss with their fancy knife and having the Pope as their commander.

Timberrrrrrrr

corner of hells wrote: »

Its because all these countries are liable to be invaded at the drop of a hat.
First and foremost, Greece and Cyprus are always a target because of their success in the Eurovision.

Finland , clearly having Russia as a neighbour is a reason to have conscription.

Austria, now that's a surprise, I'd imagine it would be difficult to get Aussies to give up surfing and regular episodes of Neighbours and Home and Away to wear a uniform.

Anyway back to your original question, none of these countries fight well except for the Swiss with their fancy knife and having the Pope as their commander.

Ireland's fùcked so :pac:

Conall Cernach

The Swiss only gave women the vote in the 70s.

El Tarangu

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

If it was women forced into it there would be mass protests worldwide and you'd probably be attending them.

You'd have worldwide figure heads getting their spokes in.

The fact that men's issues is a figure of ridicule says it all really.

Women are obliged to perform military service in Israel since forever, and in Morocco it was only introduced a few years' ago - these are only the countries that I have knowledge of, there could well be others.

fatknacker

Why don’t you go and start a protest if you feel so strongly about it?

Potential-Monke

I think it's something that should be brought in here tbh. Might teach the youngers a bit of authority and respect, something badly missing these days.

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I think it's something that should be brought in here tbh. Might teach the youngers a bit of authority and respect, something badly missing these days.

For men AND women though.

Airyfairy12

They're not criticised for sexism against men because men aren't marginalised.

Peregrinus

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

. . . . Why does the world shrug their shoulders at this blatant case of sexism? It's funny how the West gets their collective knickers in a twist about women being forced to wear hijabs in Iran etc but ignores the fact that men are being openly discriminated against in our European neighbours.

It's wrong to suggest that there has been no criticism. Norway has an egalitarian draft since 2014, introduced precisely because the previous male draft was criticised as sexist. Sweden also has an egalitarian draft, but I do not know it if was introduced in response to criticisms of discrimination. (A similar trend has seen restrictions on voluntary service by women (e.g. that certain roles are not open to women soldiers; that women soldiers cannot be placed in combat positions; etc) gradually dismantled in most countries' defence forces.) The male-only draft in Switzerland was the subject of a challenge (unsuccessful, obviously) in the Swiss courts. The US selective service registration system, which applies to men only, has also been challenged in court on the grounds that it is discriminatory.

Still, it's fair to say that there has been relatively little criticism of this fairly blatant form of gender discrimination. I think part of the reason may be that, while the draft is obviously oppressive to individual men, the signals it sends about manhood are an association with power, control and domination, and these are associations to which many men are not inclined to object. Drafting men, in short, affirms a particular societal role or position, which has positive associations, for men. Most criticism of the sexism inherent in a male-only draft in fact seems to come from feminists (although, mostly, the solution they call for is not to start drafting women, but to stop drafting men).

For what it's worth, countries with an egalitarian draft are not all seen as exemplars of progressive social thinking. Norway and Sweden, obviously, are considered to be progressive societies, but Eritrea, Libya, North Korea, Malaysia - not so much. Israel, despite popular belief, does not have a wholly egalitarian draft - women have a shorter conscription period, and women from some communities are not drafted even though the men of those communities are.

iptba

In the not so distant past, military service for men was common in a lot more countries in Europe.

iptba

Recent example of feminist groups protesting against female conscription/military service:

https://womenalliance.org/no-to-female-conscription

Female conscription was adopted by the Norwegian Parliament on 14 June 2013 with only the Christian Democrats voting against, and now female conscription is being implemented.

Among the feminist organizations protesting against female conscription, were the Norwegian Association for Women’s Rights (Norsk Kvinnesaksforening, NKF, the Norwegian Section of the International Alliance of Women, IAW) and the Norwegian Section of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, WILPF.

On 3 February 2007 and 27 April 2013 the National Board of the Norwegian Association for Women’s Rights, NKF (Norwegian member of the International Alliance of Women) adopted the following statement:

The Norwegian Ministry of Defence has for a long time been determined to recruit women. In 2004, Parliament set a goal of 15 percent women in the armed forces and 25 percent in the officer candidate schools by 2008. To achieve this, women were called up by the draft board to do voluntary military service. If voluntariness did not produce the desired results, the Minister of Defence would propose compulsory military service for women.

The Norwegian Association for Women’s Rights (NKF) is not opposed to women voluntarily seeking a career in the military if they want to, and the way the system works today, women have the same opportunities as men to join the armed forces. Conscription is something else – it includes everybody and entails the use of force. NKF strongly warns against the exertion of pressure to get women into the military and particularly the introduction of female conscription.