What’s your take on gender-neutral conscription?
By the end of this decade, the Swiss army expects to have trouble recruiting enough personnel. So the defence department is studying the option (called the “needs-based obligation to serve”) of drafting women alongside men for military service or an alternative civilian service. The countries in Europe that have conscription for both sexes – Sweden and Norway – regularly get top marks for gender equality in international rankings.
Do you think Switzerland is ready to adopt gender-neutral conscription? Or should the country first address other areas where inequality persists – such as in the workplace or with childcare – as some critics say?
From the article Drafting women into the army the Norwegian way
From the article The Swiss army: your questions answered
Editorial note: Following numerous reader contributions on this topic, we have now closed this debate. More topics are open for comments here. If you wish to contribute feedback on this topic or suggest other ideas for debates, please e-mail us at english@swissinfo.ch.
We need to abolish compulsory conscription and move to a professional army, to which everyone would have access. Instead, an expanded and less penalizing system of civil service would give anyone (even foreigners?) the opportunity to put themselves in community service and gain professional experience.
Bisogna abolire la leva obbligatoria e passare a un esercito professionista, al quale tutti avrebbero accesso. Un sistema allargato e meno penalizzante di servizio civile darebbe invece la possibilità a chiunque (anche gli stranieri?) di mettersi al servizio della collettività e guadagnare esperienze professionali.
One can also introduce compulsory conscription for women: however, I believe this would never pass the hurdle of a popular referendum. It is a question of mentality, although equal feminism is now prevailing: however, it remains selective. That is: the dangerous and heavy jobs like combat soldiering let males do them. However, a mandatory civilian service for women and only optional combat military service could pass: only if truly desired.
Si può anche introdurre la coscrizione obbligatoria per le donne: credo però che ciò non supererebbe mai lo scoglio del referendum popolare. È una questione di mentalità, anche se il femminismo paritario è ormai imperante: però rimane selettivo. Cioè: i lavoracci pericolosi e pesanti come il soldato da combattimento li facciano pure i maschi. Potrebbe passare però un servizio civile obbligatorio per le donne e un servizio militare da combattimento solo facoltativo: solo se veramente desiderato.
According Art. 181 - Coercion - of the Switzerland Criminal Code it is criminal to force someone to do something. especially if it is against the freedom of conscience.
A state brakes it own law with a mandatory service. And instead of dropping the civilan service, the brake of law will be extended by forcing women to the service.
From this point of view, it would be good first reform the army so that close to every one prefer military service.
Further, when a father and a mother must go to the military service who cares about the children? A children shall have a right to be with its biological mother and its biological father even in time of war and after the war. 75% of the women have children. So if the state will force women to do a semi mandatory service, so why not military service for women which are 35 years old and have still no children? This could lead to a gain of life experience for the army.
Reading the comments from my point of view, here is what I see. A lot of people see this topic as independent as if it won't affect other sectors of life. Many men putting gender equality problem in "problems" because they don't have them. Others complying that's it is unfair that onlyen have to serve, so I got a question why do men have to serve if they are so unhappy with it? Why not have a professional army where only people who want to work in military do the service and abolish compulsury training ?
Equality problems affect both men and women.
Who says all men are unhappy to serve in the military to protect the country and their family?
There is a career path for people (men and women) who can sign up as professional soldiers but that is a totally different topic. Switzerland and most other countries do not rely on only Professional soldiers because there are never enough.
A conscription of women to military service does not solve the trouble of recruiting enough personnel if 99% of the women prefer to do civilian service. It seems the army has first to reorganise itself to solve the trouble of recruiting enough personnel. And this require a change on political level to set new boundary condition for the army. This is today unlikely. And never mind the «prosperity blinding» of today which motivate people to work for other countries and against Switzerland and against peace.
> A conscription of women to military service does not solve the trouble of recruiting enough personnel if 99% of the women prefer to do civilian service
Same is true if 99 % of men did that. And it is unlikely 99 % of the women will choose civilian service.
That's true.
Let's take real numbers. Every year about 21'000 young men are fit for a service. About 6'000 prefer civilian service 2021 so 28%. The other 72% do military service. Now let's assume also 21'000 young women are fir for a service. To fill the gap 28% of the women do military service. But regarding numbers from other countries maximum 14% would do military service. So there will be still a gap of 14% for the army. So a mandatory service for women is unfortunately not the solution for this topic from my point off view.
It would be good if every citizen spend a couple weeks as observer in the military service, in a hospital and in the education system just to know what is real going on.
Of course, true equality involves both rights and duties. Physical differences between men and women are not an issue; there are plenty of roles in a modern army that do not require the strength of a male. Besides Sweden and Norway, an excellent example of a battle-tested "gender neutral" army is Israel - they have been drafting both sexes since 1948, and they have successfully repelled all invasion by their larger neighbours throughout their history. This, in itself, is enough to debunk all childish ideas by people who live in the 18th century and think that women are not suited for the army. And sorry, but those feminist groups who think that salary gap or child care should be addressed first are just being hypocrite - the duty to defend the country, which is currently being imposed on men alone, is an incredibly more serious sexist discrimination than those issues (which have to be dealt with as well, to be sure).
I believe this would be an excellent opportunity and vital for the future. Women serve in all branches of the UK Forces. In the UK this decision was taken decades ago as it was forseen that we would have problems in the future supply of military personnel. We had a few issues with acceptance in the early days but women soon proved themselves and overcame old prejudices from old school military. Yours Sincerely Marius Gruss
I think the women who are now asked to sign up are very unwilling and they offer many "reasons" not to do so.
When I read or hear terms like gender-neutral or similar terms I wonder what is really being said. In the US the implication is that women need to have standards lowered to have the appearance of equality while the mission or purpose is ignored. Yet experience with professions such as firefighting and at times of war gender does not matter when the mission is leading action and goal. As long as standards are the same for both men and women "gender-neutral" conscription can be an advantage. It has been for other countries, Israel. In the end it depends on what the real goal is.
I agree many standards of selection have been "altered" to allow "equal entry" or equal playing fields for women. It is glaring but no one seems to be able to comment on this lest they are branded sexist and conservative thinking.
Unfortunately, you are right. In which case everybody loses.
Good idea ! Our society has changed a lot and women nowadays occupy civilian jobs that were historically meant for men. The army needs multiple talents and in some cases female soldiers may be even better qualified than men. In my time, a guy with flat feet would be disqualified for service. Thus, they missed specialists like civil engineers. But this had happened only until a major reform. Decision makers finally realized that a modern army needs more than just "hiking fools"...
To defend a country in times of war, there are more ways than just carrying firearms. There are logistics, clothing, food, planning, the list goes on.
I am not belittling the female gender as they possess multiple and complementary skills compared to the male gender.
By having equal conscription obligations, the womenfolk in Switzerland can hugely contribute to the defence of Switzerland.
Reading all the comments here (half of them are from non-swiss or newly-swissed), they bring a lot of baggage from their worlds where feminism topics flare up when we discuss this conscription topic. Not helpful at all.
Some even want the politicians to solve the salary inequality and demand free childcare etc. Horrendous way to insert their own agenda.
With female conscription, I believe the future of Switzerland can be improved. Even in non-war times, the 2 genders can actually work alongside "war games" and learn to appreciate one another and take advantage of strengths of each gender.
If these people demand "equality" instead of addressing this humanpower topic directly, we are all doomed.
Equality is a common good not someone elses agenda, as a men i guess it is easy for you to speak .
Well swiss army is not equipped for women. My husband served as sanitair and in this group where are quite a lot of women compare to others. All the uniforms are too big, too long. No uniformed rules about woman periods so it is up to individual in charge to decide what to do, not good. The sport criteria is not suitable for women. Bathrooms do not provide any privacy so again when period hits good luck being able to take a quick shower every 4 hours as required by doctors to change the tampon etc.
Some girls call themself lesbians solely because of how hard it is to communicate with soldiers because they approach you every day...
Equality is a common good not someone else's agenda, woman live in Switzerland too and calling equality someone else's agenda makes me believe you are from the canton which was the last to let woman vote. I come from a country where men also serve compolsury so idea is not new to me. I am as a woman will not sacrifice my working time to army, until I am equally paid as a men, let's start there and later we will introduce you to the hardship of pregnancy and how it is perceived by employers....
"as a men i guess it is easy for you to speak ."
Why is it that you think men's comments are not taken seriously?
"makes me believe you are from the canton which was the last to let woman vote."
Why do you insult me or the kanton? It is not true at all.
"later we will introduce you to the hardship of pregnancy and how it is perceived by employers"
What has pregnancy or employers got to do with National Service for Women? Men with pregnancy also need to do something. We never take pregnancy lightly.
I said "as a men" because you said that gender equality is someone's agenda and is not a Swiss product of sort, as if Switzerland does not have a problem with it. Hence as a men maybe you did not notice the problem. The fact that people replying to you says that your comment is taken seriously enough to write a reply to.
You insulted every single woman first by saying their struggle with gender inequality in everyday life is not a Swiss problem. Did you know woman's tampons are taxed as luxury caviar and not as nessecety ?
I bring pregnancy leave as an example that employers already hesitant to hire a woman 25-35 who is married, adding military service will worsen the situation and saying that they are not connected and one is private sector and other is defence has no difference in the eyes of employers. Woman stand lower than men in working field and military service will make it worse.
@LOL @HAT and all users -- thank-you all for sharing your thoughts on this debate. You all bring up important points. @LOL The Norwegian and Swedish armed forces are still working on adapting uniforms and equipment to women, even though they've had gender-neutral conscription for several years now.
@HAT Experts I spoke to in Norway were at pains to point out that there are so many opportunities in the military outside combat that range from medical care to logistics to the canine unit. And many people in Switzerland would probably agree with you that men and women can work alongside each other on a war footing, as the percentage of people who support conscription for both women and men has risen to 67% in 2021.
Keep the interesting thoughts coming, but please let's all refrain from making assumptions about other users in this debate.
@Geraldine, I think you may have mixed up my comments with some others.
I know the military can and must offer women-suitable conditions and jobs but if i say this clearly, i will again be branded as sexist.
A conscription duration for both men and women (and any other gender) will bring people closer together, thus avoiding all those "unrelated" talk about equal pay, free childcare and topics which nags the women but equally impacts the men. Men are usually less vocal about such things, we accept it and move along.
Even if this is not apparent, I advocate strongly for equal rights, equal pay and equal everything. Thing is this, (some) women must step up to the standards and STOP complaining about how unfair or unequal things are. If all they do is complain, then they are seen as just noise and not dong much to change that perception. (I am not saying this about any particular woman here). My best recommendation is: do first, talk later.
Actually I have a question. I know a swiss men who declined serving in anyway and pay taxes. He got married and now they pay taxes jointly meaning she contributes to paying his taxes because he did not go to army, how is it fair or even legal? So please explain why no one speakes about woman already paying for not being in the army and there is no way to recalculate it for married couple, so stupid
The Swiss defence department says it's weighing up positive incentives versus negative incentives (i.e., a tax) for the "needs-based obligation to serve" option which would extend the draft to women. It notes that in Norway, doing a stint in the armed forces gives people a leg up for public service jobs. So the thinking is that Switzerland could offer things like financial support for education, for example, as a positive incentive for conscripts.
The answer is an easy one. The wife (woman) of this couple, can actively REFUSE to pay that portion of tax. It is basically up to the man and woman to decide. The tax office does not dictate which CHF comes from whom in this couple.
That is also another reason why people do not get married. They pay less taxes while they demand free /cheap childcare while not being married.
Thank you for explaining but so far it means in Switzerland if a men declines to serve and closes to pay taxes when he marries the taxes combine and multiplied so win reality woman who merries him pays the army tax too as it is calculated from salary and now you pay join tax... Why there is no work done about it?
Thanks for your comments about the exemption tax for those who choose not to do military service. However, how tax policies affect married couples and others is another topic. If you as readers would like to debate this issue in greater depth, please feel free to suggest it here: [url]https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/debates[/url].
I disagree. The topic of how military tax directly affects married couple is not a separate question. The men who pays military tax pays more only because he is married and I can not imagine a family who would be OK with it and where even if only men's salary used to pay that portion of tax this will not venefit family wellbeing. So woman already pay for not being in army and I agree that being married here is a disaster and we are actively reconsidering our married status as a family, because we both work.
Because if they did they would have to speak about how absurdly sexist it is to force a tax on men and not on women, of course.
@Geraldine Wong, the topic is raised not by me. I can discuss this but it is not raised by me. So please ensure you hastag the correct person.
It is sad when people consider marriage and tax together. Is tax for married people unfair? Married people do have more tax breaks than unmarried people and in the end, it all balances out.
Again, we are not discussing tax and marriage.
We are discussing whether women should embrace National Service.
Thanks for pointing this out. It was an error. The comment was meant for all users, and not just you.
Equal rights comes with equal obligations. But I think it will help nobody to treat women and men the same way, the genders are different. We do exist because the two sexes decide to do children, right? And therefore it is foolish to mandate the abolishing of the genders for political reasons.
The woman can have the same VOTE as a man, in terms of political and social steering of this country.
Therefore, not going into feminism topics, the woman should serve the country like the man (in military / fireman). She can choose from other vocations or same vocations. That is truly a person worthy to be called a country-loving patriot.
equality is not only about voting.... Salary gap speaks of anything or how swiss companies perceived woman as a part time workers mostly ?
The salary gap in private companies has nothing to do with equal rights in the state. If you are unhappy with a payment, leave.
And read the human rights (EMRK). You have no right to work, but you have the right to refuse to work!
Totally spot on, Daniel!
I would say it’s time Switzerland modernized its Military Service and move to a Military/Community Service model, which it already is to some extent, but widen the occupations for the service, allowing for a host of community projects, which might appeal more to pacifists (I mean that in a good way, as I am also a pacifist) of all genders. Then they could do away with the ‘you pay if you don’t play’ option that they now offer to males who choose not to serve. If there were enough non gun wielding options, they could conscript all but the disabled to participate. They could also offer programs in conjunction with new immigrants so everyone could learn from each other and bring more diversity to Swiss culture.
Oh yeah, and free and widespread child care - if you want equality, even the playing field!
Thanks for your comment, SWISSCOTT. One of the experts I spoke to in Norway (see article above on the Norwegian system published this morning) noted the importance of letting women (and men) know that the military offers a host of possibilities that don't involve combat -- one popular unit among Norwegian women conscripts is the canine unit, for example. And, according to the Swiss defence ministry, the issue of the tax for those who opt out of military service is something they will have to consider or re-consider seriously as they study how to reform the current conscription system.
Depending on where these inequalities persist and the importance (or detriment) thereof...yes, attending inequalities should have priority.
PRPD brings up a good point. Can anyone answer this question. What is a woman?
Can anyone answer what is a man???
Non-answer...
The question of how we define ourselves is an interesting one, but it falls outside the scope of this debate, which is: should Switzerland adopt gender-neutral conscription? Why or why not?
Sorry to say but have you not noticed that men and women are in fact different? Equal in value, yes, of course, but they can never be equal in all functions. Thanks God.
Doesn't prevent women from being effective soldiers, maybe not in combat unit. See Israel, drafts women since 1948 and has a more successful military history than most other countries.
Pay equality and childcare first, conscription 2nd, is my opinion. Women vote and need exposure to military culture to have a more informed vote. All my inlaws are Swiss, but I'm an american ex-marine, having volunteered to avoid the draft and therefore the least intelligent military. Swiss and Norwegian military are the best of our horrible international insanity. I worked with a Major in the Norwegian military. It too is flawed, but less so because they still remember German occupation.
So salary and child care are more important than defending a country (not necessarily using firearms because there are many other ways a "less fit person" can contribute to TOTAL DEFENCE.
Without a country, good luck to your job and childcare center.
Ask Ukraine.
On the contrary, conscription should come first. As of now, Swiss women can vote in politicians who can send men to war, while facting no consequences themselves. This must be fixed.
Yeah, women vote, and thus can have an influence on foreign policy, which can result in war. They must also bear the burden of the consequences of such decisions, just like the men.
They'll have to explain "what a woman is" first seeing that the west is having a problem with the issue. United States has gone crazy with titling women with the moniker "birth person." IMHO...previous generations of women have made it difficult for young women today.
Great idea. To be truly equal, women should do the same jobs as men. The way the world is going, everyone everywhere will need a bigger army soon. Best start the training now. Also, any foreigner (up to say, age 30) who makes Switzerland their home should do military service too. Many foreigners wait until they are too old to go in the military before applying for Swiss citizenship. Me - I was already too old when I came here.
Thats one more reason why Switzerland shall think about the obligation of military service for foreigners, note the french Légion étrangère, and extend the military service to an age of 65 years like in the Ukraine.
How about a man doing the same job as a woman when it comes to house care? Tending the children? etc. etc. ?
Hi LYNX, unfortunately so was I, would have loved to have done my military service here.
I served 18 months in an infantry regiment in the British Army, but i was the wrong side of 40 to serve here when I married my Swiss wife. However I have a fine collection of Swiss carbines which I use on the ranges from time to time, plus a Lee Enfield .303 which is the type I used when I did my national service.
So employers are hesitant to hire full time woman because we get pregnant and take a leave and now we also will take an army leave... I am settling that will make woman even less suitable for a job in employers eyes as we get double the time off work doing other staff..... Stupid, I am against it, if I will have a daughter I will make sure from her young age that she will have all the documents making her illegible for the army, so she doesn't even have to think of it... We get paid less, we get pregnant and now army... Switzerland is asking too much from women right now
That seems to be the position of women's associations that the defence ministry polled -- that taking leave to attend army refresher courses would be more detrimental to women's careers than men's. But how realistic do you think it is that parental leave would become more balanced in the near future to remove the greater burden on women? Right now it's 14 weeks for mothers and two weeks for men.
Nobody (men) complained about how “unfair” it is that only men need to serve Military.
Why?
Now the women are asked to “do the same” and suddenly all these objections and “good reasons” appear?
Men can also do child care and house work. Wake up please it is 2022 and not 1922.
It’s high time women do what they always wants to do. Be equal in all possible ways.
We cannot influence salaries and child care because these are private companies and the government favours a free market.
They are not the same thing as mandated Military or National service.
> if I will have a daughter I will make sure from her young age that she will have all the documents making her illegible for the army, so she doesn't even have to think of it...
I'll do the same with my son
> we get pregnant
Not mandatory, unlike military service for men.
Think about it as woman waist 1 year of her life to bore a child, you waist 1 year serving the country... Both genders in the end equal in waisting time.
Serving the country, my country, is NEVER a waste of time. I know many people think this other way (waste of time), but they think this way about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING in their lives.
A military regimented experience will prepare the person (man or woman) to be a matured and responsible and team person who can survive better with their mouth closed, compared to the person who never served in the same "life". It is not 20 years, it is just 6 months to 1 year.
Like Winston Churchill said: "Think not what the country can do for you, but think about what you can do for country" is a wise and still valid statement. People who only think for themselves, do not "deserve" a country. It is a strong statement, but I think many people will agree. If there is no more country, where is there people? The current Ukraine war should be the example for us to look at.
You can find an overview of ongoing debates with our journalists here. Please join us!
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.