Swiss voters on Sunday decisively rejected a call to require women to do national service in the military, civil protection teams or other forms, as all men must do already.

Official results. with counting still ongoing in some areas after a referendum, showed that more than half of Switzerland’s cantons, or states, had rejected the “citizen service initiative” by wide margins. That meant it was defeated, because proposals need a majority of both voters and cantons to pass.

Voters also heavily rejected a separate proposal to impose a new national tax on individual donations or inheritances of more than 50 million francs ($62 million), with the revenues to be used to fight the impact of climate change and help Switzerland meet its ambitions to have net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

  • Oxysis/Oxy@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    If men have to sign up for the draft then it is only fair that women have to too. It’s unfair that only men have to risk being drafted and losing so much of their life to war.

    • hubobes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Oh give me a break, women are getting away worse in so many facets of life. When we have fixed discrimination against women we can talk about them doing mandatory civil service.

      Edit: Did not know that on Lemmy we have such an issue with women’s rights.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 months ago

        So? Are we supposed to have a fair, equal society or are we playing these games of measuring each other’s cocks?

        • hubobes@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          2 months ago

          Measure whatever you want but maybe first make it slightly more equal for the ones who have been disadvantaged for decades? But no, one party always focuses on the few things man have where they are slightly worse of.

          • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’m a feminist and I honestly don’t understand this mentality. Mixing genders in all activities is good for our society, period.

            • hubobes@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              2 months ago

              Not if said activity is forced upon you. Women can already voluntarily join the military or civil service.

              • SlothMama@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                2 months ago

                So can men, but in this instance they’re also compelled. The ask here is that if men are compelled to service, women should be too. That’s obviously equal treatment and fair.

                • hubobes@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Am I in the wrong movie? Women are at a huge disadvantage in life (Gender pay gap, workplace representation, unpaid care and domestic work, education and job positions, healthcare, part-time employment, promotion and career advancement, violence against women, political representation) and we should work to solve that but for some reason we first want to force them to also serve in the military while leaving the current system in place that puts them at a disadvantage? Oh the heavens, men have to serve for a single year…yes that is super important, not all the things they get a huge advantage in life?

          • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 months ago

            You’re right, men should just go die in a war they have no reason to fight and be happy about it.

            • hubobes@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              2 months ago

              No they should not? Nobody said that.

              Also nobody who is in the army here actually believes they will ever see a war. Most people who serve just hate it and see it as a waste of time that will never amount to anything.

      • Galactose@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Nope, it is YOU who has an issue with equality. But then Men’s blood is cheap to you right. So what if they get their limbs blown up. That’s not suffering to you.

      • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        It doesn’t sound like Lemmy has an issue with women’s rights, it sounds like you have an issue with equal rights.

      • Xella@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Unfortunately a large majority of people have an issue with women’s rights 🥲

  • LegoBrickOnFire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    What is not well enough reprensented in this post is that the Service Citoyen was not only about makimg women do a mandatory service. It was to transform the outdated and regressive mandatory service for men into a more general service to the collective that treated security not as a entirely militaristic issue but as a wholistic one.

    Now parliament will interpret this as a mandate to cull the existing useful civil service and force every men (and potentially women too) into the military.

      • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Mandatory service is not a problem. As long as we live in a world with countries like russia mandatory service does more good than harm.

        • Leomas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Mandatory service causes two main issues (for me): Bad, undisciplined armies and authoritization of the population.

        • Cybersteel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          It is. Get with the times it’s the 21st century. Modern men are equipped with better social tools and technologies to be able to tackle any problems that come their way without resorting to savagery that is violence. There’s diplomacy, economic sanctions as well as international agreements to get Russia to stop what they are doing with a strongly worded letter. The sword may seems sharp, but nay the pen is mightier than the sword. Yet, it is men’s fragile ego that prevents them from searching alternative solutions other than wanton violence. Oh Vritra, if we could eliminate all the men if the world, the world would a lot more peaceful, as the remaining people eat their crumpets and sips on their tea.

  • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    As an American, I have no room at all to judge this decision. But

    proposals need a majority of both voters and cantons to pass.

    That sounds amazing. Let’s do that, please.

    I mean, straight popular vote would probably be better. But this could really do what the Electoral College stans say that it was made to do, without doing what it actually does.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      That sounds amazing.

      It sounds arbitrary and heavily weighted to favor the smaller cantons. Same problem we have with the US Senate and the filibuster. Representatives for a meager 30M voters can obstruct policy championed by the other 300M