| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | croes 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Right, 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 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | They 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 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No, 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. | | |
| ▲ | guerrilla 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | croes 2 days ago | parent [-] | | They don’t get half, the get half of the martial gains at best, if a prenup exists it could be completely different. There is a reason why so many women face poverty when they retire. The system isn’t flawed, it’s skewed on purpose historically. | | |
| ▲ | guerrilla a day ago | parent [-] | | > The system isn’t flawed, it’s skewed on purpose historically. Ah yes, it's a conspiracy. | | |
| ▲ | croes a day ago | parent | next [-] | | »You don’t need a formal conspiracy when interests converge« There is a reason why Elisabeth Selbert, Helene Weber, Frieda Nadig, and Helene Wessel had to fight in the Parliamentary Council of 1948–49 to add the phrase “Men and women have equal rights” to the constitution despite initial resistance. It took another decade before women could have bank account or a job with their husbands' permission. It took until 1997 before martial rape was a officially a crime. And even now where we have an alleged case of fake porn and identity theft by the husband of famous woman, is the first reaction of the CDU deflection:
We can’t discuss violence against women with considering the image of women in Islam. What a bunch of nonsense.
These are distinct problems that can easily handled separately. But it’s always the same pattern, the scapegoats are either poor, jobless or migrants but don’t ever touch the real problems. | |
| ▲ | salawat a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean... Yes. Not in the in the dark sense, but in the "working as designed, and you weren't around to be asked input from" sense. Jefferson was really big on sunset dates on these sorts of things specifically so each generation could weigh in on the old and change things over time instead of living in an ossified mausoleum of the collective institutional detritus of the dead. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dudul a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sure, it is well known that in a divorce women just walk away with nothing /s A quick google search shows you that the average is 50/50 when it comes to the division of the assets. Why do you feel the need to lie about something so easy to verify? | | |
| ▲ | croes a day ago | parent [-] | | It’s about pension and social security. Most people don’t have that many assets to live from when they (have to) retire. Why do you feel the need to change the subject? Try googling Pension entitlements women vs men. | | |
| ▲ | guerrilla a day ago | parent [-] | | > Why do you feel the need to change the subject? Says the person who came here to derail the entire conversation. You turned a men's issue into a dozen different women's issues (some real, some not). |
|
| |
| ▲ | throwawaypath 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | allan_s 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | But 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 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You 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 |
|
|
|
