Why do feminists reject conscription for women

Feminism: The dream of a warm ice lolly

What kind of times it was when there was still something that feminists in this country were worth fighting for: the "right to study for women" (from the end of the 19th century until just after the Second World War - with a brief backlash during the Nazi era - women were admitted to Austrian universities bit by bit), the "right to vote for women" (the active and passive right to vote was introduced in 1918, that for men only shortly before: 1907), the "right to self-determination about one's own body" (The so-called deadline solution became law in Austria in 1973).

In the 21st century and with almost complete legal equality between men and women, it is becoming increasingly difficult for domestic feminism to identify real enemies. That is why his standard-bearers like to pull that ace out of their sleeve that still stands out when nothing really works: the "communism" card. The unequal distribution of money and (power) positions is "an expression of injustice" that can be ascribed either to patriarchy and its aftermath or to "structural discrimination" or to individual macho men. But is that really true? Does the often mentioned "glass ceiling" actually exist, or has it not moved into the minds of many women? By this I do not mean that the inequality cases complained about are mere imagination. But "inequality" does not automatically mean "injustice".

Anyone who complains that women earn less than men on average should be aware of the following fact - in addition to various other non-discriminatory differences that distort the statistics (such as part-time versus full-time jobs): Women choose completely different training and thus career paths than men . In 2013/14, according to Statistics Austria, 51,289 domestic students took subjects in the field of "humanities". That is 2.4 times as many as men (21,296). Conversely, at that time only 8421 women were enrolled in "technology" subjects. Men: 30,392 - 3.6 times as many. (The same applies to the choice of apprenticeships.)

Today's female students are the grandchildren of the "68ers". It is absurd to assume that patriarchy presses them into choosing a course of study that usually leads to lower-paying jobs and rarely to the management level of industrial companies.

But why do women choose these training courses and (according to studies) negotiate worse than men when it comes to salary increases and career-promoting measures?

The following theses offer an explanation: Women think differently than men and feel more comfortable in professions that are less about technology, power and money than about interpersonal contacts, meaning and joy. Perhaps most women are simply more honest (and smarter) and therefore ask less because they know that sooner or later they will decide in favor of children and against a career, for a full life instead of senseless competition and power games?

Consciously and voluntarily

They consciously and voluntarily accept that they buy this with economic dependence on men. You could also decide differently: when choosing your education, your standard of living and that of your partner.

The above-mentioned "almost complete legal equality" still needs an explanation: Statistically speaking, men in Austria have a life expectancy that is around five years lower than women, the latter are legally allowed to retire five years earlier (the actual starting age of men and women differs only a little, but that is due to the harder jobs that men do) and do not have to do either the armed forces or community service. By law, women are therefore preferred to men by around eleven years. Where are the feminists who get upset about this injustice and demand an adjustment (or rather the reverse: men 60, women 65) of the statutory retirement age and the introduction of compulsory military service or community service for women as well? Austrian feminism fights "patriarchy" with the left hand, while with the right father state it fights unjust advantages for its clientele. More justice means more personal responsibility. And only that leads to real emancipation. (Georg Schildhammer, DER STANDARD, March 20, 2015)