Is it sexist to expect only males to lose their freedom to serve
national service for 2 and half years for the better part of their
live, when girls (some might even be fitter than some guys) are
allowed to start their career sooner? There are also things which
girls can contribute to National "Service" too. Women DO NOT "just
belong in the kitchen" anymore, or are expected to only wear skirt,
etc; so why shouldn't they serve NS too during the prime of their
lives? Gender "equality" only applies to females in today's society
it seems.
And its not just the 2+ years, but the "waiting-period between
entering NS" is wasted + the discontinuation of using the brain
during that period (other than to avoid punishment and survive the
many low-lifes that you'll encounter)? And to note, I didn't mind
the tough training at all. Its more to do with the unreasonable
duration, the dark-politics within it (i.e. absolute power (rank)
corrupts absolutely kinda thing) and the kind of "humans" I have to
endure, and my the fact that my band ended because of it (as did
many other bands).
As a matter of fact, some girls can actually be fitter than
certain guys too, and I don't see a problem with conscripting them
into the harsher military service. And there are guys who are
naturally weak (nothing wrong with that) and they are still
expected to serve NS.
Also should immigrants who do not serve NS pay higher tax to
compensate those who do -- especially those who had already served
more than 2 years?
Furthermore, some employers might subtly favour immigrants who
do not have to do reservice rather than locals who have to. I know
I would! ;) And its not the employer's fault if they do, but the
policy makers'.
