Gender equality is a human right. Women are entitled to live with dignity and with freedom from want and from fear. Throughout the last couple of centuries in developed countries certain rights were achieved: (The right to vote as a full, equal, constitutional persons, unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family reasons as child birth, Prohibition against discrimination (be it in schools or in the job). This also triggered certain economic growth in spending, as the average income of women has increased. There has also been an exponential growth in leading positions occupied by women in politics (e.g Angela Merkel, Sonia Gandhi, Hillary Clinton and so on) and in big multinational companies.
Thus bringing me to my subject. Even though the female influence seems to exponentially growth, mainly females visiting universities (as they are good in learning by heart in general) giving them a higher chance of getting a better paid job, many female "feministic" protesters intend of getting more "rights" as they call it in a extensive fashion..
>So what is the problem? Am I a anti-feminist?
No. I do believe women have been given their equal share in rights. Allowing them to have the same opportunity as any man has.
>So what are my worries: (I'm Swiss so I'll be argumenting mainly from my point of view)
Giving the fact, that women are having more and more influence on politics (which is mainly left winged, at least here) and are fighting for more women rights,frightens me.
> It seems men are the one's getting pressurized. As a example: We are obliged to do our one year military service, or an equal amount of alternative civilian service, where as women do not. As up to know they are trying to make a law, giving companies a minimum amount of women, which must be employed and a certain percentage, which must work in leading positions. Also they are further pressurizing the private sector in applying exact same amounts of wages for females as they
are feeling discriminated.
>My view is very simple. If I was an employer, I would not be able to pay the same amount of money, simply because there is the chance that the women will get pregnant and will be off work (Here its even paid, so you get paid off work time).
So what is your view pol?
>>70146197
>>70146692
Enjoy your collapse, Switzerland.
Also, bump.
>>70147847
We are getting raped by feminists
i'm getting the impression
Feminism=Marxism however is the word marx discriminating against females. Also they believe to be superior
>>70146197
>Gender equality is a human right
Human rights are a social construct.
>>70146197
I hope you enjoy all your small to midsized companies being run out of business and Economy collapsing.
Feminism, not even once.
>>70150139
And social constructs are just made up by humans.. so its just a fantasy
>>70148383
I guess I'm the only one will to have this discussion.
>Gender equality is a human right.
First of all, who says?
The state? The only thing the state cares about is the increase of taxes and power. You think it's a consequence women (and children) were given job almost imminently after the industrious revolution, and suddenly governments got more powerful?
Gender equality is a not human right, and it wasn't given by the mercy of the state.
Now, the main issues with feminism is women don't take care of their responsibilities. They expect, to some degree, for someone else to do it for them, like the state.
>>70146197
I agree. The problem isn't women like most /pol/tards think, it's the Feminist movement and the Jews that created it brainwashing women into thinking men are oppressors.
>>70150430
Absolutely agree with your statement. However it's not necessarily feminism which is the major role in this change. Here its mainly the left wing liberals, who believe in a more equal state and private as also public sector. It's getting really bad, as a big part of the population is actually believing in this nonsense
>>70150620
A lot of it lies with women and the idea that equality just means getting stuff without taking any burden.
>>70146197
Women rising to power is the collapse of western civilizations, in your streets, sooner than you think.
>>70146197
European women will get all the rights they vote for: which, if I understand Sharia law correctly, doesn't seem to be a lot.
>>70150620
>muh jews
No its you fault white knights like you that excuse women of anything because you cant control your MUH WAIFU instinct.
>>70151554
Nice one Southafrika ..
but sadly the truth
>>70150842
So far, I can only see two opitions.
1.) It's impossible and my European audience might get offended by this, but introduce competition in your state. If you have economic/sexual advances, while reducing any taxes into your system. Do this, and women will become dependent on you if you decide to have children.
2.) Take full advantage of the system. Reproduce as most you can, and become a NEET. The state wouldn't be able gain more power these 'feminist' because they reached maximum taxation, and eventually they have to change into different system.
>>70152402
>most
Much
Some quotes from the female anarchist Emma Goldman:
>"She not only considers herself the equal of man, but his superior, especially in her purity, goodness, and morality. Small wonder that the American suffragist claims for her vote the most miraculous powers. In her exalted conceit she does not see how truly enslaved she is, not so much by man, as by her own silly notions and traditions. Suffrage can not ameliorate that sad fact; it can only accentuate it, as indeed it does."
>"As I have said before, woman's narrow view of human affairs is not the only argument against her as a politician superior to man. There are others. Her life-long economic parasitism has utterly blurred her conception of the meaning of equality"
>"If no other reason, woman's narrow and purist attitude toward life makes her a greater danger to liberty wherever she has political power. Man has long overcome the superstitions that still engulf woman. In the economic competitive field, man has been compelled to exercise efficiency, judgment, ability, competency. He therefore had neither time nor inclination to measure everyone's morality with a Puritanic yardstick."
>" Woman, essentially a purist, is naturally bigoted and relentless in her effort to make others as good as she thinks they ought to be. In this regard the law must needs be of feminine gender: it always prohibits. Therein all laws are wonderful. They go no further, but their very tendencies open all the floodgates of hell."
>>70152402
In the end every one would rather be a women when this shit continues
I mean at /b/ with their many trap threads that must be the reason
>>70152958
Seems like she never got a good fucking
>>70153055
OP, be honest.
Do you want be a women...or you one?
>>70153656
*Or are you one?
>>70146197
Theres no such thing as human right
>>70153656
nah not at all .
and no i'm male
>>70153914
So, your original post is more about how you feel about Switzerland's government in relations to feminism, rather than asking /pol/ what solutions we can suggest?
>>70154647
well both
should be informative but also looking for solutions in some way. However it's almost impossible to stop
>>70154826
Would you be willing to save your country even if it means the end of feminism, and other humanitarian rights?
>>70155015
absolutely . We'll that's what we are trying in some ways. As we do have a full democratic government we know our task
>>70155199
Here's main issue from a governmental stand-point. Women do contribute to goods and services, but at the cost of lower birthrates and more state government.
May I suggest, make a law: that if women to have children they have to be married (unless in case of felony) and their primary source of money has to be from their husbands.
Of course, the state wants as much taxes as possible. Commission that instead of condom handouts, make it mandatory for women to have temporary female vasectomies until they get married.
>>70156579
Seems like a absolute reasonable suggestion. Agree 100 %
I don't really get your point.
It's stupid your country has conscription only for men -- especially since they can choose to do community service instead.
Switzerland doesn't need any armed forces beyond what they can get with volunteers. County vs country wars rarely happen any more, if Switzerland for some reason did get attacked they'd never be able to defend themselves, and the money used on conscription would be better spent on just building tanks or whatever.
I don't really see an issue with forcing companies to hire or promote women if they are not already doing so. I'd actually assume it's quite rare that it would need to be legally enforced as most companies are quite good with this sort of thing and if there aren't female applicants then they can't work there.
The idea you'd pay someone less because they could get pregnant is completely fucking idiotic. If you were genuinely worried she might leave soon to have a baby I could why you wouldn't hire her (that too is a stupid idea, but more reasonable), but not paying her the same?
Should they not pay you as much OP because you're clearly a faggot and you'll be mentally unstable?
>>70156994
Also, no divorce to become available (unless in case of felony) until the couple's children has been fully matured under their care.
>>70157852
feminist, socialist faggot
>>70157852
>The idea you'd pay someone less because they could get pregnant is completely fucking idiotic. If you were genuinely worried she might leave soon to have a baby I could why you wouldn't hire her (that too is a stupid idea, but more reasonable), but not paying her the same?
The mind of a liberal is truly a scary place, isn't it.
Being this fucking stupid and uniformed.
You hire women because the state forces you to. They have the ability to get pregnant and go on maternity leave. That makes them less valuable then men who can't do this.
