Women don’t have to plug holes in the Swiss army

Need more people in the ranks, but why exactly?Image: keystone / watson

Mood

The minister wants women to participate in a compulsory information day in order to “stimulate vocations”. My open letter to Viola Amherd about this idea that some defenders (of the army, not of women’s rights) consider “egalitarian”, when there are so many other more urgent issues.

Follow me

Mrs. Amherd,

The announcement of your departure, this Wednesday, January 15, has partly eclipsed the proposals made during this same press conference. But let me come back to one point, this idea of forcing women to attend a military information day. To “stimulate vocations”. Because, and you say it yourself, in order to guarantee the resources of the army and civil protection, more people are needed. And therefore try to gain access to women, “who do not know the possibilities offered” and who, “better informed, could decide whether or not they want to do their service”.

First of all, let me point out that many, many women (maybe not all, come on, let’s be fair) know very well what this is about. We each have a brother, a cousin, an uncle, a father, friends, colleagues, in short, men around us to tell us about their experience. We have access to the internet, TV, radio, the press, and (more or less) neutral literature on the subject. There is no need to plant officers who are largely committed to your cause in order to carry out propaganda. If you want to be informed on the subject, there is no shortage of resources. Besides, those who serve in the army have necessarily managed to find out about the subject without your “help”. Please don’t take us for fools.

Suze and card games

Here, let me share some anecdotes that men around me have told me. Let’s take Gianni. He works in a small team, within a small company, in which the slightest absence is felt in terms of the workload for his colleagues. Gianni has to do his rehearsal classes. On the WhatsApp group he shares with his colleagues, he sends photos of himself, drunk at 11 a.m., playing cards while drinking Suze.

Gianni

“We have to make grenades go off, it’s so funny!”

Great, well done Gianni. And thank you Mrs Amherd. We are delighted to know how good a job the army is doing. In the event of an attack, we all keep our fingers crossed that Gianni and his comrades are not the ones who will have to “protect the country”; otherwise, our survival expectancy will not exceed a quarter of an hour.

There is also Fred. He too had to “empty cartridges” by shooting into nothingness. And you know what happened? Fred and his comrades set fire to a forest. They then watched the firefighters put their shit out. “Imagine, it was your taxes that paid for the ammunition,” he explains, amused. It is true that it is particularly funny to burn down a forest by firing cartridges “at nine francs a bullet”, he specifies, with the blessing of the army.

Let’s take another story that Paul told me. One of his comrades simply shot himself in the foot. Literally! Because the army means putting lethal weapons in the arms of kids who, for many of them (not all of them, again, let’s be fair), don’t really want to be there. They have their own plans. Studies, travel… They are 18 or 20 years old and you take several months of their life, an eternity at these ages, to “serve”. Some prefer civilian service to dressing up like Rambo to share dorms with other kids. But since too many of them want to avoid recruit school to do this service, you have tightened the screw. You want these young people to join the army, and today, you want to coax women into joining too…

A two-speed equality

There is one argument in particular that stands out: equality. It’s true, if men are forced to sacrifice months of their youth to “serve the country”, it is normal that young women are forced too. No, of course, you are not (quite) there. But the idea is posed: in another option, women would be “forced to serve to supply the army or civil protection”, we read in the press following this press briefing on January 15. Not completely fooled, you admitted: the first option, that of forcing women to attend an information day, has more support than that of forcing them to serve.

Let’s talk about equality, indeed. Since January 1, 2024, women have been retiring at age 65, like these gentlemen. Yes, there again, it’s more egalitarian, certainly. On the other hand, equal pay has still not been achieved in our society. Women receive, according to figures from the Confederation, on average 18% less than men. However, the principle of equality has been enshrined in the Constitution since 1981, more than 40 years ago. And that’s not the case.

At the same time, it is still most often women who lower their rates, when they do not simply stop working, to take care of children in couples who decide to have them. The calculation is easy: as the man earns more than the woman, it is logical that it is the gentleman’s salary which is retained, and that of the lady reduced or even eliminated. And that, Ms Ahmerd, leads to a loss of retirement pension for these women. Retirement which, let us remember, increased to 65 years for everyone, “because it is egalitarian”, and because we had to find a way to fill the AVS coffers. Hop! It’s the women who stick to it.

Oh, and since we were talking about giving birth, why don’t we favor a more egalitarian system there too? By drawing inspiration from the Swedish model for example. Much more progressive than conservative Switzerland on the issue, this Scandinavian country gives the right to 480 days of paid parental leave upon the birth or adoption of a child. Each parent, if there are two, is entitled to 240 of these days. In our country, men have, since a vote dating back only to 2020, the right to two weeks of paid leave. Before that? Nothing. “Usual dictated” that these gentlemen could take one or two days. As for a death… Of course, the Swedish model has a cost. Ammunition fired into a vacuum too.

Why-do?

Let’s get back to our subject. You want to fill the ranks of an army that would barely last a month in the event of an attack, or even less, if it’s Gianni and company that you have to count on. To do what exactly, last a month and a half? Two months? What is the real goal of the approach? Have a professional military guard of honor to welcome heads of state, like Emmanuel Macron in November 2023? Because as a reminder, unlike foreign armies, Switzerland does not have permanent honorary training; as the RTS points out, it was necessary to train around a hundred soldiers for the occasion.

Or, to be able to escort hijacked planes outside office hours? The RTS also reminds us: in February 2014, a plane was hijacked by an Eritrean co-pilot in Geneva and had to be escorted by Italian and French military aircraft, because our air forces were not yet working at that time.

So, need more people in the ranks, okay, but why exactly? In any case, to bring these ladies to this information day, it would be necessary to invest 900 million francs to set up accommodation and infrastructure, and another 900 million more per year. More costs, and more constraints. Because our system is not attractive; you have to force it.

A more global reflection to have?

And you want to “stimulate vocations”? Here, perhaps it is the model that needs to be reviewed. The ultimate taboo! If everyone really needs to get involved, why not give young people the opportunity to choose whether they want to serve in the army, in an EMS or a sustainable development project, rather than tightening the screws on civil service by making it less attractive?

“And then what else, give more money for education?”

Yes, perfectly. Particularly when we hear the defenders of the recruit school use the argument “the army makes you a man”. If it needs to be “forged”, it is because mistakes were made upstream. It is not when we put a lethal weapon in his hands that he is most likely to be “forged”.

Besides, if you want to undertake major work, there are other profound changes to implement in our society. Like shaking yourself to make it actually equal. Concretely? By ensuring that women do not lose another 18% of their salary, for example. And so that these gentlemen are encouraged to pamper more, too. And so that they have the time and resources to do so, with egalitarian parental leave, so that it is not always women who suffer on the pension side, after having already received a lower salary throughout their lives.

In short, before wanting to push these ladies to go play cards and burn ammunition and forests, no, sorry, “serve”, there are other problems that deserve to be resolved. Because to introduce this information day, the Constitution would have to be amended. Let us already apply what it contains since 1981: namely the principle of equality.

By the way, Mrs. Amherd. And you? When women were accepted into the army in 1986, you were 24 years old. At that time, “all women between 18 and 35 years old” could register. Would you have joined the army if you had been “better informed about the opportunities available”?