The contemprorary human rights organizations do not defend the right not to serve in the military forces in full. Even if they do, they defend the right to choose an alternative service instead of the default military one. However, they do not consider the fact that women have the opportunity not to serve nowhere, unlike men, as discrimination against men.

There is an element of viewing men as cannon fodder here, as well as an element of not perceiving compulsory military labour as a violation of human rights.

It may seem that this right should not be universal. Indeed, a state that faces military aggression from a stronger state can hardly survive without compulsory military service. However, even if we assume that this right is not universal (not my position: I believe society must motivate, not force people to defend it), it does not follow that in the contemprorary world this right is correctly valued and not undervalued.

The right not to serve in the military is valuable enough that when it is granted based on sex, it is a very serious privilege. Compulsory military service in general can be extremely damaging to mental health, even in peacetime, as such.

The right not to serve in the army is certainly an undervalued human right in the today's world. It is undervalued enough that people prefer not to consider it a privilege when it is available to women only. Therefore, we must fight not only against war and conscription, but also against the romanticization of conscription, against the undervaluation of the right not to serve in the army.