Should women have the “right” to vote?

[VanillaSalt]

The “right” to vote has, up until women’s rights, been a privilege rather than a right. In times of need men would serve proudly in return for this privilege. They would fight and die on some unknown battlefield far from their friends and families and so if they care enough to bleed and die for the country they have the privilege of deciding the countries future.

The draft is a questionable piece of litigation forcing what some would say unconstitutional service. Be that as it may men must sign up for selective service. Women are overwhelmingly unwilling or unable to take the responsibility of serving as firefighters, police, or military therefore do they deserve the right to vote? Without serving the community should they be allowed a say in that community?

Democrats recently proposed a bill to add women to selective service aka the draft. There have already been several cries of outrage to this from women. Those whom do not work do not eat, those whom do not serve have no say.

Should Ameren be forced to serve? Should women be able to vote without service?

Yes

No

[NamerOfStars]

You're making some serious errors in your base assumptions, here. Battle slavery has nothing to do with voting; a man can't simply say "I won't vote" and so gain his thirteenth amendment rights. And that's the thing about rights; they're not contingent on doing something. They simply ARE, and the government exists to protect them, not to distribute them as it sees fit. You do know WHY the War of 1812 happened, right? It was specifically to STOP this nonsense.

When the US finally implemented it, long after all the founders and most of their kids were dead, it started at 18, as it did, then and since, in most parts of the world. But the voting age was 21- as it was up until the Vietnam war. They would fight and die, yes- but it wasn't for their friends, and it wasn't for their "country"; it was for whatever foreign policy goals had been chosen by a pack of politicians they had no voice in choosing. The justification of "it's a reciprocal obligation for voting" didn't come along until Arver vs US, in 1919. Even now, that's just an after-the-fact justification for treating Constitutionally guaranteed rights like a suggestion.

The government should be taken to task for every man whose rights it violated, and prevented from ever doing so again. Well, no; every member of Congress who let this go on for the past forty years should be hauled before a tribunal and tried for treason, but that's just not practical. You don't get rid of racism by being more racist, and you don't make up for a breach in the law by breaching it further. Voting is a right, and should be treated as such.

[VanillaSalt]

YOUR making some errors as well. In the past it’s common almost socially expected for men to step up and protect the land they live in. Even if it wasn’t a law and man that didn’t fight was a coward. The social expectations covered this but in recent history people are changing being less capable and willing to fight. I can see how during say an invasion of the American mainland every single man should stand up and fight and if they won’t then they should be forced to. I disagree with the draft and think it needs to be removed.

My argument is if women demand equality then let us be equality equal. So long as the draft exists women should be a part of the draft. If you are unwilling or unable to bleed for this country there perhaps you should not lead this country.

[NamerOfStars]

Socially accepted? If that were true, it wouldn't need to be legally mandated. And a country that doesn't accept a man's life as his own, rather than public property, is not a country that's worth defending. It never has been. Anyone who won't fight AGAINST a country that tries to enslave him could reasonably be called a coward, but FOR it? That doesn't make any sense.

And taking combat experience as a requirement for political leadership isn't going to do anything but make people thinking killing others is an acceptable method of dispute resolution. You'd be much better off demanding that we all have our rights respected than asking that we all have them ignored. How many women do you think would be willing accept in equality in, say, reproductive rights?

[VanillaSalt]

Never said accepted, expected. Nobody seems to have accountability anymore.

[NamerOfStars]

Sorry, yes, that should've been "expected". And it's not a matter of "anymore"- if you won't protect your family or even your own self from a government that expects you to die on its whim, you'll fit right in with the bulk of human history. That it's being challenged- and so persistently- is what's new.

[Snakeyes7]

They should be able to vote but they need some service to the state like men do in order to understand what kind of policies they are truly voting for.

[Dinklex3]

So..
You're trying to tell me.
You think that men who probably will never get drafted or forced to serve.. get to have the same right to vote that both men and women who are ACTUALLY SERVING get to have?
So you can spend the whole rest of your life not serving, just like the women but you get "extra" rights? Just because that low possibility might arise?
BS.
Gtfoutta here, lmao.

[VanillaSalt]

Every time in history the draft has been enacted the losses were innumerable. Vietnam… ww2… the civil war was a form of draft the only difference was men volunteered it if responsibility rather then legal pressure. If your drafted there’s a high chance your going into hell. You may not serve in the day to day but to serve when to be shit not only hits the fan but catches on fire… yes I think that does qualify you for the right to say what happens with the country you could easily die for. Or are you telling me the reserves, the desk jockeys, and paper pushers are less valuable then the front lines because they never see combat?

[Dinklex3]

"If" "if" "if".
No one has been drafted since 1973. And guess what? We've had wars since then.
No one said anything about people not being valuable just because they don't see combat (plenty of people in the national do get deployed by the way).
It's the fact that your logic implies that you should somehow have the same "rights" as people who are ACTUALLY SERVING when YOU'RE NOT. JUST like the women who are not signed up for the draft.
Your argument is "I MIGHT have to fight for this country. So I should get to vote, and you shouldn't" even though the fact is that you currently ARE NOT, HAVE NOT, and most likely WILL NOT serve.
Get rid of the draft? Sure. But don't make it seem like you deserve more "rights". They're called "RIGHTS" for a reason.
My mother deployed, my close friend deployed, and my best friend will be deploying later this year. By your logic either they deserve more "rights" than you (someone who hasn't served), or you deserve the same "rights" as them, even though you haven't and will not do shit.

[VanillaSalt]

Then let me word it differently… if the time came I would be expected to fight without a say.

[VanillaSalt]

No because that would mean because I didn’t serve (which was only because the military said I couldn’t) I would be less than your family who has served.

I’ve said this many times in these posts. If your not WILLING to serve you shouldn’t have a say. I don’t qualify for the military because of my mental health and I’m too old for selective service. But if the enemy comes to this country I’ll be ready.

[Dinklex3]

You and everyone else who had to sign up for selective service ARE NOT WILLING to serve, because if you were WILLING to serve then you would have ACTUALLY served. It's easy to say you're "willing" when you're not actually qualified to begin with.
So basically the only people who should have "rights" to vote (according to you) are those who are active duty like myself, veterans, reserves, and guard since they are the only ones who ACTUALLY signed that contract and made that commitment SHOWING they were WILLING to serve.
Regardless if you say you're "willing" or not the fact is that you AREN'T.
You're acting like you are somehow above others when you aren't even serving. "I would've if I wasn't disqualified!". Please.
Going back to your original statement, people forced to sign up for the draft aren't "willing to serve". So the argument of them deserving more "rights" is dead.

[VanillaSalt]

“If you are not WILLING to serve you should not have a say.” Once again I say this. If you are not willing to check that box. If you have not at least attempted to enlist. If you will hide when the red army’s at the gate then you should not be allowed a say.

Don’t make it seem like a failing to serves anything like being unwilling to serve.

[Dinklex3]

Those who have no say in signing up for the draft are NOT WILLING to serve. If someone is WILLING TO SERVE then they would ACTUALLY serve. So then why should they have the right to vote when they clearly are NOT willing to serve, just like the women who are not included in the draft.
There is LITERALLY no way to determine if someone is actually willing or not unless they actually sign that contract.
And IT IS. Why? Because regardless, at the end of the day, you are NOT serving.
Actions speak louder than word. It's easy to claim that you're willing to do something, when you're already disqualified and can't do it anyways.
Don't make it seem like you're above others just because you claim you're willing to serve, but at the end of the day have not and will not ever have to.

[rachel776]

Voting is absolutely a right for U. S. citizens, not a privilege, codified by several amendments to the Constitution, beginning with the 9th Amendment in 1791, one of the Bill of Rights, which created a bundle of unenumerated rights, one of which was later determined to be "the right to vote" by the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade derives from one of these unenumerated rights, the right to privacy

[VanillaSalt]

Lol because the nsa let’s us have privacy? Question. If every man and the entirety of the government toke your right to vote away… what would your right mean? Rights are just somebody in power stating they won’t punish you for doing something specific on paper. When they do it is nothing more than paper. Are you going to grab a gun and fight back? If your right to vote was taken from your right now… what would you do to get it back? Fight, bleed, and die for it? Because if your answer isn’t an immediate yes then you don’t deserve to vote. This applies to everyone.

[Screamsgutter]

It's very simple. Men were saddled with the responsibility of having to fight for their country for the right to vote, and millions of men died for that right to vote in a bunch of wars in the last hundred years. As long as a man makes himself available for the draft through Selective Service from the ages of 18-26, then he is fulfilling his duty. Even if he's deemed unable to serve for one reason or another, he's still given credit for being available.

Women were given no responsibilities to receive their right to vote.

Also, if men don't sign up for Selective Service when they turn 18, they are deprived several government privileges. Women get these automatically when they turn 18.

Yet even with these inequalities, men and women somehow have an equal vote in this country.

Right now women could vote for a total warmonger knowing full well if the draft is reinstated it'll be men, not them, going off to war. It's kind of a conflict of interests, being able to peripherally vote for war while being in no danger of their lives being risked. If see this as a problem.

And no, optional childbirth is not same as mandatory military service. It's absurd to even compare the two.

[EnglishEuropean]

Everyone should have the right to vote for a government that won't draft them to die in pointless foreign wars.

[VanillaSalt]

A rework needs done to selective service for sure but as it is men serve women do not.

[EnglishEuropean]

Well men don't actually serve because the draft isn't currently in use.

[Screamsgutter]

But men still sign up for it when they turn 18. If they don't they aren't eligible for federal benefits.

[EnglishEuropean]

@Screamsgutter Seriously? That's f-d up.

[nevernevernever]

we haven't had a war to defend our country since the revolutionary war and you wanna argue that the people we send to kill others have more rights than the people that we don't?

[VanillaSalt]

Try rewording that to better match what I said and I’ll respond.

[nevernevernever]

you said that the people that kill others have more rights than the people that don't. Am I wrong?

[VanillaSalt]

You are. I said that people that don’t sign up to protect said rights shouldn’t have the right to speak up.

[nevernevernever]

yah, do you want to explain how soldiers are protecting our rights right now? we haven't had a threat to our rights in a very long time, right now they're protecting the rights of oil investors mostly

[VanillaSalt]

Ide also like to add December 7, 1941. We were obviously an eventual target so that was in defense of the country.

[nevernevernever]

yah, maybe, 80 years ago, when women had limited rights anyway. What major war is going on now that requires us to defend our country?

[VanillaSalt]

Vietnam has become a poster boy for the draft. The fact we drafted for such a war was unacceptable. We never should have been there. But when the enemy comes to these shores… is it acceptable to give people the right to cower in their bathrooms?

[VanillaSalt]

Their currently talking about war with China and Russia for many reasons one of which is meddling in the elections.

This whole arguments a moot point though. Democrats have already pushed to include women in selective service. The defense bill they included it in passes every year and it’s going to happen now. I just wanted everyone’s opinion before it’s pushed.

[nevernevernever]

question: do you think people with physical handicaps or over 42 years of age should be allowed to vote?

[VanillaSalt]

Did they sign up for selective service? Are they willing to fight when it comes here to home? If so 100% yes.

[nevernevernever]

they aren't allowed to sign up for selective service, and everyone is willing to fight for your literal life if it comes down to it. Your argument was that women aren't drafted, therefore no rights. Well men over the age of 42 aren't allowed to even join the military, and neither are people with severe physical handicaps. So only physically healthy men between the ages of 18-42 have rights.

[Screamsgutter]

Men over 42 have already signed up for it and fulfilled their obligation to the country. Disabled people will sign up and if they're called they will be given exemption on the grounds of being disabled. But at least they signed up.

[VanillaSalt]

Yep. During the window they were available. Women were not.

[rainbowbi]

it is so disappointing to me that it has to be asked and even some guys vote no.
yes we should. we shouldn't we?

[VanillaSalt]

Honestly I don’t think so. I don’t think anyone should be allowed to vote without always being a part of some kind of investment into this country. Selective service is the bare minimum. And it’s wrong that women are excluded from it. I don’t even like the draft. To think I might have to fight to defend a people and country that hate me. That’s a difficult pill to swallow. I’m outside selective services range but if the enemies come to these shores I’m ready to serve for the dozen or so people in this country that I care about. To hell with selective service I serve by choice.

[rainbowbi]

why*

[Screamsgutter]

Because women have no skin in the draft game. They could vote for a total warmonger fully knowing it won't be them and other women getting drafted if it's reinstated and naturally some men have a problem with that. Kind of a conflict of interests. Or a lack of interests.

[VanillaSalt]

Besides that voting is a privilege. Privilege comes with responsibilities.

[SaoirseS]

This is a pointless argument, made mostly by men who are opposed to women in the military, especially in combat roles.

[VanillaSalt]

I do oppose women in combat roles. I do disagree with the draft as well. But… if we will allow women to serve. If we will have the draft. Then shouldn’t it be equally applied? Should women have special metrics separate from men in the military? We’re moving from a merit based system to a system of equality. So let’s be equal.

[SaoirseS]

Have you ever served in the military?

[VanillaSalt]

Served no. Sign up for selective service yes. I tried but in the 90s it was a thing to for doctors to find all kids mentally disabled making me unqualified.

[SaoirseS]

Still a pointless argument. The only requirements for voting (in federal elections) are to be 18 years of age or older and be a citizen. How one can be against something that hasn't existed since the early 1970s is beyond me. You're talking about a list of men that costs $24-30 Million to maintain, and a lot of talk about doing away with the Selective Service System altogether anyway - especially since willingness or even the ability to convene draft boards to implement a draft just isn't there anymore. So put women on the list, I don't care, it doesn't apply to me anyway. I don't know any women who object to registering for Selective Service. The nation has been able to satisfy manning the force through volunteers and, when needed, activate and deploy Reserve and Guard components since the draft ended. Might want to look at the women's suffrage movement, and the impact women's service in World War I changed the dynamic and attitude toward women's right to vote. Just like the age eligibility for the draft played a significant role in lowering the voting age to 18. Might want to also look around in your emergency services - there are quite a few women serving as police officers, as crime scene technicians, emergency medical techs, and even fire rescue and engine companies.

[Screamsgutter]

What does any of that last part have to do serving your country - quite a few women serving as police officers, as crime scene technicians, emergency medical techs, and even fire rescue and engine companies - and with lowered physical requirements.

[SaoirseS]

See original post.

[Astarlessnightsky]

Every citizen has one vote. Nothing more and nothing less.

[VanillaSalt]

Not all people defend it equality though. A bare minimum should be met.

[Astarlessnightsky]

What is there to defend?
If you are a citizen you get one vote in the election. (with some minor rules like a minimum age)

[Screamsgutter]

But women got their vote with no obligation attached. Men had obligations attached with theirs. Possible mandatory military duty if it came to it. That's the whole point.

[StunningANDbrave]

People that are willing to die on the front lines should have the right to vote.

[tartaarsaus]

Service towards your community is an archaic and nonsensical condition on right to have a choice about how the nation should lead itself. So yes

[OddBeMe]

Voting has been a right for white men. Apparently a privilege for everyone else.

[VanillaSalt]

Oh shut up you old race baiter.

[JesseJayNeak]

Yes but should have true equality too and such as selective service and working dangerous jobs

[Anonymous]

No, They are way to volatile and emotional. they have gotten us into the current state of division in the US

[tartaarsaus]

Should I remind you you guys elected a volatild, screaming orange in the form of Trump?

[Opinion Owner]

@tartaarsaus Regardless of a Europeans opinion about my president his policies were great. Biden is a fucking mess

[tartaarsaus]

@anon

Lol so now emotional outbursts are excused because of “great policy”. So why should women be banned from voting again?

[VanillaSalt]

Lol I’m staying out of this one.

[Anonymous]

"man who models his look on steven segal makes stupid post for attention"

[Anonymous]

Each member of society gets to vote, to my mind.

[VanillaSalt]

But every member of society don’t have to fight to defend that society and right?

[Opinion Owner]

If you mean direct military intervention by private members of that society, I don't subscribe to that. We have professional soldiers and organisations to fight on our behalf and for which we pay for in our taxes.

[Screamsgutter]

But when and if the time comes when those professional soldiers and organizations aren't enough to curb the tide of war, what happens then?

[moviedude714]

Absolutely they deserve that right

[Still-alive]

Yes.

looks like you got an agenda here hmmm

[Likethesky]

Give the country back to native Americans

[VanillaSalt]

Haven’t we already done that to Oklahoma?

[888theGreat]

i would rather they vote than drive.

[Anonymous]

Yes without question

[VanillaSalt]

Even without serving your community?

[Opinion Owner]

Birthing kids isn't serving a community?

[VanillaSalt]

Not anymore. Fewer women are birthing, more women are aborting, and more single mothers rely on government taxes to cover their kids and become a drain rather than a boon.

[VanillaSalt]

In many cases abortion is paid with taxes as well.

[Opinion Owner]

Less men are In the military than before what's your point

[VanillaSalt]

But the military are majority by fat men to the point 95% of combat deaths are men. If men were not in the military we wouldn’t have one of women weren’t we’d still be well above 70% capability.

[Opinion Owner]

Births are by women 100% of the time

[VanillaSalt]

So if women can’t vote they would stop having babies? Again single motherhood’s become a burger for the system. The rate of births down and the rate of abortion way up… how can you consider childbearing serving when it’s a popular opinion of women that is bad and fighting against it is a good thing.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes or no,100% of births a from women?

[Opinion Owner]

And as of right now what percentage of humanity came from female births?

[VanillaSalt]

Yes 100% of births involve women AND men.

Is it not true yes or no that men have for centuries protected and provided for women giving them the chance to be here today?

[Opinion Owner]

True, same men who wouldn't be here without a uterus and the person attached to said uterus

[Opinion Owner]

Almost like thats equality and to be equal means a vote in who runs a country

[VanillaSalt]

You don’t need our protection anymore though right? You don’t need us to provide. Your independent?

What I hear all the time from women’s rights activists is the opposite of what your saying.

Let’s be very clear though. You don’t have kids FOR your government is for you because you want them. That’s different then serving in the military.

One last thing. Selective service isn’t an option but you having children is. You keep comparing apples to oranges.

[Opinion Owner]

It's ok I've won

[Screamsgutter]

You won nothing. Just the typical mandatory military service/optional childbirth argument that is no less absurd now than the first time it came up.