Is time for Men to get the right to vote?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If y'ask me we should get about fixing the mistake of allowing women to vote in the first place.

Well you'll have to persuade some women to vote for that. Because even if men all voted for it (IF), that still wouldn't be a majority.

If it's the US you're talking about, it's even harder. 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the State legislatures.

[Vassenor]

The OP says "100 years later, men still do not have the right to vote. That right not a right at all, but a privilege based on signing up with the selective service - putting their name in the hat to be chosen to die. Fortunately, we're not currently using the selective service system, but that could change."

I'm not American so forgive me for my ignorance, but I'm confused as to how the privilege to vote is based on a system that is no longer used. How does that work?

You're letting logic get in the way of the White Male being the most oppressed group in history.

[Heloin]

The OP says "100 years later, men still do not have the right to vote. That right not a right at all, but a privilege based on signing up with the selective service - putting their name in the hat to be chosen to die. Fortunately, we're not currently using the selective service system, but that could change."

I'm not American so forgive me for my ignorance, but I'm confused as to how the privilege to vote is based on a system that is no longer used. How does that work?

Voting should always be considered a right.

[Galloism]

The OP says "100 years later, men still do not have the right to vote. That right not a right at all, but a privilege based on signing up with the selective service - putting their name in the hat to be chosen to die. Fortunately, we're not currently using the selective service system, but that could change."

I'm not American so forgive me for my ignorance, but I'm confused as to how the privilege to vote is based on a system that is no longer used. How does that work?

The system is still used, so I don’t know what you mean.

[Han Scon]

If y'ask me we should get about fixing the mistake of allowing women to vote in the first place.

Well you'll have to persuade some women to vote for that. Because even if men all voted for it (IF), that still wouldn't be a majority.

If it's the US you're talking about, it's even harder. 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the State legislatures.

Sad. I appreciate the kindness, though.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The OP says "100 years later, men still do not have the right to vote. That right not a right at all, but a privilege based on signing up with the selective service - putting their name in the hat to be chosen to die. Fortunately, we're not currently using the selective service system, but that could change."

I'm not American so forgive me for my ignorance, but I'm confused as to how the privilege to vote is based on a system that is no longer used. How does that work?

Signing up for Selective Service is your signature on a contract agreeing to be conscripted. If there is conscription some time in the future.

What's most obscene about it imo, is that you're still a teenager when you get this offer, but it's binding for life. Teenagers don't always make the best life choices do they?

[Mzeusia]

The OP says "100 years later, men still do not have the right to vote. That right not a right at all, but a privilege based on signing up with the selective service - putting their name in the hat to be chosen to die. Fortunately, we're not currently using the selective service system, but that could change."

I'm not American so forgive me for my ignorance, but I'm confused as to how the privilege to vote is based on a system that is no longer used. How does that work?

The system is still used, so I don’t know what you mean.

So it is still used? I thought you said it wasn't. You said in the original post, "Fortunately, we're not currently using the selective service system"

[Galloism]

The OP says "100 years later, men still do not have the right to vote. That right not a right at all, but a privilege based on signing up with the selective service - putting their name in the hat to be chosen to die. Fortunately, we're not currently using the selective service system, but that could change."

I'm not American so forgive me for my ignorance, but I'm confused as to how the privilege to vote is based on a system that is no longer used. How does that work?

You're letting logic get in the way of the White Male being the most oppressed group in history.

Black men are just as oppressed by this as white men, as are Latino men, Asian men...

[Joohan]

No it makes sense. For one, the nation is disproportionately female; two, felons are often disenfranchised, and men are disproportionately felons.

It's not equal, but my proposition was never to make it equal. I desire a much more elite and merit based terms of enfranchisement

Well we don't have much in common there. I'm for widening the voting base as much as possible, including legal residents, felons, and children. I would also pay people to vote.

Moving on. The number of women eligible to vote is larger than the number of men. But the number of women who DO vote is even larger than that. Do you think that's because women feel more sense of duty to their country, or is it because men are less inclined to stand up for their own rights?

I have no idea why women vote more often then men. Maybe profession has something to do with it? I know men typically are more prone to taking work overseas, and though we have means of voting out of the country, some men find it a hassal and don't bother. I really couldn't think for any reason otherwise.

I do think it's a mistake though to spread political power down to every person regardless of intent or competency. The right to vote means having a say not only over your own life, but the lives of 300+ million plus other people. It's a very serious thing, something which should be cherished and given to only those with right most intent - not something passed out on the streets for any and everyone. I want to know the person who is getting a say over how my home is run has a vested interest in it's continued success and prosperity - something i'd prefer not leave up simply to hope.

[Ostroeuropa]

You're not understanding my point. You can't redefine manhood without going after the institutional and legislative practices that enforce it and lobbying to get them changed so that masculinity can be liberated from those constraints. Feminisms failure to do that is a result of their ideological flaws.

What laws makes men not believe a man was raped by a woman?

Dependent on the country, the law literally says as much and claims he wasn't raped and treats it as a separate crime, such as the UK.
In other cases, budget allocations to feminist organizations that spam the idea of rape being a womans issue distort culture.
Then there's the bias in universities and academia on the issue for similar reasons and publication bias.

In the case of the UK, feminist organizations have been consulted for the revised rape law in 1997, 2000, and 2003 where legislation was passed to give them the ammendments they demanded, and finally offered consultation for proposed changes in 2010 and 2015 which was shelved for a future revision (though remains the working draft).

None of the organizations suggested revising the rape law to include female perpetrators and male victims.

That's an example of how feminism in practice has resulted in anti-male institutional sexism. As a result of their monopoly on the discussion and being seen as the arbiters of these issues, their broken framework has routinely failed men. This is made especially egregious by the hostility to mens organizations that note these failures and seek to also be consulted by institutions on these matters in order to prevent them happening. (Recently, as Gallo has previously noted, these same feminist organizations have been consulted on hate crime laws, actively lobbying *against* hate crime legislation for sex, instead demanding hate crime legislation *specifically for misogyny* and rejecting the idea men should be covered by hate crime legislation.).

It's like arguing serfdom isn't the merchant classes fault long after they've taken over economic policy from the nobility and refused to do anything about it. Feminist policy has been applied on these issues. It has failed. You can only blame the "Previous administration" for so long before it becomes non-credible, especially when you're trying to blame them for legislation your era has passed.

[Mzeusia]

The OP says "100 years later, men still do not have the right to vote. That right not a right at all, but a privilege based on signing up with the selective service - putting their name in the hat to be chosen to die. Fortunately, we're not currently using the selective service system, but that could change."

I'm not American so forgive me for my ignorance, but I'm confused as to how the privilege to vote is based on a system that is no longer used. How does that work?

Signing up for Selective Service is your signature on a contract agreeing to be conscripted. If there is conscription some time in the future.

What's most obscene about it imo, is that you're still a teenager when you get this offer, but it's binding for life. Teenagers don't always make the best life choices do they?

Oh, okay. I understand now, and yeah, it does seem dodgy.

[Galloism]

The system is still used, so I don’t know what you mean.

So it is still used? I thought you said it wasn't. You said in the original post, "Fortunately, we're not currently using the selective service system"

Ah. So I mean we’re not currently drafting. I’ll edit.

We still require men to sign up to be chosen to die even though we’re not choosing people right at the moment.

[Mzeusia]

So it is still used? I thought you said it wasn't. You said in the original post, "Fortunately, we're not currently using the selective service system"

Ah. So I mean we’re not currently drafting. I’ll edit.

We still require men to sign up to be chosen to die even though we’re not choosing people right at the moment.

Okay. Thanks. It the vote is really based off of doing that, that's just wrong.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The OP says "100 years later, men still do not have the right to vote. That right not a right at all, but a privilege based on signing up with the selective service - putting their name in the hat to be chosen to die. Fortunately, we're not currently using the selective service system, but that could change."

I'm not American so forgive me for my ignorance, but I'm confused as to how the privilege to vote is based on a system that is no longer used. How does that work?

You're letting logic get in the way of the White Male being the most oppressed group in history.

That's a most unhelpful answer. The poster doesn't know how selective service/conscription works in the US, and is politely asking.

Not a word about White Males being oppressed, in the OP. It's about males in the US being disenfranchised. You should read it.

[Katganistan]

Selective service either needs to be done away with entirely (optimal) or women need to sign up for it as well.

[Dominioan]

Selective service either needs to be done away with entirely (optimal) or women need to sign up for it as well.

Yes.

[Indo-Malaysia]

I hear the republicans have began funding vote suppression groups, and have launched lawsuits saying mail-voting is unconstitutional.

Guess America doesn’t like votes

[Stellar Colonies]

Addressing the strategic concerns of repopulation brought up earlier, you could just have a set acceptable level of physical requirements. On average, more men would satisfy them than women, so more women would be flunked out and return home.

No need to merely focus on men, and you get additional recruits.

Of course, this works equally as well for a volunteer military as for a conscript military, with the former being preferable except for when survival is at risk.

[Galloism]

Addressing the strategic concerns of repopulation brought up earlier, you could just have a set acceptable level of physical requirements. On average, more men would satisfy them than women, so more women would be flunked out and return home.

No need to merely focus on men, and you get additional recruits.

Of course, this works equally as well for a volunteer military as for a conscript military, with the former being preferable except for when survival is at risk.

Honestly the risk of a repopulation crisis is exceptionally low. Even if the bloodiest war in history had been evenly split on gender, the casualties weren’t high enough to cause a repopulation crisis.

[The Two Jerseys]

Nothing says that women have to be conscripted for active service, there's plenty of noncombat jobs they can fill.

Well yeah, there are plenty of civilian roles in the military, I don't think we need a draft for those though - they're usually run by private contractors.

The whole point of the draft is to control manpower availability. That's why the US military stopped accepting volunteers in 1942, they didn't want men employed in critical industries to flood the recruiting office and leave those critical industries shorthanded.

Conscripting women for civilian service would free up those men for military service since the government can now assign female replacement workers for those jobs.

[Joohan]

Addressing the strategic concerns of repopulation brought up earlier, you could just have a set acceptable level of physical requirements. On average, more men would satisfy them than women, so more women would be flunked out and return home.

No need to merely focus on men, and you get additional recruits.

Of course, this works equally as well for a volunteer military as for a conscript military, with the former being preferable except for when survival is at risk.

The ( US ) military does that now. Actually putting a person through the medical examination is time and resource exhausting, and even most men can't meet the current standard. Drafts and conscription are a huge drain on resources as is, and that's just with the male population. Adding to that the female population is another huge drain on resources, with even less viable recruits. It would be better to use the resources that otherwise could have been allocated to a female conscription program to further fund the standing draft program, facilitating male recruits with better facilities, equipment, training programs, etc. Motivated and capable females will volunteer of their own volition.

[Dominioan]

Also, how long can this thread go before someone posts a "feminists during the draft" meme?

[Thepeopl]

US is a strang country...

In the Netherlands you are allowed to vote when you are 18 years or older. Even if you are in prison.
You'll have to vote by proxy, but you can vote.
No gender disparities.

Yeah but the dutch are weird. Maybe it's the natural rivalry between cowboy boots and clogs though...

Well, I do love cowboy boots. You can't ride a horse with clogs.

Small addition: to vote you do have to have a social security number (bsn) and you have to be registered as Dutch.
(Everyone born in the Netherlands and declared to the municipal government, receives a bsn)

[Knask]

US is a strang country...

In the Netherlands you are allowed to vote when you are 18 years or older.

It's very different from the US, where you are allowed to vote when you are 18 years or older.

[Galloism]

US is a strang country...

In the Netherlands you are allowed to vote when you are 18 years or older.

It's very different from the US, where you are allowed to vote when you are 18 years or older.

*if you are female, or avoid becoming a felon from not signing up to die if male