Should women have the vote?
Every time talk about universal suffrage comes up, there seem to be a few people against it. So I'd like to have a rough idea on how many are for women voting vs. those against it.
Yes | 51 | |
Not sure | 0 | |
No | 9 |
Ask Your Question today
Every time talk about universal suffrage comes up, there seem to be a few people against it. So I'd like to have a rough idea on how many are for women voting vs. those against it.
Yes | 51 | |
Not sure | 0 | |
No | 9 |
I'm just asking as to why people think women should or shouldn't have the vote. Most people don't have a clear answer to it.
Because political decisions also affect women it just seems that they should have a say in their lives and futures.
Umm .. because women are just as capable as men at deciding how the country is run ..
If I were against women voting outright I would've said it right off the bat in my post. I'm just questioning why we hold some of the things we hold, knowing that women having the vote isn't how we started off.
Those on the 'yes' did an overall good job arguing for it here. I'd also like to hear the reasons and motives of those who voted no.
Your post is asking if we think they deserve a right or not. Women fought for years trying to earn this right. Now you are questioning that without any real reason given why. Which would indicate you either don't respect or don't like women having equal right to men. Which I'd like to assume is for some backwards outdated mindset and reasoning. However I'll give you a chance to prove your case. Why do you believe women don't deserve equal rights OP?
If you want to put words and positions in my mouth, go ahead. Questioning is not the same as wanting to deny something. You're trying to disallow room for fence-sitting, but I'm not budging. Questioning why women got equal rights is one part of a whole me analyzing this whole change of the last centuries.
By the way, stop bringing this "they fought hard" "died" arguments, because it doesn't mean anything for me, nor for the people who doesn't embrace that cause. You want to fight and die for a cause, go ahead, you won't be given a cookie for it, it's YOUR cause, not other people's. You can do heroin for it, blow up stuff in the name of Allah for it, hang yourself, wear sandals, it doesn't move or sway me one iota what you do with yourself for your cause.
And you want me to add another layer to that? These women -- whoever died for the vote, if any -- died for nothing! Exactly! You think if they didn't do all that bullshit, women today still wouldn't be having the vote? Highly unlikely, given every single country in the world gave their women the vote, roughly around the same era. And see, those tides of public sentiments, that's what I'm trying to analyze these days by looking at history. And you're not gonna tell me that women died, or even fought, in every single country to have it. Which suggest that it would've happened either way, which suggests they died for nothing. So they're suckers basically; they paid for something they could've had for free. Yeah, let's respect that!
People usually "fight" when the tide is already turning in their favor. You think women and those battle-ax viragoes would've done that in the 19th when they couldn't even divorce their husbands? Hell no. But with industrialization, people and society became a little more liberal, there was the flapper phenomenon and all that, and they just rode that wave.
Same with blacks and homosexuals after that. Stonewall, all that stuff, that didn't happen in the 50s for a reason. No, it happened AFTER a few first states started decriminalizing sodomy, and the hippie sentiment was gaining steam and so on. And the decriminalization went on anyway in the coming decades, with or without the riots, and in every single Western country.
Likewise, the black riots didn't break out BEFORE the Civil Rights. It was after they got equal rights, and considerable public support outside of the South. After that, they wouldn't stop rioting until Nixon came along and threatened a heavy-handed response on the motherfuckers destroying property, which was some of the reason he was voted in. You'd think all that "fighting" would've taken place before the civil rights, but it didn't. Before that, almost all of the rioting was done by whites, funnily enough.
So you want me to respect that fighting and dying? Fuck no. That's because people are pieces of shit, they'll yell for more and start hitting as soon as they get some, but not before.
Yeah, those 9/11 hijackers sure died for their cause! Say what you will about them but they had conviction and massive balls. Yeah, let's respect them because of that, and give them some more rights or anything other heavy bombing on their villages!
Are you serious? Only backward, undeveloped countries deny women voting privileges.
You mean like most industrialized Western countries no earlier than a century ago?
Yes, a century ago Western countries were backward. But they managed to get their heads out of their collective asses and see that women that voted was a good thing. But there are still a number of countries where women are chattel and that a 9 year old girl makes a great bride. Go Figure, huh.
Yeah, since "backwards" is synonymous with "old fashioned", and industrialized Western countries of a century ago seem old-fashioned from our perspective.
Well, yes, compared to today's norms, it was. I mean, a century ago, we had a crime called sodomy and it could earn you a life sentence in some states. If someone came forward today and proposed those who engage in anal sex be locked up for life, half the people would be horrified. Then again, that's pretty much what Roy Moore espouses, so I guess it never completely went away.
But yeah, societies change. I get that. And when peace and prosperity prevail, said societies tend to become more liberal and less rigidly patriarchal, for better or worse.
With that said, it's always good to question why we do or don't do certain things, instead of blindly chalking it up to "social progress" or "the wheel of history" or some such catchy notions.
Should women have the right to vote?
Why shouldn't they?
Their just as human and intelligent as a man is.
We're all people here, to think one sex is above the other is a falicy.
Yes, because the laws apply to women and women pay taxes so it wouldn't be fair to not have the right to have a hand in choosing the people making the laws and spending their money. I'm not saying those are the only reasons, just the two biggest ones in my opinion.
There's more to it than just gender, what does a person stand for, and how well do they carry out their duties. With that said, I think women should be given the same opportunities as men. I don't want to see America go completely to the left or right. America needs a government that actually represents the people, and not these new ideologies that pop up from a select few and get pushed on the rest of us.
I did not vote last time because I can't stand Trump and his ultra right wing stance. And I can't tolerate Hillary because of her far left wing ideologies that she wants forced on the rest of us socially and financially.
Tolerant, accepting societies grant everyone a vote, provided they are of voting age, and not in prison excluded from the outside world.
Backward, fascist societies controlled by bigots (with the exception of the USA currently) do not.
You choose which society agrees with your ideology best.
Well there you have it, we already bar certain categories of people from voting (teenagers, felons), just like we bar certain categories of people from driving (those who don't pass the driving tests).
By the way, even universal suffrage was introduced gradually and sporadically in most countries, for both men and women. First, it was only propertied men (in America propertied + free + white), then taxpaying men, then propertied/taxpaying women, widows, only in municipal elections, etc. depending on jurisdiction. It was never so clear-cut or black and white.
Ofcourse they should be allowed to vote, although it is a bit unfair women got the right to vote and men got the ability to vote for being draftable.
"men got the ability to vote for being draftable."
That's not true, in the US anyway. Voting was generally restricted to white male property owners at first. The first draft didn't even occur until the US civil war, men were voting before that. Older men and men otherwise exempt from service could certainly vote. Men who hired 'stand-ins' (it was allowed to hire a guy to serve for you if you didn't want to) could vote. Wealthy men and men with social status were not generally drafted, but they could vote. Black men could be drafted but did not have the right to vote for quite a while. Native and immigrant men as well. Voter suppression tactics ensured that these men largely still couldn't vote even after laws were passed giving them the right (violence, threats, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc).
The only real link to voting rights and conscription that I know of is when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 amid heavy protest surrounding the Vietnam war.
If you have any sources that back up what you said, I'd like to have a look.
That has been one of the arguments against women voting in previous decades; namely that women can vote for wars they know they'll never be drafted to fight.
If you're trying to ban something, you should be the one providing argument and justification to it. We bar teenagers from voting because they're not mature enough. Many states see disenfranchising felons as an additional social punishment for committing a felony, which I don't agree with. So if you think women shouldn't be given the vote, then you better have convincing reasons for that.
Yes, women are happier if they vote. But, voting is basically a scam. We the 1% buy votes with campaign contributions. Then, the election winner repays us with tax cuts for rich people. Clearly, plebeians fail to realize their own ineptitude.
Rich is correct! Voting is a scam and the system is too over complicated to any good most of the time. However I'll say excluding women specifically based on gender alone sends a strong message women are less.
The top 1% pay nearly half the federal income tax, so you're obviously doing a lousy job at it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html
It's depressing if you put it that way; I'd like to believe that the US is still a democracy, not an oligarchy.
I think there's more to it than what you say, but you've got a point.
So what? I wouldn't change my mind to give you something just because you were foolish enough to die for it.