Should Women be Allowed to Vote?

[LutiChris]

I know this is provocative but i thought it was interesting to bring up. Anyone wish to comment on it?

[Simoneon]

Yes.

Ramond edited this post 03-09-2016 07:51 PM because:

Watch out, it's a paradox!

[A-Man]

By default.

[Bamboori]

just to clarify a little:

conversation with luti (Click to View)

[LutiChris]

Here

[Som1Lse]

1. Suffrage is not related to any military draft
   By that standard I should not be able to vote (even though I am a man), because I have Asperger Syndrome, which was enough to exclude me from the draft. Heck I would say abolish the draft. Suddenly equality for everyone (in that area).
   Saying that as long as women can vote they will never be eligible for the draft makes no sense, after all in the US conscription was established in 1778^[1] and women were first allowed to vote (except for on a state by state basis) in 1920^[2], and in all that time it was still in effect, even though men had 100% the voting power. Blacks were also unable to vote (except for on a state by state basis) until the 15th Amendment in 1870^[2], and the drafts process did not forego whites in "favor" of blacks either.
   
2. Alimony and prohibition
   I was unable to find a lot of information on alimony laws at the time, but I did find this article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/...ny-reform/) which states that at least now it is not a "women's only"-thing.
   On the case of prohibition the 18th Amendment came into effect on the 16th of January 1920^[3], which was 7 months before the 19th Amendment^[4] was approved by Tennessee on the 18th of August 1920. The 18th Amendment was later repealed by the 21st Amendment on the 5th of December, 1933^[5].
   
3. Free healthcare, tuition, birth control, abortions, tampons
   Pedantic nitpick: Bernie Sanders is not a presidential candidate yet. He will only be so if he wins the primary election.
   Secondly, in Denmark where I live we have free healthcare, tuition and abortions, and while I can not personally speak from personal experience with the latter I can say that I personally really like having access to the former two, knowing that I will be able to afford an education even if I run into financial trouble is a great feeling to have, and the same applies to knowing that if I feel ill I can go and see a doctor without first having to check whether I can afford it. Birth control applies to both genders and even abortion provides safety to both genders though the act itself only applies to one. Free tampons might be stretching it though.
   Also I bet taxes are going to be raised before any kind of military defunding would occur. Seriously Denmark's tax revenue is 49% of GDP, whereas the United States' is only 26.9%^[6], and even if military funding was decreased it would probably survive since the US already spends tons of money on its military^[7].
   
4. Radical refugees
   This is where her arguments went completely bonkers. Refugees are not being welcomed into European countries, in fact many countries have closed their borders because of the refugee stream. Denmark just had a vote on whether we should give up more of our sovereignty to the European Union, which would include being unable to leave the Schengen Area (open borders), it did not go through, primarily because many people (myself not included) did want to close our borders. Many refugees are fleeing from radical Islamic regimes such as ISIL, and even if they were radical Islamists, they, unlike women, CANNOT VOTE. They are refugees, not citizens, they currently have no political power. Fearing for radical Islamists having control of Europe's nuclear artillery is completely silly.
   
5. Democracy
   There is a reason why there isn't a minimum IQ score you have to achieve, or a minimum education you need to have or a particular race/gender you need to be in order to be able to vote. The fact of the matter is that "stupid" people are also part of the people, and if you only let "smart" vote you will end up with complex systems that the "stupid" cannot comprehend, which will leave them even further in the dust, and therefore most countries (western at least) restrict only based on age and where to place that restriction is also currently up for debate, but this way we can at least agree that the process is fair, even if we do not agree on the result. Yes, it is design by committee and yes, it comes with all the problems design by committee usually does but it is still the least bad thing we've got.
   

   Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.^[8]

tl;dr: Yes.

[Gespenst]

I say, depends on what woman is voting

[A-Man]

A war isn't the only way a president can screw up, and even if a war is to wage, women will likely get affected by it as well. Not allowing women to vote would mean they should also be relieved from any responsibilities regarding the outcome of what's polled for. That can't happen. Sometimes I wonder if voting is really a privilege.

[MangaD]

No one should be allowed to vote. Democracy is a phony where the real winner is money. Money influences political propaganda, social communication, education, etc. And in the event that some "unwanted" party wins by some unfathomable reason, political sanctions are applied by foreign countries who do not share the same political views. Then there are bribery and lies in the midst. Instead of questioning the rights of women to vote, the very core of our "democracy" should be questioned instead.

I am not entirely against democracy. Problem is it isn't much different than plutocracy.

---

Regarding the argument about why women shouldn't vote – assuming our democracy functions perfectly well – because of their weak role in the defense of the country; That's basically saying:

"Men defend the country and women do not, so men should be reserved the sole right to make ALL decisions, including those affecting women and other important roles in society, regardless of the country's war status."

This then again means men will have more rights than women, while not necessarily having more duties than them (e.g. peace scenario). In other words, this questions the gender "equality". However, the truth is that men and women are different and suited for different jobs. Different duties, different rights. Though disallowing women to vote in general because of statistical data doesn't seem fair. Ignorance, unemployment, mental illness... there are many factors which differentiate someone's qualification for voting (though probably 99.9% are not qualified), having a d*ck or not should not be one of them, that's just dumb generalization.

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. – Aristotle.

[mfc]

No. Women are inferior creatures and for that reason they don't have rights to live nor vote.