Well it doesn't really matter if you can vote in a country where you have no rights, your vote doesn't matter, your property can be taken away from you at any time etc. etc., so yeah, I'm gonna limit it to the Western countries or really any country that could be considered 1st world.

It looks to me like the countries you've listed were removing voting restrictions around the same time as giving women voting privileges, or simply passing a universal suffrage law, which is great. The point I was making was that in the US, it's worth noting that while we had the women's suffrage movement, we still had, and have, voting requirements on the men in this country, while women were screaming about being oppressed. So it wasn't even really a cry for universal suffrage, just women's suffrage, as the male vote still came, and comes, with a requirement.

[–]GalenLambert6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The idea that the only countries in history with human rights are western is absurd...

That wasn't what you said though. You said:

"There has never been universal suffrage in any country".

That's just wrong. Many countries have, and have had, universal suffrage. You can't say that there has never been universal suffrage in any country and counter with "yeah but there isn't in this country".

If your argument is that all universal suffrage is just from the women's suffrage movements, I would point you to Canada (my country). Canada had women's suffrage by 1940, but didn't have universal suffrage until 1960.

You're making unclear arguments, and the point you claim to have been making is entirely absent from the first post I replied to, but I feel its fair to say that many countries have and have had universal suffrage.

[–]Arakin-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I just discussed Canada with someone else, and I just clarified to 1st world countries in my previous post, so if you could please just have a civil discourse without trying to let this devolve into some ridiculous argument I'd like that.

The point I was trying to make when I said that was that if you have universal suffrage, but they don't count your votes, throw you out into the street, the prime minister goes over his term limits, the government takes your land and throws you into jail with due process, is it really worth saying you have universal suffrage? It's kind of like saying you have universal healthcare in a country that doesn't even have antibiotics. So, yeah, I'm not about WINNING this argument, so just accept what I meant and let's move on.

I don't know what you mean by

all universal suffrage is just from the women's suffrage movements,

My point I was making, at least about the US, was that men never had a free vote when women did not, and still do not. I brought other countries into the mess as evidence that universal suffrage is a recent thing. Citizens having the vote for nothing is a modern thing, and I was relating it to the women's suffrage/Feminist movement in this country, because women were screaming about not having the vote, but were not about to put up anything to get it. The vote was always, and I say always as a generalization, contingent upon something, and it's only in very recent modern times that people were given the vote for nothing. That's the point I was trying to make.

So yeah, you can say that many countries have and have had universal suffrage, but over the course of history the idea of universal suffrage is very new, and I would like to know what country or countries, in the civilized world, had men's suffrage contingent on nothing, that denied women the same right for any real length of time.

[–]GalenLambert3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well judging from your other thread, you just acknowledged that Canada has universal suffrage, and had men's suffrage free of any requirements for a significant period of time prior to women's suffrage.

If by western you meant countries with civil rights you should have clarified that many non-western countries have significant civil rights (Mongolia, Brazil, Belize).

That may have been your point, but that wasn't what I was arguing. I disagree with your post that universal suffrage hasnt ever existed. It has existed. It does exist. Just because it doesn't exist in your particular country does not mean you can say that it has never existed. That was the part with which I had a problem. Women in some areas are able to say that their inability to vote was a product of pure oppression. That may not be the case in your country, but to claim it was the case in "any country" is just clearly wrong.

[–]Arakin-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are we arguing just to argue here? The Canadian said this to me

I would point you to Canada (my country). Canada had women's suffrage by 1940, but didn't have universal suffrage until 1960.

I don't know the details, but how does him saying that make it seem that men had voting free of requirements for a period of time before women?

I said about 100 times which country type I was referring to and why. If you want to argue semantic details I don't care to. Universal suffrage exists in places now yes, but it is a modern thing. Consider how long we have had societies and consider how long we've had universal suffrage as a percentage of that time. It's very slim.

Women in certain areas can say their inability to vote was pure oppression, but men and ethic groups and racial groups can say that in places as well. Right now, men have more restrictions on their ability to vote than women in the US. It's not about picking out a minor example here or a minor example there, it's about proportion, scale, and which countries we're talking about and for how long.

As I said several times in this thread, I'm bringing this all back to the women's suffrage/Feminist movement in the US, where women wanted the right to vote and wanted it for free, when men do not even have the right to vote for free in this country, and women were acting as though they did. This is my point. The right to vote has "always" been contingent upon something, so to say as a general statement that men have always had the right to vote and women have been oppressed by their lack there of, is disingenuous, and that's the point I was trying to make. It's a fair point if you'll let me make it and stop arguing my old posts that I've already clarified with you. I'm trying hard to be civil here and just have a discussion.

The idea that a civilized country has universal suffrage is new. It is disingenuous to say that men have had the vote without requirement for a long period of time and women have been denied it for simple sexism. The vote has 'always' been contingent upon something when the vote was available, and the idea of giving it to people for free is obviously STILL under contention, as its clear in the US and other countries. I take issue with the stance that people assume men have always have the vote and women have always been denied, when it's more like men who fit the following criteria or were required to do the following things had the 'right' to vote, and women did not have the right, because they were simultaneously not required to take part in the things the men were required to take part in in order to get the vote, and the idea of UNIVERSAL suffrage without requirement is new in the scope of human history and civilized countries.

[–]GalenLambert3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Right now, men have more restrictions on their ability to vote than women in the US.

This is where we're disagreeing. You're making this an american-centric conversation. I disagree with your use of the words "any country" in your previous post. If you go back and read my first reply you will see that is all I argued. You're making this a different argument. You should have said "The US has never had universal suffrage", not "There has never been universal suffrage in any country". That is the argument.

What you are doing is expanding your argument in order to make yourself correct. You've went from a view of "universal suffrage has never existed in any country" to "Universal suffrage has never existed in a meaningful way in a western country" to "Universal suffrage has never existed in a meaningful way in a first world country with a good human rights record, and if it has it was the result of woman's suffrage" to "Women get a free vote and men do not in this one country I choose to speak about".

I realize that universal suffrage is not a thing in the US. I've never disagreed with that. I've never disagreed that universal suffrage is a fairly new idea. I've never disagreed with anything except your statement that "There has never been universal suffrage in any country". That is it. That statement is wrong. It has been shown to be wrong. Stop expanding the argument and getting angry, and realize that the statement which I disagree with is an incorrect statement.

[–]Arakin-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GalenLambert2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You gonna back that up with anything? I'm genuinely interested in knowing what Western country had universal suffrage without contingency for any lengthy period of time and wasn't instituted within the last couple decades.

This is what you asked me to prove. Just because you have widened the argument ridiculously to allow your self to soap box does not mean I need to change what I'm discussing. I am not discussing the U.S., your history, human history, or the selective service program. I am discussing the above point. You can not argue that your comments have continued to reflect this point, you've developed it beyond recognition. You're using logical fallacies in order to soap box your opinions, and trying to convince me that you haven't.

I feel very confident that I have established that there is a Western country which allows all citizens to vote without contingency, and has done so for a significant period of time.

[–]Arakin0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GalenLambert1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GalenLambert1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GalenLambert1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GalenLambert1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Synaps43 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zephs2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HollowOnTheOutside3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zephs2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zephs4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zephs1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zephs1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Edgevine2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zephs3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Madlibsluver-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yelirbear25 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cheezehead4lyfe14 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheThinMan34-9 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBadass7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KAWUrban4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ICritMyPants1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Madlibsluver1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cardplay3r1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Madlibsluver1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar13 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]caveman133718 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PatriarchyDrone15 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Qapiojg2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Frank_N_Berry10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Okymyo50 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Whenever there's an argument about drafts, the same thing is always brought up: "but there'll never be a draft". This essentially shuts down the discussion rather than assessing its value. This is especially brought up when it's argued that women should also have to sign up (if the draft isn't abolished in its entirety).

Of course, "it'll never happen, stop whining" is the recurrent counter-argument. Which is why I always like to bring up my extreme hypothetical situation which, according to these people, would have to be okay...

If men are to be drafted and sent off to die in wars, women are to selectively breed in order to make up for the drop in [male] population. They'd be impregnated against their own will. "Hey, it'll never happen, so what's the problem."

It's a pretty shitty scenario nobody would defend, but it's enough to raise questions: why is forcing men to register to die if there's a war apparently okay, but forcing women to have children, in the same situation, a problem? Dying isn't as bad as being a mother? Bodily autonomy is a right for women, but not for men?

The usual fallacies ensue... Special pleading, saying it's an exception; ad hominem, saying I just hate women for suggesting that they should have to sign up for selective services because I'm sentencing them to death in case of a draft (oh the irony); slippery slope and strawmanning with ridiculous arguments, among other things.

[–]phengineer4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Okymyo2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Whenever someone is making a argument that seems poor, your objective isn't to counter-argument their poor arguments (because that'll only be met by other poor arguments): your objective is to show them their argument is wrong, and why it's wrong.

Usually this should be done by questioning the nature of their argument, or questioning the points you see it fails at. In the case of drafts, question why is bodily autonomy a right that belongs solely to women, and question why should men be sentenced to die in wars. If the "men are stronger/more fit to be soldiers/whatever" argument is brought up, then you change your argument: why don't women have to contribute in other ways. The way I mentioned is inhumane, so bringing up "why is it inhumane but sentencing someone to die in a war isn't" generally leaves no logical option other than to question their argument.

You don't need someone to go "oh my god you're right", you just want them to question themselves, and improve. And if they don't question themselves, or stand by their argument, at least you'll know there's nothing else you can do for a poor mind that is incapable of questioning itself.

PS: You should focusing on showing someone why they're wrong rather than shoving your own argument down their throat because that never accomplishes anything. Both people need to have an open dialogue, and if you go into it with the mindset of "my argument is right, I need to enlighten the other person", you'll accomplish nothing. Instead, focus on bringing up the weaknesses of the arguments presented.

[–]jcea_1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Okymyo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jcea_1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LordFishFinger1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stephen1985-5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stephen1985-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stephen19853 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stephen19851 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]neoman44261 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ARedthorn15 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cheezehead4lyfe7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PLANTS13 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shangrila5002 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YodaVinci2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ARedthorn10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes and no. Conscription is worse, because it's active. The Selective Service (aka draft) hasn't been activated in decades, so the current US military is 100% voluntary. That said, a couple of senators are pushing for it, because they think it'll make the nation less interested in war.

Last but not least, the Selective Service does allow a couple loose "outs"- namely, you can refuse front-line service as a conscientious objector, but you still have to serve in some capacity... If you object to fighting, they'll train you as a medic- if you object to being on the war front, they'll train you to repair or manufacture war assets (planes, tanks, whatever), if you object to that, they'll have you push paperwork so they can send the guy who used to do that to the front lines. In the end, they'll find something you don't find objectionable that either helps the war or frees some other poor sod up to go to war, and make you do that.

[–]Nulono4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ARedthorn2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shangrila5001 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]King_Turnip2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zombob2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBadass2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ARedthorn3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ztsmart2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ARedthorn1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Qapiojg1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KingMong1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Edaric1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RockFourFour13 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBadass1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scottcockerman4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Qapiojg1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]preventDefault4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nulono2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBadass3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Qapiojg3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Welcome to the sad truth of America. Despite all the uproar and furor suffragettes raised over how women deserved the universal vote just like men, men still don't have the universal vote even today.

Simply put, men have the conditional right to vote. We have to meet separate requirements before we're allowed to possess that right.

Another fun fact - women had the conditional right to vote before suffragettes came along to demand the universal right to vote. One of the first female voters was during the colonial days - Lydia Taft, who voted in 1756, well over 150 years before women were granted the universal vote in 1920.

Another another fun fact - nowadays, registering for the SS is the only requirement placed on men, but back then, men had stricter conditions on their right to vote. Independent of the issue of women's vote, there were in fact men who were required to fight and die when the president ordered, but not allowed to vote for said president.

A final fascinating thing to look at is the difference between black suffrage and women's suffrage. Women demanded the right to vote unconditionally, full stop. Blacks demanded the right to earn the privilege of voting - namely, the right to join the military and fight alongside other men, prove their love and loyalty to the country, and so earn the vote. And it worked. Public sentiment was swayed, and by 1869, society was ready to pass the 19th Amendment and grant black men the right to vote.

Hindsight is 20/20, but is it any surprise that when suffragettes saw that black men were about to get the vote before white women, they formed a separate group (headed by Susan B. Anthony) to rally against black male enfranchisement? The so-called "Aristocracy of Sex" she so ardently fought against was the idea that people who fight for their country deserve to have a say in who orders them to fight. And so, civil rights were set back sixty years because of their "no, women first" attitude.

[–]daraste1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Woman_Suffrage_Association

The National Association was created in response to a split in the American Equal Rights Association over whether the woman's movement should support the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Its founders, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, opposed the Fifteenth Amendment unless it included the vote for women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Woman_Suffrage_Association

The American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA) was formed in November 1869 in response to a split in the American Equal Rights Association over the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Its founders, who supported the Fifteenth Amendment, included Lucy Stone, Henry Blackwell, and Julia Ward Howe. The AWSA founders were staunch abolitionists, and strongly supported securing the right to vote for the Negro. They believed that the Fifteenth Amendment would be in danger of failing to pass in Congress if it included the vote for women.

Anthony also held the belief that only women could speak about women's issues, and that it was an affront to allow black men the right to vote before white women. Whereas Stone had several prominent men supporting and aiding her movement for women (including her husband) and believed that black equality was the first step towards women's equality. Sadly, after the merger of the two groups, society chose to remember and commemorate Anthony as the true figurehead of equality, and Stone has been forgotten and left to the history books.

[–]daraste2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tragedyfish6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kairah6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]red623 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]beingTOOnosey4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scottcockerman8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]beingTOOnosey3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scottcockerman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatManDontDo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kairah2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scottcockerman2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]stop_stalking_me8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBadass2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rapiertwit5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jcea_3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

People in this thread keep repeating that you are not allowed to vote if you don't apply for SS, this is not exactly true.

Nothing stops you on a federal level from voting, but there is a link between voting and SS

The reason voting for men became universal was due to it being viewed as unconscionable to force citizens to die for their country but not be able to have a say. Afterward the voting age was lowered to 18 as it was viewed as morally wrong that a soldier could die for his country at 18 but not vote.
When the draft was take to the supreme court it was upheld on the basis that it was deemed appropriate that citizens (someone who can vote) should reciprocally be expected to serve their country at need.
Not registering is a felony which in many places will cause you to loose your ability to vote in that state either locally or federally. However few have been prosecuted under this law though it can happen and in many places you will then be unable to vote.

Federal Laws:

https://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm

Registration is the law. A man who fails to register may, if prosecuted and convicted, face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or a prison term of up to five years.

Even if not tried, a man who fails to register with Selective Service before turning age 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed.

See also Men over the age of eligibility to register. See also What Does Selective Service Provide for America.

blue triangle Register Now! - Register online.

STUDENT FINANCIAL AID
Men, born after December 31, 1959, who aren't registered with Selective Service won't qualify for Federal student loans or grant programs. This includes Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), Direct Stafford Loans/Plus Loans, National Direct Student Loans, and College Work Study.

CITIZENSHIP
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) makes registration with Selective Service a condition for U.S. citizenship if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday.

FEDERAL JOB TRAINING
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) offers programs that can train young men seeking vocational employment or enhancing their career. This program is only open to those men who register with Selective Service. Only men born after December 31, 1959, are required to show proof of registration.

FEDERAL JOBS
A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service. Proof of registration is required only for men born after December 31, 1959.

State Laws:

https://www.sss.gov/fsstateleg.htm

State / Commonwealth and Territory Legislation

print this form using Adobe Acrobat Reader Printer Friendly Version Maintaining a high compliance rate is of concern to officials because it means that any future draft instituted by Congress and the President in a national emergency would be fair and equitable. Also, men who fail to register with Selective Service are not eligible for certain programs and benefits that Congress and most states and territorial legislatures and the District of Columbia have linked to registration. They include student loans and grants for college, government jobs, and job training. Additionally, immigrant men residing in the U.S. who failed to register when they were at least 18 years old, but not yet 26 years old, may be denied U.S. citizenship by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Many states and territories have passed legislation that supports the federal Selective Service registration requirement. Generally, these state laws require that a man be registered with Selective Service (or prove he is exempt from the registration requirement) before he can receive state student financial assistance and/or be eligible for state government jobs. Most of the state laws mirror, reinforce, or strengthen two federal laws below:

The Solomon Amendment added Section 12(f) to the Military Selective Service Act in September 1982. Male students who have a requirement to register with Selective Service must satisfy that requirement as an eligibility precondition for receipt of Title 4 federal student financial aid. Title 4 aid includes such need-based programs as Guaranteed Student Loans and Pell Grants. In November 1985, the Thurmond Amendment to the Defense Authorization Act established Title 5, U.S. Code, Section 3328, which requires Selective Service registration (of men who are required to register) as a prerequisite for appointment to most federal jobs. Currently, 31 states and one territory have enacted what is often called “Solomon-like” or “Thurmond-like” legislation linking a man’s eligibility for state-funded higher education benefits or state jobs to the federal Selective Service registration requirement.

Driver’s License Legislation –

Background: In an effort to ensure compliance with federal law among young men, many states and territories, and the District of Columbia, have enacted legislation which links Selective Service registration with the process of applying for a driver’s license, renewal, or state identification card. As a result of such legislation, in May 2002, the state of Delaware, which enacted driver’s license legislation in 2000, became the first state to reach nearly 100 percent registration compliance since Selective Service began compiling this data. In that same year, seven other states increased their compliance rates by 3 percent or more after enacting similar driver’s license legislation.

Description of Typical State Driver’s License Legislation –

These laws are simple and inexpensive to implement. They instruct the state’s Department of Public Safety or Motor Vehicles to include a consent statement on all applications or renewals for driver’s permits, licenses, and I.D. cards. The statement tells the applicant that by submitting the application he is consenting to his registration with the Selective Service System, if so required by Federal law.

NOTE: Females are not required to register with Selective Service under current law. Men age 26 and older are too old to register with Selective Service.

Transmission of applicants’ data to the Selective Service System is accomplished electronically through an existing arrangement each state has with the data sharing system of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVAnet) at no extra cost to the state.

There are two forms of driver’s license legislation:

Optional, where a man, age 18 through age 25, can opt to have his information transferred to Selective Service for registration by checking a box when applying for a state learner’s permit, driver’s license or renewal, or I.D. card.

Thirteen states, two territories, and the District of Columbia have driver’s license legislation which provides for the option to get registered with the Selective Service System.

Automatic, where a man, age 18 through age 25, consents to have his information automatically transferred to Selective Service for registration when he applies for a state learner’s permit, driver’s license or renewal, or I.D. card.

Twenty-seven states and two territories have driver’s license legislation which automatically registers men with the Selective Service System.

NOTE: All driver's license legislations only apply to men under age 26.

Summary of Legislations to Date:

Thirty-one states and one of the four territories have "Solomon-like" and/or "Thurmond-like" legislation linking a man’s eligibility for state-funded higher education benefits or state jobs to his compliance with the federal Selective Service registration requirement.

Forty states, four territories, and the District of Columbia have enacted laws linking a man’s application for a driver’s license, renewal, or I.D. card with his Selective Service registration.

Five states have no legislation supporting registration with the Selective Service System: Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Registration is the LAW. The effect of these supporting laws is twofold. They increase public awareness of the registration requirement and ensure that recipients of public funds are in compliance with federal law.

[–]McFeely_Smackup2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rapiertwit4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]McFeely_Smackup1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lldpell2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ok your question was super neat to me so I looked in to it.

Link to SS FAQ on what happens

Registration is the law. A man who fails to register may, if prosecuted and convicted, face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or a prison term of up to five years.

Even if not tried, a man who fails to register with Selective Service before turning age 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed.

One of the other points is this:

STUDENT FINANCIAL AID

Men, born after December 31, 1959, who aren't registered with Selective Service won't qualify for Federal student loans or grant programs. This includes Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), Direct Stafford Loans/Plus Loans, National Direct Student Loans, and College Work Study.

Which made me think back to our good old friend Title IX

Title IX: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of gender, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

How does title IX not kick in here, especially in regards to the financial aid? This is exclusion based on gender right? I must be missing something.

[–]DoctorSugarbear1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shangrila5003 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Folsomdsf1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Qapiojg1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Paladin3271 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]firmness1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jeannaimard30 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cookieblue214 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anon51544 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]2_Blue_Shoes1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let alone "equal standards". Have you seen the difference in physical requirements between men and women in the armed forces? It's absurd.

Men's physical standards are not what I'd call tough to meet, but the standards for women are just a joke.

You could point out that standards get easier as one moves up in age brackets in the armed services, and my response would be that the armed services need senior members who might have a harder time keeping pace with their younger colleagues and subordinates.

But do the armed services require women as a matter of necessity, and not a matter of ideology?

And surely, if we were to have physical standards that were sex-invariant, those women who remained in the armed services would enjoy a greater deal of respect and dignity, because everyone would know that they're sweating just as much as their male counterparts when it comes time to prove their physical qualifications?

[–]shangrila5005 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatManDontDo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anon51527 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cookieblue27 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nobody200016 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WaffleSports13 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]closetautist2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theodorapalams12 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ARedthorn19 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rapiertwit3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xTR1Cx2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ARedthorn1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theodorapalams2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theodorapalams5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nulono1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]andrejevas1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jska923 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]firmness2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBadass3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]firmness2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBadass2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HoundDogs3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nathan89992 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Folsomdsf2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thesaucysquid69691 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Privilege indeed

Comments

Federal Laws:

State Laws:

Title	Privilege indeed
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	740
Comments	168
Date	December 23, 2014 8:56 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/2q7lbe/privilege-indeed/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/privilege-indeed.1624184 https://theredarchive.com/post/1624184