Disclaimer

By accessing this blog, you agree to the following terms:

Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.

Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.

Selective Service: Code for slavery

The purpose of selective service is to provide rich politicians with the power to force middle class and poor (mostly poor) male citizens into military service to support a war the public isn't behind enough to inspire citizens to volunteer for military service.

It's really the last bastion of overt slavery in the U.S. It presumes government command of men, representing the assertion of state ownership of a man's will, his body, and his life, and of the right to sacrifice all three for the state's chosen purpose, whether he agrees or not. With significant penalties resulting from failure to register; imprisonment, limitations on access to programs they're required to fund through taxes, and exclusion from citizenship if they are immigrants. Requirement to register is not like being required to have a license in order to do or have something special. These are not conditions placed on men based on any choice or a trade. These are conditions placed on men merely because of their existence and their sex.

There is no other honest description for coerced registration except slavery. There is no other honest description involuntary military conscription except slavery.  The government essentially owns every man in the United states, and reserves the right to demand any man risk everything to support any conflict into which the government chooses to place him, and if he refuses to submit to that, the government reserves the right to punish him.

In recent conflicts, the U.S. population and the military have demonstrated that even if the draft were justified and not an abuse of power, it isn't needed. Our population has been able to support extensive and widespread military action without it, even without full public support. Even in controversial actions, enough people have enlisted that while our military is active on multiple fronts, there's been no involuntary conscription by the U.S. government.

This is partly due to the existing level of public support for the current efforts. Even though it is not universal, it has been high enough. It's also partly due to the high rate of enrollment in recent decades, so that the military could rely on recalling Individual Ready Reserves.

The reason enrollment and recall have been enough is due to the second factor; advancements in technology and resulting advancements in tactics, which have greatly reduced the rate of injury and death occurring on the American side of a military action. Compare the current actions to the actions of the 20th century, and you'll see a decline in injury and death between the world war eras and today. Because of that, the military isn't having to constantly replenish its ranks to replace large losses (and there's a whole other discussion in that which I won't get into here,) and there is no legitimate excuse to claim a shortage of military personnel in an all volunteer military.

The only reason state officials would have left to want to keep this antiquated, discriminatory and abusive system in place is to retain the power to enslave and exploit men in the event the administration decides to execute military action that isn't so approved and accepted by the population as to draw volunteers. There is no justification for that; only a sense of entitlement which a society has no business tolerating while considering itself modern and civilized... especially when that entitlement is discriminatory. It's really time this ended. It never should have been enacted in the first place.

On a side note, 20th presidential actions on the draft; who did what, and when:
  • 1917 - original Selective Service Act, signed by Woodrow Wilson.
  • 1940 - Burke-Wadsworth Act (first peacetime conscription), signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt
     
  • 1948 - Elston Act (established the current system), signed by Harry Truman
     
  • 1951 - Universal Military Training and Service Act (lowered draft eligibility age by 6 months, increased time of service mandate) signed by Harry Truman
     
  • 1963 - Executive Order 11119 (exempts married men) signed by John F. Kennedy
     
  • 1965 - Executive Order 11241 (revokes exemption for married men if childless/no dependents) signed by Lyndon B. Johnson
     
  • 1967 - Military Selective Service Act (expanded conscription ages to 18-35, modified student deferment to end at age 24 or completion of 4 year degree, whichever first) signed by Lyndon B. Johnson
     
  • 1969 - Amendment to Military Selective Service Act (created the draft lottery used during the Vietnam war) signed by Richard Nixon
     
  • 1971 - Amendment to Military Selective Service Act (made registration compulsory, set up registration classifications - eligible or conscientious objector - and eliminated all student deferments except divinity school, changed draft board membership requirements) signed by Richard Nixon
     
  • 1973 - creation of an all-volunteer armed forces announced by Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird during the presidency of Richard Nixon
     
  • 1975 - Proclamation 4360, Terminating Registration Procedures Under Military Selective Service Act (Eliminated registration requirement) signed by Gerald Ford
     
  • 1980 - Proclamation 4771, Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act (retroactively re-established registration requirement for anyone born on or after 1/1/1960) signed by Jimmy Carter
     
  • 1986 - Executive Order 12553 (eliminated executive orders 11119 and 11241, by Kennedy & Johnson, respectively, along with a long list of other executive orders) signed by Ronald Reagan

Suffragettes can't save feminism

Feminists unable to defend against criticism of their lobbying history often fall back on the suffrage card. To put it simply, feminists claim that the suffragette movement means feminism is responsible for women's ability to exercise the right to vote. They present the voting card framed in the belief that prior to activism by the suffragettes, women were universally denied voting rights which were universally enjoyed by men, or at least men who were not black. It's offered as a get out of criticism free card, as if this one thing redeems the entire movement's history of anti-male rhetoric, unsupported claims, and agitation for discriminatory law and policy. It does not, but even if it did, there's another problem with the belief.

History does not support their position.

Historically, men did not have the universal suffrage that suffragettes demanded for women. Voting rights were tied to all kinds of terms and conditions. Further, there are examples (with more emerging) of women voting before the women's suffrage movement.

One such example is a recently discovered document listing English women voters in an election which took place in 1843, 75 years prior to legislation recognizing women's voting rights in 1918. At that time, suffrage for men was not universal, but limited to the upper classes, with various groups agitating for parliamentary reform throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. The women recorded in the 1843 document would have had to meet the standards met by men. They paid a fee, and it determined how their vote was counted. Note that the article mentions that the high fee paid by Grace Brown gave her 4 votes, where those who paid less got only one vote. These women also enjoyed a privilege denied to men who did not meet legal voting requirements. Adult men who were not heads of households could not vote.

Prior to the formation of the United States, voting in the colonies was largely governed by the same standards used in England. However, contrary to popular belief, women were not universally barred from voting. As with the women in England's 1843 document, American women who voted prior to the 20th century did so under the same terms and conditions faced by men, save for one: Women were not and still are not subject to being drafted into the military in times of war.

One interesting example of early female voters prior to universal male suffrage is the colony of New Jersey, where gender was not a factor in voting rights until the Democratic-Republican party, which eventually became the Democrat party, took the vote away from Jersey women, minorities, non-citizens, and the poor in 1807 over conflict between their party and federalists.

Even after the U.S. became a nation, men's suffrage was not universal. Voting rights continued to evolve throughout the 19th century, with states slowly letting go of property ownership requirements over the course of decades. After the 15th amendment was ratified, recognizing black male citizenship and voting rights, southern states passed "grandfather clauses" to roll back their rights, and used Jim Crow laws and poll taxes to get out of recognizing them until the success of the civil rights movement in the mid 20th century. This allowed wealthy and middle class white women to vote while many poor and minority men and women were kept away from the polls.

In 1876, the supreme court ruled that Native Americans were not citizens as defined by the 14th Amendment, and therefore could not vote. In 1890, they were told they could apply to become naturalized citizens in their own ancestral land. Laws denying citizenship to various Asian immigrants passed in 1882 (the Chinese exception) and 1922 (Japanese immigrants.) In 1919 Native Americans and in 1925 Filipinos were told they could earn citizenship by risking their lives serving in American wars. Various stipulations, including Jim Crow laws and poll taxes, left the majority of the indigenous population of the U.S. and its territories, along with the majority of Asian immigrants, and most minorities, subject to the rule of the American government without representation by officials for (or against) whom they had the right to vote - the same injustice that sparked the Revolutionary war. Asians did not see their voting rights universally recognized until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952. Native Americans' right to vote was not fully recognized until 1957, 37 years after the 19th Amendment recognized women's right to vote... 3 years before the first man walked on the moon. It was not until 8 years after Native Americans were recognized, 5 years after we put a man on the moon, that the Voting Rights Act passed, protecting the right of blacks and other minorities to vote. Upper class white women got the vote in 1920. Impoverished black men and women did not truly get theirs until1965.

Feminists who paint the history of citizen suffrage in starkly gendered terms do so in either ignorance of or contempt for reality. Western civilization's growing pains have not been so clearly defined, nor has the weight of feminism's influence on the evolution of voting rights. It was both separate and tandem fighting by many disenfranchised groups which brought about voting reform in England and the United States, including, but not limited to, women's rights.

The suffragette movement is yet another example of feminists approaching a human problem as if only women are impacted, and only women deserve relief.