[an error occurred while processing this directive]
The Eternal Silence of a Unique Group of Rarely Mentioned Men
posted by Matt on 11:17 AM May 25th, 2005
The Draft Anonymous User writes "In a few more days Memorial Day will be upon us, and here is information you'll seldom, if ever, find in any college women's studies, gender studies, or even "His"tory class. "Historically, it is men who almost exclusively make up the millions who’ve been “asked” to die for their country, and in that group of millions is a select group of men seldom mentioned. Sadly, that group of Americans (all male) from a recent time in our history, were asked to make the supreme sacrifice for their country (and did so) without having ever been granted the sacred right of voting in their own country (America).'"

Feminist witch-hunt in the Labour Party | "Runaway Bride" Faces Charges  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
speaking of the draft (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 08:00 PM May 25th, 2005 EST (#1)
this article was written by a gentlemen from California. He speaks of how young men from Cal. were drafted during Viet Nam while not having the right to vote.
    I would just like to add that speaking of California, the director of the Selective Service System for that state has mandated that at least one seat on every 5 member draft board must be reserved for a female. You guys know what I'm talking about, those persons that are not male and do not have to even register for the draft.

      Pete in Nebraska


Same difference (Score:1)
by Gang-banged on 08:22 PM May 25th, 2005 EST (#2)
(User #1714 Info)
Here in the UK we are repeatedly bombarded with how the Suffragettes and the Suffragists fought to obtain the Vote for women. This being granted in 1918.

What is constantly overlooked is that men only got the Vote in . . 1918 !

Prior to the above, only property owning people possessed the vote. Translated, this mean that the overwhelming majority of men who died during WWI did not have any right to vote (which was some patriarchial society).
Re:Same difference (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 08:37 AM May 26th, 2005 EST (#3)
Sort of. In the UK in 1918 all men over the age of 21 got the vote. At the same time all women over the age of 30 got the vote along with women over 21 who were householders or married to householders (Married). Most women I would say.

In 1928 all women over the age of 21 got the vote.

What seems to be missing from any feminist inspired historical timeline is that it took over another 40 years (1969) before all people got the vote over the age of 18.

In that time I would hazard a guess there were hundreds of thousands of young men between the age of 18 and 21 who were forcefully drafted through physical or psychological bullying (White feather campaign) to take up arms and die for their country.

It has been said many a time that women were granted the vote for their war effort. Kind of sick to think then that young men (18 to 21) who sacrificed their lives were never rewarded until 1969 and never had the option to vote out a government who were using them a canon fodder.
 
Re:Same difference (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 12:57 PM May 26th, 2005 EST (#4)
"Kind of sick to think then that young men (18 to 21) who sacrificed their lives were never rewarded until 1969 and never had the option to vote out a government who were using them a canon fodder."

I only researched the U.S. for the article, and now I hear some very illuminating info regarding men who served in wars in G.B., without ever having the right to vote.

It kind of makes me wonder how many "Privileged Patriarchs," worldwide, have been ordered to war, or ordered to their deaths, without having voting rights.

Given the fog of poor documentation of this "his"tory, especially the further back we go, we will never know all.

Ray Blumhorst
Re:Same difference (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 02:07 PM May 26th, 2005 EST (#5)
I helped to write this Ray http://www.cooltools4men.com/TheVote.htm

Perhaps if other people in their respective native countries could do the same with a small bit of research regarding votes and drafting and pooled the information we could well and truly pull the rug from under the feminist pedestal.

Germany for a start eh?

Julian Abbott
Re:Same difference (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 06:56 PM May 26th, 2005 EST (#6)
"Perhaps if other people in their respective native countries could do the same with a small bit of research regarding votes and drafting and pooled the information we could well and truly pull the rug from under the feminist pedestal.

Germany for a start eh?"


Germany would be a good place to start as they almost completely wiped out an entire generation of men (twice) in the last century. Last century, Russia disproportionately lost enormous numbers of men to war as well, but how do you compile historical denial of rights (voting or otherwise) in that country?

It's all rather ironic when you think that Amnesty International now concerns itself so much with the human rights violations of women in war, and it is still the common man who, world wide, is most targeted (violated) by war.

Re:Same difference (Score:1)
by Gang-banged on 08:54 PM May 26th, 2005 EST (#7)
(User #1714 Info)
Hi Ray,

The fog is going to get ever thicker . .as "His"tory is gradually rewritten as "Her"story by the feminist stranglehold on college campus.

You may or may not be aware . . the Vote was handed out in the UK in 1918 as a sought of palliative . . as German, Austrian, Russian, royal houses fell (and others virtually nullified). . that and the widespread strikes of soldiers and civilians during the War.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]