NationStates Jolt Archive

In a report on MSN about women gaining freedoms and rights in Kuwait:

"Although Kuwaiti women have reached high positions in oil, education and the diplomatic corps, the country’s 1962 election law limited political rights to men."

Now how the heck can you hold what are essentially political positions but have no political rights?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7875111/

and this from the same story:

"Previously, the vote was restricted to men over 21 who were not members of the police force or military — about 139,000 registered voters."

So they punish people for being in the military or police over there.

Bias, perhaps?

Perhaps they ban police and the military from voting because these are people who use force on bahalf of the government? They have such a small voting pool.

Perhaps they want to run their country in the way they want?

Perhaps they want to run their country in the way they want?
Yeah but we're trying to make sense of it.

It makes sense a dictator doesn't want a democracy in his country. We've made sense of that.

Read that again, women have achieved high positions in the diplomatic corps. true, but until the new law they have been prohibited from voting or holding elected office. Diplomats are appointed, not elected.
My take on the police and military thing is you probably forfeit your voting rights by joining those forces, they probably see it as a way of seperating the military from the government completely. In an area of the world that is full of military dictatorships and a long history of military coups, that's probably not a bad thing.

Comedy 'we should have let the iraqis liberate them' option.

wait, did they get rid of the restriction of voting to males born in the country before 1920 and their descendents over 21 years of age yet?

*runs off to check the internet*

oh, i see they let men who were naturalized more than 30 years ago vote too now.


it's not that they are punishing the military or police in particular. they barely let anyone vote at all. 139,000 is like 10% of the adult population

Comedy 'we should have let the iraqis liberate them' option.

well, iraq did have elections under saddam that were just as legitimate as those the kuwaitis have under their crazy system.

well, iraq did have elections under saddam that were just as legitimate as those the kuwaitis have under their crazy system.

Wait, did Saddam let women vote? I thought he did but I'm not actually sure. He could have been the one to finally allow women to have their token sham vote in Kuwait :(

Wait, did Saddam let women vote? I thought he did but I'm not actually sure. He could have been the one to finally allow women to have their token sham vote in Kuwait :(

i'm fairly sure he did. when you are holding sham elections anyway, why bother restricting suffrage? getting 100% of the vote is good, but getting 100% of twice the vote is even better.

Now how the heck can you hold what are essentially political positions but have no political rights?

Cuz Kuwait is a Monarchy?

The right of women to vote has only existed for 85 years in the US. By comparison, it has existed for 112 years in New Zealand. Why did the US take two and a half decades to catch up with the system of New Zealand? The US actually took longer to give women the right to vote than about a dozen other countries. Different countries advance in different areas at different rates. There is nothing wrong with that.

The right of women to vote has only existed for 85 years in the US. By comparison, it has existed for 112 years in New Zealand. Why did the US take two and a half decades to catch up with the system of New Zealand? The US actually took longer to give women the right to vote than about a dozen other countries. Different countries advance in different areas at different rates. There is nothing wrong with that.
Interesting:
September 19, 1893 Women get right to vote in New Zealand
But the US states first gave women the vote in 1869. US women first voted in Wyoming and from there it spread from state to state. So the US beat New Zealand by 24 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_suffrage

For a minute there I thought we were both beat by Sweden (1862) but in 1776 the state of New Jersey, part of the original United States, was the first government in world history to give women the vote. Though it was repealed in 1807 for some reason.

The second to give women the vote was Pitcairn Island. And that was in 1838. Way before New Zealand I must say. ;)

Interesting:
September 19, 1893 Women get right to vote in New Zealand
But the US states first gave women the vote in 1869. US women first voted in Wyoming and from there it spread from state to state. So the US beat New Zealand by 24 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_suffrage

For a minute there I thought we were both beat by Sweden (1862) but in 1776 the state of New Jersey, part of the original United States, was the first government in world history to give women the vote. Though it was repealed in 1807 for some reason.

The second to give women the vote was Pitcairn Island. And that was in 1838. Way before New Zealand I must say. ;)

I was only reffering to universal suffrage, not decisions by individual states. It would be much too difficult to research every electoral district in the world to find out when they started allowing women to vote. As a country, the US only implemented suffrage in 1920 with the 19th Amendment. Behind about a dozen other countries. There is a good article about this in the lateset issue of Diversity, Inc. You may want to check it out if you are interested in this topic.

As a side note, you should never trust wikipedia. Any idiot with an internet connection can write an article on wikipedia and needs to provide no evidence that what they are saying is true whatsoever. You could go write an article on there that is completely wrong right now if you felt like it. To make matters worse, disputes are decided by majority vote with no attention to the fact that the majority of people are not experts. The opinion of a historian and a high school dropout are given the same weight in editorial matters on wikipedia. You should never rely on it for serious research.

I was only reffering to universal suffrage, not decisions by individual states. It would be much too difficult to research every electoral district in the world to find out when they started allowing women to vote. As a country, the US only implemented suffrage in 1920 with the 19th Amendment. Behind about a dozen other countries. There is a good article about this in the lateset issue of Diversity, Inc. You may want to check it out if you are interested in this topic.

As a side note, you should never trust wikipedia. Any idiot with an internet connection can write an article on wikipedia and needs to provide no evidence that what they are saying is true whatsoever. You could go write an article on there that is completely wrong right now if you felt like it. To make matters worse, disputes are decided by majority vote with no attention to the fact that the majority of people are not experts. The opinion of a historian and a high school dropout are given the same weight in editorial matters on wikipedia. You should never rely on it for serious research.

Nice that you pointed that out. Got me to google for more timelines. I enjoy looking for timelines. Its one of my hobbies in fact.

According to this site it wasn't just New Jersey that gave women the right to vote in 1776. Apparently women throughout the US had it, but lost it by 1787. Women in NJ would lose theirs 1807.
Very odd, first you give people the right to vote, then you take it away from them. What the heck was the point of that?
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/suffrage/index.html

Another odd fact of US history and government. According to this site, the 14th amendment defines citizens as people who male. Women are excluded from citizenship yet they can vote. Am I the only one that sees a potential future problem with this. Where is that Cat Tribe fellow at?

According to this site, women were allowed to run for political office in the US as early as 1788.
http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/suffrage.htm



That first site is wrong. The 14th doesn't confine citizenship to only males. Had to go back and check cause it dont' make sense to let non citizens vote.
Actual text of 14th:

"Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "
But it does say that if you commit a crime your right to vote can be stripped from you.

According to this site it wasn't just New Jersey that gave women the right to vote in 1776. Apparently women throughout the US had it, but lost it by 1787. Women in NJ would lose theirs 1807.
Very odd, first you give people the right to vote, then you take it away from them. What the heck was the point of that?

it was the revolution, man. and in revolutionary circumstances things move rather quickly, and almost never to the liking of the former elites. by 1787 the counter-revolutionary forces had gained enough strength to recreate a central government. they certainly were strong enough to step away from allowing just anybody to have a say in the running of things.

Even if women cant be elected into political office in Kuwait, its still leap years ahead of our dear "ally" Saudi Arabia, who still regularly perform femal circumcisions.

Barbarians.

Even if women cant be elected into political office in Kuwait, its still leap years ahead of our dear "ally" Saudi Arabia, who still regularly perform femal circumcisions.

Barbarians.
butchers is more like it.

it was the revolution, man. and in revolutionary circumstances things move rather quickly, and almost never to the liking of the former elites. by 1787 the counter-revolutionary forces had gained enough strength to recreate a central government. they certainly were strong enough to step away from allowing just anybody to have a say in the running of things.
but it was taken away state by state. It wasn't taken away by the federal govt. It was taken by the state govts.

Even if women cant be elected into political office in Kuwait, its still leap years ahead of our dear "ally" Saudi Arabia, who still regularly perform femal circumcisions.

Barbarians.

The government does not perform female circumcisions. Some individuals who live there do so, but it is by no means a government policy or a universal practice in Saudi Arabia.

but it was taken away state by state. It wasn't taken away by the federal govt. It was taken by the state govts.

yeah, and? the point is that it was all part of the reactionary counter-revolution that sprang up in opposition to many of the achievements of the revolution. nothing in that requires them to only operate through the federal government.

yeah, and? the point is that it was all part of the reactionary counter-revolution that sprang up in opposition to many of the achievements of the revolution. nothing in that requires them to only operate through the federal government.
unlike France, there we didn't have organized reactionary elements in the US.

So they punish people for being in the military or police over there.

Well... policemen and soldiers are supposed to be loyal to the law and the country itself, and not to favour a specific government. They are also supposed to obey orders without question - like "vote for me". Viewed as such, it actually makes sense (not that I know if that's the reason).

Well... policemen and soldiers are supposed to be loyal to the law and the country itself, and not to favour a specific government. They are also supposed to obey orders without question - like "vote for me". Viewed as such, it actually makes sense (not that I know if that's the reason).
In the US soldiers and police are allowed to vote like everyone else. Cause you can't discriminate against people on the basis of occupation. Though, the dems tried to take away soldiers' voting rights in 2000. When they were saying that convicted felons had a right to vote by US soldier's didn't. Heh, now we know that the US Constitution says that criminals don't have a right to vote. But US soldiers do.

Though, the dems tried to take away soldiers' voting rights in 2000.

why even bother lying about things like this? doesn't it just make you feel silly?