As election day draws ever nearer ā at least for those of us here in the States ā I thought Iād devote a couple of posts to some of those who think that half of us should be prevented from casting our votes this November. I think you can probably guess which half.
The strangest thing to me about those who still think that Womenās Suffrage was a bad idea ā aside from the fact that they exist at all ā is that some of them are women.
Consider the strange case of Ann Barnhardt.
A right-wing blogger and the Ā founder of a now-shuttered commodities brokerage, Barnhardt has very strong opinions about a lot of things, including Presidential politics, and is not shy about sharing them. Indeed, when she went all Galt and shut down Barnhardt Capital Management last year, she declared:
I will not, under any circumstance, consider reforming and re-opening Barnhardt Capital Management, or any other iteration of a brokerage business, until Barack Obama has been removed from office AND the government of the United States has been sufficiently reformed and repopulated so as to engender my total and complete confidence in the government, its adherence to and enforcement of the rule of law, and in its competent and just regulatory oversight of any commodities markets that may reform.
(For the rest of her explanation, see here.)
Despite her strong political convictions, Barnhardt also believes, apparently with equal conviction, that she should not be able to express her opinions through the ballot box.
In a couple of posts she calls āPermanently Disqualified From Everything,ā she presents her case against Womenās Suffrage.
Do you know when things really started to go ā literally ā to hell in this country? When women were given the right to vote seperate and apart from their husbands. What a flipping disaster. This is when the war against marriage and the family began in earnest ā and it has taken less than 100 years for both institutions to be almost completely destroyed. And it all started with the damn suffrage.
Just a quick note: When most people say āliterallyā they donāt literally mean āliterally.ā When Barnhardt uses the word, she means it. She thinks Suffrage is literally pushing our country closer to H-E-doublehockeysticks. You know, THE Hell, with the heat and the fire and the brimstone and Satan and all of that. More on this in a moment.
In the meantime, she explains just what is so awful about women having the right to vote:
Hereās the deal. Up until womenās suffrage, a man was the head of his marriage and his household, and his vote represented not just himself but his entire family, including his wife and his children. When men voted, they were conscious of the fact that they were voting not just for themselves and their own personal interests, but they were also charged with the responsibility of discerning and making the ultimate decision about what was in the best interests of their entire family. Wow. Isnāt that nuts? Men being . . . responsible?
Boy, life must have been idyllic back when women couldnāt vote and men were proper patriarchs.
As soon as the 19th amendment was passed, men were effectively castrated, and in many, many cases disenfranchised by their wives.
Hey, at least she didnāt say āliterally castrated.ā
No longer was the man the head of the household. No longer was he responsible for his wife. Now the wife was a āco-husbandā at best, or a flat-out adversary at worst. The notion of a man making the final decision about what was best for his wife and family per his God-given vocation as husband and father was now over. Now all he was good for was bringing home the bacon ā but even that wouldnāt last.
If men canāt lord it over women, they have no value except as providers of money?
Oh, but sheās just getting started with the God stuff. See who makes an appearance in this next bit. Could it be ā¦ Satan?
Women are made with a healthy, innate desire to be provided for and protected. ā¦
Satan has used this healthy feminine dynamic, perverted by suffrage, to systematically replace men with the government as the providers in society.
Apparently Barnhardt thinks that sheās the only woman who works.
A woman no longer has any need of a man. Marriage no longer serves any practical purpose. A woman can whore around and have as many fatherless children as she pleases, and Pimp Daddy Government will always be there to provide.
ā¦ a tiny amount of money to keep the kids from literally going hungry.
Men have learned well from this, too. Men can also slut it up to their heartās content knowing that the government will take care of their āwomenā and raise their children for them.
You know, itās entirely possible for men, women and others to āslut it upā without any babies being produced at all. (Email me for details.)
I believe that the 19th amendment actually DISenfranchised more people than it enfranchised. Many, many married couples quickly found themselves voting against one another. The man would tend to vote for the more conservative platform, and the woman would vote for the more socialist platform. When this happened, the effective result was the nullification of BOTH individualsā votes.
Disagreement is not the same as disenfranchisement. Using Barnhardt’s logic, you could argue that in most elections the overwhelming majority of votes ācancel each other out,ā and thus are ānullifiedā in this fashion. Indeed, following the logic to its natural conclusion, the only elections in which most votes ācountā would be elections in totalitarian countries in which the dude in charge gets 99% of the vote. Most of us are glad when our vote cancels out the vote of someone whose views we abhor.
What this did was massively reduce the voting influence of the married household, and magnify the voting influence of the unmarried ā and the unmarried tend to be younger, and thus more stupid, and thus vote for big government. It was all part of the plan, kids. All part of the plan.
āThe plan?ā How can a conspiracy theory that makes no damn sense in the first place have been someoneās devious plan nearly a century ago?
I would give up my vote in a HEARTBEAT if it meant that right-ordered marriage, family and sexuality was restored to our culture. I would rather that my little female namesakes grow up in a world where they did not have the right to vote, but were treated with dignity and respect, were addressed as āmaāamā, had doors held for them, and wherein men stood up when they entered the room. ā¦ Oh, HELL yes. Iāll give up my vote in exchange for that any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Why wouldnāt you?
Because thatās a ridiculous imaginary choice? I too would happily give up my vote if the world were suddenly transformed to match my political and social fantasies. Heck, I would give up all my future wages if someone gave me a bazillion dollars right now. Iād give up my 14-year-old TV for a gigantic new flatscreen HDTV.
But thatās not how the world works. So Iām hanging on to my vote for now, and would encourage everyone else to hang on to theirs as well. Except maybe Ann Barnhardt, who doesnāt seem to appreciate hers.
For no good reason, here’s a great old song by Paul McCartney that mentions suffragettes (though, frankly, the lyrics don’t make much sense at all).
Men are supposed to be in charge because they’re the “strong” ones–but men are so weak that their balls drop off if a woman votes? Ooooh, such strength.
So Ann here demands that Obama be removed from office, but she wants no say in elections. Yeah, perfect way to get your views out there, Ann. Besides pissing and moaning that is.
Thank god someone this dumb stopped dealing with other people’s money. Jesus Christ.
Like Serena Joy, I imagine she’ll be furious if she’s ever taken at her word.
This calls for a Good Guy Lucifer.
From an Australian perspective, the huge joke is that nobody is forcing any American women to vote if they don’t want to. (Not that our voting is compulsory in any true sense: getting your name ticked off the list is all that’s required to avoid the fine. Nobody hangs over your shoulder to make sure you fill in the papers correctly.) So WTF is this misogynist loser whining about? You don’t want to vote, Madam, then don’t. But you don’t get to tell all the other millions of American women they can’t. That would be holding power over them, wouldn’t it? And that would be WRONG because after all you’ve only got a ladybrain and shouldn’t hold power over anyone, even your own life.
This dignity and respect presumably means I’d get married off at the age of 18 to the first guy who asks so I wont starve on the streets, have to put up with any and all shit he puts me through, have no choice in lifestyle, location, education, sexual activity…
Oh, but I get to be called ma’am and have men stand up when I enter the room, that makes everything so much better! [/sarcasm]
I suggest that Anne put her vote where her rhetoric is. Nothing is preventing her from abstaining from voting.
She should refuse to vote until her fantasies of the pre 19th amendment U.S. come true! And wish real, real hard.
Wait, two rather large logic fails (aside from the whole thing):
-If men voted in a way that represented their household, then why would women be voting for different parties?
-Also, the whole young voter thing- it can’t see how this could ever be true. Allowing women to vote would double the number of married voters, and roughly double the number of unmarried voters, keeping the ratio of married to unmarried voters about the EXACT SAME.
I think what she means is it reduced the voting influence of men (to the point where it was roughly even with women, which was kind of the idea.
If things were so great when only men could vote, why did slavery exist?
Oh, you just have to check out her blog http://barnhardt.biz/
Here’s a preview:
Watch out for those hip-hop rape mobs……
If things were so great when only men could vote, why did slavery exist?
Slaves sometimes got raped by their masters, so you should be considering slavery awesome and hilarious.
So if I vote Candidate X and my husband votes Candidate Y, my vote cancels out his vote and he totally loses any voice he might have had in government. But if my husband’s brother votes Candidate X and my husband votes Candidate Y, both of them have had an equal (and equally effective) say in the electoral process.
…I’m certainly glad Ms. Barnhardt won’t be handling my money any time soon….
That’s not so much a dogwhistle as it is a giant megaphone with an attached PA system.
Gotta watch out for those hip-hop mobs.
DAMMIT YOUTUBE I HATE YOU
Bigots have such a gift with words, don’t they?
I mean, it’s like a bad Christmas sweater-type gift, where it’s awful and you wish it didn’t exist, but unfortunately it does. š
(Also, hint: if you have to use bizarre euphemisms to make what you’re saying ‘more palatable’ to your audience, then maybe you should consider that what you’re saying is pretty abhorrent.)
Strange, none of my American mates owns a gun … not one of ’em. And y’know, I don’t think any of them qualifies as whiny females, or are scared of rape mobs (hip-hop or any other musical variation).
Argh, singular and plural mess.
I wonder if she knows, in some small, dim corner of her mind, that only a tiny fraction of women in the past were actually treated with “dignity and respect…had doors held for them…[had men stand] up when they entered the room”.
Or if she is really that clueless about history.
And she’s a complete racist to boot. My lack of surprise, let me show you it.
“To ask the question is to know the answer”. – Confucius or Mark Twain or Yogi Berra or somebody.
Its days like this that I wish I had a ray gun which sent people back in time when shot. All those asswipes whining about wishing it was the 1800s again, I’d be more than happy to oblige.
Just what I was going to say, Alex. Where women had dignity and respect … except all the women who didn’t. I mean, things like (and I know this is English, but the attitude still applies) the Contagious Diseases Acts of the 1860s, whereby a woman just suspected of being a prostitute – and being alone on the street could be enough for that – could be forced to endure internal examination and imprisonment in a lock hospital. Yeah, it was such a great time for women.
@Alex
First rule of the Golden Age conservatives: they want to return to a time when men were men, women were beaten, gay people were imprisoned, black people were hung, and poor children were forced to work down the coal mines… except they ignore all the bits about women, gay people, black people, non-gender-conforming men, and poor people (and any other groups I may have forgotten), and proclaim it awesome and that everyone was super-happy.
Second rule of the Golden Age conservatives: when this is pointed out to them, then the poor/gay/black/female/etc. people ‘deserved it’.
Third rule of the Golden Age conservatives: they are shitheads.