Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women facepalm ladies against women misogyny oppressed men patriarchy woman's suffrage

Ann Barnhardt, contemporary anti-suffragette: “As soon as the 19th amendment was passed, men were effectively castrated, and in many, many cases disenfranchised by their wives.”

Birth of a suffragette

As election day draws ever nearer ā€“ at least for those of us here in the States ā€“ I thought Iā€™d 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 Womenā€™s 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 ā€œPermanently Disqualified From Everything,ā€ she presents her case against Womenā€™s 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 ā€œliterallyā€ they donā€™t literally mean ā€œliterally.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:

Hereā€™s the deal. Up until womenā€™s 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. Isnā€™t that nuts? Men being . . . responsible?

Boy, life must have been idyllic back when women couldnā€™t 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 didnā€™t say ā€œliterally 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 ā€œco-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 wouldnā€™t last.

None for me, thanks!

If men canā€™t lord it over women, they have no value except as providers of money?

Oh, but sheā€™s 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 sheā€™s 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 heartā€™s content knowing that the government will take care of their ā€œwomenā€ and raise their children for them.

You know, itā€™s entirely possible for men, women and others to ā€œslut 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 ā€œcancel each other out,ā€ and thus are ā€œnullifiedā€ in this fashion. Indeed, following the logic to its natural conclusion, the only elections in which most votes ā€œcountā€ 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.

ā€œThe plan?ā€ How can a conspiracy theory that makes no damn sense in the first place have been someoneā€™s 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 ā€œmaā€™amā€, had doors held for them, and wherein men stood up when they entered the room. ā€¦ Oh, HELL yes. Iā€™ll give up my vote in exchange for that any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Why wouldnā€™t you?

Because thatā€™s 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. Iā€™d give up my 14-year-old TV for a gigantic new flatscreen HDTV.

But thatā€™s not how the world works. So Iā€™m hanging on to my vote for now, and would encourage everyone else to hang on to theirs as well. Except maybe Ann Barnhardt, who doesnā€™t 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).

268 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
iconacct
iconacct
12 years ago

Iā€™m surprised there isnā€™t at least a few studies on this. I mean, such selective information acquisition has to be due to a fairly serious psycho-neurological condition.
*serious face ruined by eyerolling*

Iris Vander Pluym
12 years ago

“right-ordered marriage, family and sexuality”

What is up with this conservative compulsion to impose a rigid, hierarchical “order” on everything (literally!), where none need exist?

iconacct
iconacct
12 years ago

*aren’t
(my first post is in mod, for some reason, so this may show up before the post where I made the typo…if it does, please assume I have a time machine that allows me to post corrections before I make the error, because that’s way cooler)

Alex
12 years ago

Oops, changed my name by mistake and got put on mod.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

What is up with this conservative compulsion to impose a rigid, hierarchical ā€œorderā€ on everything (literally!), where none need exist?

But that’s what small gubmint is all about!

Iris Vander Pluym
12 years ago

@ Creative Writing Student:
women were beaten, gay people were imprisoned, black people were hung, and poor children were forced to work down the coal minesā€¦

Jeez. You act like that’s a bad thing or something.

You are a terrible conservative. TERRIBLE!

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
12 years ago

But thatā€™s what small gubmint is all about!

Freedom is when you don’t have to do what the government tells you, just what I tell you.

Creative Writing Student
Creative Writing Student
12 years ago

Freedom is when you donā€™t have to do what the government tells you, just what I tell you.

Nah, freedom is where you have to do what the government tells you if you’re not like me, but I can do whatever I want and keep all my money.

leftwingfox
12 years 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.

Yeah, and if I stopped eating pork I could get into heaven.

But heaven is a lie and bacon is tasty.

katz
12 years ago

Hey, Alex, have I seen you on DeviantArt? Because if I haven’t, then that means there are at least two Alexes in the universe.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

Nah, freedom is where you have to do what the government tells you if youā€™re not like me, but I can do whatever I want and keep all my money.

Aaaand we have a winner! Conservative politics in a nutshell.

Alex
12 years ago

Katz, nope, not me.
And please, give me a moment to console myself. I thought I was unique, the first of this name.

lisakansas
12 years ago

I donā€™t understand why this woman is speaking out in a public forum about public policy nor why she is making statements about the conditions under which she would be willing to disenfranchise herself.

If sheā€™s married, her husband should be speaking and voting for her, as any other behavior by a married woman results in the increasing destruction of Western civilization and the strengthening of socialism in America. If she isnā€™t married, then she is too young and stupid to be allowed any say in the government. And trying to implement conditions under which she should get to vote or not vote..? There canā€™t be conditions, the female instinct towards being provided for and protected flatly cannot be overridden by logical reasoning or abstract considerations of governing philosophy or morality.

ā€¦itā€™s pretty hard to take seriously advice that states that the advice-giver not only lacks the ability to make reliable decisions on the topic but that any decision she makes actively destroys the happiness and prosperity of all her people. šŸ™‚

katz
12 years ago

Dammit, Other Alex! WHY DO YOU DOOOOO THIS TOOOO USSSSSSS

chocomintlipwax
12 years ago

Hiphop rape mob? Sounds like a swell idea for a band name.

Except, maybe not the rape bit. That seems a little too extreme.

I know! Change it to “grape” and make it a claymation thing like the California Raisins! I loved those guys.

(I don’t have anything to say about the OP except that I like voting.)

Hannah
Hannah
12 years ago

If suffrage means women will vote contradictory to their husbands, then his vote wasn’t in her “interests” in the damn first place.

captainbathrobe
captainbathrobe
12 years ago

I would gladly give up my right to vote if right wingers would agree thenceforth to communicate only by means of farts and tap dancing. I think it’d be worth it.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

if right wingers would agree thenceforth to communicate only by means of farts and tap dancing

… I’m confused, isn’t that what they do already?

Okay, maybe not the tap dancing.

Unimaginative
12 years ago

black people were hung

Things are hung. People are hanged.

/pedantry

Unimaginative
12 years ago

@lisakansas: Right? All these conservative women who spout misogynistic bullshit make my brain ache, but they’re like the perfect example of what I despise about the modern north american conservative.

“Only I may speak. Only my opinions matter. Everyone who disagrees with me needs to be forcibly silenced.”

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
12 years ago

I feel like we need a specific, viscerally descriptive word for this category of conservative woman who makes a very publiccareer out of telling other women that it’s evil to speak in public and have careers. “Hypocrite” works, obviously, but there are so many of them that I feel like they need their own, very special term.

fembot
12 years ago

This woman has a lot of common with NWO, especially when she starts talking about “the plan.”

Unimaginative
12 years ago

It really seems like there ought to be such a word. “Hypocrite” is grossly over-used and willfully misapplied far too often, so it won’t do. I can’t think of anything (so far) that isn’t itself a misogynistic slur. I almost want to suggest using the name of someone famous for such ass-hattery, but Schlafly is too awkward, and Coulter is too fraught. It needs to be someone contemptible, but amusingly so.

embyrr922
embyrr922
12 years ago

The best name I can come up with (which really isn’t that good) is Conflakes. Conservative speshul-snoflakes. Cuntservative, while catchy, is right out. I don’t want to be called a cunt, so I’m not going to call anyone else that either. Naming things is hard.

Also, hi, I’m new and you guys and gals seem awesome. šŸ™‚

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
12 years ago

I can think of a few Brits who qualify, but Americans might not know who they were, and they tend not to be as explicit about the back to the kitchen with you stuff.