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 – at least for those of us here in the States – I thought I’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 Women’s Suffrage was a bad idea – aside from the fact that they exist at all – is that some of them are women.

Consider the strange case of Ann Barnhardt.

A right-wing blogger and the  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 “Permanently Disqualified From Everything,” she presents her case against Women’s Suffrage.

Do you know when things really started to go – literally – 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 – 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 “literally” they don’t literally mean “literally.” 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:

Here’s the deal. Up until women’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. Isn’t that nuts? Men being . . . responsible?

Boy, life must have been idyllic back when women couldn’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 didn’t say “literally castrated.”

No longer was the man the head of the household. No longer was he responsible for his wife. Now the wife was a “co-husband” 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 – but even that wouldn’t last.

None for me, thanks!

If men can’t lord it over women, they have no value except as providers of money?

Oh, but she’s just getting started with the God stuff. See who makes an appearance in this next bit. Could it be … Satan?

Women are made with a healthy, innate desire to be provided for and protected. …

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 she’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.

… 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 heart’s content knowing that the government will take care of their “women” and raise their children for them.

You know, it’s entirely possible for men, women and others to “slut it up” 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 individuals’ votes.

Disagreement is not the same as disenfranchisement. Using Barnhardt’s logic, you could argue that in most elections the overwhelming majority of votes “cancel each other out,” and thus are “nullified” in this fashion. Indeed, following the logic to its natural conclusion, the only elections in which most votes “count” 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 – 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.

“The plan?” How can a conspiracy theory that makes no damn sense in the first place have been someone’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 “ma’am”, had doors held for them, and wherein men stood up when they entered the room. … Oh, HELL yes. I’ll give up my vote in exchange for that any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Why wouldn’t you?

Because that’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. I’d give up my 14-year-old TV for a gigantic new flatscreen HDTV.

But that’s not how the world works. So I’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 doesn’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).

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

268 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

I tend to refer to them as Angry Church Ladies, but that does sort of rebound onto perfectly nice religious people in an unfortunate way.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

The category composed of women who claim to be feminists while advocating against everything that feminism has ever stood for is of course knows as The Paglia. And then there’s the making feminism look ridiculous via association with your own stupidity group, which I like to refer to as Jonesing in honor of one of the world’s most irritating columnists.

My feeling is that not wearing make-up is in fact anti-feminist. Women like Holly and Charlotte are saying to the rest of us: I am too busy to wear make-up at home.

I am not vain, or frivolous, I am DEEP. My husband loves me for who I am: naturally gorgeous.

These women are the ultimate playground bullies: they know men hate make-up (my husband used to say I was like a moth, leaving dark smudges on him in my wake), so they pretend they need no help.I think it’s rude to bare your face to the world, although I’m sure an army of super-busy mummies will post comments saying they never wear even a slick of Vaseline on their lips, so adored are they by their husband and children, so packed their lives, so bright their brains.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2165732/Holly-Willoughby-Betraying-women-going-barefaced-Says-Liz-Jones-says-real-feminists-trowel-make-up.html

Anathema
Anathema
9 years ago

@ CassandraSays:

Jesus Christ, “not wearing make-up is anti-feminist,” what the hell did I just read?

I mean, that’s the sort of thing I expect Owly to come out with. How are there people who get paid to write things that have an intellect equivalent to Owly’s?

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

Well, she does write for the Daily Mail, which is essentially a troll in newspaper form.

Scotty Dudebro
9 years ago

What the hell was that? Not wearing make-up is anti-feminist? And not wearing make-up makes me a bully? That whole thing is so… weird.

M Dubz
9 years ago

What about calling them Victorias? Queen Victoria was rabidly anti-suffrage, whilst simultaneously being in charge of England.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

Liz Jones is a very odd person in general. Read the article about how she moved to the country and managed to alienate every single one of her neighbors – she’s almost comically unlikeable. Which of course is why the Mail pays her, to make women look as shallow, stupid, vain, insecure, and nasty as misogynists like the pretend that we all are.

magpie
9 years ago

What about widows? Are widows allowed to vote?

Polliwog
9 years ago

Wow, that is a ridiculous column. It’s one of those where there’s a nugget of a genuine point at the core of it (The pressure on women to not only be perfectly beautiful at all times but to somehow appear to do this without even trying is really frustrating, and pictures of celebrities pulling off the “perfect without even trying” look can sometimes make the rest of us feel pretty rotten!) but then it somehow jumps straight from that reasonable, sympathetic point into MASSIVE PROJECTION LAND, in which there is absolutely no reason why anyone might ever not wear makeup other than to act superior to Liz Jones, personally, because the world apparently revolves around her and her insecurities.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

That’s how most of her columns go. She almost always has a point in there somewhere, but then her narcissism gets the better of her and it gets lost. I suspect that the Daily Mail’s editorial team has very much encouraged that. She wouldn’t be nearly as effective for their purposes if she genuinely had nothing to say.

Dvärghundspossen
9 years ago

From David’s quotes it seems like she thinks that only married people can “cancel out” other married people’s votes, while unmarried people somehow has full voting power… Which is just SO ILLOGICAL IT MAKES MY BRAIN HURT.

Besides, how does this “cancelling out” thing work if you have a parliament with eight different parties in it like we have here? I’m genuinely curious. If I vote for one of the parties in the left-wing block, is my vote only “cancelled out” by another vote for a party of the right-wing block, or is it “cancelled out” by any vote for a different party than the one I vote for? And if I vote for a left-wing party and somebody else votes for a right-wing party, and our parties then strike an unlikely (but possible, it has happened) government alliance, did both our votes count after all?

This is way too complicated… I should just move to Turkmenistan where everybody votes for the president and all votes count.

katz
9 years ago

My husband loves me for who I am: naturally gorgeous.

And…that’s why she…needs to wear makeup?

I am looking at that column from every angle, trying to find one where it makes sense. No luck so far.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

@katz

Actually I meant to ask if any of the bird people here knew when the best time of day would be to see an owl! There’s one in the tree in front of the house of the cat that I thought was a stray for a while. You can hear it making cool owl sounds in the early evening, but Mr C and I were unable to spot it. It would be awesome to actually see it – they’re gorgeous birds.

Noadi
9 years ago

The Owlys are now what they seem?

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
9 years ago

Major Briggs = Owly

Speaking of which, the best scene I know of in Twin Peaks:

Oh, and the misogyny/racism was bad and stuff

dualityheart
dualityheart
9 years ago

Stuff like this always reminds me of the story of “The Little Red Hen”- you have a person (or people) who does all the hard work and then you have a bunch of other people who just lay around and act like they don’t want anything to do with it, but then when it comes to an actual Thing That They Want, they come running with open arms and demanding to have it immediately without acknowledging the hard work of the person who made all that progress in the first place.

People like this Ann lady want to share in the prosperity without having to do any work or make any sacrifices. They want to have their opinions followed like gospel and their feelings to be given the same weight as experts with years of experience and data, yet they don’t want to do any of the work to gain the prestige or the authority to actually put any clout behind those words.

And they seem to think that “head of the household” is automatically male, or that partnerships are for suckers or somesuch bullshit like that.

I mean, sure, in my household, my husband took my last name, I generally am the “final decision maker” when it comes to discussions about money and budgets because I happen to be more skilled and interested in things like this (although my husband is always involved in the process and gets his say), and by all means, I’m the “head” of the household. My husband is great at cooking (something of which he is very passionate and proud) and is almost completely equal (if not a bit more) when it comes to pulling his weight with the chores simply because he’s home during the day while I’m working even though he works nights. But that doesn’t make my husband any less of a vibrant, equal and fully-fledged human being with all the rights, liberties and considerations entailed therein.

I always hate the unspoken words that are implied when people talk about a “superior” Man of the House, a man who is the breadwinner, who is basically a god of the household. Because the unspoken word there is that the woman in the equation is inferior, dehumanized, and any hard work she does is considered expected and unimportant.

Basically, the man is highly visible while the woman is invisible. And any possible change in that status quo pisses these conservative fuckheads right off because the idea that a woman can be a person, that she can be visible and worthy of praise for what she does, to them must automatically mean that the man has lost status, power, and is becoming more invisible because he cannot by default be seen as a god over women.

anathema2
anathema2
9 years ago

What about widows? Are widows allowed to vote?

What about lesbians? Do lesbian couples cancel out each other’s votes as well? Or maybe Ann Barnhardt thinks that lesbians would vote the same way as their partners and it’s only straight women that always vote the opposite way that their partners did out of, I dunno, spite, I guess? As a whole, lesbians aren’t going to have lots of kids they can’t afford because of all the men they had sex with outside of marriage, so they certainly don’t seem to contribute to her women-are-married-to-the-government-because-those-filthy-sluts-are-having-lots-of-kid line of logic.

I’m not sure whether or not widows and lesbians are allowed to vote under her model. And I’m not sure whether Barnhardt knows the answer to that either — I don’t think she’s thought it out that far yet.

Magpie
Magpie
9 years ago

Scratch a bit deeper into her model and we’ll probably find only certain men can vote, too.

Wetherby
Wetherby
9 years ago

I love seeing people’s “WTF?” reaction to discovering Liz Jones’s columns for the first time.

Here‘s an account of her ill-fated attempt at settling in the countryside. It wasn’t a huge success.

The moment she arrived in Dulverton, the metropolitan Daily Mail columnist and former Marie Claire editor, who used to vacuum her backyard when she lived in London, began syndicating her verdict on its residents to the national press. The area, she explained, is “faintly Amish” and inbred. “If men have teeth in the West Country, it’s a bonus,” she said, complaining that shop assistants there “have learning difficulties and have never heard of Illy coffee”. Objectionable neighbours were dismissed as “small- minded”, “bullying and sexist,” and crippled by “insularity, boredom or fear”.

At last weekend’s Dulverton Carnival, a councillor entered a float called “Liz Jones’s Coffee Morning”. He sat alone and paraded through the town in a long black wig, jars of Illy coffee, rats and organic muesli on the table, a big “For Sale” sign at the back. It won first prize.

glove
9 years ago

Call them Maggies, after Margaret Thatcher. First female PM, claimed she owed nothing to women’s lib. Breathtaking.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

I don’t think Maggie was nearly obsessed enough with the evilness of women having sex.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
9 years ago

Okay, I’m joining the “WTF” club here after reading those priceless (or is it worthless?) Liz Jones columns.

As for dissing West Country men … arrr, where the heck does she think pirate accents come from? And has she never seen or heard Phil Harding, world’s sexiest scruffy old archaeologist?

::Looks around in hope of finding other Time Team devotees.::

http://youtu.be/haPVUat1DDU

Katelisa
Katelisa
9 years ago

Time Team! (also known as “Brits Dig Holes” in my household.) I wanted to be an archaeologist when I was a kid, and I think Phil perfectly illustrates why. The immense joy he seems to experience during almost every dig is something everyone should be able to experience in their job.

Also, cool old stuff!

That being said, I kind of like my right to vote, earn my own money (even if I don’t at the moment) and make my own decisions. Ann Barnhardt can stuff it.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
9 years ago

Yayyyy another Time Team fan! I’ve watched it for years, though I’ve given up in wrath and outrage now that Mick’s gone. (I’d swear he’s related to Dumbledore, especially when he wears that little velvet smoking-cap thingy.)

I bought a stripey jumper once ‘cos it reminded me of his. Doesn’t really look anything like them, but still, stripes …

I read once that Phil gets feathers sent to him in the mail by his fans. 😀

ShadetheDruid
ShadetheDruid
9 years ago

Woo, Time Team! Not sure I would count as a “fan” as such, since I don’t go looking to watch the show, but it is fun to watch when I happen across it on tv. Interesting stuff. 😀

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
9 years ago

I love it when they start bickering. They all like each other, as far as I know (Phil and Mick and Tony are mates) but they love taking the piss.

Creative Writing Student
Creative Writing Student
9 years ago

@CassandraSays

I don’t know much about Margaret Thatcher beyond she was an egomaniac old bat who wanted to be Queen, used bad research (Underclass*! Grr!), and managed to mortally offend me even though I wasn’t born when she was in power.**

Also, she’s possessing David Cameron.

* Unfortunately, my parents are separated so I don’t have access to Mum’s sociology books, but IIRC the ‘underclass’ theory was researched by coming up with the theory then looking for people who fit it. Unsurprisingly, they did find people who fit, but ignored why they fitted that theory (’round here, if your family is on benefits then it may be unprofitable to get a job outside of walking distance due to stupidly high bus fares and loss of benefits, for example) or the people who were poor but did not fit the theory.

** British Telecom. Formerly a nationalised company, denationalised during the Thatcher years to ‘encourage competition’. However, BT still had control of the telephone exchanges, creating a de facto monopoly anyway. First, they used this to bully people who transferred from BT by strangling their phone lines – they did that to us, and we have a severely disabled person in the house. They were really unhelpful and refused to listen. In the end we had to transfer back. They did stop pulling that shit eventually and we transferred to Virgin.
Later, we got internet. However, where I live is still connected by copper wires which were owned by – you guessed it! – British Fucking Telecom. BT had this promise that their customers would always have good speed broadband internet. In cable areas this wasn’t a problem. In copper wire areas, they achieved this by strangling/disconnecting internet for non-BT customers (like us. After event #1, we weren’t going to give them any more money.) The government had to pass laws making it so other companies can share the telephone exchanges and that BT couldn’t strangle people’s internet any more. And when I say strangle, I mean download speeds in single-digit kb/s.

Creative Writing Student
Creative Writing Student
9 years ago

Sorry about the rant. I’m in a mood to get angry and ranty, and it gets aimed at anything that even vexes me slightly. Sorry.

In other news: owl sanctuary!

http://p.twimg.com/A2Ao-LTCcAAJGuL.jpg

Magpie
Magpie
9 years ago

Australia sat back and watched Thatcher privatise everything in UK, waited just long enough to see what a disaster it was, and then did *exactly the same thing*

On misogynist women, there is also the “Elaine Award”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_Awards

ShadetheDruid
ShadetheDruid
9 years ago

Hah, Hooty McOwlface. Best name for an owl ever.

Creative Writing Student
Creative Writing Student
9 years ago

What kind of sex does one expect to get in a sheep-sheering shed?!

*honest bafflement*

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
9 years ago

Too true, Magpie. Johnny Howard (pardon me while I puke, I loathe that man) was a real Thatcher-Reagan worshipper, though we were falling for the whole privatisation crap before he got in, of course. (I started work in the Victorian public service in the 80s, and every department I was in got gutted.)

Rutee Katreya
9 years ago

Kind of OT, but the title made me think you were quoting a 19th century woman. I thought you meant contemporary to women’s suffrage, not contemporary to us.

Rutee Katreya
9 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.

You are a piece of shit, lady. You mean you would sacrifice all our votes to go back to some fantasy of universal normality you created that is suffocating to most of us to begin with?

I believe that the 19th amendment actually DISenfranchised more people than it enfranchised

If you’re going to create a fantasy, why not make it a pleasant one? “I believe that everyone gets the cake of their choice in the morning” or something?

men were effectively castrated,

Then why do I have a labrys?

Women are made with a healthy, innate desire to be provided for and protected. …

Statement assumes facts not in evidence.

Satan has used this healthy feminine dynamic, perverted by suffrage, to systematically replace men with the government as the providers in society.

Satan doesn’t exist, so that’d be quite a trick.

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.

So then, as now, people voted with what they thought was their family’s best interests in mind? What a damn shock.

“The plan?” How can a conspiracy theory that makes no damn sense in the first place have been someone’s devious plan nearly a century ago?

Magic?

Magpie
Magpie
9 years ago

Creative writing student – have you ever met a shearer? Strong shoulders and arms, shearer’s singlet, and such soft skin from all the lanolin. You do end up smelling of sheep, though.

Creative Writing Student
Creative Writing Student
9 years ago

@Magpie

I guess that would be nice if you were into those attributes. The soft skin seemes pretty good. 🙂 I personally prefer dhampiric and scrawny nerds with pretty eyes, though.

I don’t think I could have sex in a sheep-shearing shed though. Would be really awkward with all those sheep watching… 😛

Magpie
Magpie
9 years ago

Shearing and ‘ducks on the pond’ brings us back to men standing up when a woman enters the room. It’s not a sign of respect, they stop whatever they are doing or talking about and very obviously do “mixed company” stuff until she leaves, then get back to business. It feels awkward rather than respectful.

Happy
Happy
9 years ago

@ Creative Writing Student

You can pick up Underclass for a few dollars online. It is domestic neo-conservatism at its worst, supported, in parts, by various right wing newspapers. I’ve read it – horrifying.

aworldanonymous
9 years ago

What’s with conservatives lately masking their beliefs in pseudo-communist rhetoric? Like I get the whole neo-con thing with wanting to spread democracy to the world. But still, it seems like these people want to have a soapbox, but aren’t smart enough to find one out behind a grocery store.

Apologies for the steele level analogy, I’m tired and have a cold this morning.

blitzgal
9 years ago

So I looked her up, and found pictures of her with a pink gun and the tagline: “Jihad works both ways.” So she’s a Pamela Geller style anti-Muslim bigot, too. Charming. Interesting, too, that here’s yet another high powered career woman telling women that their proper place is married and at home with their children, something she herself refuses to do.

Naira
Naira
9 years ago

I agree with a previous poster who said that if we scratch the surface of this “only men vote” idea, we’ll find that not all men would be allowed a vote, either.

I’d lay bets that being a part of or even being under suspicion of being part of a “hip-hop rape mob” would get you kicked right off the register. I’m also betting that the babble about correctly oriented family and such is also code for “gay people will magically turn straight.”

What astounds me about this is the absolute self-aggrandizing ego-from-Hell these kinds of pronouncements require. All women have an innate need to be protected? WHAT the FUCK? Wikipedia isn’t that hard to look up…the world population is about 7 billion people. Don’t they realize that speaking for 3.5 billion people is just a little much?

Fitzy
Fitzy
9 years ago

Y’know, I dated a hard core Evangelical boy back in college, and I went to a few services at his church. The subject of male/female relations came up in a couple of sermons, it was made abundantly clear that men were in charge of the family unit. The pastor never touched subjects like women who worked or voting, though. I could read the subtext of his comments, though. In a good, Christian conservative family, the wife would work only if her husband (aka spiritual leader) approved. The man would also set the policy decisions in the house, so a good wife would of course fall in line with her husband’s voting recommendations.

With this in mind, I don’t really understand Barnhardt’s argument. In her male-centric family view, a good man would of course be deciding for whom his wife would vote. She should be in favor of women’s suffrage, since it would double the voting power of a right-thinking family. Where in the past a man only had one vote to cast for his family’s interest, now he could fill out his wife’s ballot for her and have two!

often_partisan
often_partisan
9 years ago

Probably a majority of votes don’t count under First Past The Post electoral system. Hypothetical scenario:
Candidate A: gets 6000 votes
Candidate B gets 4000 votes.

The votes for candidate B do not count. But also, some of teh votes for candidate A do not count. Candidiate A only needs 4000+1 vote to win this election, therefore the “extra” votes for Candidate A don’t count either

Expand this beyond a two party system, in which you only need a plurality to win the seat, and it becomes more obvious that most votes are wasted:

eg. Labour 5000

Conservatives 3000
Lib Dems 2000
Green 1000
BNP 500
UKIP 500
Only 3000+1 votes for Labour actually count in this election, even though more people voted for not-Labour than Labour.

Major Kong
Major Kong
9 years ago

Why do I suspect she fantasizes about picking off hordes of swarthy “hip hop” folks with her rifle?

Dvärghundspossen
9 years ago

On the other hand, if seats in the parliament are distributed more or less proportionally to the number of votes each party gets, most votes count. So if one is worried that people waste their votes, it would be way smarter to argue for that kind of system rather than saying that women shouldn’t vote.

often_partisan
often_partisan
9 years ago

Dvaghundspossen: Ah, but that’s far too logical for an MRA!

ggjenn
ggjenn
9 years ago

Is there a problem with calling women like this Serena Joys? I mean, that seems the best fit to me.

RubyHypatia
RubyHypatia
9 years ago

Katz, slaves weren’t evil people who committed heinous crimes against their fellow human beings.

Why don’t you quit with the strawman bullshit?