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).
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.
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.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2165732/Holly-Willoughby-Betraying-women-going-barefaced-Says-Liz-Jones-says-real-feminists-trowel-make-up.html
@ 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?
Well, she does write for the Daily Mail, which is essentially a troll in newspaper form.
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.
What about calling them Victorias? Queen Victoria was rabidly anti-suffrage, whilst simultaneously being in charge of England.
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.
What about widows? Are widows allowed to vote?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
The owls are not what they seem.
(Twin Peaks reference)
The Owlys are now what they seem?
Major Briggs = Owly
Speaking of which, the best scene I know of in Twin Peaks:
Oh, and the misogyny/racism was bad and stuff
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.
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.
Scratch a bit deeper into her model and we’ll probably find only certain men can vote, too.
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.
Call them Maggies, after Margaret Thatcher. First female PM, claimed she owed nothing to women’s lib. Breathtaking.
I don’t think Maggie was nearly obsessed enough with the evilness of women having sex.
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
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.