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.
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).
when you stop lying about being distorted and admit that you just keep restating the same thing over and over and whining when we still find it to be reprehensible bullshit
@Ruby
Neither are the majority of prisoners.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/24/the-facts-about-americas-priso
actually that was unfair. i dont think ruby’s lying. she’s probably presenting these denials in good faith and is honestly just too dumb to realize how feeble they sound
@Ruby
Also, I think katz’ point was, slaveowners felt justified in abusing their slaves because they believed the slaves deserved it, because of sin or constructed notions of savagery and White Supremacy. Similarly to how you think some rapists are justified because the people trapped in the system deserve it.
The sooner we accept that no rapists are justified, the better it will be for everyone.
@sharc
I don’t know, I don’t think there is any amount of thick that could explain why someone repeatedly disagrees with “Maybe it’s not funny that we keep giving rapists new victims to rape.”
I actually was surprised to see her reference giving up her own right to vote there at the end. I’ve been reading “Backlash” by Susan Faludi and she makes the interesting point that a lot of overachieving anti-feminist women don’t tend to see themselves as part of the group “women”. Seems like they tend to see themselves as a necessary “third gender” or something. They refer to women in a distant third-person tense.
Ruby – for what it’s worth, we understand your actual position and find it just as repellent as any strawman. Does that make you feel any better?
Dammit, I thought there would be tons of romance novels starring shepherds, but I can’t find any!
I did, however, find this bizarrely detailed romance novel search engine.
I’m also betting that the babble about correctly oriented family and such is also code for “gay people will magically turn straight.”
I assumed that it meant everyone had to be aligned in a row from tallest to shortest like those little family windshield stickers… No?
You know, I feel truly sorry for people who think like this. It must take an extreme lack of faith in humanity to assume that just because folks aren’t as socially and economically pressured to marry (cis, hetero marriage of course!) they’ll no longer want to marry. Christ on a corndog, what the fuck do these people think the fight for marriage equality is all about? (Spoiler alert, it’s not about making the poor bigots have to deal with knowing gay people exist). Lots of people still get married everyday because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. And it’s not like there aren’t still financial benefits for married couples. Health insurance is a big one I can think of, but there’s tax stuff, custody issues, etc.
Which is not to say that the only moral path is a straight and/or monogamous marriage or that it’s the ONLY ONE TRUE expression of true love, but there are still lots of people out there who want a hetero monogamous marriage without being pressured into one. I mean, TLC has how many shows that involve weddings in some way shape or form now? At least 3 I can think of off the top of my head and I don’t even have cable anymore.
That search engine! Sadly, when I searched for romance novels about extremely violent librarians (male or female), I got nuthin’. Readers interested in shepherds and violent librarians are being terribly under-served. Harumph.
Also, Ruby, even “evil people who committed heinous crimes against their fellow human beings.” don’t deserve someone ELSE committing a heinous crime against them.
By your logic, then someone would have to rape those rapists who raped serial killer inmates and then someone else would have to rape THOSE rapists, and then… etc, etc, etc.
Hmm, actually, I think I’ve just figured out that maybe Ruby’s views on rape are a perverse adaptation of “If you give a mouse a cookie”.
I also ran across this quote:
I hate it when I’m horny and plagued by cattle rustlers!
I didn’t get that far. I tried, I really tried to read the whole thing, but even in short bursts it was making me rage and cry and want to smash things at how stupid and bigoted and just plain stupid my gender could be re: treating women as people. So I had to stop.
…Why is it that always when someone mentioned “cattle rustlers”, I always imagine someone shaking a cow and it making sounds like someone shaking a bag of leaves… Gah. o.o
Katz, I would like to commission you to write the following romance novel:
Dee MacLeod is having a bad time. Not only has her ranch been plagued by mysterious sheep rustlers, but she is constantly sexually aroused, and none of the men in town seem attractive to her. Then Trent Drexler, an extremely violent librarian on the run from the C1A, comes to town. To escape the notice of shadowy government agents, he masquerades as Edorta Loiola, a Basque shepherd. Dee hires him, and he ends the depredations of the sheep rustlers. Are all of Dee’s problems solved? Or are they only beginning? Dee had promised her beloved father on his deathbed that she would never marry a shepherd! She tries desperately to not notice Edorta’s handsome features, extremely soft skin, musky ovine smell, or his incredibly tasty pintxos. Meanwhile, Trent falls madly in love with Dee, but he can’t reveal his true identity without capture. Will these star-crossed lovers every find happiness?
Ack! ^ without risking capture. ^
@cloudiah:
I would get drunk and read the HELL out of that! Or, better, read it aloud as a drinking game with friends.
BTW, “pintxos” is the Basque word for tapas. I wouldn’t want anyone to think this book was smutty. 😉
ROFLMAO! But I am unequal to the task!
Also, Doctor Who episode idea: Violence in the Library.
Let’s Kill Moffat. “Rory, put Moffat in the cupboard – AND TAKE AWAY HIS PENS!”
I just put this post up on Reddit, if anyone wants to lend it an upvote or two:
http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/duplicates/zekoz/ann_barnhardt_contemporary_antisuffragette_as/
They just don’t like people like me. Never have, never will.
Trent Drexler sighed and took a slow drag of his cigarette, extremely violently, and stared at the locked door of the Extremely Violent Library with a sense of extremely violent finality. Since the corrupt city council, working in collaboration with the CIA had driven out the School of Hard Knocks and its steady influx of extremely violent bibliophiles, the shelves gathered dust rather than blood and the books occupying them becoming steadily both less read (from not being borrowed or browsed) and less red (from not being bled on). The message was clear: you were free to be who are in America, but not if you were an extremely violent librarian. Never again would Trent ever lock that door extremely violently; the wrecking crew came tomorrow.
Trent turned away extremely violently and adjusted the hem of his newly purchased moleskin jeans to sit properly over the tabs of his elastic-sided work boots with two short but extremely violent tugs at the knee area. These items of clothing were unfamiliar to the former extremely violent librarian, now only an extremely violent fugitive, but this disguise was his necessary: Trent Drexler, extremely violent librarian-cum-fugitive, would move as a last desperate (and extremely violent) measure to the rural Australian town of Warrangoomada and pose as a Basque shepherd, but, unlike most Basque shepherds, would actually be an handsome, well-muscled, and extremely violent librarian on the run from justice, not a permanently happy-looking blonde dog.
Trent could faintly and extremely violently see his face a blood-splashed sliver of glass peeking out of the mostly boarded-up windows, but the face he extremely violently saw was not his. The eyes he looked into, peering from behind the dangling corks attached to the brim of a wide black beret, were those of Edorta Loiola, Basque-Australian trainee shepherd with a keen amateur interest but no professional experience in library management and information science and a penchant for extreme violence. He extremely violently saw the corners of Edorta’s mouth turn up into the slightest hint of a smile for the possibilities the future held extremely violently.
I want this to be shared everywhere, because women are constantly told that we’re exaggerating or lying about street harassment. Massive trigger warning for this post by a woman who just wanted to read her fucking book on the fucking train:
http://unwinona.tumblr.com/post/30861660109/i-debated-whether-or-not-to-share-this-story
Dee McLeod looked out the window of her homestead at the rolling plains of Warrangoomada. Pretty, she thought, but I swear there used to be more sheep out there. Dee wasn’t quite sure why the townsfolk of Warrangoomada spent as much time as they did stealing her sheep and as little as they did having sex with her, extremely sexually aroused as she was. Even the strong arms and tall pole of the Hills Hoist in her front garden reminded her achingly of the masculine virility she craved.
Most of the town were unsuited to her, she admitted to herself. No McLeod girl would ever think of fucking before two rings were on her left hand, and she’d promised her father she’d never ever marry a shepherd. She was unclear as to whether her future husband would ever be allowed to help out with the sheep, or if that would count as cheating, but that issue didn’t weigh on her anywhere near as heavily as her state of sexual arousal or her annoyance at her sheep being once again rustled.
What I could do with right now, Dee thought as she spread Vegemite lazily on the sandwich she was preparing while staring out the window thinking about sheep, men, and the symbolism of washing lines, is someone ruggedly handsome and extremely violent.