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).
Oh yeah, and in the comments at Pharyngula there are people again claiming that she’s making it up — this time because she didn’t call the police! Seriously, some asshole at a party takes a strange woman’s hand and puts it on his naked penis and there are STILL PEOPLE WHO WILL DEFEND HIM over her!! I can’t BELIEVE this shit!
blitzgal, I would beg to be told that that incident did not occur, but I already know that it did, has in the past, and will again in the future. And, without having read the comments, I’ll wager that the creep’s defenders are saying something along the lines of “well, he didn’t know she wasn’t one of the models,” as though that behavior with a model would have been somehow acceptable.
howard: Just looked it up. That is pretty boss. I love the costumes!
Ugh, between the RNC, internet comments and Jen being forced into hiatus, I’ve been in a state of perma-rage all afternoon.
And I just found out there are making-of videos and stuff. And these guys do other things? Must remember to dig more later.
@leftwingfox: here, have this Esquire piece on the First Lady’s speech.
Not a perfect cure for what ails the world, but it helped me for a minute there.
leftwingfox: Here is a bird singing the Addams Family theme song.
Something in Barnhardt’s story doesn’t make sense. To recap: Once upon a time, the world was perfect. Flowers bloomed, pretty rainbows greeted every day, fluffy bunnies frolicked in the lush grass, and lavender clouds brought sweet, delicate rain. Everyone smiled and danced all day long. Well, women and children danced, at any rate, while men worked happily to provide for their adoring families. Men respected women, especially their wives. They called them “ma’am” and opened doors and pulled chairs, and never, ever took advantage of them in any way, shape or form. There was no adultery, and no woman was ever raped who didn’t deserve it. Men knew exactly how to ensure women’s best interests and voted selflessly, solely to better the lives of their families. Women were never enslaved, never exploited, never abandoned to poverty and shame. The fact that women weren’t considered people and had no right to participate in the political process was the very reason why men respected and adored them. Sojourner Truth didn’t exist, either, and she never uttered that “Ain’t I a Woman?” speech.
And then, despite being blissfully happy and not wanting for anything (least of all respect), women just up and invented feminism one day. For no reason whatsoever. Except there had to be a reason, right? I mean, I hate totalitarianism, but it’s idiotic to claim that the Russian Revolution wasn’t triggered by some pretty serious economic inequalities and human rights abuses. So what was the reason for the rise of feminism?
Oh, that’s right: Satan. How convenient.
I know! It’s cause the men respected the women too much and were being all beta and stuff, and the women weren’t satisfied because hypergamy, so they had to invent feminism as the ultimate shit test in order to identify the real alphas and fuck them.
Or something like that.
OT but Manboobz-esque enquiry: I’ve been morbidly fascinated by the PUAs David links to here, but I’ve noticed there is no real equivalent for feminists, or for women. Does anyone know of any blogs/people who give feminist-leaning relationship/dating advice, particularly for LGBT women? I know the patriarchy has a real downer on ladies actually wanting to date and approach potential partners *gasp* but I’d love to read an alternative to rapey PUAs.
@Glove
Captain Awkward, http://captainawkward.com/, is almost shockingly brilliant at relationship advice.
And ewww I just found this —> http://krauserpua.com/2011/07/08/i-try-to-bang-a-lesbian-on-lgbt-pride-day/
is Krauser a well-known PUA?
@Ugh Oh god yeah Captain Awkward is permanently bookmarked on my desktop! Do you know of any similar blogs or is CA one of a kind?
She’s the only one I read, sorry!
he’s been featured here before
http://manboobz.com/2012/08/04/ladies-maintain-your-youthful-glow-by-limiting-your-penis-intake/
Ruby, I know I’m just a meanie lefty feminist, but I’m still pretty sure that this:
Is a pretty valid response to this:
You’ve also been given research that shows that often victims of prison rape are generally NOT in fact people who’ve committed heinous crimes against their fellow human beings. Not that that really excuses your thinking that “some people” don’t deserve human rights. Jesus Jones, even folks who are in favor of corporal punishment I can sort of “get” because even though I think the death penalty is also a rather hypocritical punishment, at least it’s not saying they “deserve” to experience rape.
The thing is, as others have mentioned, a lot of masters thought raping their slaves was A-ok because they didn’t view their slaves as full human beings deserving of a full spectrum of human rights. Sound familiar? Anybody can come up with any justification for raping anyone. Plenty of MRAs can easily come up with plenty of reasons someone like you or me “deserves” to be raped. That doesn’t mean they’re good reasons (or hell, even coherent reasons). You need to divorce yourself from this idea for some people sometimes rape isn’t a big deal. Because as much as you may think it’s only hurting the horrible monsters you think inhabit prisons, apologia like that hurts ALL rape survivors, not just the ones you don’t give a shit about.
See, that’s why I don’t think Thatcher is a good name to use for this phenomenon – she hated and attempted to fuck life up for almost everyone who wasn’t a well-off white conservative, not just women. I’m British and was born in 73 – I remember Thatcher very well indeed.
Not reading the harassment story! I’m just really glad to have aged out of the constant harassment years (10-16 was a nightmare, like running an obstacle course full of creepy aggressive weirdos every time you left the house), and not up for any additional depressing reading today. Although I do think women should talk about it, since so many men pretend it doesn’t happen.
@Amused
“I hate totalitarianism, but it’s idiotic to claim that the Russian Revolution wasn’t triggered by some pretty serious economic inequalities and human rights abuses.”
The Bolshevik revolution had nothing to do with any economic inequalities or human rights abuses. It was a banker financed take over of Russia, plain and simple. Nathan Rothchild swore to kill the Czar and all his heirs for blockading the US during the civil war and true to his word he had them executed. There was absolutely no reason for the so called revolution other than slaughter and destabization. Ten’s of millions of poor peasants were starved to death for no reason other than existing.
Every inklng of wealth was handed over to the banker run state known as Russia. You make it sound like some glorious freeing of the masses from tyranny, when the truth is, it was a slaughterhouse of tyranny.
And no, women never were enslaved, exploited, ect. Ohhhh, the poor women, coddled, pampered, protected and provided for throughout history. No matter where you go in all history everywhere, it was always the same, spare the women and children. How many billions of men have suffered and died from both natural and un-natural disasters saving women and children? How many extra trillions of dollars is spent on only women in the modern world? Women can kill a mans unborn child, kidnap his living children and extort his wealth, hit a man without fear of retaliation, a woman can even kill a man and get away with it. Tell me? When will men have finally given enough to women?
@Glove
It’s been awhile since I’ve read Arden Leigh, but give it a glance, some of it might be useful:
http://ardenleigh.typepad.com/
I once witnessed a great response to a bus-riding creep. He had apparently tried to feel the thigh of a woman he sat next to. She very loudly told him to keep his g-ddamned hands to himself, and called him several equivalents to creep that I wish I could remember. She was very creative, and very loud. Every eye on the bus was focused on el creepo, who slunk off and got off at the next stop. I’m sure he felt very put-upon since all he was doing was trying to feel the thigh of a total stranger who didn’t want the contact.
Poor, poor guy. He must have been soooooo embarrassed. [/sarcasm] Or not. Since he’s into that kind of behavior to start with, I doubt if he understood what the problem was.
yo owlslave every time you post you sound a little more like jack the ripper
So, even though the fetus is inside a woman’s body, it’s his?
How do you figure?
*prays that Zombie Lenin rises from his mausoleum and menaces NWOslave for that particular insult*
NWOslave, let me ask you something. If an unplanned pregnancy occurs and the couple disagrees on the course of action, how can it be decided fairly? If the woman wishes to abort and the man doesn’t want her to, what course of action would you recommend? If his wishes override hers, that means he has ownership of her body for nine months. That’s not acceptable, obviously. So what would be your solution?
Well, Owly does think that “reproductive rights” means that he should have the right to forcibly reproduce with any woman he chooses. So yeah, I can easily imagine that he believes any ball of cells > fetus > infant that results would belong to him, and him alone.
That Russian stuff — is that already in the Book of Learnin’? ‘Cos wow, just wow.