The Thinking 

Ann Barnhardt on the Women’s Vote

September 10, 2012


ANN BARNHARDT, the remarkable and inspiring woman who is refusing to pay taxes to the federal government under Obama, is another anti-suffragette. She made these terrific comments on Sept. 1 about the women’s vote:

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.

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?

—– Comments —–

N.W. writes:

Damn right. When the vote was divorced from the household, it effectively politicized the relations between the sexes. Affairs that before would have been settled within a household have now been opened up to the state to politicize and manipulate. The marriage bed has become a political battleground. Wives have been set against their husbands in political machinations that have the interest of neither party at heart.

I am so damned sick of the petty selfishness that has entered into the arena of public debate. I mean, for crying out loud, we’ve got a major political party telling me that my hard-earned money should be taken from me by the state so some empowered slut can whore around with whoever the hell she fancies that week and not have to worry about some inconvenient offspring curtailing her freedom.

I am speaking as one who has forfeited my rights and hazarded my life in the service and defense of this country and right now I would almost say I’d be heartened to see the whole damned edifice come crashing down.

Michael D. writes:

As you are probably aware, opposition to female suffrage was widespread among housewives, who were some of its strongest and most determined opponents. I recommend the article “Thoughts on Female Suffrage and in Vindication of Woman’s True Rights” by Mrs. Madeline Vinton Dahlgren (1871). Before reading this article I had never been exposed to the strong, valid arguments against female suffrage. This paper articulates the reasons for their resolute opposition to it. The arguments are powerful and convincing, to the extent where I used Mrs. Dahlgren’s very arguments to successfully persuade my smart, educated, modern girlfriend that women should not be permitted to vote.

Laura writes:

Wow! I don’t mean to interfere in your affairs, but she’s a woman worth marrying. : – )

The history books have mostly ignored or paid token regard to the many middle class women who were against female suffrage. Another magnificent text on this subject is Woman and the Republic by Helen Kendrick Johnson. Johnson, a learned and brilliant voice, believed the female vote would wreck the home and destroy the sacred detachment of women. G.K. Chesterton’s What’s Wrong with the World makes similar points.

Terry Morris writes:

Well, I have to disagree with Barnhardt on one vital point, unrelated to the issue of the vote.

If you are a producer who works or owns a business in the private sector where wealth is created, you’re going to pay taxes whether you pay income taxes or not. There exists a huge amount of confusion on this issue of paying taxes. If your sole source of income derives from government work, you’re not an actual tax payer, I don’t care how you slice it up. Why do I say this when you have a pay stub “proving” you paid x amount of dollars last pay period in state and federal income taxes? Simply because your your salary, benefits AND the “tax” collected on it, is all paid by actual, original tax dollars. Indeed, when you spend your earnings on essential and non-essential products and services, a large proportion of the monies collected on these items is tax, but you’re not the one paying it. Actual tax payers are. As the proportion of actual tax payers to non-tax payers continues to grow in favor of the latter, you will see more and more folks like myself and Ann Barnhardt essentially bailing out of the system. And yes, at the risk of imprisonment.

This is what is so very insulting about this whole “fair share” issue. The government has convinced people who contribute absolutely nothing in the way of actual, original taxes, that they’re contributing more than their “fair share,” while their counterparts in private industry who pay 100 percent of actual taxes paid to the government, somehow are paying less than their fair share. That’s the reason Obama can get away with saying idiotic things like “people like me ought to be paying their fair share.”

People like Obama can’t possibly pay their fair share of taxes, unless they change careers, creating wealth in private industry. I’m personally deeply insulted when career politicians, and career government workers for that matter, presume to tell me (essentially biting the hand that feeds them) that I’m neglecting my moral and patriotic responsibilities.

— Comments —

Fred Owens writes:

This has nothing to do with politics, but you are twice as good a writer as Ann Barnhardt. She writes too many words in a very loud voice and then squeezes them into her blog in tiny print. That just doesn’t work. She needs to lighten up about 5 percent, calm down, believe in herself and the power of the truth — it works better that way….. Your blog and your presentation is calmer, clearer and more powerful.

 Laura writes:

Thank you. I haven’t read a whole lot of what she’s written but I very much liked her responses to those who said she shouldn’t risk going to jail. It was salty though.

I’d say you’re comparing apples and oranges. I wouldn’t know what to do with a rifle. Even as a writer, she’s more of a sniper than a conversationalist.

Jesse Powell writes:

I think the main problem with women having the right to vote is the inherent conflict of interest involved with the dependent (the woman) telling the provider (the man) what to do; having the provided for telling the provider what the provider “owes” the provided for. I have said before that chivalry is a duty of men on behalf of women but that chivalry is something that men impose upon other men; it is not something that is defined by the woman herself. The government overall can be viewed as an expression of men’s chivalry; the government is to provide for the overall protection of society, to set the rules under which society operates, and these activities of the government are designed to allow each individual household headed by a man to operate in safety and flourish. Women “hijacking” the operation of government through the right to vote creates the same conflict of interest problem that women “dictating” to men what chivalry is about creates. When the recipient (the woman) “orders” the benefactor (the man) to provide for the recipient (the woman) in a particular way then the purpose of the man’s behavior is no longer controlled by the man; the purpose of the man’s behavior is then to satisfy the demands of the woman. When the link between the man’s chivalry and the man’s purpose as a man is broken the man is no longer motivated or rewarded for fulfilling his role as a man. The man’s honor gets converted into the woman’s manipulation. Men respond to this abusive dynamic by withdrawing from their role and purpose as men.

Ann Barnhardt is quite amazing. The first time I ever heard of her was when she announced she was shutting down her Barnhardt Capital Management commodity brokerage business in response to the MF Global collapse scandal where money from segregated customer accounts was stolen. In this initial exposure, her views on cultural issues were not discussed at all. Now we hear she is a full bore supporter of patriarchy going as far as condemning women’s suffrage! This does indicate that support for patriarchy within a Christian context is moving closer to the mainstream.

Share:Email this to someoneShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest0Share on Google+0