To push followers to convert their lives into being more diligent supporters of leftist politics, Marxists used to say, “Everything is political except politics, and that’s personal.” A feisty young lady has connected politics to the personal side of this blog, and she’s worth a read. You can read parts 1 and 2 of “PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED FROM EVERYTHING” at http://barnhardt.biz/. (Ann Barnhardt is thirtysomething and built a successful brokerage company in the cattle industry. Her blog is worth digging deeper on many subjects that include the failing financial marketplace and deteriorating Catholic Church.)
I have copied and pasted the bottom part of her articles that pertains to the theme of WhatWomenNeverHear. (‘Mr. Cowbama’ is a cattle man that voted for Obama in 2008.)
At first you will get honked off. I suggest you continue. The meat of her message comes further down.
Guy
————————————
PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED FROM EVERYTHING PART 1
Posted by Ann Barnhardt – September 1, AD 2012 9:57 PM MST
[The title refers to her refusal to run for any elected office. I deleted the upper part of Part I as off-theme for WhatWomenNeverHear.]
Mr. Cowbama and I were talking about the evil of government regulation and how it almost always does far more harm than good when Mr. Cowbama thought he had me in a check-mate. He smugly said, “So you think the 19th amendment should be repealed, then? You think giving women the right to vote was a bad thing?”
Quoth I in retort,
“Oh, HELL yes.”
Mr. Cowbama wasn’t expecting that!
Will it ever happen? Nope. But it sure is fun to dream. Do you know when things really started to go – literally – to hell in this country? When women were given the right to vote separate 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?
PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED FROM EVERYTHING PART 2
Posted by Ann Barnhardt – September 1, AD 2012 9:57 PM MST
As soon as the 19th amendment was passed, men were effectively castrated, and in many, many cases disenfranchised by their wives. 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.
Women are made with a healthy, innate desire to be provided for and protected. I know this because I am a woman, despite the pair of enormous brass balls I have to carry around. Those are merely an anomaly. Please ignore them, and no, you may not touch them. I just polished them last night. Back to the point, women want someone or someTHING to take care of them. For this reason, women tend to lean socialist, and are generally in favor of the expansion of government when the government promises to “provide” for them.
If you have read me for any length of time you could probably write this next paragraph yourself. Satan has used this healthy feminine dynamic, perverted by suffrage, to systematically replace men with the government as the providers in society. 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. 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. Fathering children no longer binds a man to a woman in any way. Men didn’t vote to societally castrate themselves, and never would have. No – in order for this system to have come about, women’s suffrage was an absolute necessity. Women themselves voted the system into place which objectifies and devalues both them AND their children.
Next, the issue of disenfranchisement. 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. 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. [Emphasis added.]
I’ve probably ticked even one or two of you conservatives off with this post. Here is the question I would ask you: Why? Why are you ticked off? If you’re a woman, the reason you are ticked off is because you put yourself and your desire to assert your will above the well-being of society in general. I don’t feel that way. 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. I would rather they be courted properly and then marry men who would never, ever leave them, and would consider it their sacred duty and honor to protect and provide for their wives and their children because he LOVED them. 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?
For you men who don’t like my position, you’re just a slave to political correctness. It’s the same thing as the rap music. No one will criticize rap music because it is forbidden by the P.C. culture to criticize a non-white cultural phenomenon. To do so is “bigoted”. It’s the same with this. The P.C. culture has convinced you that if you criticize anything that has to do with women or the feminine culture that you must be a Taliban. Don’t fall for that garbage. That manipulation is why fifty million babies have been murdered in this country over the last 38 years. Men knew that abortion was murder, but they punted on it and eventually legalized it because they didn’t want to be accused of being “misogynistic”. Cowards.
So there you go. Print it, save it, PDF it. Because I acknowledge the reality and consequence of female suffrage, am able to see beyond my own immediate self-interests on the matter, and have the stones to say it all publically, I am permanently disqualified from . . . pretty much everything outside self-employment.
What a world.
Doesn’t tick me off at all! I love it! And agree with every word of it.
In 1920, things tended to go ‘downhill’ like you say. In 1925, the scopes trial that led us to believe, we came from monkeys–I also remember and my dad telling me, that in that decade, the music started to get ‘dirty’ similar to thelate 60s until the Depression in the 30s—in other words, the LATE 60s was a continuation where the 20s left off. Oh and BTW, I didnt like the bobbed hair and other 20s styles. Im hoping, if R & R get into office that the clothes for women would get more feminine again–more confortable skirts & dresses similar to the 80s but without shoulder pads
Also, to add insult to injury: when people say ITS A WOMANS RIGHT TO CHOOSE– i believe thats incorrect to a point–what could be really happening that its a MANS RIGHT to nag their girlfriends into having abortions or its the girls mother who didnt want to be a grandmother so soon–DONT FORGET men are STILL MEN and they become passive/aggressive in these days–theyll allow a woman to have a career that makes big bucks because they dont have to work as hard to get the big vacations and other expensive toys
BTW I loooved Ann Romneys pretty blue dress with the ‘bolero’ matching top when Mitt was speaking. I even liked Ryans wifes dress but not as much-its similar to the mid 60s while Anns looks a little ‘Dior-ish’ or modified 50s
how would R & R encourage feminine clothing? romney has more in common with O & B than Reagan. at least democrats are honest about not standing for anything. don’t let karl rove wash your brain. it’s the church not the politicians we depend on.
Is it true virtue if a woman is foriced by the law to submit to her husband? There was an opportunity for real choice, an excersize of the power of the will- the real question is, and always has been for “WWNH” is WHY women didn’t just shrug off such “nonsense” when the voting “right” was presented to them. Was this a perfect example of the “devils deal”? If this was a perfect ideal world, I could totally agree with Barnhardt, it actully is a deep desire for me to live in the kind of world she describes. But human nature of each sex, makes perfect pictures messy. We all fall short of the glory of God, and all have sinned- this includes men. There had to be a reason why the women went for it. What primal thing in the human heart made them want to abandon thier lives of living on a pedestal, all for the “right to vote”? I have my ideas, I wonder how Ann would answer that question? Once again, I agree with her perspective- I just find it to be incomplete.
All i can say is that if a woman wants to defer her vote to the head of the household, then she should. The option has not been taken away- its not like a law was devised that prohibited women from letting thier husbands represent the family with a vote. The real question is why don’t more women make this choice?
Your Highness Dawn,
Welcome back. You always bring an interesting view with you.
I argue neither for nor against the 19th Amendment but to respond to this question: “What primal thing in the human heart made them want to abandon their lives of living on a pedestal, all for the “right to vote”?”
The ‘primal thing’ was lobbying pressure put on legislators for 41 years. Just as radical feminists shaped public opinion to favor politically motivated Feminism in the late 20th Century, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton lobbied for 41 years to get the amendment passed. First introduced in 1878, Congress passed it to the states in 1919 and Tennessee ratified it for final passage in 1920. Companion political pressure brought us Prohibition, which of course was later rejected.
Deliberately shaping public opinion became standard practice after President Woodrow Wilson’s advisor, Edward Bernays, developed the techniques of propaganda. (Joseph Goebbels studied and copied him in Hitler’s Germany.) Women fell for Progressive propaganda and pressured men to give them the right to vote. We saw the same thing during the rise of Feminism, and we now see the political consequences of that now headless monster, for example, the loss of free speech to political correctness. We also see the results of fatherless children and so many other problems and issues that women never hear the causes of.
Why would women give up living on a pedestal? Because of anecdotal evidence to the contrary, pressure from political activists, and being propagandized with promises for a brighter future living with a man, women were suckered into thinking their future would become brighter. Feminists claimed the same benefits, but women seem to have fallen short of the promises.
Have a great day, Dawn.
Guy
Spot on!
Just because you submit to a man DOESNT MEAN YOU ARE A DOORMAT- although some men believed if a woman was submitting, it meant just that–we needed the 19th amendnment in a way–OTOH it made men more ‘useless’ and kinda lost since they dont have a family to be responsible for. What i am noticing, is many women are ‘taking charge’ even in conservative CHRISTIAN CIRCLES–when men dont step up, women will.’
‘When men dont step up, women will’. I think its more accurate to say: “when women step up, men stand back”. It is unnatural for healthy men to ‘challenge’ women.
Your Highness Jackie,
Welcome aboard. It’s a great day when another pretty woman joins us on this cruise to WhatWomenNeverHear.
Guy
Nice in theory, and I wished to Almighty God it was true that all husbands want to do right by their families but the truth is not “all” men are good nor do they do right by their wives and children. The same argument is true for “some” women who do not recognize a good man, nor content to stay in a marriage because she is bored or selfishly needs attention from many men.
I must disagree that the ills of society began with the passing of the 19th Amendment but long before this. In my own family tree I see the perpetuating dysfunctional marriages stemming from poverty, lack of education and the means for men and women to escape their given circumstances and this had nothing to do with women getting the right to vote in 1920.
It doesn’t matter if it was 1920 or 2012, if you are raised in a strong two parent home where a strong male protector is present and devoted to the welfare of his wife and children, you stand a greater chance for success in life, more likely to marry someone with similar values, and more likely to pass on these values to your children. If you are not lucky enough to be from a strong family back ground, you are pretty much screwed to repeat the mistakes of your parents regardless of the 19th Amendment. It’s true that people can be in a sea of a thousand people and it is a certainty that a man and woman with similar dysfunctional backgrounds will find each other and perpetuate the same illogical patterns that lead to broken marriages. I can’t blame my ancestors, I think they did the best they could under the circumstances, but at the same time I would like to think my great grandmothers would be championing us on for our achievements in education and social status.
My Catholic maternal and paternal “stay at home” grandmothers bore 8 and 10 children respectively and I think they would have something to say about Ann Barnhardt’s commentary. If the husband is the head of the household and the woman the heart, my grandmothers found themselves in headless marriages that took a toll on their hearts. They were raising children- alone. They did not vote, they were not suffragettes. These women didn’t have time to get political. They were God-fearing, devoted traditional wives who loved their husbands and bore their children. So why did they get short changed in life? They did what they were supposed to do back then. They thought they found “suitable” hardworking Catholic men. They got married, submitted to their husbands and raised families. They were virtuous, devoted Catholic women to their husbands and children. In return for their devotion to their husbands, they suffered silently while my grandfathers cheated on them, were abusive drunks and ultimately abandoned their wives and children and suffered so while the grandfathers fathered children to other women while still married to my grandmothers. There was no “head of household father figures” for my mother or father. My grandmothers had to be the heads of their households by default because both Grandfathers were abusive alcoholics who did not think in terms of “protectors” and “heads of households”. My grandmothers never sought divorces. They remained devoted homemakers doing the best they could living in severe poverty. And then more children would come because they did not believe in birth control. There was no hope to go out and get a job or complete their education. Who would take care of the children? Did staying in these loveless abusive marriages do anything to help raise healthy children? Not in my opinion. The oldest children went to work to support the family. My father, the eldest of 10 had a 3rd grade education because he had to feed his brothers and sisters. My fathers dad was gone for months at a time as a Train Conductor and there was no money sent home. These were survival days! There was no welfare, no CPS to protect children, no government support, no school lunches, no free elementary education. If you could not afford to buy books, you didn’t go to school. My grandfathers didn’t give a hoot if their kids had shoes, food, or a warm home. My grandfathers did not participate in the voting process, nor did they care about providing a stable environment for the kids they made. They were hard workers who made little money and became alcoholics. There was no “outreach” services for families back then. There was no “head of household” father figure in my mother and father’s lives. Just the knowledge everyone needed to work to support the family. It’s no wonder my mother and father came together. They had similar family histories. My mom ran away at sixteen to escape her embarrassing “town drunk” father. My dad as a young 18 year old married man worked eighty hour a week with two jobs to make something out of his life and send money back home to his mother to help raise the little kids still at home. My father did become a very successful business man but at what cost? A broken marriage. He too became an alcoholic, had affairs, and when he was home at night he was drunk. Screaming and yelling were all that I knew as “family dynamics”. My father, the “head of household” abused my mother psychologically something horrible. He would tell her she would never survive without him. She stayed with him out of resentment and lived to “outlive him”. My mother was virtuous, had five kids and stayed in a loveless marriage. I have brothers and sisters that have drug and alcohol problems and did not marry or had disastrous marriages. As far as voting goes, both my mom and dad shared the same conservative views and never voted. My mother scrimped and saved to put me through school. My mom paid for my catholic education. My father did not pay my tuition. My lesson my mother taught me was to never be dependent on a man and always keep your own checking account. I hated my parents for fighting. I always wished my mom would divorce my father to live a better life. In the 70’s she had all the means to seek a divorce but never followed through. She didn’t believe she could and for that I am very sorry she didn’t have confidence in herself. Am I better off than my grandmothers? It’s a bittersweet reality. While I am glad I don’t have their hardships, I do think I am better off and have the confidence in myself that they never had. I am single by choice, (afraid of marriage really), no children, educated and have a career. I am lonely at times and I am sad I never found the right man because I would have loved to have had a good marriage but in all honesty I was repeating the same mistakes, gravitating towards the same dysfunctional men as my mother and grandmothers did. If the 19th Amendment was never passed, I bet that I would have repeated the same mistakes by marrying the wrong man simply because he and I share similar histories, having five kids and perpetuating the same cycle of abuse on my own children as my mother and grandmothers did before me because it is very hard to escape repeating the bad examples set by our parents.
WOW this could be what Margret Sanger and her types may have seen–i spoke too soon in fact. Many catholic men who kept getting their wives pregnant, couldnt feed them all back in the day—some men dont even care for ‘religion’ and hate to do the ROSARY (thats for women and ‘sissies’; ive never seen men do Hail Marys) etc. because they just go for the form without the power
Hi Lynn,
The points you made remind me of how financial status really does affect these matters. While I do not belive that anyone is “doomed” in an absolute sense, it is important to be reminded about the barriers that people, as a black woman- I was always taught that the sufferage movement began as a white womens thing. And not just that but well-to-do white women. It never was intended to include my ancestors that scrubbed thier floors. But still- TODAY women of all colors and classes have adpoted the version of feminism that WWNH focuses on. It’s so crazy where it all started and where it started and the mess we have now.
Ultimatly though, as a woman who was the daughter of a mentally-ill, abusive, single mother on welfare- I refuse to belive that I am doomed. It only means that I have an obstacle to overcome. So what if its gonna be hard? Does the Olympic runner of prothelic legs say “its too hard”?
My life is what I make of it, and no matter what kind of past, future or present a person has- the opportunity to have the life of our dreams ALWAYS lies in out hands.
Absolutely!
Hello Lynn,
I used to be a regular commenter before, but due to time constraints nowadays, I tend to just read Sir Guy’s posts without leaving a comment. This comment of yours however, has inspired me to come out of the shadows. Congratulations, you achieved the impossible
You sound like a lovely lady. You empathise with your grandmothers who had hard lives. That is very commendable! But I wanted to just make sure you were right in your defence of your grandmothers. You present very well the case of a woman’s lot in the ‘good old days’. In other words, what Sir Guy calls ‘What women hear everyday’. What is absent in your comment is a look at the other side, i.e. from the male side. To do that in the right context, let me draw your attention to the current situation. Many men of marriageable age today are refusing to marry, and when they do, they seek foreign wives. Have you ever asked yourself why? Back to your grandfathers: Is it possible that these men, who ‘did the right thing’ by marrying, later came to regret it? Not to blame either of your grandmothers at all. But consider this: they (your grandmothers) were the lucky ones. They had men who married them. They got a chance to have children. They knew their blessings, and most likely appreciated it. Hence their ‘silent’ getting on with things. You lament on their behalf. But perhaps they don’t really need your pity. Lament instead for the thousands of women today who won’t get the chance to marry or have children. Their fate is far worse than that of your grandmothers.
Is it possible that your grandfathers were actually good men who ‘lost the will to live’ because of a few crucial factors? Were they strangers in their own homes, in their own marriages? Were your grandmothers ‘team-mates’ of your grandfathers or were they more concerned with ‘getting on with the task of raising the kids’ when in fact they should have concentrated on this: ‘wife first, mother second’ as Sir Guy always says? Did your grandmothers shoot themselves in the foot without realising? A man who feels loved by his wife will ALWAYS work FOR her as opposed to AGAINST her. If your grandfathers felt that they were persona non grata in their own homes, there would have been 2 choices open to them: divorce, or drown their sorrows. In the good old days, I imagine divorce for catholics would have been out of the question, so these men did the next best thing. And the sons of these men, looking at the miserable lives of their fathers would have associated marriage with misery. Hence the current situation.
They either don’t marry at all, or they seek a foreign woman who believes that ‘taking care of her man’ is her first priority. And for these women, the men will endure pain, hardship, even death. Because they know they are deeply loved by these women. They are not just sperm donors, or ‘symbolic’ husbands. They are true heads of their households and are shown the utmost respect by their women, who in turn are true ‘helpmeets’ to them rather than just another adversary the man has to face, to add to the many he already faces at work and in life at large. When he comes home, the competition stops. He is king. He is loved and respected over and above the kids… Unless they are babies, his kids’ needs never supersede his as delivered by his wife…
Many women would have used the advice of people like Helen Andelin to turn around their failing marriages. It seems to me your grandmothers did not have access to this privilege. You and I however, have Sir Guy today.
If I may say so, your fear of marriage keeping you single is a nonsense… You are not your grandmother and you are not your mother. You have access to Sir Guy’s advice. If you want a husband, want a husband. Don’t use your grandparents’ bad marriages as a guide for your own life. Look at Dawn’s testimony: she had a horrendous early life. But she knows her destiny is in her own hands. Yours should and could be in your own hands too.
Your grandmothers made some mistakes, I am sure (no fault of theirs, they were not to know). But they were still grateful for what they got and they got on with things, so you, as their descendant can look at them with respect.
Now it’s time to use their experiences to enrich your own life, rather than cower behind fear of repeating them. You won’t repeat the same mistakes if you have the right knowledge. Which you do now, courtesy of Sir Guy.
Ann Barnhardt was right: those were good days for women. Some knew how to capitalise on their good fortune. Unfortunately, others didn’t.
But even now, a woman can still have a blissful marriage with the right tools at her fingertips. Sarah is a good example of this.
I wish you God’s grace and blessings in your life, Lynn. Just remember, don’t look back, look forward instead. You’ll be amazed at what’s in front of you…
Your Highness Joanna,
I’ve pondered for hours how to say thank you. It boils down to this: I love it when pretty women write so clearly about the positive and affirming side of femalehood without demeaning malehood.
Guy
Well said Joanna.
This is why I say men were behaving badly way before the 19th Amendment and continued to do so after. Of course there were always women in the wings to be bad with. Women didn’t need the vote to have affairs. It’s was the disenfranchised poor wives raising 8-10 kids that just didn’t have time to be politically active. They were too busy raising children, practicing their faith and silently putting up with their adulterous, abusive husbands. It’s easy for someone of means and education the likes of Ann Barnhardt to make mighty proclamations about how ideal life was pre-19th Amendment. It was not all hearts and roses. The reality for women like my grandmothers and their mothers before them know it just was not so. I wonder, is Ann Barnhardt willing to give up her education, her business and properties so she can live life as our great grandmothers did without rights to own anything of their own? I seriously doubt she could.
I think Ann Barnhardt exaggerates the “nullification” effect that married women’s votes have on their husbands’ votes. All the statistics I’ve ever heard on the news and in news articles I’ve read state that most married women vote Republican, as do most married men. That indicates that married women’s votes are likely to reinforce that of their husbands, rather than canceling them out.
I also question that part about how allowing women to vote magnified the voting influence of the unmarried. As far as I know, women’s suffrage was extended to all women at the same time, regardless of marital status. If Ann’s argument is that men and women tend to be politically opposed, and that the married male vote gets canceled out by the married female vote, then wouldn’t the unmarried male vote also get canceled out by the unmarried female vote? I would think the “canceling out” effect is much more likely among the unmarried than the married, because single women feel a greater need to be “taken care of” than married ones do, and we all know single women vote reliably Democrat. If my guess is right, then giving women the suffrage tends to reduce, not increase, the voting influence of the unmarried relative to the married.
BTW–all the studies I remember reading about lump single women together as one group. It would be interesting to find out how the votes of single women who lead morally upright lives compare with those of single women who lead (PC alert!) “alternative lifestyles”. I would wager on the former voting Republican and the latter, Democrat because women who are daft enough to choose these “alternative lifestyles” tend to require more nannying than the rest of us.
The married women who vote rep: Do you think they have an ok marriage unlike what both sides of Lynns family went through? I’ve heard the liberal arguement for years and how they were champions of women escaping a situation like hers. That planned parenthood etc was invented so women dont have to be around drunks and adulters for years. I’ve also noticed that when Ronald Reagan was the Govenor of CA, in the late 60s, he created the no-fault divorce laws which penetrated the entire country. ( you had to go to NV to get a divorce)Its possible he had people or knew of such in his family as well-similar to Lynns. I believe like i said before~submission to a man is not being a doormat, but you have to be careful whom you submit to.
“What primal thing in the human heart made them want to abandon their lives of living on a pedestal, all for the “right to vote”?
The answer is FEAR. St. Peter specifically encouraged women to not give way to fear. Our fear is material to seeking protection for ourselves and our children. All of the people AGM mentioned in his reply to lynn preyed on that fear.
Once again, the above posts are looking to the government for protection, power and resolution of sin within marriages (lynn). This is the work of the church, not the government. The church has been charged with executing judgement on adultery (see what Paul says in Corinthians about the man living with his father’s wife). And in many other cases that did not fall into the jurisdiction of the state (like murder) Read the whole Corinthian letter. – As a matter of fact, during the fall of the Roman empire, the church’s judgements of their own members were so highly respected for their wisdom that regular Roman citizens routinely sought out their mediation and help….which aided in the spread of the Christian religion.
When support and charity are concentrated in the local church and NOT in the government, then the church has power and recourse to deny fellowship and the benefits of association with the body of Christ. There was a time when this denial of succor used to have an impact.
The Church should be a woman’s protector in the absence of her husband. It has been given the responsibility to be the protector of the widow (abandoned, uncared for abused wives) and the fatherless.
It is not anymore. We must patiently rebuild.
Your Highness Queen Bee,
Welcome aboard. It’s a great day when another pretty woman joins us on this cruise to WhatWomenNeverHear.
Guy
AMEN Queen Bee—but the Churches are weak and need Reviving (lots of fornication within)—-I also dont like it when non-Catholics dont call them Christians since THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CANONIZED THE BIBLE (writing in Chapter and Verse; they were on scrolls before) the problem was that the CC wouldnt let the people read it in their own languages at later dates, etc.
Please provide examples in history of women who lived “on pedestals”. My women folk ancestors would scoff at this lofty notion as I do. There was no need to give up living on a pedestal because there wasn’t one that existed. My people were homesteaders in the southwest. The only pedestal my great grandmothers would be able to take a seat on is one they made from splitting logs, turned, sanded and stained for themselves. And then they would sell it or trade it to keep the kids fed. I know the idea of the “pedestal” is just a phrase not to be taken literally. What does it mean to you? Does it mean that women are taken care of so they won’t need to work?
You’ll have to forgive my ignorance about elevating women as to “place them on a pedestal” as I really don’t have a point of reference to understand this. I grew up in the sixties. Most mothers worked. The “stay at home” moms I noticed drank cocktails and smoked alot in the early afternoon and played bridge. They seemed bored. The other frame of reference I have from the 60′s, 70′s, 80′s and 90′s of women I considered priveldged, placed on a pedestal are the likes of Jackie Kennedy Onassis, her mother-in-law Rose Kennedy, Ivana Trump, Maria Shriver. These women I assume were placed on a pedestal by their husbands, a place of being taken care of so they don’t have to work. And we all know what there husbands were like while these women lived a privledged life never needing to work, able to tend to raising the kids, and attending to philanthropic causes. This is the elite of society and not a clear representation of the average woman. Is this what we are referring to by placing women on a pedestal? The poor and the working class women and industrious women like Madam Curie and Mother Teresa I don’t think would know what to do with themselves if placed on a pedestal.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
Dear Lynn,
The story of your family history is very sad. I certainly don’t know how to answer your questions. I guess I do think that you are onto something when you equate living “on a pedestal” with “being taken care of.” And I do think there is a lot of talk, some fact and some fiction, about women having to work these days. To my mind, that does interfere with the dynamic of being taken care of, devoting yourself to a warm, peaceable home, being “able to tend to raising the kids, and attending to philanthropic causes.” I would just offer my assurance, especially to young ladies who desire to one day stay at home, that that “privileged life” is not only available to the elite of society. Really! My husband has quite an average paying job, but you just live somewhere cheaper, buy used cars, shop thrift stores, or cook at home more often, and the one income lifestyle is do-able. I’ve never played bridge, but I do feel that I am blessedly taken care of, as I do not have to concern myself with any schedule, deadlines, emails, goals, policies, etc. except those of my own growing family.
Blessings on you, Lynn. I hope that you find much happiness in your future.
Thanks Sarah, that actually sounds quite nice. You are very blessed.
I found Ann Barnhardt’s post quite interesting. She certainly has a right to voice her own opinions, but as I was reading her text, I had a few thoughts of my own.
From the tone of her text, I detect a strong longing for days gone by. And I fear Ann idealizes those days. Tempting as it is, I think we must beware of glossing over the past. Every period in human history had its trials and tribulations, each in its own way. Those early days were far from ideal, I fear. The stratification of the rich and the poor (though it exists now, but in a different way), the ignorance, the lack of education, the illnesses, the high mortality rates, the general standard in the “First world”… Really, there were many, many things not so pleasant about those times.
I can also second Lynn’s comment. I understand where she’s coming from. I have heard stories from both my Mom and Dad about the places they’ve grown up… They both lived in rural areas (though not in America), and from my Mom’s estimate, about 40% of the married men who lived in the area behaved in the same way Lynn had described in her post above. They drank excessively, physically abused their wife and children, and they had spent a good chunk of their pay on themselves, even though they were the breadwinners and had at least five children. And what to say about situations like those? Where some women had ended up in a nasty marriage, where they weren’t treated with respect, and when they had to scrimp and scrape and do hard labor on the side just to feed those children? And this is all in peace. What about war-torn countries?
Besides, when women didn’t have the right to vote, they also couldn’t attend a university, or become a professor at one. I always think of how Marie Sklodowska Curie must have felt, being so intelligent and accomplished, yet denied a position at the University of Krakow just because she was a woman. I guess it’s easy to think about things now that we live far different circumstances.
Your post is an illustration of Anne Barnhardt’s point that women look to the government to alleviate hardship and injustice. People have always had to and endure injustice and hardship. This is not unique to women – feminist teaching has simply highlighted it to give the impression that women suffer more than men. Nonsense. You need to investigate that…starting with the number of men who have suffered and died in war or pulling a plow or fighting wild animals or providing protection in general for…their wives and families.
And where were the families of the unfortunate women in Wanderer fantasie’s post when they were being abused and abandoned? Why is there greater interest in getting government to fix things than our own families and churches?
BTW Re Marie Curie the following may be of interest:
* Nobel Prize in Physics (1903)
* Davy Medal (1903)
* Matteucci Medal (1904)
* Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1911)
The only person to win two Nobel Prizes in different science fields.
The first female professor at the University of Paris.
Founded a Radium Institute (now the Maria Sk?odowska-Curie Institute of Oncology) in her home town, Warsaw,
All without any government intervention…regardless of the University of Warsaw’s slight.
.
Actually, I believe you misunderstand me. I do agree with Anne Barnhardt’s point that “women look to the government to alleviate hardship and injustice.” Here’s the thing: While I do think there are abuses to the welfare system I do think we are better off with systems in place to assist our citizens in improving their lot in life. For instance, had public education been free in the thirties and forties when my mother was a girl in Arizona, Yes, can you imagine, you had to have the money to buy your books. People appreciated things more back then because they were hard earned. Had she had the money to buy her books, I do believe she would have stayed in school, graduated, not married my Dad and she would have had better opportunities to pull herself out of poverty. For women living in poverty like my mom back in the forties and fifties the only way she saw of getting out of her situation was to get married. She saw my Dad as a “protector” and “a provider”. The two of them pulled through, they never dreamed of asking for government hand outs. One car, he worked, she stayed at home with four kids. So yeah, they kind of had it until the stress of staying afloat when my Dad bought his first business in the fifties when he insisted she help learn the business. That’s when they turned on each other under the stress and his hard drinking. Then they had me. I was a latchkey kid, mom and dad worked crazy long hours and were basically miserable in all their wealth. Money is not the path to happiness.
I personally believe you pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, don’t live beyond your means and work like hell to avoid getting on government assistance. It’s because I have a strength and work ethic built in my genes, I am thankful I have never had to receive government assistance, I have never had a baby out of wedlock. When my company went under, I worked two and three jobs to survive. I do not believe on relying on government assistance unless someone’s situation is extremely dire. Most people could really make a go of it without welfare, but the government does a lousy job of making incentive’s for people to get off the dole.
Thank you for sharing your story, Lynn… I can empathize, and I really admire how you took all that adversity and turned it around. You became a strong woman who’s not afraid to work, and I can only have respect for you. I also strongly agree with the last paragraph – that’s my personal philosophy
Thank you for the input, QueenBee. Perhaps I wasn’t being clear enough in my comment, so I will expand it here.
I don’t think that the government has to take care of people; I would personally be ashamed if I had to turn to government for support of any kind. I was just thinking about situations my Mom has told me when she was talking about her childhood.
When my parents were young, large families (5 children and more) were prevalent, so the imperative was to marry off daughters and put them in the care of another family. So after marriage, women had really little ties with their parents and siblings, except the occasional visit. (Daughters were also oftentimes excluded from any kind of inheritance.) Even if the women were abused, they really didn’t have anywhere to go, or anyone to turn to. They couldn’t expect their parents to give them financial support, so they had to soldier on. There was little help from the Church, too, but I won’t further comment on that lamentable fact.
Regarding Marie Curie – thank you for sharing those facts
Her achievements look so impressive in the list… However, I hope no one thinks that France embraced her with open arms. She was looked upon with distrust as a foreigner, and had only gained some respect after foreign awards (the first Nobel prize) started pouring in.( By the way, she was almost excluded from receiving the Nobel prize in physics, because of being a woman, but luckily Pierre filed in a complaint, so she was included with Pierre and Becquerel.) She had to use the money from the Nobel prize to make a half-decent laboratory. She was never voted to be in the French Academy of sciences, despite her remarkable achievements. So yes, the government hadn’t helped her, but had impeded her, unfortunately. All her achievements are a product of her brilliant mind and hard work. I wasn’t saying that the government is supposed to help women in science, but at least they should be given a chance, and not just flat out refused just because they are women. And if it weren’t for such brave and remarkable women like Marie Curie, who started clearing the path, perhaps even today women wouldn’t be able to teach at universities.
*University of Krakow
Ladies,
You each make good points. I saw and lived many of the family conditions you describe. The dialogue is challenging but thoughts of analysis are not. You ladies are too capable of expression. However, I promise more of what women never hear in tomorrow’s article, #1712.
Guy
Denying women the right to vote is simply unAmerican. No taxation without representation! I pay taxes and I will have my vote. God Bless America!
I also think that Ms.Barnhardt over estimates the number of households “nullified” by husband and wife voting differently. In general people are married to those that they agree with politically. Also men are only slightly more likely to be conservative than women. The sexes are fairly evenly distributed on the left and the right. Left leaning policies are the result of men and women’s choices.
Your Highness T,
Welcome aboard. It’s a great day when another pretty woman joins us on this cruise to WhatWomenNeverHear.
Guy