The New Exchange

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



4/21/2015 6:01 am  #1


Men, Are You Under Attack?

It certainly hasn't been my life experience, and the reality I see around  me in business and government doesn't support the argument of white male victimhood, but I thought I would toss it out there for comment.


Woe of White Men, Again?
APRIL 16, 2015
 Charles M. Blow

Hillary Clinton’s entry into the race for the presidency has goosed the egos of some conservative ganders.

Wayne LaPierre, the C.E.O. and executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, on the eve of Clinton’s announcement said of President Obama at the group’s annual meeting, “when he’s finished, he intends to go out with the coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton.” There were boos. LaPierre continued: “Yeah, I have to tell you, eight years of one demographically symbolic president is enough.” There were cheers.

Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly ratcheted up the rhetoric on Monday. With the words “HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT” in yellow and all-caps next to his face, he bemoaned the idea that “our traditional American values are under siege nearly everywhere,” and then added: “If you’re a Christian or a white man in the U.S.A., it’s open season on you. Therefore, Hillary Clinton has an advantage.”

In a way, one would expect nothing more from these men. They are simply playing to their bases.

As U.S. News and World Report put it in 2013 when noting a Pew Research Center report: “White men represent just a third of the U.S. population, but about 60 percent of adults with guns in America today are white men.”

And as for Fox, the website Mediaite reported in December that just 1 percent of Fox News viewers are black.

And yet, this faux oppression makes a mockery of very real oppression. Aside from the hilarity of the incongruous spectacle of two incredibly powerful white men grousing about the lowly plight of white men in general is the utter ridiculousness of the idea itself.

And unfortunately, this isn’t a new idea, but the resurrection — or elongation — of an existing one.

In 2012, the conservative commentator Matt K. Lewis wrote an entry on The Daily Caller under the headline “The silent war on noncollege-educated white men.”

That same year, the conservative blog RedState.com published an essay under the headline, “The Democrat War on White Men.” It included lines like “Democrats hate White Men” (capitalization theirs), “White Men in unions are tolerated and helped by Democrats — but only if they fall in line to punish other White Men” and “White Men were politically neutered and forgotten about.”

Suzanne Venker wrote an opinion piece in 2013 on FoxNews.com under the headline “Men — the new second class citizens.” She included the following passage:

“Yet it is males who suffer in our society. From boyhood through adulthood, the White American Male must fight his way through a litany of taunts, assumptions and grievances about his very existence. His oppression is unlike anything American women have faced.”

In August, Representative Mo Brooks, a Republican of Alabama, said on Laura Ingraham’s radio show that there is a “war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party.”

One thing that makes this line of reasoning so grating is the degree to which money and power in this country continue to be dominated by white men. As The Guardian reported in 2013, the “U.S.’s top-paid executives in 2012 represent technology, coffee, and sporting goods companies — and all are white and male.”

ThinkProgress, expanding on the report, explained:

“A big part of the lack in diversity on the list is the lack of diversity among executives overall. Women hold few of the top jobs at major companies. There are now 22 at the helm of Fortune 500 companies with Lynn Good’s appointment as CEO of Duke Energy in July, which means less than 5 percent of those positions are filled by women.

“Top executives are also not racially diverse. Among Fortune 500 CEOs, six are black, making up just 1.2 percent. There are eight Latino and eight Asian CEOs, accounting for just 1.6 percent each.

“But even when they reach the highest rungs, women are still paid less than their peers.”

In politics, the race and gender inequities are also stark.

As The Washington Post reported in January, “the new Congress is 80 percent white, 80 percent male and 92 percent Christian.”

So much for white Christian men being under attack.

This presidential season has the promise to bring a tremendous amount of diversity. Not only is Clinton the leading figure on the Democratic side, but the Republicans have a plethora of diverse options, at least in terms of race, ethnicity and gender.

Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio both have strong ties to the Hispanic community. Rubio is Hispanic and Jeb Bush has a Mexican-born wife and once, inexplicably, listed himself as Hispanic on a voter form.

The disastrous Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal, who is Indian-American, is mulling a run. (I’m not sure Jindal would approve of that hyphenation, by the way, because in a 2013 Politico essay he chafed at what he saw as us placing “far too much emphasis on our ‘separateness,’” and rebuffed that idea of hyphenation, saying, “Here’s an idea: How about just ‘Americans?’”)

Ben Carson, the brilliant neurosurgeon and baffling political figure, who is African-American (sorry, Governor Jindal), is scheduled to make an announcement in Detroit next month about whether he will enter the race. Carson is the same man who once said that white liberals are “the most racist people there are” and don’t want people to “come off the plantation.”

Even Carly Fiorina, who was forced out as the C.E.O. of Hewlett-Packard, is expected to run for the Republican nomination. But some Republican king makers — or queen makers — seem to see her more as a tool than as a true talent. As Time magazine recently reported: “A Republican strategist told Time last year that Fiorina could be a potent weapon for the GOP in the coming cycle. ‘The most effective way to criticize a woman is to have another woman do it.’ ”

This is a flawed field, to be sure, but it is diverse. The last thing we need is for men like LaPierre and O’Reilly to complain about the prospects of an expansion of power that would include more people who don’t look like them.

America is moving forward, tilting and transforming, and the bulwarks of traditional powers are crumbling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/opinion/charles-blow-woe-of-white-men-again.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fcharles-m-blow&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Collection&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article


We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists. 
 

4/21/2015 7:21 am  #2


Re: Men, Are You Under Attack?

WOW (War on Whites) ...... yeah, Right (far right that is)  ! 

Guess P T Barnum was correct. 

 


"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"
 
 

4/21/2015 7:22 am  #3


Re: Men, Are You Under Attack?

This seems more like a “hit” piece from the Times?
There is going to be lots of time to fill with stories so let’s go with this and
forget about e-mail servers, money from foreign sources, missing e-mails.
Let’s shift to this! What a grand idea!
 
Who will we take a swing at?
 
Of course Wayne LaPierre of the very bad NRA! Next, that mean guy Bill O’Reilly and the nasty FOX news. Then we find out that the old white men who are only a small total of the overall population own….. drum roll please over 60% of all guns! Oh my…..
Then they go through their statistics. There are lies, dam lies and statistics!
 
And to finish off they got after   Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina!
 


 “We hold these truths to be self-evident,”  former vice president Biden said during a campaign event in Texas on Monday. "All men and women created by — you know, you know, the thing.”

 
 

4/21/2015 7:28 am  #4


Re: Men, Are You Under Attack?

Common Sense wrote:

This seems more like a “hit” piece from the Times?
There is going to be lots of time to fill with stories so let’s go with this and

 

Sorry, common, but I believe that you are way off the mark with that rant.

Blow is citing actual remarks and writings by actual conservative commentators, writers and public figures.
He hasn't done anything wrong. Nor is it the definition of "hit piece" to note and discuss someone's own words and public comments.. Wayne, Bill, and Suzanne are grownups who make their living expressing ideas on the public stage. They should expect scrutiny of, and comment on, their statements.

These people are putting a narrative of white male victimhood out there, and it must resonate with people. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

You raise a miriad of unrelated issues. Please raise them in another thread and offer some comments on this topic here.
Just because you would rather talk about emails, or whatever, does not mean that people have done wrong by discussing something else.

Some real comments, rather than spin, on this topic would be appreciated.
Are white males, as several conservative figures have clearly alleged, "under attack"?

Please.
 


We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists. 
     Thread Starter
 

4/21/2015 7:49 am  #5


Re: Men, Are You Under Attack?

Goose wrote:

Common Sense wrote:

This seems more like a “hit” piece from the Times?
There is going to be lots of time to fill with stories so let’s go with this and

 

Sorry, common, but I believe that you are way off the mark with that rant.

Blow is citing actual remarks and writings by actual conservative commentators, writers and public figures.
He hasn't done anything wrong. Nor is it the definition of "hit piece" to note and discuss someone's own words and public comments..

These people are putting a narrative of white male victimhood out there, and it must resonate with people. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

You raise a miriad of unrelated issues. Please raise them in another thread and offer some comments on this topic here.
Just because you would rather talk about emails, or whatever, does not mean that people have done wrong by discussing something else.

Some real comments, rather than spin, on this topic would be appreciated.
Are white males, as several conservative figures have clearly alleged, "under attack"?

Please.
 

Guess we don't have to hold anyone accountable for their comments ??   That is going to come as a shock to a lot of people ! 

As far as the D-tribe I would agree that it is true that the white middle male class voter probably does feel left out in the sense that there have been few programs aimed at raising his circumstances. By in large many of those old middle class jobs have disappeared for a myriad of reasons and most of them are not coming back. Could the government do a lot more to help this class. For sure. To pin it on one tribe, however, is ridiculous as both parties have done little in that regards. As a matter of fact it is easier for me to think of things that the R-tribe has in its agendas that hurt the middle class more than the D-tribe. 





 


"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"
 
 

4/21/2015 8:04 am  #6


Re: Men, Are You Under Attack?

Has anyone here experienced this war on white men the pundits claim exists?
Do you think the charge is reasonable?


We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists. 
     Thread Starter
 

4/21/2015 8:56 am  #7


Re: Men, Are You Under Attack?

Has anyone here experienced this war on white men the pundits claim exists?  No

Do you think the charge is reasonable?  No

 

4/21/2015 9:47 am  #8


Re: Men, Are You Under Attack?

Goose wrote:

Has anyone here experienced this war on white men the pundits claim exists?
Do you think the charge is reasonable?

Do I, as a white man, feel like I am "under attack"? - No.

Have I read a lot of commentary over the past couple of years that indicate that as a white guy that everything I have was accumulated through some hand-given "privilidge" that I didn't earn. - To be honest, I am seeing more and more of that type of thought.

I see a lot of articles about how as a white guy I have a lot of deep seeded racist tendancies that are subconcious and that I have just never known about them and now science has figured all this out and so I better try to accomodate everyone else a little bit more.

I see a lot of articles about how darn difficult it is for women to have it all. To raise a family and to have a career and to get ahead and how it's so much more of a burden for a woman to get through life than it is for a guy who, at least in my situation, puts in just as many hours at home than I do at the office. 

At the core of this, I think, is this trend I see of everyone trying to lump people into groups and to say these groups all have one shared experience. 

Liberal v Conservative
Black v White
Men v Women
Immigrant v Citizen
Religious v Non-Religious
Rich v Middle Class v Poor

This is wrong.

So to repeat, I do not feel attacked as a white guy and even if I am, I don't really have the time to deal with it as I'm too busy just plodding along in my own life to deal with the hurt, real or imagined, of each individual demographic group.

All I can do is try to deal with everyone I come across individually with respect, kindness, fairness, and empathy.

 


I think you're going to see a lot of different United States of America over the next three, four, or eight years. - President Donald J. Trump
 

4/21/2015 11:03 am  #9


Re: Men, Are You Under Attack?

Thanks for your responses, guys. 
I agree that there are people on both fringes who seem bent on the Balkanization of American society. We must, of course resist them.

I would suggest that a few articles about "white privelege" fall waaaaaaay short of the "war on white men"  alleged by the people in Charles Blow's essay. The remarks By redstate and others quoted are way over the top, and actually contribute to this dynamic of division.

I have also seen people who have simply argued for equal pay for women, or an examination of the treatment of minorities by the criminal justice system written off as being anit-man, or anti-white. I find this tactic to be reprehensible.


We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists. 
     Thread Starter
 

4/21/2015 1:09 pm  #10


Re: Men, Are You Under Attack?

I would suggest that a few articles about "white privelege" fall waaaaaaay short of the "war on white men"  alleged by the people in Charles Blow's essay. The remarks By redstate and others quoted are way over the top, and actually contribute to this dynamic of division.

I try to differentiate the comments and articles from the O'Reilly's and Redstate's of the world from the other articles I see about racism, feminism, etc because they're advocating for a cause and it helps to as I noted before, to create divisions in an electorate. 

"See those liberals damning the White Man? Come to the republican party! There's a place for you here"

That sort of stuff is pointless and unfortunately is just part of what passes as part of our political rhetoric.

By the way, it's done just as much on the left.

I guess my bottom line is this? There is much advocacy for minorities, women, LGBT folks, illegal immigrants, etc. As there should be. But I get the sense that the popular oinion is your average white guy in 2015 is just doing A-Ok, and if you try and say otherwise, you are quickly shot down.

And all I'm saying is that everyone is in this together. Let's try and find more inclusivness and less reasons to discount one group's thoughts and opinions over anothers.

I hope I'm explaining my point of view well.


I think you're going to see a lot of different United States of America over the next three, four, or eight years. - President Donald J. Trump
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum