In Weeding out the Competition, Anglachel explains it all when it comes to the overt misogynism of them we *used* to call progressive men. See, as long as we never threatened their affirmative action program, it was cool for them to patronize our little consciousness raising groups and tell us we were equal and all that. It’s a whole nuther ballgame when we start competing for offices and raises. Here’s the money quote but to get the full deliciousness, you really ought to read the whole thing:
The reaction can be guilt rather than anger because there is really no chance that this class of people will ever get ahead as a class such that there would be competition. It may not be PC to say this, but there is a very rational basis for working class white racism that has nothing to do with believing minorities are lesser beings and everything to do with keeping that structural advantage in place. That’s why the cynical claims of the Obama campaign about Archie Bunkers – when the target is actually the guilty upper middle class – doesn’t ring true. Obama himself is no threat. He codes “white”. The threat he offers is not raising up minorities but turning his back on all the working class and failing to enact policies and programs that will help those who are struggling. The real way to undermine racism is by increasing economic stability and prosperity, not by trying to shame people living on the edge as some kind of moral reprobates.
Change the makeup of that class and suddenly the privileged white boyz start getting nasty. The structural disadvantage that kept women from competing directly for previously male-only positions, structures both legal and cultural, have disappeared with enormous speed in the last forty years, especially the last twenty, and while entry of women into the workplace in professional and skilled labor ranks (they have always worked their asses off in retail, agriculture and service industries) has increased household income, it has also curbed a rise in male wages while offering increased competition for positions. Women’s economic success has directly harmed individual male economic success and the concomitant social privilege.
They probably never were all that concerned about our orgasms either.
SNAG= Sensitive New Age Guys
Filed under: Blogosphere, Gender Equity, Presidential Election 2008 | Tagged: Anglachel, Sensitive New Age Men, Weeding out the Competition
What’s really shocking is the nasty, cruel way all the male newscasters have acted. Equally horrid, the biggie media women in here–Dowd et al. Do you ever find yourself wondering just who these people are?
Or where did feminism as we know it go?
Oh, guess what. O pulled a fast one out here. He drop kicked delegates in CA that worked their little ….off for him. Empathy? No. Usery? Yes. I’ve been researching just what he has done Riverdaughter. It has to be one of the biggest scams on earth. Seriously.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-bach/obamas-big-tent-campaign_b_95966.html
Wow, that is seriously a great post. the comments are wonderful also, thanks for suggesting it.
I get it about the men, but the thing that really bugs me is the women who are voting for Obama just to vote against Hillary. I can respect the votes of those who really do feel the uuhh ‘inspiration’ shit, but cannot abide even talking to people who just cast anti Hillary votes. Especially women. Hard to believe that it is just jealousy….
and no, they were not all that concerned about our orgasms…
C’mon ladies, isn’t about time you started taking responsibility for your own orgasms?
/end snark
tucsonlynn: For the Obama girls, I see two things going on. 1.) they’re young and stupid and think they are going to change the world and 2.)they are very sensitive to the Madison avenue marketing that Hillary supporters are old, stupid working class women whose tits sag. Who wouldn’t prefer to be a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Model with a PhD in Architecture?
Was going to post this excerpt from a HuffPo storyon Tweety in the Matthews thread, but maybe it belongs here:
Tonally inaccurate but factually true? WTF does “tonally inaccurate” mean? Sounds to me like, “There was nothing wrong with what I said, but all those PC feminist b*****s got me in trouble for it.”
myiq2xu: Like we don’t already
P.S. most men care about our orgasms only because they think it reflects badly on their manhood if we don’t have them.
After all, that’s the theme of all those spam penis enlargement ads. .
I need to learn to take responsibility for the thrills going up my leg…
Actually ladies, an intelligent man (they do exist) will be concerned about his partner’s orgasms if for no other reason than planning for the future.
If you don’t deliver, eventually she will call another pizza parlor.
SNAGs are SNAGs because they figure it’s an easy path to getting laid. Barely beneath the surface of every SNAG is a beer guzzling, woman-hating, woman-fearing eternal frat boy who generally doesn’t know jack shit about pleasing a woman. I better stop now before I get real good and riled up.
Of course, all male Conflucians do know jack shit…about a lot of things.
Let me quote this again. This is the heart of the matter:
I think in interview with Martin Roland of CNN on the 40th Anniversary of MLK’s death, Hillary said the same thing. A rising tide lifts all boats. She talked about poverty, health care. She gets it, and that’s one reason I like her. Bill Clinton got it too, IMHO.
You see, equality benefits all. Eradicating poverty, improving education everywhere, having a functional society benefits every one, and it’s also just.
IMHO, (forgive me if you don’t agree), that’s why elites are so much in favor of little programs (we have them here too) that give a couple of scholarships to women and minorities. It makes them feel good, but doesn’t really do anything to change the underlying structure.
Now, if you improved education standards in poor and rural areas and made post-secondary education/training programs affordable, everyone benefits and can lift themselves up. But that would also threaten the cherished special status of the privilaged class.
You know, when I read Christopher Hitchen’s essay on women and humor, I was offended. But even more, I was amused at his utter shallow and contradictory arguments. I read things like that (happens every time I read Andrew Sullivan), and I ask myself, how do they have good gigs?? They get paid for the crap they peddle. But, there is also female versions of Andrew Sullivan all around. Affirmative action for the crowd that ‘fits in’ is all around us.
C’mon, now. You can be a wine sipping, woman-loving, non-fearful, anti frat boy and still not know how to please a woman.
ghost2: MHO, (forgive me if you don’t agree), that’s why elites are so much in favor of little programs (we have them here too) that give a couple of scholarships to women and minorities. It makes them feel good, but doesn’t really do anything to change the underlying structure.
Two reasons for this. First, the one you alluded to — lack of reach. Second, it ensures that the few women/minorities who get to play in the sandbox are ’safe’ and won’t rock the boat.
While I was in grad school, we’d get annual visits from the APS Committee on the Status of Women/Minorities in Physics. The dept would rustle up women/minorities to “represent.” The correct behavior was to talk about how the Dept (capital ‘D’) fosters an atmosphere of success for women and minorities. You are permitted one coded gripe — sometimes the climate is a bit cold, — while the committee members nod in approval as they’ve already prepared written recommendations prior to the visit: More Mentoring.
Department — held harmless, credited for success
Any problems? Not enough mentoring, aka other women/minorities have failed you.
Tried and true formula, and I’m sure nothing has changed.
gqmartinez: lol
HIr, exactly what I am talking about.
I bet you that if education (up to secondary schools) was well funded in the poor areas, and lack of money wasn’t a barrier to high education, you’d have all kinds of minority students (as well as poorer women) coming and taking control. Good education results in good knowledge and training, and solid background brings confidence.
But that would cost real money. Plus, more room for the poor (many of whom are women and minorities) will mean less room for the privilaged upper middle class (the Josh Marshall’s of the world). It would have real consequences and will rock the boat. And you will get real screaming from a lot of people.