General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat fueled right wingers, fathers rights, mens' rights, gun rights & teabaggers into existence?
Last edited Sun Mar 2, 2014, 03:15 AM - Edit history (1)
Angry White Men, American Masculinity at the End of an Era, by Michael Kimmel, copyright 2013I'm currently reading this book, and it's amazing.
Here's the synopsis from the inside flap:
One of the enduring legacies of the 2012 presidential campaign was the demise of the white American male voter as a dominant force in the political landscape. On election night, after Obama was announced the winner, a distressed Bill O'Reilly lamented that he didn't live in "a traditional America anymore." He was joined by others who bellowed their grief on the talk radio airwaves, the traditional redoubt of angry white men. Why were they so angry? Sociologist Michael Kimmel, one of the leading writers on men and masculinity in the world today, has spent hundreds of hours in the company of America's angry white men - from men's rights activists to young students to white supremacists - in pursuit of an answer. Angry White Men presents a comprehensive diagnosis of their fears, anxieties, and rage.
Kimmel locates this increase in anger in the seismic economic, social, and political shifts that have so transformed the American landscape. Downward mobility, increased racial and gender equality, and a tenacious clinging to an anachronistic ideology of masculinity has left many men feeling betrayed and bewildered. Raised to expect unparalleled social and economic privilege, white men are suffering today from what Kimmel calls, "aggrieved entitlement": a sense that those benefits that white men believed were their due have been snatched away from them.
Angry White Men discusses, among others, the sons of small town America, scarred by underemployment and wage stagnation. When America's white men feel they've lived their lives the "right" way - worked hard and stayed out of trouble - and still do not get economic rewards, then they have to blame somebody else. Even more terrifying is the phenomenon of angry young boys. School shootings in the United States are not just the work of "misguided youth" or "troubled teens" - they're all committed by boys. These alienated young men are transformed into mass murderers by a sense of using violence against others is their right.
The future of America is more inclusive and diverse. The choice for angry white men is not whether or not they can stem the tide of history: they cannot. Their choice is whether or not they will be dragged kicking and screaming into that inevitable future, or whether they will walk honorably alongside those they've spent so long trying to exclude. By explaining their rage, Kimmel is able to point to a possible future that is healthier, happier, and much less angry.
He discusses the failure of the American Dream to materialize (and read that, white male American Dream, as there was no American Dream for anyone but white males). He addresses the Mens' "Rights" allegations that men get beaten up by women with the same frequency as women get beaten up by men, and analyzes it with all the available data (and of course finds it to be pure BS). He analyzes the attacks and accusations toward feminists and feminism. He covers all the basics, using an analytical point of view, and studies by the hundreds.
I strongly recommend it!
Skittles
(153,249 posts)they're the biggest cowards on the planet
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)the psychological difference between a lib and a conservative, is that conservatives are terrified of change.
Do you recall that study?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)The article explains the white angry male rightwing issues thing wonderfully.
billh58
(6,635 posts)They're not jihadists. They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/08/opinion/la-ed-patriot-groups-splc-report-20130308
The Southern Poverty Law Center has also documented this phenomenon:
http://www.splcenter.org/home/2013/spring/the-year-in-hate-and-extremism
Not all white men are racist, right-wing gun nuts, but almost all racist, right-wing gun nuts are white men.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)white men."
Thank you for that quote. I'm going to borrow it!!
JHB
(37,163 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Pretty disgusting. I am a white male who is in the minority of white males in that I voted for Gore, Kerry, and Obama...but enough.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)And further, does this mean that you believe my name is Michael Kimmel?
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)I believe the author has some pretty good points. The only "aggrieved males" that I think might have a case are those who were dealt a pretty raw deal regarding custody, visitation , etc. in divorces involving children.
All the rest? I absolutely agree there are a lot of angry white males who look for people to blame for their lack of accomplishment in life and blaming attempts at equality for women and minorities is one of the easiest things to do for them. No introspection involved in that.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)However, by no means do I believe that there aren't some exceptions to that.
11 Bravo
(23,928 posts)fucking MILLIONS of us interrupt your little screed .
We are not yet in the majority of your target group, but my wife and I have raised have two sons who are white (couldn't do much about that), not angry, know how to handle a firearm, plan on being fathers one day, and are staunch progressives.
I hope you can eventually find room for my boys in your world.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)means we deserve a little heat from others. It's not "fair" but neither are most things in life.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Where stereotyping is rightly scorned, no person should be assessed based on what demographic groups they are a part of.
If you would get in trouble for making a negative observation such as:
"Women are all..."
"Black people are..."
"Arabs always..."
Then it should be unacceptable to make overly broad or universal statements about white males or whites or males.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Just be glad you don't (by and large) have to deal with bigotry and stereotyping in everyday life, whereas if you were a black man or a gay man, you very well might.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)You aren't addressing my point. Stereotyping is wrong.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)improving the social status of those who aren't white males. It's not that negatively stereotyping white males will accomplish that, necessarily, it's simply a matter of priorities.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)something I tend to fret about. You're perfectly entitled to your own opinion on that, though.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)It is impossible for human beings to do 100 things at once. Therefore, it is necessary to set importance. It's called prioritizing.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)"we can't be bothered to refrain from stereotyping all white males because minorities!"
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)much of what is being discussed here, and due to that, are assuming it's "just illogical." In other posts, I've noticed that you've jumped to conclusions rather quickly (though why you've done that I don't know). It's best if you calm down, take a deep breath, and study things in a meditative and logical manner. I urge you to re-read what has been posted already.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)relatively advantaged in society to begin with. The point is not to gratuitously offend people, it's to illuminate often uncomfortable truths.
Response to nomorenomore08 (Reply #47)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)So what exactly were you blaming him of not addressing?
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Stereotyping of white men is not equivalent to stereotyping of women or racial and ethnic minorities, or members of the LGBT community.
If the worst thing you can say about experiencing stereotyping is that your feelings are (temporarily) hurt, then consider yourself lucky.
brush
(53,945 posts)not to all white males.
This is DU. We know how to not lump all white males in with the angry, racist, white males that make up the majority of the GOPTeaparty right wing.
The word stereotyping was your input.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)that you would accuse anyone of the same thing. Shame on you.
Squinch
(51,072 posts)"Women are" or "black people are"?
Where've you been?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)That's why a white male who is lib is a wonderful human being!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)you have that girl picture?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Would've been nice if you complained when the victims weren't in your own demographic.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Let me know.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)dogknob
(2,431 posts)I'm a white male. I grew up with a father who would be a tea party douchebag today if he hadn't been persecuted by the gay men he fired for being gay (and their Jewish lawyers); when he saw that all was lost, he ate his gun -- but he needed an audience for that so he wouldn't go out feeling so marginalized.
THAT is the white man being discussed in this thread. These men and their enthralled families are the people being discussed here.
Instead of the predictable "b-but I'm white a-a-and I did x and y," take a moment to wonder where you might be right now if you were not white.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But your story also shows how dangerous the sense of persecution and marginalization - even if at least partly spurious - can be to an individual's well-being. Hence why perspectives like Kimmel's are so important.
You're slipping...
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)And you went back to a days old thread to comment on my post? Ok.
Response to Skittles (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I see no racist bigotry in that post you are speaking of, nor any untruths.
Response to bravenak (Reply #61)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Rex
(65,616 posts)Check this RWing tool out! Think he is angry?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I'm not going to go buy that book and read it right now, so in fairness I hope that it makes a different point than is made on the surface.
People are individuals, lumping all whites, all men, all Christians together is as bigoted as lumping all latinos, or women, or Buddhists together.
If it's what it appears to be on the surface, it's very disappointed to see it here.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Or is it that you only consider studies to be bigotry when you disagree with them or they contradict your ideology?
Further, I'd encourage you to read the book. It's incredibly well researched. If, in order to protect your ideology, you choose not to, then you're no better than the flat earthers who claim that the earth is 6000 years old, and refuse to open a book on evolution.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I'm not stupid, it's just that my philosophy respects all people and my upbringing prevents me from attributing to all members a demographic the bad characteristics of some or even most among that group.
I'm not here to fight with you, I'm expressing an opinion and now I'm done.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)If it doesn't make your ideology look good, it can't possibly be true.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Talking about my ideology. How dare you?
You don't know shit about me.
Back off. I expressed an opinion about a book, not about you, and I'm not about to go buy the piece of shit book anytime soon based on your analysis.
You want to make it personal. That's pathetic behavior on your part, it's not genuine argument, it's just a loser's juvenile name-calling ad homonym tactic.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)and I don't know why you'd do that, I know pretty much what you believe, based on what you've said. I hope that doesn't upset you too much.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Condemns or even mentions a fathers' rights person or a guns rights person as among the disaffected population about which he rights.
You can't.
So instead you attack me.
Pretty weak shit, Sarah Ibarruri.
If you hate white men, fathers, and gun rights supporters, just come out and say it. You don't need to bring someone's valid book into the mix.
And if you don't, then fix your OP to include a link, and change the subject line to correctly represent the book's premise.
See ya.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Or is it another form of headdress?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Give the thread a read and you'll find that the inept phrasing of the post has more than one member shaking their head.
Not sure where you're going with that headdress reference, or the mask for that matter, but you go ahead and spread the love.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 3, 2014, 05:25 PM - Edit history (1)
The objects of your obsession and disdain are not the same individuals or groups that the author is identifying in making his points.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Kindly back up your bullshit subject line with ONE example from the book where the author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post...
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Pretty weak shit, Sarah Ibarruri.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 2, 2014, 11:36 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Wow, angry white man is angry. Seek help for those rage episodes, you'll burst a brisket.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alert is pretty weak shit
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)You have been called out multiple times in this thread for poor behavior and you offer the same stock answer: "I have seen your posting". Sorry, but that doesn't justify poor behavior and personal attacks. It just demonstrates you have some deep seeded issues that need to be addressed. However, I am guessing you will tell me how I am all wrong, just as everyone else you talk with is wrong and how you have everything and everybody figured out.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)That is one of those that I know better, but still get wrong.
The one that bugs me is when people say "I could care less" instead of "I could NOT care less."
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)Every time I've backed a fundy into a corner they flee to doctrine. It's always, "Read this, it'll explain everything." Whether it's the Bible or some skewed analysis by some hack, they refuse to actually defend it but appeal to authority, likely because they didn't understand it to begin with.
There are plenty of "studies" designed with an eye to marketshare, and if you think this book is a good explanation, and you understood it, you should be prepared to defend it.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)and some writings by folks who are not scientists, and provide their opinion of the fairy tale book.
However, fundies DO flee scientific knowledge, and they flee quite rapidly, if I may say so.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)And you haven't provided any proof either, just an appeal to authority that sounds good to you.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Read the book and stop guessing. Guessing will get you into trouble, which is why you're incorrect in assuming that this book is some sort of fundy-like reaction, when it is an incredibly well researched and put together piece of work. Stop guessing, then attacking the guesses.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)"10. The original post explained it - in common are, angry + WHITE + MALE nt"
You don't seem to have understood what you read, but rather took away from it want you wanted. And the result is a rather confused mixture of assumptions that flow from pre conceived notions about men. It's the difference between learning something and using it to support your beliefs, much like a religious approach to source material.
Want to try again? Or would you rather deflect people's concerns with "go read the book, it explains everything."?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)There are people with a prefixed point of view who go out and find a book, glaze through it, completely miss the main points and any nuances, and then use the book to support their own prefixed point of view.
I think that's what happened here.
I got the book, I'm reading it over the next couple days.
Nothing in it, so far, supports the outlandish claims made by the OP, specifically the subject line and the offensive replies that have been posted.
Nothing. Not a thing.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Got a few more go go through first, but I'll get to it. It's probably a good piece of work.
Terms like "angry white men" become dog whistles of their own and should be dealt with appropriately even around here.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)That got real personal, real fast. One person disagrees and all of a sudden: " If, in order to protect your ideology, you choose not to, then you're no better than the flat earthers who claim that the earth is 6000 years old, and refuse to open a book on evolution."
You got all that from NYC's one, very brief post. Amazing.
Otoh, it is consistent with the all-or-nothing-theme of your OP.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)One person disagrees with you and, out of nowhere, that poster is under personal attack. What's not to understand?
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)For the book, Michael Kimmel focused on subgroups such as; the "they are taking our freedumbs"!1!!1 types. The gun toting, 2nd amendment, racist, misogynistic, and homophobic types. The Tim McVeigh types. He limited his research to those groups in order to try to understand what the source of their (misplaced) anger is. These men are basically right wingers.
The subject matter in this book is far from being a broad-brush of men. In fact, I personally think it serves to highlight the diversity of men's experiences and viewpoints. Kimmel is attempting to understand and convey to the reader the POV of guys that he in no way agrees with, in a fair and objective way. It'd be the equivalent of a respected liberal feminist academic researching and writing about anti-choice, christian fundamentalist, tea party women. I'd buy such a book, because I'm curious about why RW women think the way they do.
If anyone would like to get a deeper perspective on the book, here is the 1 hour Book TV interview. Well worth the time if you can spare it: http://www.booktv.org/Watch/15151/After+Words+Michael+Kimmel+Angry+White+Men+American+Masculinity+at+the+End+of+an+Era+hosted+by+Hanna+Rosin+author+of+The+End+of+Men.aspx
Professor Kimmel has been teaching gender studies for years, with an emphasis on issues unique to men. I think that if folks here give his work a chance, they will find that he is an advocate for men, not a foe of them.
Here is a short bio on him from CSpan Book Tv:
Mr. Kimmel is the executive director at the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities and a professor of sociology and gender studies at Stony Brook University. He is the author of many books, including "The History of Men," "The Gender Society" and "Guyland."
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It's much more helpful than telling me that my ideology is to blame and that I should go read the book.
I'll be at a conference the next few days and might have some down time, perfect chance to watch the interview at least.
The premise of the book is, as I understand it, a reasonable and valid one, but the choice of words in the OP Subject Line and resulting associations are not only insulting, they seem to be a misrepresentation of Mr. Kimmel's work.
RW radio fuels this, and the size of their audience seems to support the author's suggestion that mostly white, mostly male, mostly older conservative Americans are blaming the ills of society and their own misfortunes on those not in their demographic.
It's not a brand new thing. Having lived most of my life in California, I've noticed it for 20 years or longer in the form of xenophobia and blaming immigrants for everything, but it does seem to have become more pronounced with the economic collapse and election of a black president. And now their pushing back on the relief we are finally getting via ACA, etc.
I'll bet it's a great book.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)I hope you can find some time for the interview. What is nice about these book tv interviews is the fact that you really don't have to watch them. I often just listen while getting other things done.
Kimmel is very engaging and even funny in parts of it. At least to me, but I have a weird sense of humor. For example, at some point in the interview, he says "that's terrific!" Lol, I haven't heard anyone say that in years! Small, unintentionally funny things like that crack me up.
I can see how, from the wording of this thread that you might have thought the book was about all white men. Others appear to have done the same. Had I not already known about the book, I might have too. I can't speak to how it devolved from there, but I don't think the OP intentionally meant to mislead, though. Gender issues, as we all have seen recently, can be very touchy subjects... Plus, the title of the book itself is unfortunate in my opinion. If someone on DU was recommending a book titled Angry White Women, or just Angry Women, period, I'd want a pretty darn good explanation.
Speaking of explanations, mine wasn't that great either. It would have been so much easier to just call these guys what you just did- RW radio listeners. Fortunately, you still got what I meant. The point you made about the blaming of immigrants is a good example of what Kimmel is talking about. Men have every right to be angry, but they (meaning rw guys) "are delivering it to the wrong address".
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Thank you for correcting me about the book in another reply in this thread.
It looks pretty good and doesn't condemn fathers rights or guns rights people.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...it's not just bigotry, it's sloppy thinking.
brush
(53,945 posts)The post refers to those angry, racist white males who make up the majority of the right wing GOPTeaparty, not all white men. NOT ALL WHITE MEN.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)It's all very telling.
brush
(53,945 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)White males are the main demographic group that continues to support the rw. That does not mean all white men are assholes.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I believe that the OP didn't mean what is implied by the subject line (without going into unnecessary detail).
The offensive bigoted part to me is the subject line (followed by a shallow defense):
I'm confident that what the OP intended to say, corrected for grammatical accuracy, would have been better represented by this:
Note the distinction in grammatical construction such that the qualifier, "right-winged", is thusly applicable to all of these groups exclusively.
Skittles
(153,249 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Seriously, Skittles. Why do you want to go there?
I wanna be nice to you and I want you to REALLY LOOK HARD AT THE SUBJECT LINE of this OP.
Think it over, I've made peace with the author, let's be progressive now, K?
"let's be progressive"
ooh dear, perhaps I should kick my own SHIFTAN ASS
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Oh and when you got fairly blocked from the gun control group.
Interesting what actually makes you angry and all the crap that doesn't.
And that includes being angrier that gun control was being discussed 48 hours after the Connecticut school shooting than the shooting itself.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)comport himself with just a bit more decorum than to engage in personal attacks in an effort to smear long-time DUers of infinitely more depth, but you'd be wrong. Alas, a one trick pony has but one trick.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you're the last one that should be lecturing any of us on decorum at DU.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)allude so many here? Did you not read the title of the OP?
polly7
(20,582 posts)right wingers, gun rights and teabaggers?
Father's rights and men's rights deal with groups of people who absolutely do have often very difficult challenges. The others listed in your title have belief systems that may put them at odds with certain progressive ideals.
What's the correlation?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)And I mean 'all' men, no matter race. What about those who've struggled to educate themselves and find no employment that will enable them to pay back huge loans or support a family, those who've gone to war and come back to nil opportunity, those who've suffered in many ways because of an economic situation that's left them hopeless?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)it even covers all your small questions. And it provides every conceivable study which will answer any possible question you could post here. If you can't afford it, I'm sure your local library carries it, and library cards are free.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Your author's broad-brushing of all men and trying to associate them with teabaggers and nutters is absolutely ridiculous. Can you even imagine if that was done to women as a group?!?!?
You can't seem to answer even the most basic questions, so I assume you have nothing to offer but parroting that silly, small characterization of all dreaded white men.
Why the insults? I can definitely afford it ....... but I don't waste my time on bullshit.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)So don't read it, but if you won't, don't ask questions.
polly7
(20,582 posts)You won't answer, does it threaten your world view to see opposition to narrow-minded, stereo-typing of people whose struggles you can't even admit to? I've never read Ayn Rand, either.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)According to the OP.
Unfuckingbelievable.
The book is fine, the OP's a hot mess of confusion of issues and conflation of demographics groups, mistakes the author was careful not to make.
polly7
(20,582 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)in a pretty glowing NYT review by Hanna Rosin, the critic says:
Outside a more elite audience, Kimmels diagnosis of aggrieved entitlement will be, I imagine, a tough sell. The men hes writing about have gone through several recessions and 40 years of economic shifts. They live in a world where, as one man tells him, youll never find a job as a plumber but you might find one as a Walmart hostess. Beyond that, families around them are falling apart. Among men like them, without a college degree, divorce rates are high and fewer people get married; for women with only a high school degree, for example, nearly 60 percent of births occur outside marriage, rendering fatherhood a relic of the past. These men may have once run with the wind at their backs, but the air has been dead still for a long time.
...
Kimmels hope is that more men will give up their sense of entitlement and accept a gentler, fairer notion of what it means to be a man. Thats the right ideal, and pop culture has been helping him along, providing ever more TV shows portraying working-class men as loving fathers. Kimmels own book, too, offers evidence that men are making adjustments, choosing to be active parents or attending batterer support groups in an effort to change.
But in the short term, class inequalities loom larger than gender or race.
It would seem your interlocutor would have noticed this and, thus, avoided her angry rejoinders.
OTOH, she's implored several people to just "read the book" when she states that she herself hasn't done so.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)It was almost lost to me by what seemed like a one sided effort to deceive that was too blatant to miss.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)But do feel free to please indicate where I said I had not read the book.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)I'm guessing you don't read the replies in your own thread, either. So, at the risk of being repetitive, here, from the second line of your OP:
"I'm currently reading this book, and it's amazing."
You're welcome.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)further. I get it that the book has included all of the offshoots from right wing ideology into the mix (fathers' "rights", gun madness, etc.), and you don't like it, but that has nothing to do with me, and absolutely everything to do with you.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)It does you a tremendous disservice and leads to threads like this - where sharing an interesting book becomes all about you.
Anyway, I answered your question. You're welcome.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)In the meantime, having perused your newest rejoinders, I'll conclude that this thread is flamebait. I'll also suggest that it didn't proceed as you had planned.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It's imaginary, it's in the eye of the beholder.
JVS
(61,935 posts)I think teabaggers and a bunch of divorced men who are unhappy that they don't see much of their kids are two very distinct issues.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)and he has picked through every study with a fine-toothed comb. He's studied it to death, and it will answer any possible question and wonderment.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)OP seems to want to take a shot at other DUers, but the book seems legit and doesn't seem to talk about parents' rights at all.
And it doesn't talk about gun rights, either, though it does discuss what might make mass shooters go nutty, quite a different matter.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4590129
Piece of shit subject line in the OP. Flamebait, IMO.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)is in blaming those difficulties on feminism. What they don't realize is that it's not zero-sum - they don't have to tear down women to build themselves up. Rejecting feminism wholesale merely means they'll remain trapped in overly restrictive gender roles.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)that the book also deals with racism, gun culture, school shootings and economics?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Why do you jump on every post with the same old line.
That's not what I was talking about and you know it ........ but anything to ramp up the gender war here, right???
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I'm honestly sorry if I upset you in any way, that was not my intention. And I'm sorry for (apparently) being a broken record too. But I just can't let narcissistic men blaming women for their problems slide, especially as a man myself.
P.S. Obviously I know you're a woman and you don't "blame women" for anything yourself. I was making a general statement.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Movement here?
polly7
(20,582 posts)I'm defending the right of good, decent men struggling to make it in today's economy for equal treatment and opportunity everywhere in the world, including here - who are not, as hard as you try to imply - the rabid MRA you try SO hard to paint them as.
But are you seriously saying there is a rabid MRA group 'here'? God, you'll try anything, won't you? Are you doing this to prop up some Radical Femenist man-hate group 'here'?!?!?!?
What a fucking joke. What's your real goal? And don't twist my words, your tactics are transparent.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)defending the MRM" . I'll bet you knew that.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I explained what I defend. The Men's Group 'here' has been accused time after time of being MRA who hate women. Do you deny that?
Don't like what I say, don't read it ............ and don't twist it for whatever sick agenda it is you're going for.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)does not belong in the same category as other hate groups. I would encourage anyone reading this to google "men's rights movement" and take a look at the vile shit that comes up. It's not a movement that should have defenders on DU.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)You haven't seen me angry.
I could state the same about you though. Why so insulting and demeaning towards many in this thread who disagreed with your broad-brushing? It's a message board. We all get to express opinions. I think you and others are naive to believe you can stomp all over people and not expect a reaction back you don't care for.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Don't even try to say I threatened you in any way. What a pile of complete and utter crap. No idea why you're on some sort of pity party - did your OP title meant to inflame not get the exact results you were hoping for?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)But sleep well!
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Also recommend it.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)and it was recently published, too.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)For a Jewish author to get "in the head" of an avowed white supremacist like that was really impressive.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Here's your problem. Your subject line seems to be projection, it's not supported by my review of the reviews and excerpts:
It dismisses often legitimate supporters of parent's rights and gun rights, lumping them in with "right wingers" and "teabaggers".
That's very unfortunate. You've turned off more than a few DU members to looking more closely at the book.
You could at least have included a link rather than expect people to accept your unfortunate characterization of the book.
Here: http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/perseus/book_detail.jsp?isbn=1568586965
And: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/books/review/angry-white-men-by-michael-kimmel.html
Better luck next time, maybe you can include a review and use the article's title rather than make one up for the OP subject line.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)(1) Your confusion regarding my OP subject line being misleading. It is not misleading. The book addresses all of those and they are the individuals being studied.
(2) Your confusion concerning the increase in popularity of gun rights groups, of fathers rights groups, and how these are directly associated with the very thing that caused right wing ideology to become a wildly popular fad which is with us even today.
(3) All additional questions concerning this book (which you haven't read), will be addressed by reading the book. At the bottom of the issues are the loss of white male entitlement, which is a historical fact, and is on the road to ending, to be replaced by a greater equality. However, that loss of white male entitlement, has created a backlash which is the source very reason we are fighting fundies, right wingers, wildly popular gun nuts, mass shooters in malls and schools, etc. He even goes into why the loss of white male entitlement has caused white male middle class and working class men to support (by joining all of these groups, right wing, gun groups, fathers' "rights", etc. etc.) to lift up and empower the richest class in the U.S., thereby screwing (pardon the term) themselves royally.
If you do not read the book and merely GUESS at what is in the book and direct your anger at those guesses, you will be wasting your time and mine. Read the book. If you cannot afford it, check it out of a library. Libraries continue to be free.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I'll bet you can't.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)This issue has been around since the early 1970s. It stared building in reaction to the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The NRA didn't become as powerful as it is today until Gun Prohibition Advocates started advocating the Prohibition of Handguns, then later Semi-Automatic guns, and for some Gun Prohibition Advocates, all guns.
Another factor contributing to the change in the NRA was the realization that the "Fudds" (those who believe the only purpose of owning guns was to hunt) would be perfectly willing to sell out other guns owners as long as they were allowed to keep their hunting guns. And since fewer gun owners hunt these days, the non-hunters were not about to let themselves be sold out.
The 1977 Cincinnati Revolt in the NRA was when really started to change, and that was 37 years ago. And the Cincinnati Revolt was a grass roots movement with the NRA. Not a change forced on by outsiders.
The rise of various organizations seeking to strictly limit or ban handguns.
Mark Borinsky founded the National Council to Control Handguns in 1974
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.
The National Coalition to Ban Handguns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_to_Stop_Gun_Violence
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Read the book.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Broad brush racist OP
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Or are you saying that since the book seems to contradict your personal views of life, you don't like it?
Or even, are you (without reading the book) claiming somehow that you know more than this scientist, who has researched these topics ad nauseaum?
Which is it?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Particularly this line, which is absolutely, obnoxiously bigoted.
"He discusses the failure of the American Dream to materialize (and read that, white male American Dream, as there was no American Dream for anyone but white males)"
Did you write the line, or is it a quote?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Exactly how was this, up until 40-50 years ago, untrue?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)lol
nt
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)That may not be quite as true anymore, but I'm talking about the past, not the present.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Makes me wonder precisely what your ideology is.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Uhuh...
If anyone disagrees with you it's because they are somehow flawed, or right wing...? lol
The OP is racist, particularly the part that I mentioned. The part that I pointed out is based on your bigotry. You will just have to live with that fact.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That only white and male people can achieve the American dream. I am saying that all judgement's based upon skin color are bigoted and racist. You pre-judge based on skin color.
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
...you know, like MEN and WHITE PEOPLE.
Marr
(20,317 posts)a legitimate complaint. Lumping all anger from white males into a single, easily demonized 'type' is incredibly unfair.
I would never in a million years presume to tell women what they can and cannot legitimately feel, and it amazes me that there are people who actually claim to be committed to gender equality, and yet feel completely justified in telling men that their frustrations are illegitimate.
I personally think that much of the anger that some put down to sexism or some inherent violent streak in men is more about the social isolation men are subjected to from a very early age-- something women don't tend to experience.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)i.e. "downward" (in terms of social and political power) rather than "upward."
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)it described the failure of a project started by a psychologist in response to the increase in digital harassment of children, which has a lot in common with how adults are harassed in comment threads and blogs - it seemed that children were learning how to tease and harass from adults. So this Norwegian psychologist tried to start a project called 'Generous Men' to counter act this type of foul trolls. The idea was to create a group of men who behaved as role models in internet debates, with a facebook page where those who wanted to participate could get together and talk, man to man. It took two weeks for the group to be trolled to death.
There's also been an increased focus on the vituperative hatred many women face if they speak in public. Sweden aired a documentary that showed how Swedish women faced death and rape threats, and doxxing etc when they spoke in public or on public internet debates. The threats are of a very specific type that aren't used against men, in that they mix violence and sex in pretty much all their threats.
The anger that lies behind this must be taken seriously, I believe. While part of it is, like Warpy posted elsewhere on this thread, that men have had the greatest loss of wages and job security since the 50s, that doesn't fully explain or excuse it. It's like people always say on the union threads - the solution isn't to pull the union jobs down to the level of minimum wage, but to pull the minimum wage jobs up to union wage and benefits. The same goes for the different groups at the bottom of society. We can rail against the 1% all we want, but as long as they manage to split us up because some groups refuse to see that other groups are more disadvantaged, we will not be able to overturn the 1%.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)and this guy connects very well the loss of the white male status with the strength of the right wing movement, and all the other right wing ideologies, such as all the anti-feminist male groups, the gun + NRA madness, and so on. The influence of the angry white right wing male is still out there, influencing us all. And I say us all, because let's face it, even Democrats and libs get swayed by right wing concepts, ideas, etc. Back during Reagan there were the Reagan Democrats, and today there are some libs that are gun-ho for some of the ideologies of the right, such as blaming their own personal failures, on others, and a really easy target is women. They are somewhat more cautious accusing black people and gays.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's a longer-form exploration of that question than a post on a message board can be.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)(1) Ascribing to me ideas you came up with
(2) Assuming that the book employs no studies or statistics and is merely some guy's opinion (or mine!)
(3) Assuming that somehow the book might be wrong in using studies to determine what the majority might feel. Studies and statistics have been used for centuries to determine how the majority of a group feel, do best, etc.
(4) Social isolation has absolutely nothing to do with what's going on today. Men in Latin countries do not experience social isolation, are warmer and closer to one another and to their families. While I agree that social isolation affects us all in the U.S., since this country is one of loners, and humans were not meant to be loners, this has absolutely nothing to do with the premise of the book.
Read it. Check it out of the library.
Marr
(20,317 posts)But it was little more than a detailed justification for prejudice and in-group/out-group thinking.
I'm not under the impression that you wrote this book, only that you're taken by it-- as people tend to be when they read things that validate their opinions. To be clear, I don't actually disagree that much of the right-wing anger is rooted in a formerly dominant group seeing their dominance slip away. But I think it's a class thing more than a gender thing, as I've met plenty of women who could easily fit into that mold. I also don't think it's fair to lump father's rights groups in with right-wing loons.
As a side note, I don't see how your point about men in Latin countries bolsters your point-- unless you're saying that shooting sprees or Tea Party groups are just as common there, which they aren't. It would seem to support my suggestion that there's a connection between some of the groups you described and social isolation, if both the groups and the phenomenon of social isolation is more of a US thing.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)That was my point.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)were analyzed by this writer. Further, he spoke with the scientists responsible for the studies employed by the angry, anti-feminist groups. Seriously, it makes a good read.
Marr
(20,317 posts)It sounds like an interesting topic.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)SunSeeker
(51,771 posts) That summary says, "...Kimmel is able to point to a possible future that is healthier, happier, and much less angry." Does he explain how we can get to that future?
I am familiar with the issues of angry white men. I just don't know how to make them part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)without acknowledging the problem, it's impossible to work on it, and right now there is ZERO acknowledging.
SunSeeker
(51,771 posts)It will never be 100% acknowledgment, not even close.
Given our reality, what are the solutions? Or is this not a solutions book but a consciousness raising book?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)to the way it was, with entitlement and that particular American caste system, to the exclusion of the rest. Awareness that almost all of the thinking associated with the angry offshoot groups, stem from the right wing is vital. There is pure denial right now among all those affiliated with the angry groups.
SunSeeker
(51,771 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)then consider yourself fortunate. Seriously.
And also, how are we ever going solve the problem of deeply ingrained racism in this society, if we pretend that we don't know where most of it is coming from?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I think they were Libertarians, which is a right-wing party.
I don't know much about father's rights so I don't think I should comment on it.
Men's Rights Advocates seem to come from both the left and the right, so I am not convinced they are fueled together.
Gun rights seems more regional to me. I live in Montana, and lots of liberals at my university own firearms. Rudy Giuliani was pro-firearm restrictions before he ran for President.
Some of the OP may be accurate, but I am not sure what the claims in the subject line mean exactly.
Some of the claims in the OP seem speculative, for example:
Maybe true, but the author, and many other people, have a difficult time seeing outside of their own world view. Not all world views contain the concepts of rights, which is really a social/rhetorical construct. The author is a sociologist, so I am surprised that he doesn't seem to understand this.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)the basic concepts in the book, then I am not sure I would gain much from reading the book.
Warpy
(111,405 posts)White males have taken wage depression harder than any other group. The reason women are now making 77% of what men make instead of 60% is because men's wages have fallen faster and farther.
Add to that the loss of the Leave it to Beaver family paradigm where dad made the money and Mom stayed home and raised the kids while being his personal domestic cook and servant died a rapid and ignoble death as the rapid decline in white male purchasing power meant the income of women was absolutely vital to the household. Suddenly, he was expected to pitch in and do "women's work" or the woman in question would leave him.
White males had ample reason to be angry. I fault the Democratic Party for caving to the conservatives and taking economic issues largely off the table. Meanwhile, the Republicans have been going out and telling these guys to be angry at all the wrong people, when they should have been angry about fiscal conservatives in both parties. for screwing them on wages.
They should have been angry at the collapse of the New Deal and the shredding of the social contract. They should be angry at Republicans and conservative Democrats.
And that should be our challenge.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)having read it. In fact, wage depression ADDED to the anger and the problems, but is not the sole reason.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I recommend books all the time. People will typically ask me questions about it and I will answer them. All you can do is repeat "read the book" "read the book" "READ THE BOOK". We all have a limited number of free hours in a day, week or month. I cannot afford to invest hours in a book because random person on DU is screaming "read the book" over and over again. Answer some of the questions and engage in a discussion instead of getting up on a high horse, talking down to everyone.
And some of us are sight handicapped and can't read the 2 books a day we used to.
"Read the book" indicates to me that someone can't manage to paraphrase what they'd like to say they got out of that book.
westerebus
(2,976 posts)It is not that odd that all men did not responded positively that role models changed.
Women proposed for themselves that they as women could have it all.
Education, opportunity, career, and family as a choice.
That's is what empowerment I think was meant to do.
To support women in their choices is what my white male privilege allows me to do.
That is a personal choice on my part to see the positive use of what I have.
To support men in their choices is no less worthy.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)I'm not an expert in sociology or haven't conducted any extensive research. But I do have education in psychology. And I have done a lot of readings on these topics.
But it sounds like this book kind of has a simplistic view of the world in order to make an enemy out of a certain group of people.
I'd be shocked if that book didnt go into it, but I'm more of a believer in Trajfel's Social Identity Theory. Basically, Henri Tajfel was a British sociologist who developed a theory of social organization between in-groups and out-groups. Without getting too complicated with psychology here, he's suggesting that we identify ourselves to particular groups in order to appease the self-concept and improve our self-esteem. It gives us a sense of "fitting in" to the social world and we conform to the groups we identify with. And when we say "groups" it doesn't always mean black and white. It can be rich and poor, male and female, Yankee fans and Red Sox fans, Russians and Americans, Jews and Muslims, Democrats and Republicans, etc, etc, etc.... Whether we realize it or not, human beings like to put themselves into groups. And we frequently put our groups into conflict with one another in order to gain that sense of superiority. "We are better than them!"
We do it here on DU every minute of every day. We fully believe the Republican beliefs are inferior to our beliefs. Some here even refer to them as "neanderthals." That right there is an example of Tajfel's in-group/out-group bias. Through a process of social categorization, we create a world of us vs them.
So that I feel is how it all begins. And humans are never going to stop doing this. As long as we have differences in cultures, religions, politics, nations, races, etc.. we will create groups of social categorization. Your book seems to be concentrating on specifically the "white man" being the problem because he's the dominant in-group (for the most part) in America. But you look around the world and the dominant group can be anybody. It can be the Shiite Muslims in Iraq. It can be the Hutu's in Rwanda. It's not a certain race or gender or religion that is to blame here. This Social Identity bias exists in every single human culture on this planet. And being a member of these groups is not enough to satisfy that drive for self-esteem. You have to somehow prove your in-group is better than the out-groups.
And you can pass laws and such against discrimination. But that alone won't change the way people judge and categorize each other. You can't pass a law to stop prejudice. In fact, some psychologists believe that some people are inherently racist. They have a certain personality type that tends to identify more strongly with these group biases. And some further theorize it has its origins in our evolutionary history. So is the future as bright as this book seems to make it....Im not so certain of that. Im a bit pessimistic as far as solutions go here. You may have certain groups gain more acceptable statuses within the social hierarchy. But we are not going to cure racism and sexism and discrimination today, or any time in the foreseeable future.
quaker bill
(8,225 posts)I think you are getting at the nature that underpins the observed reality. Kin selection has a real basis in evolutionary biology. The notion that we may have evolved some in-group / out-group selective behavior is fairly well founded in the math as well as social / psychological literature.
There is a difference between that natural potential and political movements that manipulate this natural kin bias to whip it up into a political force.
The blaming of out-groups for failed crops and other disasters is as old as recorded history. Hitler was using a very ancient playbook when he blamed the Jews for a failed economy, and also bolstering a belief in an Aryan master race. The fact that there are aspects of humanity that make such things an easy political play is no justification for going there.
These political forces can be made very powerful. They had the Rwandans hacking each other to pieces with machetes.
Nature may well underpin our tendency to go there when stimulated. This does not obviate the need to study the process that makes this base instinct to somewhat favor the familiar into a violent, dangerous, and occasionally deadly political force.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)studies he has employed in putting together this book. For starters, you cannot possibly know how he arrived at the conclusions he did, nor what are all his conclusions, without reading the book. Your discussion of the theory of Tajfel, while interesting, has no place in the discussion concerning white male anger and the source of that anger. This book is about the very source of that anger, how right wing popularity came about, and all its side groups (gun rights, fathers' rights, etc.)
I strongly urge you to read it. Check it out of the library.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)And that may very well be the point of the book by examining only the dominant white male in-group in America. Maybe that's all the book is examining.
But "angry white men" are not the only oppressors in this world. This author seems to be concentrating on only western and American culture. Im talking more on a much bigger level the includes all cultures on the planet. What I am suggesting is a theory of why anything like this happens in the first place and why its going to be difficult to get rid of.
Any group can be an oppressor group. That's what needs to be kept in mind. Human beings seem to have that innate sense to put people into social categories. I don't know if we are ever going to get away from that because it seems to have been part of our evolution.
My only solution is that the in-groups at some point realize the out-groups are not inferior and not a threat. Only then can you start talking about things like diversity and equality. But this isn't easy since discriminating helps the in-group's self-esteem. People seem to always need a population to bully and blame things on.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)than in the book. I also don't see how the author of the book could possibly propose marching arm and arm to a better future after describing the offending group as angry and out of control for hundreds of pages. Being made a subject of a psychological study, to be poked at, is not going to smooth relations.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They are in a PANIC because their message that all others are inferior isn't working anymore.
It's like the 50's dad coming home and having the wife say, "Honey? You lied to me. You aren't the only one with one of those. The milk man has one too."
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)and all those other groups and too many of the behaviors which are damaging our country, such as gun rights and mass shootings, fathers' "rights" and attacks on feminists, fundies + rightwingers and the sad state of our economy, joblessness, the impoverishment of the population, rampant homelessness, and the backlash against women. He explains that angry white males leaning toward hatred and right wing ideology are actually defending and supporting the social class that screws (pardon the French) them over.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Some white men are more than willing to work with the emerging majority to fight for the 99%. What needs explaining here is why so many are doing the exact opposite.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)That's one supposition too far, for me. We are all alienated to some degree, by our jobs, by the shape of our neighborhoods that discourage interaction, by the shuttering and abandonment of public places. We don't go shooting the place up.
I think the mass shootings are caused by "all you can afford healthcare (and none that you cannot)", the stigma still associated with mental illness, and the aggrandizement of owning firearms whipped up by the fear that Obama is going to "take them all away".
Working to raise wages, working to to raise the standard of living and getting worker's rights in line with other OECD countries would be a better curative than anything else I can think of.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)this country's inception, and being made worse by the U.S. economy landing in the gutter through the very groups that the white male right wing anger has supported.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)never had and couldn't lose white male privilege. I live in an area where there are lots of Irish, Russian, Italian, Polish, and Hungarian immigrants, and those groups never really had white male privilege. In the steel mills at the turn of the century, it was okay to pay all of these groups, as well as black people, less than Anglo-descended Americans. It seems a bit revisionist to say all white men have had privilege since the country's inception. I think injecting gender and race into it confuses the fact that the standard of living for all workers has declined. That is the stress that is fracturing the social compact. I think people have been made to believe that they once belonged to that privileged class, and it's someone else's fault that they have somehow fallen, but they never were. I think this error stems from the taboo of talking about labor, not gender or race.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)In the U.S., there have always been white males in the upper classes, in the middle classes and in the lower classes. What role have these white males played, and what was their standing? Here it is:
Within the American lower classes, the white male was always king. He was above the females in the lower classes, above the gays (those who didn't try to pass as straight) in the lower classes, above blacks in the lower classes, above everyone.
Within the American middle classes, the white male was always king. He was above the females in the middle classes, above the gays in the middle classes (those who didn't try to pass as straight), above blacks in the middle classes (the tiny few that were there), above everyone. And, he was even above the entirety of the lower classes, including white males of the lower classes.
Within the American upper classes, the white male was always king. He was above the females in the upper classes, above gays in the upper classes (those who didn't try to pass as straight), above everyone. And, he was even above the entirety of the middle and lower classes, including white males of the lower and the middle classes. So he was above everyone in the U.S. who wasn't a rich, right wing male.
This was the American caste system.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)but wouldn't the answer involve building a faction that included them, and not a book which spent 300+ pages telling them how angry and out of control they are? This is a liberal infotainment book.
To remove stress from an animal of any species you give them more resources, or otherwise, they will continue to act in a short-sighted, self-destructive and unhealthy manner.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)I hope that through not having read the book you are somehow imagining that the book suggests they be excluded from society. If you are not assuming that the book is suggesting isolating, sorry. If that's not what you were hinting at, I clearly must've misread your post about including them, and you weren't actually alluding to the book suggesting they be excluded.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)it seems like there is no solution offered in the text. I have a teetering stack of books on my plate, so I don't think I'll read a book that I already agree with. And it seems like those who disagree with it will never read it. But thanks for offering it up.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)the source and root of the angry groups are. As long as there is denial, the angry groups will continue their angry rants.
whathehell
(29,100 posts)White middle class men with some education don't feel this as much, IMO, because they have more choices.
It's the offshoring of factories, the destruction of unions and then, on top of it, all this social "change".
Change can be hard for even those in better economic circumstances, but when you combine it with lack of
work and the desperation and lack of self-esteem that can bring, it can really all boil to a head.
P.S. By the way, I'm not sure this is just white men, either...South Central LA used to be filled with factories
and places for average guys to work, and now it's empty. You can't blame people for feeling depressed...The problem
is so many of these guys, mainly white I think, get steered to the Right and blame the wrong people.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)loss of that automatic respect-conservative-white-males-like-royalty thingie which exists no longer.
Baitball Blogger
(46,775 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)My area is chock full of angry white right wingers.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)It's the oldest strategy in the book: divide the lower socioeconomic classes against one another.
The 1% maintains power in this way.
Fuel comes from the fact that it must be this way for the wealthy to maintain their wealth and become wealthier. Their agents, Limbaugh and co., did not gain such influence by chance.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)It explains that this white male anger which led to right wing groups, gun groups, hatred toward women, etc. is actually only supporting the 1% and actually hurting the rest of the population.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)...when the country as a whole only gave 47% (ha!) of its votes to Mr. 1 Percent?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)because money is the only thing that matters to the majority of these people. We need a better jobs program other than the military. I feel like so many families get more RW as there have been more and more kids are off going to war since 9/11. They need to believe it's righteous.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,771 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,771 posts)who created it. If things get better, they can't keep the RWers angry at the Dems for what the problems they supposedly caused. They are so transparent, yet so many fail to see through them.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,771 posts)Never let ethics or the truth get in the way of a good story!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)nasty anti Semitic slur. When someone called the slur out- they responded by pretending that person had just used a racial slur !! They started screaming, "You called me a _____!!" And despite it being recorded, all the papers reported slurs were thrown back and forth. But they had all come from the same source.
Weird that people do not trust politicians, but when it gets into print, they believe anything.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,771 posts)So many people seem to have lost the ability to see that kind of blatant twisting of the situation for what it is. Just like how Rs who just talk, loudly, over everyone else and repeat talking points that barely relate to the subject supposedly under discussion. They are master propagandists, and our side does not have the money sponsor an effective anti-RW-propaganda campaign. We don't have our own Koch Bros, despite the BS RW claim that George Soros is that and more.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)a job at city hall, while following me home (I just wanted to get away from him) when I declined he said it would be awful if anything happened to my apartment building. I assume he meant arson, because there was a lot of that happening. They had a lot of real voter fraud, people voting with names of people who had long left town. The FBI watched it happen and did nothing. He won.
Sickening, scary stuff.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)but you're just telling everyone to "read the book" which means 1. you didn't actually read the book, 2. you don't understand the book, 3. you're not really interested in discussing this book, or 4. this OP was started as a flame fest.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)I've said plenty already. Read the book. Thanks.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)You will receive complete and total enlightenment.
NutmegYankee
(16,204 posts)Anyone who is a strong Civil Liberties advocate is going to push back at some of the unreasonable proposals put forward on the gun topic. Some are reasonable, like background checks, and some are awful. The most appalling I saw was mandatory police inspection of your storage method within your home. So much for the concept of privacy within one's home and the 4th Amendment...
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)and how its source is the feeling that white male entitlement has been lost.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 2, 2014, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)
You continue to mischaracterize his work.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)So there's that.
Of course, I haven't read the book so I can't make any claims as to its specific content. Unlike the OP, despite her disclaimer that she's "currently reading this book".
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,204 posts)I think the hyper-gun movement of the last few years is the "clinging" that the President spoke about in the first campaign. And for some reason this has become popular with the right wing when they traditionally oppose "rights of the people". I suspect it's because gun control was once the tool of white segregationists to keep blacks under their thumb, but now it's being used against them.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)are from women.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)He does go into the female right wingers, female teabaggers, Sarah Palins, etc.
I have my own opinion on female right wingers, teabaggers, gun righters, fathers righters, etc. but that opinion is based on observing pretty closely a couple of females in my own family who are married to right wing males and were not right wing prior to marrying them. In other words, I'm not a scientist, or sociologist, and ran no studies or anything. Of course, I also have not written any books on the matter.
One of the females prior to marrying was a religious fundy who worshipped the very ground her church's handsome pastor walked on and pretty much parroted anything he said, but she was not *political* per se. So, one day she met her husband in a church group, who was a fundy and an extremist right wingnut, and the rest is history. Ooh she was political after that!
The other girl wasn't a fundy or political, but was desperate to get married. She met a right winger, married him, and voila! Overnight, she became a Republican-teabag type. Faster than you could push a button! She went into the church apolitical, wearing a wedding dress, and came out a right winger.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Marriage and religious fundamentalism do tend to make women and men both more conservative, but men are more conservative (on average) than women anyway, so the change is more noticeable with women.
CanonRay
(14,125 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)And white angry males (the ignorant ones - right wing ones) fall for it ever so nicely.
Ohio Joe
(21,771 posts)And their fears drive them... It's kind of sad.
I'll have to look for the book and give it a read, sounds interesting.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)It's well worth it. Very interesting.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Thank you so much for the vote of confidence for this book. I wish to God I'd written it, it's so good.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Usually that's a good sign. I'll have to check out the book.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Speaking only for myself, my "push back" is in response to a thread that wholly misrepresents, from my reading, both the content and conclusions of the book in question. She doesn't do the author any favors with her outlandish leaps and presumptive responses, all of which are agenda-driven.
The book sounds interesting, though not necessarily novel. Your statement, by contrast, is quite revealing.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)I suspect you might implode if you read the book, if what I said has set you off this way.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)I haven't criticized this book at all. I've criticized you.
I'm not "set off" in any way. I simply deplore disingenuousness.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)But the book is what it is. I enjoyed it tremendously, and encourage everyone to read it. Will it anger you? More than likely, from what I've read in your posts.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Pick one, the OP isn't responsible for the bullshit bigotry she posts, it's your fault.
You angry silly ideosyncratic thing, you!
I kid, I hope you know.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)and she doubled-down.
I kid, too.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)I'm not talking about people who have 'righteous' anger because some injustice needs to be changed. I'm talking about people who have a chip on their shoulder and never lighten up. The latter type is some scary freaks.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)With the rest of that reactionary stuff.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)that I wouldn't lump fathers' rights supporters in there with the rest of that reactionary stuff.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)groups, and countless other anger groups, were started because of and are joined at the hip by the same problem - anger at the loss of white male entitlement.
I didn't merely include fathers' rights in the title for fun and frolic. I put it there because it's chapter 4 of the book. Mens' rights is chapter 3.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)That's why I wouldn't lump them in there with the other reactionary groups.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)but white fathers' rights groups, I'd say are very different and based on anti-feminism and anti-feminist anger alone.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)I can point to at least one mostly white fathers' rights group that helped me through co-parenting with my ex-wife. We're a great group of really supportive liberal, white men, but keep telling me how we're teabaggers.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)I'm not saying they're teabaggers. Each group is different, but they are (even according to the book) angry groups.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Nuance is hard. Have a nice day.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I'm flabbergasted by how plainly racist it is, and patronizing to black fathers.
273. I wouldn't say that. I'd say that black fathers' groups are parent relationship improvement groups
but white fathers' rights groups, I'd say are very different and based on anti-feminism and anti-feminist anger alone.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)No telling what a jury around here would do. It's awful, but shit's strange around here any more.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Also, TBH, I can understand why some people are having an issue with the OP's title: there has been quite a bit of nasty flamebaiting going around about literal "white privilege" and other such things(and I should know, sadly, I've been the victim of flaming myself.)over the past month and a half or so, and I think it reminds too many people of all the trash that's been thrown around lately, so that's why it's touched a nerve.
With that said, though, I've heard some pretty good things about this book, and might actually buy it sometime, if I get the opprotunity.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)However, the OP title reflects what the book sets out to explain, that at the core of why right wing ideology spread out like a fire, why gun rights groups grew like wildfire as well, why fathers' rights multiplied exponentially, etc. is the angry white man.
Which is why I encourage everyone to read it. It's truly a fascinating and very well researched book.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I fear that I've made a mistake that others have made in taking the grammatical construction of OPs and of subject lines too literally.
I believe that the OP didn't mean what is implied by the subject line (without going into unnecessary detail).
The offensive bigoted part to me is the subject line (followed by a shallow defense):
I'm confident that what the OP intended to say, corrected for grammatical accuracy, would have been better represented by this:
Note the distinction in grammatical construction such that the qualifier, "right-winged", is thusly applicable to all of these groups exclusively.
Sarah, Iburra, I apologize for not contacting you privately with a request to amend your statement, and especially the grammatical construction line of your OP, to conform to the message that I trust you meant to convey and to not send the message that it, sadly, sent.
I hope you'll accept my apology, but I also wish you would edit your subject line.
Thanks!
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Thank you regardless.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The grammatical construction of the subject line does not use the phrase "right wing" to describe the groups that follow that term.
As constructed, the understood take away would be "right wing" and " mens rights" and "guns rights", which is quite different from "right wing mens rights" and "right wing guns rights".
In other words, I have to believe that you didn't mean to suggest that all mens rights or guns rights individuals are right wing, and neither did you mean that by being among a mens rights or gun rights group one was then necessarily a right winger or a member of the "Angry White Men" demographic about which this book is written.
I think you understand my complaint now, now one so much about the book as about the associations suggested and implied by the subject line.
It's never too late to edit a subject line on DU3, I'm pretty sure.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)You wrote:
I would suggest:
I hope you can appreciate the distinction.
There are PLENTY of progressive and democratic leaning mens rights and gun rights and fathers rights people in this society who agree with the book, but not with your subject line.
Thanks, now I have to get on the road.
PS, It's never too late to edit a post, Skinner et all changed that.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)some libs (not many) in the anger groups. They claim to be libs, and they are most assuredly in the anger groups. They should not be left out simply because this sociologist has made the connection between the anger groups and the white angry Republican male ideology.
Zenlitened
(9,488 posts)...on the part of "angry white males."
Fortunately, they were provided in some of the replies to the OP.
Jeezuss.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Can you cite a few?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)what would they have said if this book had been written by a WOMAN, and not by a man whose focus is male studies. Oh my goodness!
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Wow.
"Anger groups".
Your replies to, were you to quantify them, supportive versus critical replies would suggest that you, not they, have an anger management problem.
I can suggest a few good books for that condition.
http://www.amazon.com/Dialectical-Behavior-Therapy-Skills-Workbook/dp/1572245131
Actually, I prefer this with the troubled folks that I've tried to help, usually with success:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/421517.Skills_Training_Manual_for_Treating_Borderline_Personality_Disorder
There are others, please feel free to contact me to discuss more.
Peace...
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)To your interlocutor:
If you can't afford them, go to the library. It's still free.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And her youtubes aren't stellar.
Still, the approach taken by the professionally created (and now dated) videos was very successful with my suicidal wards.
Thank you for the support in the face of this blame-based OP.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)You have appropriated a demographic and drawn blame upon them to serve your own agenda.
OMG, the shame that, had you the capacity to understand your complicity, you would need to bear in all of this.
Remarkable.
I recommend you read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Training-Treating-Borderline-Personality-Disorder/dp/0898620341/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393807166&sr=1-1
Once you've read this book, you may offer an opinion that won't be met with a reply of "read the book". OK, I kid.
Seriously. Please stop shitting on every man woman and DU member who doesn't wholly support your piece of shit post, OK?
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)You have shown many times that you are the expert on everything. I have yet to see you try to learn or engage in a conversation. All you do is preach how you are right about everything and everyone else is unenlightened, right wing teabaggers.
Initech
(100,118 posts)ecstatic
(32,760 posts)It's not just an angry white male thing--men from all races and backgrounds are part of the so called Fathers Rights movement. If one assertion is wrong, then it's hard not to question the rest of the book. I don't know if you added that part yourself, or if the book's author did, but if you want people to get past the headline, it should be removed.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)males, and the fathers' rights issue is primarily an angry white male issue.
While personally you might not like the fact that he has identified the fathers' rights movement as having been motivated by the anti-woman themes of the entitled, angry white male (the preponderance of whom are right wing). Chapter 3 looks at the (angry) men's rights groups, and Chapter 4 is dedicated to the (also angry) fathers' rights. The book examines the history of white American fathers with regard to child caring, child rearing, and child financing responsibilities from the past through to the present, and the issue of divorce and children, identifies the allegations and the underlying reasons for these angry groups, and attempts to arrive at what is the truth and what is the fiction of the fathers' rights anger groups' claims. It's quite interesting.
The book is excellent and well researched, and put together by a male, an expert on men's studies - his field.
Irrespective of what anyone's personal feelings might be on the matter, the title of the OP reflects what the book examines.
And by the way, he discusses black men, and why the mens' rights and fathers' rights groups are primarily angry white male groups and cannot be confused with black groups which focus on improving the fatherly relationship within the family, which are directed at exactly that - improving the fatherly relationship with the kids.
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)This is what the GOP leadership uses to get working class white men to vote for them (and against their own economic interests). That's why conservatives try to associate the left with things like "feminazis" (or however it's spelled) or black power, and nothing else. They want white men to feel like their only choice is to vote for them. Never mind all that class warfare and income inequity stuff.
Anyone else notice that some Fox News hosts, both male and female, like to call things like safety measures and regulations weak and tie them to the "feminization of American men"? How else can they get people who usually have a greater chance of being directly, and positively, affected by things like new safety rules in football to be against those things?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)ALL anti-female male groups.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)http://www.salon.com/2009/11/05/mens_rights/
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)...it has begun to mine even white men's jobs to pad executives' bonuses.
Rex
(65,616 posts)OR...nah nm...