Thursday, May 2, 2019

Feminism v. Racialism

I've been seeing something interesting growing for some time now. An article today kind of crystallized it for me. Let me share my thoughts.

As you know, the left -- owners of the Democratic Party -- have abandoned ideology and instead adopted identity politics. Gone are the sweeping ideas of dead white men like Marx, old-tyme union bosses and tweed covered college professors. In their place are the pet peeves of anyone who can form a group. As this is harder than it seems (you have to convince these people to make themselves victims), they're basically down to groups: angry single women and angry blacks.

The problem is that blacks and women have always been an uncomfortable alliance. Blacks and women compete for affirmative action at schools and in jobs. Rape-fearing white women (all modern feminists) often view black males as rapists. Black women view white women as sexual competitors who "steal" their men. And as a lot of recent chatter has shown, blacks view white women as "white" (read: oppressors) first and foremost. This does not a strong alliance make.

There is another problem. With white women outnumbering blacks by a hefty margin, and white women not being inclined to share, blacks will eventually be left out in the cold. Why won't white women share? Two reasons: (1) they are a group of spoiled human beings, being mainly upper and upper-middle class (read: pampered) and single (read: not accustomed to sharing), and (2) oppression theory has convinced them that they are the ultimate victims and, therefore, (a) they deserve everything they want and (b) as victims they can do no wrong.

At one time, blacks had moral authority to help their cause. When the Civil Rights Movement did their thing, for example, they had the moral high ground and the legal high ground of wanting equality. But since that time, the black community has made two huge mistakes. First, they squandered the moral high ground by (1) screaming racism as a means of stifling opposition rather than exposing actual racism, and (2) they ignored the racism of their liberal allies for political reasons and let a general belief take hold in liberal circles that their racism wasn't racism because they didn't see themselves as racist. Because of this, the charge of racism lost its punch and it couldn't be applied to liberals anyways.

What I'm seeing now is an attempt to undo this.

Where this really began, as far as I can tell, is in the heavily promoted idea of white privilege. This is the idea that somehow whites benefit from racism even if they "aren't racist," with the additional sub-theory that all whites are racist but they just can't see it because of this white privilege, i.e. whites can't see how racist they really are because they are so surrounded by racism that they can no longer see it.

Obviously, no conservative is going to accept this crap. But it wasn't meant for conservatives. This was meant to undermine the idea that liberals can't be racist. This was meant to unsettle all those victim-wannabe white women who felt they weren't racist because their maid was black and they gave her a Christmas bonus. "I can't be racist... I'm a liberal!" This was meant to undo that.

This was followed with a series of direct attacks. After the election, the black media blamed white women for Trump. In fact, in a rather famous piece, a black woman started her smear on white women with the words, "Dear White Women." What followed was a diatribe calling white women stupid, elitist and racist. This and dozens of other similar attacks tried to get white women to accept guilt by racial-gender association. There have since a steady trickle of articles written by black women in which they talk about elite white women being out of touch with the concerns of real (read: black) Americans.

Then came the #metoo movement. Interestingly, this "movement" was lacking black women. Where were they? Apparently, they were angrier at the white women of the #metoo movement than they were at the supposedly evil males. Why? Well, lots of articles were written at the time angrily denouncing #metoo as a movement of elitist white women who only care about their issues and who don't care at all about the concerns of genuine black women. Hmm. This was the first time I heard the term "white feminism." That's a direct challenge to any thoughts of black/white women unity, and a takedown of feminism that must sting feminists severely.

Since that time, there have been a huge number of claims of racism made against white liberal women by blacks. The Democratic campaign in particular has brought out a large number of black female (online) protesters who accuse the Democratic Party of being racist because all the top candidates (by polls) are white men and women. This is going on at the same time women's groups are upset that the top-top candidates are males. In other words, white women are angry that the very top candidates are men, but blacks are upset that white men and women are the top. Do you see how those interests do not fit well together? White women would be perfectly happy if it was all white women, blacks would be just as angry. Interestingly, the two groups haven't been able to merge their complaints into one movement.

Similarly, you had "Oscar so white" which complained about a lack of blacks getting awards in Hollywood, even as a large number of white women got them. The presence of white women did not alleviate their concerns.

So do white women care? Well, a handful of elitist white Hollywood women have recently attacked their own shows for not including enough "minority" (read: blacks... Asians, Hispanics and Indians need not apply) actors and crew. The lead actor(ess) on Grey's Anatomy did this and now Cynthia Nixon has done it to Sex in the City. Nixon attacked Sex as "white feminism," which she derogatorily dismissed as out of touch. But few other women seem willing to accept this.

I think what we are seeing is that blacks know they are being shoved out by a group of self-obsessed elitist white women and they are desperate to change the psyche of these women to accept them as fellow-victims. But I honestly don't think these women care. Yes, there are a couple who scream of white feminism, but they are outliers. The rest see themselves as suffering oppression and now they want power and they aren't going to share.



Tennessee Jed said...

interesting analysis. There is a lot of exceptions to everything, of course. Sometimes hatred of Trump Nd conservatives cause them to close ranks, but what us more likely, black voter turnout will drop off unless Haareis or Booker is on the ticket

Anthony said...

Like I said earlier in the week, I don't see it. Distrust of the other helps a little bit around the fringes (its no accident Trump routinely floats racially tinged conspiracy theories against non-white opponents) but its not a big driver for most voters.

I suspect the promises one makes and electability matter more than identity. For example Trump is manifestly not an evangelical Christian, but he won their support by promising them (and subsequently giving them) what they wanted. He has moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, is doing what he can against abortion and is currently talking up his efforts to save Christmas.

The polling data I've seen indicates that this early in the race the popularity of Democratic candidates with women and blacks tracks their broader popularity (that would almost have to be the case with women, who constitute more than half the Dem base).

A relevant question is what do blacks want? The last big issue (police brutality) has died down and it wasn't all that big. That is probably why some the candidates have hit on the bizarre issue of reparations. I don't think its an accident none of those promisers have found any traction in the black community.

While there will invariably be relatively minor stuff I suspect the big issue will be cracking down on hate crimes. Yeah, its not a thing that impacts 999 out of 1000 people but fear is not rational. Also, being softer on (other) crime is in vogue at the moment so that might factor in too though traditionally, liberal blacks haven't insisted upon that from their presidential candidates.

Forty-seven percent of black women surveyed for the poll said Biden is their top choice to be the Democratic nominee, giving him a wide lead in the demographic over his rivals.

Another 18 percent of the black women polled said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is their top choice, and 9 percent said they back Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).


As for white women, maybe extending the length of time its admissible to file accusations? Like with hate crimes that wouldn't mean much (how is one going to have 30 year old evidence of a rape or sexual assault?) but as with hate crimes, all it has to do is get people to the polls.

The latest look at Iowa, conducted by Monmouth University, shows Biden netting 27 percent of the caucus vote, which delivers him an 11-point lead over second-place Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont. But Biden's share of the female vote is even greater, at 37 percent.
Combined together, all the female candidates garner just 22 percent of the female vote.


Despite my willingness to cite current (early) polls, I'm still of the opinion some charismatic radical with no track record could come out and win the Dem nomination with ease and that no matter who the Dems put up Trump is likely to win reelection.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I think we're in an interesting transition phase. The Democrats have tried to seem normal since the 1980s, when normal became important again, by presenting a leadership that looked like Harry Reid -- quiet, country (pro-gun rancher), white, male, professed religious, or Tip O'Neil -- fat, grouchy, unionized white guy who couldn't possibly be a liberal, right? This hid a lot of sins because they could dismiss anything crazy that got out into the news as "oh, they're just on the crazy fringe, the real party is the white guys in D.C."

Pelosi actually just tried this the other day by dismissing AOC and her wing as "what? Five people?" Whereas the reality is that AOC is much closer to the party and its leaders than Schumer and Pelosi want to appear.

But things have changed. Working class white males fled the party leaving female teachers (unions) to take over as the foot soldiers. Their leadership has become increasingly elitist female. The newsrooms covering them have become increasingly female feminist. Even their funding has changed. They no longer rely on unions and an army of activists, having instead switched to a handful of billionaires and Hollywood... so their funding is now premised on specific ideology rather than broad based support.

The result of this is that the women who are basically "the party" are screaming that women should represent the party, not this facade of old white males. AOC defeating the number 3 democrat (a white male) is a symptom of that, as is all the screaming about Biden and the white boys getting too much media attention.

What we're seeing is basically, a shift in theory between "the white guys make us electable" versus "it's sexist to say white males are more electable". This is the actual debate being played out in opinion pieces and I can't see the pro-woman side losing because they have numbers and momentum.

Each upcoming election and new Congress will shift the Democrats further and further into openly being the party of elite women.

And watching the black commentary of late, they see that these elite (mainly white) women do not intend to share their power with anyone.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, You're looking at the very narrow issue of who is likely to win the presidency. That's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fight "for the soul" of the Democratic Party. Who runs for President will eventually depend on that outcome, but I doubt it will be in this cycle because the war is still ongoing at the lower levels.

Post a Comment