Sady Doyle hits another one out of the park. She discusses the phenomenon of the angry white male public intellectual and their anxieties.
Rather, the root at the problem of this kind of online harassment is that political and intellectual authority has for centuries been the domain of white men. The rise of feminism and civil rights; increased cultural awareness of Islamophobia; and the very real possibility that a woman may soon break the 200-year-plus lock that men have had on the United States presidency are all challenging that authority. Intellectual spaces have become more accessible for everyone. And that’s caused some men to wield their authority more anxiously, and brutally, to those who challenge it.
These anxieties are profound and pervasive. We’re used to seeing them expressed by people with the luxury of anonymity and unaccountability. To see them coming from “legitimate” sources is depressing. But there is an upside. By bringing online harassment out into the open and signing their real names to it, Dawkins, the Bernie Bros and others have let us know that the people ready to attack anyone who threatens the status quo are not necessarily strangers or faceless losers. They can also be people with real power.
That shows us exactly how entrenched ancient attitudes about authority really are. What’s at stake is not simply one election, or what a few people have to say on the Internet. It’s whether marginalized people have a place in the public conversation at all.
Yeah. We don’t have good gatekeepers on who gets to express their authority any more (although, this is Sunday morning: turn on your TV and watch all the male pundits. Some places still have really good gates). Furthermore, we don’t get to assume the public will gratefully defer to our authority. It can be very uncomfortable, being compelled to listen to and respect the opinions of, say, a black woman.
I’d only disagree with the focus on white male intellectuals. These are situations where intellectualism does not raise its noble head, except perhaps to assist in the rationalizations.
For example, there has been another mass shooting in Michigan, with seven dead after an angry white man went for a drive and started shooting random people out of his car window. Nothing intellectual about it — just another guy, frustrated that everything isn’t going his way automatically, and instead of firing off on Twitter, he decided to use his handy handgun.
These things are all connected. There is a climate of disquiet as the old order slowly shifts, as people brought up with the idea that they were the center of the universe discover that no, we are not, and we are losing unmerited advantages.
Aggrieved entitlement, we’re drowning in it.
Just his week, a Republican legislator introduced a bill in Michigan: ” House bills HB 5357-5358: Eliminate the requirement for a concealed weapons permit for people 21 years of age or older who are not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm and allow them to transport a firearm. Sponsor: Rep. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township.”
So anyone, without any training or licensing at all, can carry a gun wherever they want if this passes. Fortunately, even in Michigan, I don’t think this has a hope of passing both houses, but as a grandstanding measure, it takes the cake.
Bernie bros, interesting meme, considering Bernie sanders has been a feminist for longer than clinton has. I find it disturbing to use his name and link it in such a derogatory way to him. Yet we keep buying into things like this. Bill clinton used his position and authority to sexually assault a 22 year old intern and we look the other way and call it a right wing conspiracy. Hillary uses her not insignificant power to quite literally destroy the lives of numerous women abused by her husband and we look the other way.
Do these so called “bernie bros” exist? I’m sure they do but why attach the name of a man who has supported women’s rights and equality for longer than anyone here. It is a deliberate attempt to sully his name. I have been supporting Sanders campaign for a while now on numerous web pages I have seen some people make sexist comments about hillary and pretty much every single time that person gets slammed by Bernie supporters for being sexist and told to go away. Hillary praises war criminals and defends positions that directly cause the death of women and children…but look a “bernie bro” said something sexist let’s talk about that instead.
The DNC deliberately tries to rig the election in Hillarys favor no one makes even a token attempt to deny this and yet we look the other way for years I have mostly lurked on this site none of what I am saying is new to the people who spend their time here. These attacks on Sanders are reprehensible and you all know it. You also know they are all deliberate. Getting a the first woman president simply is not worth what the cost will be, more wars, more death, more prisons, more poverty. But by all means spread the word an anonymous “bernie bro” said something terrible!
Each Doyle is brilliant, an acerbic and hilarious writer with a sharp eye for the less obvious elements of injustice. She’s got a great intersectional analysis.
Granted I’m an outside observer to this US election, the reason Bernie’s supporters worry me is his own words: he wants a mass movement, but many of his supporters just can’t stop with the sexist attacks on Clinton and anyone who doesn’t agree that Clinton is some kind of secular Antichrist. It worries me that Sanders has a one-word answer to all ills, that solving inequality will cure all. This defies any kind of intersectional analysis, and ignores the voices of Black Lives Matter among others, who speak out of our experience that the economy doesn’t determine all the difficulties we encounter. Curing inequality will do little to help against transphobic, to mention one close to my heart. It won’t stop redlining, or police violence, or the pay gap. Sanders isn’t addressing these things much at all. His only litmus test is Citizens United? And For doesn’t merit a mention, despite repeated attempts to offer him a chance to even add it to his list. Without reproductive justice, inequality being cured will leave women behind, and women of colour most of all.
There’s a lot more to being a feminist than simply saying you are one. Sanders doesn’t.
And that will be my only comment on the topic, for now and ever. Y’all do whatever sinks her boat, I’ve got an openly feminist prime minister to enjoy, while we wait for President Trump’s Anscluss.
Sinks YER boat. Stupid autocorrect.
CaitieCat:
Oh yes. QFT and all that jazz.
I suppose there is a lot more to being a feminist than just saying so, just like there is a lot more to being a progressive than just saying so. I guess there is just no way to judge….unless there is 40 years of documented evidence somewhere on someone’s voting record. https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.Vsnks5wrI2w
davidsmith #3
If you think that this the main reason why people support Clinton, then you don’t need to look far for BernieBros.
—
CaitieCat #4
+1.
davidsmith, thank you for demonstrating the aggrieved white male entitlement of the typical BernieBro!
Mansplaining about feminism, and how Hillary isn’t a good feminist. -Check
Reminder of Bernie’s record. -Check
Reminder of how horrible Hillary is. -Check
Reminder that Hillary bears the sins of Bill. -Check
Reminder that a Hillary presidency will mean the slaughter of countless brown people. -Check
Acknowledgement that some Bernie supporters are awful. -Check
Claim that the only reason somebody supports Hillary is to get a vagina haver as the POTUS. -Check
And your prize is: A bunch of potential Bernie supporters now have a gastric acid coating in the back of their mouths! FEEL THE BERN!!!!
changerofbits:
That must be some of that there real feminism we keep hearing about, eh?
<eyeroll>
Misogynists are everywhere, but of course they’re going to be much fewer on Hillary’s side. Sure, Sanders’ campaign will have more misogynist supporters, but is that fair to consider “Bernie Bros” an actual phenomenon equivalent (maybe not in magnitude but still) to GamerGaters?
Online hate comments are going to be usually made by people irrationally motivated and they’re not a good sample at all, and Hillary’s irrational haters have high chance of being misogynists, and many of them are going to be Sanders’ supporters (not less because he’s always been her only real competition). Just like most of Obama’s irrational haters are racist. Sanders has the advantage of being a white man, so no obvious organized bigots rail against him. The question is if it’s a unique phenomenon of being a Sanders supporter, or is it just regular people being regularly awful.
Misogynist dems *have* to rally under Sanders, because the alternative is a woman.
Still, I wonder if Sanders shouldn’t condemn more firmly the misogyny that comes from his supporters?
dam that was supposed to be preview sorry. let me try that again
so when we solve the inequality and insure equal treatment to all people women will not be equal?
uncle frogy
unclefrogy #14
No.
Look to the Communist Block countries – they had an extremely large wage equality and their gender legislation was initially very progressive compared to every other country (abortions for all! child care! maternity leave and specialized free hospices for pregnant women! not to mention nearly full legal equality). However those countries remained extremely patriarchal, and when the dust settled on the remains of communism, turned out to be so anti-feminist that now they are better compared to Middle East theocracies than to fellow European nations.
It takes more than one-ticket “equality” to bring actual equality. Life is more complicated than that.
—
F.O. #12
Sanders is doing a kind of two-step. On the one hand he denounced misogyny in his camp, which is very admirable. On the other he strongly insinuates that absolutely any criticism of him or his positions is due to political corruption, which gives the misogynists among his supporters a way out: since all criticism of them comes from the Clinton camp, apparently the most corrupt part of the US political system, then feminist criticism can be also classified under “corrupt political attacks”.
Mind you, Sanders’ approach to critics from the left is what is making more and more of a Clinton fan, as it taints his views in every field, including race and even economy.
All other things considered, is it so weird that economic equality is in fact THE issue that said white male intellectuals are interested in? Putting to the forefront something that will benefit them directly vs. tackling progressive social justice issues makes perfect sense.
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter who supports Sanders; it’s his platform and his message that is important.
Sanders supports equality, Russian communism was patriarchal
Sanders is a democratic socialist therefor he is really a patriarchal communist .
We live in a country that basses power more on wealth then ideology we should not support anyone who is focusing on the distribution of wealth and instead focus on social issues and forget the emphasis on income inequality and the distribution of wealth and power
uncle frogy
unclefrogy #17
No, Sanders supports economic equality, and sometimes pays lip service to any other form of equality. He boils every single issue down to class, which is literal Marxism.
Sanders isn’t a patriarchal communist, he isn’t going to start decimating the population, but he is just as wrong as the patriarchal communists were because he makes the same mistake as they did – he ignores over century of sociological, economical, political and anthropological studies that show that economic inequality is the result of various forms of bigotry, xenophobia and social inequality.
Merely shifting money around would not make the underlying causes for economic inequality go away and pretending that there are no such underlying causes is a very bad political strategy.
are not the lack equal educational opportunities one of the underlying causes of economic inequality.
does not health-care have an unequal expression weighted by wealth?
how does the access to capital in the form of banking services like bank loans and bank accounts negatively effect the poor in favor of the wealthy?
why does not income equality as in equal pay for equal work not effect social equality.
and it goes without saying that ending the expression of racism in law and economics is empowering of social change.
no law can make anyone change their mind it can only change behavior.
uncle frogy
Knight in Sour Armor:
Yes, it does. Privilege will always look to maintaining and gaining privilege.
unclefrogy:
No, he doesn’t. He supports economic equality, which seems very good on the surface, but when you start digging, it’s not so great. Women, especially minority women and single mothers will still end up at the bottom of the ladder staring up. That said, some of us are more invested in actual equality, which is a whole hell of a lot more than economics, and as CaitieCat pointed out in #4, must be intersectional, must address issues of racism, the ever ongoing war on womens’ autonomy, the compleat lack of a safety net for all, and the shitty educational system, to say the very least. I suggest you read CaitieCat’s post until it sinks in.
Not seeing the point… Bernie has more legitimacy on the social justice front than Hillary, as she’s always done what’s politically expedient. He also has a more concrete goals and solely economic justice is better than some obligatory lip service to the nebulous goal “equality” which is effectively impossible to work towards if we’re not dealing with discrete issues.
The misogynous comments of some of the Sanders supporters are odious, but Hillary’s a garbage classic conservative in progressive clothes. I’ll hold my nose and vote for her if I have to because I know what’s at stake, but I, unlike religious conservatives will vote for my own best interests first and foremost, as long as the candidate is not actually reinforcing or accepting of racism, misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, etc…
@unclefrogy
Agreed, 100%. Attitudes and biases need to be addressed, but I want my President’s focus to be on matters of law and economics. Making the US less of a plutocracy and furthering income equality would be a full time job, one with enormous consequences.
I can’t speak to Sanders’ stances on equality, knowing little about him other than the memes that come through my feeds from time to time, which are mostly dealing with economics. What I can speak to, however, is how common the idea that economic inequality is the only one that matters, and that all other movements aimed toward solving inequalities should sit down and get with the economic inequality program. Yes, economic inequality is a serious and important issue, but it’s ridiculous to believe that fixing that one issue is going to solve all others. Even in areas where attempts to solve that issue were made with some degree of success, inequalities have remained. Whether it’s simply put down to the natural order or protectiveness against the outsider coming to disrupt the community, racism, sexism homophobia, transphobia, etc have continued to exist and people have continued to suffer under them. We need to fight for economic equality, but that battle is not the war, nor is it the battle that will win the war, and I would definitely be wary of lending my support to someone who seems likely to declare victory and settle down once that one battle is won. I don’t know if that’s true of Sanders, but it certainly seems true of many of his supporters from what I’ve seen.
To #3 Davidsmith- in your comment you referred to Bill Clinton “sexually assaulting a 22-year-old intern”. Please remember that Monica Lewinsky was called to give sworn testimony before Congress, and she said then that her sexual dealings (i.e. a blow job) with Bill Clinton were thoroughly consensual, and in fact she regarded it as quite a prize to score with the Big Guy.
@24: Clinton was still taking advantage of a person over whom he had power. It wasn’t sexual assault but it was extreme sleezeball behavior. However, that was Bill’s act. What does that have to do with Hillary’s morals or abilities?
This whole thing about “Bill did X” or “the last Clinton administration led to X” seems to suggest that people think that Hillary and Bill share one mind, probably Bill’s. How is Hillary Clinton responsible for the acts of an administration in which she had no official role other than that of, basically, hostess?
Yes. Because contrary to some opinion, it’s not like the harrassment coming out of GamerGaters is some unique phenomenon: it is the everyday, ordinary behaviour of bigots. BernieBros are just another iteration of the same old misogyny and racism and everything else, they just happen to have less focus on any single person. They’re not just equivalent phenomena, they are the same phenomena.
The fact that these same people are active supporters of a politician who otherwise seems decent, idealistic and determined to reduce (economic) inequality does rather worry me: if this is the kind of support Sanders garners, it makes me wonder why. And he hasn’t been particularly vocal about shutting the misogyny down. To be honest, I draw a personal parallel with the Dawk: I see the followers he has, the followers he doesn’t bother chastising himself, and I think to myself, that is not a crowd of which I want to be a part.
Similarly to the Sanders crowd. There is nothing about that kind of behaviour that makes me feel safe or welcome within the Sanders supportive community – and if Sanders can’t even be bothered to condemn them more than that one time that I read about, how do I know that he actually understands the inherent harm of that kind of behaviour?
(On the plus side, Sanders himself doesn’t seem to engage in that kind of behaviour. So there’s that. But yes, I do judge a prominent public figure by their followers, if only a little bit. I’m so glad I don’t have to vote in this election, though. And everything that Cait said @4 and Caine‘s reiteration @20.)
I’ve been bothered by this, too. It’s that subconscious notion creeping out, that married women lose their autonomy and are basically partners to anything and everything The Man does, and it doesn’t matter if she personally disagreed but had no voice at that time, or expressed official support because Holy Matrimony but didn’t actually agree… Somehow, she is just as at fault than The Man and can never escape that legacy. I hate it. I don’t know how the people arguing it cannot see the inherent misogyny in the idea that women cannot be independent people with independent thoughts, it must all come back to a man somewhere eventually.
This is another aspect of the general idea that Anything sexual that happens anywhere near a woman is her fault, and can be used against her forever.
Whatever else is true of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, Hillary Clinton wasn’t one of the people who did it. If the Clintons had agreed on monogamy (which seems likely, but we don’t know for sure), she is an injured party here. If they didn’t, she’s a bystander, who would be better off if the slut-shamers weren’t calling her names for something that two other people do.
dianne #25-6
Oh yeah, just like Eleanor Roosevelt – a hostess cupcake.
In case my sarcasm wasn’t obvious enough let me remind you that while the 1st Lady has almost as much de jure influence as the Vice President, de facto they both can, and often do, have a tremendous political power. During Bill’s presidency Hillary was responsible for the (failed, but I don’t hold that against her) health reform and was very well immersed into almost every other aspect of Bill’s presidency. Moreover, during her 2008 candidacy she was surrounded almost exclusively by Bill’s political advisers.
This isn’t the case anymore (which is very good, and may explain why she’ll win this time), but ignoring the real political impact of Clinton during her husband’s presidency is not only willful blindness, but is insulting to Clinton as a politician.
Besides, a would be president should have something to say about past presidents, particularly one from her own party and especially one from her own home.
If you consider that behavior wrong, and if you think that a candidate should have a position on borderline workplace harassment then why shouldn’t Clinton be asked about her husband behavior?
I support Clinton and I’m astonished at people who treat Clinton as if she’s a shrinking violet. She’s a former Secretary of State and a future commander-in-chief. She’d better have a response to the policies and actions of her predecessor.
rq @27:
“unacceptable” and “disgusting” isn’t particularly vocal?
Which one time was that? The NBC interview or the CNN interview (those are the only two I’ve seen)?
Rob
Oh, twice. Well, that’s better than once.
Still not enough (IMO).
The first lady can break ties in the Senate and inherits the presidency if the president dies? Wow! I never knew that about the US government.
I have no problem with Clinton being asked about her husband’s behavior as an example of workplace harassment and asked what she plans to keep such events from recurring. What I have a problem with is the implicit statement that Clinton was somehow responsible for Bill’s cheating on her and harassing his intern. What was she supposed to have done to prevent it?
Hillary has voiced much support for the generally murderous foreign policy of her husband.
She has also continued to voice the same line of neoconservative agenda, both in the Senate, and as Secretary of State. Even when given ample escape to say she made a mistake.
Further, Hillary has been supportive of foreign policy which has resulted in the wanton death of hundreds of thousands of women. They just dont happen to be the “worthy” victims of the sort of unparalleled privilege women like Hillary enjoy in America. From this perspective it’s hard to view her as being supportive of women as a class at all.