"Angry White Man"

[Delightedly]

I guess so. I just don't see where the victim's intelligence has anything to do with the fact a hurricane just flooded your house. And since most of the victims were black people it struck me as a subtle racist jab.

It struck me as the same... but i would also kind of say that most people living on a coast aren't the shiniest pennies in the bunch. Its not a matter of IF a storm will take out your house, its a matter of WHEN. Its just never seemed like a sound investment... :shrugs:

I kind of see both sides. It might just be a very difficult issue to say anything about, most things are when people are involved.:noevil:

 

[wade]

Go back up to the top. Read each of the posts again. Don't pay any attention to who is right or wrong. Look at all the different meanings people have drawn from that article. Look at all the different things people are upset about. It's festinating. I love the human race.

 

[DaGiant]

I am a large angry white man, that has relatives that lost
alot to Katrina (lived in Gulfport MS) but got out with
who/what they could when the "Warnings" told them to.
They didn't wait around for the disaster first.
I WON'T vote for McCain either! If he gets in....
MY job is in Jeopardy! ###############
And HE HAS been proven to be RACIST in his last run,
at least to certain minorities.
So I'm a confused "Angry White Man".. LOL

I still like the "Vote for none of the above" ticket!!!!!

 

[diamondlil]

Reading the original linked article, I have to say it struck me as a load of over-emotional, blatently manipulative balderdash. A clumsy glamorisation of the whole 'man's man' ideal. Conjuring up mental imagery of square-jawed Mills and Boon heroes.
I won't pretend to understand the political system involved in electing a president, but to me the article seemed to be aimed at engaging anyone who has leanings towards misogynism, rascism and intolerence.

 

[Nova_C]

That article was pretty ridiculous. Racist, misogynist, self-important.

Also, anyone who claims that the white majority in the US is a forgotten demographic needs to get their head examined. While a campaign may seem like it focuses on 'special interest groups', whites get almost four years of focus once it's all said and done. Particularly if the ruling party is Republican.

His take on Katrina reminds me of an article that compared two photographs taken during the aftermath of Katrina. One showed a group of white people carrying stuff of from a store. Another showed a group of black people carrying stuff off from a store. The white people were 'survivors' while the black people were 'looters'.

 

[wade]

This thread has really surprised me. I came out early and said ya, you bet, I'm an Angry White Man. But then I start reading all this negative stuff. The AWM thinks black people in New Orleans should drownd. The AWM hates women. The AWM is a raciest snob. WAIT A MINUTE. Where did it say that? I'm none of those things. Who said I'm a Misogynist (great word J9).

Ok, I went back and reread the article again. Some of those words are there if you're looking for them. I you have a chip on your shoulder and want to pick a fight I guess you could. But I don't think that is what was really being said. So I've edited the article. I haven't changed any words. I've left out some stuff I didn't like. The the rest is a direct quote, and I've got to say, I'm an Angry White Man. Im sorry if that offends some. But I'm proud to make that statement.

QUOTE:
There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country.

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim.

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things.

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green.

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton.. It’s not that she is a woman. . It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

 

[Nova_C]

Wade, no one is saying that anyone who identifies themselves as an angry white man is racist or misogynist. But that article is:

He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.

I'd like to see data that white people carrying a larger individual burden of taxes. Otherwise this is a load of crap.

Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves

The insinuation here is pretty clear - that white people are smarter.

He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

Why is this even here? What's learning English got to do with someone's work ethic? The complaints about immigrants not learning English is typical of the paranoid white bully.

When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support

This is blatant misinformation. Someone prove to me that illegal immigrants cause wages to drop or that outsourcing has had a negative effect on the American economy. Oh wait, it hasn't.

That whole article is based on the premise that white men are the reason America is running. It's not even veiled. It's just blatant racism.

 

[wade]

I'm not going to argue with you. You have done the same thing that I did. You cherry picked the words that supported what you wanted to say. But when I read the article, I didn't see fighting words. Apparently some people did.

I have a Mexican who works for me who doesn't speak very good English. He is hard to communicate with. He is a great guy and I really like him and his family but his value to me as an employee is limited unless he can learn to speak the language better. As a Canadian, you have got to understand some of the problems of a dual language system.

Back to my first statement. I'm not going to argue with you. I didn't read it the way you did and am still an AWM.

 

[TandJ]

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

Can't vote in Federal elections, but yeah, my group is reconized, and is typically hated, only because we embrace our testosterone.. We are often called the insenitive Alpha Males..

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field

Thats a pipe dream, I far well know how how the ass kissers and whiners in the world succeed..

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally

S'pose if I was American I might be a little more swayed..

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country.

I would have no problems doing eithier.. Long live John Wayne..

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim.

I don't wax my eyebrows or shave body parts clean to look more feminine. I don't care if you have a "partner".. I have a Wife and and Angry White Kids. You care to try to victimize me or my family, you going to find the aggressive alpha male standing his ground, whether or not the intruder is armed or not, yeah, I have been stabbed and yeah I have been shot at..

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American

Not necessarily so, but I am the bagged on White Male..

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things.

I can build things, and fix my own damn car.. I can clean my fish, and I know how to cook it right..

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

Genrally I fit the description... Hold doors for man, woman and child.. Stop for people that have flat tires or other car trouble.. I don't always call people Sir or Ma'am, but I make the effort to be cordial to the folks deserve it.

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green.

Most Angry White Males are Right Wingers or Libritarians..

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race

I hate no one, blood in and blood out, but if your going to act like the stereotypical fool, your not getting any respect from me, and likely your going to hear me curse..

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton.. It’s not that she is a woman. . It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

But we are still jerks because we are not sensitive enough:shrugs:.. Ahhh bite me.. Grow some hair, get a job, and just shut the whining up and deal with it yourself..


Regards.. Tim of T and J

 

[JoannaD]

QUOTE:

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race

If the phrase "certain backgrounds" is not racist - I don't know what is.

I am of a "certain background" and so was my father in 1940's when a nice Jewish boy with blond hair and blue eyes hiding with the underground in Czechoslovakia was caught. They asked him if he was Jewish and he said yes - what was the difference he thought, at some point they would figure it out and beat the crap out of him. And years later, in Canada, when asked to testify about a guard in the camp he was at, he declined. His reasoning was that he could not be sure the old man they showed him pictures of was really the guard they said he was.

So who has a right to be an angry white man if not him. I can tell you he would read that article and see it for what it was and he would identify with none of it. He might however identify it with some other people he has met in his life.

Anger and hate lead to nothing productive. Study history a bit and you will see how "rational" men have caused nothing but misery. Anger and hate are emotions - it is not rational.

 

[wade]

So who has a right to be an angry white man if not him. I can tell you he would read that article and see it for what it was and he would identify with none of it. He might however identify it with some other people he has met in his life.

Anger and hate lead to nothing productive. Study history a bit and you will see how "rational" men have caused nothing but misery. And hate is an emotion - it is not rational.

I don't hate anyone and I'm not mad at anyone, but I think you are. I also am of a "certain background". I have ancestors that were treated badly. But I don't hate all the people who are similar to the people that treated my ancestors badly. Wouldn't that be racism?

I didn't mistreat your father or any other blond blue eyed person. But you seem to be angry with me. Would you be lumping me into some kind of a category because of my "certain background"?

 

[Lennycorn]

I know quite a few of these guys that seem to be the "forgotten majority". In fact, I'm married to one and my father was one. I'll bet that many of our members here are one or know one.

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324

I'm AN angry white man, but I don't really fit the description given in that article. :shrugs:

I didn't read all the post but I do agree with your husband and father Susan.
But a few description were left out. An angry white is also unemployed now and is not always politically correct and get pissed off when the "government" is trying to take God out of a country based of it.
If you don't like it ....leave.

 

[Lennycorn]

based ON it.

 

[JoannaD]

I don't hate anyone and I'm not mad at anyone, but I think you are. I also am of a "certain background". I have ancestors that were treated badly. But I don't hate all the people who are similar to the people that treated my ancestors badly. Wouldn't that be racism?

I didn't mistreat your father or any other blond blue eyed person. But you seem to be angry with me. Would you be lumping me into some kind of a category because of my "certain background"?

The tone of my post may absolutely be considered angry. I do not understand why you think I hate anyone. I think you are making assumptions based on what or who you think I am. I wrote nothing about hating anyone or being angry with you or anyone else. My father's refusal to testify shows how he was rational and did not let his anger rule him.

I was simply trying to show you and everyone else reading this, how so much of that article can be seen as racist. In fact I usually don't respond to threads like this since I think it is next to impossible to change people's minds by having them read something. It is usually only experience that may change people, and even then not often.

 

[wade]

Anger and hate lead to nothing productive. Study history a bit and you will see how "rational" men have caused nothing but misery. Anger and hate are emotions - it is not rational.

You are right, I took your words and applied them to you inappropriately. I agree that nobody will change their minds about anything because of what you and I say here. No question about it.

I respect your right to interperpit that article as racist if that is what pleases you. I have a hard time with that interpretation. I feel like you have to be looking for a racial slur to find on there.

 

[ghosthousecorns]

But Wade, It struck quite a few people that way... There must be a reason for that. Mass Hallucination? We all just have chips on our shoulders?
Or maybe, just maybe we see something you are missing or just don't want to see. I feel the very fact you felt you had to edit that article in your other post to feel comfortable agreeing with it speaks for itself.

 

[wade]

OK, I'll give you that. I edited it because I didn't agree with every single word. But I don't think I edited racial stuff.

But obviously several people don't agree with me and that's fine. I don't want to be thought of as a raciest. That is important to me. I didn't see or feel racism there, others did. I'll except that.

 

[Joejr14]

Wade, no one is saying that anyone who identifies themselves as an angry white man is racist or misogynist. But that article is:

I'd like to see data that white people carrying a larger individual burden of taxes. Otherwise this is a load of crap.


The insinuation here is pretty clear - that white people are smarter.


Why is this even here? What's learning English got to do with someone's work ethic? The complaints about immigrants not learning English is typical of the paranoid white bully.


This is blatant misinformation. Someone prove to me that illegal immigrants cause wages to drop or that outsourcing has had a negative effect on the American economy. Oh wait, it hasn't.

That whole article is based on the premise that white men are the reason America is running. It's not even veiled. It's just blatant racism.

Do you understand the concept of a metaphor? Apparently not.

This article is not literally about an 'angry white man'. The article is NOT talking about a WHITE MAN. Why is that so hard to understand? Did you miss this whole section:

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

But twist the article so you can make it fit your views so you can call it racist---that's fine.

 

[jazzgeek]

I'm White. I'm a male. Oft times, I'm angry. But I'm not an "Angry White Male".

So, scalpel, please. Thank you.

" Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups"

Whereas Mr. Hubbell is carefully pandering to the (fears of the) Angry White Man.

"There is one group no one has recognized..."

Wrong. This demographic was given the tag "NASCAR Dads" (to contrast to the "soccer mom" demographic in the Clinton era) back in the 2004 election cycle. They've been recognized.

"....and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man."

OK, as in all claim-makers, you have the "burden of proof". Show me the research that states that the Most Important Demographic In The 2008 Election is the AWM, and I'll believe you.

Practically every media source I've seen, "mainstream" or not, has cited the Hispanic demographic to be the "critical" one in this election. According to this source, it's how McCain took the Florida primary.

"The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard."

And again, your source is???

(So far, as I see it, Mr. Hubbell's generalizations in defining the "AWM" are just that - generalizations, an attempt to paint the AWM as an "Everyman". His pandering to his readership is no different than a candidate pandering to the special interests he previously cites.)

" His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.

The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding."

Fan of irony that I am, I think the whole tone of the op/ed piece is along the lines of "The AWM has been forgotten in this campaign season, and it's time for us to stand up and be counted".

But there's a problem here in that whole "The AWM has been forgotten" premise. It's whiny and reeks of victimhood!

Therefore, ironic.

As for the "Press 'one' for English"......any business not recognizing the fact that their markets are not just English-speaking is one that is responsive to their marketplace, and will ensure their long term survival. Any business denying - or worse, consciously limiting their customer base will do so at their own peril.

There's a reason that there's "www" before your web domains, and not "usww". Welcome to the 21st Century, Mr. Hubbell. Learn to compete, or die.

"He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document”...."

If there truly were no need for the continual interpretation or re-interpretation of the Constitution, we would have considered it "fully formed" and mature upon its ratification in 1788. We, as a country, would be basing our functions and operations to this day on that 220 year old document.

But look!!! Three years later, they started adding these pesky "Amendment" things! You know, those radical ideas like "prohibiting establishment of a State religion", "the right to keep and bear arms", "freedom of the press", "trial by jury", "abolition of slavery", "the right of women to vote", and so on.

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? That the people of the United States were living, changing beings?

It's the job of Supreme Court to interpret "the law of the land". I've found - myself included - that one applauds the Court when you agree with a particular decision, and whines about the Court when you disagree.

But after I'm done whining, I deal with it, and move on.

"...open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives."

If THIS isn't pandering, I don't know what is.

What, exactly, is an "honest day" of work? Is the work of a Justice less "honest" because he works primarily with his mind and not his hands? Is it less "honest" because he doesn't have to spend an extra two hours on the phone to close a deal?

"The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him."

Agreed, and I'm grateful to those who defend my country. But gun ownership or military service are not "wholly owned" by the AWM. Shoot, I own a shotgun and don't consider myself (as I prefaced in this post) an AWM.

After a LOT more generalizations and pandering, we come to:

"He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner."

More irony. The whole tone of the article is emotional pandering to the AWM "base".

"He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race."

And is pleasantly surprised when "people of certain backgrounds" exhibit behavior that doesn't typify the "worst stereotypes of their race"?

(Anyone remember Bill O'Reilly's "M-F'er, I want more iced tea!" imbroglio?)

I call "veiled racism".

More tripe:

"...and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers..."

That "incomprehensible idiot" probably has a degree in Engineering and is probably better educated than the caller. They're granting a higher percentage "technical" (engineering and science) degrees than the US is. It's all about competition in the open marketplace. Again, deal with it, or die.

(But yeah, it's still incomprehensible. )

Finally, we come to this gem:

"Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader."

What a coincidence! Given that 70 percent of the nation disapproves of GWB (compared to the 56% disapproval of HRC), there are some people who can't fathom why anyone wanted him as their leader.

As for his anti-Hillary rant - I'll state, for the record, that Hillary will also not be getting my vote. Not because of her gender; not because of her voice. (If you're casting your vote based on these criteria, you have no business voting, imo.)

Since 1980, there has been someone in the executive branch (POTUS or VP) with the last name of either "Bush" or "Clinton".

We're a republic, not a monarchy. Time for some new blood, sez I.

regards,
jazz

 

[Joejr14]

If the phrase "certain backgrounds" is not racist - I don't know what is.

I am of a "certain background" and so was my father in 1940's when a nice Jewish boy with blond hair and blue eyes hiding with the underground in Czechoslovakia was caught. They asked him if he was Jewish and he said yes - what was the difference he thought, at some point they would figure it out and beat the crap out of him. And years later, in Canada, when asked to testify about a guard in the camp he was at, he declined. His reasoning was that he could not be sure the old man they showed him pictures of was really the guard they said he was.

So who has a right to be an angry white man if not him. I can tell you he would read that article and see it for what it was and he would identify with none of it. He might however identify it with some other people he has met in his life.

Anger and hate lead to nothing productive. Study history a bit and you will see how "rational" men have caused nothing but misery. Anger and hate are emotions - it is not rational.

The phrase 'certain backgrounds' is most definitely not racist.

Racism-
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

As much you'd probably like to argue it---stereotypes exist for a reason---and not all stereotypes are negative.

Do you get offended when someone suggests that Italians are good cooks? What about old people being bad drivers?